Russia

Putin Responds to Claim Russia Trying to Influence U.S. Election

Says America is not a banana republic

|

RT

Vladimir Putin responded to accusations that Russia was trying to influence the presidential election in the United States, asking whether anyone could "seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people's choice." America was not, Putin insisted, some kind of banana republic. "Do correct me if I'm wrong," he told the audience at the Valdai Club meeting in Sochi, a kind of Russian equivalent to Davos.

Putin called the idea of Russian interference one of the "myths" perpetrated by Western leaders, along with the "Russian military threat," which he called "a profitable business that can be used to pump new money into defense budgets at home, get allies to bend to a single superpower's interests, expand NATO and bring its infrastructure, military units and arms closer to our borders." John Kerry reiterated today that the U.S. intelligence community believed Russia was behind the hacked election-related emails released by Wikileaks. The United States has also accused Russia of trying to hack into state voter registration databases.

Putin also pointed to referendums and elections that "often create surprises for the authorities," saying that at first when people didn't vote the way mainstream parties and "official and respectable media outlets advised them to" the results were written off as anomalies, then as the result of "foreign, usually Russian, propaganda." Putin said he'd like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia but that "regrettably" that wasn't the case.

Accusations of Russian meddling in American elections follow similar ones made in Europe about Russia supporting far-right and far-left parties whose interests align with Russia's. As with accusations of U.S. financial support for democratic causes overseas in places like Venezuela and Russia, they miss the point that such spending doesn't delegitimize the underlying popular support for the parties and causes, just as more broadly free spending on domestic elections allows more ideas to compete in the marketplace. Arguments for guilt by association against political opponents are deflections, used when more robust, substantive arguments are unavailable or unappealing.

Indeed, Putin suggested the fear whipped up about Russia was an effort to distract voters. "The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police," Putin said. "You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth."

Putin also dismissed the notion that Trump was the Kremlin's preferred candidate, calling it "complete rubbish" and insisting Russia was "by and large indifferent" to the election because it was ready to cooperate with any U.S. president that wanted to. Earlier this month, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an ultra-nationalist ally of Putin's, said Hillary Clinton could spark World War 3, an argument since echoed on the campaign trail by Donald Trump. Clinton has argued for imposing a no-fly zone in Syria in order to create leverage to get Russia to the negotiating table, something U.S. military officials have warned could lead to war with Russia and Syria, and that Clinton herself has privately acknowledged would cost a lot of Syrian lives. Later, while taking questions from the audience, Putin spoke positively about Trump and his campaign, describing him as "quite extravagant."

Putin brought the U.S. election up after pointing to the "mutual distrust" and "tensions" around the world "engendered by shifts in distribution of economic and political influence," arguing that even in "advanced democracies" people did not feel they had actual political power. "Essentially, the entire globalization project is in crisis today and in Europe, as we know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed," Putin said, blaming the situation on the "mistaken, hasty and to some extent over-confident choices made by some countries' elites a quarter of a century ago," and insisting globalization could have not only been accelerated but given "a different quality" that made it "more harmonious and sustainable in nature."

It's a misunderstanding of globalization Putin seems to identify in some of the U.S. actions that have contributed to global instability in the last quarter century but fails to see in his own ideas about realigning it. Globalization is and ought to be a process of freeing markets—of the open exchange of goods and services and the free movements of goods, services, capital and people. That process has created unprecedented prosperity, one in which remaining hardships which would've been marveled at a hundred years ago as utopian, are instead used by the political class around the world to argue for the imposition of controls that would reverse the unprecedented progress and deteriorate political, economic, and social conditions that have long been improving.

NEXT: Clinton Advisers on Email Scandal, Putin Praises Trump, Twitter Kills Off Vine: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police,” Putin said. “You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.”

    Hey, don’t forget about pussy grabbing and email servers!

    1. While I don’t agree with the part about firearms violence, this guy has managed to say in one interview what the two major candidates haven’t articulated in three debates and a year of campaigning.

      1. Of course, he sounds smooth. He’s an ex-KGB officer and comes from the same ilk as Hillary- smooth criminal.

        1. We are in fact a banana republic:

          FBI helps criminal politicians destroy evidence.
          President enacts decrees without due process
          Elections are manipulated
          Politicians are above the law
          Absolute crony corruption between the largest businesses and the capital.

          on and on….

          1. Wife of ex-president gets elected to presidency.

            1. I used to laugh at other countries when this happened. I’m not laughing anymore.

            2. Don’t cry for me, Eva.

          2. I don’t think that’s what a banana republic is. A banana republic is a country that is effectively controlled by large companies (like banana companies) or outside governments. At least that’s where it comes from.

