Is Trump/Russia the legacy media's 9/11 truth movement?

the_barfly1

Looking at the recent fanaticism in relation to alleged ties between President Donald Trump and the Russian government, does it resemble the 9/11 truth movement of the early 2000's to anyone else?

It reminds me of watching some of Alex Jones' youtube videos from that era, devoting huge amounts of time to trying to make connections to a big bad via any possible means, no matter how minute.

Both movements have a rabid following who take every claim at face value without properly researching the facts, and also get nowhere with their arguments ultimately, because their movements are either:

A- Completely deluded; or
B- Fighting a conspiracy so well covered up that no hard evidence will ever be found that 100% substantiates the claims brought forward.

It's really incredibly surreal to watch people on major news networks go after a single issue with as much fervor as the 9/11 Truth movement.

Dohnjoe

The 911 truth movement found nothing of substance

Whereas the Trump admin's alleged leaks with Russia have led to tangible events - firings, investigations, bipartisan demands, etc

The Trump team got rid of Flynn, Manafort (during the campaign), Sessions had to step down, links with advisers Page and Cohen - the common denominator, Russia

As if to make matters worse, he's just passed on classified information to the Russians (something the Israeli's warned him against doing) which the WH initially denied, then backtracked on

Now there's a reported memo, if true, shows the president directly interfering in an FBI investigation (Flynn's links with Russia)

The WH has again denied this, so if there's an actual recording - again, more hot water

InTheTrees

the_barfly1 wrote: »

A- Completely deluded;

So to be clear...you think opponents of Trump are like 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

And this is because you see no rational reason for anyone to oppose trump?

the_barfly1

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The 911 truth movement found nothing of substance

Whereas the Trump admin's alleged leaks with Russia have led to tangible events - firings, investigations, bipartisan demands, etc

The Trump team got rid of Flynn, Manafort (during the campaign), Sessions had to step down, links with advisers Page and Cohen - the common denominator, Russia

As if to make matters worse, he's just passed on classified information to the Russians (something the Israeli's warned him against doing) which the WH initially denied, then backtracked on

Now there's a reported memo, if true, shows the president directly interfering in an FBI investigation (Flynn's links with Russia)

The WH has again denied this, so if there's an actual recording - again, more hot water

What I'm saying is that people are so focused on these single issues that their behaviour reminds me of the 9/11 truth movement.
For example, Bush Snrs meeting with members of the Bin Laden family, the files lost in building 7, the recent insurance policy on the towers amongst other things. All intriguing aspects in their own right but nothing damning enough to say 100% that there was a grand conspiracy.
I'm just saying I'm seeing parallels with the current Russia narrative, which is highlighting plenty of minor issues, but nothing sticks.
In both cases the people pushing the narrative have come to a conclusion before examining any evidence, and are bringing forth things which support their pre-defined story.
People were screaming "Russia!" since the election, and have been furiously searching for any tenuous link thereafter which supports their theory, only to have their claims either debunked or minimised afterwords.
People were screaming "Inside Job!" immediately after 9/11, and furiously looked for any link which supported their theory thereafter, only to have their claims debunked or minimised afterwards.

Both are cases of confirmation bias, where the people involved have decided what they believe in advance, and push the evidence that supports their theories while disregarding the evidence that refutes them.

Both or either could be completely true, completely false, or shades of grey in between, and I'm not claiming to support any side in either case, all I'm doing is pointing out what I see as a similar methodology used by both movements to prove their predefined theories.

Just fascinated by it to be honest.

In short, both cases fit the definition of "conspiracy theory" unless proven otherwise.

the_barfly1

InTheTrees wrote: »

So to be clear...you think opponents of Trump are like 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

And this is because you see no rational reason for anyone to oppose trump?

Opponents? No. The ones who decided to blame Russia at first without any evidence? Yes.

There are plenty of rational reasons to oppose Trump.

Dohnjoe

the_barfly1 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that people are so focused on these single issues that their behaviour reminds me of the 9/11 truth movement.
For example, Bush Snrs meeting with members of the Bin Laden family, the files lost in building 7, the recent insurance policy on the towers amongst other things. All intriguing aspects in their own right but nothing damning enough to say 100% that there was a grand conspiracy.

