Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,032
I agree, i've seen multiple progressives slandered and called "putin puppets" for daring to criticize the Dems on legitimate issues. Hell even Donna Brazille, interim chair of the DNC was called a putin puppet multiple times for her words against the Clinton camp and DNC's inefficiency during the campaign.

That whole "comrade bernie" shit just gets me annoyed, just cause Sanders and others had the nerve to say the dems lost the election due to their own incompetence. Hell i've heard it said to Nina turner as well..

You want to have a legitimate investigation on Russian links to politicians, that's fine, go ahead and we'll see what the independent commission comes up with. but the red scare hysteria shit to deflect from actually having to talk about anything else is very convenient and sad by certain folks, including the media's 247 focus on it to the point where they basically suck all the air out of the room.
I mean, I'm just going to put this out there, if the Democrats need to do more introspection on why they lost other than "Russia rigged it", which they do, than Bernie and his friends need to do more introspection on why he wasn't the candidate other than "the DNC rigged it", which they do
 
Yes, and nothing I posted disagreed with that. 'High confidence' is the best label you're ever going to get out of a functioning security service, it's the same in every other NATO country. 'High confidence' is what placed Osama Ben Ladin in Waziristan Havel.

Serious question, what kind of 'proof' would be sufficient in your eyes?
A "we know for a fact" is far stronger than "High confidence" . The latter is good enough for small claims court but not much else.

I don't blame Russia for Donald Trump. That's on America. Period. That's not to say I deny that he had a hand in it. He did, but it shouldn't have mattered. Trump won because there was a Democrat for 8 years, yes Obama was Black and there was "Blacklash" since Republicans treated him like the worse president of all time despite no scandals, and Hillary Clinton was perhaps one of the most disliked politicians of all time thanks to Rightwing media naming her the devil in disguise for the last couple of decades.

But the good news is, none of that will be in play for the next election. So Putin can try, but ultimately he'll fail. We also know what Russia is doing now so hopefully things like Facebook advertising and twitter bots won't be so rampant.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment here. The whole narrative fell apart and we're now down to blaming twitter bots and Facebook ads for election outcomes where candidates spent billions.

And in the latest 'Putin is an omnipresent and omnipotent DemiGod capable of all things', opposition to Dakota Access pipeline by water protectors and resistance to police brutality by Black Lives Matter activists are now being portrayed as 'Putin's doing. It's like Americans have no agency, have no grievance in this mythical land of milk & honey, and are only motivated to fight for equality and social justice because they're motivated by Putin. This shtick is offensive and repulsive.

I'm so expecting they'll blame Nat Turner and John Brown's anti-slavery uprisings on Russia too
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
I don't follow the news on this so I have to ask. Is there any proof of Russia interfering in the election? I know there were some stories about trump and piss and some other crazy stuff that was made up.

Afaik some say Russia supported Catalan "independence" and gave money to catalan extremist parties so they can pull off the referendum and all that stuff.

I'm not saying it's impossible but it just seems to me the case where everybody blames other for their mistakes.

The key is that Russia takes stuff that's already there and just helps push it along. We had a massive racism problem dating from back when the Romanovs ruled Russia, this is nothing new.
 

SasaBassa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,240
It can be and is both. Don't fall into the same trap that people who think "marketing doesn't work on me!" do. Just because it preyed on America's incredibly divisive history and culture doesn't make it hogwash that Russia played a huge hand here.

Seriously, when photo/video editing get even better and simpler for jackasses to trick everyone's dumb relatives and friends with, I think that's gonna be a major phase shift again. The fact that media companies, social or traditional, sit on their hands while this and very effective psychographics get better, is infuriating. I really want to see laws created by non shitbags that curb a lot of this.

That being said, it doesn't take away your agency as Americans and more should've known better. Should actually BE better. Please fucking VOTE and please be discerning, yall. Signed, the rest of the world (where this happens too and we've gotta do the same).
 
Last edited:

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,032
And in the latest 'Putin is an omnipresent and omnipotent DemiGod capable of all things', opposition to Dakota Access pipeline by water protectors and resistance to police brutality by Black Lives Matter activists are now being portrayed as 'Putin's doing. It's like Americans have no agency, have no grievance in this mythical land of milk & honey, and are only motivated to fight for equality and social justice because they're motivated by Putin. This shtick is offensive and repulsive.

