Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Pruedrive t1_itzbiud wrote

Remember when Republicans hated Russians.. what happened? I mean we all know, and they will scream blood murder when confronted with it.

16

giant_toad42 t1_itzhfmx wrote

The war is destabilizing energy markets and driving up costs leading to inflation. They're sticking to their politics, and addressing a totally different problem from their perspective.

−1

mkt853 t1_iu018ni wrote

We had inflation long before the war. Inflation began in the fall of 2020. The war began in the winter of 2022.

12

Pruedrive t1_itzhrvj wrote

Small price to pay to kick thier (Russia's) teeth in. And honestly as unpopular as this opinion is.. America got off light for over 2 decades of war with only a small portion of the population really shouldering the real costs of it. Not saying that this is justification for this, but when we commit to actions of this nature it should be felt... cause we will be doomed to repeat our previous mistakes if we don't ever understand those costs.

5

jjhhgg100123 t1_iu6ssqx wrote

And letting Russia win would give them further power to destabilize the global oil economy. Looking only at prices now is just shortsighted.

1

AGK47_Returns t1_iu0bxo0 wrote

>Green Party

Very strange way to spell Chinese Communist Party. Ah yes, let us bow down to Russia and China while wallowing about our imperialism that Russia and China apparently don't engage in (according to the Green Party) and pledge to give up our nuclear weapons (which Russia and China wouldn't give up). Amazing strategy.

13

mkt853 t1_iu02fnh wrote

Republicans are beholden to Russia. Why else would they spend Fourth of July in Moscow kissing Putin's ass? Russia likely has some serious dirt on these guys.

11

flatdanny t1_iu0lmfz wrote

Russia has been quietly funding the republican party for years.

0

blkbkrider t1_iu22slf wrote

reciepts please.

0

OWBstk t1_iu315qx wrote

I made it up

2

buried_lede t1_iu3sf8e wrote

You're not wrong though. Indirectly, through right wing causes. The NRA was raking in Russian money, so much that it collapsed when it was exposed and the money dried up. Plenty of receipts for that.

Trump Org, but its own admission, was getting its financing from Russian banks

1

Justinontheinternet t1_iu7dok5 wrote

Links and sources? Because the dems have been calling whomever they don’t like Russian Agents like it’s 1950s mccarthism all over again since 2016. Tulsi gabbard, donald trump, the whole christopher steele bullshit.

When clinton called Tulsi a two tour war vet a russian agent. Any shred of respect I had for clinton was crushed.

Let us also not forget that she’s the reason trump got elected because without the DNC pushing Hilary so hard giving her air time and finances rather than equal coverage to Bernie. Bernie would have won. The DNC head had to resign over it.

Instead of real change we got trump. Now we have a president who can’t he’s president, Which really killed any chance For positive change in this country for the foreseeable future.

But somehow she got a pass for letting a US ambassador get killed in Benghazi. Also not sending back up got a lot of our guys killed. I’ve discussed this at length with some of the JSOC guys who were there and studied this event academically. It’s absolutely unprecedented as to why she wouldn’t have sent back up especially since the Libyan army division that was bought and paid off are the ones that ended up saving our guys.

2

buried_lede t1_iu7glbl wrote

You’re asking me or the other commenter? Because I just produced two when that person was hit up for receipts. You want receipts for those receipts?

1

Justinontheinternet t1_iuci8fw wrote

I didn’t see anyone post and links to any credible sources regarding republicans being beholden to Russia.

Trump org is an international organization and so is the NRA. I hate the NRA but to say they went down because russians stopped pumping money is ridiculous. They went down because they started giving away guns rights instead of protecting them including advising trump to do a bump stock ban.

1

buried_lede t1_iucijoe wrote

Just google it, I gave you two examples you could google and I am not even the one who made the point

1

KJK998 t1_iu0m8lz wrote

Am I pro Russian if I don’t support sending billions of tax payer revenue to a country that will never return the favor?

