4 ms·

Some part of me wonders if these Russian astroturfers might be behind the recent /pol/ Trump obsession, given that Trump and Putin are on friendly terms with ea

Some part of me wonders if these Russian astroturfers might be behind the recent /pol/ Trump obsession, given that Trump and Putin are on friendly terms with each other. Edit: before Hillary shills jump on this, her astroturfing campaign on reddit is just as deplorable.

gruez 10y ago
>given that Trump and Putin are on friendly terms with each other which im sure is because putin doesn't think trump is going to win, and he likes trump stirring things up. if trump actually wins, i bet he's going to have a change of heart.
- Jerry2 10y ago
  No, he likes him because they're both nationalists. Trump's view of the world is similar to his and Putin believes they can cooperate better. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, wants war with Russia. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clintons-hawkish-position-on-russia-troubl/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clint...
  - TryAgainMaybe 10y ago
    Hilary does not want war with Russia. I mean, really. Sigh. This website.
    - gaius 10y ago
      You're half right. She wants war and doesn't care who with.
      - vetinari 10y ago
        Even worse. She thinks that she can win.
    - Jerry2 10y ago
      Try again. Hillary Clinton is the most pro-war, anti-Russia candidate on the Democrat side. She is more hawkish than even Ted Cruz was on the Republican side. Here's an article by Jeffrey Sachs, director of Earth Institute at Columbia University, on The Huffington Post (a left leaning site) saying the same thing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c...
    - qrendel 10y ago
      Clinton is easily one of the most pro-war (meaning an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy) candidates since the end of Vietnam. Many sources on that but I'll link just two.[1][2] Her focus is primarily on Russia, as she openly stated during one of the Democratic debates (given a choice between Iran, Russia, and North Korea, she picked them as "the greatest threat"). The entire Syria thing is largely a proxy war with Russia.[3] She was the main voice that argued against the Pentagon and convinced Obama to get involved in Libya. Whether you want to call it neoconservativism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, or just liberal internationalism, she is the leading champion for U.S. invasions and war across the world these days.[4][5] [1] http://www.cato.org/blog/2016-presidential-candidate-intervention-meter http://www.cato.org/blog/2016-presidential-candidate-interve... [2] http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepa... [3] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-mil... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons... [5] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-hawk-in-waiting/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-haw...
      - TryAgainMaybe 10y ago
        "she is the leading champion for U.S. invasions and war across the world these days" Sigh. This website.
- qaq 10y ago
  Trump has some eastern european partners (Onyshenko) sharing interest in owning beauty pageants with all the fun side activities. Phil Ruffin is married to Nikolaenko who also shares biz interests with Onyshenko. Onyshenko is pro russian ukrainian oligarch and given life style and joint partying has likely enough dirt on Trump passed on to Putin for Putin to feel he has decent leverage over Trump.
tstactplsignore 10y ago
I strongly also suspect that this might be the case- there are a couple of other motives too: (1) They see Trump as destabilizing or disruptive to the US and its international allies, and (2) they see Trump as ideologically aligned with Putin's own highly nationalistic and oligarchial platform and worldview (Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort has direct close ties to Putin's oligarchy)
- mc32 10y ago
  But it's not as though for example, people in Hillary's team don't have connections to the nomenklatura. So I don't think those connections are especially illustrative of anything extraordinary.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    Huh? You present that as something everyone knows, but I have never even heard anyone make the accusation. I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic. This is when someone makes an accusation, accuse the West or someone in it of the same thing. For instance, when someone says the Russian government is immensely corrupt, say there is corruption in the West, too. The goal is not to make people think well of Russia, that is simply not possible, but to make everyone so cynical and discouraged they won't fight back.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic... There are ways to word this paragraph that both don't accuse the parent of trolling, and still get across the point that you don't think a specific bit of evidence is as damning as may have been implied, or if just unsupported. Do you really think accusations of trolling are really going to result in a more useful discussion?
      - woodandsteel 10y ago
        Trolling does take place, and we need some way to defend against it. A key way is to educate people so they can recognize it. Do you deny that Russian trolls do regularly use this tactic? >There are ways to word this paragraph... Could you present an example of this? You're right, though, that it was somewhat problematic for me to make a semi-accusation against a particular comment. It makes me think what we need is a page describing common Russian troll tactics, and it could be linked to whenever there is a discussion of Russia, and people could decide for themselves if any comment is a troll. >Do you really think accusations of trolling are really going to result in a more useful discussion? It's awfully hard to have a useful discussion when trolls are trying to take things over. I need to do some thinking on what might work.
runn1ng 10y ago
I don't think so. /pol/ and Trump are made for each other.
AzzieElbab 10y ago
oh please. no need to go all binary just because we work with computers.

gruez 10y ago

>given that Trump and Putin are on friendly terms with each other which im sure is because putin doesn't think trump is going to win, and he likes trump stirring things up. if trump actually wins, i bet he's going to have a change of heart.