I'm just saying I'm seeing parallels with the current Russia narrative, which is highlighting plenty of minor issues, but nothing sticks.

This is comparing a group of individuals who in 15 years haven't been able to produce a single suspects list or basic substantiated counter-theory .. to multiple investigations and leaks which have led to individuals being fired/removed/investigated by press/insiders/Republicans/Democrats/FBI/etc

The Trump admin and campaign team have had compromising Russian links; that's already a fact. What's steadily unfolding is how deep it goes.

Naturally there is press and world interest, he's the president of the US.

the_barfly1

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is comparing a group of individuals who in 15 years haven't been able to produce a single suspects list or basic substantiated counter-theory .. to multiple investigations and leaks which have led to individuals being fired/removed/investigated by press/insiders/Republicans/Democrats/FBI/etc

The Trump admin and campaign team have had compromising Russian links; that's already a fact. What's steadily unfolding is how deep it goes.

Naturally there is press and world interest, he's the president of the US.

Ok I think you're missing my point, but fair enough. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out parallels that I see between the current mainstream conspiracy theory and the biggest one from a decade ago. Judging by your replies here you've already made up your mind on this, and that's cool, just not what I'm here to discuss.

I watched some psychologist talk before about how people turn to conspiracy theory to deal with events that shock them or destroy their worldview- you can see that that's what's happened with a lot of people since Donald Trump's election. It was what turned people into 9/11 truthers too.

I didn't come here to discuss the finer details of either conspiracy theory, but to discuss how people come to create these theories, by citing the two biggest in recent years. The motivation for each, as far as I can see, comes from a similar place in our psyche.

Anyway, they've appointed some new dude to investigate Russian links to the Trump campaign. I expect it to turn out similar to the 9/11 Commission Report. Will be surprised if it doesn't, but who knows what way that'll turn out? It'll surely make for good entertainment either way.

the_barfly1

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Ok I think you're missing my point, but fair enough. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out parallels that I see between the current mainstream conspiracy theory and the biggest one from a decade ago.

What exactly is the mainstream conspiracy theory and who is promoting it?

And what parallels are there? Who got fired because of their possible connection to Al queda after 9-11? When did any part of the government take any part of the 9-11 conspiracy theory seriously?

What I think is more fascinating is how a lot of the conspiracy theory media isn't all over Trump for his possible Russian connections. Everything they love is right there: Shadey business deals, not-so-secret meetings between high ranked individuals, Trump literally handing secrets to the Russians in the oval office where Russian media was allowed, but American media wasn't...

InTheTrees

the_barfly1 wrote: »

I didn't come here to discuss the finer details of either conspiracy theory, but to discuss how people come to create these theories, by citing the two biggest in recent years.

Except you're intentionally simplifying the trump investigations to fit your idea of a conspiracy theory.

First you need to explain why you think investigating trump is a conspiracy.

Overheal

The 911 truth movement found nothing of substance

And at the same time, a rather suspicious lack of substance, such as the lack of scientific appendices to the commission report, mentions of WTC 7, etc.

I didn't come here to discuss the finer details of either conspiracy theory, but to discuss how people come to create these theories, by citing the two biggest in recent years. The motivation for each, as far as I can see, comes from a similar place in our psyche.

Well, speaking of confirmation bias, you've already decided that links between Trump/Flynn/Russia are just conspiracy theories. But sure, the impetus for curiosity, investigation, and information are similar. But if we really want to try and draw a parallel you would have to make some assumptions:

- That Bush Jr. would have continuously railed against the media/truthers for even suggesting that there was an ill and domestic hand in play on 9/11

- That the vast majority of the media, aside from a few notable outlets who were closely aligned with the agenda of the Bush Administration, all supported the theory that 9/11 was at least in part orchestrated, while these loyal outlets ignored or flatly denied the claims. In reality, nobody wanted to look the possibility in the eye at the time, and if you did your patriotism was questioned, we were "at war" etc.

- That after the gentlest of prodding at the official story on 9/11, serious fallacies begin showing up, that key Washington personnel start contradicting themselves, are getting caught in leaked memos and tape recordings suggesting among themselves that it WAS an inside job, while publicly repudiating this position, etc.

- That key washington officials are swiftly fired or replaced in connection with the investigation, either for trying to explore the incident further, or for being remotely suspected of being involved.

