Are the Democrats bringing us closer to a new cold war?

No. Sort of an odd theory of yours.

Especially on Assange and Wikileaks – he and they are actively acting anti-Clinton (i.e. not as a neutral) – almost as if they were in cahoots with the Republicans.

So I think your premise is wrong, your facts are wrong, and your conclusions are questionable.

Finally, as good a reporter as Greenwald is, he’s not exactly a neutral and objective guy either. He has an agenda all his own.

@elbanditoroso: “your facts are wrong”

Which facts are wrong?

…to the McCarthy-style attacks on Jill Stein, Julian Assange, Wikileaks,

What McCarthy like attacks? There is no standing up in the Senate and proclaiming “a list of names” that is no more than a page out of the phone book.

Democrats aren’t trying to revive the cold war, and they will not be the cause of a cold war. The fear of a real hot war is fear of Trump’s finger on the nuclear trigger and his interest in using them.

@jiffysquid Welcome to fluther!

I’ve been observing politics in these Unites States for over 50 years, with more than a little personal involvement. Unfortunately, mudslinging has become an important part of the primary election process.

Greenwald has mad a name for himself as an expose writer, eager to uncover and “scoop” things like potentially scandalous relationships and/or past behavior. He is good at what he does, but he has as much interest in making news as he does in reporting it.

@jiffysquid, you gotta stop believing everything you read on the Web and get out into the sunshine!

P.S. My mother spent the last few lucid years of her life obsessing that the government was going to take away her social security because one of her “friends” had told her a snippet of something she had read somewhere on the Internet. My brother and I were totally powerless to convince her this wasn’t going to happen to an 85-year old widow but she never fully believed us. Sad.

^ Thanks, Pachy. What is it that you think I am believing, and what is the truth?

Try reading sources that have some credibility….. for a start. PS… I live in Europe. My horses race on a different track, so don’t throw party mud at me, it won’t stick.

No, though perhaps Putin is. You’ve been spending too much time on the fringe!

Why the name change, yet again?

I don’t believe that democrats are more to blame on the looming reality that given enough time somebody’s gonna push the button. There is one fact in this discussion that comes to mind. And that is that it is much easier for Trump to convince his fans that Clinton conspires with Putin, than it will ever be for Hillary to convince her followers that Trump is in bed with Putin, because simply put, if you believe Trump suitable for President, you’ll believe anything!

Thanks everyone. This is fascinating.

Even my Clinton supporter friends are quite disturbed at the turn the Dems have taken. A few years ago, we used to mock the Republicans for this. Now, it’s the Democrat’s turn, apparently. Hard to keep track of the two corporate parties sometimes.

Note: I’m not making any claims, not quoting any alternative media sources. I’d love to hear what you think I’m claiming here. Didn’t we all watch the debates and have the discussion about Clinton and her red-baiting back in February? Didn’t everyone watch the DNC scandal get spun by the Democratic party and corporate media as a Russsian hacker case rather than the issue of the DNC itself?

I’ve been here for years, and have seen a very large shift to the right recently. I wonder why that is.

@jiffysquid I’ve been here for years, and have seen a very large shift to the right recently. I wonder why that is.

If you want one word, it is, IMHO, reactionism.

If you want more than one word, stand by and hold on to your hat!

Ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted the social liberal programs of the New Deal, there has been concerted effort, sometimes more, sometimes less, to reverse or defeat them.

Some of the implementation was delayed or postponed by WWII, but after the war, Presidents Truman (D) and Eisenhower® left the New Deal intact; Eisenhower even expanded it in some areas. The Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson (D) used the New Deal as a model for huge expansions of liberal programs, and Richard Nixon (R ) left it mostly intact. However, by the time Ronald Reagan (R ) became president, the sentiment for deregulation had become bi-partisan. It was in his second inaugural speech that he uttered the phrase often quoted by his modern-day disciples. They usually forget the first part of the sentence:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

BTW, Ronald Reagan was a media star before he turned to politics. He had also switched political parties.

The combination of deregulation of banks (repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act; the push to weaken the National Labor Relations Act and the ability of workers to organize and bargain collectively with business management; the weakening of the ability of the FCC to regulate ownership of communications (and news) media; the lifting of regulations concerning mergers and acquisitions; and more recently, the push to roll back affirmative action legislation, and other social leglislation; all these things have effectively chipped away at the regulations and protections that were put in place to enable the middle class to prosper and to achieve the American dream of “better for the next generation”.

Source: mostly from memory, but here’s the Wikipedia page I used to check for accuracy.

I agree with you @jiffysquid .

Even my Clinton supporter friends are quite disturbed at the turn the Dems have taken.

Almost my entire family (it’s large) as well as many friends are disgusted with the turn the Dems have taken. We are all lifelong Democrats. Only on Fluther and Facebook (which consists of many Fluther friends) am I seeing any denial of this.

If I’m to take “fringe” to mean “non-corporate”, note how many of the sources in that article are the very corporate sources that lend legitimacy to those who are dismissive of real journalism.

Also, apparently the Los Angeles Times is “fringe”.

Out of curiosity – is there anyone here that is claiming that the Democrats haven’t taken over from the Republicans in the cold war Russian connection nonsense? Like I said – even the most hardcore, party loyalist Democrats here in Massachusetts have been talking about this for months. I love to hear about what is going on outside the bubble.

@jiffysquid To be honest, I’m not even sure what your exact beef is. Your various accusations in the Details seem unconnected, and rather than explain, you’ve left links. But I’ve never heard anyone discuss the possibility that the Democrats are provoking a Cold War. It seems clear to me that Putin is recently being both aggressive and passive-aggressive, and it seems clear to me that he is provoking the U.S. Government to respond to that in some manner. When have they ever not responded in such circumstances?

In any case, is the response by “Democrats” or is it by Obama? Or is this a question about what Clinton plans to do?

If any of you would read The Intercept link you would understand the beef. The Dems have accused Trump, Jill Stein, Sanders, Intercept and wikileaks for being in cahoots with the Russians. This blame game, which is unfounded, could cause more trouble than it’s worth. Anyone who happens to pose a threat to Clinton is accused of working with Russians. What say you?

it’s not hard to read links

We all know the drill. Anyone who complains about the military outlays defining the country is in cahoots with the Russians and/or the Chinese depending on the day of the week.

@jonsblond Hey, you used to complain about links in the details!

<shrug> I don’t see much in the Intercept article that is particularly damning. It looks like a random selection of people who support the Democrats (and most people do this year), shooting their mouths off on Twitter. It doesn’t look like any kind of organized attack to me. At one point, they try to tie in Democrats who worried that Republicans would attack Sanders for being a socialist. Uh, yeah, ya think? Of course the party was worried about that. It’s America. He would have drawn fire for that in political ads.

And, given that The Intercept is basically Edward Snowden’s zine, I can’t say I’m surprised that people might suspect it of having a Russian influence. Same goes for Assange, since there has seemed to be a mutual admiration there as well.

Personally, I think the work of both Snowden and Assange has been important, but they have both acted unethically with respect to the information they made public, and I have no reason to automatically trust their actions going forward. The DNC hacking story is uninteresting to me. I assume all parties are being spied on by multiple countries, just as the US does to others. There’s no news there.

^I don’t understand how the hacking story can be uninteresting since there is damning evidence against the Dems showing how corrupt they are. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I’m not sure what you mean about complaining about links. I’ve been here for 8 years and complained a bunch. I’ve also grown after suffering many hardships. I hope I’ve changed for the better.

@jonsblond Oh, I agree the content is potentially interesting. It’s the “Waah, the Russians are hacking us!” bit that I find boring. Of course people are hacking them!