Comment by varispeed
7 days ago
I wonder how much more evidence American people need to see Trump for being a Russian asset and working against US interests.
We are in treason territory.
7 days ago
I wonder how much more evidence American people need to see Trump for being a Russian asset and working against US interests.
We are in treason territory.
People that support him don't care about evidence. It's a cult following.
Authorities focused on "classic" terrorism when monitoring online content and propaganda and got completely blindsided by the take over of the media.
I find it particularly interesting how many popular US media people disseminate provably false Kremlin propaganda, as if someone flipped a switch.
Fascinating times.
They knew about it back in 2014 but Obama didn't do enough about it.
You could not have designed a more effective version of a “Manchurian Candidate” in my opinion.
In fact, this administration has been so effective and brazen that if you were to try and write this as fiction, the scope and scale of what is occurring would be deemed unbelievable and would require toning down for the audience.
>and working against US interests.
>We are in treason territory.
Are we just going to start throwing "treason" accusations whenever a political opponent does the wrong thing? Being anti-free trade? Hurts US hegemony and makes US consumers pay more. Treason. Being pro-free trade? Sells out hard working americans while enriching corporations. Treason.
Propaganda and lead poisoning did a number here.
It's the perfect storm.
I don't see an end to this
The best thing about your comment is you could be referring to Trump, or the GP. 9 out of 10 people who read your comment will say "hell yeah" and think you agree with them whether you do or not.
Brilliant.
The people who know what the effects of lead poisoning are, know :D
Well, enough of some Americans elected a convicted felon to the Oval Office, so...
Russia noticeably absent from the global and per-country tariffs
Trump is allegedly planning on sanctions against Russia if they do not agree to his peace plan.
Trump just added some additional sanctions on Russia for helping the Houthis.
Sanctions seem worse than tariffs to me, but I'm not an expert.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sanctions-russia-based-n...
He didn't add sanctions on Russia, but on people dealing with Russia - that's a different thing.
But notice how people talk now - Trump might say he is "planning" something against Russia and people take it as a proof that he is not an asset. They forget about concept of sacrificing something to gain advantage. If heat turns to much on Trump, they might let him disrupt something and then run propaganda that Trump isn't bent. Until he makes next move massively benefitting Putin.
Seems like they can be doing this over and over and general public will see it as Trump just navigating difficult geopolitical landscape and that we should "trust the process". etc.
1 reply →
[flagged]
Sure you can wrap it in fancy words, but most people who understand tariffs can see it for what it is.
I’m not wrapping it in “fancy words.” I’m pointing out there is a real policy here, not something Trump made up to make Putin happy.
[flagged]
You're using "whataboutism" to point fingers and say one side is worse because of this or that. I could do the same thing and say Hillary's emails don't matter because Mike Waltz is out there using Gmail to conduct official business. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/01/mike-waltz-signal-gmail-sec...
To solve this we will all have to come together and accept that nobody on either side of American Politics are on the side of the working class. Instead of pointing fingers at democrats or republicans it is beyond time for us as Americans to come together and vote in people that will work for us as a collective regardless of what political affiliations they have.
> This combined with her running her own mail server and sending government emails through it should have landed her at least in jail for a couple of years.
I'm guessing you're cool with the current regime's handling of sensitive information, yeah?
> But lets focus on someone trying to avoid war with Russia at all costs and attempting to make peace.
So instead you want to give Putin the population of Ukraine to send in to get slaughtered as soldiers for his next invasion, and also send in Americans to get killed in Canada, Mexico, and/or Greenland? A++ very peaceful no notes.
See, that's what a 2-parties system does to one's brain. Trump can be bad, and many other things can be bad at the same time, without causation. If that's enough to distract from the bigger picture, you do not qualify as a voter.
[flagged]
You are spreading disinformation. The FBI investigations into Russia collusion were separate from Mueller's special counsel investigations, Mueller's work did not refer to the Steele Dossier at all.
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigati...
Mueller's key findings include
- Uncovering extensive criminal activity on the part of Trump associates
- that Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the US election system in 2016
- that there were numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign
- that there were multiple episodes in which Trump engaged in deliberate obstruction during the investigation
If you are taking Trump's "no collusion, complete exoneration" at his word, understand that he was lying. The report literally used the phrase "does not exonerate", and the only reason Trump was not indicted was because of the DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president.
Wait, all you have to support the extraordinary claim that "Trump is a KGB agent" is that... Russian bots with 50 followers retweeted some pro-Trump posts ? Seriously ? That's ALL that the anti-Trump administration could find after years of trying to nail him ?
Without the Steele dossier, "Krasnov" has seen lots of attention. Now stir that with the absolute bizarro behavior of Trump around Russia/Putin.
There may not be hard evidence of a fire, but there is so much smoke I choke on it.
It's not bizarre, it's pretty much in line with the stance that the West has had with Russia since the 90s, even with Bush junior in the early 2000s, before the rise of the neocons.
[flagged]
2 replies →
On the Sam Harris podcast you can listen to a great interview with Anne Applebaum that goes in to some detail about the relationship between various US and RU politicians. There's a lot more to it than the Steele dossier.
I can fully understand how people on both the left and the right could have ideological differences with Trump, how they can hate the way he interacts with people, think he's picking unqualified cronies for high level jobs, etc. I disagree with the last one but I can at least see how a reasonable person would get to that conclusion.
"Trump is committing treason because he is instituting tariffs" or "Trump is a Russian asset" is not a position any reasonably intelligent person can come to without being blinded by partisanship. It's simply not a serious position to have.
At least some of his appointments make perfect sense as well (Tulsi, RFK, Bhattacharya)
If Trump were a Russian asset, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than what he is already doing? Hell, he is running Putin's playbook on Canada and Greenland. Did you vote for that?
NATO is already over because none of our allies can expect Trump to honor our treaty obligations.
Regardless of what his intentions might be which are all speculations as far as I'm concerned, he managed to convince Europe to rearm in 1 month, which is a net positive for Europe and America (assuming America still sees that as a positive) and a massive blow for Russia.
How about stopping to supply Ukraine with weapons?
4 replies →
> If Trump were a Russian asset, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than what he is already doing?
Rhetoric is a poor substitute for actual evidence.
Many moons ago, the fringe right used a similar argument to imply that Barack Obama was pro-ISIS. After his hasty withdrawal from Iraq, ISIS filled the power vacuum. Their "caliphate" grew for years and years, with no significant intervention from the US! At the time there wasn't a great answer to the question "If Obama were pro-ISIS, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than he already has?". Yet (hopefully) we all know that this was simply bad faith, conspiratorial rhetoric. He was obviously not pro-ISIS, and there was no evidence whatsoever that he was. So how could people possibly have entertained such an idea? Easy--they already hated Barack Obama, so they were willing to give the conspiracy theory the benefit of the doubt.
Do yourself a favor and apply the old tried and true standard: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It'll save you a good deal of embarrassment.
10 replies →