The Russians meddled in Brexit and now - apparently - Catalonia. But not America?

EMNofSeattle said:

Oh well.

let's just call it payback for the 1970 Chilean election we attempted to rig and then forgot to mention we knew of a coup effort against the guy who won it, and call it even.
by the way, and oddly for a retired sailor, you're confusing Spain with NATO and the European union with NATO, NATO is an entirely seperate issue, NATO predates the EU and the Catalonia issue predates NATO. Spain didn't even join NATO until General Franco died. some basic historical reading would have shown that. neither was part of a Russian attempt to break up NATO.

Click to expand...

Ah. I see. So whatever we might have done wrong in the past, that automatically justifies Russia's meddling in our election? Really? So it's okay with you if from now on, throughout our lives and the lives of our children, if other nations - not just Russia, but ANY other nation no matter how much they hate us - meddle in our elections?

Really? Because that's the logical extension of your argument.

And when it comes to Spain and NATO, that's not a separate issue at all. Russia isn't concerned in the least with what originally comprised NATO, but is quite concerned with what comprises NATO...TODAY. Or are you of the incredibly naive illusion that the ex-KGB colonel in charge of Russia wouldn't be concerned at all about the enemy (they saw us as enemies for generations, remember) on their border that stood strong while his nation disintegrated...and which organization is continuing to expand even to absorb the Ukraine that was once part of the USSR?



Or are you really so enamored of Trump's magical thinking that Russia only wants to be our friends, and that our intelligence agencies (including all the careerists hired during the Bush era) are all Trump-hating Obamabots?

Glen Contrarian said:

Um, you do know that nearly ALL of those who work in our intelligence agencies are not political appointees, that many - if not most - of the senior careerists likely started during the Bush era, and that the one in charge of whatever agency cannot simply claim something 180-out from what the careerists are telling him, don't you?

But I get it - no matter how much evidence they find, you'll just put your fingers in your ears and yell LALALALALALALA! until you're out of earshot...'cause you've been somehow convinced that even if the Trump team did collude with the Russians to influence our elections, that's somehow more patriotic than admitting even for a moment that the Russian politician was right when he said, "while your intelligence agencies were sleeping, we elected your president!"

Click to expand...

You do not get it. You are for the most part making it up as you go along. I have said many times on these boards that I have a high opinion of the rank and file members of our intelligence agencies. It's the political appointees who run them that I do not always trust. Much has happened since that damaged my trust of those Obama era appointees. the FISA court which I trusted implicitly during the Bush Administration has been abused. I defended the Patriot Act at the time while the left was trashing it. And Comey was already writing memos intended to clear Hillary before he actually started investigating her. as for your above nonsense, most by now have worked out that the Russian politician was sarcastically mocking the idiots in the USA who are so into the russian collusion conspiracy theories.

Glen Contrarian said:

I'm calling BS on the bolded part - better find some good references.

That being said, exactly how does ANY of that make it all right for us to allow the Russians to influence OUR election? That's like saying that terrorists killing people in America is okay since we've been bombing their people for decades. Whatever we may or may not have done wrong, that does NOT justify for a moment defending Russia's meddling in our election.

Click to expand...

Google: ussr influence in vietnam anti war protesters

Enjoy.

Remember that guy McCarthy? You may not have liked him, but he was on to something... Russian perversion of US society, and they did succeed, and perverted America’s Left.

Hell, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov or Gorbachev would have loved to have had Obama or Clinton as president instead of Reagan.

Athanasius68 said:

Trump has repeatedly expressed his skepticism of the intelligence reports by citing the reports regarding chemical and biological weapons held by Saddan.

Click to expand...

When the CIA told Bush 43 about the intel concerning bio and chem weapons in Iraq, they specifically told him that they did not place great confidence in the ONE source that made those claims.

But what that one guy said was all that Bush wanted to hear, all he needed to justify attacking Iraq. How do we know this? Because during his very first cabinet meeting in January 2001 (eight months before 9/11, mind you), one of the main topics of discussion was the invasion of Iraq, even including discussions about who would get what oil fields after the invasion. From the 2004 report:

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath. "There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'" Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

Soooo...NO, it wasn't faulty intel - it was intel that the CIA itself did not fully trust, but because Bush thought he could use it to justify invading Iraq, he ran with it, pushed Congress (including Hillary) to accept the intel at face value so they would approve his invasion...

