It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has any one every heard: Why would Russia choose to collude with Trump??

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Thank about it, its 2016 you are Vlad Putin, drinking some Vodka, sitting shirtless, inside the Kremlin. The New York Times just gave Hillary a 90%+ chance of winning the election, and we all know that the NYT is way smarter then Vlad(and any of us for that matter). How much vodka would one have to drink to say, "I think i will support the guy that the New York Times says his a single digit chance to win" Unless the Russians thought/knew the NYT was full of Borscht Sauce, but what are the odds. Why would Putin( in his best Monty Hall voice) call Trump and say, "Let's make a deal" It would make sense for Putin to collude with Clinton(the NYT 90%+ choice to be the leader of the free world), it would even be logical to collude with both parties, maybe get a new Trump building in Russia after the election, but it makes net sense to only collude with Trump.




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson


Vlad's favorite fruit is Oranges????



+11 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Here's a list of all the reasons and all the benefits Russia has....














posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Thank about it, its 2016 you are Vlad Putin, drinking some Vodka, sitting shirtless, inside the Kremlin. The New York Times just gave Hillary a 90%+ chance of winning the election, and we all know that the NYT is way smarter then Vlad(and any of us for that matter). How much vodka would one have to drink to say, "I think i will support the guy that the New York Times says his a single digit chance to win" Unless the Russians thought/knew the NYT was full of Borscht Sauce, but what are the odds. Why would Putin( in his best Monty Hall voice) call Trump and say, "Let's make a deal" It would make sense for Putin to collude with Clinton(the NYT 90%+ choice to be the leader of the free world), it would even be logical to collude with both parties, maybe get a new Trump building in Russia after the election, but it makes net sense to only collude with Trump.



That is an easy question to answer....

The Clintons wanted too much damned money! And you were not going to get anything out of them (even an audience) until you donated!

Donate millions to the Clinton Foundation and that is only good for ONE damned favor!!!

If you want them to do more crap for you, you have to spend 10's then 100's of millions!

Can get damned expensive after awhile

Hell, an ally... Norway had to give them 90 million bucks to get crap done for them, how much do you think they would have charged the Russians!


edit on 15-11-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

That has been my question since last what, September?



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
is the rhetoric of 'there is no collusion' being replaced with 'why would they collude' as the cookie begins to crumble more and more...

they have absolutely no reason. no reason to infiltrate our media, supposedly hack the 'dnc', 'fund' protests, incite online inflammatory arguments, propose dirt on oppositions candidate during the election cycle, make shady large lump sum of money transfer camouflaged behind rogue nations...

they did all this for the 'lulz'



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I think Putin is using Trump, to bed Hilary. He wants another shirtless ride on a hairy mammal... a mammal with a kill count.

He was far safer riding the pi$$ed off bear...


edit on 15-11-2017 by madmac5150 because: Never read the fine print, ever! Seriously. Don't read the fine print...



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
It doesn't make sense that Putin would back Trump, he was supposed to be a big looser. I kind of believe Putin when he said that he did not interfere in the election. But then again, that does not mean some of his citizens did not do anything. He just did not order it. This whole trying to prove collusion is such a waste of money. Big businessmen working on a worldwide scale have interacted with the Russian government to some extent. It is just business. Now a Politician taking a whole lot of cash from foreign countries and business to fuel their campaign means there needs to be favors returned. That would be collusion, that is Hillary's style.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
It doesn't make sense that Putin would back Trump, he was supposed to be a big looser. I kind of believe Putin when he said that he did not interfere in the election. But then again, that does not mean some of his citizens did not do anything. He just did not order it. This whole trying to prove collusion is such a waste of money. Big businessmen working on a worldwide scale have interacted with the Russian government to some extent. It is just business. Now a Politician taking a whole lot of cash from foreign countries and business to fuel their campaign means there needs to be favors returned. That would be collusion, that is Hillary's style.


Yes, my friend... but she should have eaten him by now...



