When The "Russian" Trolls Began To do Damage

joG said:

When people knew BS wouldn't win, they also knew Trump wouldn't. While dividing the Democrats is possibly a goal for Putin, I would have thought the real goal is to harm the US, discredit its reliability and undermine domestic and international legitimacy of the country. Both BS and Trump were likely to further all three goals.

Click to expand...

So they succeeded?

EMNofSeattle said:

What?! I thought Trump was the Russian patsy?

Click to expand...

I think Trump is easily the most beneficial for Russia. Not in some weird conspiracy way, but just because he is eager to set up deals and doesn't believe in climate change at all. That means less policies that damage the Russian economy, the potential to get sanctions removed, and access to much bigger markets. Russia supports right wing candidates in Europe for the same reason.

Fishking said:

What? Hillary was the most anti-Russian candidate out there and was proposing implementing policies that would have let to war with Russia, per congressional testimony by General Dunford.

Click to expand...

Hillary was anti-Russia because it traditionally looks good to be anti-Russia. She would not have started a war with Russia. Bernie would have been the worst for Russia because the policies he promoted most reflected the policies of the left around the world. Even just taking action on climate change is a really bad deal for Russia. They almost completely rely on oil doing well in the market. Russia would fall apart if enough countries actively invested in green energy sources and strongly moved away from oil.

MrPeanut said:

Hillary was anti-Russia because it traditionally looks good to be anti-Russia. She would not have started a war with Russia. Bernie would have been the worst for Russia because the policies he promoted most reflected the policies of the left around the world. Even just taking action on climate change is a really bad deal for Russia. They almost completely rely on oil doing well in the market. Russia would fall apart if enough countries actively invested in green energy sources and strongly moved away from oil.

Click to expand...

No countries are moving away from oil in any meaningful way though. Oil and gas have so many industrial uses, and no one has come up with an alternative o liquid fuels that isn't a compromise, so the idea that Hillary would've tanked the Red Menace by purely economic means doesn't sound right to me.

She did however want no fly zones over Syria and refused to answer if that meant shooting down Russian planes if they tested the NFZ

calamity said:

So they succeeded?

Click to expand...

It would be my guess, certainly.

How the longer run turns out, we must wait and see.

EMNofSeattle said:

No countries are moving away from oil in any meaningful way though. Oil and gas have so many industrial uses, and no one has come up with an alternative o liquid fuels that isn't a compromise, so the idea that Hillary would've tanked the Red Menace by purely economic means doesn't sound right to me.

She did however want no fly zones over Syria and refused to answer if that meant shooting down Russian planes if they tested the NFZ

Click to expand...

It probably sounds naive, but I think if the United States elected a president that truly wanted to move to cleaner energy sources the combined research with our allies could lead to some pretty amazing things in a short period of time. I never claimed that Hillary would tank Russia at all. She was just a bigger threat to do so than Trump. You made a really good point about the no fly zone. I still can't imagine Hillary wanting a war with Russia, but her constant posturing would have been unnecessary in my opinion.

MrPeanut said:

Hillary was anti-Russia because it traditionally looks good to be anti-Russia. She would not have started a war with Russia. Bernie would have been the worst for Russia because the policies he promoted most reflected the policies of the left around the world. Even just taking action on climate change is a really bad deal for Russia. They almost completely rely on oil doing well in the market. Russia would fall apart if enough countries actively invested in green energy sources and strongly moved away from oil.

Click to expand...

Sure but both her and Obama were part of pushing sanctions restricting such things. We've been fighting a pipeline war with Russia for a while now, trying to keep Russia out of the EU market.

Fishking said:

Sure but both her and Obama were part of pushing sanctions restricting such things. We've been fighting a pipeline war with Russia for a while now, trying to keep Russia out of the EU market.

Click to expand...

Right, but if we are comparing Bernie, Hillary, and Trump I would think from a Russian perspective they would want either Trump or Hillary. Yes Hillary supports sanctions and likes to aggressively posture, but I think everyone knows it is highly unlikely two countries with nuclear arsenals will ever go to war. Obviously Trump be the first pick by a long shot, but Bernie would just have to come in last. I really don't see him being more friendly than Hillary when it comes to petrostates like Russia.

MrPeanut said:

It probably sounds naive, but I think if the United States elected a president that truly wanted to move to cleaner energy sources the combined research with our allies could lead to some pretty amazing things in a short period of time. I never claimed that Hillary would tank Russia at all. She was just a bigger threat to do so than Trump. You made a really good point about the no fly zone. I still can't imagine Hillary wanting a war with Russia, but her constant posturing would have been unnecessary in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I would disagree on the basis that we put billions every year into subsidizing oil alternatives.

Tesla has never made an unsubsidized penny in profit. as just one example. My local utility provider has been given massive subsidies to put up windfarms in eastern Washington that generate so little power that the provider just buys coal power from Montana when they need peak power.

To say no resources go to non-oil because the government is enslaved to the evil big oil companies is silly. There simply is no market ready technology to compete with oil, some day there will be and it is being funded and researched. this is decades off however.

I do think Trump is more "Russia friendly" but I don't think it has anything to do with being pro-Russian. I think he just doesn't see the philosophical opposition to other countries, and views them as he viewed other businesses, either as rivals or partners and thinks it benefits both countries more to be partners then rivals.

And really Russia began to annoy the left only during the Syrian civil war, I think Hillary and Obama hate Russia because they completely screwed the pooch on Syria policy with actions and posturing that seemed confused, contradictory, and frankly fairly lame, and Russia swoops in with one big objective: prop up Assad and started dropping the bombs, they looked like the strong leaders picking and carrying out a course of action and we did not.

EMNofSeattle said:

I would disagree on the basis that we put billions every year into subsidizing oil alternatives.

Tesla has never made an unsubsidized penny in profit. as just one example. My local utility provider has been given massive subsidies to put up windfarms in eastern Washington that generate so little power that the provider just buys coal power from Montana when they need peak power.

To say no resources go to non-oil because the government is enslaved to the evil big oil companies is silly. There simply is no market ready technology to compete with oil, some day there will be and it is being funded and researched. this is decades off however.

I do think Trump is more "Russia friendly" but I don't think it has anything to do with being pro-Russian. I think he just doesn't see the philosophical opposition to other countries, and views them as he viewed other businesses, either as rivals or partners and thinks it benefits both countries more to be partners then rivals.

And really Russia began to annoy the left only during the Syrian civil war, I think Hillary and Obama hate Russia because they completely screwed the pooch on Syria policy with actions and posturing that seemed confused, contradictory, and frankly fairly lame, and Russia swoops in with one big objective: prop up Assad and started dropping the bombs, they looked like the strong leaders picking and carrying out a course of action and we did not.

Click to expand...

I want to respond to the comments in bold because I agree with the rest of your response. I never said that no money goes towards the promotion of green energy. My argument is that a dramatic increase in focus on green energy could lead to some major breakthroughs. A big part of progress in science is simply down to funding. In reality Sanders wouldn't have gotten that passed congress anyways, but he ran on it which is why I brought it up.

I don't think Trump is pro-Russian in as much as he is pro-profit, and Russia represents an opportunity in that sense. Particularly since Trump believes climate change is a hoax. I agree that he views other countries more like rival businesses than anything else. That feeds even more into a stronger focus on fossil fuels considering the lack of competitiveness in green energy currently.