Alpha Centauri 2

Community => Recreation Commons => Topic started by: Elok on June 19, 2017, 03:03:04 AM

Title: On Russiagate
Post by: Elok on June 19, 2017, 03:03:04 AM

So, I've been thinking this over.  Putin began his career as a spook, right?  And, contrary to the movie depictions, some of the most important abilities in espionage are generally what you might call a certain subset of social skills.  You have to be able to read people, assess their abilities and inclinations, how much and how far you can trust them, etc.  Putin clawed his way up to the top in post-Soviet Russia, which would imply he was really quite good at his job.


Now he's accused of cutting deals with [name I won't post b/c I don't like the pig emoticon].  This implies that he believed same:


A. Could be trusted to keep his end of a deal and
B. Could be trusted to keep his mouth shut.


Alternatively, he might have simply wanted [HIM] to be in power as opposed to Hillary, and only made him a part of it because he believed he could be useful in making it happen.  This does not appear to be the case, as [ahem] has no skill at hacking that we know of and his skills at miscellaneous skullduggery are obviously dwarfed by Putin's.  We're left with some kind of quid pro quo deal where Putin throws the election in return for later favors.  But it was common knowledge before the election that [HE] routinely cheated and bilked his partners, and had extreme difficulty controlling his mouth.  But keeping this quiet would be essential, since any actual evidence of tampering in our elections would likely lead to thermonuclear war.


In short, the Russia scandal would seem to imply that Putin is extremely naive and/or dumb.  We know this is not the case.  Therefore, it's hooey.  If any deal took place, I imagine it involved dodgy real estate and/or hookers, and was done by Putin purely as a way of making friends.  Your thoughts?

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Buster's Uncle on June 19, 2017, 02:01:15 PM

While your logic scans - I don't think the evidence of the actual Putin bears out the scenario.  He appears to be a Fortune Favors the Bold sort more than a bit, and I can think of reasons to back the incompetent trash w/o trusting him...

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Elok on June 19, 2017, 03:32:14 PM

Oh, I can envision him tweaking the election a little to boost [X].  But it would be irrational for him to tell [X] about it, or involve him in any way.  If he wants leverage, that's what Kompromat is for, to the extent that this man can be controlled by shame at all.

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Lorizael on June 19, 2017, 06:24:56 PM

I think it's a mistake to infer Putin's intentions from the way things turned out. Spy master though he may (or may not) be, he is bound to make bad judgments or make decisions based on factors other than reading/manipulating people. The logic you're employing here is very similar to what conspiracy theorists do. "Of course there's no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, because the government is all powerful and disposed of that evidence!" (I'm not implying that you're being a loony conspiracy theorist, just trying to show how that logic leads to obviously bad results.)

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Unorthodox on June 19, 2017, 06:43:28 PM

Lets see...

Quote from: Elok on June 19, 2017, 03:03:04 AM

Now he's accused of cutting deals with [name I won't post b/c I don't like the pig emoticon].

Is this some news I've missed?  Most I've seen is several levels removed from T being implicated.

Quote

Alternatively, he might have simply wanted [HIM] to be in power as opposed to Hillary

And why WOULDN'T he?  I think everyone knew going in T was an inexperienced liability at best, disaster at worst. 

I don't think there needs be any more reason than that.  Weaken the US by electing someone with no clue. 

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Elok on June 20, 2017, 12:41:54 AM

I'm thinking more of the insinuations here than what's been said--since what's been said, AFAICT, is so vague as to be meaningless.  Things like Comey's "I do not doubt that Russia interfered in this election, etc." which could be interpreted to mean almost anything.  The clear implication on the blue side is that T fired Comey to cover something up, that something involving collusion with Russia on some level.  But Putin would be a fool to trust T to any extent.  This was abundantly clear even before the election.

Lori, I'm not arguing from absence of evidence.  I'm arguing that Putin's proposed misdeeds here are inconsistent with what we know of his personality and past.  They require him to stake a great deal on an extremely unreliable actor when a less risky method exists.  That is, he could meddle on his own and have the whole operation under his direct control, with T totally ignorant.  Or he could not, since AFAIK there's no evidence beyond "somebody using Russian software leaked Hillary's e-mails."