...and we all paid for it.

This isn't on the CIA - it's on the one who sits where the buck is supposed to stop. That's who is ALWAYS responsible for whatever happens, good or bad.

ObamacareFail said:

You do not get it. You are for the most part making it up as you go along. I have said many times on these boards that I have a high opinion of the rank and file members of our intelligence agencies. It's the political appointees who run them that I do not always trust. Much has happened since that damaged my trust of those Obama era appointees. the FISA court which I trusted implicitly during the Bush Administration has been abused. I defended the Patriot Act at the time while the left was trashing it. And Comey was already writing memos intended to clear Hillary before he actually started investigating her. as for your above nonsense, most by now have worked out that the Russian politician was sarcastically mocking the idiots in the USA who are so into the russian collusion conspiracy theories.

Click to expand...

No, YOU don't get it...because that political appointee cannot make up claims out of whole cloth, and cannot make claims that are 180-out from what the rank-and-file careerists have told him. Why? Because every political appointee knows that as soon as he did so, the careerists would blow the whistle - if not publicly, then by making leaks to newspapers...and the political appointee's deception would be exposed.

THAT, sir, is why even TRUMP's current appointee has publicly stated that yeah, Russia did it...because if he publicly stated anything else, it wouldn't be a week before his lie would be exposed either publicly or by a leak.

zimmer said:

Google: ussr influence in vietnam anti war protesters

Enjoy.

Remember that guy McCarthy? You may not have liked him, but he was on to something... Russian perversion of US society, and they did succeed, and perverted America’s Left.

Hell, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov or Gorbachev would have loved to have had Obama or Clinton as president instead of Reagan.

Click to expand...

McCarthy? You mean the one who repeatedly accused innocent people of being Russian spies? Who even claimed that he was holding in his hand a list of Soviet spies in Congress?

And when it comes to Reagan, I voted for him. He's gotta be doing somersaults in his grave now to see how Trump is repeatedly and publicly taking Putin's word over that of the intelligence agencies! And the Russians DID publicly state how much they hated Obama and Hillary for the sanctions they got slapped on them after they annexed the Crimea...but they were most certainly eager to discuss the removal of those sanctions with Trump's team in that meeting in Trump Tower. You might not think much of the sanctions, but they did push Russia into a recession (it began some time before the oil prices took a dive several years back).

And when it comes to whatever Russia tried to do in the past, or whatever influence they might have wielded in the past, does that for even one moment justify Trump kissing their asses today, taking their side over that of our intelligence agencies?

No, it doesn't. And what's really going to burn all of you (assuming we all live through Trump's presidency) is how Trump is going to get exposed in the years to come, and how he will be seen as the single least capable president we've ever had. He's not the worst president we've had - there's a few who have been worse - but I do not want for any of us to see what life in America is like if Trump does turn out to be worse than the few whose missteps were worse than his rank incompetence.

Glen Contrarian said:

Quite a bit more than you know, apparently. But he did the right thing, because he knew what would happen if he went public with what he knew. From Newsweek:

Obama was acutely aware, and rightfully so, of the simple fact that if he was too vocal about the Russian interference he would seem to be intervening in the election, using national intelligence to aid the Clinton political campaign. Given that Trump had even gone so far as to say during a nationally televised presidential debate with Clinton that he might not accept the outcome of the election—another shocking breach of standard political norms by the mogul—Obama had to be especially cautious lest he fuel Trump’s paranoid claim that the election was rigged.

What else could he have done? Anything else he did to expose to the public about what was happening would only have served as "proof" to Trump and his followers that Obama was trying to influence the election. You know that this is true, especially given Trump's often-repeated claims that the Russians didn't do anything and that the intelligence agencies are all wrong about Russian meddling in our election.

Click to expand...

So you are admitting Obama put his party before his country because he didn't want to look bad.

Plus Ultra said:

I guess, but I don't think surreptitiously publishing 'fake news' or phony surveys and placing tendentious advertisements is really "meddling".

Click to expand...

Feel free to expose the fake news for what it is - starting with the quote reported in USA Today that I showed you. Feel free to show how the meetings held between Trump's team and the Russians (which Trump claimed never happened) were somehow fake news. We'll be waiting right here!