I'm so expecting they'll blame Nat Turner and John Brown's anti-slavery uprisings on Russia too
I don't disagree, but also robbing Americans of agency in their political and active choices is also a huge part of how conservatism and nationalism get treated like forces of nature and their rise is seen as the fault of those who fail to stop them, not the fault of those who support them
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
I mean, I'm just going to put this out there, if the Democrats need to do more introspection on why they lost other than "Russia rigged it", which they do, than Bernie and his friends need to do more introspection on why he wasn't the candidate other than "the DNC rigged it", which they do

Primarily, Sanders lost because he had less name recognition than Clinton and less of a ground game network already in place. That's why. Its pretty simple. He went from 3% nationally and unhead of to consistently gaining, and ended with 22 states and 47% of the vote.

I mean...your asking why a no name lost to one of the biggest political families in America, in a democratic primary no less where he made his debut. Its not really a fair question from the start.
 

Deleted member 3345

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,967
I mean, I'm just going to put this out there, if the Democrats need to do more introspection on why they lost other than "Russia rigged it", which they do, than Bernie and his friends need to do more introspection on why he wasn't the candidate other than "the DNC rigged it", which they do

It's not possible that the calamity that led to fuckface in the whitehouse was something in between? Everyone had a vested interest.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
Well, he has a point I guess.

I'm having a hard time seeing it.


The internet allows like minded individuals to congregate.

This community on the old forum was prominent enough to be a top 5 refferer for the Clinton campaign.

I would say this group is highly representative of the more partisan elements of the Democratic party.


If I'm right about the demographics i simply don't see the problem being described.


Everyone here acknowledges to some degree that the rise of Trump was enabled by fellow Americans and Russia was simply an influence.


None here believes America suddenly became racist, sexist, anti immigrant in the past year because of Russia.


Yet this is exactly the argument this scientist is making.


His premise isn't as relevant as implied.
 
I don't disagree, but also robbing Americans of agency in their political and active choices is also a huge part of how conservatism and nationalism get treated like forces of nature and their rise is seen as the fault of those who fail to stop them, not the fault of those who support them
Our only disagreement here is l don't buy that RT, bots and ads had an impact on election outcomes and you do. I'm not convinced they were responsible for giving Wikileaks the Podesta emails either - not that l care who did, I like the transparency. Not to mention Podesta's emails are not "the election". Anyways, the scope of our disagreement seems to be pretty narrow.

I agree, i've seen multiple progressives slandered and called "putin puppets" for daring to criticize the Dems on legitimate issues. Hell even Donna Brazille, interim chair of the DNC was called a putin puppet multiple times for her words against the Clinton camp and DNC's inefficiency during the campaign.

That whole "comrade bernie" shit just gets me annoyed, just cause Sanders and others had the nerve to say the dems lost the election due to their own incompetence. Hell i've heard it said to Nina turner as well..

You want to have a legitimate investigation on Russian links to politicians, that's fine, go ahead and we'll see what the independent commission comes up with. but the red scare hysteria shit to deflect from actually having to talk about anything else is very convenient and sad by certain folks, including the media's 247 focus on it to the point where they basically suck all the air out of the room.
This post ends the thread for me.

Couldn't agree more.
 

Deleted member 11046

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
942
I agree, i've seen multiple progressives slandered and called "putin puppets" for daring to criticize the Dems on legitimate issues.Hell even Donna Brazille, interim chair of the DNC was called a putin puppet multiple times for her words against the Clinton camp and DNC's inefficiency during the campaign.

That whole "comrade bernie" shit just gets me annoyed, just cause Sanders and others had the nerve to say the dems lost the election due to their own incompetence. Hell i've heard it said to Nina turner as well..

You want to have a legitimate investigation on Russian links to politicians, that's fine, go ahead and we'll see what the independent commission comes up with. but the red scare hysteria shit to deflect from actually having to talk about anything else is very convenient and sad by certain folks, including the media's 247 focus on it to the point where they basically suck all the air out of the room.
Red scare hysteria shit? Comrad Bernie? I feel you're using this thread to air primary grievances without actually engaging in the self reflection the OP claims is lacking on the left.
 

The Silver

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,789
I would agree that no one should be putting all their eggs into the Russia basket, they they were a factor that should be dealt with but Mueller is there now and we'll see how that plays out and people should keep in mind that it may not end in anything happening to Trump, the only thing to do is protect him from Trump.

