***Official Political Discussion Thread***

7,827
13,428
Joined Jan 16, 2011
“Well, she might not actually be a Russian asset but the Russians like her rhetoric so it’s the same thing”
The Russians don't just "like" her rhetoric. You can see an inconsistency that seems to favor Russian positions in Belgium Belgium 's examples.

She supported the actions of Trump with little regard for how we pulled out of Syria and the long term consequences that will come with this decision, from the erosion of trust of the international community towards the US to the potential resurgence of ISIS. Guess who else is pleased by Trump's move? Turkey, the NATO ally who buys weapons from Russia.

She needs to justify how her positions on foreign policy strengthen the US beyond the "we spend trillions abroad when it could be spent here" talking point, because she does sound like an asset to me.
 

Belgium

formerly colombia
17,267
19,145
Joined Jan 12, 2013
DOJ attempts to distance itself from Rudy. The statement came in response to the NYT report on Giuliani’s recent meeting with Benczkowski, who is the head of the DOJ’s criminal division. Rudy discussed the case of an unspecified client facing foreign bribery charges. The charges happen to match with those Dmitry Firtash is facing. Firtash is tied to the upper echelon of the Russian mob, paid Giuliani’s indicted co-conspirators and assisted in the effort to dig up dirt on Biden.

DOJ claims the head of the DOJ criminal division was unaware that Giuliani and his co-conspirators were under criminal investigation and added that Benczkowski wouldn’t have taken the meeting if he did.
Barr on the other hand did know.
 

Belgium

formerly colombia
17,267
19,145
Joined Jan 12, 2013
I think the term “Russian asset” is too excessive for someone like Tulsi. Asset doesn’t mean deliberate but it carries that connotation for most people.

To illustrate my point, one could argue Hillary Clinton is a Russian asset for strengthening Tulsi’s relevance and sowing division.
 
Last edited:
7,827
13,428
Joined Jan 16, 2011

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.

Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what they call “leasing momentum.” Sure enough, the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.




A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”
 
4,121
2,273
Joined Oct 30, 2009
I despise Gabbard but handullz handullz has a point as far as folks in here and beyond playing fast and loose with language regarding her. Repeatedly calling someone a “Russian asset” and then when pressed saying “Well, she might not actually be a Russian asset but the Russians like her rhetoric so it’s the same thing” is incredibly problematic, to say the least. And this is the kind of dynamic many of y’all would be on absolute fire about if it were coming from and/or directed toward other political corners.

it would be pure chaos in here. It’s flagrant.


handullz handullz Russia has made an effort to sow discord across the western world. This isn't just a US thing. It's really just the perfect storm for their efforts to work here.

China is a superpower with economic ties around the world. What do they achieve by a disinformation campaign and DT in office?

North Korea is isolated with few allies but does not have any power. Ironically, they're another Russian ally. Saudi has similar interests with Russia as far as the middle East goes, but has substantial American support as well. They're a perceived ally. Not sure what they'd gain from it either.
I qualified my answer with “its complicated”

I’m not well versed on international grievances with the USA, but I’m sure I can find a country / family with resources similar to Russia, and draw a line into why they would attack the USA. It’s an unnecessary exercise we know there’s an answer to.

which leads back to my original point. Don’t call her a Russian asset because I can connect some flimsy dots as well and say she’s a ______ asset.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,748
71,186
Joined Jul 20, 2009


This article was written by this dude....

