• Putin: US 'hysteria' over Russia is a ploy to distract voters from failings in US election
    31 replies, posted
[quote]President Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused American politicians of whipping up hysteria about a mythical Russian threat as a ploy to distract voters from their own failings in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election. Putin, addressing an audience of foreign policy experts gathered in southern Russia, repeatedly lashed out at the Obama administration, saying it did not keep its word on Syria, did not honour deals, and had falsely accused Moscow of all manner of sins. The U.S. government has formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organisations, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has accused Republican rival Donald Trump of being a Putin "puppet". Putin said he found it hard to believe that anyone seriously thought Moscow was capable of influencing the Nov. 8 election. "Hysteria has been whipped up," said Putin. He said that was a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control. "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? Is America a banana republic or what? America is a great power." In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed Putin’s remarks as predictable and said the United States stood by its hacking allegations. "There's nothing that President Putin had to say today that I find particularly surprising or that in any way undermines the president's confidence in the analysis that's been released by the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence community,” said Earnest. Russian state TV and some of his past comments have suggested the Russian leader favours Trump, but Putin said he did not back any candidate in the U.S. election and was ready to work with any new U.S. president and to discuss any issue. Asked about Trump, whom he once described as "very talented," Putin said the Republican candidate was deliberately adopting a showy style because he wanted to get his message across and that he represented ordinary voters fed up with the U.S. political elite. "He has chosen a method to get through to voters' hearts," said Putin. "He behaves extravagantly of course, we see this, but I think there's a reason for this." Putin dismissed suggestions by some politicians in the West that Russia is poised to attack another country or intervene elsewhere in the Middle East apart from Syria. Such talk was designed to exaggerate the threat that Russia posed, he said, in order for certain countries to secure higher military spending and talk up their own importance. He said Russia was not planning to attack anyone.[/quote] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-putin-idUSKCN12R1W6?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews[/url]
[quote]Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? Is America a banana republic or what? America is a great power.[/quote] Standard rhetoric trick to get people to believe you. Play up their egos to make them frame you better in their minds [quote]Asked about Trump, whom he once described as "very talented," Putin said the Republican candidate was deliberately adopting a showy style because he wanted to get his message across and that he represented ordinary voters fed up with the U.S. political elite. "He has chosen a method to get through to voters' hearts," said Putin. "He behaves extravagantly of course, we see this, but I think there's a reason for this." [/quote] aaaand here we can see Putin playing up trump's own ego because he knows how manipulable he is, and will be if elected.
He isn't wrong though...
He is wrong, Clinton has stances on every issue he mentioned, and trump has multiple stances on everything he's mentioned. Not to mention that despite common belief, the national debt isn't really a problem -at all-. Take a single look at the current geopolitical climate and you'll see why NOBODY would let the US default. Edit: Clinton's fiscal plan will actually BALANCE the budget. Trump's will plunge us up to [B]SIX FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS[/B] in debt.
Honestly, Hillary is probably whats going to push us over the cliff with Russia and our relationship. The Democrats need to stop with their Republican 180s when they try to pass themselves off as the anti-war party, and then turn around and go full warhawk mode.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51272414]Honestly, Hillary is probably whats going to push us over the cliff with Russia and our relationship. The Democrats need to stop with their Republican 180s when they try to pass themselves off as the anti-war party, and then turn around and go full warhawk mode.[/QUOTE] Why in the world would Hillary try to start a war with Russia She's not a thin skinned egomaniac like her opposition.
Putin, the grandmaster of ironic statements.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51272414]Honestly, Hillary is probably whats going to push us over the cliff with Russia and our relationship. The Democrats need to stop with their Republican 180s when they try to pass themselves off as the anti-war party, and then turn around and go full warhawk mode.[/QUOTE] do you think if hillary calmed down and went the appeasement route, russia would be like "golly geesh america, you're so nice now, we're going to stop our expansionist policies"? this entire situation between US & Russia is fair game, both countries has done terrible shit & done their part to destabilize the world in order to expand influence their own influence while limiting their opposition. trump will cause mistrust and make NATO weak which putin absolutely adores so he can simply roll over europe with limited US & western influence clinton will bodycheck putin move-for-move with aggressive foreign policies with things such as no-fly zones and worsen the the relationship either one is not good for US-Russia relationship in the long term; one powers the opposition too much, one aggravates the opposition too much.
