this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
372 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18888 readers
4002 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
372
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by MicroWave to c/politics
 

As I type this newsletter, continued American aid for Ukraine is in grave doubt. Tucker Carlson is in Moscow to conduct a friendly interview with Vladimir Putin. And we’re receiving reports from the front lines that Russia is advancing, in part because of Ukrainian ammunition shortages. In short, the war is reaching a critical stage, and Ukraine may lose because Republicans are willing to hand authoritarian Russia a historic military victory rather than supply further aid to a democratic ally.

Ronald Reagan isn’t just rolling over in his grave; he may also lurch from it in a fit of incredulous rage. This is a remarkable and potentially catastrophic reversal by a political party that is in a state of near-total, frequently random ideological transformation.

To explain the intensity of Republican resistance to Ukraine aid, I need to return to a concept I wrote about in November: that of bespoke realities. My friend Renée DiResta, the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, coined the term, and she wrote that it refers to the “bubble realities” constructed by communities “that operate with their own norms, media, trusted authorities and frameworks of facts.”

Among those who oppose aid to Ukraine, there are certainly several paleoconservatives who object on classic isolationist grounds: It’s not our fight, our support is costly, we might find ourselves inadvertently embroiled in war, and so on. But the mass Republican movement against Ukraine is rooted far less in policy than it is in a particular bespoke reality of the MAGA universe, in which Ukraine is a pernicious villain, Putin is a flawed hero and Russia should have crushed Ukraine long ago.

MAGA Republicans’ hatred and contempt for Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian cause is shockingly vehement. Candace Owens says she wants to “punch” Zelensky. Donald Trump Jr. calls him an “international welfare queen.” Carlson says he dresses “like the manager of a strip club.” It’s all bizarre and unreasonable. And it all fits the broader MAGA narrative.

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yes indeed. Thank you for reminding everyone of this. I believe they also financially back a lot of people on the right, Trump and his family are on the record saying that they were financially saved by Russia some years back, which would explain their attempts to create a secret back channel to Putin.

[–] grue 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'm sure there are some (maybe many) Republicans who've turned traitor because of "kompromat" or bribery or whatever, but I don't think Trump is among them. Trump is worse: he helps Putin against America because he thinks Putin is his friend. He's a fanboi of dictators in general and Putin in particular; a true believer of autocracy. Trump is betraying America completely of his own free will.

[–] Serinus 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Putin is largely responsible for turning social media in favor of Trump in 2016. And Trump has absolutely gotten Russian money.

[–] grue 4 points 7 months ago

I'm not saying Trump didn't benefit greatly from Putin. I'm just saying Trump didn't need to be bribed or coerced to fuck up America 'cause he was going to do that enthusiastically anyway.

[–] orclev 7 points 7 months ago

While I absolutely believe Trump is in bed with Russia, and has been since the days he got caught using his hotels to help the Russian mafia launder money, the interview you're talking about is a second hand report that has had its legitimacy called into question. It comes from an interview with a sports reporter that claims he was told by Trump junior while talking with him at a golf course that they get all the funding they need out of Russia. Unfortunately that's the only source for that claim so it's pretty weak.

Stronger evidence I would say comes from Trump repeatedly getting loans out of Deutsche Bank when no other banks were willing to touch him at a time when they were also convicted of helping the Russian mafia commit financial crimes as well as finance their operations in countries outside of Russia. I believe at the time those loans were also listed as being secured by a 3rd party whose identity was never revealed. Added on top of that is known members of the Russian mafia literally living one floor below Trump. We know that in part because that's where the FBI arrested them.