First, let’s clarify terms. The word “regime change” is more typically used to refer to the complete overthrow of a government, generally due to an invasion or some kind of direct intervention. I would not ever use the term regime change to refer to a democratic process, as in “the U.K. just had a regime change,” because there was no foriegn direct intervention to do so and the change in leadership was fully in keeping with the way the British government is expected to work.
Second, I think you’re using the term “regime change” in an explicit attempt to be provocative. I’m not doubting your sincerity at all, but just because countries would prefer to see other countries have different leaders doesn’t mean it’s Iraq all over again. I think it is misleading and counterproductive to use this loaded term. “The US Government thinks Duterte is a disaster” is not sufficient basis to conclude “the US Government calls for regime change in the Philippines.”
Third, I think Putin is a huge danger and would love to see him go because Russians get fed up with him harming their country someday. That doesn’t mean I support an invasion or a U.S.-sponsored coup. At the same time, I have zero problems with sanctions on Russian leaders who are intentionally bombing hospitals, invading their neighbors, messing with our elections, etc. Who the US does business with is our business, and the implication that we are doing something wrong by choosing not to enrich these tyrants is… anti-libertarian? That’s probably a good word for it.
Fourth, I continue to be mystified by this conspiracy theory that Victoria Nuland is running around overthrowing governments in Europe. It’s like 9-11 truther level of nonsense to me. The whole idea that she’s a puppet master because she said “I like these guys and not those guys” has been twisted to the point that some must consider me to be an NFL coach on the basis that I chose to start Carlos Hyde in my fantasy league and he had an awesome game last week.
It seems pretty clear that at least some of the information being posted has been tampered with, very likely by the Russian government for propaganda purposes.
And you trust the Russian government to take the information they stole and regurgitate it back unaltered…or do you just not give a shit about it’s accuracy as long as it does damage to your political enemies and you can claim “ignorance” if things go sour?
Just seen on Twitter some new ‘leak’ that indicates Clinton said last year she is ‘beginning to hate ordinary Americans’ or somesuch. What’s the Straight Dope?
She hates the phrase. Actual sentence is “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,”
Even Daily Caller has headline “Leaked Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Hates The Phrase ‘Everyday Americans’”
If the Russian Government released these stolen government emails directly, instead of through Wiki Leaks, would they be as acceptable to those who wish to see the Democrats harmed?
Russia is actively using its propaganda and cyber assets to threaten the stability and safety of the United States by undermining our electoral system. This is already an act of war, in my opinion. Yes, Russia can fight back. We can fight back too. While I’m no more eager for fighting between Russia and America than any other sane person, endlessly overlooking Russia’s ongoing Cold War activities and tip-toeing around their provocations does nothing but invite more attacks.
I don’t want to fight Russia in any sort of war, hot, cold or indifferent. But America can’t be afraid to fight Russia if we have to, or else we risk losing our ability to fight and protect ourselves and our allies.
2.Will Farnaby, in the post to which I was replying, suggested that it was good for Americans to hear what those in power in are doing, ignoring the fact that Russia has been caught repeatedly lying about what American leaders are doing - therefore hearing about it from Russia is not a matter of learning any sort of important self-truth.
But then Will repeatedly talks about how he wants to undermine America, so that’s really not a surprise that wants America to be swayed by Russian propaganda.
A reasonable person? I’m a reasonable person … I don’t like wiki leaks, but it is getting more and more impossible to do a search for any information on anything without going to that web site. If you don’t have time that is to go elsewhere.
If you watch NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN or Fox can you be considered a reasonable person?
They don’t just report the news anymore they sift it, analyze it and slant it.
A reasonable person, like me, comes over here to SD to see what ya’ll think even though most of you are Hillary supporters I love you anyway.
the most “shocking” thing is that HRC has a different position on open borders and trade then she espoused during the primary run. Well no shit.
I read a ton of these boring ass emails and I didn’t see her once degrade a woman, Muslim, immigrant, men, disabled people, secretly support the birther movement, no curse words, nothing… just some things in which she said one thing during a primary and another 3 years ago in a private speech.
Either her position changed on the issues, or she still supports open borders and trade and said she didn’t to get more votes then Bernie. Still don’t see an issue.
Just a big copy-and-paste of a Newsweek article. (This one, updated link.) An article that defends Hillary Clinton and excoriates the Benghazi investigations. Nothing remotely scandalous.
So there was a hugely misleading article about this email on the Russian site called sputniknews.com. The article has been removed, but right now you can still see it by typing this Google query in its entirety:
Hillary Confidante: Benghazi was “Preventable,” State Department Negligent site:sputniknews.com
Then you can see the article by clicking the little arrow and clicking Cached.
It’s just another piece of anti Hillary propaganda.
While they removed that particular one, there’s still loads and loads more anti-hillary propaganda on that site.
Nothing wrong with Wikileaks, I’m sure they would publish hacked Putin emails if somebody could just get around to hacking them.
What is wrong with WikiLeaks is that they are being used as an obvious “useful idiot” to parrot disinformation, lies and Russian propaganda. They know this. They don’t care - they continue to do it.
This makes them fully culpable for the bullshit they are spreading.
The issue, quite obviously since you state it plainly, is that she might be flat out lying on her stance on borders and trade. While you may be cynical enough that it doesn’t cause you to bat an eye, you should still be able to see an issue with it from the cynical “just get elected” level.
I’m a Hillary voter, but not supporter. Though the reasonable and self-aware person that is being revealed in these leaked materials thus far is turning me more toward support.
But they’re not spreading bullshit. They’re spreading leaked emails. Genuine ones, as far as I can tell.
The disinformation, lies and propaganda comes from other sites.
I’m not sure I get it. People spread anti-Clinton propaganda, Benghazi lies and disinformation on any number of American right-wing (and likely a few left-wing) sites and have done so for years and decades. Some of it has even been spread by elected U.S. House Representatives. Now we read some on a Russian site and suddenly it’s a scandal?
The Russian propaganda - Trump connection looks surprising but I think Trump’s statements in this particular case rather come through the Trump - Breitbart - Alex Jones connection, i.e. known American right-wing anti-Hillary propagandists. Different propaganda groups that both just happen to be on the anti Hillary case.
Russian propaganda? We used to laugh and joke about it…
Frankenstein’s Monster’s point was that the email itself was not altered. Looking at the source, it appears that it was actually not altered. What was done was Sputnik news reported the email, which is just a cut & paste of the Newsweek article, as words coming from Sidney Blumenthal, not from the Newsweek article, which has a different context. So Trump’s people got a hold of the Sputnik article and quoted the misreporting/propganda about the email. So it appears the Wikileaks email has not been altered, but Trump using Russian propoganda against Hillary Clinton is, of course, problematic on its own.
And may I add that the Blumental email was a rather weak case of propaganda.
Thanks to the Wikileaks email, we could read it for ourselves and notice that it’s nothing against Hillary Clinton.
I actually believe that these email leaks are a positive for Hillary. Because people can read them and conclude for themselves that there’s nothing particularly bad in them.
Also right wing propagandists will comb through them and likewise conclude that there’s nothing there.
They’ll have to keep making up their conspiracy theories like they have always done. That is, making them up out of whole cloth with no benefit from the leaks.