Is Trump a puppet of Putin?

Puppet or not, I don't believe Putin would let any guy sit on his lap.

so a puppet and not a lapdog?

I think there are many issues between the East and the West.  I am think they are just trying to be civil with each other.  Let's hope their helpers and advisors are successful in controlling these two bullies.

With all the news about hacking, etc.,  I am really wondering what they have done to us that we didn't already do or try to them.  Everybody kepts their secrets under wraps.  All I hear a accusations, nobody gives any real proof.

Bizarre q.  Trump's a billionaire who has asked for and received nothing from Putin.  

Meanwhile, the Clinton's were "dead broke" in 2001, according to Hillary.  Then, quickly got $100M+ mostly from foreign nationals, including many officials, most of it while Hillary was privy to top U.S. secrets and taking a deliberately unprotected cell phone to use within those countries so data could be "stolen", and using a deliberately unprotected email server.  The more reasonable q would be who specifically the Clintons sold U.S. secrets to and were otherwise fifth columnists for.

It seems most probable that Trump isn't a "puppet" of Putin. Most likely, Trump simply admires Putin and wants to act as if the President of the U.S.A. has similar powers to those exercised by Putin in Russia. Unfortunately, with a supportive Congress that will likely approve any federal court appointees by Trump, there is a real chance that Trump might succeed. "Megalomaniac" is apparently much closer to Trump than "puppet". The real question is in how much damage Trump will cause to the U.S.A. and whether it can ever be repaired.

I am seeing mounting  evidence that he is influenced by Putin, but am attempting to be aware of mine own confirmation bias.

Things seem to be getting cyclic.  The GOP gets eight years nothing happens.  Obama gets eight years nothing happens.  Now, it is Trumps turn and I expect nothing will probably happen.  As long as we keep buying cheap goods our resources just keep moving out increasing the deficit.  We are turning into a service economy without producing enough just buying things from other countries.  That cannot be sustained we either set up a protected economy or lower our standard of living.

...we either set up a protected economy or lower our standard of living.

Unfortunately, the first would (or perhaps "will", given current apparent direction) force the second to happen, at the very least. But that's a topic outside the scope of the OP.

Of course he is no puppet of Putin.  It makes no sense, why would he be?  Do you think his plan is to take over the US join Putin and then split up the world between them in some masterful executed plan?  Hey how about this, Maybe the rich and powerful folks are playing Monopoly with the world.  I can hear Trump now...."Damn it Putin you stayed at my New York properties and I have a hotel on it....hehehehehe.".    The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!!  The opposite people cried the same thing when Obama was elected.  Here's Newton laws of politics.....if you were happy when Obama got elected, you are scared now, if you were scared when Obama got elected, you are happy now.  OMG, don't look, but Obama's muslim (wacky I know).  OMG don't look, but Trumps a secret russian spy (opposite wacky).  Guess it doesn't really matter since the Doomsday clock has moved closer to midnight, or did it move because of global warming or because best buds Trump and Putin are playing You sank my battleship.

I think both are too arrogant to play second fiddle or form a partnership.

Why are people so scared of Putin and Trump being friendly?  Would it be so bad if the worlds superpowers let relations thaw a bit.  I know when Obama was elected, he was supposed to usher in an era of change, looking back on the last 8 years, not much has changed or at least from my perspective.  It appears, at least to me that Trump is set on change and at this point I have a hard time believing that in 4 years we won't look back and say (for better or worse) that Trump has changed things.

Obama, also, campaigned on changing things back when - he was running against a republican and replacing a republican administration.

We all want life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, we just cannot agree on the method.

I get it and if everything were in a vacuum, I might agree with you, but it's a different world.  I remember growing up in a world were the USSR was the evil empire hell bent on destroying the USA.  Not only did the Gov't hate us but so did the people.  Well at least that was the narrative that the was being sold at the time.  Now as we try and sell this same story to the next generation, it doesn't work as well.  I have two boys 11 and 9, they play xbox live with people all over the world.  They have friends from everywhere.  They have even talked to distant cousins in other countries that we found by doing 23andme.  I think it's crazy that people supported Hillary when she went insane and started hurtling accusations at Russia without any proof.  Let me see, we want to have to get along cause we work in IT together, is it better for me try and get along with you or call you a lying asshole in front of everyone?  

