This. This right here.
Democracy only works because we believe it works. That's it.
Add in the fact you have Trump actively bashing other institutions, the democratic process, etc. etc....it makes everything worse.
Left wingers who play down Russia's involvement
- Thread starter Bleepey
- Start date
Democracy only works because we believe it works. That's it.
Add in the fact you have Trump actively bashing other institutions, the democratic process, etc. etc....it makes everything worse.
That's fundamentally it. They just kicked us while we were down.
We need to have a social inquiry into how we even got to this point. The issues of neoliberalism, quite literally, made Trump a political possibility. Noam Chomsky and Guy Standing warned about this at the start of the decade, and to use Standing's words, the problems left unaddressed would give us "a political monster" which Trump absolutely is. A culture that hasn't worked for the people is susceptible for those same people to doubt authority in our institutions. After all, they've been given a three-decades long lie about how things are going to improve, just on the horizon. Populism is a knee jerk response to people not buying it. People doubted "the system" because from stem to stern, they are aware of it being corrupted, and that's often a mix of it actually being the case (Wall Street) and conspiracy theories about the Deep State (Fox News).
What might you quibble with in regards to some of my remarks, if I may ask?
everything has to be about why HRC was bad. apparently, you cant say she was bad while simultaneously acknowledging the reality of the election meddling. theyre motivated to ignore everything russia is doing to keep a consistent, anti-clinton narrative. its frustrating
That's clearly not what is meant here then. We're using the term in different ways. I don't recall any Marxist theory that says the working class excludes those with a college degree.
Ofcourse and we have arrived at the standard of this forum, BtB: Blame the Bernie. Seriously, there were more people not voting at all in general than the large majority of Bernie fans that voted for Hillary. Why don't you guys do some introspection and decide on how yo get these people into the voting booths? I mean the gerrymandering and the voter obstruction of racist Goppers cost you more votes than all Bernie fans combined.
Not sure why you think my post was directed at you specifically. The Tankie opposition to US policy and Russia symping doesn't cover just opposing drone strikes, the war in Yemen, Iraq, or whatever. It also includes support for Russia's invasion of Georgia (or at least opposition to US opposition there), support for Russia in Ukraine (or again, opposition to US opposition to that meddling) and stuff that doesn't really have anything to do with innocent civilians being killed and tortured.
Yeah, I'm part of the labor movement so I don't need to be lectured about this, although I would add that people who claim to care so much about the plight of the working class seem to do a lot more bitching about Hillary or Tom Perez or whatever than stuff like organizing. I realize one's a lot easier than the other so it's understandable.
I mean, it's not like Trump didn't have foreign powers working against him. There were open talks in British government about outright banning Trump from entering the country during the election. You don't think that counts as a foreign government directly attempting to influence the race?
HRC was bad but so is every candidate every cycle. If she was, TRUMP was toxic. Yet he won. Obama was the "cleanest" candidate in a while but they still found some skeletons (self-titled skeletons not actual real issues) in his closet.
The problem for the far left mob, it pleases them to see HRC lose even if it is to Trump cause they just can't get over Bernie losing. So even if they acknowledge that yes Russia colluded with Trump and interfered and that is BAD and Trump should be punished for it, they have to keep bringing up HRC and how bad she was.
She won the pop vote and still had a big turnout. At this point, if it was any other R candidate, she probably would have. Trump+Russia was the perfect storm. Adding a "but she was bad" is along the lines of "but her emails..." from Bernie nuts who feel like they won when she lost. Now they are hell-bent on running purity tests on liberals and unless Bernie stamps a candidate as credible, every dem/liberal is a fake, pro-corporation, a war hawk, and not worth voting for.
The problem for the far left mob, it pleases them to see HRC lose even if it is to Trump cause they just can't get over Bernie losing. So even if they acknowledge that yes Russia colluded with Trump and interfered and that is BAD and Trump should be punished for it, they have to keep bringing up HRC and how bad she was.
She won the pop vote and still had a big turnout. At this point, if it was any other R candidate, she probably would have. Trump+Russia was the perfect storm. Adding a "but she was bad" is along the lines of "but her emails..." from Bernie nuts who feel like they won when she lost. Now they are hell-bent on running purity tests on liberals and unless Bernie stamps a candidate as credible, every dem/liberal is a fake, pro-corporation, a war hawk, and not worth voting for.
Eh, a couple minor things. I'm unconvinced Russian meddling played more than a very minor role in driving non-voters or Stein votes (that's mostly on Clinton and her unique baggage), and I think calling it a "stroke of genius" is overselling the sophistication of their efforts somewhat (at least based on what's been reported to date), but YMMV.
You realize every candidate ever faces this issue? It's her job to get those who do turnout to vote for her. Again Russia certainly didn't help things, but good god could she have done better. This should've been a layup and she botched it.
Last election had two of the least liked candidates in history, you can't be surprised that people didn't turn out to vote.
I don't know. I don't take any of these people from these videos you linked seriously. I've seen some videos of Dore and he seemed to parrot discredited sources and conspiracy theories.
