806
Mike Johnson's campaign contributions from company tied to Russia
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
806 points (98.6% liked)
politics
18073 readers
2939 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So, turns out russia is trying to bring down the U.S. from the inside? Isn't this what the intelligence community has been saying for years now, and somehow we keep letting it happen.
Republicans are actively and knowingly working toward russia’s goal. The traitor swine.
It's ok now that Russia is run by oligarchs - oligarchs don't really have nationality in the sense of us peons. It was only that crazy, communist USSR they didn't like. Seriously: name me a significant Russian policy that doesn't 100% align with US conservatives.
Almost like the post-Soviet Russian government was heavily influenced by Ronald Reagan's administration. Of course conservatives love Russia now, it's fully realized Reagan's dream.
Gun control
The NRA was nearly shut down because it was funneling so much money from the Russian right to bear arms group that it didn'tknow what to spend it on - so the leadership spent it on luxury stuff.
Almost like they know how to destabilize a country
Part of me thinks, "Yeah, the American Fascist Party rushed Johnson into the Speaker's office so that the press wouldn't be able to assemble all this information in time for anyone to protest."
Another part of me thinks, "So much of this stuff being reported now happened a long time ago. Why didn't we already know?"
The frontrunner for the republican president is well known to have had ties and been compromised long before 2016 (remember the pee-pee- tape?). And plenty of republicans straight up flew to russia for july 4th a few years back.
Nobody cares. Their base will still vote for them and the rest of us are waiting for the end.
That's because Democrats don't know how to do rhetoric. Remember how we don't actually have a federal budget for the next fiscal year? If this were due to democratic infighting, republicans would be on air every day talking about how "they can't even manage their own party, they shouldn't be trusted with managing our government".
A competent democratic party should be talking about how we went over the cliff on the antarctic ice shelf melting because republicans don't believe in climate change, they should be talking about how republicans are prepared to abandon democracy, they should be talking about the incompetence of the republican party.
Nobody with a modicum of intelligence blames the Democrats for the impending shutdown.
It is just that people have largely made their mind up over that and there is the expectation of "a brief shutdown" because of how dysfunctional the government is.
In the likely event this continues? Then we will probably see that become a strong part of messaging. But even that only directly impacts a comparatively small part of the voting populace. Most people will instead blame "park rangers" for shutting down national parks and "lazy TSA" for the inevitable shitshow of airports. And continue to blame the USPS for everything else. Rather than realize there is one big connection between all those.
Well that's the thing, rhetoric isn't for the people that agree with you, it's for the people that don't. Conservatives aren't completely hopeless, but their fear and anger are being weaponized to ignore fascist movements in their party while actively having their class consciousness suppressed. Deprogramming them will require a constant reminder about the failures of their party to actually improve their life through policy.
Except Republicans and their voting base
Nobody with a modicum of intelligence
Touché
There are also the low-info that might not be exactly stupid, but are so tuned out/busy that they fall for the "both sides" bullshit and take the "a pox on both their houses" route.
Don't forget that Gaetz got what he wants too, a russian ally 3rd in line. I just put Gaetz and russia in and this is what I got:
https://www.businessinsider.com/matt-gaetz-russia-not-ukraine-join-nato-anti-china-alliance-2023-7?op=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/28/gaetz-ukraine-republicans/
https://www.newsweek.com/matt-gaetz-would-rather-have-russia-ukraine-nato-1812588
I suspect, with zero evidence, that the press was more focused on covering the shit show that was the vacancy. To dive deep into all of the candidates was going to be a challenge, especially given that the candidates kept changing day to day.
So once the speaker was elected, the press could then coalesce around the one person.
The overarching shitshow (Shitshow Influenced Corrupt Organization, or SICO) serves to overwhelm the ability of the press to effectively cover everything. The effect of this is that while, yes, the press does cover some very important sub-shitshows, and those shitshows get blunted by public reaction, many more sub-shitshows go unnoticed and plow forward as shittily as intended.
We can thank the conservative/corporate media, oops, I mean the "liberal media".
Hell, they even published a book detailing their plans.
DOJ needs to step it up but Garland's a "centrist."
Because the people they report to are the people on the inside.
I'm thinking we start by torpedoing the oligarchs' yacts in international waters.
I could use a new boat. Where's me cutlass?
Yeah, but something something MUH FREEZED PEACH.
...or that's what the likes of Elmo and little d say.
So the problem is obviously American politics. But I think it's entirely possible for a politician to be influenced by Russians without being a Russian plant. I think there's a level of insulation between the politician and their "donors." If there's any kind of overt link, that's bad. But if he can say hey, I just cash the checks, he isn't technically doing anything wrong. Legally. Ethically? Piece of shit. But we're talking American politics.