Russia loses

[One Bad Pig]

Source: Putin's interference in our election clearly backfired

With his interference in the 2016 election, Russian President Vladimir Putin hoped he could tilt Washington onto a more pro-Moscow course. But after President Donald Trump signed legislation tightening sanctions on Russia on Wednesday, it should be clear that Putin's strategy backfired in a big way.

First, Russia's meddling has not helped it achieve its policy objectives. Russia wanted sanctions lifted; instead, they have been strengthened. Russia hoped that Trump would splinter the NATO alliance with his threats not to defend members who were not meeting their financial commitments.

Instead, allies are increasing their defense spending by $12 billion, the Trump administration continued the deployment of NATO forces to the Baltics and sent an additional 900 troops to Poland's border with Russia, and the president has now reaffirmed the United States' commitment to Article V of the NATO charter. None of these outcomes please Moscow.

Second, Russia's election meddling has boxed Trump in to this aggressive stance for the foreseeable future. Trump's best defense against charges of collusion with Russia is: Look at my policies. There has been no president this tough on Moscow since Ronald Reagan.

Even if Trump wanted to pursue detente with Russia, he cannot do so, because any concessions he makes to Putin will be seen through the prism of the Russia investigation.

...There is still no evidence that Moscow's interference had any impact on the results of the election. Long before the first WikiLeaks emails came out, polls showed that 65 percent of Americans had already decided that Clinton was dishonest and 56 percent said she should have been prosecuted. Moreover, the stories that cemented these perceptions in Americans' minds had nothing to do with Russia or WikiLeaks - and most came out many months before the first WikiLeaks emails were published.

It was The New York Times that broke the story that Clinton used a private email server while secretary of state. It was The Post that revealed the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments during the same period.

It was ABC News that revealed that the Clinton State Department gave special treatment to "FOBs" (friends of Bill Clinton) after the Haiti earthquake. None of that had anything to do with Russia.

So while Russia's interference did not change the outcome of the 2016 election, it certainly has changed U.S. policy since.

Link

© Copyright Original Source

Oops.

[Mountain Man]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

That's just Trump's long-game. He'll have more flexibility once the investigation blows over.

[Tassman]

Source: Putin's interference in our election clearly backfired

With his interference in the 2016 election, Russian President Vladimir Putin hoped he could tilt Washington onto a more pro-Moscow course. But after President Donald Trump signed legislation tightening sanctions on Russia on Wednesday, it should be clear that Putin's strategy backfired in a big way.

First, Russia's meddling has not helped it achieve its policy objectives. Russia wanted sanctions lifted; instead, they have been strengthened. Russia hoped that Trump would splinter the NATO alliance with his threats not to defend members who were not meeting their financial commitments.

Instead, allies are increasing their defense spending by $12 billion, the Trump administration continued the deployment of NATO forces to the Baltics and sent an additional 900 troops to Poland's border with Russia, and the president has now reaffirmed the United States' commitment to Article V of the NATO charter. None of these outcomes please Moscow.

Second, Russia's election meddling has boxed Trump in to this aggressive stance for the foreseeable future. Trump's best defense against charges of collusion with Russia is: Look at my policies. There has been no president this tough on Moscow since Ronald Reagan.

Even if Trump wanted to pursue detente with Russia, he cannot do so, because any concessions he makes to Putin will be seen through the prism of the Russia investigation.

...There is still no evidence that Moscow's interference had any impact on the results of the election. Long before the first WikiLeaks emails came out, polls showed that 65 percent of Americans had already decided that Clinton was dishonest and 56 percent said she should have been prosecuted. Moreover, the stories that cemented these perceptions in Americans' minds had nothing to do with Russia or WikiLeaks - and most came out many months before the first WikiLeaks emails were published.

It was The New York Times that broke the story that Clinton used a private email server while secretary of state. It was The Post that revealed the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments during the same period.

It was ABC News that revealed that the Clinton State Department gave special treatment to "FOBs" (friends of Bill Clinton) after the Haiti earthquake. None of that had anything to do with Russia.

So while Russia's interference did not change the outcome of the 2016 election, it certainly has changed U.S. policy since.

