What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Would you please elaborate?

If Russia's main goal in meddling in the election was to destabilize US domestic politics, wouldn't you say that they have succeeded big-time?

That's assuming they want to de-stabilize the politics overall, nothing more. I think they would rather follow the bottom line in finances, which is why they (allegedly) wanted Trump in office, with his business dealings. Hillary would have none of that, IMO.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Would you please elaborate?

If Russia's main goal in meddling in the election was to destabilize US domestic politics, wouldn't you say that they have succeeded big-time?

You've established a false premise, or an incomplete one at best. Not only do they want to make the US political system look like a joke to the world, they also want a more friendly face in the White House. Trump had long ties of doing business in Russia, was known to compliment Russian leaders, and generally opposed anything that had the name "Obama" tied to it. Sanctions against the Russians for their recent annexations and incursions into sovereign neighbors are much more likely to be lifted with a Trump administration than a Clinton administration. They may have been able to accomplish some of their objectives with Clinton in power, but it could've been a potential all-out frat party if Trump were able to get avoid the investigations and exposure we're seeing now.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

What does make sense is that the Russians were trying to sow discord, disarray, and confusion into US politics; to get us so preoccupied with arguing with each other and strident finger-pointing that our attention would be deflected from other things going on in the world outside US political sniping. On that measure, they have been tremendously successful, and continue to become even more so

This part of your post is actually correct. The rest of it is the standard "...but, but, HIL-LIAR-Y!!!!" drivel I see from the coherent posters in Mark Dice/Alex Jones YouTube comments, or on FReep.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

From the original post:
This is an experiment. Rule L-0 is: write your literal meaning. We may introduce other rules (L-1, L-2, ...) as we go, but L-0 is meant to make this thread different from all others.

The inspiration was a situation in another of our other political threads, where it seemed like two posters were at cross-purposes because one may or may not have been using irony or sarcasm, the other may or may not have understood that and responded in kind, and a third poster then made assumptions about the other two.

So what if we tried to be as sincere and precise in our meanings as we could? Obviously we will still disagree often, but maybe if we screen out the snark and jokes we would get to the points of disagreement relatively quickly, and understand each other with greater clarity.

A few thoughts:

We can still write "In my opinion..." since that's a valid truth statement, but when we do we should try to back the opinion up with facts or at least testable assertions. "In my opinion that is incorrect" is true but not very helpful. "In my opinion that is incorrect because x, y, z..." is much more valuable.

As far as possible, it is probably a good idea to steer clear of normative or provocative language. "In my opinion that's stupid" might be a true picture of your current mental state but, again, unhelpful. "In my opinion that ignores the evidence that..." is something the other poster can work with.


What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

Are you sure you are in the right thread?

or are you saying that Russia does not depend primarily on revenue from oil and natural gas? or that Trump did not promise to expand US oil and gas production? or that Clinton likely would not have?

or perhaps you are saying that Russia did not hack Clinton's SoS server? or if they did, there would be nothing embarrassing there? or perhaps you disagree with me when I said Trump was a rude boor?

Certainly you are not denying that Russia annexed the Crimea, occupied eastern Ukraine, and established a military presence in Syria during the past 8 years, are you?
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

This part of your post is actually correct. The rest of it is the standard "...but, but, HIL-LIAR-Y!!!!" drivel I see from the coherent posters in Mark Dice/Alex Jones YouTube comments, or on FReep.

Hmm...and here I thought I was saying quite clearly that the Russians actually would have preferred Clinton over Trump. Trump has a reputation as a tough negotiator, and his commitment to expanding US oil and gas production would have been very harmful to Russia's ability to collect more revenue from its own oil and gas.

I don't get the "Trump would be easier to deal with" story line. Trump did business all over the world, including with Russia. So far, that's the only rationale I have heard to support the assertion that the Russians would have preferred Trump. Is there any other rationale behind that story line?
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Hmm...and here I thought I was saying quite clearly that the Russians actually would have preferred Clinton over Trump. Trump has a reputation as a tough negotiator, and his commitment to expanding US oil and gas production would have been very harmful to Russia's ability to collect more revenue from its own oil and gas.

I don't get the "Trump would be easier to deal with" story line. Trump did business all over the world, including with Russia. So far, that's the only rationale I have heard to support the assertion that the Russians would have preferred Trump. Is there any other rationale behind that story line?

How about the fact that Trump is a business man first and therefore able to be bought and or influenced by money, deals, etc?
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Hmm...and here I thought I was saying quite clearly that the Russians actually would have preferred Clinton over Trump.

