I strongly also suspect that this might be the case- there are a couple of other motives too: (1) They see Trump as destabilizing or disruptive to the US and its international allies, and (2) they see Trump as ideologically aligned with Putin's own highly nationalistic and oligarchial platform and worldview (Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort has direct close ties to Putin's oligarchy)

It's entirely possible. They have a history of this kind of activity going right back to the 1920's. Survivors of a regime that routinely pulled stunts like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_Trotskyist_Anti-Soviet...

wouldn't even regard it as an unusual tactic.

An 'does this benefit Russia in any way' filter on a lot of internet reporting/commenting/activity over the last couple of years can be fairly illuminating. What tends to trip them up is any historical references pre-WW2, which have to paper over some horrible cracks.

But it's not as though for example, people in Hillary's team don't have connections to the nomenklatura. So I don't think those connections are especially illustrative of anything extraordinary.

Huh? You present that as something everyone knows, but I have never even heard anyone make the accusation.

I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic. This is when someone makes an accusation, accuse the West or someone in it of the same thing. For instance, when someone says the Russian government is immensely corrupt, say there is corruption in the West, too. The goal is not to make people think well of Russia, that is simply not possible, but to make everyone so cynical and discouraged they won't fight back.

My reply was in response to:

"they see Trump as ideologically aligned with Putin's own highly nationalistic and oligarchial platform and worldview (Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort has direct close ties to Putin's oligarchy"

So the argument is, Trump's advisors have ties to Putin's advisors, that therefore proves the allegation that Putin's admin sees a possible Trump admin as some kind of natural or kindred allies. That proof is very thin. So I refute that by saying that lots of people have ties to the Kremlin and that does not prove any kind of "alliance".

> I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic...

There are ways to word this paragraph that both don't accuse the parent of trolling, and still get across the point that you don't think a specific bit of evidence is as damning as may have been implied, or if just unsupported. Do you really think accusations of trolling are really going to result in a more useful discussion?

Trolling does take place, and we need some way to defend against it. A key way is to educate people so they can recognize it. Do you deny that Russian trolls do regularly use this tactic?

>There are ways to word this paragraph...

Could you present an example of this?

You're right, though, that it was somewhat problematic for me to make a semi-accusation against a particular comment. It makes me think what we need is a page describing common Russian troll tactics, and it could be linked to whenever there is a discussion of Russia, and people could decide for themselves if any comment is a troll.

>Do you really think accusations of trolling are really going to result in a more useful discussion?

It's awfully hard to have a useful discussion when trolls are trying to take things over. I need to do some thinking on what might work.

> Do you deny that Russian trolls do regularly use this tactic?

I don't have information either way, but attacking motives instead of arguments never seems to lead anywhere useful, in my experience. The response from a troll or an innocent is often the same; indignation. This often results in confirmation bias taking over, and an argument from one side believing the other is acting in bad faith, and the pother believing they are talking to assholes.

> Could you present an example of this?

"First, while you've stated Clinton has a link to Russia, I'm unfamiliar with the parties involved or the evidence, and you didn't substantiate your claim. Can you point me towards resources where this is explained?

Secondly, while there may be a link with Clinton, a link, by itself, does not mean anything. A link is not the same thing and influence. I am probably linked to President Obama through a chain of three to four (or less) people. I also likely have an almost zero chance to get a specific message to him, much less exert influence. Not all links are equal, and I would be surprised if most the career politicians didn't have links to people in almost all the major nations, on purpose. If I was in that career, I would cultivate these links and people with more of them, as those can be extremely useful in communication. Do we all truly believe the Obama and Putin communicate purely through speeches and official visits, and have no way to express specific desires and sentiments through back-channels? What's a back-channel but a link by another name?

The important thing to consider here is not whether there is a link, but what type of link it is and what influence it may exert."

> It's awfully hard to have a useful discussion when trolls are trying to take things over.

Keep in mind that the purpose of trolling might well be to stir the pot enough that normal discourse has no chance, not just to discredit a specific idea. Who cares if a good discussion happens if nobody is around to see it as it's lost in a sea of vitriol? There was even a moment prior to my original reply, when I wondered where you were trolling in this manner. I quickly discounted it, but I imagine if I had acted on that thought, our conversation would be much less useful to all involved.

>given that Trump and Putin are on friendly terms with each other

which im sure is because putin doesn't think trump is going to win, and he likes trump stirring things up. if trump actually wins, i bet he's going to have a change of heart.

No, he likes him because they're both nationalists. Trump's view of the world is similar to his and Putin believes they can cooperate better. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, wants war with Russia.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clint...

Hilary does not want war with Russia.

I mean, really. Sigh. This website.

Try again. Hillary Clinton is the most pro-war, anti-Russia candidate on the Democrat side. She is more hawkish than even Ted Cruz was on the Republican side.

Here's an article by Jeffrey Sachs, director of Earth Institute at Columbia University, on The Huffington Post (a left leaning site) saying the same thing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c...

You're half right. She wants war and doesn't care who with.

Even worse. She thinks that she can win.

Clinton is easily one of the most pro-war (meaning an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy) candidates since the end of Vietnam. Many sources on that but I'll link just two.[1][2] Her focus is primarily on Russia, as she openly stated during one of the Democratic debates (given a choice between Iran, Russia, and North Korea, she picked them as "the greatest threat"). The entire Syria thing is largely a proxy war with Russia.[3] She was the main voice that argued against the Pentagon and convinced Obama to get involved in Libya. Whether you want to call it neoconservativism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, or just liberal internationalism, she is the leading champion for U.S. invasions and war across the world these days.[4][5]

[1] http://www.cato.org/blog/2016-presidential-candidate-interve...

[2] http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepa...

[3] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-mil...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons...

[5] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-haw...

Trump has some eastern european partners (Onyshenko) sharing interest in owning beauty pageants with all the fun side activities. Phil Ruffin is married to Nikolaenko who also shares biz interests with Onyshenko. Onyshenko is pro russian ukrainian oligarch and given life style and joint partying has likely enough dirt on Trump passed on to Putin for Putin to feel he has decent leverage over Trump.

I don't think so. /pol/ and Trump are made for each other.

oh please. no need to go all binary just because we work with computers.