On the issue of Russia, there's no doubt they've made concerted efforts to interfere with American life and politics, in much the same way the United States interfered in Russian life and politics in recent history (post-Soviet collapse, Yeltsin period, etc.). No doubt that Putin is a cruel, malevolent authoritarian. But it is interesting how some liberals have a myopic focus on Russia's foreign policy and ignore NATO/US imperialism.
On the topic of voting or not voting for Clinton, Trump, or a third party, I don't know. I'm a Marxist and I don't participate in electoral politics, at least not in the current configurations offered under the US electoral system. Many of Trump's policies are disastrous, but there has been a certain systemic block on his ability to have what he wants. And I think many of Clinton's policies, such as her enthusiasm for war in Syria and staunch support of US imperialism, made her an unpalatable choice. But I choose to not get involved in any of that false dichotomy stuff anyway. I don't view the Democratic Party as a part of the left. In the US, it's a choice between the traditional right wing and far-right populism.
On the issue of Russia, there's no doubt they've made concerted efforts to interfere with American life and politics, in much the same way the United States interfered in Russian life and politics in recent history (post-Soviet collapse, Yeltsin period, etc.). No doubt that Putin is a cruel, malevolent authoritarian. But it is interesting how some liberals have a myopic focus on Russia's foreign policy and ignore NATO/US imperialism.
On the topic of voting or not voting for Clinton, Trump, or a third party, I don't know. I'm a Marxist and I don't participate in electoral politics, at least not in the current configurations offered under the US electoral system. Many of Trump's policies are disastrous, but there has been a certain systemic block on his ability to have what he wants. And I think many of Clinton's policies, such as her enthusiasm for war in Syria and staunch support of US imperialism, made her an unpalatable choice. But I choose to not get involved in any of that false dichotomy stuff anyway. I don't view the Democratic Party as a part of the left. In the US, it's a choice between the traditional right wing and far-right populism.
Last edited:
The horseshoe theory has always been bullshit imo.
Im further to the left than Dore and have never downplayed the Russian involvement, neither have anyone I know who is further to the left than me.
We're not in a academic discussion on Marxism, we're talking about US politics. This is how it's used throughout the vast majority of discourse and in discussing politics and political differences in voting behavior.
The current president who is getting ready for peace talks with North Korea?
I'll believe that when anything is signed.
It's the same WH who claim to sanction Russia despite refusing enforcing existing sanctions.
It's also the same president who bombed Syria as well and spent the better part of last year threatening to send NK back to the stone age.
I was speaking more of their bot attempts and manufacturing support when it came to sticking with Stein or Sanders at the end: they surely tried to fuel up that narrative of "being true left" and not falling for "centrist Clinton", although we can entertain how effective that was.
I'm also unsure on how else we can rephrase their efforts. Didn't Russia get everything they wanted? A pawn in office, expanding social divisions in America to increase tribalism, to have people trust the political system even less? Even with Russia's interference being more aware to the public, those points still get weight, and the last one even moreso. We've had people on this very forum worry if their votes will ultimately matter in 2018 because of possible Russian fuckery, so that's another layer to the "nothing works for us anymore" onion.
What would you call a foreign countries plan to fuck up another country and win? Deceptive? That's part of it. But the fact that deception worked?
I mean, obviously we'll see what happens, but your post seems pretty farfetched given recent events on that front.
I used the term in the Marxist way. If you have a different definition you want to use, go ahead, but just know what I meant when I said it. This is beyond pedantic.
If you're that easily convinced by that kind of stupid manoeuvering, you know little and less about the current situation.
Might as well praise Trump for taking a hard stance and making gun control a reality while you're at it.
If you are taking a statement like that personally, you're missing the point and need to stop thinking that "leftists" are a monolith who are just like you. People are not saying that every far lefty is secretly also a racist nazi when they say something like that. They're saying that a subset with far-left economic views and far-right social views (a la Le Pen.) exists and is where you get the crossover between the two extremes.
No need for the condescending tone with me. As far as knowing little about the current situation, I'm mostly caught up. Trump has actively said from day one that he'd be open to meeting with Kim Jong-Un to talk about peace, so it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up following through with that.
It's funny because talking about LePen she actually drew a lot of ex communists in her fold.
And now her and Mélenchon are basically "exchanging" followers (as in you'll see former FN sympathizer stanning for Les Insoumis).
they're also both very fond of spreading fake news.
And you're going to totally disregard the repeated threats of nuclear war with NK over the last year because?
On top of that why should take into account anything someone who even lies to his allies to their face as anything worth holding to?
If he's willing to lie and BS to the PM of Canada about trade, why do you think he's truthful about peace with NK?
I don't get it. If Russia is working with Trump to affect policy in their favor, and they are uncomfortably close as it is, I definitely want to know. I hope that the investigation fully pans out. I don't know that Russia interfered directly with elections yet by altering voting results or voter registrations but such info could be sensitive and may be premature to let out right now. Whatever, but far be it from me to go to bat for Putin or Trump and demand the heat be taken off them. Is the media focusing to much on this? Maybe, but it's not like they would focus on anything much better than this... in fact they tend to do even worse. Should the media be better? Yes, but the fundamental problems with our media aren't changing soon and the Russian issue is a strange topic to be especially vocal about it. I mean if there's anything the media is going to over emphasize, it might as well be something that bothers Trump greatly and could end up crucifying that slimy little shit.
