Progressives (Liberals)

You seem to believe Russians are behind Bernie's success.

Why people focus solely on Sanders supporters over it is something else again.

We live in a society that routinely produces papers and studies to prove almost anything.

I'm saying you have to weigh what's on the ground against all the "facts" we are daily inundated with.

What academics understand, what intel agencies around the world have discerned is that Russians have involved themselves with broad and deep covert initiatives in the last and present elections designed specifically to damage Clinton's electoral chances and to cause division and discontent on the left. And much of that activity has been directed towards pro-Sanders social media inhabitants.

It is plausible and consistent with history to assume the creation of internal discord and confusion in the U.S. might well have been a Russian motivation for such activities.

However the absence of any plausible Russian motivation for a Clinton defeat in the election after all that makes this conclusion more of a self-created Clinton rationalization for her unexpected defeat.

In December 2011, Vladimir Putin came closer than he’s ever been to losing his hold on power. His decision that year to run for a third term as Russia’s President had inspired a massive protest movement against him. Demonstrations calling for him to resign were attracting hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Some of his closest allies had defected to the opposition, causing a split in the Kremlin elites, and Russian state media had begun to warn of a revolution in the making.

At a crisis meeting with his advisers on Dec. 8 of that year, the Russian leader chose to lay the blame on one meddling foreign diplomat: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“She set the tone for certain actors inside the country; she gave the signal,” Putin said of Clinton at the time, accusing her of ordering the opposition movement into action like some kind of revolutionary sleeper cell. “They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work.”

(...)

Obama and Clinton colluding to hand over 20% America’s strategic uranium to the Russians? On cue, Fox News gabber Sean Hannity said this could be 'the biggest scandal' in American history.

But here's the thing: by 20%, we really mean almost zero.

Those U.S. facilities obtained by Russia produce almost nothing. The uranium deposits are of relatively poor grade and are too costly to compete on the uranium market. But the facilities do have good milling capacity to process ore, if anyone gives it to them, which hasn’t happened in about 10 years. Theoretically, they could process 20% of our ore, but that will never happen. Uranium One couldn’t give these facilities away.

Besides, Russia can’t export any uranium they produce in the U.S. They do not possess a Nuclear Regulatory Commission export license.

The real reason Russia wanted this deal was to give Rosatom’s subsidiary Uranium One's very profitable uranium mines in Kazakhstan, the single largest producer of commercial uranium in the world.

(...)

The political ramifications aside, what is the reality of our uranium supplies, and how much does Russian meddling affect them?

Short answer – not at all.

There’s lots and lots of uranium in the world, and more keeps being discovered. Just look at the 2017 AAPG EMD Committee Report that covers uranium, other nuclear minerals and rare earth elements.

According to the lead author, Michael Campbell at I2M Associates, 'we are awash in uranium, not to mention all energy minerals oil, coal and especially natural gas.' (Disclosure: I am a member of that committee and a co-author of the report.)

This is especially true in North America, which contains the highest-grade uranium deposits in the world. The Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan is known as the 'Saudi Arabia of Uranium.'

That's a fairly broad assertion about what the Russians may have been doing and their possible motives for it. Do you have any references for authoritative statements from intel agencies to back it up?

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States.

The Internet Research Agency, based in Saint Petersburg and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups, and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton; they reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media. Additionally, computer hackers affiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) infiltrated information systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta, and publicly released stolen files and emails through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks during the election campaign. Finally, several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign associates, offering business opportunities to the Trump Organization and damaging information on Clinton. Russian government officials have denied involvement in any of the hacks or leaks...