Apparently she snuck Jill Stein in there too, but no one cares about her.
So who isn’t a Russian operative?
I think that since she can’t put bullets in everybody’s heads and doesn’t have an inside line on the nomination, she’s just murking up the water and trashing everybody. “If I can’t be the first female president, No One Can!”.
Whatever anyone thinks of her, she was always right about Russia and Turkey in her public statements.
Honestly, she’s pretty anally retentive and the office of POTUS was the goal of her political career if not life. Not to mention delusional hubris and pathological ambition. Doesn’t strike me as person who would throw this all away for some more quick money.
On the other hand, it seems that Trump and his acolytes lost their shit when the realized how much money Manafort was earning in Ukraine and Russia (remember the ostrich jackets?) so they wanted in on the action, from Perry with his gas import schemes to Guiliani’s hare brained plans.
No, it was a pretty standard form of institutionalized corruption in the West. It was Trump who brought in the oligarchic style of foreign policy.
No one? Not even this guy?
The vestiges of the tone deaf establishment. Just like GWB crawled out from under a rock recently wishing he’d passed DACA and been more effective at foreign wars and being a globalist.
Anyone in the US who thinks 18 years of killing and dying in ME regime change wars with no end in sight is a bad idea = “Russians!”
Anyone who points out how corrupt our politicians are on either side “Putin is grooming you!”
It was funny to watch HRC blame a broke DNC for her loss, considering she used their lack of funds to take it over and subvert her opponents in the primary.
“Globalist” is an old Soviet anti-semitic term for Jews, popularized by Stalin. During the Doctor’s plot show trials in Moscow the Jews were accused of being “globalists”, for example.
I know you’re not aware of it, I just wanted to give you a heads up about the term the alt right brought into the mainstream and the sinister history behind it.
Invasions of Iraq and Aghanistan were horrible mistakes, costing thousands of American lives and billions if treasury. And it seems that Trump is planning another, only this time with Iran - you see, those troops that were pulled out Syria didn’t go “home” but to Iraq.
But on the other hand, Trump simply handed Putin a Middle Eastern empire for a measly 20 million a month - that’s how much Putin’s troops on the ground cost - and focuses on using US troops for mercenary work for the Saudis.
Which side? Tulsi Gabbard focuses solely on Hilary and the DNC. And pretty nebulous statements how the US will have money for everything once they “leave Russia alone”
That’s all well and good. I haven’t read about those trials. Can you recommend any good books? Seriously, I like reading about the USSR’s real history.
People who attend the World Economic Forum at Davos (the pols and businessmen actually running the world) constantly talk about the importance of globalism and interconnected markets. They use that phrase, I don’t think before 2016 ‘globalist’ was a pejorative in the West.
Now it’s a problem as a large group of voters in the West are rejecting what the WEF/Davos crowd are selling.
I actually like Jews for the record. Didn’t mean to evoke antisemitism from the USSR lol.
There was a very large contingent of Deomcrat voters that felt disenfranchised by the DNC playing favorites. Tulsi is playing on that sentiment to get a seat at the debate stage… which she barely is by the way. A politician cynically playing on constituents’ resentments for personal gain… The unmitigated gaul!
You mean like…?
Never mind. Too easy.
I found this:
-looks like the word was used to describe Hitler.
It must be a slur for all seasons, suitable for use against anyone you don’t like…
Or it’s not a hateful remark at all.
You didn’t even read your own link.
Read @NickViar link past the first paragraph
The Court of the Red Tsar and The Romanovs from Simon Sebag Montefiore. Vodka Politics by Mark Lawrence Schrad.
Interesting analysis. The article doesn’t say the word was used to describe Hitler?
That’s its only usage?
No. I’d apologize for saying so, if I had.
It could be read that way. Had you written it was also used to describe Hitler then it would have been clearer.
just another reason why men are better than women … I don’t see a problem here.
I wish this insanity would stop.