- That Bush or his campaign team were understood to have been in regular conduct with Middle Eastern/Talibani agents during the 2000 election.

Just to name a few things that I would myself consider necessary to rightly say that these two episodes in US Politics were at all similar.

For the record, I don't fully buy the official story of 9/11. I think the US Government finally managed to pull off a false flag attack (after decades of failed or leaked attempts*), and that most if not all incriminating evidence of this has been destroyed, and the people in charge will take it to their graves for what they see as the preservation of the United States. In that regard, it's a settled matter: it's history that will never get the full light of day.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
*I could past the source links for a ton of these, but this list is very comprehensive, including stuff FROM 9/11, like blaming 9/11 on everyone but the Saudis; the CIA and Army manuals both advocating for false flags, and just tons and tons of confirmed false flag examples from the US and other countries: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-07/ever-growing-list-admitted-false-flag-attacks

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

For the record, I don't fully buy the official story of 9/11. I think the US Government finally managed to pull off a false flag attack (after decades of failed or leaked attempts*), and that most if not all incriminating evidence of this has been destroyed, and the people in charge will take it to their graves for what they see as the preservation of the United States. In that regard, it's a settled matter: it's history that will never get the full light of day.

Fine, but with respect, this is the equivalent of saying "I don't buy the sinking of the Titanic" - begging the question, how did it sink? with silence, dismissal or subjective "maybes" not constituting any logical or reasonable answer

With no credible evidence, no substantiated counter-theory - there are no reasons to support anything other than the widely established version of events (which the overwhelming amount of evidence points towards)

When a significant type of terrorist attack or shooting occurs, thousands of people online dedicate themselves to retroactively trawling through every photo, report, piece of footage, witness testimony, evidence, etc with the express purpose of discrediting the "official story", nothing else

Unfortunately 911 is a classic example of this

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Appeal to the past

It's the equivalent of claiming the Clinton's may have had people murdered, because in the past leaders or politicians have had people murdered

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fine, but with respect, this is the equivalent of saying "I don't buy the sinking of the Titanic" - begging the question, how did it sink? with silence, dismissal or subjective "maybes" not constituting any logical or reasonable answer

Eh about that,

http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-iceberg-sink-titanic-journalists-new-evidence-says-ship-was-fire-it-sailed-61315

Appeal to the past

Not really, given the matter of fact that the US government created false information to blame 9/11 on actors like Iraq and Iran, and even pushed the idea that the domestic anthrax attacks were of terrorist origin, knowing that it wasn't the case. The CIA/NSA still routinely use cyber attacks to incriminate other countries.

But anyway, I think we're straying off the topic

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

Eh about that,

http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/did-iceberg-sink-titanic-journalists-new-evidence-says-ship-was-fire-it-sailed-61315

Dammit

Not really, given the matter of fact that the US government created false information to blame 9/11 on actors like Iraq and Iran

It was blamed on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda - which hasn't changed. The Bush/Cheney/Rove admin just callously capitalised on the event to push for an ill-judged and disastrous war to get rid of Saddam and change Iraq

That is very far removed from the fact that so far there isn't any evidence or leak or whistleblower or Snowden or anything that points to 911 being an inside job by the government, Bush family/Jews/NWO/whoever

And to come back to the topic, as mentioned, that contrasts heavily with the present-day evidence and investigations re Trump admin links with Russia - and how serious or harmless those links may be

ScumLord

I don't think they can be compared at all. With 9/11 the details of what happened are well known, they unfolded in front of us. It's the cause that's under debate, by a small minority that don't accept the official narrative.

Trump told us from the very beginning what he was going to do. Now he's doing it, part of me actually respects the fact he's doing what he said he'd do, however what he said he'd do was always going to be borderline or over the line illegal.

We don't need to wonder about Trump's motives, he wrote a book about he's motives, we have a long history of trump being trump, he's just being him, there's no ambiguity, people are reacting to he's actions. There is no conspiracy there, he is bringing this all on himself with his own actions. He basically drew a line in the sand and said everyone on the other side of the line is the enemy and everyone on the other side of the line said, fine, it's on.