            I suppose the election manipulation and crony corruption could count, but I think the main thing is control by outside forces. I think what we have is just good old fashioned corruption, machine politics and graft.

            1. “I don’t think that’s what a banana republic is….the main thing is control by outside forces”

              denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance

              you’re at bargaining now

              the depression stage is very close

              I recommend bourbon over scotch, but your choice

              1. So Russia is controlling our elections? I prefer to think I’m just distracting myself with details.

                I am drinking bourbon, as it happens. But I am very cosmopolitan when it comes to whisky.

                1. I’m drinking eggnog spiked with vodka.

                2. No, you misapprehend me. The banana-ness of things comes from within. For example, Argentina was not controled by other countries when it elected ex-presidents’ wives, twice. It was a purely domestic perversity of the country’s enervated and cynical power class. Sound familiar?

                  (Of course, Argentina does not go into bananas, strictly speaking. And Isabel Peron – who is still alive, I think – was the world’s first XX president.)

                  1. And what I’m saying is that it’s useful to have terms that describe specific things and I don’t think “banana republic” should be used for any old screwed up, corrupt government system. Maybe it’s too late for that one.

        2. He’s an evil fucker, but when you’re right, you’re right. Unless he’s lying.

  2. Has any of our “intelligence services” provided any evidence of this Russian Involvement in US elections?

    All I have seen is leaked reports to the media by unnamed sources, none of whom actually provides any evidence besides “Putin is evil”

    1. Uncle Joe Biden is pretty sure it was the Rooskies who hacked into Hillary’s email thingy. Pretty darn sure, actually. And he’s gonna see to it that ol’ Vlad will…well Uncle Joe can’t say too much right now y’know? But let’s just hope that ol’ Vlad can take as good as he give if you catch my drift ::wink::

      1. But let’s just hope that ol’ Vlad can take as good as he give if you catch my drift ::wink::

        Uncle Joe is going to rail him in the ass with his withered old penis, that actually is circumcised but the skin is so baggy and saggy around it that you can’t tell?

        1. Look, I don’t know what rumors you heard, but Diamond Joe doesn’t swing that way. He loves the ladies and the ladies love him right back. I mean, sure there was one time when Ol’ Joe was laying low south of the border and might have had a bit too much mezcal with a smooth-shaved barback named Carlito. But nobody remembers that night, so there’s no way to know what really happened.

          1. Carlito remembers… Carlito remembers…

      2. Yup. Was it a week or two ago that our level-headed vice president suggested he would like to fistfight the GOP nominee for president?

      3. Biden’s got a shotgun and, goddamnit! He’s not afraid to fire a shot into the air!

      4. Just think how much better it would be if Biden was the candidate. At least he’s funny. Hillary just makes me want to barf.

    2. Has any of our “intelligence services” provided any evidence of this Russian Involvement in US elections?

      Not that I’ve heard of.

      I heard a Clinton partisan claim that the Wikileaks e-mails are obviously and blatantly coming from the Russians because:

      a) The Republican’s e-mail security is just as shitty as the Dems, so therefore hackers have Republican Party e-mails
      b) Since the hackers haven’t released any of those Republican Party e-mails, they are obviously throwing the election to the Republicans

      Therefore, only the Russians could be behind Wikileaks releasing Clinton’s e-mails.

      When I commented about Clinton’s e-mail server in a bathroom being a one-off, he responded about RNC e-mails on some topic being hacked and swept under the rug. That topic? I can’t remember what it was, but I remember correctly that topic was quite old and dated back to the George W. Bush years.

      1. “b) Since the hackers haven’t released any of those Republican Party e-mails, they are obviously throwing the election to the Republicans”

        Or it goes something like…

        “Sergei, I’ve cracked into Donald Trump’s e-mail account! You should see this stuff! Womanizing, tax shelters, slandering his GOP allies…. it’s a goldmine!”

        “Vassily, you moron, he bragged about all of that on the Jimmy Fallon show a couple of weeks ago.”

      2. Most of the recent Wikileaks shit stems from the fact that John Podesta refused to change his Gmail password when he was notified that there was potentially unauthorized access. RUSSIAN HACKERS!!!!

        Maybe he thought it was aliens.

      3. From what I recall there was a kerfuffle about the RNC email system being used by Bush. I believe the Dems thought Bush was using the Email for official business or something and wanted to get the Emails. The RNC didn’t provide them or lost them or whatever.

