Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House (3 Viewers)

[Booker]

Not really that shocking to anyone paying attention the last five years. The only question was whether Russia was working with the campaign, which the Mueller investigation was unable to confirm, but it was obvious Russia was working in Trump's interest.

And no doubt Putin feels he got his money's worth, just for January 6 alone. The elevation of Donald Trump was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country.

The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.

There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.

There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.

“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.

This would help bring about Russia’s favoured “theoretical political scenario”. A Trump win “will definitely lead to the destabilisation of the US’s sociopolitical system” and see hidden discontent burst into the open, it predicts.

Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House

Exclusive: Documents suggest Russia launched secret multi-agency effort to interfere in US democracy

www.theguardian.com

 

[Paul]

That's it?

You would be surprised at the issue of surname discrimination in the not so distant past. Or the times when i spoke with my accent and they assumed I was Italian or French. And then I said, not "it is Spanish accent" and I could see the disappointment in their faces. I will say that situation was way more common back them; these days it is a rarity. I find that the average American is now more enlightened about people from other nations. BTW, these days no one ever asks me where I am from because of the PC issue that it is supposed to be an offensive question. I stopped asking people where they are from even if they have strange accents.

 

[Saintamaniac]

What needs to go away if race ID politics on both sides.

Would you care to address the post rather than repeating your both sides do it mantra? I mean, so really significant points about what is happening on the right has been, repeatedly, pointed out to you yet you continue hiding behind "race ID politics on both sides." How about addressing this post below:

Meanwhile a majority of the Republican Party is actually radical right. They believe our election was fraudulent in the absence of any proof and they want to control speech in the classroom. They consider the free press the enemy of the people and think democrats are socialists or communists, against all reality. These are the people who need to moderate themselves. These are the people who want to limit the ability of democrats to vote, who deep down want an authoritative government. Sorry, Paul, you have it exactly backwards.

In the face of facts presented to you that directly refutes your claims about both sides, do you care to comment at all or were you planning on simply ignoring it as has been your MO?

 

[V Chip]

I fear a revolutionary war where the masses develop hysteria and group aggression.

Yet the biggest thing you rail against is “racial ID politics” and not the actual masses (or their leaders) who are fomenting the hysteria and group aggression.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Paul]

Yet the biggest thing you rail against is “racial ID politics” and not the actual masses (or their leaders) who are fomenting the hysteria and group aggression.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Are you for race identity politics? If yes, why?

 

[Saintman2884]

Why?

Because sometimes, its good to see self-righteous, egotistical condescending elitist types
on CNN, MSNBC, FOX who act some or seem smug and give more opinion-related news than just reporting the news and making themselves part of the narrative, always or mostly part of the narrative and one gets the sense their egos can't be sufficiently quenched. I'd like maybe just once a smug little meanie like Brian Stelter give his little "fork you giggles" laugh like he's somehow outraged and SHOCKED someone like Michael Wolff the audacity to question his moral absolute right to never have his methods or tactics called out.

 

[Saintman2884]

And we’re back to disagreement, lol. The left is plenty moderate. It’s the right that needs to come back toward the center.

Pelosi, Schumer, older, congressional and Senate Dems are the more moderate left you mention. AOC, certain members of the "Squad", particularly Illam Omar and to a certain extent, Bernie Sanders have had a difficult time making off-the-cut remarks that were rightly criticized by MSM outlets and Sanders' kind of misguided remarks about how poverty and waiting long lines in Cuba in the 1980's during severe foot shortages made everyone equal in a socialist society and how he's been reluctant to criticize Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Maduro's decisions to enact long-term damaging economic nationalization programs, price controls, over-reliance on petrol dollars all destroyed what once was one of Latin America's most vibrant, dominant economies and how its become, since 2014, a political battlefield, with acute food shortages, starvation, infant mortality, violent, roaming gangs in Caracas and politically-motivated violence, intimidation, and the forced migration of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans to Columbia, Brazil, Central American countries, some even to here. Sanders was asked or kind of put on the spot by Wolf Blitzer on CNN early in 2020 during one of.Democratic presidential primaries live town hall meetings and he was noticeably reluctant (or reticent) to answer the question and maybe wish the MSM wouldn't ask him such difficult questions about him being a socialist? The extreme far left, as Paul alluded to, does exist and most of us here if we're being brutally honest, know some of the idealogues in their ranks that are very visible. Its just their currently in the minority and are seen more as a fidgety, agitation-prone, frustrated part of the Democratic Party than their GOP counterparts.

 

[MT15]

The current party that would turn the US into Venezuela is the GOP. We should be concentrated on their slide into authoritarianism, rather than fever dreams that prominent Democrats are actually socialists. They’re not. They would preserve democracy. Republicans would not at this point. They have already flirted with overturning an election result they didn’t like. They have rehearsed it. It didn’t work - this time. They are maneuvering to try it again, should the election result not come out to their liking again. Read Anne Applebaum - I think the name of the book is “Decline of Democracy”. She is a self-described “center - right” person, who has studied countries who have obtained and then lost a democratic form of government.

I know you and Paul want to say the risk exists on both sides, but at this point in time and in this country the threat comes entirely from what is left of the Republican Party and their descent into authoritarianism.

 

[Saintman2884]

The current party that would turn the US into Venezuela is the GOP. We should be concentrated on their slide into authoritarianism, rather than fever dreams that prominent Democrats are actually socialists. They’re not. They would preserve democracy. Republicans would not at this point. They have already flirted with overturning an election result they didn’t like. They have rehearsed it. It didn’t work - this time. They are maneuvering to try it again, should the election result not come out to their liking again. Read Anne Applebaum - I think the name of the book is “Decline of Democracy”. She is a self-described “center - right” person, who has studied countries who have obtained and then lost a democratic form of government.