In other words, yeah, EVERY news organization gets things wrong sometimes...but the real mainstream media holds themselves to high standards and almost always admit it when they get it wrong...and hold their reporters responsible (to the point of firing them) if they get it wrong. Remember Dan Rather's report about Bush? The substance of his report was accurate...but the particular document he used wasn't right, and so he was fired even though the substance of what he said was accurate. When was the last time Fox News fired a reporter for getting it wrong? Can't say I've ever heard of that happening...so either Fox News reporters are ALWAYS right...or Fox isn't holding them responsible for the crap they get wrong.

That being said, the news reports Fox gives are usually fairly accurate - it's the way it's presented (and how it's discussed on Fox and Friends) that gives them their less-than-stellar reputation in the news world. The same thing goes for MSNBC. But the main MSM - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, and WSJ - do strive to report accurately and normally admit when they get it wrong (and yes, the WSJ is part of the MSM).

Lastly, on the tendentious advertisements - in another time, that was called "propaganda"...and it's a very effective (and cost-effective) of manipulating the public. This has been known forever. For instance, in the beginning of the First World War, Germany did commit some atrocities on their way through Belgium...but the newspapers in France and especially in England blew it way out of proportion, describing how the German soldiers were bayoneting babies and slamming them against trees, generally making up crap to change the mind of the public...and it worked. In the eyes of the Western public, the Germans were suddenly the Huns, ready to slaughter women and children at the drop of a hat. Even Hitler, in his remarks on WWI, said that the one area in which England and France were most superior to Germany was in the use of propaganda.

There's a reason why the old saying "The pen is mightier than the sword" became an old saying...because all too often, the pen directs the sword where to strike...and if the pen is lying, the sword wouldn't know it. That, sir, is why what Russia did is by definition "meddling"...or are you of the opinion that from now on, even during the lives of your children and their children, that it's okay for any other nation on the planet to run all the advertisements they like on our media, to support whichever candidate that THEY want us to elect? You can't have it both ways - if you think it was okay for Russia to do so, then you're okay with ALL nations doing so - including China, Saudi Arabia, Mexico...you name it. And they won't even have to say who made the advertisements - we won't know which nation is trying to support or tear down our candidates.

ReverendHellh0und said:

So you are admitting Obama put his party before his country because he didn't want to look bad.

Click to expand...

1 - Are you then admitting that regardless of what Obama did or didn't do, the Russians DID interfere in our election?

2 - Obama didn't publicize it because of exactly what I posted. You can agree or disagree with his decision, but it was his decision...and doesn't change the fact that the Russians DID make a concerted effort to influence our election...and have since bragged about being successful in their effort to do so.

Glen Contrarian said:

1 - Are you then admitting that regardless of what Obama did or didn't do, the Russians DID interfere in our election?

2 - Obama didn't publicize it because of exactly what I posted. You can agree or disagree with his decision, but it was his decision...and doesn't change the fact that the Russians DID make a concerted effort to influence our election...and have since bragged about being successful in their effort to do so.

Click to expand...

1. I think the russians impact on our election was minimal at best.

2. he put his party before his country, which is an impeachable offense if you think about it.

ReverendHellh0und said:

1. I think the russians impact on our election was minimal at best.

2. he put his party before his country, which is an impeachable offense if you think about it.

Click to expand...

1. That is your opinion - and it does not excuse the apparent efforts by the Trump team to collude with the Russians - remember those meetings that Trump claimed didn't happen, that he even told his son to lie about? But of course since he's YOUR guy, you're willing to overlook that.

2. NO, Obama didn't put "party over country". In fact:

Now, eight months since the election, the Post has published the fullest account to date on the Obama administration’s discovery of the Russian hacking and its early, fumbling attempts to respond. It reiterates the Republican role in pushing back against the revelation of Russian interference, and McConnell’s role in particular:

The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.​

While it is frustrating that Obama seemed to handcuff himself into avoiding aggressive action, and that he even appeared to fall for Republicans’ “concern trolling” that going public with the allegations would somehow play into Putin’s hands, there is no question that the villain in this saga was McConnell.

