Meh, non-story.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Meh, non-story.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
My questions still stand.
Is there no material difference between a pluralistic democracy, where monied citizens may support one party or another, and an autocracy where the autocrat controls the legislature, the judiciary, the press, and the organs of state security?
For the third time, please show me the anti-Putin oligarchs.
This encapsulates it pretty well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/opinion/masha-gessen-the-myth-of-the-russian-oligarchs.html?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Trying to pull this at least back to the neighborhood of the topic, which was Manafort . . . working in the political sphere for a Russian oligarch means, in essence, working for the Russian state, which means, in essence, working for Putin.
Is that even debatable, really?
Is that even debatable, really?
That isn't the discussion we're having. Your hardliner positions on Russia are well known to me.
I only count twice.
There isn't an official list of oligarchs - and even if one existed, I don't see how providing a singular example of an oligarch who defied Putin in public serves to counter my assertion that the oligarchs and Putin work as a unit and that the backscratching is mutual and abundant.
I would point you to conflicts in Russian policy making, especially within United Russia, as evidence of the influence available within the duma.
In the meanwhile, if you want to explore anti-Putinism, there's this guy:
Yes.
It's the entire reason we've gone down this insufferable rabbit hole.
Drawing a line between Manafort and Putin that goes through a Russian aluminum tycoon whose oligarchy status is questionable, at best, is a tenuous proposition.
That's not to even question whether or not it is relevant in a contemporary sense.
Will not be covered by mainstream media. Wonder how far it will be investigated. Could it get back to Obama? Could he potentially be charged with a federal crime?
This is a big deal and should be covered by the media.
Washington (CNN)-- The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/polit...may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/polit...may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That isn't the discussion we're having. Your hardliner positions on Russia are well known to me.
I only count twice.
There isn't an official list of oligarchs - and even if one existed, I don't see how providing a singular example of an oligarch who defied Putin in public serves as a counter-example to my assertion that the oligarchs and Putin work as a unit and that the backscratching is mutual and abundant.
I would point you to conflicts in Russian policy making, especially within United Russia, as evidence of the influence available within the duma.
In the meanwhile, if you want to explore anti-Putinism, there's this guy:
Yeah, internal debate within a party that controls 3/4 of the Duma and pretty much all of the Federation Council, elected under circumstances decried by international observers. That is certainly the place to look for dissent and legitimate debate.
I'm not a hardliner. I'm just observing what's confirmed by volumes of literature, and, without putting too fine a point on it, the consensus of the world outside of Moscow.
If you could steer me to something that would edify me otherwise, I would genuinely like to understand your point of view. Post or PM me some suggestions.
You've told me, in effect, that Russia--which is a kleptocratic autocracy, regardless of the specific orientation of the kleptocrats--is not really that different than the US. You walked it back, but I think your words stand pretty clearly.
So you won't find me an anti-Putin oligarch because you can't find a "list" of oligarchs. You further object because, er, Putin and the oligarchs are mutually supportive. That's true to an extent, but not to the extent you suggest. Who's driving the bus? Is Putin in thrall to the oligarchs or is he a quite distant first among equals?
Is there an officer or senior executive of Gazprom or Rosneft who isn't a Putin crony? How many of them are colleagues from St. Petersburg or KGB/FSB?
Forget parsing the definition of oligarch. Just check out any online publication's list of richest Russians and tell me which ones have the teensiest bit of daylight between themselves and Putin.
Getting dyed green is better than getting shot in the face, poisoned, or chucked off a building, so I guess Navalny is lucky, by standards of those who test the regime.
Runnin
Well-known member
I believe Thump's amateurish attempts at running the country will be what does him in. As his backsliding, silly lies, failures and unforced errors continue to pile up and the all encompassing stench of it keeps growing, the protection from the Russian scandal and his blatant emoluments clause violations will continue to erode. I think he's well in the danger zone already.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Disagree. What will do him in is when this POS Congress gets what they want as far as getting all their programs done and done in Trump's name or they just give up on getting them passed. In either case once they have either tired of him or have used him as much as they can, then he will be finished one way or the other, but of course nobody will be able to pin it on Ryan, McConnell and company, they'll give that "DUMAS deer in the headlights, look at our halos, expressions while Pence "reluctantly takes the oath".
"....though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing."
In other words, the intelligence agencies still don't know jack ****. Even if they say there was collusion who in the hell in their right mind would believe them with their behavior of late?
Runnin
Well-known member
I would agree if the GOP was united with Thumper and had a clear idea of what they wanted to accomplish. They seem hopelessly fragmented at this point and the POS POTUS is only exacerbating their divisions.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So at a "point where the political economy and actual economy cross borders," a guy who was, contemporary with the story, possibly one of the ten richest men in the world was not a player? Not an oligarch? Not close to Putin? You must be joking.
You are steady tossing up bricks recently.
As you have noted, there is no effective difference between the private economy and the political economy in Russia. But doing political work for a billionaire oligarch =/= effectively working in Putin's interests. Dude.
What does that have to do with Trump? ****, maybe nothing. But it's kind of a red flag that a guy with Manafort's connections, and his willingness to fudge them, was running his campaign. I'm not even trying to draw that line, just responding to your pooh-poohing Deripaska's connection to Putin.
As for Manafort, who knows? I expect he'll get a chance to tell us under oath.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Oh they're united alright, at least as united as these aholes can be with anybody. The hard line Repubs who want to take us the rest of the way back to the gilded age are plenty content with using the semi-popular president (with his supporters anyway) to get their agenda passed, mainly because he is popular with many of the same people their agenda is going to sport pfark, then once the deeds (and the damage) are done they will go on to phase 2, (the Pence presidency) one way or another.
Runnin
Well-known member
They are not at all united on health care, at least not as of this moment. Could be this time tomorrow.
Pence would certainly be easier for them to work with.