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: rickymouse
It doesn't make sense that Putin would back Trump, he was supposed to be a big looser. I kind of believe Putin when he said that he did not interfere in the election. But then again, that does not mean some of his citizens did not do anything. He just did not order it. This whole trying to prove collusion is such a waste of money. Big businessmen working on a worldwide scale have interacted with the Russian government to some extent. It is just business. Now a Politician taking a whole lot of cash from foreign countries and business to fuel their campaign means there needs to be favors returned. That would be collusion, that is Hillary's style.


Yes, my friend... but she should have eaten him by now...


And sputin out the bones when she was done chewing on them.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

A) either way it causes chaos..

B) if you can obtain evidence of the deal, you would basiclly own trump.. because if he gets outta line, Putin’s drops the tape..

C) hillary wouldn’t do it.. she already thought she was gonna win.

D) Putin’s knows trump thinks he is losing and is desperate..

E) no telling what all money dealings they already have..

F) trump has made a lot of pro Putin’s comments, so he might take less of a hard line with you..



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Can you provide a flow-chart of this process and scenario that you've thoughtfully presented?



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Can you provide a flow-chart of this process and scenario that you've thoughtfully presented?



With bolded text on the important bits. Old age and all...



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I don't think Russia or Putin colluded with Trump. Instead, Putin just wanted chaos.

Russia backed Black Lives Matter to a point then turned around and supported White Supremacy.

Russia backed Muslim's claims of being profiled then turned around and supported groups arguing for restrictions against Muslims immigrating to the United States.

Likewise I would not be surprised if Russia created the information for the Steele Dossier and then hacked John Podesta's email. Remember both stories came out at the same time that President Obama issued a statement about Russian interference.

Russia interfered but they did not take sides. They only wanted chaos.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Well you should have asked me and I would have given you some plausible answers!

It's quite possible that the Russians didn't directly collude with anyone, least of all Donald Trump himself. That doesn't mean they didn't meddle in the election. In fact, the most popular — I dare say, prevailing hypothesis — has long been that Putin was anti-Clinton. More specifically, Putin's presumed hatred for Clinton began at the end of 2011 when the US State Depart was critical of Russian parliamentary elections. Worse yet, Putin openly accused the Clinton of inciting unrest in Russia. From the New York Times:

Putin Contends Clinton Incited Unrest Over Vote


MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin accused Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday of inciting unrest in Russia, as he grappled with the prospect of large-scale political protest for the first time in his more than decade-long rule.

In a rare personal accusation, Mr. Putin said Mrs. Clinton had sent “a signal” to “some actors in our country” after Sunday’s parliamentary elections, which were condemned as fraudulent by both international and Russian observers. Anger over the elections prompted a demonstration in which thousands chanted “Putin is a thief” and “Russia without Putin,” a development that has deeply unnerved the Kremlin.

Speaking to political allies as he announced the formation of his presidential campaign, Mr. Putin said that hundreds of millions of dollars in “foreign money” was being used to influence Russian politics, and that Mrs. Clinton had personally spurred protesters to action. The comments indicate a breakdown in the Obama administration’s sputtering effort to “reset” the relationship between the United States and Russia.

“I looked at the first reaction of our U.S. partners,” Mr. Putin said. “The first thing that the secretary of state did was say that they were not honest and not fair, but she had not even yet received the material from the observers.”

“She set the tone for some actors in our country and gave them a signal,” Mr. Putin continued. “They heard the signal and with the support of the U.S. State Department began active work.”


In fact, in Putin's mind, interfering in the election might have have been a matter of revenge. And if Trump didn't win? Still a win for Russia to do everything possible to weaken not just Clinton but the Democratic Party.

I favor this because it makes perfect sense. I do however believe at the very least, there were serious efforts made to influence Trump's foreign policy. I think it's also more than plausible however, that Paul Manafort was colluding with the Russians during the election.

Let's keep in mind that in 2005, Paul Manafort pitched this proposal to Deripaska:

AP Exclusive: Before Trump job, Manafort worked to aid Putin


WASHINGTON (AP) — Before signing up with Donald Trump, former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly worked for a Russian billionaire with a plan to “greatly benefit the Putin Government,” The Associated Press has learned. The White House attempted to brush the report aside Wednesday, but it quickly raised fresh alarms in Congress about Russian links to Trump associates.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit President Vladimir Putin’s government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.