Reasons to doubt that:

1. Trump is a longtime business partner with the Russians. He's a known quantity.
2. Because of his business interests, Trump may need things from the Russians. That gives them leverage.
3. Trump may be implicated with shady dealings with the oligarchs, who are only criminals who happened to capture a government.
4. Trump hates NATO and will threaten European-American relations. Good for the Russians.
5. Trump hates the Muzzies. Putin hates them, too.
6. Trump's ineptitude and general loathsomeness will weaken America's image abroad. Good for the Russians.
7. Trump hates the Chinese. Good for the Russians.
8. Trump's carelessness could trigger war, driving energy prices through the roof.
9. Finally, Trump can be paid off.

In contrast I can't think of any reason for the Russians to prefer Hillary.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I've embedded responses in [ ] inside the quote

You've established a false premise, or an incomplete one at best. Not only do they want to make the US political system look like a joke to the world, they also want a more friendly face in the White House. Trump had long ties of doing business in Russia, [granted] was known to compliment Russian leaders [isn't that a standard part of business? you flatter the other side to gain a competitive advantage, even if you don't mean it], and generally opposed anything that had the name "Obama" tied to it [for domestic policy, certainly]. Sanctions against the Russians for their recent annexations and incursions into sovereign neighbors are much more likely to be lifted with a Trump administration than a Clinton administration. [not clear what evidence there is for this point] They may have been able to accomplish some of their objectives with Clinton in power, but it could've been a potential all-out frat party if Trump were able to get avoid the investigations and exposure we're seeing now. [depends upon how badly the Russians need oil revenue, no? My suggestion was merely that, IF economic interest is foremost, the Russians would have preferred Clinton. They knew Trump would keep world oil prices low, and that would harm them substantially more than any of the sanctions do currently]

Thank you at least for a calm and reasoned explanation of where and how we have a difference of opinion on this subject. I've thought for awhile that Trump's "flattery" of Putin was a negotiating ploy, a way to try to soften him up; and was not based on anything genuine. We can agree to disagree because we can each respect where the other is coming from. Who knows what is going on with Trump much of the time?
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Trump has a reputation as a tough negotiator

Totally debunked if you've paid any attention to his first 4 months in office.

and his commitment to expanding US oil and gas production would have been very harmful to Russia's ability to collect more revenue from its own oil and gas.

What's really killing Russia is the sanctions, which they hoped he would lift. Thankfully, it hasn't happened yet.

I don't get the "Trump would be easier to deal with" story line. Trump did business all over the world, including with Russia. So far, that's the only rationale I have heard to support the assertion that the Russians would have preferred Trump. Is there any other rationale behind that story line?

That's the point. His business loans in the last 10-15 years come from Russian banks, because sane Western bankers won't give him squat after 3 corporate bankruptcies.

If anyone could be or needed to be it was the Clinton Foundation

Jeebus! Not you, too.
 
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

How about the fact that Trump is a business man first and therefore able to be bought and or influenced by money, deals, etc?

That depends upon whether you see Trump as able to be bought, or whether you see him as the person buying out the other side, eh? The implicit assumption appears to be that Trump is an incompetent business man....a gullible naïf who is easily fooled.

That may well be the case, I just don't see any evidence for it.


In a way, this whole exchange is unfortunate; I do not want to be "defending" Trump in the slightest; it's merely that the rationale over the "Russia" stuff does not at all seem to be based on any underlying evidence of actual wrongdoing.

it certainly is distracting us all in a very unhealthy and destructive manner....:(
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

That depends upon whether you see Trump as able to be bought, or whether you see him as the person buying out the other side, eh? The implicit assumption appears to be that Trump is an incompetent business man....a gullible naïf who is easily fooled.

That may well be the case, I just don't see any evidence for it.

And I see no evidence for anything but that. But like porn, it's in the eye of the beholder.
 
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

it certainly is distracting us all in a very unhealthy and destructive manner....:(

This reminds me of when Nixon said it was dangerous and unAmerican to be investigating... him.

It's also the oldest tactic in the book for trying to bury a story. "I'd love to have a really thorough investigation, but there are more important things to be doing." I'm sure every suspect feels that way.

If you don't think the investigation is meaningful then don't follow the story. You really don't get to tell the rest of us what matters and what doesn't. I hope you would at least agree that if it turns out that Trump has been compromised by the Russians there is no story more important.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

And I see no evidence for anything but that. By like porn, it's in the eye of the beholder.

It is both.

Russia makes money with Trump in office (or gets sanctions eased, whatever) and Trump's businesses make money and/or are not investigated by Russian ahem coughcough authorities. They both win
 
Back
Top