John Sipher is the co-founder of Spycraft Entertainment, a production firm providing content and talent to the entertainment industry. He is also a Director of Client Services at CrossLead, a software and consulting firm. John is a sought-after foreign policy and intelligence expert. His articles have been published in Lawfare, The New York Times, The Atlantic, Politico, Foreign Affairs, Newsweek, Slate, and Just Security, among others. He regularly appears on the PBS NewsHour, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, BBC and speaks to corporate, academic and governmental groups. John retired in 2014 after a 28-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Clandestine Service. At the time of his retirement, he was a member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service, the leadership team that guides CIA activities globally. John served multiple overseas tours as Chief of Station and Deputy Chief of Station in Europe, Asia, and in high-threat environments. He has significant experience working with foreign and domestic partners to solve national security challenges. John also served as a lead instructor in the CIA’s clandestine training school and was a regular lecturer at the CIA’s leadership development program. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal. John graduated from Hobart College and has a Master’s in International Affairs from Columbia University. He has attended a variety of executive courses at Harvard University, Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, The Aspen Institute, and the Intelligence Community’s Executive Leadership program.
In response to Trump being called an asset.

The relevant passage for consideration...
The Russians – like the Soviets before them – generally have a much larger stable of assets. They utilize fellow travelers, terrorists, and members of fringe groups as well as maintaining friendships with people who either knowingly or unknowingly accept their propaganda. They call these people “useful idiots.” We have accordingly seen that the Russians use all sorts of people for their benefit – propagandists, useful idiots, witting collaborators, sympathizers, hackers, students, recruited spies, and oligarchs who do the bidding of the Kremlin. A good example of the latter is Yevgeny Prigozhin, a billionaire restauranteur close to Putin. Although he has no formal role or experience in intelligence, diplomacy or military affairs, the Kremlin uses him when it is in Moscow’s interest. He is the owner of the now-famous St. Petersburg troll factory, and he also runs paramilitary units in Syria and Ukraine. To maintain your wealth and social status in Russia, it makes sense to say yes when the Kremlin comes calling.

One reason the intelligence services in Russia are more comfortable with sources that have not signed on the dotted line is that the Kremlin uses its intelligence services for more purposes than western counterparts. Western services collect information and analyze it largely to help better inform policymakers. Russian intelligence services play a more central role in carrying out their foreign policy objectives. It plays an active and offensive role. They use their services to engage in information warfare, disseminate disinformation, support propaganda, engage in perception management and sow chaos abroad. They also play a role domestically helping to keep the population in line with the Kremlin. Their President is a former KGB officer who is comfortable using espionage and subversion as a primary tool of foreign policy and internal control. Indeed, unlike the United States, the Kremlin can pressure its citizens to support intelligence requirements. Using criminals, computer hackers or billionaire businessmen are examples of how the Kremlin engages in a public-private sharing of foreign policy.
So yeah, I don't think it is so out of bounds to call Gabbard and an asset. She not only does she do and say things that align with Russia's interest, she spews Russian talking points constantly in the process.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,748
71,186
Joined Jul 20, 2009

So this makes it pretty clear why Ayana didn’t endorse Bernie with the rest of the Squad. Her endorsement would be big for Warren and/Or Biden and if they are smart they are trying their best to get it now.
:lol: :lol:

I hope this blows up. So I can see some folk on Red Rose Twitter flip from "How dare you insult the progressive women of color (the squad)" to ****ting on Pressley for not being a true progressive.

I dunno if you should bring up a criticism of Bernie though, might upset some folk.
 
Last edited:
1,792
1,209
Joined Feb 21, 2006
Yes, and my point is that it doesn't make a difference if she's serving the same purpose.
Doesn’t make a difference in what sense? Whether or not a sitting US Rep. is being paid and/or blackmailed to serve the interests of the Kremlin or if her positions on a handful of foreign policy matters simply happen to align with the Kremlin's? That's irrelevant?
 
1,792
1,209
Joined Feb 21, 2006
Oh please, it is pearl clutching

Whenever you dudes have a issue with a criticism I have of Bernie, I always explain in detail what motivates that ciritism. Do I not? Do I try to troll you guys, or just leave my criticism without explanation? So this assertion of it being most imagined is pure bull****.

It seems since people like you and other Bernie supporters can't label my criticism untrue, or in bad faith, what is left is to whine about the fact I do it at all.

Tulsi's buzz started with this...


That's is not imaged. It is an inconvenient fact you need to just deal with.

