Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Sep '16 00:13 / 3 edits
    I read this and had to laugh and laugh. I loved this bit, in response to the lame responses of the Trump campaign:

    “Got it. Makes sense. Obviously Trump would have never gone on the RT America show if he had even a whiff of suspicion that it could have possibly ended up airing on RT America. Trump knows better. He’s a shrewd negotiator who is always two steps ahead, man.

    “How could anyone have divined that King’s show was going to be aired on RT America? It would have taken some kind of supergenius to divine that mystery—a mastermind vetter with a nose for well-hidden facts and access to something like, say, Wikipedia.”

    —From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-larry-king_us_57d2de52e4b06a74c9f4519c

    And here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-camp-explanation-rt-interview

    However, recognizing that HuffPo is in many ways a kind of internet-based tabloid, I checked other sources—

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-defends-putin-on-russian-1473421495-htmlstory.html

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-on-russian-tv-network-criticizes-u-s-foreign-policy-1473394136

    According to the Wall Street Journal article: “The RT network has emerged as an important propaganda tool since it was launched in 2005 by the Kremlin, which insisted that the world’s airwaves have been biased by pro-Western programming.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/9/1568283/-Donald-Trump-goes-on-Russian-TV-to-complain-about-the-United-States

    http://time.com/4485153/donald-trump-russian-television-network-rt/

    Here is an interesting background piece, featuring the “turnaround" of former liberal Ed Schultz when given a job at RT—

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833

    “But RT is a strange place. It styles itself as an edgy CNN or BBC, delivering unvarnished news and commentary with a mostly hip, young cast. But just under the surface is a bought-and-paid-for propaganda vehicle trying to nudge viewers toward Russia’s side of the story at a time when Moscow has increasingly become an international pariah, estranged from the West over its military aggression in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere, its elites sanctioned and its economy struggling with isolation, decaying infrastructure and collapsing energy prices.” . . .


    “A network that up until now has found little to celebrate about America has finally settled on a candidate it can believe in. Vladimir Putin’s TV channel isn’t just covering the 2016 campaign: Increasingly, it’s choosing sides.”
  2. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    10 Sep '16 00:18
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I read this and had to laugh and laugh. I loved this bit, in response to the lame responses of the Trump campaign:

    “Got it. Makes sense. Obviously Trump would have never gone on the RT America show if he had even a whiff of suspicion that it could have possibly ended up airing on RT America. Trump knows better. He’s a shrewd negotiator ...[text shortened]... ir Putin’s TV channel isn’t just covering the 2016 campaign: Increasingly, it’s choosing sides.”
    I liken modern day Russia to the Mafia in WWII.
    They may be the only group left in any position to save what used to be known as democracy.
  3. 10 Sep '16 00:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I liken modern day Russia to the Mafia in WWII.
    They may be the only group left in any position to save what used to be known as democracy.
    You think that Russian international interests (under their current regime) serve the interests of democracy—in the US as well as in in Russia (or anywhere else)?

    What is your definition of “democracy”? How will the Russians save it exactly?
  4. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    10 Sep '16 01:19
    Originally posted by vistesd
    You think that Russian international interests (under their current regime) serve the interests of democracy—in the US as well as in in Russia (or anywhere else)?

    What is your definition of “democracy”? How will the Russians save it exactly?
    The imperialism of the recent US administrations, coupled with its campaign against its own citizenry is unprecedented.
    We have allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking our actions against sovereign nations are somehow "stabilizing" and necessary for the good of the country and the world.
    Putin (and Russia as a general source) has been exposing our agenda for quite some time.
    He hasn't been altruistic in the effort, as he's only poking the bear to save his own country.
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    10 Sep '16 01:39
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The imperialism of the recent US administrations, coupled with its campaign against its own citizenry is unprecedented.
    We have allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking our actions against sovereign nations are somehow "stabilizing" and necessary for the good of the country and the world.
    Putin (and Russia as a general source) has been exposing our a ...[text shortened]...
    He hasn't been altruistic in the effort, as he's only poking the bear to save his own country.
    Uncritical support for Western regimes is not entailed by criticism of Putin's Russia. How sympathetic a presidential candidate is to any given foreign state is a reasonable area of enquiry, since I'd regard it as reasonable for a voter to take account of what they think of that sympathy.
  6. 10 Sep '16 01:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The imperialism of the recent US administrations, coupled with its campaign against its own citizenry is unprecedented.
    We have allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking our actions against sovereign nations are somehow "stabilizing" and necessary for the good of the country and the world.
    Putin (and Russia as a general source) has been exposing our a ...[text shortened]...
    He hasn't been altruistic in the effort, as he's only poking the bear to save his own country.
    The point of the OP, however, is not about whatever involuntary light Putin has shed on US imperialism or how that will “save” democracy. The point of the OP was how laughable is the notion that Trump (or his campaign people) really have a clue about world affairs and the players involved—as shown by their lame excuses. From the man who claims he can read the body language of intelligence analysts?!
  7. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    10 Sep '16 01:54
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I liken modern day Russia to the Mafia in WWII.
    They may be the only group left in any position to save what used to be known as democracy.
    Preach it, Flat-Earther.

