8 ms·

And in your analogy, all hypothetical of course, the VC here is located in Moscow? Update: Am I really being down-voted for suggesting what everyone already kn

And in your analogy, all hypothetical of course, the VC here is located in Moscow? Update: Am I really being down-voted for suggesting what everyone already knows? Seriously?

hockley 9y ago
This is 100% Driven by Americans. See “Freedom Caucus.”
- beager 9y ago
  If we're going to entertain the analogy further, Freedom Caucus is an association of funding targets for "VCs" (PACs and super-PACs) in which Russian investors/state agents are possibly LPs (see: reports of Russian money in the NRA). LPs typically don't have such a direct influence on the operations of the investments, although certain actual LP arrangements have in recent years. Of course, the nature of political contributions and influence seems to be vastly more complicated compared to VC.
  - ataturk 9y ago
    I doubt very much any Russian money went to the NRA. It wouldn't make any sense. What good would it do for Russia to pump up the NRA's coffers when a small group of people in the NRA then choose which candidates to support via the ILA? You do understand that the NRA is a huge grassroots organization but that the lobbying arm, the ILA, is a pretty small group of people, right? The membership would find out about any significant pot of money that just showed up from out of nowhere and somebody would scream bloody murder about it--the NRA members, including the board, are patriotic Americans, after all. No, the whole Russia NRA thing is absolute slander of the worst kind. Something the left is very good at lately because there's no way to "prove innocence." They just make wild accusations and leave a mess in their wake because that's how leftists tear apart a country.
  - hockley 9y ago
    The dismantling of the Fed Gov is decades in the making. While there may be recent foreign influence on the margins, the Kochs, Adelson, Mercer, and the rest of the GOP donor class are the originators of this GOP agenda.
- dqpb 9y ago
  Nothing is ever 100%
awakeasleep 9y ago
No one knows that. You're down-voted for buying into an ineffective political tactic- Dems are attacking trump as being a product of Russia because 1) It's easier than attacking him on policy, and 2) There are many policies that are disturbing to the majority of voters, but have bipartisan support in the legislature.
- antiviral 9y ago
  So by 'no one', you mean the Office of US National Intelligence (who are made up of career employees), right? Here is their full report: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf From the report: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or 'trolls.'"
  - ars 9y ago
    I didn't read the report, but your quote just says they tried. It doesn't say anything on if they actually succeeded. Find a quote that says they actually succeeded in having influence over Trump, and maybe that would be a valid argument.
    - jacobolus 9y ago
      There’s a mountain of circumstantial evidence (most recently, the Trump administration’s flat refusal to implement the Russian sanctions https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/trump-russia-... which had passed both houses of Congress almost unanimously, and were signed by Trump because they realized a veto would be overridden). If you want you can peruse a very extensive timeline, http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/ http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/ (to get much out of this you need to actually read the linked stories, which takes considerable time and effort; this is a complex case and public knowledge dribbles out in bits and pieces, and the purpose of a timeline like this is to collect them not to provide high-level analysis. I’m not sure if there is a concise coherent summary anywhere.) The special counsel is presumably constructing a more fleshed out case looking at proving a direct quid pro quo, using witness testimony, financial records, etc. All of that investigation is currently secret however.
braythwayt 9y ago
It's generally a bad idea to complain about down-votes. Try to shrug and argue the points, not people's choices for how to respond to the points. Taking my own advice, regardless of what you or anybody may think of the connection between Russian money, Russian politics, and Mr. Trump, surely we can find a number of wealthy Americans who are interested in winding down Federal oversight. I'd start with the high-fructose corn syrup people, the private university rip-off people, and the fossil fuel people. If there are also Russian interests, surely they are not "acting alone."
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Then they should do away with the stupid downvotes. You can't argue points with people who don't actually say anything.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > surely we can find a number of wealthy Americans who are interested in winding down Federal oversight. Or non-wealthy Americans interested in winding down Federal over-reach. Really, in a federal republic aren't there quite a lot of things which can safely be left to the several states? Is it necessary to make everything an item for federal concern?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Really, in a federal republic aren't there quite a lot of things which can safely be left to the several states? Well, you hope so, otherwise a federal republic is a good idea. OTOH, simply because you have a federal government (or even that it was a good idea a century or two ago) doesn't mean that a federal republic is a good idea, and even if a federal republic is a good idea and there are quite a lot of things that make most sense at the state level, well, that doesn't mean that every particular thing belongs there.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Most things already are. But there are many things that do need to be a federal concern, because a state does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it a (metaphorical) island. Things like the environment and pollution, for instance, need to have a federal component. One state may decide to relax environmental protections so that they can encourage factories and jobs. However, that pollution does not limit itself to the people that decided it. People outside that area, in other states that do have environmental regulations, will also be affected.