[QUOTE=MR-X;51272396]He isn't wrong though...[/QUOTE] Yes he is
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51272414]Honestly, Hillary is probably whats going to push us over the cliff with Russia and our relationship. The Democrats need to stop with their Republican 180s when they try to pass themselves off as the anti-war party, and then turn around and go full warhawk mode.[/QUOTE] And Republicans need to stop being hypocritical that we need to be strong and hold up our red line in the sand against Assad, only to switch and say we shouldn't push back against a dictator who's annexing sovereign nations, bombing civilians, and trying to [I]keep[/I] Assad in power.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51272436]do you think if hillary calmed down and went the appeasement route, russia would be like "golly geesh america, you're so nice now, we're going to stop our expansionist policies"?[/QUOTE] Funny thing is Obama tried that with his Russian Reset, and for a few years relations did improve. But it was too optimistic, Putin invaded Crimea and started a proxy war in Ukraine. Russian officials then complained the Reset failed because the US sanctioned them for annexing Crimea. A reset is impossible as long as Russia continues to invade their neighbors.
[QUOTE]He said Russia was not planning to attack anyone.[/QUOTE] :quotes:
[QUOTE=MR-X;51272396]He isn't wrong though...[/QUOTE] So, you don't believe that the Russian government has been involved in this election at all? [QUOTE=ScottyWired;51272526]:quotes:[/QUOTE] It's true! Russia has been demilitarizing for a while. Their new focus has been the tourism industry. Have you seen their new mascot? [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Z0K8xLj.jpg[/img_thumb] The little green man would love to visit your local area. Learn about its history, see the sights, make new friends, etc.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51272457]And Republicans need to stop being hypocritical that we need to be strong and hold up our red line in the sand against Assad, only to switch and say we shouldn't push back against a dictator who's annexing sovereign nations, bombing civilians, and trying to [I]keep[/I] Assad in power.[/QUOTE] You mean the redline made by the Democrat president and his administration? And honestly, every side is using chemical weapons. Al Nursa has used sarin on numerous government positions and government-held cities, FSA uses them in terror attacks, and ISIS is manufacturing chem weapons in Mosul, Raqqa, and Bab. It is just another vector of the horrors of this conflict. If you really wanna get preachy about "needing to stop chemical weapon attacks!" we should be trying to organize [I]with Assad and Russia[/I] to remove the weapons from non-state parties. The state parties we can at least fine, sanction, and attempt to reconcile with in the name of the victims... You cannot reconcile with some crazed fuck running around with a Kalashnikov and Hell Cannon. As far as the whole Clinton plan of "establishing a no-fly zone" "getting rid of Assad" goes, all of those are lovely on paper, but when you try to put them into action, we'll end up only causing far more death and destruction. Also you know why Russia doesn't trust us with no-fly zones? Because the last time we did it, in Libya, we ended up taking an offensive role and pretty much won the war for the rebels, by bombing everything to kingdom come. That is why, they do not want a no-fly zone in Syria. Because they know it meas we'll inevitably help the crazed Islamist in winning the war. Even if we do not help those crazed bastards, we will most certainly be involved with helping Turkey and it's little Euphrates Shield excursion, and will be indirectly supplying ATGMs, weapons, ammo, among other things to them. So how does this actually play in reality? Well... Russia will clearly enforce the no-fly zone on their side of affairs, and will shoot down any aircraft traveling over Syria, the ground war in Syria will turn into an artillery war with both sides trying to dislodge each other from a stalemate with tons of artillery, and finally the war as already mentioned will enter a neverending stalemate which will most likely create more death and suffering. Oh did I forget to mention that both sides will be more likely to use chemical weapons in this type of thing? Because stalemates tend to end in fortifications, and without aircraft, you are left to dislodging combatants through other means. [QUOTE=Radical_ed;51272430]Why in the world would Hillary try to start a war with Russia She's not a thin skinned egomaniac like her opposition.[/QUOTE] Shit, I don't know. Maybe because she openly has stated along with her party's line that they want to openly engage the Syrian Army, who is currently being protected by it's ally, Russia. She also has stated that we should directly interfere with Russian and Syrian efforts by enacting a no-fly zone, which would clearly help the rebels by amputating a military arm. It's not hard to see what Hillary already aims to do!