On another note, it would seem that Bernie would be Putin's lapdog as the lies and hate that were exposed by the DNC benefited him the most

the evidence continues to mount

The evidence of what exactly?  That Putin is taking over the USA?  That the US Gov't now answers to Putin?  Is this whole discussion based on the fact that someone (don't think anyone has proven who it was at this point) hacked the DNC email and revealed that there was an internal push for Clinton to win over Bernie and that they referred to Hispanics as Taco Bowls.  Is McCarthyism back?

Everyone is complaining about the hacking.  Who is complaining about the exposed content?  Is it so bad we found out what was going on?

Where did I read the other day that Russia was sending Snowden to the USA?  Is that fake news or not?

Yes, it's fascinating how hyper-concerned Dems are when hacking affects their own political fortunes, but how they didn't care and tried to ignore or treated it as "heroic" when similar hacking revealed American secrets, federal workers' info, or even American undercover employees -- who are at risk of death if revealed!

I still haven't figured out why everyone thinks it was Russia helping Trump.  It helped Sanders the most because it showed how unfairly he had been treated, well that and how the DNC feels about Hispanics.  The people who were the most upset were Bernie fans, do people really think by exposing just how corrupt the democratic party is really swayed people to Trump?  Bernie was an outsider also.

For example, Hillary can leave America's top-most secrets completely unprotected, even travelling to those countries using a deliberately unsecured email (deliberately to sell the data?, $10Ms of dollars in bribes, er "donations", to the Clinton foundations and in speaking fees), and the Dems insist "that's nothing, no problem at all".  She can get American diplomats and service personnel killed and Dems insist "that's nothing, no scandal at all".  But let someone steal personally embarrassing political info, and they act like it's the end of America.  How selfish can they get?!!

I really think the Dems and their media's (which CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. really are Dem media) constant over-the-top attacks on Trump actually helped him win.

I'm not sure most Dems really even believe their own Putin/Russia spin.  They just need a story for them and their media acolytes to feed people.  As long as they convince the gullible press to believe it, they know it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not.

what I am seeing in many news outlets around the world and corroborated by 1) factcheck.org 2)politifact and 3)snopes  4) the economist 5) the independent 6) BBC is mounting evidence of some kind of control of Trump by Putin , compromising material  perhaps ?

the evidence seems to be growing on this . I am a skeptical person  but I am seeing mounting evidence although none of it is a "smoking gun "  at this point

So I would have to say that Trump is NOT a puppet or lapdog to Putin.  I think they may share a mutual respect for each other, but I highly doubt they are sending each other selfies as best bros.  And I don't think there is an end game as far as the two of them ruling the world together.  I think the mutual respect comes from the fact neither one is interested in playing the game of politics.

Putin didn't expect Trump to win any more than anyone else did.  IF it happened as speculated, I suspect it was more to weaken Hillary than to help anyone else.  Not that they really needed to.  Bill was so weak, such as providing massive aid to North Korea to give them the resources to continue working on missiles and nuclear bombs, and ditto when he sold advanced missile aiming and other control info to China, I can't imagine they were really all that worried about Putin.  It's like they needed to weaken the already detoothed, declawed and underfed bear before wrestling it.

Name any piece of actual "evidence" that Putin has forced Trump to do anything.

CORRECTION:

"can't imagine they were really all that worried about Hillary."

I lost all respect for snopes when they tried to defend Gore when he said he created the internet.  Did I read something about Putin had a video of Trump getting as golden shower?

Snopes article on Al Gore inventing the internet seems to list it as "False"

Dems certainly didn't squeal about "foreign influence" when in 1996 the Chinese illegally aided Democrat fundraising and campaigns, including Gore's presidential campaign.  Nope, no concern from Dems on that.

Al Gore said. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Snopes defended it by saying:

"Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning:
the vice president was not claiming that he “invented” the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was one of the visionaries responsible for helping to bring it into being by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense"

To me, invented and created are more equal than created = by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense.  

Would Edison have said "I created the light bulb."  would that equal to Edison saying "I did the light bulb by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense." or "I invented the light bulb'"?

yeah , might be a stretch on the al gore thing . He did not repeat it I think , so I guess in the eye of the beholder ?

what are you thoughts on factcheck.org and politifact ? are they generally truthful?

if not what is ?

thanks !!!!!!

