Republicans: continued

[Sean Hayden]

You realize the facts support other interpretations Seabass.

"Moscow Mitch"
"Bond villain Russians"

This is pure propaganda.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't disagree, but I would point out again that in a globalised world international agreement and consensus is the only effective means of addressing these matters, and while the US, or any nation, thinks that their national interest outweighs international agreements and conventions then impotent dick-waving and corruption are going to remain a feature of the game.

In terms of sanctions and other international concerns I fully agree that international consensus is vital. However, in the particular example of Russian penetration of the US political system, then it's the US itself that needs to wake up and sort out the issue.

As does every so-called Western democracy.

[Brian Peacock]

...
We are in desperate need of a reboot and scraping of the status quo.

[Sean Hayden]

If anything, the Democrats’ (extremely in-character) insistence on painting this as a National Security Issue downplays the political salience of pointing out that electoral chaos simply serves partisan Republican ends. McConnell is not acting out of secret allegiance to a foreign despot, but out of the much more traditional, and traditionally American, allegiance to making it difficult for certain classes and communities to vote. If he doesn’t like “Moscow Mitch” (and I don’t, either), might I suggest Mitch Crow.

Hey, found someone not peddling the Russian angle! That's not easy to do, well okay, it was, but still it's a minority opinion from what I've seen. I'm not saying I agree with it, just providing an alternative interpretation of the facts --the lazy way.

edit: https://newrepublic.com/article/154566/ ... -integrity

[Joe]

If anything, the Democrats’ (extremely in-character) insistence on painting this as a National Security Issue downplays the political salience of pointing out that electoral chaos simply serves partisan Republican ends. McConnell is not acting out of secret allegiance to a foreign despot, but out of the much more traditional, and traditionally American, allegiance to making it difficult for certain classes and communities to vote. If he doesn’t like “Moscow Mitch” (and I don’t, either), might I suggest Mitch Crow.

Hey, found someone not peddling the Russian angle! That's not easy to do, well okay, it was, but still it's a minority opinion from what I've seen. I'm not saying I agree with it, just providing an alternative interpretation of the facts --the lazy way.

edit: https://newrepublic.com/article/154566/ ... -integrity

I've heard that angle from a couple of sources, most notably the Slate Political gabfest.Regardless of the motivation, we are probably left open to foreign meddling in our elections, and not only from Russia. As you've mentioned, there's some poetic justice in this and it isn't the first time, but it's troubling to see our government's impotence, whatever the motivation.

[Sean Hayden]

Again Joe, without a government that can be held accountable I don't think you should be talking about the risks posed by Russians.

I am not merely out to whine about all the wrong we've done. It must make some sense to you guys? --right? What do they say, making the same mistakes over and over again is insanity?

[Seabass]

You realize the facts support other interpretations Seabass.

"Moscow Mitch"
"Bond villain Russians"

This is pure propaganda.

What's not open to interpretation is the fact that a Russian oligarch/Putin henchman now has leverage over Kentucky lawmakers. What Oleg giveth, Oleg can taketh away. Whether that's worth those Kentucky aluminum jobs is a matter of opinion. I'm obviously in the "hell no, what in god's name are you people thinking" column.

[Sean Hayden]

No, that is open to interpretation. You are providing the sinister slant. The leverage need not extend into matters that would compromise either National Security or Kentucky folk.

[JimC]

No, that is open to interpretation. You are providing the sinister slant. The leverage need not extend into matters that would compromise either National Security or Kentucky folk.

"need not" does not mean "cannot"...

[Sean Hayden]

Oh please. Jesus, just board up the windows and lock the doors already.

[JimC]

How much is Putin paying you, Sean?

[Tero]

"You give those Democrats election security, next they'll get rid of the Electoral College!"

[Sean Hayden]

Nothing unfortunately Jim, but I'm dropping some big hints eh?

[Seabass]

No, that is open to interpretation. You are providing the sinister slant. The leverage need not extend into matters that would compromise either National Security or Kentucky folk.

No, it's not open to interpretation. He has the leverage and that is a fact. Whether he uses it in the future remains to be seen, but he has it. That's just a statement of fact. If he can yank the money out, he has leverage. That's how leverage works.

Seriously, did you read the articles that I linked? This is apparently part of a pattern that Russia uses to manipulate politics in other countries. According to one of the articles, they've done it in 19 European countries.

[Sean Hayden]

You're providing the sinister slant. If you intended to say that you'd rather not give anyone other than Americans leverage than you should have said that. But you didn't. You said you didn't want Russia to have this leverage.

The sinister slant is attached to Russia. Just like it is attached to Muslims by the right whenever they need a bogeyman, and some Arab wants to buy up an American company.

Yes, I read the articles before I responded the first time.

Are you going to acknowledge the problem you have in talking about threats from the rest of the world from a position of having been wrong about so many "threats", and never being held accountable, or not?