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Unorthodox on June 20, 2017, 03:27:09 AM

I think T was trying to cover up something that is entirely different than things to do with the election to be honest.  I doubt T had any personal collusion with the Russians about the election, but I think there is a lot of embarrassing ties to Russian organizations he'd like to keep private.  And any time little snippets on those come out, they get conveniently and quickly buried by insert stupid tweet T does that steals the news cycle here. 

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Elok on June 20, 2017, 04:06:33 AM

I largely concur, though I think the moronic tweets are just what he does, not strategically planned.  He has a fantastic talent for drawing attention to himself, and in our current environment he can skate surprisingly well on that with no trace of actual political aptitude.  Right after the election I was terrified that he had some kind of sinister plan to do God knows what.  Turns out I was wrong, he's simply an incompetent ass who's in about eight fathoms over his head and lacks the capacity to understand what he's doing wrong or learn from his mistakes.  But people keep treating him like a nascent fascist because it's more alluring to fight a tyrant than endure Gomer Pyle at the helm.

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Geo on June 20, 2017, 10:39:58 AM

Quote from: Unorthodox on June 20, 2017, 03:27:09 AM

I think T was trying to cover up something that is entirely different than things to do with the election to be honest.  I doubt T had any personal collusion with the Russians about the election, but I think there is a lot of embarrassing ties to Russian organizations he'd like to keep private.  And any time little snippets on those come out, they get conveniently and quickly buried by insert stupid tweet T does that steals the news cycle here.

To top that, isn't P supposed to be helped in power back in his early days by to let's say quite shady Russian organisation(s)?
The current POTUS might simply be an extension of that.

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Elok on June 20, 2017, 03:03:16 PM

In the nineties, Russia was run largely by ex-Soviet oligarchs who'd left the Party and taken big chunks of its property with them.  Also, gangsters.  Lots and lots of gangsters.  The line between those two groups was by no means well defined.  Putin was the cleverest and most determined of the oligarch/gangsters, and thus clawed his way to the top of the heap before liquidating or subjugating all the others.  Nobody doubts that a large number of carcasses were produced along the way.

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Rusty Edge on July 09, 2017, 05:57:56 PM

I just contacted both of my Senators as well as my Congressman asking them for assurances that they would not allow [Sleezebag] to form a Joint Cyber Security Task Force with the Russians. I figure the staffers are keeping tallies.

Title: Re: On Russiagate
Post by: Bearu on July 16, 2017, 05:17:50 AM

Quote from: Elok on June 20, 2017, 03:03:16 PM

In the nineties, Russia was run largely by ex-Soviet oligarchs who'd left the Party and taken big chunks of its property with them.  Also, gangsters.  Lots and lots of gangsters.  The line between those two groups was by no means well defined.  Putin was the cleverest and most determined of the oligarch/gangsters, and thus clawed his way to the top of the heap before liquidating or subjugating all the others.  Nobody doubts that a large number of carcasses were produced along the way.

The current tragedy of Russia revolves around the subversion of the capitalist thought into the political ability of the country to defend the group against the vicious intrusions of the bourgeoisie. The massive number of corpses originate from the violent struggle of the capitalists to control the resources of another country through the exploitation of the population, and the inability of the average worker to defend the country against the intrusion.  What potential benefits does a country receive from the acceptance of capitalism except the development of the massive inequalities seen in the current American and Russian Societies? The potential development of the capitalist government involves the massive over-extension of the government's Red Army during the military conflicts of the previous decades along with the failed policies of the previous leaders as a result of the government's inability to adapt with the economic changes of the period. The massive incompetence of the government resulted in the massive establishment of the demands among the population for the "liberty" from the west because the population observed a massive delegitimization of the government as a political body after the lapse of the political censors. The massive incompetency of the situation resulted in the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev as the leader of the politburo in Russia prior to the collapse of the government, and the eventual ascension of Putin as a substitute for the czars of the previous century. The only result remains another blood bath because the governments continue to believe the path towards a bright future despite the massive reductions in the quality of life for the citizens.