Starting in 2006, Manafort was getting paid at least $10 million a year for this and it's known to have lasted at least through 2009. Manafort's primary work from 2005-2015? 2016? was Yanukovych/Party of Regions and we all know Yanukovych was Putin's boy, etc.

We also know that Manafort reached out to Trump that March.

Documents reveal how Manafort connected with Trump: report


Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager of President Trump's insurgent election bid, used a series of letters and memos, as well as connections with the real estate mogul's friends and family, to work his way into the ranks of Trump's campaign, The New York Times reported Saturday.

The documents, the newspaper reported, paint Manafort as an aggressive, anti-establishment operative with global influence and a tireless work ethic, who was willing to indulge Trump's penchant for running a cheap, bare-bones campaign.

The two men first connected through a mutual friend, real estate investor Thomas Barrack, through whom Manafort sent his first memos to Trump, according to the Times. Barrack also delivered to Trump a letter describing Manafort as “the most experienced and lethal of managers," the report said.

Also in that letter, Barrack made Manafort's even more appealing to Trump, writing that “he would do this in an unpaid capacity.”


That's one. I've got more.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
To divide America even more than it already was. Russia was actively spreading anti-Obama and racist memes among the alt-right during Obama's 8 years in office.

*sigh*

Someone else care to link and quote "The Foundations of Geopolitics" for me? You know, that textbook used in the Russian military academy and circulated among Russian politicians? The one that says Russia should use covert ops inside America to divide it, and also support cutting England out of the European Union?

The one that's creepy because so much of it has come true since it was written?



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
FINE.

Here: Wikipedia: Foundations of Geopolitics



The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a geopolitical book by Aleksandr Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites[1] and it has been used as a textbook in the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian military.


So it's well-known among the who's who in Russia. The military and elites there.

What does it say Russia should be doing about America?



Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."


And what would you call the state of things inside of America right now? HM?
edit on 15-11-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Thank about it, its 2016 you are Vlad Putin, drinking some Vodka, sitting shirtless, inside the Kremlin. The New York Times just gave Hillary a 90%+ chance of winning the election, and we all know that the NYT is way smarter then Vlad(and any of us for that matter). How much vodka would one have to drink to say, "I think i will support the guy that the New York Times says his a single digit chance to win" Unless the Russians thought/knew the NYT was full of Borscht Sauce, but what are the odds. Why would Putin( in his best Monty Hall voice) call Trump and say, "Let's make a deal" It would make sense for Putin to collude with Clinton(the NYT 90%+ choice to be the leader of the free world), it would even be logical to collude with both parties, maybe get a new Trump building in Russia after the election, but it makes net sense to only collude with Trump.


Russia will collude with anyone who is willing. One of their goals is to "get dirt" on the candidate, so they can leverage it when it matters. If that was their goal with Trump, setting up meetings and planting people on his campaign with a history of accepting money from Russian Oligarchs, I'd say Mission accomplished.

Their secondary goal is to destabilize our democracy, widen the perceived difference between political factions, and make everyone question the legitimacy of results. I'd also say: Mission Accomplished.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I can always count on you for some good sourced information.

Ok, let's throw aside all alleged collusion on both sides. First off, did the parallels from that NYT article scream at you? Maybe make the tinfoil rattle a little bit? Regardless, that does indeed show motive to 'anyone but Clinton.' Which similarly reflected the stance of plenty of Trump voters and perhaps some abstainers.

Now it's of no surprise that we see Manafort digging around the Kremlin. Given all the recent Fusion GPS and the Podesta doings, it's easy to see. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; why would HRC and thus the dems be so anti-Russia given the possibility of the Russian reset and Obamas public stance with them?

I find that angle very weird.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse You may be right about Putin but remember he is ex KGB. They are master at manipulation. Far better than the CIA at a point. Do not ever underestimate him. That would be a mistake. If there was a single person in the world that could and make others think they didn't Putin is that person.




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join