I think snoopes is usually pretty good, but in the Gore case, they just tried too hard to defend it.  No big deal I guess.  I have a couple in factcheck that are slanted.  I haven't read any off the top of my head from politifact that I remember.

I have been making it a point to try to be super objective , I was a solid republican all my life until now . I think the way to make sure you get the facts %100 right as we know them is to look at a verity of objective ( or as best they can be ) sources to establish the facts. If I can see that the facts are represented over several of the news sources  including ones outside of the usa then there is a high degree of confidence.

One thing to be super careful of is confirmation bias. What you can do is know what your ideological  position on  a subject, gather facts from many many sources with emphasis on the other side of the argument. Know the factual arguments from the other side. keep an open mind , if the new facts change what you think fine , if not you are in a much better position to argue your side as you know what ammo  your opponent will use

To me it's crazy what's going on.  First off Trump is going to start WW3, yet he's best friends with Putin.  How does that work?  Whos going to war with the 2 world superpowers?  I just can't see any logic.  Now do me a favor, pull up todays news and see if you can find an article that is positive about Trump.  Or about anything he has done.  What about Conway, she was the first woman to head a successful presidential campaign.  How about the Amazon tax?  Is it all bad, it should help small businesses, but it's all negative.  And people wonder why some have a hard time believing the media.  Fine, Trump is an asshole, he's stupid, he's orange, his hair is fake, he has small hands, he eats fast food, he's an egomaniac, muscians don't like him, actors hate him, his wife is a slut cause she posed nude, his daughter sells cheap shit from china.......WOW this is a full media blitz attach on him.  

Ok, lets look at Flynn.  Wasn't he in Obama's administration?  Was Obama a secret Russian spy?  Why did Obama fire him?  For insubordination, not for being a spy right?  Then Obama place a secret wire tap on his phone in December, keep in mind at this point Flynn is a private citizen, it takes a lot to get a wire tap on a private citizen, my question is why have the tap?

I agree with you that you have to use many sources, it just seems like the bait and click group really have the advantage right now.  Poor lady I work with is absolutely terrified by the media right now.  She has an panic attach everytime someone says Trump.  But do look for any positive articles or articles that put Trump in a positive light.  You can't find any and there is no way you can convince me that anybody is ALL bad.  What about his wife, his daughter, surly you can find something to report other than negative.  It's silly.  

I can show you on CNN where one article says Trump wasn't the reason for the Markets surging, I can also show you where the next day it states it was his fault that it retreated because markets were nervous about his policies.  

Reuters is the closest I've seen in being neutral, but it's even starting to slide.  The ones in the USA are highly slanted.

Do you think the media in the USA has treated Trump differently than Obama?

All we get is inuendo and suppositions as private citizens.  If we seem to get any facts they always come from someone not authorized to comment.

Just because you say it the loudest and the most often doesn't make it right.  I like to do my own research.  Tell me were these facts come from and I will verify them myself.

It's a sad day.  But you look, so do like 15 other people, but the masses see it and take it at face value.  My poor parents, they are close to 80 now and literally shitting themselves with our current media in such an uproar.  I tell them to just turn off CNN.  When's the last time you read an article and did your own research and concluded that it was a well written article?  It's been a long time for me.

Ok, came across one for politifact that seems inaccurate.  

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/11/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-obamacare-will-cause-increase-d/

basically Rush Limbaugh said that Obamacare will "Obamacare is going to increase the divorce rate." which politifact said was false.  

"But there is no research that suggests this will substantially affect the country’s divorce rate, which is a little hard to measure in the first place. Experts said the effect may be marginal, as no one has done the research to nail down reasonable expectations.
We rate this False."

First Rush never said "substantially affect the country’s divorce rate".   They even said  "the effect may be marginal", so it MAY increase it...the best you could rate it is inconclusive, not false.  It's subtle, but it's still slanted.  Read the whole thing.  The reason this even came up today was we just go notice our insurance would be going up by 25% this year.

"No puppet. No puppet. You're a puppet!"

Ah, well. I just couldn't get back to this with other stuff going on, and now it's "Answered". Much was readied to add to comment on comments from hyper-concerned Trump apologists, but no doubt the topic will possibly come around again.

Overall, the question may be moot. "Puppet" implies a 'puppeteer' pulling strings. Since there's no need to pull strings when things are already going in the desired directions, the concept isn't relevant.

