[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> tolerated by the Republican party 20 years ago?  It would certainly   
   >>> not have been tolerated in the Reagan era.  This is just my political   
   >>> observation, but something stinks.   
   >>   
   >> Why Russia would interfere with the elections is obvious: They figured   
   >> out how to wage war in the social media battlespace earlier and better   
   >> than the US did. The Russian Federation aims to be an empire again,   
   >> and bring all of its former territories back under its wise and   
   >> benevolent tank-treads. It's hard to do that if the United States has   
   >> a robust economy, has enormous soft power on the world stage, and   
   >> leads a strong and coherent NATO. So they get a biddable fool into   
   >> office to turn Americans against each other, demonstrate to our allies   
   >> that we're no longer reliable, sabotage our economy, withdraw us from   
   >> NATO, and generally act like a prancing dipshit.   
   >>   
   >> Note that the election-meddling is effective even when it doesn't   
   >> install Moscow's guy in office: If nothing else, it still saps   
   >> political capital and de-legitimizes the victor. And as long as the   
   >> United States becomes more fractious and impotent, the Russian   
   >> Federation's goals are advanced.   
   >>   
   >> Why does Trump go along with it? I don't know. It's possible Putin has   
   >> some good old-fashioned kompromat on him — although it's hard to   
   >> imagine what secret could possibly be vile enough to turn the chuds on   
   >> Dear Leader at this point. [...]   
   >   
   > I suspect simple flattery. It's easy to con a conman.   
   >   
   > [snip more stuff I agree with.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> And yeah, racism this open wouldn't have been tolerated in the Reagan   
   >> era (though the queerphobia sure was!) but this is the direction the   
   >> GOP has been moving for decades. [...]   
   >   
   > One small correction: The GOP no longer exists.  The Republican Party   
   > still exists in name, but it bears almost no resemblance to what the GOP   
   > was.  It would be better labels the American Fascist Party.   
      
   I don't really disagree with you in principle: The party of Eisenhower   
   hasn't existed since the late 1960s. But for better or worse, it's still   
   called the Republican Party.   
      
   > I wish Nyikos were still alive so I could ask him how Trump is   
   > substantially different from Hitler, now that Trump has said he wants to   
   > kill hundreds of thousands of people by cutting USAID.   
      
   I'm sure he'd find some way to tell himself it's TOTALLY different and   
   you're a big mean ol' meanie-pants for suggesting otherwise.   
      
   The most important man in the Republican Party threw a nazi salute on   
   stage at the inauguration — TWICE! — and Republicans were fine with it.   
   Anybody still supporting the party at this point is beyond reasonable   
   discussion.   
      
   --   
   [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]   
   Kestrel Clayton   
   "Every normal woman must be tempted, at times, to stoke the fire,   
   host the black mass, and begin eating hearts." — Rose Bailey   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)