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51272653]Shit, I don't know. Maybe because she openly has stated along with her party's line that they want to openly engage the Syrian Army, who is currently being protected by it's ally, Russia. She also has stated that we should directly interfere with Russian and Syrian efforts by enacting a no-fly zone, which would clearly help the rebels by amputating a military arm. It's not hard to see what Hillary already aims to do![/QUOTE] yeah, she's aiming to try limit russian influence on the middle east. if you haven't noticed, putin has been swinging his dick in the last decade to grow russia's party to make up for his shitty economy and solidify his power over certain regions. can you get out of your echo chamber ( aka 4chan /pol/ sg ) and not look at this situation so naively? there is no good guys in this situation; this is a continuation of the cold war, both US & RUS are taking turns putting on the condom and fucking syria & middle east in general in the ass. and you know what? it'll be happening for a very long time cause its fair game unless putin's favorite candidate gets elected so he can do whatever he want without consequences. but to saying appeasing the russians or simply letting them solidify their control over syria will be good for the US in the long-term is fucking insane lol. you're telling our allies we lost our set of balls and is completely willing to let the russians do what they want from here on out.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51272436] trump will cause mistrust and make NATO weak which putin absolutely adores so he can simply roll over europe with limited US & western influence [/QUOTE] NATO Without the US is still more than capable in stopping Russia from invading. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Military_Strength_Index[/url]
[QUOTE=taipan;51272780]NATO Without the US is still more than capable in stopping Russia from invading. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Military_Strength_Index[/url][/QUOTE] However US is only country that keeps NATO together. Without US, Germany alone would completely sabotage NATO and make it useless like EU is.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51272847]Without US, Germany alone would completely sabotage NATO and make it useless like EU is.[/QUOTE] I don't know if Germany would be to blame, but unless we step up our game, an EU-Russia war would end up pretty ugly. The EU being politically fragmented aside (I just can't see Greek conscripts willing to die to protect Poland or Hungary and vice versa), it'd be a couple of big militaries which have their own issues and a bunch of tiny ones trying to provide a co-ordinated response. Not that Russia would ever be able to occupy anything but a tiny part of European territory, but I think that the EU might underperform either way.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51272713]yeah, she's aiming to try limit russian influence on the middle east. if you haven't noticed, putin has been swinging his dick in the last decade to grow russia's party to make up for his shitty economy and solidify his power over certain regions. can you get out of your echo chamber ( aka 4chan /pol/ sg ) and not look at this situation so naively? there is no good guys in this situation; this is a continuation of the cold war, both US & RUS are taking turns putting on the condom and fucking syria & middle east in general in the ass. and you know what? it'll be happening for a very long time cause its fair game unless putin's favorite candidate gets elected so he can do whatever he want without consequences. but to saying appeasing the russians or simply letting them solidify their control over syria will be good for the US in the long-term is fucking insane lol. you're telling our allies we lost our set of balls and is completely willing to let the russians do what they want from here on out.[/QUOTE] Dude, Russia has been Syria's ally since the USSR days. This isn't some echo chamber, it's a simple fact of world politics, they have always been best of buds. Russia's interest in Syria is maintaining an airbase and warm water port, which they have operated since I think the late 1960's. Syria for the most part is perfectly content with this because it keeps other powers in the Middle East at check, namely the Saudis and Israel. It's a win/win relationship for the two of them. What you are suggesting is that Russia shouldn't have any form of relationship with the Middle East, yet us Americans can have over twenty bases in the Middle East at all times for "regional security" which makes no goddamn sense considering we have been stirring the pot for some time now. The only real reason for us to be in the Middle East at this moment in time is our obligations to Afghanistan and Iraq. Which as of the moment this post was made, we are currently aiding the Iraqis by helping them retake Mosul, and rooting out ISIS from their country. Ya' know... The same fucking thing the Russians are doing, but with Syria and it's Al Nursa/ISIS/Turkmen problem. As for our allies - We hold obligations to help [I]NATO[/I] and other alliances we belong to. Nothing more, nothing less. We cannot be the ones always footing the bill though. Eventually, we need to downgrade our own military, and go back to worrying about our own soil, not the soil of every other country. The fact our NATO allies for the most part lack any sort of military backbone is pitiful. If they cannot at least field 100,000+ combined military force[Navy, Air Force, Army, ect], they are severely downplaying their obligations to the alliance.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51272847]However US is only country that keeps NATO together. Without US, Germany alone would completely sabotage NATO and make it useless like EU is.[/QUOTE] Why would Germany sabotage the NATO? How is the EU useless?