Putin won!

Withholding judgement until someone is willing to reveal sources.  I don't trust anon sources - to easily made up.

check back on May 19th . Trumps last day!.... Resigns

Shouldn't that be May 4th?  There's a tremor on the dark side of the force that day.  :)

'check back on May 19th . Trumps last day!.... Resigns'

I gave him four extra days or did I get the year wrong?  May 19th 2023?

Absolutely no actual evidence Trump did anything untoward in connection with Russia, just media speculation.

Meanwhile, China still illegally interfered in the 2008 POTUS election, Obama still interfered in the most recent Israeli leadership election, and Lois Lerner still violated Americans' rights to participate in the 2012 elections.

Absolutely no actual evidence...

There is a significant amount of "evidence" from reliable named sources. Just not "proof". (See testimony of ex-CIA director John Brennan for example, among others.) At least, no "proof" has been made public nor apparently been made available to investigations. It's only gotten as far as attempting to determine what to subpoena and from whom, plus, of course, initial indications of various 5th Amendment invocations (which seem plausible to me).

What is the "evidence" then, that Trump or his aides "colluded" with Russia?  Which, btw, is not a crime anyway!

Obama's insistence on political correctness allows Nidal Hassan to murder more than a dozen U.S. service members and injure dozens more and the left squawks insistently about "Russia" and "Bush".  I'd compare you to Neville Chamberlain, but that would terribly unfair to him, as he did wise up after a few years and he did sincerely want to prevent a war that he genuinely thought was avoidable, he wasn't doing it just for politics.

lots of smoke ........more every day .....when will we find fire ?

What evidence, specifically, did Brennan provide, other than that he, like most of Wash D.C. insiders, don't like Trump?

Seems like a Chess Tournament right now in Washington District of Columbia.  Everyone is analyzing the variations before making their next move move.

To me, Brennan confirmed there was not  any evidence of "collusion" between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Although, again, I don't believe the U.S. actually has a law against that.  Presumably we'll get one now.

"Collusion" in my dictionary implies a secret agreement.  However, I am doubting if Trump can keep anything secret.

There is a significant amount of "evidence" [of Trump team and Russian "collusion"] from reliable named sources. Just not "proof". (See testimony of ex-CIA director John Brennan for example, among others.)

Actually, Brennan said the opposite, that he did not have any direct evidence of it.  What's the basis of your claim that he gave evidence for it?

sure seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence.................  could it be that ......????????? maybe all this Russia stuff is true??

Evidence of what specifically?  That Trump or his team knew some Russians before he got into office?  Yeah, he was an international business man.  So what?

Sickening for leftists to demand untold money be spent of phony "investigation" -- of nothing! -- but complain endlessly of "wasted money" spent investigating the deaths of four Americans in service to their country.  Politics has rarely sunk that low; you'd have to go back to Weimar Germany for equivalent examples.

I dont know man , I have been a republican all my life and something seems fishy here , why lie about Russian contacts , why does the story change all the time ?

I use factcheck org , it this a reliable source

Again, what is the underlying issue?  Even if Trump's team "colluded with" the Russians -- whatever that means -- it's not illegal.

China, and its military(!), unquestionably illegally donated money to the Clinton campaign in 1996 and other Dems as well.  Chinese leaders made it clear, in written statements, that they really liked Clinton as president.  Fishy?  As hell!  Clinton should have been impeached for that alone, but Dems didn't care, so the media didn't care.  Outright corruption and bribery by foreign nationals and the Dems cover for it.

what is a reliable non -biased( as possible ) news source  ?

Reuters ?

factcheck ?

foxnews?

I'm with Pletcher on that.  What law is he being accused of breaking?  Even if he colluded with the Russians, what law was broken.  It all seems to be me trying to divert attention from what was in the emails.  But even if he did use his own personal money to hire hackers to expose the DNC for what they are.....what law was broken?  I get maybe it would make him look like an asshole or dishonest or really whatever, but WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN?  Again I don't care what news source it comes from or whatever, I just want to know what law he is being accused of breaking.

By all means, let's have a fair investigation by Mueller.  Dems might be surprised at how quickly he can verify that there's nothing criminal there.

