Attempt to debate a neoliberal on the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory

the modern "left" resembles libertarianism more than it does actual leftism

Other urls found in this thread:

How old are they?

trump unwittingly receiving russian aid in the election really isnt a conspiracy theory at this point.


What the fuck

Neoliberals can't be debated. They're ancaps who believe archism is for other people. Praxeology and other forms of sophistry are all they have.
Better to no-platform them.

The conversation is usually around tarriffs. Their main argument is that it would hurt big multinational corporations like Foxconn or Google, but would help evil domestic companies that support Trump and the military. Many claim that big businesses are good since they hedge the power of "russian agents" like Trump. This usually dovetails into a conversation about how great Google is for "standing up" to Trump's travel ban, and how great China is for not allowing Trump-styled people to become politicans.

Admittedly I'm generalizing here but this is what I'm taking away from 4+ weeks of arguing with redditors. Frankly I'm at a loss of how to continue, because they're now just straight up worshiping elites since they're "more enlightened" than racist workers/Trump voters.

Is the term used differently in the US? In europe, neoliberal refers to extreme retard tier of laissez faire capitalism

"neoliberal" describes most Democrats, considering that most of the modern Democratic coalition (at least what's left of it) emerged out of Bill Clinton who was a staunch neoliberal. That's how Hilary got to be their candidate last year.

Neoliberal refers to the same over here. As, sadly, does "left", since the official US political polarity is almost exclusively a matter of who gets to dictate culture and who tells the more acceptable tall tales about the worsening material conditions that naturally result from laissez-faire capitalism.
There is no economic left in official US politics. By world standards, even Bernie was center of the bullseye at best. The neoliberals who own mass and other media concerns have a vested interest in constraining political opinion to that which is profitable. They do so by policing their own and others' discourse toward the morality that serves their interests best. Also in schools, Pic related


It's more accurate for those who cannot imagine anything besides capitalism and will bend over backward to preserve the status quo.

It's amazing to watch, never in my wildest dreams could I imagine Democrats defending fucking CHINA as a model country. I'm just old enough to remember the Tienanmen Square Massacre when it happened, and how liberals back then actually protested it outside the local Chinese consulate. And besides that we are now at the point where Dems are willing to defend multinational banks and businesses because they "prevent racism" somehow and put on a pretty face in first world countries.

These people seriously, honestly, accept and promote the idea of banking cabals keeping democracies "in check", because they no longer trust blue collar people. Even back in 2008 and 2012 most of them realized that working class people were needed as they're the swing vote which determines society's direction.

They're basically no closer to leftism than the republican party at this point, right?

please stop breathing any time soon

They essentially are Republicans, but with socjus spooks instead of jesus spooks.

do you read russia today or something?

Do you pretend Russia Today is secretive about its Russian ties?


Please post this hard evidence whenever you have it.

So what, a WaPo article that names "US Officials" as the source for this celebration?

Holy shit man, even though 1984 is mandatory high school reading (I'm more than a decade out of school so correct me) you still can't recognize a Ministry of Truth when you see it can you liberal?

It is impossible to get a liberal to understand something when their career trajectory depends on not understanding it.

nice meme but not only can we see that you are from reddit, you also bumped a shill thread.
please lurk moar, newfag.

also mods, OP confused neoliberals with leftists.
the issue is now resolved and he will come back when he has done more reading.
please put the thread into autosage.

I dunno, that sounds like a level of lolbert classcuckoldry that would even raise eyebrows on Holla Forums



So do all you people just get your news from Sputnik? Hillary was a weak candidate who lost on her own terms, but pretending Russians didn't at least try to meddle in the election is absurd. Michael Flynn just resigned because of mounting evidence of collusion with Russia. Paul Manifort worked for a Russian backed Ukrainian oligarch for christs sake. What is with the Putin love here? Jesus. Get. It. Together Leftypol

Fuck off and read liberal.

https:[email protected]/* */[email protected]/* */orly-sourced-shit-i-have-seen-99bc4c430737#.dh7e4qq4j

Eat shit, Putinist. Putin has a long storied history of aiding and abbetting far right candidates and parties in the west. He's doing it for Marine le Penn right now. What are you even doing on a leftist forum? Other than spreading nationalist propaganda that is

The red-baiting and flag-waving among the Democratic Party is getting shrill at this point.

