Russian Influence on U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

How about Trump's Nazi-in-the-shadows, Steve Bannon? He was the sinister character who had snuck into the Muslim ban the attempt to also keep out permanent residents, and those with green cards. Methinks there is something racial about this.

I don't know too much about him outside of yours and cyberdad's obsession with him, which seems equal to you guys being obsessed with writing the word "Nazi". Which has little meaning to me considering the vast number of Democrats and Republicans I've seen being called a Nazi.

It seems to me that leftists, especially SJW's, are the ones who focus the most on race, religion and gender. I figure that's why it's okay to be phobic of Russia since they're white of Christian origin and the main focus is on their white male president. I don't see any critical thinking in much of any of this, just a mindset.

But anyways, I'll look into Bannon. Looking for hard cold facts, while disregarding hearsay, rumors, innuendo, accusations and the like.

The undeniable facts about him are that he, as the former editor of Breitbart, had allowed that site to be used by Alt Right white nationalists, had had an all black crime section in Breitbart, and has spoken about limiting non-white immigration into the country, just to name a few things that's earned him the designation of Nazi. Try looking at some unbiased - or God forbid - even liberal sources about Bannon, rather than just conservative ones.

Okay so Bannon as editor of Breitbart didn't deny the "alt-right" freedom of speech. So we're all for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, unless it's Breitbart and the "alt-right. They are to keep silent and anyone associated with them is a "Nazi" this that and the other ______phobe. Typical leftist control agenda.

So what earned Obama, Clinton and even Sanders the designation of Nazi? How can anyone not see how completely worthless the Nazi designation has become? It's like who isn't a Nazi?

Try looking up some unbiased sources? What else would I look up in making an objective decision based on fact? Of course I'll also want to hear a little bit of right spin and a little bit of left spin. My guess is that I'm not going to find anything particularly remarkable. Which would explain the desperate need to generate as much sensationalism as possible.

Are you saying the US needs to be bribed to do the right thing?

So American foreign policy is just a huge protection racket: Nice economy you got there. Be a shame if someone came along and wrecked it. With the right incentives, we can guarantee that "someone" won't be us.

You shouldn't fear Russia, except that Putin is blackmailing your president. That's their only card, really.


I'm sure, but there was no alternative.

Washington Post: Justice Department warned White House that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials say




What is the right thing? And if anything, I'm saying Trump is being blackmailed to America's detriment. I'm not sure where bribery comes into it.

I know you probably meant this as a rhetorical question, but I figure I'll try to answer it anyway.

I don't know about Sanders, but Obama and Clinton are Identitarians, and as such:

I. They believe in identity politics, which defines people in terms of a biologically based "identity". They say these "identities" are culturally constructed, but as can be seen in the case of Rachel Dolezal, that's a load of crap because biology obviously trumps culture.

The historical Nazis used colored triangles to represent an individual "identity", with those having more than a single identity represented by intersecting triangles. While the modern Nazis haven't yet started requiring everyone to wear an equivalent of the colored triangles to make it easy to see what "identities" they are, they've laid the foundations, to it would only be a formality to assign shapes and colors to the "identities".

II. They reject reason, preferring to emphasis emotion, considering that more authentic.
The historical Nazis also rejected reason, preferring more mystical sources of knowledge, such as blood and instinct.

III. They blame all the ills of the world on a biologically defined group, who they dismiss as "deplorables".
Do I really need to spell out the parallel with the historical Nazis?

IV. They reject debate and freedom of speech as a way to resolve political issues, preferring to use street violence to shut down those they disagree with. The historical Nazis had the brownshirts, the modern ones have the black bloc. Both groups are, of course, separate from the main body, so their actions can be publicly frowned up, without actually being condemned — "I'm usually opposed to street violence, but the target was [insert disfavored group], so in this case..."

There are also a number of significant differences. The historical Nazis spoke German. And they had snazzy uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. So, if you look at it that way, they're nothing like the historical Nazis at all.

Enough with the Nazi stuff already! Whether or not current events resemble those of the past is irrelevant to how things will proceed now.

Only according to the CIA who:

I. Have a track record of just making stuff up, which is why you never get anything in the way of evidence to support their assertions;

II. Apparently think they are the Praetorian Guard and should have veto power over who gets to be president.

Unless, of course, you're condemning Trump or Russia, in which case history is apparently an infallible guide on how things will proceed, and something we should take serious warning from.

Not destroying other countries with sanctions, invasions, drone strikes, etc.

Seriously, someone needs to explain that to you?


You asked "what's in it for America?". Why does there need to be anything in it for America? Most of us do the right thing just because it's the right thing, not because there's something in it for us — other than the knowledge we did the right thing. When you encounter someone for whom that's not enough and they ask "What's in it for me?", they're clearly soliciting some sort of inducement or bribe.

Why is befriending Russia the right thing?

The idea of blackmail here is absolutely preposterous, that's not the real worry of the military industrial complex. Flynn was not a neoconservative or imperialist crusader so he had to go in the eyes of the deep state. People concerned with scoring touchdowns against Trump are foolishly led astray by our fascist deep state, they have no idea how they are being manipulated. People that want war with Russia are sick in the head, how could anybody want another Cold War?

For me it's just been a matter of entering someone's name into a search engine, followed by, is a Nazi, and then seeing all the article titles making the accusation. With Sanders it was "Nazi like". I guess they didn't want to go as far as directly accusing a Jew of being a Nazi.

So what's your take on bogeyman Steve Bannon?

What are you talking about?


Why do you think we are headed towards any kind of war with Russia? It's not war or best buddies - there's an in-between. And why do you keep going on about a cold war? This has been going on for decades; there is nothing new here, except that Trump is behaving suspiciously. And Flynn, well he didn't just act on his own. I wonder who could have told him to contact Russia?

Because the Tom Clancy days are over with and Russia would be a very powerful ally against actual enemies of the US.