The American electorate that could even conceive of electing someone like Trump is far more dangerous imo, Russia's meddling would not have meant anything if this country didn't already have a festering rotten core. Alabama could be about to elect an alleged pedophile, that's how insane this country truly is, Russia alone didn't create that level of division, that's America.
 

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,032
This post ends the thread for me.

Couldn't agree more.
There's more to why we lost than incompetance, is all I'll say. And the longer we try and avert our eyes and ignore the very real rot at the core of this country the more our progressive movements are going to be gimped and blindsided by how nasty a lot of Americans are
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Primarily, Sanders lost because he had less name recognition than Clinton and less of a ground game network already in place. That's why. Its pretty simple. He went from 3% nationally and unhead of to consistently gaining, and ended with 22 states and 47% of the vote.

I mean...your asking why a no name lost to one of the biggest political families in America, in a democratic primary no less where he made his debut. Its not really a fair question from the start.
Sanders went toe to toe with white voters and lost black voters 3:1.

(if you want to continue this, take it to PoliERA, rather than here)
 

Pedrito

Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,374
And in the latest 'Putin is an omnipresent and omnipotent DemiGod capable of all things', opposition to Dakota Access pipeline by water protectors and resistance to police brutality by Black Lives Matter activists are now being portrayed as 'Putin's doing. It's like Americans have no agency, have no grievance in this mythical land of milk & honey, and are only motivated to fight for equality and social justice because they're motivated by Putin. This shtick is offensive and repulsive.

I'm so expecting they'll blame Nat Turner and John Brown's anti-slavery uprisings on Russia too

So because some buzzfeed articles mention that a few Instagram/FB/Twitter accounts were likely controlled by russian trolls, it means that "opposition to Dakota Access pipeline by water protectors and resistance to police brutality by Black Lives Matter activists are now being portrayed as Putin's doing"? That's quite the reach. I could almost say that your shtick is offensive.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,965
Fucking thank you. Putin didn't make the American education system a joke, didn't make America racist and didn't make the electoral college.
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Red scare hysteria shit? Comrad Bernie? I feel you're using this thread to air primary grievances without actually engaging in the self reflection the OP claims is lacking on the left.

Those are things i have heard THIS YEAR, specifically in the democratic circle to avoid their own self reflection. As far as i'm concerned, its the democrats who use russia as a scapegoat for why the dems lost the election that is the problem, instead of looking into their own problems. Oh and i guess saying everyone else is a racist or a sexist who only wants a "purity test".

No, what we and most people want is Democratic accountability as our representatives. There's a reason why they poll so low in the general public, and making excuses doesn't help.
 

Deleted member 11046

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
942
Primarily, Sanders lost because he had less name recognition than Clinton and less of a ground game network already in place. That's why. Its pretty simple. He went from 3% nationally and unhead of to consistently gaining, and ended with 22 states and 47% of the vote.

I mean...your asking why a no name lost to one of the biggest political families in America, in a democratic primary no less where he made his debut. Its not really a fair question from the start.
Obama did everything you are claiming it was nigh impossible for Bernie to do, with far fewer years in the political arena. Stop excusing Sanders for his failures.
 

Deleted member 3345

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,967
Oct 25, 2017
9,053
They favored her no? It felt like they were pushing her to me. I guess I have to blame us once again for voting for someone who was never going to win.

(I voted Hillary in the end because I had no choice)

SPECIFICALLY what did the DNC do to push her? Specific actions, by who? Names, actions, dates, video.

Hillary got the nomination because she won by almost 4 millions votes. That's way, way outside what you can reasonably expect slight biases and influence to matter for. She had broad base support from democratic voters, for years, and was wildly popular during 2013/2014, which is when potential candidates get a feel of the land and decide whether they should run. No candidates thought they could realistically beat Hillary, so nobody really ran with that intention, with like all of the other candidates (Sanders included), ran to increase the public profile and/or get a nice soapbox to spread their views.


Yes, and most black people aren't millennials, and pretty much everybody other than millennials votes more regularly. Being popular with the demographics least likely to vote isn't worth a whole lot.
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Sanders went toe to toe with white voters and lost black voters 3:1.

(if you want to continue this, take it to PoliERA, rather than here)

Your a mod now Kirb, you can't go after me the same way you usually would.