Was McConnell bluffing when he threatened to make it a partisan issue? In the event, Obama never called McConnell’s bluff, if that’s what it was. But he should have known long before that to expect good faith from a slippery character like the Senate majority leader would be an unforgivable act of naïveté. This was the same Mitch McConnell who, before Obama had even been inaugurated, declared his number one priority to be ensuring that he would be a one-term president.

MaggieD said:

“Any other President would be hopping mad...?” Really? Obama knew. How high did he hop?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/...ly-accuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html

Click to expand...

The Russians had Obama by the balls. The Russian fake news had stirred up the Trump crazies to a fever pitch, and Trump was threatening to call the election rigged unless he won. And these crazies and deplorables, stirred up by the Russians, were ready for armed insurrection if he lost. Obama probably never thought there were enough such crazy people in this country to actually elect someone so obviously and off-the-charts unqualified, distasteful, and crazy. So he stayed quiet hoping not to stir up an already volatile situation. But that's where he miscalculated, and the Russians got it right.

But maybe Obama will get the last laugh after all. He probably calculated that there would be nothing like a Trump presidency to let these people try out what it is they are yelling and screaming for. Nothing like letting someone shoot themselves in the foot and feel the burn to get them to stop wanting to shoot themselves in the foot.

ataraxia said:

The Russians had Obama by the balls. The Russian fake news had stirred up the Trump crazies to a fever pitch, and Trump was threatening to call the election rigged unless he won. And these crazies and deplorables, stirred up by the Russians, were ready for armed insurrection if he lost. Obama probably never thought there were enough such crazy people in this country to actually elect someone so obviously and off-the-charts unqualified, distasteful, and crazy. So he stayed quiet hoping not to stir up an already volatile situation. But that's where he miscalculated, and the Russians got it right.

But maybe Obama will get the last laugh after all. He probably calculated that there would be nothing like a Trump presidency to let these people try out what it is they are yelling and screaming for. Nothing like letting someone shoot themselves in the foot and feel the burn to get them to stop wanting to shoot themselves in the foot.

Click to expand...

Just one comment... who’s calling the election rigged now??

MaggieD said:

Just one comment... who’s calling the election rigged now??

Click to expand...

Who has the overwhelming justification for doing it, and who was just making it up?

FBI Agrees With CIA That Russia Was Trying To Help Trump In Election : NPR

See, there's this funny pattern on the right, where they make stuff up, and then try to create a false equivalence. "Oh yeah? Well your side did it too!" . Childish. There is no equivalence.

No, Donald Trump saying the election rigged based on nothing is not the same thing as every single US intelligence agency right now agreeing that it was rigged to get him elected. No, electing a serial adulterer or a known pedophile to office is not the same thing as electing someone whose husband was not loyal to her twenty years ago.

There is no equivalence here.

ataraxia said:

Who has the overwhelming justification for doing it, and who was just making it up?

FBI Agrees With CIA That Russia Was Trying To Help Trump In Election : NPR

See, there's this funny pattern on the right, where they make stuff up, and then try to create a false equivalence. "Oh yeah? Well your side did it too!" . Childish. There is no equivalence.

No, Donald Trump saying the election rigged based on nothing is not the same thing as every single US intelligence agency right now agreeing that it was rigged to get him elected. No, electing a serial adulterer or a known pedophile to office is not the same thing as electing someone whose husband was not loyal to her twenty years ago.

There is no equivalence here.

Click to expand...

I had never seen that link before. Thank you. Which one WAS making it up?

MaggieD said:

I had never seen that link before. Thank you. Which one WAS making it up?

Click to expand...

If you are thinking that every single US intelligence agency working for Trump is making this up right now, including Trump's own people there, you probably also believe in UFO abductions and there is nothing that can help you.

Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, said Friday there is no dissent inside U.S. intelligence agencies about the conclusion that Russia used hacking and fake news to interfere in the 2016 presidential election— despite comments by his boss, President Donald Trump, that have seemed to cast some doubt about the unanimity...

Coats said he had no doubt that the Russians “are trying to undermine Western democracy not just in the US, but around the world.”

"I think they caught us a little bit behind the curve,” he added. “They caught us a little bit asleep in terms of the capabilities that they could do." ..

