• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Trump's ties to Putin and other Russian Oligarchs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Putin won't start it but he is the only one outside N.Korea sabre rattling with it.

Really? Got any links?

Kinda curious because while I know Russian media has basically been Anti-American Anti-West 24/7 for the past like 5 years I can't remember them doing that. It doesnt seem like their style. Russia‘s MO seems to be to invade quietly and make up some BS reason about how its all Americas and the CIA's fault, and that poor Russia was only defending themselves or some such bullshit.
 
In my mind the links between Russian intelligence and the DNC leaks should be getting coverage on the level of the Watergate break-in. But I'm not sure if we live in a world where even that would sway the course of an election.

Unlike WAtergate which had tape recordings we have circumstantial evidence. That said it's too much to ignore and should be investigated more closely. The Never! Trumpers owe us for having to sit through them participating with proTrumpers on the Benghazi nonsense.
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

this is the dumbest fucking election
 
I can at least understand that the Russians did not want more US military facilities on their borders. I still have no actual understanding of why invading Iraq was anything other than massively self defeating.

One thing I know for sure is that no comment critical of Clinton is going to slip by undogpiled in the next year or so.

It's not that it's a comment critical of Clinton, it's that it's a comment that is just flat out insane.
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

What planet do you live on?
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

giphy.gif




That's the only thing that makes Putin a concern?

Nuclear war doesn't Trump anything else any person could do?


giphy.gif
 
It's not that it's a comment critical of Clinton, it's that it's a comment that is just flat out insane.

Putin is always talking about nuclear war and the dangers to the world while Obama shut up about it after he won the nobel prize. I think that it is a concern for him or at least he wants it to appear like a concern. I guess that it's the nukes that makes me sound crazy and not that the influence of the banking industry or similar is a concern?
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

Really, I'm just sick of all the wars with indecipherable motives and crony capitalism.

I can at least understand that the Russians did not want more US military facilities on their borders. I still have no actual understanding of why invading Iraq was anything other than massively self defeating.

One thing I know for sure is that no comment critical of Clinton is going to slip by undogpiled in the next year or so.

NvMKiSk.gif
 
Putin is always talking about nuclear war and the dangers to the world while Obama shut up about it after he won the nobel prize. I think that it is a concern for him or at least he wants it to appear like a concern. I guess that it's the nukes that makes me sound crazy and not that the influence of the banking industry or similar is a concern?

Given that Putin is a corrupt fuck that runs his country like a mafioso, nobody should really take anything he says at face value. He is a very capable manipulator of simpletons though.
 
When I try to find a source for this claim

Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks.

It just brings me back to this article. I can only find that he banks with Deutsche Bank AG, which appears to be a strained relationship.
 
It's so shocking (and appalling) to me how many people I know don't give a crap about something like this but try to make conspiracies out of Benghazi and emails. This is dangerous.
 
Putin is always talking about nuclear war and the dangers to the world while Obama shut up about it after he won the nobel prize. I think that it is a concern for him or at least he wants it to appear like a concern. I guess that it's the nukes that makes me sound crazy and not that the influence of the banking industry or similar is a concern?

No. But you're onto something.
 
Really? Got any links?

Kinda curious because while I know Russian media has basically been Anti-American Anti-West 24/7 for the past like 5 years I can't remember them doing that. It doesnt seem like their style. Russia‘s MO seems to be to invade quietly and make up some BS reason about how its all Americas and the CIA's fault, and that poor Russia was only defending themselves or some such bullshit.

Over Ukraine
https://euobserver.com/foreign/128001

Against US
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-threat-to-America-missiles-US-defence-shield

“Let me remind you that Russia is one of the world’s biggest nuclear powers,” Putin told Russian youth last summer. “These are not just words — this is the reality. What’s more, we are strengthening our nuclear deterrent capability and developing our armed forces.”
http://www.politico.eu/article/nato-putin-russia-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-war/
 
It's all pretty apparent. This is just another one of his deals. Get in to power, ease pressure on Russia and get the financial windfall out of it.
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

ya man a foreign president of the United States #1 rival donating to a presidential candidate is the same as a bunch of banks where dudes just want more money...k
 
Given that Putin is a corrupt fuck that runs his country like a mafioso, nobody should really take anything he says at face value. He is a very capable manipulator of simpletons though.

Well my country just voted to renew it's nuclear deterrent so I'm not really feeling the nuclear de-escalation message at least. I remember when people actually cared about this stuff.
 
Putin is always talking about nuclear war and the dangers to the world while Obama shut up about it after he won the nobel prize. I think that it is a concern for him or at least he wants it to appear like a concern. I guess that it's the nukes that makes me sound crazy and not that the influence of the banking industry or similar is a concern?

Bankers generally want a peaceful, prosperous word so they can make lots of money. Sometimes their short-sitedness gets in the way of that but in the end they just want money. Putin seemingly wants to rebuild Russia into a Cold War-style great power and is trying to destabilize the post-WWII order to achieve this. The risks of that happening are infinitely worse than anything banking lobbyists could do.
 