        The difference of course is the RNC like the DNC is not public, they are not subject to FOIA. As far as I know Bush’s official emails were available just as the law required and no evidence I’ve heard shows he circumvented it. Certainly a completely different situation than conducting all official work in secrecy then deleting them when discovered.

  3. Clearly Ed is Putin’s lap dog. Surely he received the mainstream media talking points that Russia is our enemy in every conceivable way. In fact, we’ve always been at war with Russia. At least one presidential candidate understands that, and it is your and my patriotic duty to support her.

    1. I support her being sent with the first wave of paratroopers into Moscow.

      1. Do paratroopers get to choose their own pantsuits?

      2. Send her as a pathfinder. They used to go in first to set beacons for followup airborne troops.

        Then call off the mission.

        1. pack her chute with uncle joe’s penis. wait, what?

    2. Clearly Ed is Putin’s lap dog.

      You mean Ed Krayewski? Any last name that ends in “ski” is Russian, IT IS KNOWN. It’s been right in front of us this whole time!

      1. Well, “-ski” can also be an indicator of Polishness, but since the Poles are lap dogs of the Russians, the original point stands.

  4. state voter registration debates

    debatabases, morans.

  5. Huh. Can’t really argue with anything Vlad is saying in this particular instance. When the man’s right, he’s right.

    1. I know right? I always feel a little uncomfortable when Putin speaks truth to the US. Like am I supposed to be agreeing with this guy?

      1. The broken clock analogy works.

        Even here, Putin says something wrong, i.e., about globalization.

    2. Well, except for rising firearm violence.

      1. He’s not wrong. Like everything else he mentioned, it’s from his/Russia’s point of view. Firearms are totally a problem. Haven’t you seen Red Dawn?

        1. Don’t be daft. Yes he’s wrong. Firearm violence, like all violent crime, is dropping, not rising. That fact has no point of view, whether American, Russian, or Putin.

          1. Whoosh.

            (Firearms are problem when the Ruskies come over the border with the Cuban troops to invade the USA.)

            1. Ah. Firearms vs firearms violence.

              1. Yeah, my lame joke reasoning was if Putin can get us to ban firearms to stop a phony firearms violence problem, his officers won’t even have to crack open the 4473’s.

                Wolverines!

  6. We need more of Roger Moore throwing the Automatic Targeting Attack Communicator off of St. Cyril, thereby destroying it, and telling Walter Gotell, “that’s d?tente, comrade, you don’t have, I don’t have it.”

  7. Who gives a shit what Putin says. He is an ex-KGB thug and knows his nation is not stable.

    If the US Government cannot prove to the American public that Russia is hacking us then stop saying it publicly. Make our voting safe or STFU, is my position.

    Hillary has a proven track record of not being a good diplomat and Trump might be a good statesman.

    Another one of many reasons that I voted Trump. Along with plenty of whites, asians, latinos, blacks and women of all races. Hillary is toast!

    1. Yeah this scaremongering seems entirely irresponsible without some hard evidence. My gut feeling is it’s entirely self serving and the Russians have little to do with it. Putin probably genuinely thinks Trump is better for his own reasons but Putin not wanting to deal with a malicious cunt does not prove she should be president.

  8. Of course the US isn’t just any banana republic.

    It’s the Top Banana Republic.

    1. TOP. MAN. BANANA.

    2. There’s always money in the Banana Republic Stand.

      1. Trump-Bone, you burned down the Republic?

        “Oh, most definitely.”

  9. Putin would know what a banana republic looks like

    1. Putin puts the thought “the US is a banana republic” into people’s minds via a negation of the phrase. And anyone who tries to come up with a quick internal refutation of the passive-aggressive meme has at least mentally to go through a list of reasons why the US might be a banana republic in order to refute them. Wife of ex-president inheriting presidency – oh, that’s silly! the US is obviously different! Taxman as political enforcer – oh, don’t exaggerate – there are just some bad apples. Etc.

  10. So many typos here…

    And it’s amazing the same people who rail against Trump’s claims the elections are rigged somehow fully support the idea that Russia is rigging the election.

    But honestly, if I was Russia, I’d be trying to get people to vote Trump.

    Because when a corrupt harpy-woman loaded with defense contractor money is trying to take control of a nuclear-armed country and is repeatedly calling for war against you, any rational person would do anything they could to prevent that.

    1. So you don’t think that condescending, junior-high level “reset button” stunt earned her the respect of all Russians?

    2. Because when a corrupt harpy-woman loaded with defense contractor money is trying to take control of a nuclear-armed country and is repeatedly calling for war against you, any rational person would do anything they could to prevent that.

      It’s not like she will invade Russia – she will just do her best to prop Russia right back up as a feared superpower.