Coats was the fourth Trump administration national security official this week to affirm the American intelligence assessment that Russia was behind the 2016 election interference. All spoke at the Aspen forum, a gathering of government officials, security professionals and journalists.

"I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community," CIA Director Mike Pompeo said Thursday, with a note of agitation in his voice in the face of skeptical questioning. "This threat is real. The U.S. government, including the Central Intelligence Agency, has to figure out a way to fight back against it and defeat it. And we're intent upon doing that."

Asked if Russia meddled in the election, Thomas Bossert, Trump’s counterterrorism and cyber adviser, responded, "There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes.”

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, also at the Aspen gathering, said Wednesday that he, too, saw it that way.
Intelligence Director Says Agencies Agree on Russian Meddling - NBC News

Click to expand...

So we have all these highly trained, seasoned, experienced, American intelligence professionals on the one hand, and we have Vladimir Putin saying there was no intervention and Trump just saying that IF he is not elected, then he is sure the election is rigged and his followers need to get out into the street. And here you are trying to say these two are the same thing. Shameful.

MaggieD said:

I had never seen that link before. Thank you. Which one WAS making it up?

Click to expand...

Here is another way there is no equivalence: believing fake news and dismissing real news as fake news. It's not libs making this up. It's what the hackers sitting in their moms' basements everywhere from Moscow to eastern Europe have realized: how easily and eagerly American conservatives believe outrageous things, and dismiss other things as "fake news" which have mountains of evidence for them. An equivalent pattern does not hold for liberals. You can use this to make money off American conservatives, not to mention trying to advance any political agenda you may have. You can't do the same for American liberals. That's the international experience.

And somehow it's the professional news sources that are the "fake liberal media" now, huh? LOL.

Veles used to make porcelain for the whole of Yugoslavia. Now it makes fake news.

This sleepy riverside town in Macedonia is home to dozens of website operators who churn out bogus stories designed to attract the attention of Americans. Each click adds cash to their bank accounts.

The scale is industrial: Over 100 websites were tracked here during the final weeks of the 2016 U.S. election campaign, producing fake news that mostly favored Republican candidate for President Donald Trump...

The website and Facebook page that "Jesica" runs caters to conservative readers in the U.S.

The stories are political — and often wrong on the facts. But that doesn't concern Mikhail.

"I don't care, because the people are reading," he said. "At 22, I was earning more than someone [in Macedonia] will ever learn in his entire life."...

Most of the posts will be about Trump, according to Mikhail.

"I'm posting about Hillary, Bernie Sanders maybe sometimes, but I don't get paid enough for that," Mikhail said.
The fake news machine: Inside a town gearing up for 2020

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Feel free to expose the fake news for what it is - starting with the quote reported in USA Today that I showed you. Feel free to show how the meetings held between Trump's team and the Russians (which Trump claimed never happened) were somehow fake news. We'll be waiting right here!

Click to expand...

That's another issue, the question here is whether Russians meddled in the US election, since they are said to have meddled in the Brexit and Catalonian referendums.

I haven't seen anything yet that shows Trump met with Russians and agreed to anything in exchange for their meddling in the election. I know Junior went to a meeting with a Russian lawyer who said she had dirt on Hillary, but she only discussed the Magnitsky Act. Could you share a credible source with evidence Trump (or any of his minions) agreed with Putin's agent's to have them meddle in the election?

In my view the sort of stuff we can somewhat confirm has been done from Russia doesn't rise to a level that is unquestionably objectionable. I don't think it is that outrageous for actual agents of the Russian government (which has not been verified yet) to post the sort of survey/advertising Facebook has described them as having done. There are controversial issues US citizens differ on; things like undocumented immigration, police brutality against minorities or the censoring of politically incorrect expression, asking people about these is not wrongful, the issues should be discussed, but it is troubling that Russians are provoking the discussion. Ultimately this sort of interference doesn't seem that objectionable.

Russians are also said to have hacked into and delivered to Wikileaks emails from the DNC and Hillary's private servers, this would be wrong and intolerable. But Hillary didn't lose the election because her server (and the DNC's) got hacked, nor even because Russians (allegedly) published the hacked material. Hillary probably lost due to what was revealed by the publication of her and the DNC's emails, it was the substance of those hacked emails that brought her down.