I can't believe liberals are wasting their time attacking Trump on [whatever issue this thread is about]. They should really focus on attacking him over [some other thing they've already been attacking him over]. I think a lot of people are gonna be surprised come November, when Trump manages to swing [random collection of swing states] due to his strength in [absurd demographic]. Not saying I support everything Trump says, but I can't vote for Hillary.

So you'd rather support racism and bigotry. Okay.
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.
Are you getting funding from Putin to make posts like this?
 
Well my country just voted to renew it's nuclear deterrent so I'm not really feeling the nuclear de-escalation message at least. I remember when people actually cared about this stuff.

Well, apparently Putin isn't a big fan of nuclear de-escalation either.

 
Does this--or anything, honestly--have the potential to sink Turmp?

I've become incredibly pessimistic about everything lately and view anything (that I perceive) as negative as something of a bump for Trump.

I'm just kinda thinking......can this become more and more exposed, somehow?

I just need something....anything.....to kill the Trump train....
 
Does this--or anything, honestly--have the potential to sink Turmp?

I've become incredibly pessimistic about everything lately and view anything (that I perceive) as negative as something of a bump for Trump.

I'm just kinda thinking......can this become more and more exposed, somehow?

I just need something....anything.....to kill the Trump train....

Nope. He's the new Teflon Don.
 
Well, apparently Putin isn't a big fan of nuclear de-escalation either.

Yes, I guess that he is not making idle comments when his interest in nuclear capability comes up so much. Talk of escalation of nuclear capability for the nuclear powers without most people really thinking that it's that worrying is strange to me.
 
Does this--or anything, honestly--have the potential to sink Turmp?

I've become incredibly pessimistic about everything lately and view anything (that I perceive) as negative as something of a bump for Trump.

I'm just kinda thinking......can this become more and more exposed, somehow?

I just need something....anything.....to kill the Trump train....

I think we need to get Ted Cruz talking about it. If another conservative with a huge following starts stirring shit up with it then Trump could some non-diehard supporters.
 
When I try to find a source for this claim



It just brings me back to this article. I can only find that he banks with Deutsche Bank AG, which appears to be a strained relationship.

Here you go

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump owes at least $250 million to banks for various real estate projects, according to his personal finance disclosure forms.

His creditors mostly are small firms, from New Jersey-based Amboy Bank to specialized real-estate firm Ladder Capital Finance LLC. Deutsche Bank is the only bank with a big Wall Street presence that continues to lend to him, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

Since 2012, the German bank has lent Mr. Trump more than $300 million through its private bank. Most recently, it committed to lending Mr. Trump $170 million to help with the ongoing renovation of the Old Post Office building in Washington, which the businessman is converting into a luxury hotel.

Earlier deals were done through the investment bank, but ties to that unit frayed after Mr. Trump sued Deutsche Bank over a 2005 Chicago property loan. The suit was settled five years later.

Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P.Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley are among the big Wall Street shops that do very little, if any, work with Trump-affiliated businesses. Bankers say that’s partly because Mr. Trump has moved away from developing multimillion-dollar real-estate projects to managing them and licensing the Trump name, reducing his need to borrow.

The article it references as its source is hidden behind the WSJ paywall.
 
Well my country just voted to renew it's nuclear deterrent so I'm not really feeling the nuclear de-escalation message at least. I remember when people actually cared about this stuff.

Deescalation takes two parties. Obama actually got through a new START treaty in 2009 to replace SORT and continue reduction of nuclear arms between the two countries. Problem is Russia has become less and less a rational actor and NK developing weapons to threaten the US and it's allies, updating the reserves and defenses makes simple sense.
 
Putin is always talking about nuclear war and the dangers to the world while Obama shut up about it after he won the nobel prize. I think that it is a concern for him or at least he wants it to appear like a concern. I guess that it's the nukes that makes me sound crazy and not that the influence of the banking industry or similar is a concern?

Yes, the nuke part does make you sound crazy. If the bankers or whoever are trying to rig the political process they're not going to try to destabilize things to the point that a nuclear war becomes likely, they want to maintain the status quo that benefits them. Not that I even agree with you on the premise, but jesus christ
 
Putin is always talking about nuclear war and the dangers to the world while Obama shut up about it after he won the nobel prize. I think that it is a concern for him or at least he wants it to appear like a concern. I guess that it's the nukes that makes me sound crazy and not that the influence of the banking industry or similar is a concern?

Russia's whole shtick the last few years has been to build a narrative in which western imperialism will shortly lead to WW3 so everyone should join Russia, the sole defender of world peace.

At the same time, russian state media run countless stories about tanks, war planes, submarines, missiles, drills, etc. Sputnik News could be renamed "Military illustrated".

So basically, it's concern trolling.
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.
wat
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

This is top 3 one of the stupidest posts on GAF ever. Eh, congrats, I guess.
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks.

this is quite possibly the dumbest post i've read on this forum and i was literally in the wall of shame for space moors

no, russian oligarchic money is not morally cleaner than the goddamn AMERICAN MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX let alone wall street
 
How likely is it that Putin has a (indirect) hand in IS related attacks? I mean there were news reports a while back stating that, in part, he did what he did in Syria to create the refugee crisis in Europe. If that's true, it shows how far he is willing to go to undermine the west. Would supporting IS, even indirectly, be beyond the pale for him? Personally, I think not. But then maybe I've been reading/watching too much Le Carre...
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

I feel like this captures a lot of the spirit of this election year.
 