0

johnsonutah t1_iu196rn wrote

Really we are sending them weapons that are bound to be replaced regardless of whether we use them or not. It’s also a stimulus package for US manufacturers of weapons systems and their employees (most of which if not all are made here in the USA). So it’s a little more nuanced, but I get your concern at the same time

4

KJK998 t1_iu1wnl6 wrote

That’s absolutely not true that we are sending them obsolete stuff. We are actively struggling to replace the Javelin missiles we gave them. They have very sophisticated electronics that are not easy to get at the moment.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/1101701890/javelin-missiles-are-in-short-supply-and-restocking-them-won-t-be-easy

1

johnsonutah t1_iu22joi wrote

I didn’t say for that to sound like the equipment and weapons we send is obsolete. Rather, the stuff we send would eventually have to get replaced if we never used it. The stuff we send getting used up there results in demand for it, and it’s all produced here in the US. It’s basically a stimulus package for US manufacturing

2

gohabssaydre t1_iu20h0x wrote

That’s a fair point and it gives me pause. But every time a Russian dies an angel gets its wings so I’ll sleep ok tonight

1

[deleted] t1_iu1ua7e wrote

They’re returning the favor 100 fold right now. They’ve exposed Russia as have a complete dog shit military comprised of rusted guns, tanks stripped of circuit boards, and zero NCO corp. Ukraine is making it so Russia is no longer a viable country moving forward. They can’t possibly survive this war intact as a single country, and will probably break up in 5 years or less. All thanks to Ukraine and several billion dollars invested by evil sleepy Joe.

4

mkt853 t1_iu0naxj wrote

Not at all, but what I would say in response is this is a bargain to keep Russia at bay because you'll cry if you ever see what it would cost us if Russia or its little toady Belarus decides to pop off at Poland, the Baltics, or one of their s*itty missiles misses Odesa and hits Romania instead. If Article 5 gets invoked in Europe it'll make whatever we spent in Afghanistan and Iraq look like the deal of the century.

2

KJK998 t1_iu0v3wa wrote

After seeing the capabilities of their communist equipment from the 70’s and the incompetence of their generals/president, I’m less worried about them invading countries for influence.

0

Old_Size9060 t1_iu144w4 wrote

It’s wrong to assess the Russian failures in Ukraine as “incompetence” - Ukraine may be David, but they are David armed with the world’s most advanced weaponry and it outclasses anything that Russia - with a GDP smaller than Spains - could ever put out barring an actual nuclear exchange.

5

Down_vote_david t1_iu0z5gd wrote

> this is a bargain to keep Russia at bay

If anything, it shows that they have not been a military threat for a long time. If they can't beat the poorest and most corrupt European country, why would we EVER have to worry about them? I feel bad for what is happening to Ukraine, but we have lots of issues at home. The EU should be exponentially increasing their military's spending to protect their own countries and interests instead of the US propping up the MIC after we left Afghanistan earlier this year...

−7

mkt853 t1_iu10wfn wrote

Let me guess... you're one of those isolationist wingers that think we get no tangible benefits from being the global superpower?

10

Old_Size9060 t1_iu148sz wrote

It’s wrong to assess the Russian failures in Ukraine as “incompetence” - Ukraine may be David, but they are David armed with the world’s most advanced weaponry and it outclasses anything that Russia - with a GDP smaller than Spains - could ever put out barring an actual nuclear exchange.

3

Down_vote_david t1_iu2q9u1 wrote

Did I ever state it was due to incompetence? You sound like a bot pushing the military industrial complex and war with Russia. Like I said, if UKraine can effectively beat Russia with our supplies, Russia is not a real military threat. If they want to reverse to nukes, the world is done for, regardless.

0

Old_Size9060 t1_iu3r19u wrote

“If they can’t beat the poorest and most corrupt…” c’mon dude🙄🤣. I’m anti-Putin and have been for twenty years, but let’s stay grounded in facts - that’s what I’m suggesting.

1

Old_Size9060 t1_iu58108 wrote

Dear Clown (given that this is how you signed off), perhaps you are unaware that your post is a non sequitur. It does not follow. Essentially, your words : “if they can’t beat the poorest and most corrupt European country” suggests that Ukraine is defeating Russia sans billions of dollars worth of military aid from several of the world’s most advanced militaries. This is - obviously - what I was talking about. Your links about corruption are just a smokescreen.🙄🤣

1

Equal_Pumpkin8808 t1_iu3ucnp wrote

You'll be pleased to know that it's being sent under a lend-lease program then.

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itz7psb wrote

Wow! Got a few Republicans in CT pretending they didn't just spend four years tripping over themselves to fawn at a Russian asset that weaseld his way into our White House thanks to a massive foreign influence campaign that targeted gullible conservative voters.

And then we have Dinardis, Mary Sanders, Chai, and Pagliano, who appear to be openly supporting Vladimir Putin in their quest to undermine American democracy.

8

Mike-El t1_itzkjtj wrote

Oh the fake Russian collusion made up by Hillary…

12

flatdanny t1_iu0m7fy wrote

Someone else who never read the Mueller report

10

ShredInTheWoods t1_itzqlyl wrote

I’ve heard people reference this before but I don’t know much about it. Can you tell me more or do you have a good source?

6

ShredInTheWoods t1_iu17o6m wrote

From the Bloomberg article: “Still, other connections between Trump and Russia turned out to be true, as outlined in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. For example, Trump campaign officials including Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a group of Russians at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, after Don Jr. had been told by an intermediary that they had dirt on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Trump also publicly encouraged Russia to “find” Clinton’s missing emails. “

I wouldn’t put it past Hillary to send anything even potentially damning about Trump to the media while actively in an election against him. But just because Hillary didn’t have hard proof and pushed a darker narrative than was proven, doesn’t mean Trump didn’t collude.

4

vorpalrobot t1_itzrc2b wrote

I think it was sarcasm

−3

ShredInTheWoods t1_itzxetj wrote

Based on their post history in r/the_Donald, I doubt it. Just wanted to hear them out.

−1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0ng02 wrote

This link doesn't have anything to do with Russia.

3

beazneaz t1_iu0vbeb wrote

Lol how do you figure?

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0yel8 wrote

I replied to this nonsense elsewhere in depth. And as a matter of fact, it's not even that deep too deep for you though I guess.

2

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0nko2 wrote

It's fake if maybe you are dumb and gullible but it absolutely is real and did happen, and there is no dispute within the global intelligence and diplomatic communities.

If you weren't dense or born yesterday, you could have watched it unfold in real time in 2016 as I did.

4

Mike-El t1_iu0r4hy wrote

That’s rich…Hillary supporter calling someone else gullible.

−2

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0z2cu wrote

I replied to this nonsense elsewhere in depth. In short: come out of your bubble, turn off the outrage media, and actually read some nonfiction.

2

Mike-El t1_iu0zliv wrote

Outrage media, we talking CNN, MSNBC here? The ones that were outraged over every little thing Trump did or didn’t do, yet somehow give the current brain dead president a pass? People bitched and mined for 4 years (Hillary still does), and yet have the audacity to tell anyone who supports Trump they shouldn’t complain or listen to the non biased news. Sure buddy.

0

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu27699 wrote

No talking anything that has idiots talking at a table. That's not news. You don't listen to news.

You're also not on the other side of a two sided coin.

You are brainwashed and your side, being as it is anti democracy, is a national security threat.

2

gohabssaydre t1_itz8ex4 wrote

Holy shit - the Green Party answers are comedic gold. Russian shills.

5

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0nur7 wrote

It's a shame too because the green party used to stand for something important and played a critical role in presidential electoral politics.

But you are spot-on that it has been co-opted by the Russians.

3

gohabssaydre t1_iu1zg16 wrote

It’s so crazy - honestly couldn’t believe the answers I was reading

0

beazneaz t1_iu09r4i wrote

Who is John Durham? Do you have any idea?

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_iu0vy9o wrote

>Who is John Durham? Do you have any idea?

I know they don't cover it during the daytime talk radio about John Durham and the actual sham investigation he is running, and how he is zero for two in federal criminal trials while the legitimate federal prosecutor's bar has a 99% conviction rate, but let's get real.

It seems like it's you who doesn't know who John Durham is or what he's charged with investigating, because it is not relevant whatsoever to the undisputed findings of the Mueller report.

Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying, as was the disgraced former attorney general and political hack, Bill Barr, who made Durham's sham appointment from the get go.

Actual, career investigators with DOJOIG (who is that? do you have any idea?) and not political yes men, investigated the bullshit conspiracies you heard about on the radio, and what did they find?

>. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.

>. The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane...after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that...Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)." [B]ased on the FFG information, "this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."

>. We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Although not mentioned in the EC... FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.

>. We concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation. This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring. For similar reasons, as we detail in Chapter Three, we concluded that the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open the individual investigations on Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Manafort in August 2016 was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by the Department and the FBI.

>. The fact that the FBI believed Steele had been retained to conduct political opposition research did not require the FBI, under either DOJ or FBI policy, to ignore his reporting. The FBI regularly receives information from individuals with potentially significant biases and motivations, including drug traffickers, convicted felons, and even terrorists. The FBI is not required to set aside such information; rather, FBI policy requires that it critically assess the information. We found that after receiving Steele's reporting, the Crossfire Hurricane team began those efforts in earnest.

>. We found that, while Lisa Page attended some of the discussions regarding the opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases. We further found that while Strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane and the four individual cases, he was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.

>. Steele explained that it was his firm's practice to faithfully report everything a reliable source provided and not to withhold information because it was controversial. He denied "tailoring" his reporting to meet the needs of his clients and explained that doing so ultimately was not a good business practice because it would result in loss of reputation. We also asked Steele whether his research was "opposition research" and biased. He provided a similar response and explained that his firm would not be in business if it provided biased information. 216 Steele called the allegation that he was biased against Trump from the start "ridiculous. "217 He stated that if anything he was "favorably disposed" toward the Trump family before he began his research because he had visited a Trump family member at Trump Tower and "been friendly" with [the family member] for some years. He described their relationship as "personal" and said that he once gifted a family tartan from Scotland to the family member.

And my dummy friend, this whole trash controversy is about discrediting the whole investigation by discrediting the wiretap warrant.

You are so gullible, you don't even realize that even if the warrant application was total bullshit and politically motivated, once they got the warrant, they heard Trump's team doing a bunch of crimes.

They were charged. They pleaded guilty or were convicted. They did do those crimes. It's undisputed.

Again, way unlike Durham's special minority select prosecution status, which is zero for two with juries.

2

beazneaz t1_iu13gep wrote

Wow man, like, it’s a work day. Is this what you do professionally? Whether or not any action is taken, Durham’s Danchenko trial showed, at best, gross negligence by the fbi and Mueller. How many emails between fusion GPS and reporters? How many FBI whistleblowers does it take for you to question things? You’re presenting an excerpt from the DOJ, whom I’m accusing of political malfeasance, so it holds no water. You’re telling me that the DOJ, a wing of the executive branch, is pure and A-political. Wake up dude. These are the guys gunning for Julian Assange. Nothing is sacred

0

AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_itz9zwq wrote

It doesn't matter too much what they think as individuals; if the GOP takes control, it will end.

3

G3Saint t1_itzavut wrote

This is why the lend lease program was passed. GOP would have no control over that

8

eresho t1_itzp8tq wrote

I have a lot of sympathy for the Green Party. But if you can’t decide what you think about Ukrainians getting murdered than you have no business governing.

3

EXLR8_Reddit t1_iu15ltc wrote

The blatant gravitation towards conflict in this thread isn’t surprising but disheartening

2

PettyWitch t1_iu1irjv wrote

Americans love war, they don't want to admit it but it's true. I think we've only not been at war or conflict as a country for something like 15 years total since the founding of the US.

1

red_purple_red t1_iu03v12 wrote

Democracy means government of the people, by the people, for the people. But the people have been compromised by Russian disinformation campaigns.

1

giant_toad42 t1_itzgvdh wrote

>Kevin Blacker (Green)
>
>I don’t know. The reason I don’t know is because I do not understand what the United States’ true motivation behind our involvement in Ukraine is.

What an idiot. It's: "basic human decency" and standing up to an autocrat committing war crimes.

