I don't get it

[Matt_Crimson]

I'm being completely serious when I say this. Could someone please explain to me why the Russians hacking the DNC or "swaying" the elections as it has been put is a bad thing? I guess I'm not entirely informed on why this is a bad thing so I'm looking for someone to educate me. In addition to that question, how does the alleged "Trump collusion" fit into all of this "really bad stuff" that's going on.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-21-2017, 09:15 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm being completely serious when I say this. Could someone please explain to me why the Russians hacking the DNC or "swaying" the elections as it has been put is a bad thing? I guess I'm not entirely informed on why this is a bad thing so I'm looking for someone to educate me. In addition to that question, how does the alleged "Trump collusion" fit into all of this "really bad stuff" that's going on.

Look at Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's background and his past relationships and statements regarding Russia. Can you see how that would be advantageous to Russian interests vs. someone less friendly to Russia?

Plus the topics of cyber security and cyber crime, espionage.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

It's fake news.

One cannot hack an election where either (1) paper ballots were used and/or (2) electronic voting machines aren't connected to the internet.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-21-2017, 09:26 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: It's fake news.

One cannot hack an election where either (1) paper ballots were used and/or (2) electronic voting machines aren't connected to the internet.

Just because electronic voting machines aren't connected to the internet doesn't mean they can't be tampered with. And I'm not suggesting they were, I'm merely pointing out a different scenario.

[hollodero]

(03-21-2017, 09:15 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm being completely serious when I say this. Could someone please explain to me why the Russians hacking the DNC or "swaying" the elections as it has been put is a bad thing? I guess I'm not entirely informed on why this is a bad thing so I'm looking for someone to educate me. 

You might start by asking yourself what Russia's goals probably might be.

I give you my take:
Russia tries to distort the political discourse all over Europe. They aren't even too secretive about that and why they are doing it. It's destabilization, of the political systems (like EU) and of the societies. That's also what they now aim for in the US. By the same means, which means supporting the destructive forces, loosely labeled as "alt-right".

In the end, technically it probably is about Ukraine (parts of that souvereign country are annexed by Russia), about lifting sanctions against Russia that followed (by weakening the rejection by weakening the rejecting global society, weakening their conviction) - and apart from that, about global influence and power, and probably also about the games of Putin himself he just knows how to play. KGB at its finest, this man.

The Russian game is simple. Facts get questioned, distorted and disputed, so opinions count just as much. Bad deeds (deeds Putin does, like annexing other countries, murdering opponents etc.) get compared and legitimized by alleged other bad deeds (Trump fell hard for that line of argueing, see Bill O Reilly interview), it's about relativization of core democratic values, of say our western values, about increased mistrust and destabilization, a descending into authoritarian structures, this is what Putin's Russia aims for. The western world is under Russian propaganda attack, that starts with hacks/releases of Emails and ends with forged news stories flooding social media. Always to help the destructive forces.

- Apart from that and more directly, Putin might have leverage against Trump people in his hands and hence could directly influence policies (see: Ukraine, sanctions; think also crazy tweets, if you want). There could have been laws broken. If that's the case is yet unclear and up to investigation.


If it's a "bad thing" - well, I'd think foreign meddling in domestic affairs always is "bad" from a mere patriotic standpoint (when you forget everything I said before). But if you think it is or not is up to you. I might be right or get it dead wrong, for all you know. I'm being completely serious when saying stop using your ignorance as excuse to not know things. Inform yourself, reach an opinion and don't ask others for one to take over.

[hollodero]

(03-21-2017, 09:26 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: It's fake news.

One cannot hack an election where either (1) paper ballots were used and/or (2) electronic voting machines aren't connected to the internet.

No one claimed they "hacked the election". That's not fake news, that's non-existing news.

[NATI BENGALS]

An unfriendly foreign government who is actively undermining our efforts in Afghanistan unleashed a wave of psychological warfare on American citizens in an effort to sway an election for our highest office.

The end result is they got their puppet elected. Now our president owes favors to his Russian pals. That is why his cabinet is made of Russian sympathizers.

It is quite possible the guy who said we will use American steel then we didnt, said everybody would have insurance then supported efforts that would see millions lose it, said he would look out for the forgotten people then slashed the budget for the elderly, is really just a con man who looks up to Putin and cares about money more than American people.

I dont know why i even posted in here. If you dont know why Russia tampering with our election process is bad I question your intelligence and love for America.

[xxlt]

(03-21-2017, 10:23 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: An unfriendly foreign government who is actively undermining our efforts in Afghanistan unleashed a wave of psychological warfare on American citizens in an effort to sway an election for our highest office.

The end result is they got their puppet elected. Now our president owes favors to his Russian pals. That is why his cabinet is made of Russian sympathizers.

It is quite possible the guy who said we will use American steel then we didnt, said everybody would have insurance then supported efforts that would see millions lose it, said he would look out for the forgotten people then slashed the budget for the elderly, is really just a con man who looks up to Putin and cares about money more than American people.