Link

© Copyright Original Source

Oops.

It may not have interfered with the mechanics of the actual election, but it very likely influenced to outcome of the election given the fake news against Hillary being propagated throughout the social media by Russian agents.

"Senate intelligence committee leaders have received reports that Russia hired at least 1,000 trolls to spread fake news stories to hurt Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton during the presidential election."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b08194e3b8d5c4

According to the FBI, this continued right up the day of the election.

But that said, Putin certainly hasn't got what he paid for.

[demi-conservative]

Oops.

Best part about article is how Dems are complete hypocrites:

Third, Russia's election meddling has achieved something no Russian leader has previously been able to do: It has turned Democrats into modern-day Cold Warriors. In 2012, after Mitt Romney called Russia our No. 1 geopolitical foe, Democrats cheered Barack Obama for mocking him by saying, "The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back." Today, five years later, Democrats are suddenly channeling their inner Reagan.

It's ironic. During the Cold War, when the Kremlin was throwing people into the gulag and threatening the United States with nuclear annihilation, many Democrats were all for accommodating Moscow. They opposed the Reagan defense buildup, the Strategic Defense Initiative and aid to anti-Soviet freedom fighters and chafed when Reagan declared the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire." But the Kremlin finally crossed a line when it messed with Hillary Clinton's campaign.

'Gulag is alright!!, but trying to stop sociopathic powerhungry hag from getting power is not!!!'

[Darth Executor]

It may not have interfered with the mechanics of the actual election, but it very likely influenced to outcome of the election given the fake news against Hillary being propagated throughout the social media by Russian agents.

"Senate intelligence committee leaders have received reports that Russia hired at least 1,000 trolls to spread fake news stories to hurt Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton during the presidential election."

lol almost the entire MSM spits out pro left anti right propaganda 24/7 and she still got destroyed.

[Mountain Man]

I find it hilarious how the "fake news" label has affixed itself firmly to liberal news organizations. Talk about a backfire.

[demi-conservative]

Pig:

This thread should be called 'flailing of desperate neocons'. Why?

Neocons for some reason not able to come up with own solution to Obamacare, which is big domestic problem, even though they did many years of talking during Obama era!!! But somehow, they can quickly get veto-proof sanctions on Russia, based on 'Russia hacking' on basically zero evidence

That they are going too far can be seen, from how even pro-US anti-Russia leaders of EU don't want sanctions, like Merkel!!! But no, neocons want their WW3!

[One Bad Pig]

Pig:

This thread should be called 'flailing of desperate neocons'. Why?

Neocons for some reason not able to come up with own solution to Obamacare, which is big domestic problem, even though they did many years of talking during Obama era!!! But somehow, they can quickly get veto-proof sanctions on Russia, based on 'Russia hacking' on basically zero evidence

That they are going too far can be seen, from how even pro-US anti-Russia leaders of EU don't want sanctions, like Merkel!!! But no, neocons want their WW3!

If you want to talk about that topic, please do it elsewhere.

Thanks.

[demi-conservative]

If you want to talk about that topic, please do it elsewhere.

Thanks.

Okay, let's talk about Russia '''''''loses''''''''.

Russia only loses if neocons in power to keep putting sanctions etc etc on them. But if neocons keep pulling stupid nonsense in stupid way, they'll get kicked out of power.

Then Russia wins!!!

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, let's talk about Russia '''''''loses''''''''.

Russia only loses if neocons in power to keep putting sanctions etc etc on them. But if neocons keep pulling stupid nonsense in stupid way, they'll get kicked out of power.

Then Russia wins!!!

You'll need to explain how non-neocons, who seem to have voted overwhelmingly for the sanctions as well, would be a 'win' for Russia.

[demi-conservative]

You'll need to explain how non-neocons, who seem to have voted overwhelmingly for the sanctions as well, would be a 'win' for Russia.

They don't have what is almost mindless urge to start WWIII.

[One Bad Pig]

They don't have what is almost mindless urge to start WWIII.

Whatever you were aiming for, you missed.

[Tassman]

Whatever you were aiming for, you missed.

Chortle!

It becoming fairly obvious that whatever Russia hoped to get out out of a Trump victory has evaporated.