I wager that Nola doesn't believe that there is no increase in Russia concern lately. I wager that he doesn't believe that there's been no increase of negative views of Russia in social media. He doesn't believe that public concern over Russia has stayed the same.
That's my insight. He can say I'm wrong.
Don't move goalposts toilet.[/qutote]
I didn't.
You inferred that Democrats took a position of disconcern and even tolerance of Russia and Russia's actions Pre-Trump. Implying a flip flop. Inferring, I assume, a heavy prevalence of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" being the driving factor?..As the talking point goes.
Though if you re-read what I said, I didn't say the left is devoid of that sort of partisan driven flip flopping, mindless partisan loyalty, irrational hyperbole, or moral relativity, only that you might want to keep in mind that the left is still trailing the right by a pretty good margin in those departments. So you might want to think more carefully about jumping down the well of the Right's ongoing collective Freudian projection about the left. Since it doesn't seem to be nearly as present as the rhetoric commands. The whole "glass houses and stones" angle.
But to your new point, sure, there is definitely a general heightening of concern on the left toward Russia. But why shouldn't there be? I know polls will show that the left used to think Russia was not the greatest geopolitical threat, but they didn't think they were benign flowers either. But you know current events change people's calculus. And I think a country that engages in an escalation of asymmetric espionage, including possible collusion with a president's campaign, with the overarching goal of destabilizing the western alliances and pushing the world toward a more 19th century real politik arrangement with Russia expanding its influence, justifies a calculus restructuring....then on the other hand, you have the right in the face of that going "maybe he's not that bad of a guy this Putin fella?"
It's my old point. My point was that the sudden interest in Russia is heavily sourced by a political party's needs, rather than in Russia itself. I have great doubt about the Russia ties being anything more than normal for people of popularity and power, at least in the manner that they are making Trump their puppet. As much as right wing media would have tried to push it, I don't think you get this level of intensity over our leaders Saudi interests and Saudi's influence.
I am not sure what went on is that exceptional. You see, America does this stuff to other countries. Russia has probably tried to hack us before. I am sure they've made hacking attempts, as has China and other powers. I assume that the major players are all engaged in cyberwarfare at this point.
I do distrust it because this "Russia is a threat" narrative served the DNC's political needs. It first showed up as a distraction from what was in the wikileaks, and it didn't help them then. They let it go for awhile and then brought it back full force. (They = press/reps/ppl involved/shit like the mediamatters leak)
Say there's success in ousting Trump. Do you believe we'll still focus on Russia or will we let them fade out of the news? Do we actually care that much right now with what Putin is doing on the Ukraine border? No, it's heavily centered around Trump with Putin as the boogeyman.
It's not about a flip-flop in people liking Putin. It's about the intensity of focus and mental occupation upon Russia that was not there before and which I doubt will exist afterwards, even though most of Putin's ill deeds will remain in action.
See, I originally said, many pages back, that a federal source claimed Rich was the DNC wikileak source, and that it sounds like Trump was incompetent at the job. Basically, I was open to the idea that Seth Rich was the leaker and that Trump isn't qualified. Actually, I always thought Trump wasn't qualified, so that's confirmation bias on my part. However, I severely underestimated the significance of Seth Rich for other people's confirmation bias. If Rich is the leak, then the whole Russia thing starts to tumble apart at its root, because the root was that wikileaks got the info from Russian hackers and are acting as Russian agents.
However, that theory would require the same wikileaks that hurt the Bush admin and Republicans, and helped Obama into office in some way, to suddenly have its existence be invested in massive attempts to undermine the DNC. You have to buy that propaganda to give no thought to Assange's inference that Rich was the leak after his death. That triggered people into their normal irrational character attacks on me and it took me pages of dragging it out to see why: Rich fucks up everything if he's the leak.