He created the conflict with the press, he wanted to discredit them in the eyes of his followers, and they obliged. Trump is his own worst enemy, people are rightly pointing out he is incompetent a politician.

conditioned games

In the 1930's the Nazis blamed the Jews for everything. Today the Americans, British and controlled mainstream media blame Russia for everything.

Joshua J

It's unreasonable to expect people without access to classified documents or high ranking military personnel/government officals sworn under oath and millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to investigate 9/11 and come up with a complete counter-theory. Unrealistic. Does it stink?. To me yes.

ScumLord

conditioned games wrote: »

In the 1930's the Nazis blamed the Jews for everything. Today the Americans, British and controlled mainstream media blame Russia for everything.

They've been at it since WW2, the Islamic terrorists distracted the west for a while, and I think Russia sort of hoped they could finally join in with the west by fighting Islamic terrorism but America just can't get over it's fear of Russia.

I'm not at all convinced Russia was behind the interference with the US election, I think it's just as likely to be Trump and Co and maybe all the links to Russia are them carrying out this fraud independently/or with the support of the Russian government.

Overheal

I'm not at all convinced Russia was behind the interference with the US election

This is astounding, and a big problem in todays news cycle, that anyone should still be confused about this.

There is no conniption anymore over whether or not Russia interfered in the election. Congress itself, made up majorly of Republicans, also support the facts on this. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/14/15803772/senate-russia-sanctions-cardin

A 97-2 vote in the Senate to impose additional sanctions on Russia for their interference in the 2016 general election. New intelligence was declassified this week that as many as 39 states had undergone some form of cyber attack prior to the vote. This is not even including all of the skewed/fake news out of outlets like Sputnik and RT, and the DNC hack.

Targets included a database of as many as 90,000 voter records in Illinois, software used by poll workers, and at least one campaign finance database, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing three sources who have direct knowledge of the investigation.
Investigators made the discoveries months before the election, leading the Obama Administration to contact Russian leadership using the so-called red phone, a secure communications link between the White House and Kremlin. The White House sent Russian leadership documentation of U.S. investigators’ findings and a warning that the attacks could escalate tensions between the two nations.

http://fortune.com/2017/06/14/russians-hacking-39-states/

I think, at this point, there should no longer be any confusion about whether or not they were involved. The only question on everyone's lips left unanswered, clearly, is did they conclude with the Trump Campaign. Everything outside of that is basically a settled fact.

ScumLord

Overheal wrote: »

This is astounding, and a big problem in todays news cycle, that anyone should still be confused about this.

There is no conniption anymore over whether or not Russia interfered in the election. Congress itself, made up majorly of Republicans, also support the facts on this. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/14/15803772/senate-russia-sanctions-cardin

Is there anyone other than the American government saying that though? The last time I looked into it, which was a while ago I'm admit, all they could say is there was plenty of evidence that the attacks came from mostly Russia but that it could have been anyone in russia, there's nothing but the most basic of evidence, that could easily be fabricated. At best some of the evidence lead back to an independent Russian security company that could be hired by just about anybody.

I'm sure there is a cyber war happening, but it's a war American started and I'm still not convinced that American forces don't do all sorts of things and just use russia as an easy scapegoat.

The American government isn't a trustworthy source, when independants look at it it's not so clear cut. At least the last time I was reading an independant experts opinion on the evidence. America is the country surrounding Russia with Missiles, as far as I can tell America is the aggressor.

When it comes to trumps election, if the Russians were involved, they were probably involved at the request of Trump's campaign.

conditioned games

Russia had zero involvement in the US elections. It's laughable this is still being discussed. Just shows the power of brain washing through the controlled mainstream media.

Whether it's republicans or democrats in the US or torries and labour in Britain, they are all corrupted by their masters. Those who control the fractional reserve banking system control the politicians in the US and Britain along with the brainwashed controlled mainstream media.

The voting system in both countries is corrupt, based on a rule of first past the post gets all the votes, allowing both sides on the right and left to be easily controlled. There is no middle ground for parties with ideas of peace and sane logic. No wonder both countries have brought so many wars and misery to the world over the last 60yrs. Now both are obsessed at blaming Russia for everything and it looks like their manipulation is working.

Overheal

You sound awfully sure of a negative.