Again, he lost because of Clinton's "firewall", that she had with older black voters in the south who automatically vote for democrats, and specifically ones that are affiliated with obama or people they affiliate with being "on their side" like the Clintons.

This is the truth of the matter. Its pretty much the exact same as Sanders losing older dems in general who only vote in a straight line pattern with people they know. But Sanders ended up winning most minorities in the millennial segment, and right now, according to some estimates wins broad support with basically everyone else.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-con...-banners_Registered-Voters_Current-Events.pdf
 

KDR_11k

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
5,235
Of course Putin didn't elect Trump alone, of course there were problems in society that got exploited. Progressives aren't called that because they think everything is fine and should stay the way it is. The extremist right promises that every problem in life can be solved by getting rid of people you don't like anyway, when you've got a huge population that gets told by every source of news they have that the extreme right's claim is true then of course you get them voting for an extreme right politician.

I mean, Putin flooded social media but organizations like Fox News were doing the same thing by themselves.

Instead of bullshit being called out it gets amplified.

There's a lot of "are we the real problem?" reflection by liberals. Notice how that's completely absent in the extremist right, they don't question the leader. Liberals recognized the problems that got Trump elected but didn't claim to have easy answers.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,078
Reading this thread....Jesus Christ. Some people are so far gone in their Russia paranoia, it's sad to see. Must feel nice to have some boogey man far away to implicate in every single thing that contributes to the broken and fucked up state of the US.

Trump is the culmination of everything wrong with America, and people apparently STILL are in full on denial/reflection mode and go on and on about "But Comey/Rurssia/Whatever" instead of reflect on the unbelievable embarrassing loss of the Most Qualified Candidate ever (TM) against a demented Game Show Host.



Hillary didn't heavily support or directly engineer military intervention, arming of radicals and contributed to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of brown people's lives? Her one term as a foreign secretary wasn't a complete disaster?

I'm sure the usual Hillary fanatics will find a way to apologize and explain why Non-American lives matter less, or just ignore this. Just like they managed to ignore a rapist and sexual predator being a prominent figurehead and important part of HRC's campaign all these years. After all, he is one of us, right?

Newflash: Without her laughably atrocious campaign and her centrist bullshit, none of these things would have ever mattered, Hillary wins. But yes, it's all a giant conspiracy.

Oh look who's back. It's the guy who claims to be progressive while spending all of his political posts shitting on Democrats.

Then again, you WERE the same guy who was defending Wikileaks after they were exposed for directly communicating with Donald Trump Jr.

EDIT: I showed the proof. That's all that matters
 
Last edited:
So because some buzzfeed articles mention that a few Instagram/FB/Twitter accounts were likely controlled by russian trolls, it means that "opposition to Dakota Access pipeline by water protectors and resistance to police brutality by Black Lives Matter activists are now being portrayed as Putin's doing"? That's quite the reach. I could almost say that your shtick is offensive.
The reach is making silly connections between BLM/Water protectors and Putin to begin with.

And this made the rounds in the media. It didn't just begin and end with Buzzfeed.
There's more to why we lost than incompetance, is all I'll say. And the longer we try and avert our eyes and ignore the very real rot at the core of this country the more our progressive movements are going to be gimped and blindsided by how nasty a lot of Americans are

You're absolutely right about that.
 

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,032
Your a mod now Kirb, you can't go after me the same way you usually would.

Again, he lost because of Clinton's "firewall", that she had with older black voters in the south who automatically vote for democrats, and specifically ones that are affiliated with obama or people they affiliate with being "on their side" like the Clintons.

This is the truth of the matter. Its pretty much the exact same as Sanders losing older dems in general who only vote in a straight line pattern with people they know. But Sanders ended up winning most minorities in the millennial segment, and right now, according to some estimates wins broad support with basically everyone else.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-con...-banners_Registered-Voters_Current-Events.pdf
This discussion does seem more appropriate to another thread. If you move it there, I'll follow
 

potam

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
565
I understand the sentiment, but the title is so fucking dumb.

The left can be in shambles in the US. Putin could have influenced the election.

These two aren't exclusive.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Take the primary relitigation to PoliERA if you want to continue it.

Don't make me ask you a third time.
 

Pedrito

Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,374
The reach is making silly connections between BLM/Water protectors and Putin to begin with.

And this made the rounds in the media. It didn't just begin and end with Buzzfeed.