Flynn resigned because he made diplomatic comms with Russia in December, after Trumps election but before his inauguration.

Fuck off, neoliberal. Your indignation is driven by political convenience, not morality, and therefore you should also kill yourself.

I just want to point this out because this kind of back-shadowing of a timeline of events is one of the pillars of conspiratorial thinking.

And lied about not discussing lifting sanctions which he has since backtracked on. The standing attorney general warned the administration that he could have been compromised

My indignation is driven by my hatred for fascists like yourself

You of Peter Parker, new iyork, twenty dva street?
Yoo coming with me, da?

how about no?

Part of it is that there really is just very pro-corporate capitalists contingent in the democrats, and they regard free trade as the ideal. Another part is that they have repressed American-style jingoism that is itching to get out. When HRC and the DNC organized to drown out chants of "No more war!" With "USA!" they felt invigorated in a way that they haven't felt since the first Clinton era. They want to shout, spittle flecked, self-righteous "Were the patriots! You are the traitors!"

Whatever they say about China is not sincere which we will discover very soon

Yes that's what I said. He made diplomatic comms with Russia in December. He also lied about it and there is really no other option but to remove him, as the AG says.


Tillerson was the CEO of Exxon mobile he has business relationships good and bad with every country in the world and while it is incredibly dangerous, zeroing in on and isolating Russia is leaving out context to build a conspiracy.

Americans are so autistic i swear…

I want anyone who uses this phrase to get the hell of this board. It's a gateway to everything that made the USSR ruin the image of socialism. Fuck you for thinking this shit is anywhere close to okay.

I take it you forgot your ancrap shitposting flag

Yes. I mean, no. I mean, how about it! I agree with you. It is occasionally degenerate to rub liberals' noses in their own PR and their utter failure to live up to it. I'm starting to wonder whether that encourages them and is therefore not a good idea.

I swear this board is completely autistic about free speech. The existence of reddit and tumblr and the awful shit the comes out of there hardly justifies free speech anymore then the existence of 4chan justifies its repression. Not to mention that the law in many liberal nations like the US and England prohibits slander and threats of violence as limits to free speech; yet we're too good to make the same distinctions?

The Soviets did the right thing by shutting some forms of counter-revolutionary speech down. You can't just go on arguing with your opponents forever and some opponents don't even merit debate.

Even ancaps have come to the point where they realize guaranteeing our free speech is not desirable as we would eliminate private property. I'd expect the right to take a more militant stance against leftist free speech if even le argument man is questioning the meaning of keeping up open dialogue:

Honestly, right now neoliberals deserve to be no-platformed far more then fascist wannabes who are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Neoliberals have killed more people then any neonazi group

What said. Not every viewpoint or ideology is entitled to equal treatment or equal welcome, as the left has been on the business end of from both right flanks for decades. Liberalism and its growth imperative are literally cancer. Liberal frames of reference are layered thick with ideology and are usually better disregarded rather than disassembled. One can justify many of the same legitimate personal rights as liberalism without their odd ideological turns.
It is time for libs in general, and particularly neolibs, to sit the fuck down since all that flows from their mouths is repetitious, mendacious, exploitative, self-absorbed, not-intended-to-be-factual statements slathered in bullshit, arrogance, and a pervasive sense that the affairs of the bourgeoisie are the (only) proper affairs for a state to address. It's not worth dignifying their putsch with a platform. They have lost.

Reminder that the only reason anyone opposes free speech is because their own ideas are too worthless to withstand it




Its just amazing how quickly the neoliberal media opened up to neocon voices for them to shill this russia hack/trump whore piss shit. I remember going to ever march I could against the Iraq War. Now the Dems are cheerleading a new cold war. Fuck during the 2008 election they went wild over McCain's comments about Georgia and how Russia wasn't an enemy. Why the fuck do so few people even remember all of that.

Saying that Trump's Secretary of State is the former CEO of Exxon Mobile and so it's natural that he would have business dealings with Russia in addition to a plethora of other countries is not defending him or Trump or Russia. I even say it's dangerous in its own right, but not for the same red-baiting reasons as the conspiratorial democrats. For example, Tillerson struck more recent deals with Vietnam to drill for oil in contested areas of the South China Sea, which directly inform his policy on China that calls for outright war with that country.

