3 ms·

I am not American nor do I live/work in the US but every time I read articles from Western media that mentions Trump I am 100% sure that the "Russian" word will

by jister 9y ago

I am not American nor do I live/work in the US but every time I read articles from Western media that mentions Trump I am 100% sure that the "Russian" word will be mentioned somewhere in the article. For an outsider like myself the blaming on Russia is getting out of hand. Maybe Russia did something or NOT but I still haven't seen any evidence up to now. It's a shame that we are in the last quarter of the year and yet people there still haven't moved on.

Tannic 9y ago
Russia was them finding a way to cover their asses while continuing to push for war and intelligence funding. They lost because Hillary was even worse than Trump. She represented the utter moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party. She and Trump together represent the bankruptcy pf the entire electoral system. The continued full court press against free speech (as though media owned by six corporations should have a monopoly on myth-making) is truly fascistic and deeply disturbing, but I have hope that the disgust they continually generate with their delusional hubris will spawn fairer,more decentralized media. Our problem here is not right wing myths, it is capitalism and the emergent effects of the consolidation of power.
StevePerkins 9y ago
For decades now, there has been a significant chuck of the nation's fringe (10-20%) who simply CANNOT accept a member of the opposite political party as a legitimate President. All through the 90's, the talk radio fringe used the same argument that Bill Clinton's victory wasn't truly legitimate because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote. And they had a special prosecutor follow him around for his entire Presidency, pretty much on a fishing expedition (younger people might not remember this, but Ken Starr stumbled across the Monica Lewinsky thing years into the process). All through the 2000's, the fringe left rejected George W. Bush's legitimacy, because they felt that it was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees. President Obama spent 8 years assuring people that he isn't a Muslim, and wasn't really born in Kenya. It sounds like parody, but roughly 1/3 of partisan Republicans seriously believe in this conspiracy theory (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persistent-partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persiste...). Today, partisan Democrats just can't let go of the "Russia hacked the election!" conspiracy theory... even though, from an independant's perspective, they sound flatly insane. At BEST, someone with ties to Russia leaked some embarrassing emails from a criminally insecure mail server. If HRC hadn't been the worst Democratic nominee in decades, then it wouldn't have mattered regardless. I don't know what's going to happen with the next inevitable handover in 4-12 years. But it's a pretty safe bet that the next Democrat will be seen as "illegitimate" by roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the nation as well. This is just the not-so-new normal.
- hsod 9y ago
  I think Russia interfered in the election, but I don't think Trump is an "illegitimate president". There's no such thing, constitutionally speaking. He won, that's a simple fact. He is the President. Just wanted to push back on your smearing of anyone who believes Russia interfered as a partisan nutjob. Lots of people, including the IC, the military, and most GOP members of congress believe that Russia interfered. Skepticism is understandable but your inverted confidence seems misplaced.
- dTal 9y ago
  I feel that, while you're not wrong about the ongoing de-legitimization of the presidency, there's a danger of drawing a false equivalence here. The 2000 election really was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees (in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother, under circumstances of serious, fraudulent voter disenfranchisement). And there really was foreign interference in our last election, in favour of the winning candidate - it's not really a "conspiracy theory" when President Obama literally called Putin on the red phone to ask him to stop. Whether you think it was effective or not (and there's no possible way you can know), there's no doubt at all they tried. Conversely, Obama was definitely not in any shape or form born in Kenya, and Clinton's lack of popular vote was as immaterial as Trump's. Only one of these sides looks "fringe" to me.
WorkLobster 9y ago
> Maybe Russia did something or NOT but I still haven't seen any evidence up to now. The Wikipedia article[1] is a good place to start, and to my eye seems fairly comprehensive. Many users of Reddit have also done quite a good job of periodically summarising the state of the investigation and evidence when these discussions have arisen, e.g. [2]. As a side note, I believe you were genuinely interested in the topic, but constant use of "where is the proof?" in the face of readily-available evidence and high-profile reporting is a tactic so commonly employed by pro-Russian state astroturfers that it has become the subject of ridicule[3]. This has unfortunately poisoned the discussion pool a little so it may be useful to keep in mind in case the topic is broached in future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... [2] https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5hhn4t/cia_assessment_says_russia_was_trying_to_help/db0zali/ https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5hhn4t/... [3] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/proofster http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/proofster
- RobertoG 9y ago
  It seems to me, that, even accepting Russian interference, to say that the interference was strong enough for explaining the results, instead of other factors, is just ridiculous, and the burden of proof should be in the proponents of that theory. It seems to me, that people all around 'the West' is angry because 'the establishment' have failed then. Instead of changing their ways 'the establishment' have decided to find a scapegoat and, in fact, blame the system. When democracy don't give the results we want, we are not so democrat anymore. The result of this discourse, the subtext, is: "see what they voted? how they dared to vote outside the program? you can't trust voters anymore". That sounds like a very dangerous message to me. By the way, as a non American, I think that the irony of USA complaining about interference on internal electoral processes is really high.