And for the again, I wasn't even speaking of all Bernie supporters.
Bro that was three years ago, and y'all are just now taking issue with her and want to retroactively throw shade at Bernie and his "Bros" for her "rise"? And Jacobin, the much-derided organ of the Bernie left and especially those "Bros" has exactly two articles on Gabbard, both of them slamming her. But they're responsible for her ascent, huh? While you've intimated that Bernie was marginal to the recent leftward movement of the Democratic Party, he and a small contingent of his supporters are now primarily (solely?) responsible for the rise of Gabbard's national profile? I guess we're just gonna agree to disagree on these points.

While those photos are unfortunate given recent developments and may have been in bad judgment at the time (I don't know, no one I can recall was saying so at that time), this is still petty pearl clutching on y'all behalf. If we're gonna look through the archives at every person that the other candidates have taken photos with and said a nice word or two about and then blame them for whatever happened subsequently with those people, we're gonna be in for a long ****ing haul here.

That said, I do appreciate the clarification regarding which supporters you're referring to, though as you're probably aware, many folks use "Bernie Bros" as shorthand for his supporters in general. So, admittedly, I can be prone to react to it on those grounds.
 
4,724
5,758
Joined Dec 12, 2012
Doesn’t make a difference in what sense? Whether or not a sitting US Rep. is being paid and/or blackmailed to serve the interests of the Kremlin or if her positions on a handful of foreign policy matters simply happen to align with the Kremlin's? That's irrelevant?
lol. I disagree with your downplaying her actions and policies. But yes, it doesn't make a difference whether she's a paid asset or a useful idiot. She is actively spreading rhetoric that benefits Russia and does not benefit the U.S.
 
1,792
1,209
Joined Feb 21, 2006
The Russians don't just "like" her rhetoric. You can see an inconsistency that seems to favor Russian positions in Belgium Belgium 's examples.

She supported the actions of Trump with little regard for how we pulled out of Syria and the long term consequences that will come with this decision, from the erosion of trust of the international community towards the US to the potential resurgence of ISIS. Guess who else is pleased by Trump's move? Turkey, the NATO ally who buys weapons from Russia.

She needs to justify how her positions on foreign policy strengthen the US beyond the "we spend trillions abroad when it could be spent here" talking point, because she does sound like an asset to me.
To reiterate, I don't like Gabbard, nor do I agree with her positions on this or many other things. She has provided various justifications for her various positions at different times. Are they particularly consistent? No. Do I find them particularly compelling? No. Does this make her different from most other elected officials in my eyes? No. Do some of her positions on geopolitics seem to align with Russia's and Assad's interests? Yes. Is that sufficient in my eyes to justify accusations that she's a Russian asset? No.

She may be in the Kremlin's pocket, I don't know—but neither does anyone else in here, and that was my point.
 
1,792
1,209
Joined Feb 21, 2006
lol. I disagree with your downplaying her actions and policies. But yes, it doesn't make a difference whether she's a paid asset or a useful idiot. She is actively spreading rhetoric that benefits Russia and does not benefit the U.S.
You got it, fam.
 
1,792
1,209
Joined Feb 21, 2006
:lol: :lol:

I hope this blows up. So I can see some folk on Red Rose Twitter flip from "How dare you insult the progressive women of color (the squad)" to ****ting on Pressley for not being a true progressive.

I dunno if you should bring up a criticism of Bernie though, might upset some folk.
Y'all are surprised by this? I'm not...



 
1,792
1,209
Joined Feb 21, 2006


This article was written by this dude....



In response to Trump being called an asset.

The relevant passage for consideration...


So yeah, I don't think it is so out of bounds to call Gabbard and an asset. She not only does she do and say things that align with Russia's interest, she spews Russian talking points constantly in the process.
I mean, if the argument is that the term asset should simply refer to "people who either knowingly or unknowingly accept [Russian] propaganda," as stated in the article, it is basically a meaningless term.
 
Top Bottom