This is true but those same guys are so full of shit about "maverick mccain" it's not even funny. They love him when he breaks ranks with the republicans but that goes out the window as soon as he actually challenges a democrat in a meaningful way.

Anyone who participates in censorship should be the first against the wall tbqhfampai

Sorry, meant for

No i mean during the 2008 election there was a war in Georgia with russia and mccain said he would defend georgia or something and the entire liberal media went mad saying mccain was going to cause ww3 and all this other shit.

Now they literally are doing the same shit, I mean I know why since it's all jew ran so things like the truth don't matter but why the fuck do so few people care about how fucking obvious they are in their lies

Is that RL Stine?

Still kys liberal.

that's because these people are from reddit not Holla Forums

oh the irony

If you could show us some of this evidence that Russia 'tried to meddle' in the election I'd appreciate it

I'd rather shout (ironically) "four legs good, two legs bad" than to deplatform someone.
Shitposting is one way to shoot down stupid ideas.

I'll borrow a Holla Forums meme here, you have to go back

I'd say they're even further away than Republicans

They hate the working class. Their entire source of financial gain and power comes from exploitation of the working class.

I'm aware of that feel. Debating the shit sources behind their conspiracy theory only devolves into accusations of being a Russian shill. There's no reasoning with them. Also note the irony of liberals bitching about Republicans putting "party over country" in regards to (the lack of) a Flynn investigation, considering that they were supremely butthurt over the investigation into Hilary's server.

Fuck, Trump is going to win a second term because the American left us unable to communicate with people outside the party. I was hoping that they'd reform themselves but instead the party leadership will take the cheap route and spend the next four years screeching about Trump before getting wrecked in 2020.

Really dude? The Cost Guard reviewed it? The Air Force? The Marines? The DEA? The Geospatial-Intelligence agency?

I don't think they really hacked the election, but them spreading misinformation and shilling hard online is not that of a stretch.

No are no leftists in the US, only conservatives who are okay with gay people and want to smoke weed.

This assumes a much greater idea of rationality than actually exists.
A long and complicated idea will appear to falter in the face of a simplistic and utterly wrong one.

At some point the debate must leave the realm of speaking and enter the realm of action.

(So what I'm saying is: Kill all neoliberals with a big hammer.)

Your opponents must be physically opposed only for their own physical acts, not their words, let alone their unbidden thoughts.

To fight words with action is intellectually bankrupt.


Words can be actions.

It would be intellectually bankrupt to assault your opponent with common construction equipment in a legitimate debate, but potentially very useful to do so at his own political rally or mid-sentence when giving verbal orders from a position of power, where the main purpose of his words isn't intellectual at all but propagandistic or instructional.

Sometimes there is no intellectual value to what is being said, or the value is beneath the other qualities (such as the drive to action), in both cases the refusal to resort to action will just lead to any intellectual carping from the sidelines until such time as their opponent - with no such qualms - puts the hammer in them.

Yeah neoliberalism has the same definition here

I think the definition of "hacked the election" had extended so far into the realm of ordinary state politics that it has the effect of casting legitimacy backwards onto false claims.

Basically today "RT exists" fits the definition of Russian interference satisfactorily. As more reasonable people accept this definition the middle ground become "yes, I *admit* Russia had a limited influence on the U.S. election… And this, naturally, is a good enough reason to hate Russia and call Trump a traitor and his cabinet spies."

This article should be displayed in the damn Smithsonian


Words can indicate actions, but they are not the same thing.

Further, the ability to freely meet, to discuss, to circulate one's ideas, to access and maintain venues for this purpose, are arguably part of free speech. None of them involve actually doing anything, only the development and perpetuation of thoughts. Discussion with the opposition is important, but propaganda and instruction among one's own fellows are vital organs in the body politic.

Your unfair comparison of direct orders to mere rallies is an example of where apologism for censorship creeps in. There is a blatantly obvious difference between a rally intended to promulgate ideas and buoy morale, as opposed to one whose function is mustering thugs for a violent putsch.

It is the difference between reasonable belief of threat, and profiling.