      1. She’ll only invade Russia if they don’t “donate” to the CGI.

    3. If they do have all of Hillary’s emails they would most definitely want her in the White House.

      She would be totally compromised and Putin could hold them over her head in any foreign policy issues he was interested in.

  11. It vas Moose and Squirrel!

    1. Squvirrel*

  12. Coming to tomorrow’s am links…

    “New Presidential Poll: Putin 51%; Clinton 22%; Trump 21%; Johnson 5%; Stein 1%”

  13. 1. Of course Russia is trying to influence the US election – and there’s nothing wrong with that. Every country is trying to influence the US to its favor in some way. Its what you do when you have a country that loves to drown you in either money or bombs.

    2. The Us doesn’t have a leg to stand on when complaining about this interference (even underhanded sneaky tricksy interference) when we freely and openly do the same to any other country we don’t feel is sufficiently friendly to us (that doesn’t have nuclear weapons). How many Heads-of-State have we deposed since 1950? How many NGO’s does the USG fund to ‘monitor’ elections?

    1. I think Obama was more than casually interested in Netanyahu’s election , No ?

  14. Putin said he’d like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia but that “regrettably” that wasn’t the case.

    That right there? That’s funny, I don’t care who you are.

    1. Putin said he’d like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia but that “regrettably” that wasn’t the case.

      What an asshole. I’m glad our man in Washington would never say something like that.

    2. It’s so funny because it’s true ?

  15. Putin called the idea of Russian interference one of the “myths” perpetrated by Western leaders, alng with the “Russian military threat,”

    I suspect spell checkers are a “myth”, too.

  16. Says America is not a banana republic

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1!!!!!! Good one!

  17. America was not, Putin insisted, some kind of banana republic.

    Not yet, anyway.

  18. I counted like 4 or 5 things that Putin said which were bang-on accurate.

    One of them which i find the most surprising is his own admission that Russia isnt really a “military threat”

    In the last few weeks alone we’ve had scare-stories about the Russian navy building up power in the Baltic, in the Med, and their capacity for cyber-warfare, etc.

    The reality is that Russia has the rough military capability of one of the lesser-members of NATO. In the words of one Russia-analysts, “they’re on par with southern-flank nations”.

    The media would have you believe that the fact they’re picking fights with ragtag Arabs and funding Ukrainian separatists somehow equates to a return to Cold War threat-status. Its idiotic and Putin is right to laugh at people for suggesting as much.

    1. I saw an infographic somewhere (War Is Boring, maybe?) showing all the stuff Russia has ready to pounce on Europe if a war starts.

      The carrier they have was mentioned a couple times, along with its EIGHT escorts. All I could think was that this is a refurbished hull from the 1980’s, Russia has, literally, no combat carrier ops experience and pretty close to nil carrier operations experience at all. And they have *one*. I think we have one in the Med right now. And one in the Persian Gulf. And a couple more on the Atlantic coast. Oh, and their carrier’s engines keep breaking so much that its followed by a tug ‘just in case’.

      Its almost hilarious to see the hype new Russian systems get. The stuff said in propaganda releases is taken as fact. Armata is supposed to have an active protection system that can hit kinetic threats (which is really damn impressive if true). But all we’ve got is one PR flack saying so.

      1. I linked to this the other day – a podcast explaining = “Most of Russia’s Military “Still Rubbish”, Says Analyst

        he puts maybe 20-30% of Russian force as ‘combat ready’, and of those, 80% are still operating at cold-war technology levels, with zero experience, and no money to pay them beyond 1-2 deployments.

        At best, the stuff they’re currently doing (e.g. funding/arming Ukranian separatists, occupying non-confrontational Crimea, sending a few hundred troops to protect Syrian naval base, a few thousand more to ‘assist’ the Syrians in a mostly-non-combat role… is already at the limits of their capabilities.

        The people who envision some sudden revitalization of Soviet-era force projection are either delusional or lying. Maybe both. They pretend Russia is the boogeyman because it serves their interests.

        1. In fairness they still have nukes.

  19. Proof Democrats have no principles and only care about ‘winning’ —- when they got hacked to show what hacks they are, and how they broke laws, etc…. then the narrative for them at the media was “THE RUSSIANS!”.

    Just fucking imagine for one second the hacks were against the Red-Team and not Blue-Team. You think for one second anyone would give a crap about the russians?

  20. Proof Democrats have no principles and only care about ‘winning’ —- when they got hacked to show what hacks they are, and how they broke laws, etc…. then the narrative for them at the media was “THE RUSSIANS!”.

