that it was the Russians who stole the election
Posted on 10/10/2017 8:53:35 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
This all started over Obamas and Hillarys homosexuality. Russia refused parade permits and had cases brought against them in the European Court of Human Rights. Anti faggotry recruiting was being legally banned in St Petersburg.
After the 2011 Russian election Hillary helped create and fan the flames of the Russian opposition that lost badly. This included using NGOs to try to start a color revolution to remove Putin.
Putin responded by banning the NGOs as foreign agents. And soon after by stopping adoption of Russian kids to the USA because we wouldn’t promise they wouldn’t go to homos.
Then the Russians refused to let a Gay Pride house be built in Sochi for the Olympics. They passed a national anti-homo recruitment law.
Quickly after, we destabilized Ukraine and Syria to try to weaken Russia.
I would think Russia would have been sickened by the thought of a president Hillary, just as I was.
And now we are here in a new Cold War. And a big part of the cause is Obama and his homosexuality and Hillary and her lesbianism. Europe wanting to have political control of Russia’s gas fields is the rest of it.
that it was the Russians who stole the election
Are the Times authors talking about the 60’s when Leftists groups set off hundreds of bombs and started dozens of riots?
The talk of Russian facebook posts means that the Russian hacking and collusion story is falling apart and they know it.
The common sense test kicks in here. When has the NYT, Facebook, Hillary, Obama, and the Democrat party, ever protected America or opposed a foreign power?
This Russia story is 100% fake news.
So why don’t the Muslim men collect welfare for their multiple wives? After all the FLDS have been doing it for years!
“Why would the Russians want to reshape the U.S. political landscape to something more nationalist and more patriotic?”
Also, if one drops the globalist blinders, they can see that the big crime Russia is guilty of is the dreaded “nationalism”. If they reject globalism, it would be completely sane to encourage other nations to become more nationalist. The world and government is better as nations, not as a global order the people can have no effect over. The Russians know this and would love the USA to be nationalist as is China and themselves.
Isn’t the New York times the same outfit that denied the Holodomor and the Ukrainian diaspora?
And it was an uphill battle for Trump because Democrats have the benefit of a corrupt press that covers for them and manipulates for them...sits in their corner. Our press wasn't helping the Russians either. But even with the MSM help Hillary couldn't win.
That's telling. AND all Hillary's high paid consultants couldn't pull the rabbit out of the hat for her. Like the press that was seen as unfair - consultants were part of the problem...
Political consultants make their money by getting a cut on ads bought... The incentive for them is to use paid media and NOT be creative in saving money. (There's also an incentive for that group to chose people to elect who are easily manipulated and attractive in a superficial way. It's one of the reasons the quality of our candidates is so ineffective - so lame - but that's another post for a different day). Hillary had access to a more creative way of running but it worked AGAINST the financial interest of the people running her campaign. Which is just fine if everyone is playing under the same 'tie your feet together' race... but Trump wasn't playing under that rule and the Russians weren't either.
We're changing incentives right now with the election of President Trump. His election is making running for office something competent people might consider. A ‘Mark Cuban’ (democrat) might run and he won't be easy for political consultants to push around... his feet wont' be tied - he'll go creative not just 'expensive' ads etc.. Same with Bannon in eight years... creative all the way. Then that idea will start filtering down until Political Consultants change their game or find a new profession.
“Harvested American Rage to Reshape U.S. Politics”
So they’re at least admitting that 8 years of Obama were a failure to the point that there was “rage” to the point that the anointed successor skank didn’t win.
They’re just upset that Russia beat Mexico and the Arab world in the American Election Olympics.
>>Also, if one drops the globalist blinders, they can see that the big crime Russia is guilty of is the dreaded “nationalism”.
Exactly. The only unpardonable sin in a Humanist world is nationalism. As you say, Russia, China, and the USA are the only nations powerful enough to overcome Transnationalism. However, China is somewhat communist and not causcasian, so they get a pass.
Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that the Russkies engaged in trying to influence our 2016 Presidential election. Frankly, if they DIDN’T, I’d be surprised. But anyway, let’s say that they were “in the tank” for Trump.
What have they gotten for it?
Less than nothing, IMHO.
Why? First, Trump is rebuilding the U.S. military, which it will cost the Russians (with their NYS-sized economy) a not-so-small fortune to counter.
Second, Trump has unleashed our energy sector. Russia depends on oil and gas exports for about 2/3 of their foreign currency earnings. By unleashing the US energy sector - to the point where we are producing more oil and gas than EVER, and even exporting both - he has really tanked Russia’s foreign currency earnings. Their economy is WAY worse off than it would have been under Shrillary. She’d have continued Obama’s work of destroying/reining in the energy industry, all the better to get continuing large bribes (well, actually, contributions to the Clinton Foundation - excuse me for that slip-up) from her “friends,” the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris, and assorted other goat-phucking and oil-rich nations.
Backing Trump would, if they were in the tank for him, have to rank as one of the single most bone-headed moves EVER - second only to Stalin dealing with Hitler and closing his eyes to the military build-up on his western border. It would make Putin seem like one of the most stupid people on the planet...and, sorry, I just don’t see him in that light - quite the opposite actually (which doesn’t mean that I LIKE what he does. Hell, George Soros is REALLY bright...and I despise the SOB).
So, bottom line, I’m not buying the “Russia was working for Trump” nonsense. It just doesn’t make any sense.
I can think of one logical reason that the Russians would back Donald Trump as President; Trump is so wealthy, he can’t be bought. So you know where you stand. With Clinton, on the other hand, you would never know you weren’t the most recent highest bidder until too late.
I think you are exactly right. And notice how they automatically assume nationalism means war? I see it as families. I get along well with the neighbor family, but we don’t just blend together into one family.
Actually, the globalism is the perversion.
That’s right, the NYT also has a connection with those two anti-Americans.
Yep and the same Times had a long and torrid affair with that Joe Stalin guy.
That's the Times and the Soviet Union's replacements, European Socialist Globalism.
Nicely done!
Yep, in fact the article says the posts “spanned the political spectrum”.
A more nationalist US means less US support for the EU and NATO. The EU and NATO are Russia’s main competitors.
I seriously doubt any of these stories, none of which I saw, swayed many people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.