Like poetry.

lel ok whatever you say user
yes low Autism Level normies who get their news from ZOG Occupied Governmentbox tend to sperg out when you use the trigger phrases they've been conditioned to bark at. You are surprised? Still want to save these people user? are you sure?

Alright I'll admit to being a newfangled if someone could just clarify this for me-
I've seen people who buy into the Russia theory being called reddit, which makes sense as that's the current mainstream liberal consensus.

But I also see people suggesting that the deep state is propagating this Russia theory to undermine trump due to internal conflicts in our intelligence networks called reddit as well. This is what confuses me. Isn't the latter actually a legit possibility? I accept the idea of supporting trump from an accelerationist position and I'm not a liberal but to write off the idea of the CIA intentionally trying to smear him seems weird to me.

whoops lel, newfag*

not everyone here is on the level my man

The Russian ties are true and I cant speak for everyone on this board, but the "revelation" of them being true leads me to say "Yawn." The problem is every politician is interconnected to shitty foreign governments because that is the nature of capitalism and in particular neoliberalism. Hillary had connections to basically every dictator in the world is it because I think they secretly controlled her? Well in the making financial decisions that benefit them sense yeah, but in the nefarious the KGB are gonna psyop my cornflakes no.

The CIA is not a neutral technocratic organization working for the good of the American people and the world. They have a partnership with other aspects of the government and a rivalry with others this was true before the Trump presidency and it will be true after. They have their own commercial wants and needs and they have loyalty to people that might not be Trump. Maybe for good reasons, maybe he really is just so incompetent they cant even deal with him, but it could also be the case that he wants to do things that are counter to their interests but otherwise good for us and the world. I guess we wont know until we know.

I hate to sound like a neocon or MSNBC viewer, but Trump's recent habit of portraying US-Russia relations as a strict dichotomy - either they become BFFs or we all die in a nuclear holocaust - is straight out of the Kremlin playbook. It's diplomatic blackmail. If you denounce most US reporting on natsec/foreign policy issues as state propaganda (which it is), you'd be foolish not to recognize Russian state propaganda as well.

Turn the TV off and go outside. Psyop deterred.

libertarians tend to hate the status quo
normie liberals do not

State propaganda (that isn't aimed at uplifting and defending the working class) is bad no matter where it's from. I'm not one of those infosec dorks who thinks a bunch of incels watching RT videos somehow swung the election, but I don't see how it benefits the left to uncritically slurp up a foreign government's narrative just because it's not the US narrative.

True but the existence of counter narratives doesn't necessarily make our position better or worse. Lets be honest here too, they weren't mad that Abby Martin wrote stories about 9/11 conspiracies and CIA coups thirties years back or because Thom Hartmann had another snore inducing segment on the virtues of "slow and steady winning the revolution." They got ass mad this election because Julian Assange made them look like fools and they couldn't address or deny the claims because they were facts.

It IS the U.S. narrative though. Trump is only seeking rapprochement with Russia and the U.S. pundit class thinks means he's putins lapdog, and the white is being secretly controlled by Russians. Trump is not asking to be BFFs or whatever you think is happening. By the end of Obamas administration US-Russian relations had reached a nadir. Diplomats expelled, troops stationed on the border, conflicts developing in active war zones, and almost no communications between governments.

Assange was being fed info by State actors though, that's the thing that irks them. They know that what happened was directed and constructed by interested parties other than just Assange and the FBI/Dept of Justice. There were people who were quite powerful who did not want HRC president.

Thanks for the explanation, I totally agree

I read the CIA docs actually and it seems like the wrong reading to say that they didn't want HRC to be president. Actually, they were acting on the assumption that she would be. What they wanted to do was undermine her AS president. There is no place in all theses propaganda ops where Russia actually says something positive about Trump that is not in contrast to Clinton. In fact they call Trump terrible, and hold him up as a failure: the product of Western liberalism. This was Russia's strategy. Highlight the hypocrisy and cynicism of Clinton, point to the popularity of Trump, both as revealing the rotten heart of the U.S. system.

