this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
261 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
4672 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moshtradamus666 -1 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Why is it better for Putin if Trump wins? I really don't get it. Can someone explain?

[–] EvilBit 60 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Trump is for sale and under incredible financial and informational stress that Putin can leverage. Putin would basically own the President of the United States, every decision he makes, and all his sway over the hundreds of millions of people he influences. Again.

[–] LordOfTheChia 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

To supplement your point:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/

Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings

...

The tally of investors from Russia may be conservative. The analysis found that at least 703 – or about one-third – of the owners of the 2044 units in the seven Trump buildings are limited liability companies, or LLCs, which have the ability to hide the identity of a property’s true owner. And the nationality of many buyers could not be determined. Russian-Americans who did not use a Russian address or passport in their purchases were not included in the tally.

And

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/eric-trump-russia-investment-golf-course

“So when I got in the cart with Eric,” Dodson says, “as we were setting off, I said, ‘Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks—because of the recession, the Great Recession—have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years.’ And this is what he said. He said, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.

AND

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43329318/russian-investment-trump-media/

Towards the end of last year, federal prosecutors started examining two loans totaling $8m wired to Trump Media, through the Caribbean, from two obscure entities that both appear to be controlled in part by the relation of an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, the sources said.

AND

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/18/gop-operative-sentenced-scheme-russian-money-trump-campaign

A Republican strategist was sentenced Friday to 18 months in prison for his role in helping funnel illegal foreign campaign contributions from a Russian national into former President Trump's 2016 campaign, per the Department of Justice.

AND

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/trumpinc/episodes/trump-inc-trump-deutsche-bank-its-complicated

The New York Times reported that anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank internally flagged multiple transactions by Trump companies as suspicious. (A spokesperson for the Trump Organization called the article “absolute nonsense.”)

The remarkably troubled recent history of Deutsche Bank, its past money-laundering woes — and the bank’s striking relationship with Trump — are the subjects of this week’s episode. The German bank loaned a cumulative total of around $2.5 billion to Trump projects over the past two decades, and the bank continued writing him nine-figure checks even after he defaulted on a $640 million obligation and sued the bank, blaming it for his failure to pay back the debt.

All from just 5 minutes on Google!

Also this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2022/07/29/donald-trumps-great-escape-how-the-former-president-solved-his-debt-crisis/

[–] EvilBit 4 points 9 months ago

Great work. Thanks!

[–] Candelestine 39 points 9 months ago

Trump is against arming Ukraine. Biden is for arming Ukraine.

[–] the_dopamine_fiend 26 points 9 months ago

Way easier to compromise because there's already mountains of kompromat, plus he just breeds more corruption wherever he goes.

Also a nonzero chance that we nuke Ukraine for him.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Trump said he would encourage Russia to invade NATO countries that don't fund their military at the agreed-on 2%.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-russia-attack-nato-allies_n_65c7e443e4b069b665dfb762

What other president would encourage their rivals to invade their allies?

Trump has already seriously weakened the US' soft power around the world with his trade wars and threatening to break/ignore treaties. Trump winning again is a huge loss for the US, and a huge opportunity for Russia.

[–] Badeendje 3 points 8 months ago

Not to mention that many countries shelter under the US's nuclear umbrella. If the US is no longer guaranteed to actually be there, other countries might spin up a nuclear program themselves.

It won't be thousands of nukes, but then more countries will have a nuclear arsenal to protect themselves, making the chance some conflict will spark it's use bigger.

[–] Alivrah 18 points 9 months ago

Trump is openly talking about instating fascism in the US. If he's elected he'll be a puppet king under Putin's command.

[–] elbarto777 17 points 9 months ago

Because Trump weakened the U.S. in the global landscape during his time as president. Which of course would help Russia. Then Russia shot itself in the foot with the whole Ukraine invasion, of course.

[–] Badeendje 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Something others have not said:
Trump is very fickle, and manages the country like his business empire, like an autocrat. Everything to him must be a direct quid-pro-quo, so if he does not directly see the benefit of something, it's 'the worst ever' and he will not honor earlier agreements.

Wel in international politics, everything is about your reputation as a country and your reliability.

Many countries, EU and APAC have traded on the US as a reliable party, for safety, security and stability (even though plenty of other countries will disagree).

Trump and the Republican congress are showing that when push comes to shove, the US has politicians that would rather play politics than help allies.

This forces these countries to re-evaluate their dependence.

Keep in mind that the US believes a conflict with China is on the horizon and inevitable.

  • But how the US will fare against a (near) peer adversary without their APAC allies, and without the EU cutting economic ties if the conflict erupts is probably not going to be well.

China will have home turf advantage, and is setting up and modernizing its military at beak-neck speed to do 3 things:

  • defend the communist party from her enemies
  • defend china from the US
  • invade and hold taiwan
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nobody wants to start a land war in China, that would be insane. Defending Taiwan from Chinese aggression is what it's all about. But China is probably about a decade away from having the capability to make a move on Taiwan.

[–] Badeendje 1 points 8 months ago

Protect the party from the population. And Taiwan once invaded. A landwar is not on the books no.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

It's all about NATO and Eastern Europe.

Putin laid out his plan long ago. He wants to conquer Eastern Europe. NATO stands in the way, and the US is at least half of NATO's strength. He said he'd use internal divisions in the US and other NATO countries to weaken them and to break up NATO.

That's what he's doing.