  8. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    10 Sep '16 01:57
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The imperialism of the recent US administrations, coupled with its campaign against its own citizenry is unprecedented.
    We have allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking our actions against sovereign nations are somehow "stabilizing" and necessary for the good of the country and the world.
    Putin (and Russia as a general source) has been exposing our a ...[text shortened]...
    He hasn't been altruistic in the effort, as he's only poking the bear to save his own country.
    And you think an adminstration of stupid is a reasonable solution to this?
  9. 10 Sep '16 02:05
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I read this and had to laugh and laugh. I loved this bit, in response to the lame responses of the Trump campaign:

    “Got it. Makes sense. Obviously Trump would have never gone on the RT America show if he had even a whiff of suspicion that it could have possibly ended up airing on RT America. Trump knows better. He’s a shrewd negotiator ...[text shortened]... ir Putin’s TV channel isn’t just covering the 2016 campaign: Increasingly, it’s choosing sides.”
    Actually RT has some excellent content. Its expose of companies like Monsanto and the harm they have done to Indian farming was truly excellent. I noticed the Guardian also termed RT a propaganda network which is rather rich for they are completely biased as are the BBC and almost every news network. Its to what extent a bias exists and why that is of interest.
  10. 10 Sep '16 02:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    You think that Russian international interests (under their current regime) serve the interests of democracy—in the US as well as in in Russia (or anywhere else)?

    What is your definition of “democracy”? How will the Russians save it exactly?
    There have been many tyrants who have dreamed of a one word order....and they continue.

    Russia is but one country that has the military might to tango with the US that prevents this one world order scenario. In a way, it gives men like Snowden a place to hide after exposing his government for what it has become.

    Does this mean I like Putin? No. It just means that it is nice for Obama to not be able to pick on a Gaddafi when he feels like it for whatever reason because someone like Putin can actually fight back. Obama did not even call the war with Libya a war. LOL
  11. 10 Sep '16 02:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Preach it, Flat-Earther.

    Only if he can preach it to those who believe Hillary is a saint and believes that she never tells a lie
  12. 10 Sep '16 13:10
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Actually RT has some excellent content. Its expose of companies like Monsanto and the harm they have done to Indian farming was truly excellent. I noticed the Guardian also termed RT a propaganda network which is rather rich for they are completely biased as are the BBC and almost every news network. Its to what extent a bias exists and why that is of interest.
    Fair points, but not to the intended point of the OP; which is not RT—I merely tried to find some quick mainstream info from a range of alternate sites (of differing perceived political leanings) to Huffpo. I am not familiar with RT America (though I have occasionally perused Sputnik International).

    The point, that caused my laughter, was the buffoonish response by the Trump campaign. RT America itself, on the page linked below, mocks not only the “frenzy from much of mainstream media” and Twitter social media over the interview—but also highlights that silly response, again drawing on “Twitter-verse”.*

    I especially liked this one (about halfway down the page): “How many hours passed between ‘I can read the minds of top intelligence officers’ and ‘I was tricked by Larry King?’"

    https://www.rt.com/usa/358856-trump-king-rt-twitter/

    ___________________________________________________

    * A universe of which I am not a member.
  13. 10 Sep '16 13:47
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Actually RT has some excellent content. Its expose of companies like Monsanto and the harm they have done to Indian farming was truly excellent. I noticed the Guardian also termed RT a propaganda network which is rather rich for they are completely biased as are the BBC and almost every news network. Its to what extent a bias exists and why that is of interest.
    Your comparison falls a bit flat though, considering that RT is an actual state-run propaganda channel, while the Guardian and the BBC are not.
  14. 10 Sep '16 14:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Your comparison falls a bit flat though, considering that RT is an actual state-run propaganda channel, while the Guardian and the BBC are not.
    To be fair, I thought that his “Its to what extent a bias exists and why that is of interest” allows for that point to be raised.
  15. 10 Sep '16 14:14
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Your comparison falls a bit flat though, considering that RT is an actual state-run propaganda channel, while the Guardian and the BBC are not.
    The BBC most certainly is a state run propaganda machine and the Guardian is also completely biased. The fact that the latter is not state run has no bearing on the extent of its bias or why, your nitpicking notwithstanding.