We should be clear about this, because I get that neither of you are as embroiled in US politics as Americans are: no way in hell, would the Senate vote 97-2 to respond to Russia hacking or interfering in the election if there wasn't truth to it. The composition of the Senate is 2 Independents, 46 Democrats and 52 Republicans. The 2 opposition votes were from Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who do not in any way deny Russia's involvement, their oppositions respectively were about the efficacy and the cost involved with the sanctions. Before his inauguration, even Trump made mention of his belief that they did hack the election.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues/foreign-policy/rand-paul-and-mike-lee-were-the-only-two-senators-to-vote-against-russia-sanctions/

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5403518-155/utahs-sen-mike-lee-votes-against

So I just don't understand the skepticism over that. Not really.

America is the country surrounding Russia with Missiles, as far as I can tell America is the aggressor.

Getting into Cold War stuff here, but don't forget that Russia parked nuclear missiles 120~ miles off the US coast. And still makes regular sub patrols. And has been probing the NDIZ with nuclear bombers, even up to today. Then all that business in Crimea. I would not myself be off waving the victim card for them.

When it comes to trumps election, if the Russians were involved, they were probably involved at the request of Trump's campaign.

There's still reason to think Trump's team wasn't really all that complicit, but it remains to be seen. I imagine that if anything they might have talked about the Exxon deal and gauged Trump's team for how smoothly that might go if Trump won; off that, they may have decided to help him out, I really doubt they would have shared the details of their actions with the members of Trump's campaign. Just damned convenient that Rex Tillerson became the Secretary of State..

Dohnjoe

ScumLord wrote: »

Is there anyone other than the American government saying that though? The last time I looked into it, which was a while ago I'm admit, all they could say is there was plenty of evidence that the attacks came from mostly Russia but that it could have been anyone in russia, there's nothing but the most basic of evidence, that could easily be fabricated. At best some of the evidence lead back to an independent Russian security company that could be hired by just about anybody.

I'm sure there is a cyber war happening, but it's a war American started and I'm still not convinced that American forces don't do all sorts of things and just use russia as an easy scapegoat.

The American government isn't a trustworthy source, when independants look at it it's not so clear cut. At least the last time I was reading an independant experts opinion on the evidence. America is the country surrounding Russia with Missiles, as far as I can tell America is the aggressor.

When it comes to trumps election, if the Russians were involved, they were probably involved at the request of Trump's campaign.

The Russians are heavily engaged in an information war. A lot of the main Russian media outlets are increasingly falling under state control or influence in Russia, almost a step back to the Soviet TASS days. Press intimidation, beatings (even murders) are not uncommon.

They have "troll" armies, hundreds of people who are paid to write pro-Russian comments on foreign sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

Not just the US election, but the recent French election was swamped with fake news heavily favouring the pro-Putin candidate. The upcoming German election, officials are finding they are already having to combat the disinformation. Likewise across Eastern Europe. Sources typically point to Russia. Hacking sources also point in that direction.

The bulk of this recent stage started during the Ukraine protests and Crimea situation where Russian propaganda was considered quite potent and successful. It just works well in the current atmosphere, Putin has a lot of power, the Duma is weak, recent surge in nationalism, opposition are under house arrest (or worse), press is largely under control, less than 5% of Russians speak English.. the Kremlin can and does create information and does things that wouldn't be acceptable in most normal democracies

conditioned games

Overheal wrote: »

You sound awfully sure of a negative.

We should be clear about this, because I get that neither of you are as embroiled in US politics as Americans are: no way in hell, would the Senate vote 97-2 to respond to Russia hacking or interfering in the election if there wasn't truth to it. The composition of the Senate is 2 Independents, 46 Democrats and 52 Republicans. The 2 opposition votes were from Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who do not in any way deny Russia's involvement, their oppositions respectively were about the efficacy and the cost involved with the sanctions. Before his inauguration, even Trump made mention of his belief that they did hack the election.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues/foreign-policy/rand-paul-and-mike-lee-were-the-only-two-senators-to-vote-against-russia-sanctions/

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5403518-155/utahs-sen-mike-lee-votes-against

So I just don't understand the skepticism over that. Not really.