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;51272526]:quotes:[/QUOTE] well yeah, Russia can't attack anyone if the rest of the world is also Russia
The last thing we need is for Vladimir "107%" Putin to tell us how to run an election
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51273133]Dude, Russia has been Syria's ally since the USSR days. This isn't some echo chamber, it's a simple fact of world politics, they have always been best of buds. Russia's interest in Syria is maintaining an airbase and warm water port, which they have operated since I think the late 1960's. Syria for the most part is perfectly content with this because it keeps other powers in the Middle East at check, namely the Saudis and Israel. It's a win/win relationship for the two of them. What you are suggesting is that Russia shouldn't have any form of relationship with the Middle East, yet us Americans can have over twenty bases in the Middle East at all times for "regional security" which makes no goddamn sense considering we have been stirring the pot for some time now. The only real reason for us to be in the Middle East at this moment in time is our obligations to Afghanistan and Iraq. Which as of the moment this post was made, we are currently aiding the Iraqis by helping them retake Mosul, and rooting out ISIS from their country. Ya' know... The same fucking thing the Russians are doing, but with Syria and it's Al Nursa/ISIS/Turkmen problem. As for our allies - We hold obligations to help [I]NATO[/I] and other alliances we belong to. Nothing more, nothing less. We cannot be the ones always footing the bill though. Eventually, we need to downgrade our own military, and go back to worrying about our own soil, not the soil of every other country. The fact our NATO allies for the most part lack any sort of military backbone is pitiful. If they cannot at least field 100,000+ combined military force[Navy, Air Force, Army, ect], they are severely downplaying their obligations to the alliance.[/QUOTE] how do you casually chin up and go mention "simple fact of world politics" then disregard it entirely as if you're playing a round of civ? as long putin is in control of russia and he continues to maintain aggressive & expansionist policies, its in uncle sam's interest to bodycheck him move for move. if that means supporting what we perceive to be more moderate & anti-assad forces, then so be it. you cannot seriously say that russian solidification of power wherever or historical it may be is in our best interest. its absolutely laughable that you support trump whose one of primary messages is to 'make america first', but perfectly willing to let russia consolidate power, have our leader threaten to break up our alliances, and pretend it won't be bad for us in the long run. and your simplification of NATO to the point looking down on them as if they're bunch of parasites is seriously concerning. you're acting as if we benefit absolutely nothing from the alliance and we're being bled dry; that'd we'd be in tip top economic shape if not for NATO's evil parasitic tactics! let's 100% forget important benefits we get off the alliance, such as [URL="http://www.oecd.org/statistics/datalab/oda-recipient-sector.htm"]allowing other nations to focus hosting MORE burdens of refugees other than us[/URL] , [URL="http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/apr16_1.pdf"]stationing more peacekeepers so we don't have to[/URL] , [URL="http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Russia/sanctions-after-crimea-have-they-worked/EN/index.htm"]face the brunt of sanctions against russia against their actions[/URL] ( not counting sanctions against Iran as well), and generally acting as a shield to push Russia back if they feel a little touchy, touchy. NATO does more for us and we benefit more from staying in even if they pay up what we want because[URL="http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-nato"] what we get in return is more beneficial[/URL]. do you really think russia interfering with the election in support of trump is them being bored? russia has SO MUCH to gain from NATO being unstable and us SO MUCH to lose from it.