by jister 9y ago

Tannic 9y ago

Russia was them finding a way to cover their asses while continuing to push for war and intelligence funding. They lost because Hillary was even worse than Trump. She represented the utter moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party. She and Trump together represent the bankruptcy pf the entire electoral system. The continued full court press against free speech (as though media owned by six corporations should have a monopoly on myth-making) is truly fascistic and deeply disturbing, but I have hope that the disgust they continually generate with their delusional hubris will spawn fairer,more decentralized media. Our problem here is not right wing myths, it is capitalism and the emergent effects of the consolidation of power.

StevePerkins 9y ago

For decades now, there has been a significant chuck of the nation's fringe (10-20%) who simply CANNOT accept a member of the opposite political party as a legitimate President. All through the 90's, the talk radio fringe used the same argument that Bill Clinton's victory wasn't truly legitimate because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote. And they had a special prosecutor follow him around for his entire Presidency, pretty much on a fishing expedition (younger people might not remember this, but Ken Starr stumbled across the Monica Lewinsky thing years into the process). All through the 2000's, the fringe left rejected George W. Bush's legitimacy, because they felt that it was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees. President Obama spent 8 years assuring people that he isn't a Muslim, and wasn't really born in Kenya. It sounds like parody, but roughly 1/3 of partisan Republicans seriously believe in this conspiracy theory (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persistent-partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persiste...). Today, partisan Democrats just can't let go of the "Russia hacked the election!" conspiracy theory... even though, from an independant's perspective, they sound flatly insane. At BEST, someone with ties to Russia leaked some embarrassing emails from a criminally insecure mail server. If HRC hadn't been the worst Democratic nominee in decades, then it wouldn't have mattered regardless. I don't know what's going to happen with the next inevitable handover in 4-12 years. But it's a pretty safe bet that the next Democrat will be seen as "illegitimate" by roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the nation as well. This is just the not-so-new normal.

hsod 9y ago
I think Russia interfered in the election, but I don't think Trump is an "illegitimate president". There's no such thing, constitutionally speaking. He won, that's a simple fact. He is the President. Just wanted to push back on your smearing of anyone who believes Russia interfered as a partisan nutjob. Lots of people, including the IC, the military, and most GOP members of congress believe that Russia interfered. Skepticism is understandable but your inverted confidence seems misplaced.
dTal 9y ago
I feel that, while you're not wrong about the ongoing de-legitimization of the presidency, there's a danger of drawing a false equivalence here. The 2000 election really was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees (in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother, under circumstances of serious, fraudulent voter disenfranchisement). And there really was foreign interference in our last election, in favour of the winning candidate - it's not really a "conspiracy theory" when President Obama literally called Putin on the red phone to ask him to stop. Whether you think it was effective or not (and there's no possible way you can know), there's no doubt at all they tried. Conversely, Obama was definitely not in any shape or form born in Kenya, and Clinton's lack of popular vote was as immaterial as Trump's. Only one of these sides looks "fringe" to me.

WorkLobster 9y ago

> Maybe Russia did something or NOT but I still haven't seen any evidence up to now. The Wikipedia article[1] is a good place to start, and to my eye seems fairly comprehensive. Many users of Reddit have also done quite a good job of periodically summarising the state of the investigation and evidence when these discussions have arisen, e.g. [2]. As a side note, I believe you were genuinely interested in the topic, but constant use of "where is the proof?" in the face of readily-available evidence and high-profile reporting is a tactic so commonly employed by pro-Russian state astroturfers that it has become the subject of ridicule[3]. This has unfortunately poisoned the discussion pool a little so it may be useful to keep in mind in case the topic is broached in future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... [2] https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5hhn4t/cia_assessment_says_russia_was_trying_to_help/db0zali/ https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5hhn4t/... [3] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/proofster http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/proofster

RobertoG 9y ago
It seems to me, that, even accepting Russian interference, to say that the interference was strong enough for explaining the results, instead of other factors, is just ridiculous, and the burden of proof should be in the proponents of that theory. It seems to me, that people all around 'the West' is angry because 'the establishment' have failed then. Instead of changing their ways 'the establishment' have decided to find a scapegoat and, in fact, blame the system. When democracy don't give the results we want, we are not so democrat anymore. The result of this discourse, the subtext, is: "see what they voted? how they dared to vote outside the program? you can't trust voters anymore". That sounds like a very dangerous message to me. By the way, as a non American, I think that the irony of USA complaining about interference on internal electoral processes is really high.