I dont know why i even posted in here. If you dont know why Russia tampering with our election process is bad I question your intelligence and love for America.

Damn. Usual suspects saying predictable stuff....

[Vas Deferens]

You should care because they use steroids and hormones on their athletes and it will RIP THE FABRIC OF OUR TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES if girls wear blue jeans!

[Benton]

(03-21-2017, 09:15 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm being completely serious when I say this. Could someone please explain to me why the Russians hacking the DNC or "swaying" the elections as it has been put is a bad thing? I guess I'm not entirely informed on why this is a bad thing so I'm looking for someone to educate me. In addition to that question, how does the alleged "Trump collusion" fit into all of this "really bad stuff" that's going on.

The hacking is not that much different than allowing corporations to have giant tax breaks and deferments while spending large pots of money on political advertisement. It just happens to be that it's a foreign power who may not have the best interest of the U.S. people in mind. The same can be said for some of those companies swaying voters, too.

As far as the collusion, that is a serious problem.

Ever watch Star Wars? The originals, not the crappy 1-3, or the new one.

Luke, Han, Leia and a couple others band together to fight the Sith and the bad guys. How different would the movie have been if instead of Luke, Han and Leia, you chose Vader, Han and that fish face guy who is too incompetent to help out Han when Vader eventually turns on the rebels and profits from their catastrophic destruction?

That was the last election. We elected Vader (Trump) to lead the country (rebellion). He's countered by Han, who is (in this example) people who want the country (rebellion) to improve, and by Admiral Akbar, who also want the country to improve but are just really, really dumb and ineffective. And Han (Congress) won't be able to stop Vader (Trump) from acting against the country's (rebel alliance's) best interest because he's busy arguing with Akbar (more Congress) about how to stop the Empire (Russia/corporate interests).

[BmorePat87]

(03-21-2017, 09:26 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: It's fake news.

One cannot hack an election where either (1) paper ballots were used and/or (2) electronic voting machines aren't connected to the internet.

There certainly are some fringe theories that say they hacked voting booths, but that's not what the criticism or current investigation is focused on. The focus is on known Russian hacking of political parties and possible contacts between people associated with the Trump campaign and Russian officials. 

[CageTheBengal]

(03-21-2017, 12:42 PM)Benton Wrote: The hacking is not that much different than allowing corporations to have giant tax breaks and deferments while spending large pots of money on political advertisement. It just happens to be that it's a foreign power who may not have the best interest of the U.S. people in mind. The same can be said for some of those companies swaying voters, too.

As far as the collusion, that is a serious problem.

Ever watch Star Wars? The originals, not the crappy 1-3, or the new one.

Luke, Han, Leia and a couple others band together to fight the Sith and the bad guys. How different would the movie have been if instead of Luke, Han and Leia, you chose Vader, Han and that fish face guy who is too incompetent to help out Han when Vader eventually turns on the rebels and profits from their catastrophic destruction?

That was the last election. We elected Vader (Trump) to lead the country (rebellion). He's countered by Han, who is (in this example) people who want the country (rebellion) to improve, and by Admiral Akbar, who also want the country to improve but are just really, really dumb and ineffective. And Han (Congress) won't be able to stop Vader (Trump) from acting against the country's (rebel alliance's) best interest because he's busy arguing with Akbar (more Congress) about how to stop the Empire (Russia/corporate interests).

We need more Star Wars references around here.

[*bfine32*]

It truly is an enigma. Many that are now appalled by these leaks were applauding Snowden and vice versa. There are also those that think this should disqualify him from being POTUS; however, made no such call for disqualification when the DNC "shaped" their election. If Hills would have won the election we would now have a POTUS who is obligated the to DNC.

Folks are also kicking Comey from different sides depending on his rulings. The same folks that hated him when he said Hills did nothing criminal loved him when he got new information and said "let's make sure". Currently a population is kicking him because he says Trump's wire tapping claims are bogus, while another is kicking him for not doing more to "get" Trump.

As for me: IDC who releases what, unless these documents engender National or personal security. If you are not willing for the information to be made public encrypt it or do not pass it on NIPR (unsecure net). Because Big Brother is always watching.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-21-2017, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It truly is an enigma. Many that are now appalled by these leaks were applauding Snowden and vice versa. There are also those that think this should disqualify him from being POTUS; however, made no such call for disqualification when the DNC "shaped" their election. If Hills would have won the election we would now have a POTUS who is obligated the to DNC.

Folks are also kicking Comey from different sides depending on his rulings. The same folks that hated him when he said Hills did nothing criminal loved him when he got new information and said "let's make sure". Currently a population is kicking him because he says Trump's wire tapping claims are bogus, while another is kicking him for not doing more to "get" Trump.