But while we're at it, let's have a fair investigation of HIllary's unapproved private email server.  She did break laws, and extraordinarily important laws as well.  Contrary to what Comey implied, those laws were still broken even if there was no specific intent to break them or harm intended to the U.S. when you broke them.  She was in fact more than just "extremely careless" with very top secret documents (although that alone would be enough to get anyone else put in jail, period!).

Did she do this on purpose to sell the info?  Is that the reason for the Clintons hiding foreign bribes -- er, "donations" -- to the Clinton "Charitable" foundation(s)?  And this after she had promised Obama and the nation that there would be no, absolutely no foreign bribes -- er, "donations" -- to the Clinton Foundation(s) for the entire time she was serving -- or in her case self-serving! -- as Sec of State.  She assumed office based on a 100% lie.  No way they were going to give up that kind of bribe money, when they were finally in a safe position to really rake it in.

Trump or Comey  , I wonder who is more factual ? I used to be on the Republican side of things , but along came trump and all his connections to Russias , the lying , the anti-science. It really shocked my conscience .

Time will tell about all this , and I dont think Trump will come out on top.

I cannot in good conscience support a guy like Trump ( a con man)  and still believe in Science

"Anti-science"?  Who the hell is "anti-science"?

Presumably you mean the CO2 gravy train scam.  It's mostly about funneling money to eco-alarmists.  Even supporters of the Paris Accord admit it effectively does nothing, long term, to eliminate the harmful effects of the alleged "extreme" warming.  That alone proves this has gone beyond science to a religious-like adherence or, worse, politics.

In the actual world, China is the key to addressing this.  It pumps out vastly more CO2 than any nation on earth, 1.5 times more than the U.S..  Most of provincial CO2 emissions were from raw coal.  So Germany and California can bankrupt themselves pursuing the (currently) false dream of "green energy", such as wind (hint: investigate how much carbon-based resources it requires to build the wind turbines in the first place) and solar, but they are doing almost nothing according to the eco-alarmists' own statements.

Since the alarmists' 10 and 15 year projections have proven to be ridiculously wrong, they've moved to a 2080 or 2100 date.  That's much safer since it will be forgotten by then, and can obviously never be proven wrong now.  Nostradamus used the same phony "technique".

But how arrogant do you have to be to think you can accurately determine now the key issue(s) of the world in 2080, let alone 2100?  Seriously, how ridiculous would it be to have predictions from 1950 (roughly 65 years ago, as 2080 is roughly 65 years from now) about what our key problems now would be?  I'm sure it would be hysterically funny -- but just as useless.

The Republican party in most certainly  anti-science and anti-fact  , it would be hard to argue that fact. Evolution , global warming , vaccines. I am stating this as a former Republican.

Make sure you are not a victim of confirmation bias , make sure you get diverse factual sources that are global in nature .  Make sure you read the articles on Cognitive bias . Of course I am sure I will never change your option .

I think you are probably logical but are not getting facts from diverse enough sources

You're projecting things on Republicans.

Can you show me any statements of the Repub party, or its platform, that deny Evolution or the efficacy of vaccines?

And, regarding climate, I agree with not going to extremes to deal with a hypothetical warming that has, in fact, never actually occurred.  Climate has been changing on earth -- sometimes drastically -- for billions of years.

If this were such a big problem, then why fly thousands of people, often on private jets, to Paris?  To sit in eco-expensive hotels and sip fine wines?  Paris probably caused more CO2 emissions than a million typical families on earth for one year.

Another method I use to attempt to see the facts thru the fog , if you have 2 parties that do not like each other  or a competitors and they agree on something , what does that mean ?

I will make a deal with you , send me one site that you consider reliable and factual for general news and I will send one to you .  I will read it intensely . I am attempting to weed out my own cognitive bias  , one way to do that would be to confer with other intelligent humans to see what there source of facts are .

Intelligent humans usually know when to use "there" and when to use "their".

...in a world were the USSR was the evil empire hell bent on destroying the USA.  Not only did the Gov't hate us but so did the people.  Well at least that was the narrative that the was being sold at the time.

@bergertime,

Yes, there indeed was "narrative", but it was mostly convincing to the same types who swallow similar "narratives" today. Those who looked deeper saw a common Soviet citizenry that was rife with demand for Western cultural artifacts, even those demeaned as decadent. Western blue jeans might go for US$50 on the black market and Levi's were 'gold standard'. Western rock music was strong. The Beatles' 'Back in the U.S.S.R.' possibly did more to bring eventual Soviet collapse than anything done by President Reagan; the later grown youth of Reagan's time were the 'cooler heads' who shut down the hard-core hawks. They'd come to be in control in adulthood. Many more examples of thirst for what was outside the Iron Curtain could be seen by those who looked.