I'm not sure it would be preferable to have Hillary as president and not know all the wrongful stuff revealed by those purportedly Russian hacks.

Glen Contrarian said:

Ah. I see. So whatever we might have done wrong in the past, that automatically justifies Russia's meddling in our election? Really? So it's okay with you if from now on, throughout our lives and the lives of our children, if other nations - not just Russia, but ANY other nation no matter how much they hate us - meddle in our elections?

Click to expand...

OK? like what? morally? whether or not it's "ok" is an argument for philosophers, the fact is, we have no moral authority to complain.

Really? Because that's the logical extension of your argument.

Click to expand...

If Russia wants to run fake news on publically available social media accounts I couldn't care less. If they're posting media posts that involve what have long been controversial issues, I still don't see the issue.

And when it comes to Spain and NATO, that's not a separate issue at all. Russia isn't concerned in the least with what originally comprised NATO, but is quite concerned with what comprises NATO...TODAY. Or are you of the incredibly naive illusion that the ex-KGB colonel in charge of Russia wouldn't be concerned at all about the enemy (they saw us as enemies for generations, remember) on their border that stood strong while his nation disintegrated...and which organization is continuing to expand even to absorb the Ukraine that was once part of the USSR?


Or are you really so enamored of Trump's magical thinking that Russia only wants to be our friends, and that our intelligence agencies (including all the careerists hired during the Bush era) are all Trump-hating Obamabots?

Click to expand...

OK so what point are you making? that despite the end of the cold war we're taking a war mongering expansionist path that threatens their sovereignty? Not helping your argument.

EMNofSeattle said:

OK? like what? morally? whether or not it's "ok" is an argument for philosophers, the fact is, we have no moral authority to complain.


If Russia wants to run fake news on publically available social media accounts I couldn't care less. If they're posting media posts that involve what have long been controversial issues, I still don't see the issue.



OK so what point are you making? that despite the end of the cold war we're taking a war mongering expansionist path that threatens their sovereignty? Not helping your argument.

Click to expand...

You really tried to dig deep with that map, didn't you? I wasn't aware that Thailand and Somalia were part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization!

No, I get it, your map shows where NATO troops have been, almost all of which have been peacekeeping missions, not hostile takeovers of the land of other nations, like Russia's invasion of Georgia, or the annexation of the Crimea.

No, I never said that Russia wanted war with troops and missiles and millions of people dying - they don't. That's why MAD works. What they DO want is war by other means...and if they can dismember NATO by influencing the populations, then yes, they would do that.

And yes, it appears that you are very much okay with other nations willfully interfering in our elections in order to make sure that THEIR preferred candidate wins. If this is indeed the case, then you - and everyone who thinks as you do - have forgotten what real patriotism is, what real patriotism demands.

EMNofSeattle said:

OK? like what? morally? whether or not it's "ok" is an argument for philosophers, the fact is, we have no moral authority to complain.


If Russia wants to run fake news on publically available social media accounts I couldn't care less. If they're posting media posts that involve what have long been controversial issues, I still don't see the issue.

Click to expand...

Good. But clearly the Russians know where the fault lines and cracks in American society are (as well as societies everywhere else). They put their fingers on those fault lines and push hard, hoping to hear a crack. Why? Because they can't really be #1 in the world economically. So they are hoping that by creating political/social instability and chaos, they will be at the top. Their strategy seems to be that if they can't win by getting ahead of everyone else, then trip everyone else up and have them fall flat on their face.

Glen Contrarian said:

You really tried to dig deep with that map, didn't you? I wasn't aware that Thailand and Somalia were part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization!

Click to expand...

No, it merely shows a double standard that the neo-coldwarriors have, we have military forces surrounding Russia on all borders, and yet if they flex a little muscle like we do all the time, THEY are the aggressors

No, I get it, your map shows where NATO troops have been, almost all of which have been peacekeeping missions, not hostile takeovers of the land of other nations, like Russia's invasion of Georgia, or the annexation of the Crimea.

Click to expand...

Peacekeeping versus invasion is a moot point, it's entirely subjective. Russia claims their operations in Georgia were a peacekeeping operation, and since the majority of South Ossetians considered themselves occupied by Georgia and had Russian passports it's hard to argue that position. Russian troops do not occupy Georgia, they occupy these minor territories that NEVER considered themselves Georgian.