0

Bigbossrabbit t1_iu07hw0 wrote

Questioning motives behind war is always fair, and peace should always be the number 1 priority. I don’t see an issue with at least asking questions about America’s involvement in any war. Especially when our motivations frequently line up with massive profits for defense contractors and death for the poor.

4

Humbabwe t1_iu09q7y wrote

Agreed. But for once we have a pretty clear cut case. Pretending there might be nefarious reasons behind it is not helpful.

0

Bigbossrabbit t1_iu0bmu3 wrote

Sure, as long as peace talks are a prerequisite and aren’t met with “OMG YOU LOVE RUSSIA” nah man I just love not ending the world. The progressives retracting their call for looking into peace options was pathetic. It’s sad to see how fast even democrats can turn to frothing war hawks.

4

Humbabwe t1_iu0c8eq wrote

Russia went into this with the idea of taking, with force, several eastern regions of Ukraine and you think people saying “no” to “peace talks” that are centered around that being the outcome are being unreasonable? The troll farms must be ramping up again, but what are you getting paid with? Nesting dolls?

4

Old_Size9060 t1_iu158ok wrote

Agreed, but then that requires also honestly reckoning with the USA’s foreign policy and not being blind to it - the USA has engaged in all kinds of nefarious wars, coups, assassinations, etc. Pretending that we don’t have a strategic interest in Ukraine is not the answer.

2

RetLeoSECT t1_itzcrzn wrote

Everyone likes to see the Russians get their asses handed to them, but at what cost?

This is a replay of every other war. We have to dump trillions into them to "save" them. We finally have enough and leave and the country is lost to commies/fundamentalists. It's a waste of time, lives and money.

Chiden and the other political families had their kids there, raking in the money while it lasted. The country is corrupted.

We are fighting a proxy war against Russia and are walking into WW3. It ain't worth it.

−11

TreeEleben t1_itzdn9c wrote

Obliterating the Russian army without risking American soldiers lives is a hell of a deal. Even if it costs billions of dollars. It will save us money in the long run and diminish Russias ability to start more wars trying to seize former soviet union lands.

Ukraine has also made huge strides towards eliminating the corruption.

21

historicalgeek71 t1_itzeov9 wrote

Not sure about you, but so far all we’ve been doing is providing money and arms to the Ukrainians who seem to be exceeding all expectations. And without a single U.S. soldier being deployed to Ukraine. And for all of Russia’s blustering and posturing, this war has revealed their military to be a paper tiger. I’d say the cost is worth it.

12

mkt853 t1_iu021vn wrote

The ROI on this is incredible. Putin isn't stopping with Ukraine, and if people think it's expensive now, wait until Belarus decides to pop off with Poland or Russia starts using Kaliningrad to cause trouble in the Baltics or a few Russian wayward missiles miss Odesa and land in Romania and Article 5 gets invoked.

5

hamhead t1_iu0aapv wrote

This is the smartest war we've ever fought. Even if we "lose", we've severely damaged Russia for peanuts.

2

MaoWasaLoser t1_iu0h46r wrote

I am not too worried about Ukraine being overtaken by communists or religious nuts after the war is over. The odds of that sort of thing are pretty low.

This could be described as a proxy war with Russia, but our ROI has been very good. We're putting in some money and material and the Russian Army and Airforce are taking heavy losses while we lose nothing.

2

Cinderjacket t1_itzfc3e wrote

France and the rest of Western Europe became famously overrun with communists and fundamentalists after WW2 and remain third world hellholes to this day

Edit: Jesus Christ I thought this was obvious but /s

−4

Pertinax126 t1_iu05pht wrote

Four of the top ten largest economies in the world are in western Europe. How are France, Germany, and the UK comparable to third world hellholes?

2

Cinderjacket t1_iu06cqq wrote

Does my comment really read as not sarcastic to you?

−1

Pertinax126 t1_iu0a7fp wrote

It did not.

I didn't downvote your comment but it looks like I wasn't the only one that missed the sarcasm.

1

hamhead t1_iu0aduw wrote

Honestly I really wasn't sure where you were going with that either.

1