Could you expand on those layers? I'm interested.
I think what we're looking at is really complicated. Who's the puppet master? Who's playing who? Hard to say.
I do accept that there are cabals but I am not inclined to see conspiracies as in one major conspiracy. I see events as being a playing out of base needs and venal motives - that from the outside look purposeful but really are just shared qualities. It all plays into each element hand-in-glove but not with conscious intention.
The above said, the way I see it is - Trump does not have a mandate. He was elected by less than 1/4 of the electorate. That's a fact. We all share in Trump's election - because 1/2 the electorate did not vote, and we were just not minding the store for the last several decades. We were not making our elected officials accountable. A powerful political/economic machine 'elected' Trump - he knew that when he openly talked about a rigged election. It had likely been explained to him - purely my hunch (though someone may have suggested it some where). The Republicans had the election 'in the bag' - whoever their nominee was, they were 'winning' - they had made sure of that since 2012 and Romney's unexpected loss to Obama. They had been plotting the election heist for years imo - no more relying solely on computer shenanigans that could be reversed by clever, presient hackers, etc.
I think we can say that the Republicans don't like Trump and were appalled with his behavior on the campaign trail as most people were. I definitely think Trump had no intention of becoming president. (He was having fun campaigning - you could see that he enjoyed being outrageous and commanding the crowd - but look at him now: he is not happy).
I also think that Trump is not in charge - and may very well be exited for a whole raft of reasons. The forces arrayed against him are considerable. It's a bizarre situation - very murky and layered. It's what confronts historians with every event - it's the nature of history - it's layered because there are conflicting motivations and powerful, conflicting interests - with a lot of unknowns. All those powerful interests are not all necessarily on the same team, either.
You seem to essentially agree with this presentation. True enough or not?
I am inclined to agree with the analysis of the RT report as bogus. I've been noticing a 'going after' RT that has puzzled me and here is the explanation of where that comes from. RT is an easy mark because it's Russian and the Russian government subsidizes it - but given what I see on the network it is far from a Russian rubber-stamp - plus they have hired on people whose integrity I respect. Like the three journalists state - RT is one of just a handful of sources for truthful, factual reporting.
There's something odd going on. I don't think Putin's our pal, but I also think that the West did not behave well towards the newly 'liberated' and struggling Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Abby Martin speaks to that whole time in the 1990's. There is a plethora of rhetoric going forward - much of it true regarding Putin's motives, I think - but it all requires an exceptional mind to pick one's way through the threads.
I find the Hillary bashing in the clip tiresome. As intelligent as Abby Martin is she has a fierce dislike of Hillary and usually goes on and on about her 'criminality'. Abby Martin's intellect - as well as her biases - are always evident. Her passion is compelling but one must tread carefully imo.
The comments about dissident journalism going asunder are important, I think. They clearly are concerned and I think there is reason to be.
My ideas parallel much of what is said too as far as this being a bogus report that the Russians were doing this. I'd say I agree with many of its conclusions too with some exceptions.
I think the Russians could very well have been doing it - Putin is the master of KGB dirty tricks - but it didn't throw the election to Trump, I don't think. It might have helped to stiffen the biases of some, but nobody changed horses. The curiosity is that so much is being made of it - thus making the
real news of the Republicans rigging the election in favor of their candidate completely getting washed out in the noise about Russia.
Do you disagree with some aspects of this, and, if so, could you point out what you find incorrect. I'm sincerely interested, because we might be in agreement with 80-90% of this report. Great find for some common ground.
I'd have to watch it again for that. If I have time over the next days I'll do that.
Excellent analysis of what is going down - in part. Food for thought anyway. I personally believe the Russia stuff has many layers. But the going after RT is real and I do think we are seeing the begining of the shut-down of dissident reporting.