lmao, he actually said the government HERE is trying to distract people from the real issues gripping our country? hahahaha this is the guy who made mesothelioma delisted from cancer databases so its no longer a traceable problem, this is the guy whos building billion dollar nuclear weapons programs while their economy has gone down the toilet and out to sea, this is the guy whos used the specter of the west to intimidate people into not standing up against his attempts to rebuild a russian empire [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51272414]Honestly, Hillary is probably whats going to push us over the cliff with Russia and our relationship. The Democrats need to stop with their Republican 180s when they try to pass themselves off as the anti-war party, and then turn around and go full warhawk mode.[/QUOTE] russia is the one thats going to push us over the edge. the rhetoric on the campaign trail is more firey that what she will actually do because she has been in the obama office, she will probably have much of obamas staff still afterwards and more to the point what choice has russia given us in recent years, theyve started one war of outright aggression against ukraine and theyve greatly escalated a massive humanitarian crisis in the middle east thats hurting everyone but russia
The best lie is one that is entirely true... putin obviously read 'the prince' and took it to heart. He isn't wrong, but its hard to make the claim that he is not just saying this to better his personal position... its win win for him really, and its all the US's fault for giving him this munition in the first place.
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51272406]He is wrong, Clinton has stances on every issue he mentioned, and trump has multiple stances on everything he's mentioned. Not to mention that despite common belief, the national debt isn't really a problem -at all-. Take a single look at the current geopolitical climate and you'll see why NOBODY would let the US default. Edit: Clinton's fiscal plan will actually BALANCE the budget. Trump's will plunge us up to [B]SIX FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS[/B] in debt.[/QUOTE]You might need a tutor in politics and policies. Clinton's plans will make our debt go up further. It hasn't gone down since Bush started raising it. The Democrats are obviously doing something wrong.
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;51273498]You might need a tutor in politics and policies. Clinton's plans will make our debt go up further. It hasn't gone down since Bush started raising it. The Democrats are obviously doing something wrong.[/QUOTE] Considering the Republicans have controlled congress for a while it isn't only the Democrats fault.
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;51273498]You might need a tutor in politics and policies. Clinton's plans will make our debt go up further. It hasn't gone down since Bush started raising it. The Democrats are obviously doing something wrong.[/QUOTE] Plans, like everything else, cost money, whether you happen to be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. You need to spend money to make money, and that's the first basic rule of business. Or in this case, you need to shore up a system that's pretty heavily stacked against the less well off and the middle class voters especially when it comes to their day to day expenses, medical care, education costs, and so forth. A report published by the CRFB has stated that debt is at 14 trillion bucks right now. The problem is, they also said that neither Clinton nor Trump has a good plan of bringing this debt to manageable levels barring extreme measures. This debt is also projected to fly all the way up to a 150% increase in 2050. This same report also says that Clinton's plans will cost 200-250 billion $. Dolan Trump's plans will cost $5.3 trillion fucking dollars. The numbers speak for themselves. Trump also plans on massive budget cuts and austerity measures to find the money for his pipe dreams, oops, perfect plans, in addition to breaking a number of bilateral trade deals and sinking several avenues of free trade, making the country even poorer than it would be at that moment in time. [url]http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/Promises_and_Price_Tags_Preliminary_Update.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=taipan;51272780]NATO Without the US is still more than capable in stopping Russia from invading. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Military_Strength_Index[/url][/QUOTE] NATO [B]with[/B] the US wouldn't prevent Russia from reaching the capitals of neighboring countries within 60 hours
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51273619]NATO [B]with[/B] the US wouldn't prevent Russia from reaching the capitals of neighboring countries within 60 hours[/QUOTE] Nope it will not. Whats your point?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.