I know you and Paul want to say the risk exists on both sides, but at this point in time and in this country the threat comes entirely from what is left of the Republican Party and their descent into authoritarianism.

Ive been familiar with Anne Applebaum for quite some time that I don't need to be reminded who she is, what her political beliefs and convictions are and pretty much, I agree with most of what of what she-and others-have written about Trump's presidency, his authoritarian tendencies, how its influenced the GOP now even after the failed Jan. 6 insurrection and attempted rewriting of history to cover-up or falsify the overall narrative of who the rioters were and what their true intentions that day. I think GOP's turning to Trump to help them win the 2016 presidential election, initially, was a calculated risk that was borne out of desperation due to losing two consecutive presidential elections and more then likely, a third to Hillary in 2016, because the GOP's 2016 list of primary candidates.was a weak, uninteresting field, they were very desperate and in their collective desperation, they turned and embraced someone most of them didnt fully understand and only later on, did some of the more rational, sensible ones realize their mistake.

Applebaum, FWIW, has also been critical of the supposed, alleged radicalization of the UK's Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn and how overt or discreet antisemitic rhetoric, statements, words or language has become popping up at Labour meetings or made by Labour MP's and how Corbyn disregarded, blew off, or ignored complaints about antisemitism from Jewish Labour members when they brought up to him privately. I know Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have adopted a strong pro-Palestinian slant, but that doesn't excuse antisemitism being brought into the fold, albeit maybe sub-consciously or inadvertently, to be used against British Jews or Jewish Labour Party members.

 

[Paul]

Because sometimes, its good to see self-righteous, egotistical condescending elitist types
on CNN, MSNBC, FOX who act some or seem smug and give more opinion-related news than just reporting the news and making themselves part of the narrative, always or mostly part of the narrative and one gets the sense their egos can't be sufficiently quenched. I'd like maybe just once a smug little meanie like Brian Stelter give his little "fork you giggles" laugh like he's somehow outraged and SHOCKED someone like Michael Wolff the audacity to question his moral absolute right to never have his methods or tactics called out.

 

[samiam5211]

Michael Wolff writes fiction books based on true stories. He shouldn't even be given air time.

 

[Paul]

Michael Wolff writes fiction books based on true stories. He shouldn't even be given air time.

Wolf wrote an anti Trump book, that is good enough for me.
Censorship is not the answer.
His take down of CNN was precious. This was life so CNN could not edit the interview.

 

[samiam5211]

Wold wrote an anti Trump book, that is good enough for me.
Censorship is not the answer.
His take down of CNN was precious. This was life so CNN could not edit the interview.

yea, his anti-Trump book was terrible. That is how I know he just makes stuff up when he needs to.

I will never forgive him for the time i lost reading his garbage.

 

[bdb13]

yea, his anti-Trump book was terrible. That is how I know he just makes stuff up when he needs to.

I will never forgive him for the time i lost reading his garbage.

He takes the overarching story that we all know and then just makes up shirt to fill in the details. He needs to be ignored more than anything.

 

[MT15]

Ive been familiar with Anne Applebaum for quite some time that I don't need to be reminded who she is, what her political beliefs and convictions are and pretty much, I agree with most of what of what she-and others-have written about Trump's presidency, his authoritarian tendencies, how its influenced the GOP now even after the failed Jan. 6 insurrection and attempted rewriting of history to cover-up or falsify the overall narrative of who the rioters were and what their true intentions that day. I think GOP's turning to Trump to help them win the 2016 presidential election, initially, was a calculated risk that was borne out of desperation due to losing two consecutive presidential elections and more then likely, a third to Hillary in 2016, because the GOP's 2016 list of primary candidates.was a weak, uninteresting field, they were very desperate and in their collective desperation, they turned and embraced someone most of them didnt fully understand and only later on, did some of the more rational, sensible ones realize their mistake.

Applebaum, FWIW, has also been critical of the supposed, alleged radicalization of the UK's Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn and how overt or discreet antisemitic rhetoric, statements, words or language has become popping up at Labour meetings or made by Labour MP's and how Corbyn disregarded, blew off, or ignored complaints about antisemitism from Jewish Labour members when they brought up to him privately. I know Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have adopted a strong pro-Palestinian slant, but that doesn't excuse antisemitism being brought into the fold, albeit maybe sub-consciously or inadvertently, to be used against British Jews or Jewish Labour Party members.

I agree that the more radical elements of any political party need to be reined in, I wish we were seeing more of that by the GOP. The Democrats are (so far) not going to the extreme like the GOP has. This difference is real, IMO, and makes the “both sides” argument more counterproductive at this point in time than valid. It comes across as excusing the current excesses of the GOP.

In this country at this point in time, one party is more dangerous than the other. Let’s put out the raging fire first. Then we can tend to the smoldering embers on the other side. But right now, every minute tending to the “both sides” argument lets the GOP slide further down the authoritarian path.

 

[V Chip]

Are you for race identity politics? If yes, why?

Are you for fomenting violence and mass hysteria? If so, why?

 

[Paul]

yea, his anti-Trump book was terrible. That is how I know he just makes stuff up when he needs to.

I will never forgive him for the time i lost reading his garbage.

Sometimes a liar speaks the truth. He was right about CNN.

 

[Paul]

Are you for fomenting violence and mass hysteria? If so, why?

No, no way. I am not for violence or mass hysteria.

Are you for or against race ID politics? It is a simple question. Why do you avoid?

 

[samiam5211]

Sometimes a liar speaks the truth. He was right about CNN.

He likes to take advantage of people's confirmation bias. I learned that the hard way.