    Just fucking imagine for one second the hacks were against the Red-Team and not Blue-Team. You think for one second anyone would give a crap about the russians?

    1. When I hear Dem operatives complaining about being hacked by the Russians, all I hear is another admission that they suck at cybersecurity.

      But hey, Hillary’s private server didn’t compromise anything. And it’s old news.

    2. Just fucking imagine for one second the hacks were against the Red-Team and not Blue-Team. You think for one second anyone would give a crap about the russians?

      Something about “backwards Cold War mentality…”

  21. The United States has also accused Russia of trying to hack into state voter registration debates.

    Huh?

    1. Apparently the Russians want to stop dead people from voting.

      Funny how the Democratic administration accuses Russia of all sorts of nonsense, and a supine media simply regurgitates it.

      (Apologies if this is a double post, but the server timed out the first time.)

  22. Just wait ’til wikileaks releases Debbie Schultz’s transcripts from Patrice Lumumba University.

  23. Another good job, Ed!

  24. In all seriousness, Hillary Clinton is prone to screaming about conspiracies everywhere.

    It doesn’t have anything to do with her selling influence and taking money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. No, nowadays, she wants us to believe that we only think she’s a crook because of Russian hackers.

    Back in the day, we didn’t think she was a crook and a thug because she fraudulently diverted RTC funds into her husband’s campaign fund, because she fired travel office employees to give lucrative contracts to her cronies back in Little Rock, or because she illegally used FBI security clearance files to dig up dirt on her political adversaries.

    Oh no!

    The reason we thought she was a crook and a thug back then was because of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwtkorQKGFE

    If she genuinely believes half the lies she tells, that’s probably scarier than thinking she’s just your typical, run of the mill liar.

    1. I thought this was just beauty pageant stuff, Ken.

      1. I think cronyism, using public office to enrich yourself and your family, and respect for the rule of law are all legitimately issues, but you’re right.

        She’s awful ugly on those issues, too.

        1. Horsecrap. You said you lament that we never talk about policy. That Trump’s corruption, even his sexual assault of people, were immaterial. You backed yourself into the corner. Now stay there. Forever. You never get to talk about anything but policy again, because you said so.

          1. OK, let’s talk about her policy of using public office to enrich herself and her policy of disrespect for the rule of law and put those up side-by-side with Trump’s policy of kissing someone who only tolerates it because they’re being politesexual assault.

          2. I said that Hillary can’t win an election on the issues, and that’s why she’s turned it into a beauty contest.

          3. “You said you lament that we never talk about policy. That Trump’s corruption, even his sexual assault of people, were immaterial.”

            Just for the record, this is a lie. Tony is a liar.

            https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..nt_6502255

    2. If she genuinely believes half the lies she tells, that’s probably scarier than thinking she’s just your typical, run of the mill liar.

      That was the very subject of one of the e-mail exchanges wherein one advisor was suggesting that they should try to get Hillary to drop the “we passed the DoMA only to head off the GOP attempt to add a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage” bit because it was completely verifiable bullshit. There are actual taped interviews with Hillary discussing the issue plus, you know, the Congressional Record. The reply was that it would be unfortunately impossible to get Hillary to change her story because once she’s repeated the lie a few times she comes to believe it’s the truth and there’s no way to convince her otherwise.

      And yes, that is scary to know there are e-mails out there with Hillary’s aides discussing the fact that Hillary really truly seriously no-shit believes her own lies – and nobody in the media seems interested in pointing out that Hillary is really truly seriously no-shit delusional.

      1. GROSS: So that’s one for you changed your mind? (Laughing).

        CLINTON: You know, I really – I have to say, I think you are very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.

        GROSS: I am just trying to clarify so I can understand.

        CLINTON: No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you’re trying to say that, you know, I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress we’re making.

        GROSS: You know, I’m just saying – I’m sorry – I just want to clarify what I was saying – no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but – you know, believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn’t ready yet and you couldn’t say it. That’s what I was thinking.

        CLINTON: No. No, that is not true.

        1. Read the Terry Gross interview from a couple years back. Terry Gross was trying to give Hillary a big fat slow one right over the center of the plate, practically begging her to say she secretly supported gay rights all along but there were political reasons for staying in the closet with her support – the exact same fucking lie Hillary is now pushing – and Hillary is such a stupid fucking bitch that she got pissed off that Gross was “sandbagging” her and trying to trick her into saying she had lied about her position on gays. THREE DAMN TIMES SHE DENIED IT. Three times, on the record, she vehemently denied doing exactly what he now claims she was doing – and according to the e-mails there’s no arguing with her over the fact that she’s not telling the truth because Hillary sincerely believes she is telling the truth.