Getting into Cold War stuff here, but don't forget that Russia parked nuclear missiles 120~ miles off the US coast. And still makes regular sub patrols. And has been probing the NDIZ with nuclear bombers, even up to today. Then all that business in Crimea. I would not myself be off waving the victim card for them.There's still reason to think Trump's team wasn't really all that complicit, but it remains to be seen. I imagine that if anything they might have talked about the Exxon deal and gauged Trump's team for how smoothly that might go if Trump won; off that, they may have decided to help him out, I really doubt they would have shared the details of their actions with the members of Trump's campaign. Just damned convenient that Rex Tillerson became the Secretary of State..

It doesn't matter how many republicans or democrats voted to blame Russia. Neither party are to be trusted. These are the same people that gave the Israeli prime minister a standing ovation in the US parliament.

America is f###ed. The current Anglo American financial system that has been so one sided after WW2 is nearing it's end. What they need now is a war to force those counties that have been moving away from the corrupt petrodollar to submit to them.

For the Democratics to blame Russia means shifting the blame to someone else rather than admit to their own failures. This also suits the Republicans as Russia is the country they want war with and brainwashing the masses through the controlled mainstream media suits their long-term ambitions.

Overheal

I assume you meant the Congress, as we don't have a Parliament. But the US also has a very strong alliance with Israel, despite the European/Globalist perspective on that, so there's not much to read into there, and it doesn't bear any relevance to the Russian connection.

This also suits the Republicans as Russia is the country they want war with and brainwashing the masses through the controlled mainstream media suits their long-term ambitions.

Just not true.

conditioned games

Overheal wrote: »

I assume you meant the Congress, as we don't have a Parliament. But the US also has a very strong alliance with Israel, despite the European/Globalist perspective on that, so there's not much to read into there, and it doesn't bear any relevance to the Russian connection. Just not true.

Yes the US has a very strong relationship with Israel. It is why Israel can get away with so much aggression. Alot of those that have the real power in America come from a Jewish background. If the Rothschilds for example want a war with another country, you can be sure the Republicans or Democratics along with the controlled mainstream media will ensure it happens. First comes the brainwashing, then a false flag attack like torpedoing one of their own boats in foreign waters blaming Iran or Russia and then we have the war. Simple strategy that works time after time for them.

Overheal

Well, if Russia hacking is a False Flag meant to start a war, it's spectacularly failing. Especially given that, as evidenced, most people can't even agree on whether it actually happened.

conditioned games

Overheal wrote: »

Well, if Russia hacking is a False Flag meant to start a war, it's spectacularly failing. Especially given that, as evidenced, most people can't even agree on whether it actually happened.

Need an actual attack on the US military before they have the excuse to declare war on Russia. Blaming Russia for Hillary losing the election was an easy target to offset their incompetence. It's just another line of attack on Russia like the accusations of doping of athletes, Crimea, etc.. Russia is the target, brainwash the American people now so when they time comes for war they will have Joe Soap on their side when they carry out an attack on their own military.

Dohnjoe

Russian athletes were doped, on a national level. It's not that most Russians don't believe it, it's just that many believe that the rest of the world dopes their athletes

Crimea was annexed, Russia broke accords they signed themselves

No one wants war. Apathy is very high in Russia, last turnout was less than 50%. However there are a lot of nationalists, and they do vote. If Putin doesn't appease them, they'll vote for someone else - he knows that.

ScumLord

Overheal wrote: »

We should be clear about this, because I get that neither of you are as embroiled in US politics as Americans are:

No, of course not, but it's all mostly fluff and propaganda. The bottom line for me is America has very little credibility in my mind. It looks like there's some sort of fascist coup in the process with Trump and the republicans. The American people are completely at the mercy of their TVs to the point even their president is glued to this 24/7 propaganda windup machine. It bizarre when you watch Fox vs CNN, it's not even opinions anymore, it's justifications for hate.

The Russians have joined that party too of course, RT is hilarious in it's up front bias. But from what I can see Russia is matching the US move for move. Going to have a 24 hour news service spreading US propaganda around the world, fine, we'll have RT. Going to do global cyber attacks, fine we'll match you there. Going to invade my neighbours and set up armies on my doorstep, fine I'll move my doorstep further away.

America looks like the aggressor in all these actions, but Americans promote Russian reactions as agressions. The US Russia fight is just ridiculous, it should be over.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not just the US election, but the recent French election was swamped with fake news heavily favouring the pro-Putin candidate. The upcoming German election, officials are finding they are already having to combat the disinformation. Likewise across Eastern Europe. Sources typically point to Russia. Hacking sources also point in that direction.