It's both easier and harder to find similar extra-narrative items today -- easier because the Internet provides access routes to practically everything needed to form solid opinions, and harder because routes lead to everything. Sheer volume of elements on many single sites is difficult to wade through, hyperlinks continually add distraction. And sheer volume of sites makes it hard to to have enough time.

@others,

What is the "evidence" then, that Trump or his aides "colluded" with Russia?  Which, btw, is not a crime anyway!

Plenty of evidence, some was directly cited in the subsequent parenthetical note. A past CIA director who served and left office honorably is a practically irrefutable witness in any U.S. court. He says he turned over multiple items that concerned him, and that's testimonial evidence. As noted, not "proof"... just "evidence".

Of course, the desire by some is to have all evidence made public before a trial. That goes against fully ethical practices since anyone charged with reaching judgment should not be exposed prior to trial. Personally, I support our justice system and prefer evidence to be presented in an orderly fashion within all possible controls of due process.

The existence of "evidence" shouldn't be in question, except by those who want to derail an investigation regardless of its validity. Evidence need only be accepted as existing. The meaning of any evidence is judged at trial, not during the investigatory current phase.

And "collusion" as a legal term is definitely a crime; the term simply doesn't legally apply to crimes that apparently might be charged out of this investigation. (Technically unknown for now; an actual crime of 'collusion' might be still uncovered, but that would become secondary.) It certainly applies in common conversation, including news accounts. If legality is required in EE threads, then cite your lawyer credentials. Otherwise, 'collusion' is a crime that is currently under investigation by Mueller and Congress. It's just that it's legally called 'conspiracy', often a common synonym of 'collusion' for good reason, i.e., they refer to similar types of behaviors, just in different areas of law.

What is the "evidence" then, that Trump or his aides "colluded" with Russia?  Which, btw, is not a crime anyway!
Plenty of evidence, some was directly cited in the subsequent parenthetical note. A past CIA director who served and left office honorably is a practically irrefutable witness in any U.S. court. He says he turned over multiple items that concerned him, and that's testimonial evidence. As noted, not "proof"... just "evidence".

He explicitly stated that he had NO direct evidence of any "collusion" between Russia and Trump, or his subordinates, during the election process.  Even Politico admits that such "collusion" is NOT a crime, and is thus of course NOT illegal.  
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

For the previous Dem president, of course there was direct evidence for Clinton "collusion" with China and other foreign cash "bundlers" during his election, ditto for Al Gore.  That type of campaign cash bundling IS CLEARLY ILLEGAL, as admitted to by both sides, although leftists of course deny the clear fact that Clinton and Gore did violate what obviously is a law, on campaign financing.

We also now know, for a 1983 KGB memo, that Ted Kennedy -- as a sitting (or perhaps lying down, if he'd been drinking as usual) Senator -- tried to get the Soviets to work with him on attacking a sitting president, not just a candidate.  That's vastly more an actual crime, particularly given Kennedy's oath to uphold the Constitution (then again, that oath has been meaningless to Dems for some decades now).

The Beatles' 'Back in the U.S.S.R.' possibly did more to bring eventual Soviet collapse than anything done by President Reagan; the later grown youth of Reagan's time were the 'cooler heads' who shut down the hard-core hawks.

No, that's the phony leftist narrative, which they repeat ad nauseam to convince gullibles to believe the lie.  Given that the song came out in the 1960s, it obviously wasn't of itself damaging at all to the USSR.  Just another phony claim for "useful idiots" of the left, including those marching around in mushroom hats in fear of Reagan's policies, claiming that Reagan was the "hard-core warmonger", endangering the planet by opposing the USSR, and that the USSR could never be defeated.  

Or, as John Kerry -- not yet Dem presidential candidate -- put it around that time:
“We cannot fight Communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.”  So the Dems then cut off all finances for Vietnam, allowing the communists to win.  Well, yes, if you are going to surrender, then, of course, "you cannot fight".
Around when Kerry met with foreign leaders against which the U.S. was at war with no authorization, a clear violation of military law since he was still in the reserves at that time.