          1. You guys keep confusing her public positions with her private positions.

            Can’t a gal change her mind ?

  25. A future president might be a Russian mole. But nevermind that, a future First Spouse might have given AIDS babies medicine while taking a paycheck in the private sector at the same time!!

    1. Tony, do you ever a thought independent from Democrat talking points?

      1. Yes but I’d never share it with the likes of you.

        1. Do you also have a private position as well as a public position like Hillary ?

    2. A future president might be a Russian mole.

      1947 called, they want their schtick back.

      1. “John Titor|10.27.16 @ 6:01PM|#

        A future president might be a Russian mole.

        1947 called, they want their schtick back.”

        It’s not that far fetched. All the Rooskies need to do is donate to the Clinton foundation or their camapign funds and BAM! We’re allies! Does anyone think pay to play is going to go away when she’s elected?

    3. A future president might be a Russian mole. How does that work? How does that work *differently* from the other future president who might be a mole for the highest bidder and certainly the Chinese?

  26. Let’s see, let’s see…banana republic…gotta be a punch line in there somewhere…

    I bet if Putin shopped at Banana Republic he’d have nicer clothes!

    1. The only punchline is ‘OMG HE CALLED OBAMA A MONKEY!!!!!! RACIST!!!!!!!’

    1. That’s all of us on election night…

  27. Meanwhile:

    Assange claims ‘crazed’ Clinton campaign tried to hack WikiLeaks

    Assange claimed the release “whipped up a crazed hornet’s nest atmosphere in the Hillary Clinton campaign” leading them to attack WikiLeaks.

    “They attacked our servers and attempted hacking attacks and there is an amazing ongoing campaign where state documents were put in the UN and British courts to accuse me of being both a Russian spy and a pedophile,” he added.

    1. 1) Fake scandal
      2) The Russians did it
      3) What difference does it make, at this point?
      4) But TRUMP.

    1. Cats are awesome.

    2. That was funny

    3. The funny thing about this one is how the cat is standing up. What the hell kind of cat does that?

      https://youtu.be/m32ovjx-BGc

      1. I don’t know but that’s creeping me out.

    4. Jacques Tourneur’s classic Cat People will be on TCM 7:15 AM Halloween morning.

  28. So, on the longshot chance that Trump wins the election, the Democrats are going to go full John Birch-society and claim that the white house is being run by the Kremlin?

    Wow, this election has been nothing if not interesting.

  29. A curiosity about Russia is that is has a large Muslim population, about 10% and growing. Putin’s up to eyeballs in alligators with that. These are woody Muslims. I always get a chuckle out of those who conflate race and religion.

    1. I know someone who converted to the Jewish race!

      1. Who? Sammy Davis Jr. has been dead for a while now.

      2. Did they get an all expenses paid trip to one of the top rated resort beaches in the universe?

        You know, for religious purposes?

  30. Wanna bet that Putin has four or five really juicy e-mails hacked from Clinton’s SOS days that he will use to blackmail her into favoring Russia in some future confrontation?

    1. Then he hasn’t really thought this through.

      “What are you gonna do, Vlad, report it to the media? Ha ha ha!”

      1. Watpdim

  31. You know, I almost feel bad for the ex-KGB sumbitch. Putin claws his way up to the top and manages to hold on, balancing between the business interests, nationalists, communist Soviet apologists, and the reformists. He starts applying Russian power abroad in Georgia and the Ukraine, and backs up his Syrian vassal state to show how Russia’s back on the world stage. He’s flipping the bird to the West once and awhile, hoping for a fun game of Cold War-esque one-upsmanship with the ‘leader of the free world’.

    And then he ends up dealing with diplomatic abortions like Obama and Clinton. It’s like hoping to fight Muhammad Ali, and then you end up fighting 2000s Muhammad Ali.

    1. Or George Chuvalo.

  32. Hillary seems to be like a real deal, tin foil hat conspiracy theorist.

    I mentioned her “vast right wing conspiracy” rhetoric from the ’90s above, and now she’s blaming the fact that everybody knows she’s a crook on Putin, but wasn’t she also the one that made up that conspiracy about how Barack Obama isn’t really an American?

    Somebody should put a big tin-foil hat on her already!

  33. “Putin called the idea of Russian interference one of the “myths” perpetrated by Western leaders, alng with the “Russian military threat,”

    Editing is a myth.

    1. If 300 people in a community of 1 million use government sponsored light rail transportation then JOE BIDEN. Did I win the argument already?