I'd like it if you could show me an article from a serious outlet making connections between Russia and the BLM/Dakota Access protesters themselves, and not just social media accounts/ads pretending to support these causes. Thanks.
 

Deleted member 11046

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
942
I understand the sentiment, but the title is so fucking dumb.

The left can be in shambles in the US. Putin could have influenced the election.

These two aren't exclusive.
The frustrating and ridiculous thing about the premise of the OP is that liberals are the primary group in America willing to discuss the problems in our country that go beyond Russia!
 
We get it dude. You literally REFUSE to ever accept the stuff about Russia.

Just admit that you are REFUSING to acknowledge what Russia has been IN ADDITION to how the Democratic Party has failed.
I know you're triggered but the point still stands. 'High confidence' is not proof. Not quite sure what's causing your anger here. And l don't really care either.
I'd like it if you could show me an article from a serious outlet making connections between Russia and the BLM/Dakota Access protesters themselves, and not just social media accounts/ads pretending to support these causes. Thanks.
I remember TYT, Jimmy Dore, or the host of Secular Talk chronicling media stories in regards to this. Check out those YouTube pages and search the videos. I'm sure it was one of those.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
The reach is making silly connections between BLM/Water protectors and Putin to begin with.

And this made the rounds in the media. It didn't just begin and end with Buzzfeed.
They're not silly. Russia was playing all sides of the coin- creating pro-BLM groups, ads, even managing to create protests, while also doing the same for the white supremacists opposing them. And they did the same thing for all sorts of other issues.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/1...nized-protest-texas-different-russian-page-l/ - see this insane situation in Texas for an example.
 

Deleted member 3345

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,967
I think it's hypocrisy to scapegoat uninformed voters only when it's a convenient argument for why one's preferred political candidate failed to win a campaign.

And just to be clear, are you suggesting that Sanders lost due to uninformed minority voters?

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm asking you , directly if you think there are uninformed democratic voters?
 
They're not silly. Russia was playing all sides of the coin- creating pro-BLM groups, ads, even managing to create protests, while also doing the same for the white supremacists opposing them. And they did the same thing for all sorts of other issues.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/1...nized-protest-texas-different-russian-page-l/ - see this insane situation in Texas for an example.
Kirblar... are you really telling me that BLM is a Russia front group right now?
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,371
No lies detected.

I think it's ironic how America reacts to foreign meddling when they were the ones for decades meddling in other people business. Concentrate on yourself, educate your people and try to be better next time.

You do understand that part of doing that involves acknowledging and understanding what happened, right?

Kirblar... are you really telling me that BLM is a Russia front group right now?

No, BLM is not a Russian front group, but there were people who used BLM as cover to get up to some shit.
 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
User was Warned: Primary Relitigation
Obama did everything you are claiming it was nigh impossible for Bernie to do, with far fewer years in the political arena. Stop excusing Sanders for his failures.

Because Obama was a great orator who could draw people in with his speeches, was black to draw in the socially and racially conscious folk against the racists on the right(and in the clinton camp if we recall), had a good sellable backstory and generally speaking was not opposed to corporate interests when he was campaigning, which fit as a good opposition to the old guard in Bush. Those are reasons me and my family voted for him(also there's the whole thinking he was progressive, but that changed eventually)

It didn't help that Clinton ended up being sleaze when she tried to imply that staying in till the convention was good because *some generic allegory to Obama being assassinated like Kennedy would lead to her possibly being able to come back* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04F4hIthQbU

And on top of that, Obama never went easy on Clinton the way Sanders did. He destroyed her for her historical accounts during those debates whereas Sanders only implied that money and influence corrupted politicians, and only ever brought up Goldman sachs at absolute worst. He even dismissed the email shit that he could have used despite it being nothing but fake news.

Obama would go for the jugular on a consistent basis, but today's environment, the media would have framed Sanders as a sexist who blamed "the elites" and "big business" unfairly, even more than they already did . It didn't hurt that this was a time when establishment media was also not so concentrated on the bidding of capital. And so we would get stories like this, on a fairly consistent basis during the campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZhwV24PmM

If the media had done the same thing to Clinton during this election that they did last election(hell they could have used the same stories), i have no doubt the numbers would have been even closer, possibly even able to make up the difference in name recognition. Sanders being against corporate interests this time allows them to frame the terms as Sanders being a socialist far lefty where as Clinton is the reasonable one with "ties to influential partners" just boosting her appeal.