I'm going to make a post about the CIA dossier tomorrow and show you were you can read it. It's a very short document and reading it yourself is vastly more clarifying than reading it via WaPo. It shows a different narrative, the outrageous bluster of a sales pamphlet, the absence of actual pro-trump Russian attitudes, and the laughable RT annex not only kill the entire "Russian plant" narrative but reveal a lot of the ideology of the CIA and the flagship outlets they are disseminating their propaganda through.

Hanlon's Razor. The evidence isn't nearly enough to say it was Russia, but does all point that way. Easy to believe what you want to believe the way things stand.

Somehow I doubt it, but I'll be here regardless of whether or not you disseminate this info; and so, is there a time we can expect this dossier to appear?

Why would you doubt it?
It's right here.

I suggest you jump down to the RT annex at the end. It's got some laughs.

Reminder that there is zero evidence of this, zero people claiming to have done it, Wikileaks still denies it, and the alphabet agencies targeted by Wikileaks are the only people swearing up and down that the leaks are from anyone other than lone wolf whistleblowers inside the HRC campaign.

I remember reading it in the Holla Forums thread when it was issued, and being AMAZED at the sheer gall of issuing an entire paper that not only lacked evidence to back up claims, but DIDN'T EVEN CLAIM ANY CONCRETE WRONGDOING. Pic related on an epic scale.

Exactly, coupled with the knowledge that we'll probably never get the now-classified in our lifetime, I wonder why people eat this shit up with glee.

Flynn resigned because he lied to the VP. The recorded phone call he made with Russians did not contain anything illegal in them- the conversation was completely legal. There is zero evidence that Russia leaked anything. The larger issue is that the then administration wire tapped Flynn's phone prior to the elections. An even larger issue is that other countries in Europe also intercepted this call. How come another country spying on American citizens phone calls is the lower issue? Are people even talking about this?

Most of the misinformation I saw during the elections was coming from pro-hillary sources. Everything I saw that was anti-hillary was related to the leaks which were typically accurate. If they did try to spread misinformation they did a bad job at it- all mainstream media had a strong anti-trump bias.

The only Russian ties with Trump that we have are business interests, not political ones, which isn't surprising since Trump was a business man who did business internationally.

I was basically alluding to this but yeah and not even very strong business ties in comparison to Hills 40 million dollar gift from the Saudis. The problem is the public doesn't know in the case of a lot of liberals don't want to know this is a basic fact about capitalism and the people our government ends up trading with to make shitty deals.

Sometimes even censorship - violence or otherwise - is a valuable political tool - especially if not conducted directly by the state. Sometimes it isn't (or sometimes it's just raw ex-post-facto violence)

The high ideal of free speech will collapse in the face of political necessity, just like any other. Would I kickstart a "First they came for the Libertarians" scenario if it meant an end to neoliberalism? It would be very tempting. The difficulty of getting unorthodox economic ideas heard makes sidestepping the "intellectual" (rather dubious, under capitalism. A wrong idea spread widely is much more powerful than the truth.) debate in favour of other means very tempting indeed.

Perhaps rather creepily (If mildly tongue in cheek)
"I will defend your right to say it, so long as people don't believe it."
Amusingly I'd generally consider myself a free-speech extremist, one who'd make the case for shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre - but become content to stand aside if someone's proposing going after neoliberals with a 2x4. (Strictly not as contradictory as it sounds, if perhaps hypocritical. One is a high ideal, the other is practical [hypothetical- don't hurt anyone in my name, kids!] politics.)

It's a blunt and dangerous instrument, but we live under a blunt and dangerous system. and even if it spiral dives into hell, at least i'd die knowing we broke this one. but it won't, because our hammers are of limited use against the guns of the security team.

This gets down to the brass tacks of free speech: Like any lawlessness (and censorship is lawless, because it blurs the rigid domain of crime by attempting to impose it on the nebulous domain of thought), any attempt to execute censorship against one's foes implicitly means giving permission for them (and all other potential factions aside!) to do likewise against you.

Because reason would be ejected from the realm of society, politics vanish under censorship, and are replaced by the contest of brute violence.

Thus, the choice is a binary one: Either you are for free speech, or you feel you hold and will continue to maintain sufficient superiority of force to dominate all disagreement by means of war.

Looking at the situation right now, it is obvious that if a police state were imposed, we would not be the ones with the batons and riot shields for very long.