    2. Digg is still around?

  34. Molyneux argues spanking violates the non-aggression principle. Yeh, not sure about that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA

    1. He’s been saying that for years. The idea is that you can only get society to accept rational thinking if people abandon the might makes right attitude that is instilled in a kid when you smack him. I’ve never hit my kid in anger, but I’ve seen kids that may benefit from a good swat. Still, Molyneux makes a good case.

      1. Spanking and hitting in anger are not necessarily the same thing

    2. from my few instances of listening to Molyneux, he seems to focus a lot of his “libertarianish philosophizing” on things re: the relationship of individuals to the family. He seems to have gained some popularity with his idea that kids should be able to divorce their parents, and stuff like that.

      as an aside… i’ve never really been personally sold on the NAP being the alpha & omega of all political/social/moral philosophy. Sure, its handy because you can write it on a napkin and explain it to 5yr olds. Its a nice shorthand – but not an Ubercommandment which functions as a sufficient guide to all individual or collective human action.

      Julian Sanchez expands on the same point here

    3. I’ve got problems with spanking, and from what I remember Molyneux makes a good case against it, but still…hasn’t Molyneux gone completely nuts lately? The most recent video of his I saw was a positive view of that idiotic r/K selection theory that Papaya was posting here a couple week ago?

    4. You can’t reason with a four year old. I’ve seen know evidence spanking leads to any real negative effects beyond polluting the world with something for busybodies to complain about. However anyone may personally feel it should be left to the parents. Removing the children over such a non-issue is most certainly a bigger violation of the NAP than any supposed harm created from it.

      1. No evidence, not know. fuck

      2. This came to mind as well for me. I thought the NAP would focus on the state’s right to interfere in family. I often hear people around here ‘it’s a private business so I have no problem with ‘X’ decision or policy’. Why would it be any different with a family? If a parent determines a spanking is in order, that’s not our business if we follow the logic. The parent has that right.

        But I do see Molyneux extending that right to the defenseless child as well. But what he doesn’t answer, I think I could be wrong, who gets to protect the child in that case assuming the parent doesn’t willingly stop?

  35. What’s pathetic is that this exKGB, corrupt, pussy riot grabbing Ruskie has a more coherent policy in Syria than Obama. What he’s pushing for there is actually more in line with what the American people want than what Obama or Bush ever did.

    1. /slaps Staff.

      STICK WITH THE ‘HE INHERITED A MESS’ NARRATIVE.

  36. Republicans promise years of probes and blocked nominees

    Good. It’s nice to see someone suggesting they’ll start doing their jobs.

    1. “When Hillary wins, our fractured party will have one or two members openly oppose the witch. We’ll leave those guys out to dry.”

      Did I translate that correctly?

  37. Today in depressing diagrams: who’s fighting who in Syria

    http://i.imgur.com/h8j3Frv.jpg

  38. HOLEEE SHIT!

    Jury acquits leaders of Malheur wildlife refuge standoff

    1. The Maheur takeover raised tensions across a broader swath of the rural west, including in Washington, where the Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge south of Cheney was temporarily shut down. It also stirred a backlash from local officials, tribal leaders, environmentalists and others who resented the militants’ efforts to stake an armed claim to public lands.

      I think it’s the government agents who are rather more militant, especially after they tased a member of the defense counsel.

      1. the militants’ efforts to stake an armed claim to public lands.

        *not accurate

        As even the normally-intellectual-dishonest NYT notes, the demands made by the Malheur occupyers were …

        that the federal government surrender the 188,000-acre property to local control.

        Not quite the same thing as seizing ‘public land’ and trying to say “MINE!”, is it?

        What is it they’re doing in the Dakotas right now? People trying to insist that private land is public, or belongs to Injuns, or something like that?

        Principals, yadda yadda yadda

  39. Too-Chilly on the Johnson campaign

    Gary Johnson’s Big Sin? ‘Poaching’ Votes from Hillary Clinton (and Sucky Media Savvy).

  40. Anybody else having problems getting something from “parsely.com” to finish loading?

  41. Yokeltarian Terrorists Rejoice

    The Bundy Bros and their yahoo-militia are acquitted.

    The NYT doesn’t seem to offer more than a few paragraphs here. No mention of the guy the police shot to death on the side of the road, or their own editorials screeching that these people were no different than ISIS or Al Q. No mention of the legal argument being tested in their case. Just “well, that happened”, and TO THE MEMORY HOLE.

    1. Damn that Paul Dot and his nimble fingers!

      1. This is what I get for not refreshing.

    2. That is freakin’ fantastic.

      Score one for the jury system.