Isn't that just propaganda though? Didn't American Christians interfere in our referendums by funding anti civil marriage?

InTheTrees

ScumLord wrote: »

Isn't that just propaganda though? Didn't American Christians interfere in our referendums by funding anti civil marriage?

"American Christians" illegally interfered with the referendum?

ScumLord

InTheTrees wrote: »

"American Christians" illegally interfered with the referendum?

I don't think it was illegal but they funded the no side to try and stop the bill.

InTheTrees

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think it was illegal but they funded the no side to try and stop the bill.

So...you're comparing people legally giving money to a political campaign to Russians hacking the US election?

Riiiiight.

Overheal

Sadly, that's politics. Obviously, millions in foreign moneys was used in our own election cycle. You have to do SOMETHING with those offshore tax haven accounts.

The bottom line for me is America has very little credibility in my mind. It looks like there's some sort of fascist coup in the process with Trump and the republicans. The American people are completely at the mercy of their TVs to the point even their president is glued to this 24/7 propaganda windup machine. It bizarre when you watch Fox vs CNN, it's not even opinions anymore, it's justifications for hate.

Yeah, except most of us just turn off the TV, and boom, the sensationalism is markedly quieter then.

There's still the papers, social media, radio, and essentially just a broad and wide range of news outlets, journals, blogs, discussions, etc. that anyone can avail of. The marketplace is still far too vast, even if this was a fascist takeover, for the Orwellian Dystopia to unfold. As it is though, once you peel off the lid on congressional republicans you find that there are mutliple factions within the party that all mostly agree on some stuff, but disagree on a lot of other stuff. For example, the party for a while couldn't even reach consensus on who their next speaker would be; later they had internal fights over Trump; and, they can't get any internal consensus on healthcare but lets not get into that too much. Suffice to say, there's a repeal-caucus in the party obviously, then theres people who want a proper and full replacement, and those who simply, like Democrats, want to make amendments to the existing ACA to address its problems, rather than watch it simply fall over. So us Americans apologize for what it 'looks like' but its a lot more nuanced. The country is holding up, the system of checks and balances is still, largely, functional.

ScumLord

InTheTrees wrote: »

So...you're comparing people legally giving money to a political campaign to Russians hacking the US election?

Riiiiight.

The US has been giving guns and money to countries for decades to interfere with elections, they've had people killed or set up to win elections and get favorable treatment from their puppet governments.

It's not like the hack made things up, Hillery did some awful things.

It could very well be the Russians, I'm just not fully convinced and even if it was the Russians it's part of a tit for tat battle between them and the Americans. Everyones' guilty.

InTheTrees

ScumLord wrote: »

InTheTrees wrote: »

So...you're comparing people legally giving money to a political campaign to Russians hacking the US election?

Riiiiight.

The US has been giving guns and money to countries for decades to interfere with elections, they've had people killed or set up to win elections and get favorable treatment from their puppet governments.

It's not like the hack made things up, Hillery did some awful things.
I
It could very well be the Russians, I'm just not fully convinced and even if it was the Russians it's part of a tit for tat battle between them and the Americans. Everyones' guilty.

So for you international interference in elections is fine because you think everyone's doing it?

ScumLord

InTheTrees wrote: »

So for you international interference in elections is fine because you think everyone's doing it?

no, do you always jump to extreme conclusions?

InTheTrees

ScumLord wrote: »

InTheTrees wrote: »

So for you international interference in elections is fine because you think everyone's doing it?

no, do you always jump to extreme conclusions?

It's really not an "extreme" conclusion when you pass it off as "tit for tat" battle is it?

Are the allegations worth investigating or not?

ScumLord

InTheTrees wrote: »

It's really not an "extreme" conclusion when you pass it off as "tit for tat" battle is it?

Are the allegations worth investigating or not?

Sure, they're worth investigating, I'm not convinced Russia is behind them and it could end up being the people who did it will end up investigating themselves or burying it.

But the fact remains, America and Russia are doing this to each other and other countries all the time. The US is throwing stones in a glass house.

America can cry foul all it likes but I'm not going to get upset about it because I'm not convinced the Americans aren't at it too, just good enough not to get caught.