No, I never said that Russia wanted war with troops and missiles and millions of people dying - they don't. That's why MAD works. What they DO want is war by other means...and if they can dismember NATO by influencing the populations, then yes, they would do that.

Click to expand...

Which again, it irrelevant to Catalonia-Spain and Brexit, as neither issue implicates NATO. USA and Canada are NATO members without being EU members, Norway is a NATO member that's not in EU. Turkey is NATO and not EU. Catalonia as an idependent country could join NATO just like Spain joined in the waning days of the cold war a decade after Franco died and never was a military consideration.

And yes, it appears that you are very much okay with other nations willfully interfering in our elections in order to make sure that THEIR preferred candidate wins. If this is indeed the case, then you - and everyone who thinks as you do - have forgotten what real patriotism is, what real patriotism demands.

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not going to declare an election illegitimate, which is what you are trying to do, you think some minor instigation on social media that no one read constitutes an election that is entirely illegitimate because you don't like the president. and just like liberals always do then you find a way to argue that the election was somehow stolen, just like in 2004, just like in 2000....

I mean as far as Fraud elections there's far more evidence showing the former Governor of our state was fraudulently elected in 2004 then Trump cooperated with Russians.

EMNofSeattle said:

Which again, it irrelevant to Catalonia-Spain and Brexit, as neither issue implicates NATO. USA and Canada are NATO members without being EU members, Norway is a NATO member that's not in EU. Turkey is NATO and not EU.

Click to expand...

You explain. Why is Russia sending these Twitter bots promoting Catalonian secession, Brexit and racial conflict in the U.S. What's their motive?

You're arguing that it's not about NATO. Then what is it about? Why does Russia care about these issues?

The only rational answer is that these are NATO allies and they are working to do whatever they can to undermine the U.S. and its allies.

If you have some other alternative explanation, please provide it.

Glen Contrarian said:

1. That is your opinion - and it does not excuse the apparent efforts by the Trump team to collude with the Russians - remember those meetings that Trump claimed didn't happen, that he even told his son to lie about? But of course since he's YOUR guy, you're willing to overlook that.

Click to expand...

The impact of russian inteference is non existent. Why do you think the ads in question from places like facebook are all but hidden from your view. Here try this exercise. Show me 5 screenshots of these ads anywhere.

I didn't vote for trump. Not everyone who does not believe everything a media who's been shown to lie says is a rabid trump supporter. There is no evidence, actual evidence that trump colluded with russia.

2. NO, Obama didn't put "party over country". In fact:

Now, eight months since the election, the Post has published the fullest account to date on the Obama administration’s discovery of the Russian hacking and its early, fumbling attempts to respond. It reiterates the Republican role in pushing back against the revelation of Russian interference, and McConnell’s role in particular:

The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.​

While it is frustrating that Obama seemed to handcuff himself into avoiding aggressive action, and that he even appeared to fall for Republicans’ “concern trolling” that going public with the allegations would somehow play into Putin’s hands, there is no question that the villain in this saga was McConnell.

Was McConnell bluffing when he threatened to make it a partisan issue? In the event, Obama never called McConnell’s bluff, if that’s what it was. But he should have known long before that to expect good faith from a slippery character like the Senate majority leader would be an unforgivable act of naïveté. This was the same Mitch McConnell who, before Obama had even been inaugurated, declared his number one priority to be ensuring that he would be a one-term president.

Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/14/obama-russia-election-interference-241547
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/politics/jeh-johnson-testimony-russian-election-hacking.html



What's funny is that the left thinks it's slick, or at least thier overlords do. Hacking, colluding, and meddling are three separate things that your ilk vacillate between when discussing to muddy the reality.

ReverendHellh0und said:

The impact of russian inteference is non existent.

Click to expand...

Gee, that's funny...'cause Russia thinks it was, and the CIA and FBI and NSA thinks it was - but what do they know, huh? I guess they're all "political hacks", too, and only those on the American Right (which includes most libertarians) know the Truth, huh? Funny how y'all disagree so strongly with the CIA/FBI/NSA, but on this subject, y'all are in full agreement with Alex Jones at InfoWars!

But then, Trump DID tell Alex Jones "you have such a fantastic reputation"....