      I read this elsewhere:

      “The dismissed juror ? known as juror No. 11 ? is a former Bureau of Land Management employee who allegedly told other jurors “I am very biased” during his statements in deliberations. Another juror, identified as juror No. 4, had questioned juror No. 11’s impartiality in a note to the judge Tuesday. Although Brown initially said the juror in question could still serve, she changed her decision Wednesday morning after the prosecution and all seven defense teams reached an agreement on the matter.”

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru…..off-trial/

      When they were picking a jury, I would have thought that, “Have you ever been an employee of the BLM?” might be one of the very first questions the defense would ask prospective jurors.

      But that means a jury of peers decided that peaceful protest on public property isn’t conspiracy just because the protestors are exercising their Second Amendment rights. Is there some other way to interpret it?

      1. But that means a jury of peers decided that peaceful protest on public property isn’t conspiracy just because the protestors are exercising their Second Amendment rights. Is there some other way to interpret it?

        Its very possible that important legal considerations regarding free speech, protest against the government and right-to-assembly, second-amendment issues were involved in the case.

        You’ll never find any of that out reading coverage of the case in the papers. Just, “Bad people not convicted”, SAD

  42. Strange Tales of Woe

    On July 15, 1984, three days before the shooting, Huberty commented to his wife, Etna, that he suspected he might have a mental problem.[1] Two days later, on July 17, he called a mental health clinic, requesting an appointment. Leaving his contact details with the receptionist, he was assured the clinic would return his call within hours. According to his wife, he sat quietly beside the telephone for several hours, awaiting the return call, before abruptly walking out of the family home and riding to an unknown destination on his motorcycle. Unbeknownst to Huberty, the receptionist had misspelled his name as “Shouberty”. His polite demeanor conveyed no sense of immediate urgency to the operator; therefore, the call was logged as a “non-crisis” inquiry, to be handled within 48 hours.

    1. The following morning?Wednesday, July 18?Huberty took his wife and daughters to the San Diego Zoo. In the course of the walk, he told his wife his life was effectively over. Referring to the mental health clinic’s failure to return his phone call the previous day, he said, “Well, society had their chance.”[1][5][6]

      After eating lunch at a McDonald’s restaurant in the Clairemont neighborhood of San Diego, the Hubertys returned home. Shortly thereafter, he walked into his bedroom as his wife lay relaxing upon the bed; he leaned toward her and said, “I want to kiss you goodbye.”[7] Etna asked him where he was going, to which he replied he was “going hunting humans”.

      link

      1. Christ, what an asshole

        1. “…he fatally shot 9-year-old Claudia Perez[1] in the stomach, cheek, thigh, hip, leg, chest, back, armpit, and head with his Uzi,”

          Jesus fucking christ I hope he’s eternally burning in hell. Piece of shit. May he rot.

    2. Jesus Christ, Derp, what brought that on?

      Fuck, that’s a horrible event.

  43. Apparently, the cops in NJ released body cam footage of the confrontation with the guy alleged to have set off a bunch of bombs in NYC and NJ — but only up until just before the alleged shootout.

  44. Federal jury acquits Oregon militants

    A federal court jury on Thursday acquitted anti-government militant leader Ammon Bundy and six followers of conspiracy charges stemming from their role in the armed takeover of a U.S. wildlife center in Oregon earlier this year.

    Bundy and others, including his brother and co-defendant Ryan Bundy, cast the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge as a legitimate and patriotic act of civil disobedience. Prosecutors called it a lawless scheme to seize federal property by force.

    In an emotional climax to the trial in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Marcus Mumford, was tackled to the floor by U.S. marshals as he became involved in a heated verbal exchange with the judge over the terms of his client’s release.

    WHITE PRIVILEGE!

    1. Poor Grand Moff Frivolous Man.

  45. CNNBuzzfeed- two bad things that are even worse together
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cay8GC9N8ak

    Goofus and Gallant- Clinton edition
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3tjgaCBCU

  46. Why so many immigrants drowning?
    CNN: “Because Libya has no government.”
    And why is that?
    CNN: (crickets)
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10…..d=30402107

  47. The truth of the matter is that Putin is part of a changing geopolitical dynamic where the US is not invited to the party. All he is doing is holding up a mirror to the two-party campaign farce and its idea of “foreign policy”. Plus, all this “hacking” news is just a hack-job to keep us from dealing with the real issues Clinton and Trump did not tackle in their debates: the national debt; personal liberty; real tax solutions (closing the IRS would be a start); and other concerns.

    Putin-like any of us-has his faults. However, I must give the man a nod.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.