As for me: IDC who releases what, unless these documents engender National or personal security. If you are not willing for the information to be made public encrypt it or do not pass it on NIPR (unsecure net). Because Big Brother is always watching.

bingo.  i'm all for any leak that sheds a light on nefarious practices taking place behind closed doors.  understand your national security statement, but there should be ways to vet some of this before it goes public, practices that are already being refined.

[Belsnickel]

I'm going to ignore every other response in this thread and just answer:

First, those that claim Russia "hacked the election" are few and far between. Or rather, they are grouped together on the fringes. What occurred, as far as can be ascertained based on our intelligence community and that of allied countries, is that Russia obtained information from the DNC and provided it to WikiLeaks in an attempt to influence our election. To what end game they had, hard to say, though I can say with absolute certainty that Putin despises Hillary Clinton. He blames the US, Obama, and her for the Arab Spring movement and for the protests against his party/government when he was elected president again.

Now, a foreign state attempting to influence an election in this way is an aggressive action by that state. Plain and simple, it is an attack. We've done it before in the past, and this is exactly why Putin had it done to us now. He saw an opportunity, and he took it.

The connections are concerning for multiple reasons. First, make no mistake, the hacking was illegal activity. If anyone in the Trump campaign was in contact with those hacking the DNC or passing along the information then that is a concern. Taking part in those activities could be seen as espionage against your own country. I should take a moment to mention here that Roger Stone has admitted to contact with the hacker. The second reason is that if there are financial ties, it could prove to be a conflict of interest. This is not just about Trump, but about those around him as well. The third is that contact regarding policy with Russia before Trump took office can be illegal because there is only one POTUS at a time.

That's the gist of it all, really. Now I will go back and read some of the responses in this thread.

[Belsnickel]

(03-21-2017, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It truly is an enigma. Many that are now appalled by these leaks were applauding Snowden and vice versa. There are also those that think this should disqualify him from being POTUS; however, made no such call for disqualification when the DNC "shaped" their election. If Hills would have won the election we would now have a POTUS who is obligated the to DNC.

While I disagree with what occurred in the primary, the DNC is a private organization and can really do whatever the hell it pleases in that regard. Rigging their primary isn't a crime.

(03-21-2017, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks are also kicking Comey from different sides depending on his rulings. The same folks that hated him when he said Hills did nothing criminal loved him when he got new information and said "let's make sure". Currently a population is kicking him because he says Trump's wire tapping claims are bogus, while another is kicking him for not doing more to "get" Trump.

I think a lot of the hate being thrown at Comey right now, at least what I have seen, was his decision to mention the new information about Clinton right before election day but to not mention the investigation into those around Trump and their connections to Russia.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2017, 04:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I disagree with what occurred in the primary, the DNC is a private organization and can really do whatever the hell it pleases in that regard. Rigging their primary isn't a crime.

But it is a crime to makes this private company's emails public?

Also you would still have the same dynamic of a POTUS with a conflict of interest. Imagine if she were elected, no one was the wiser, and then congress moved to eliminate the 2-party system or to revamp the roles of the RNC and the DNC.

(03-21-2017, 04:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think a lot of the hate being thrown at Comey right now, at least what I have seen, was his decision to mention the new information about Clinton right before election day but to not mention the investigation into those around Trump and their connections to Russia.

I think the difference is that one investigation was closed and the other is ongoing. Hard to publish findings.

Like I said the situations are similar. One's degree of outrage is going to be based on which side they like more.

[*bfine32*]

I have a question. Does anybody think the leaks had a real bearing on the outcome of the election? I think folks minds were made up given her history of posting on her private server and the deletion of 1,000s of emails after she was told to turn them over.

I've always said she lost the election the moment she called 1/4 of the Nation's voting population deplorable.

[GMDino]

(03-21-2017, 04:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have a question. Does anybody think the leaks had a real bearing on the outcome of the election? I think folks minds were made up given her history of posting on her private server and the deletion of 1,000s of emails after she was told to turn them over.

I've always said she lost the election the moment she called 1/4 of the Nation's voting population deplorable.

Of course it had a bearing.  Low educated people believe everything they read with no nuanced understanding.  

For example when Trump scoffed at Clinton's explanation of having "two faces" as a reference to Lincoln.  What do you think stuck?  He actual, reasonable explanation that was verified by the rest of the emails or Trump's 3rd grade level "she's two faced"?

The private server meant almost as much as "lock her up" was a serious campaign promise.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2017, 04:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Of course it had a bearing.  Low educated people believe everything they read with no nuanced understanding.  

For example when Trump scoffed at Clinton's explanation of having "two faces" as a reference to Lincoln.  What do you think stuck?  He actual, reasonable explanation that was verified by the rest of the emails or Trump's 3rd grade level "she's two faced"?

The private server meant almost as much as "lock her up" was a serious campaign promise.

Okey Doke and we have no way of knowing except using this board as a microcosm. I do not remember to leaks pushing the dial too much here, but I guess we all have nuanced understanding.