Jerry2 10y ago
No, he likes him because they're both nationalists. Trump's view of the world is similar to his and Putin believes they can cooperate better. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, wants war with Russia. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clintons-hawkish-position-on-russia-troubl/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clint...
- TryAgainMaybe 10y ago
  Hilary does not want war with Russia. I mean, really. Sigh. This website.
  - gaius 10y ago
    You're half right. She wants war and doesn't care who with.
    - vetinari 10y ago
      Even worse. She thinks that she can win.
  - Jerry2 10y ago
    Try again. Hillary Clinton is the most pro-war, anti-Russia candidate on the Democrat side. She is more hawkish than even Ted Cruz was on the Republican side. Here's an article by Jeffrey Sachs, director of Earth Institute at Columbia University, on The Huffington Post (a left leaning site) saying the same thing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c...
  - qrendel 10y ago
    Clinton is easily one of the most pro-war (meaning an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy) candidates since the end of Vietnam. Many sources on that but I'll link just two.[1][2] Her focus is primarily on Russia, as she openly stated during one of the Democratic debates (given a choice between Iran, Russia, and North Korea, she picked them as "the greatest threat"). The entire Syria thing is largely a proxy war with Russia.[3] She was the main voice that argued against the Pentagon and convinced Obama to get involved in Libya. Whether you want to call it neoconservativism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, or just liberal internationalism, she is the leading champion for U.S. invasions and war across the world these days.[4][5] [1] http://www.cato.org/blog/2016-presidential-candidate-intervention-meter http://www.cato.org/blog/2016-presidential-candidate-interve... [2] http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepa... [3] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-mil... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons... [5] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-hawk-in-waiting/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-haw...
    - TryAgainMaybe 10y ago
      "she is the leading champion for U.S. invasions and war across the world these days" Sigh. This website.
qaq 10y ago
Trump has some eastern european partners (Onyshenko) sharing interest in owning beauty pageants with all the fun side activities. Phil Ruffin is married to Nikolaenko who also shares biz interests with Onyshenko. Onyshenko is pro russian ukrainian oligarch and given life style and joint partying has likely enough dirt on Trump passed on to Putin for Putin to feel he has decent leverage over Trump.

tstactplsignore 10y ago

I strongly also suspect that this might be the case- there are a couple of other motives too: (1) They see Trump as destabilizing or disruptive to the US and its international allies, and (2) they see Trump as ideologically aligned with Putin's own highly nationalistic and oligarchial platform and worldview (Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort has direct close ties to Putin's oligarchy)

mc32 10y ago
But it's not as though for example, people in Hillary's team don't have connections to the nomenklatura. So I don't think those connections are especially illustrative of anything extraordinary.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Huh? You present that as something everyone knows, but I have never even heard anyone make the accusation. I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic. This is when someone makes an accusation, accuse the West or someone in it of the same thing. For instance, when someone says the Russian government is immensely corrupt, say there is corruption in the West, too. The goal is not to make people think well of Russia, that is simply not possible, but to make everyone so cynical and discouraged they won't fight back.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic... There are ways to word this paragraph that both don't accuse the parent of trolling, and still get across the point that you don't think a specific bit of evidence is as damning as may have been implied, or if just unsupported. Do you really think accusations of trolling are really going to result in a more useful discussion?
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      Trolling does take place, and we need some way to defend against it. A key way is to educate people so they can recognize it. Do you deny that Russian trolls do regularly use this tactic? >There are ways to word this paragraph... Could you present an example of this? You're right, though, that it was somewhat problematic for me to make a semi-accusation against a particular comment. It makes me think what we need is a page describing common Russian troll tactics, and it could be linked to whenever there is a discussion of Russia, and people could decide for themselves if any comment is a troll. >Do you really think accusations of trolling are really going to result in a more useful discussion? It's awfully hard to have a useful discussion when trolls are trying to take things over. I need to do some thinking on what might work.

runn1ng 10y ago

I don't think so. /pol/ and Trump are made for each other.

AzzieElbab 10y ago

oh please. no need to go all binary just because we work with computers.