"Currants Bw..."

[Power n Glory]

So Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states

It didn't poison Viktor Yuschenko a candidate for the Ukranian presidency in 2004 because he stood on a platform of wanting closer ties with the West than with Moscow.

It didn't carry out an execution of one of it's former operatives Alexander Litvinenko on British soil?

And Russia/The Soviet Union has been involved in Syria since the 1960s since it supported the coup d'etat that brought Hafez Assad to power.

That's the blindspot.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Do think that was purposely done?

Yes, i know there was this narrative that Trump wasn't very bright. And whilst i think he lacks self-control, he's not stupid and the people in his team are far from Stupid.

Steve Bannon is an incredibly unpleasant person, but you won't find many cannier individuals.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That's the best I have ever seen. You should be a political strategist and Clinton could have done with you over the past year.

So Trump made a totally positive case for change?

Remembering of course Making America Great Again is a slogan not a platform

I don't know why Clinton is worth mentioning to be honest, she wasn't well liked and was the embodiment of the establishment which definitely worked against her. I'm still to see evidence that someone else could have won against Trump. As much as i hate to say it, you mention political strategists and Trump will be a long time modelled as a perfect way to run an outsider campaign.

[Power n Glory]

Yes, i know there was this narrative that Trump wasn't very bright. And whilst i think he lacks self-control, he's not stupid and the people in his team are far from Stupid.

Steve Bannon is an incredibly unpleasant person, but you won't find many cannier individuals.

Wouldn't that suggest a media bias for Trump?

[Niall_Quinn]

No, I'm saying if the public trusted the mainstream media, Trump wouldn't have won. It goes hand in hand with people mistrusting politicians and to the aftermath of 9/11.

Everything else you've posted is irrelevant. The point in bold shows you believe a lot of bullshit as well. Broad assumptions.

Fair enough, well that's obviously true.

I don't "believe" anything. I watch events unfold and sift approximations to reality from the propaganda because that's as close as anyone will ever get when looking at things from the outside. So of course I don't buy into the media garbage because it's one of the simpler tasks to see through that stuff. That said, everything I said is relevant as it goes to the credibility of the media and the attention span of a "divided" public as the media spin gets crazier and more apocalyptic. The mainstream media and political parties are laughing stocks now, many more people can see it and that's just the way I like it. I'd say as more people get aboard with the realisation they've been conned for so long, the more united we'll be.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes, i know there was this narrative that Trump wasn't very bright. And whilst i think he lacks self-control, he's not stupid and the people in his team are far from Stupid.

Steve Bannon is an incredibly unpleasant person, but you won't find many cannier individuals.

How do you know this?

[Niall_Quinn]

That's the blindspot.

No, that's just stuff he dragged up to try and support a discredited argument. This is a bit like the Trump and Brexit debates. If you won't go along with one position then you are 100% committed to the opposite position. Once so positioned you can be tarred with all manner of guilt by association.

[Power n Glory]

Fair enough, well that's obviously true.

I don't "believe" anything. I watch events unfold and sift approximations to reality from the propaganda because that's as close as anyone will ever get when looking at things from the outside. So of course I don't buy into the media garbage because it's one of the simpler tasks to see through that stuff. That said, everything I said is relevant as it goes to the credibility of the media and the attention span of a "divided" public as the media spin gets crazier and more apocalyptic. The mainstream media and political parties are laughing stocks now, many more people can see it and that's just the way I like it. I'd say as more people get aboard with the realisation they've been conned for so long, the more united we'll be.

I very much doubt that. Suspicion of the media and politicians has been flipped so people are suspicious of their neighbors.

[Niall_Quinn]

So Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states

Nowhere have I claimed Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic "stranglehold" over former satellite states. What assumption am I supposed to make from the dramatic introduction of this non-evidence? The point we were discussing is the US drive for global dominance. So if I follow along with your reasoning:

Russia used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states;
Therefore Russia is operating outside its borders;
Therefore there is an equivalence between the US wars of aggression against the Middle East and Asia and Russian interventions.

Is that about it?

It didn't poison Viktor Yuschenko a candidate for the Ukranian presidency in 2004 because he stood on a platform of wanting closer ties with the West than with Moscow.

And then you reinforce this equivalence by talking about an isolated intelligence operation that could be picked out of a thousand such operations that have been developed by all sides against all sides during and after the Cold War.

What on earth is the point you are trying to make here?

It didn't carry out an execution of one of it's former operatives Alexander Litvinenko on British soil?

And pretty much the same thing again. Political assassination. Something we are rather familiar with here in the west but whatever.

And Russia/The Soviet Union has been involved in Syria since the 1960s since it supported the coup d'etat that brought Hafez Assad to power.

Yes, precisely. Syria is a longstanding component within Russia's sphere of influence. Just as I said.

What you are trying to do is make it appear as if I support Russia, Russia's conduct and Russian aims. Just as the media propagandists are trying to do to Trump. The mere suggestion of ceasefires, collaboration, friendlier relations, these are not viewed as sane developments that might save us all from annihilation, but instead treasonous acts that... do what exactly? That's the bit I haven't been able to figure out. Undermine our pursuit of conflict? Curtail Russian operations inside their own sphere of influence? What is the actual policy of the neoliberals, do you know?

Well I don't support Russia but I do wholeheartedly support the idea of friendly relations with Russia. And the same with Syria and Iran and anywhere else that is prepared to swap trade for conflict. And if that olive branch is abused then fair enough, other policies (preferably sane ones) might need to apply. Such as when Iraq attached the US, no wait... Or Afghanistan attacked the US, no wait... Or Syria attacked the US, no wait... Or Libya attacked the US, no wait... Or Iran attacked the US, no wait...

What I meant to say was when SAUDI ARABIA attacked the US.

[Niall_Quinn]

I very much doubt that. Suspicion of the media and politicians has been flipped so people are suspicious of their neighbors.

Are you suspicious of your neighbour? My relations with my neighbour remain unchanged. Well they are better, if anything, because I apologised for that thing.