How likely is it that Putin has a (indirect) hand in IS related terrorist attacks? I mean there were news reports a while back stating that, in part, he did what he did in Syria to create the refugee crisis in Europe. If that's true, it shows how far he is willing to go to undermine the west. Would supporting IS, even indirectly, be beyond the pale for him? Personally, I think not. But then maybe I've been reading/watching too much Le Carre...

Not really any proof of that, Russia has its own problems with terrorists and IS in their country in the caucuses, the only thing that is known is that Russia knowingly let terrorists/IS members leave their country into places such as Syria because it was better than not having them in their own country. I made a thread about it a few months ago: Reuters report: How Russia allowed homegrown radicals to go and fight in Syria

So yeah some sort of indirect hand but not much different than the thousands that left other European countries such as Belgium to go fight for IS with no real response by the governments to stop (only difference is that Russia more knowingly let them leave to a point of even organising their departure as long as they stayed out of Russia). It was more in the vein of Russia just wanting to get rid of these people causing problems in their country than a grander scheme of destabilising the rest of Europe and just not caring what happens. Russia has a bigger problem of it than the west really with homegrown terrorism from the caucuses, the boston bombers were from Chechnya (federal republic of Russia), and Russia informed the U.S about the bombers before they carried out their attack.
 
So far it looks like they are just treating it as an accusation by the Clinton campaign and really aren't providing any of the evidence and detail at all. Hopefully we will see more of that soon.

This would be an epic story if anyone was able to find proof, so I assume some legitimate outlets are really digging. I have faith that if there is something non circumstantial someone like the NYT is salivating to find something.

So, until then I'll stick with the fact that Putin will do what he can to have Trump win because he wants an idiot in power, but he's not directly working with or contributing to a campaign (as long as you don't think hacking the opposition and filtering it through a Russian friendly rapist run website is directly working for, which I don't think Trump is smart enough to know anything about that)
 
The sad thing is that the funding Trump gets from from Putin is probably still morally cleaner than the funding Clinton gets from the banks. Probably one of the major concerns for Putin internationally is avoiding scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. Not sure if the same is true for Clinton and her backers.

On the mental gymnastics scale I think this one gets a 10.
 
Speaking of Tax Returns, why is nobody hammering Trump on this? 90% of what he says is bullshit, so I understand why media just stopped fact checking him, but this tax thing is something that could at least give us some info on Trump...
 
Speaking of Tax Returns, why is nobody hammering Trump on this? 90% of what he says is bullshit, so I understand why media just stopped fact checking him, but this tax thing is something that could at least give us some info on Trump...

When is the last time someone refused to show them? Like ever?
 

The hostility between Truman and the left of his era, I argued a couple of months ago, parallels the current dynamic between Clinton and the Bernie Sanders movement today. The Trump-Russia scandal has activated that same left-wing impulse. The American far left during Truman’s era, just like today, was not pro-Russia so much as it was anti-anti-Russia, and follows identical themes: Criticism of Russia’s domestic repression or aggressive foreign policy is merely a ploy to distract from and excuse America’s own failings, and provides dangerous support for American aggression, which could lead to war. So, just as the left of the '40s and '50s saw anti-Stalinism as an excuse for Jim Crow, a Glenn Greenwald today casts Russia’s human-rights record in an implausibly favorable light, and reflexively dismisses any contrary view as simple hypocrisy. When Russia menaces Ukraine, The Nation informs its audience that this is perfectly justifiable because Ukraine is not really a country at all.

Obviously, there are sound foreign-policy reasons for caution in American foreign policy toward Russia. Ukraine is not a NATO member, which explains why Russian incursions have not been met with a military response. The defining trait of the left’s anti-anti-Russia stance is not a reluctance to go to war, but an automatic habit of analyzing Russia’s behavior through the prism of American innocence and motivations, which are inevitably found wanting.

For whatever reason, Trump is the candidate who has given the most forthright expression to anti-anti-Russian beliefs of any candidate since circa 1948 Henry Wallace (just as he has given the most open expression of racist beliefs of any candidate since circa 1968 George Wallace). As the acrimony between Clinton-supporting liberals and their foes on the left spills out on the streets of Philadelphia, this historical irony is playing a minor role. The far left’s willingness to play into the opposing party’s hands displays not only its continued disgust with the Democratic Party’s nominee and Establishment, but a certain convergence of thought with the Republican nominee.

Well, I guess I can take comfort in the fact that the stupidity and delusion is not new development.
 
So "follow the money" applies to Trump but not Clinton?

It applies to both. And Wall Street is far less bad than Putin, which is why I will vote Hillary over Trump. Plus all the other reasons Trump (and GOP in general is far far worse)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom