The Kremlin Caucus
-
wrote on 28 Aug 2024, 16:15 last edited by Renauda
I don’t think either are idiots either. They are simply dead wrong in their assessment of Putin’s Russia and the role of NATO.
Russia was given every opportunity practicable in 1990’s and into the 2000’s towards a working relationship alongside rather than in opposition to NATO. There was even the possibility of a future membership. When it became apparent to the Kremlin that it could not dictate its conditions of cooperation or receive special privileges to joining the alliance it unilaterally chose to remain in opposition. Putin knows very well that NATO is exclusively a defensive alliance.
Kennedy and Gabbard either do not understand this inconvenient fact or have choosen to ignore it. Kennedy is a nutter and Gabbard should know better given her military rank as a reservist Lt Col..
-
wrote on 28 Aug 2024, 16:16 last edited by Doctor Phibes
OK, I admit maybe 'idiots' was being charitable.
Crazy and cynical then.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Kremlin Caucus:
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Channeling your inner KathyK this morning, I see...
Hardly. What these two are doing is undermining allies of the US who are engaged in an active war. Joseph Kennedy did the same thing in Britain during the London Blitz.
No, these two don't think we have a lot of business protecting a corrupt regime, without a vital natural interest at stake. Now, one can certainly disagree with that viewpoint, but having that viewpoint does not mean they're crazy.
BTW, back to WW2...The U.S. declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941. The U.S. did not declare war on the Third Reich until after Germany declared war on the U.S., four days after Pearl Harbor.
So here's an interesting thought exercise...If Hitler had not declared war on the U.S., when (or if) would the U.S. gave gone to war with Germany?
wrote on 28 Aug 2024, 16:24 last edited by RenaudaSo here's an interesting thought exercise...If Hitler had not declared war on the U.S., when (or if) would the U.S. gave gone to war with Germany?
Actually it is not an interesting thought exercise in this conversation. Rather it’s one of your signature distractors from the topic at hand. It is irrelevant to the present day situation. You’ve tried to use it before in similar discussions here. Didn’t work then and won’t work now.
-
topic:timeago-later,7 days
-
wrote on 4 Sept 2024, 21:42 last edited by
-
wrote on 6 Sept 2024, 08:58 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Jun 2024, 08:58
I wonder why Russia paid him $1MM.
By the way, the Russians were paying Dave Rubin, too.
-
wrote on 6 Sept 2024, 09:50 last edited by
Both Rubin and Poole say they didn’t know the source of the funds and therefore they are ‘victims’.
But really it demonstrates why they’re called useful idiots.
Second comment - you’re not curious who’s giving you a million dollars and why?
-
wrote on 6 Sept 2024, 12:11 last edited by
I’ve commented before on here about channel flipping one night and running across OANN playing the Russian national anthem and a short film glorifying Mother Russia. It was very weird. Ever since, I’ve been suspicious of Russian influences in conservative media.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2024, 00:33 last edited by
The view from an adjacent conservative channel I follow, who's friends with Lauren Chen and her husband:
Link to video -
wrote on 7 Sept 2024, 00:37 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Jul 2024, 00:39
Can you tl;dw it?
It’s plausible, though hardly exculpatory, that Dave ‘the tool’ Rubin and Tim ‘civil war now’ Poole didn’t know that the anonymous people giving them a million dollars weren’t the Russians. (That is to say, they were not only useful, but also idiots).
But Lauren Chen is in all probability dead to rights guilty. Read the indictment.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2024, 00:44 last edited by Horace 9 Jul 2024, 00:44
It's not a defense of Chen. He terms the affair "devastating" to her reputation.
I still find it easy to believe that Rubin et al had full editorial control over their content, regardless of their lack of due diligence about where the money was coming from. (They were told it was a French billionaire, but didn't investigate too hard.) Having opinions that Russia likes Americans to have, is not proof that those opinions are bought and paid for by Russia. Especially not when the commentators were established and didn't perceptibly change after their contract with Chen's company.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2024, 01:11 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Jul 2024, 01:13
Again they were both useful (worth Kremlin support) and idiots. (Didn’t need to be paid to regurgitate Kremlin talking points). That much is pretty clear. It doesn’t paint them in a good light.
“No one had to pay me to fellate Putin. And putting my pinky in his ass was my idea!!!!”
Again not exculpatory.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2024, 01:21 last edited by
Chen hasn't been indicted, so exculpatory whatever isn't even on the table yet. Maybe an indictment will be forthcoming.
I think various levels of support for Ukraine can be reasonably held by reasonable people, and Russia will inevitably like one set of opinions more than another. Russia's preference for a set of ideas is not proof of their idiocy. That said, in other contexts I would be happy to admit that Rubin and Pool are audience captured social media personalities without much of interest to contribute. I am just skeptical of the extent of influence the Russian money had on their content.
Chen actually openly wrote for Russia Today, before they went covert behind Tenet Media. I assume she was aware of the real source of funding and I won't be surprised if she's got an indictment coming.
-
wrote on 9 Sept 2024, 17:15 last edited by
I can understand them not knowing and not looking too closely at who was the ultimate payer.
Doesn't make them look any better, but I could see most people not really checking.