Actually, he's said from day one that the time for talks is over. His new tone is about a week old (and will probably change next week).
Russia has been implicated in a clear pattern of offering covert support to far right (and other fringe) candidates across the Western world. It's something everyone on the left should be wary of and concerned about.
Oh sure, but let's not act like the bulk was not the tarnished last name of Clinton. Trump created a blue wave, but that man would not have won against anyone else because no one is more despised than Hillary in politics (well besides trump himself)
I totally believe in Russian involvement.
But I don't want to see it 24/7 on the news, especially at the cost of important domestic issues.
Let the investigation go on, report on findings, but realize most voters who decided the election don't give a shit about Russia, I'd rather the focus be on the other terrible things getting no coverage.
When and if the scandal happens, will depend entirely on the conclusion of the ongoing investigation.
But I don't want to see it 24/7 on the news, especially at the cost of important domestic issues.
Let the investigation go on, report on findings, but realize most voters who decided the election don't give a shit about Russia, I'd rather the focus be on the other terrible things getting no coverage.
When and if the scandal happens, will depend entirely on the conclusion of the ongoing investigation.
As someone who looks at this situation from the outside, this whole "Russian connection" or "Russians are behind everything bad that happens in the US and the EU, they're the origin of fake news, murder everyone" etc is presented a bit too much like your standard conspiracy. The Deep State shit and the Little Russians everywhere sound too much alike. Again this is me as an outsider, I don't read US newspapers for the most part.
In hindsight, I think the real issue here is that since Syria has become a proxy war, we've been going back closer and closer to the Cold War climate. I was born in 86 but my family members who were old enough to remember surely say so.
In hindsight, I think the real issue here is that since Syria has become a proxy war, we've been going back closer and closer to the Cold War climate. I was born in 86 but my family members who were old enough to remember surely say so.
People self-identify based on which face they want to put forward and which political aspects they emphasize over others. Political opinions and beliefs (and people) aren't a one-axis scale.
I wonder how much of this talk is orchestrated by HRC people so it was all because of Russian involvement so she can run again in 2020. She is probably one of the few people that could lose to Trump. Maybe the Russians are now pushing the narrative it was all the Russians so HRC will run again and get their boy Trump another term?
Oh I fully believe they tampered with the election. In what manner of to what extent I don't know. What is aggravating is people in the #resistance taking the Russian disinfo campaigns to be the primary factor of Trumps victory which is simple minded at best. What we don't want is for that to be a panacea to remove context of the other more important reasons Trump won.
There's also the hypocritical nature of the Cold War era US doing far worse election meddling far more often
I could more understand the platform of wanting ANYTHING to stick for impeachment though.
There's also the hypocritical nature of the Cold War era US doing far worse election meddling far more often
I could more understand the platform of wanting ANYTHING to stick for impeachment though.
There are people who think the Russia stuff is entirely to blame for HRC losing, and people who think it was mostly irrelevant. Both sets of people are wrong, and are simply trying to protect their preconceived notions.
HRC and the DNC fucked up big time. At the same time, a coordinated, illegal scheme was employed to manipulate the electorate against HRC. There is no way to know where the fatal blow came from, but it is irresponsible to fail to acknowledge the influence of both.
HRC and the DNC fucked up big time. At the same time, a coordinated, illegal scheme was employed to manipulate the electorate against HRC. There is no way to know where the fatal blow came from, but it is irresponsible to fail to acknowledge the influence of both.
Take these thoughts to their logical conclusion and humanity is getting wiped out.
Perhaps all countries shouldn't set their standards by the most evil actions other countries have taken?
Oh, come ON. lol
Nobody would call Le Pen a leftist unless they're trying to smear them.
On some issues you could actually make an argument that she is.
It's still going to be lathered in all kinds of racist BS but still an argument can be made there.
Not really, you can see people like Zemmour calling her that without meaning as a smear.
Still, fuck Zemmour
Heck I don't think Huffpo is necessarily smearing them when they say that FN is the one extreme right wing party with a leftist economical plan
Last edited:
even if i grant you that something like this might have had an influence, that isn't a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of cyber-misinformation allegedly propagated by Russia. There are double-digit football stadiums of facebook grandmas who read assshit madeup stories about Clinton and these stories came right from the kremlin.
That barely scratches the surface of the fuckery. It isn't close to 50-50 regarding the influence of foreign influence.
I'm not calling Le Pen a leftist - I'm saying she doesn't define herself as that, despite an overlap in economic beliefs w/ them. Similar to a self-identified leftist who also has racist beliefs.
We're talking about a subset of both groups here where there's overlap. Not "all leftists are secret Le Pens."
Sure. Point is, she's not at all compatible with the American leftists this thread is about.