Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is the premise of your post based on your belief that a record number of republicans will lose their seats in 2018 due to Russians? I think you might be on to something there comrade.
Is the premise of your post based on your belief that a record number of republicans will lose their seats in 2018 due to Russians? I think you might be on to something there comrade.
No
Democrats constantly blame Russia for Hillary’s loss and “electing” Trump
But before Trump, We has 2014 which was also a shellacking for the Dems as well. Obama lost a record amount of seats under his presidency
Was it thanks to “Russian propaganda” that happened as well?
The Russians never messed with our election system until 2015, when they first began trying to hack into it. The seats the Democrats lost had nothing to do with Russia throughout Obama's two terms.
In 2008, the Great Recession was Obama's biggest and most sudden concern by far.
Secondarily, Obama had universal health care as his most important item on his agenda. And Obama inherited both the wars that were still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Al-Quida was still a potent force to be reckoned with. All these filled up Obama's plate, and all found stiff conservative opposition, but none of the opposition came from anything to do with Russia.
Russia was mired in troubles of its own and had been ever since the fall of the Soviet empire, so it was far down on Obama's list. And everyone else's too.
Putin was the Russian President when Obama assumed the Presidency, but Putin was still busy getting the Russian economy back up and rebuilding the military than worrying about the United States. He had big trouble at home coming at him from several different directions at once, and they required Putin to engage his military as a tool more often than not. The Russian army was in pretty bad shape when Putin assumed his office, and the Russian navy and air force was in even worse shape. Worse, Russia had lost all it's warm water ports, something vital to it's navy, when Crimea and Ukraine both left the new Russian Union, and he had to get them back. Russia's own ports all freeze in the winters and become ice jammed.
Keeping a Russian fleet anchorage in Sevastopol has been of prime importance since the times of the Czars. If you look it up on a map, you'll see why.
So Putin's main military targets were Crimea, the Ukraine, and Chechnya, a breakaway Muslim nation that wanted out of the Russian Union. Chechnya is where all the Russian natural gas deposits are found, so Putin couldn't allow it to leave. Oil was Putin's main financial source for Russia's economic recovery.
These concerns lasted for Putin throughout Obama's second term as well.
He annexed the Crimea and intervened in Ukraine during 2014. By then, he had seized control of Russia's oil and gas away from the oligarchs who controlled it, put the biggest guy in prison, and had crushed the Chechnya revolt.
And by 2014, Putin was sending Russian troops, aircraft, arms, and supplies to Syria as Assad's largest ally. Syria was to be the test bed for his re-vamped military.
So Putin had many more important irons in his fire than the United States during the Obama years.
Those years were also the period when computers and the internet had finally become powerful and fast enough to use as tools for cyber warfare.
The Russians have been masters of psychology for ages. They have been using it as a control of the masses ever since the last Czar was in power 100 years ago.
What better nation to try out cyber war than the United States? What better time than a Presidential election to learn how effective Russian brainwashing really is or isn't these days?
With most of Putin's agenda now completed or underway, he could now turn his attention to the west at last. And, as luck would have it, he was provided a couple of perfect American candidates to play his games with.
Last edited by banjomike; 07-17-2018 at 07:33 PM..
If that was true, why did they let Obama get elected - twice? You can't say the Russians helped democrats lose, while ignoring that a democrat won the highest office in the land, twice.
If that was true, why did they let Obama get elected - twice? You can't say the Russians helped democrats lose, while ignoring that a democrat won the highest office in the land, twice.
The Russians don't care about which party the winner comes from. They want the candidate who won't interfere with their agenda or impede their economic plans.
So it's not the party. It's the person. In 2016, the choice for the Russians was a candidate who had opposed them in the Middle East while she was Secretary of State vs. a candidate who had profited from building some casinos and hotels in Russia.
One was much more willing to go along with them and the other wasn't. Party affiliation had nothing to do with their choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