And in your analogy, all hypothetical of course, the VC here is located in Moscow? Update: Am I really being down-voted for suggesting what everyone already knows? Seriously?

hockley 9y ago

This is 100% Driven by Americans. See “Freedom Caucus.”

beager 9y ago
If we're going to entertain the analogy further, Freedom Caucus is an association of funding targets for "VCs" (PACs and super-PACs) in which Russian investors/state agents are possibly LPs (see: reports of Russian money in the NRA). LPs typically don't have such a direct influence on the operations of the investments, although certain actual LP arrangements have in recent years. Of course, the nature of political contributions and influence seems to be vastly more complicated compared to VC.
- ataturk 9y ago
  I doubt very much any Russian money went to the NRA. It wouldn't make any sense. What good would it do for Russia to pump up the NRA's coffers when a small group of people in the NRA then choose which candidates to support via the ILA? You do understand that the NRA is a huge grassroots organization but that the lobbying arm, the ILA, is a pretty small group of people, right? The membership would find out about any significant pot of money that just showed up from out of nowhere and somebody would scream bloody murder about it--the NRA members, including the board, are patriotic Americans, after all. No, the whole Russia NRA thing is absolute slander of the worst kind. Something the left is very good at lately because there's no way to "prove innocence." They just make wild accusations and leave a mess in their wake because that's how leftists tear apart a country.
- hockley 9y ago
  The dismantling of the Fed Gov is decades in the making. While there may be recent foreign influence on the margins, the Kochs, Adelson, Mercer, and the rest of the GOP donor class are the originators of this GOP agenda.
dqpb 9y ago
Nothing is ever 100%

awakeasleep 9y ago

No one knows that. You're down-voted for buying into an ineffective political tactic- Dems are attacking trump as being a product of Russia because 1) It's easier than attacking him on policy, and 2) There are many policies that are disturbing to the majority of voters, but have bipartisan support in the legislature.

antiviral 9y ago
So by 'no one', you mean the Office of US National Intelligence (who are made up of career employees), right? Here is their full report: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf From the report: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or 'trolls.'"
- ars 9y ago
  I didn't read the report, but your quote just says they tried. It doesn't say anything on if they actually succeeded. Find a quote that says they actually succeeded in having influence over Trump, and maybe that would be a valid argument.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    There’s a mountain of circumstantial evidence (most recently, the Trump administration’s flat refusal to implement the Russian sanctions https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/trump-russia-... which had passed both houses of Congress almost unanimously, and were signed by Trump because they realized a veto would be overridden). If you want you can peruse a very extensive timeline, http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/ http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/ (to get much out of this you need to actually read the linked stories, which takes considerable time and effort; this is a complex case and public knowledge dribbles out in bits and pieces, and the purpose of a timeline like this is to collect them not to provide high-level analysis. I’m not sure if there is a concise coherent summary anywhere.) The special counsel is presumably constructing a more fleshed out case looking at proving a direct quid pro quo, using witness testimony, financial records, etc. All of that investigation is currently secret however.

braythwayt 9y ago

It's generally a bad idea to complain about down-votes. Try to shrug and argue the points, not people's choices for how to respond to the points. Taking my own advice, regardless of what you or anybody may think of the connection between Russian money, Russian politics, and Mr. Trump, surely we can find a number of wealthy Americans who are interested in winding down Federal oversight. I'd start with the high-fructose corn syrup people, the private university rip-off people, and the fossil fuel people. If there are also Russian interests, surely they are not "acting alone."

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
Then they should do away with the stupid downvotes. You can't argue points with people who don't actually say anything.
zeveb 9y ago
> surely we can find a number of wealthy Americans who are interested in winding down Federal oversight. Or non-wealthy Americans interested in winding down Federal over-reach. Really, in a federal republic aren't there quite a lot of things which can safely be left to the several states? Is it necessary to make everything an item for federal concern?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Really, in a federal republic aren't there quite a lot of things which can safely be left to the several states? Well, you hope so, otherwise a federal republic is a good idea. OTOH, simply because you have a federal government (or even that it was a good idea a century or two ago) doesn't mean that a federal republic is a good idea, and even if a federal republic is a good idea and there are quite a lot of things that make most sense at the state level, well, that doesn't mean that every particular thing belongs there.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Most things already are. But there are many things that do need to be a federal concern, because a state does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it a (metaphorical) island. Things like the environment and pollution, for instance, need to have a federal component. One state may decide to relax environmental protections so that they can encourage factories and jobs. However, that pollution does not limit itself to the people that decided it. People outside that area, in other states that do have environmental regulations, will also be affected.