(03-21-2017, 04:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But it is a crime to makes this private company's emails public?
Not making them public, but hacking into the server and taking them is a crime, yes.
(03-21-2017, 04:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.
But there is nothing in the Constitution about emoluments (which is what the CoI issue gets into) from the people or organizations in the country. There is, however, a part about it from foreign governments. And let's be honest, every elected official under a party banner owes something to the party. Just, again, it isn't a foreign state.
(03-21-2017, 04:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.
I don't disagree. Just pointing out what I have heard regarding the outrage.
(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.
Honestly, what lost Clinton the election was her own campaign strategy. There were so many factors at play, but I have said all along, and maintain it up to now, that the WikiLeaks stuff wasn't a big factor. Comey's letter was bigger, but that didn't do it. The deplorables comment, that didn't do it either. It was the simple fact that if you were to ask the average voter what Clinton actually stood for based entirely on her words and actions on the campaign trail, they wouldn't have a clue. You can't excite voters like that, and voters that aren't excited aren't going to go out and vote.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(03-21-2017, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.
Then why ask the question in the first place when all the answers will come from this board?
Well, I'm sure you had a point.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(03-21-2017, 04:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, what lost Clinton the election was her own campaign strategy. There were so many factors at play, but I have said all along, and maintain it up to now, that the WikiLeaks stuff wasn't a big factor. Comey's letter was bigger, but that didn't do it. The deplorables comment, that didn't do it either. It was the simple fact that if you were to ask the average voter what Clinton actually stood for based entirely on her words and actions on the campaign trail, they wouldn't have a clue. You can't excite voters like that, and voters that aren't excited aren't going to go out and vote.
And this is why I disagree with those that say Russia "formed" our election. They formed it less than the DNC. Nobody was swayed by the content in those emails and most likely would not have short of them being policies she made to endanger lives. Then maybe some would have jumped from Clinton. But I didn't see one person here or Nationally say "I've been in Hill's corner, but I'm through with Hills because of the content of this email".
(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?
It had more to do about party lines and people wanting to blame someone for their problems. Obama was the sitting president, ergo Obama was to blame.
In a couple years, someone will need to be blamed for their problems. Trump will be the sitting president, ergo Trump will be to blame. The question is how many disenfranchised come out for each side. (Although I don't think it matters, I still think he gets made a scapegoat and either steps down or impeached before the end of 4).
Quote: 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.
If people cared about the emails, they would have cared about the emails when Bush lost millions of them or when Colin Powell suggested using personal servers and phone lines. I may have missed it, but I don't recall Comey waffling on whether or not to charge Powell.
People only cared that "the opposition" was doing something. If it hadn't been Clinton doing what Bush and Powell did, it would have been Clinton not wearing enough flag lapel pins, her being a Muslim, her being anti-military, her being pro-Russia, etc.
(03-21-2017, 05:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then why ask the question in the first place when all the answers will come from this board?
Well, I'm sure you had a point.
Who said all the answers come from this board? I stated we can use this board as a representation of a larger population. I was just getting folk's feedback and offering a counter, just as I have Matt.
You stated "Of Course" releasing the content of the hacked emails had a real bearing on the election. This is a declaration I do not agree with and I provided a counter, just as Matt's opinion was more inline with my way of think and I provided an affirmation.
(03-21-2017, 05:07 PM)Benton Wrote: It had more to do about party lines and people wanting to blame someone for their problems. Obama was the sitting president, ergo Obama was to blame.
Obama wasn't up for re-election
In a couple years, someone will need to be blamed for their problems. Trump will be the sitting president, ergo Trump will be to blame. The question is how many disenfranchised come out for each side. (Although I don't think it matters, I still think he gets made a scapegoat and either steps down or impeached before the end of 4). You think it'll take them a couple years do ya?
If people cared about the emails, they would have cared about the emails when Bush lost millions of them or when Colin Powell suggested using personal servers and phone lines. I may have missed it, but I don't recall Comey waffling on whether or not to charge Powell.
Hell I don't even remember Powell running for President.
People only cared that "the opposition" was doing something. If it hadn't been Clinton doing what Bush and Powell did, it would have been Clinton not wearing enough flag lapel pins, her being a Muslim, her being anti-military, her being pro-Russia, etc.
That's my point exactly. Remember when Hill's first came into news with the emails? A big rallying cry was "There is no proof they have been hacked". The "See they have been hacked" became the rallying cry from the same population.
(03-21-2017, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obama wasn't up for re-election.
He wasn't, but the trend is for two terms of one party, and two of another. The policy mood of the country follows suit. The policy mood of the country becomes more liberal under a GOP POTUS, and more conservative under a Democrat. This is why, since FDR, you've only seen three terms of one party in a row. It's not how the mood of the country flows. It's why I said back when Clinton was leading big in the polls that she would be a one-term POTUS.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(03-21-2017, 05:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He wasn't, but the trend is for two terms of one party, and two of another. The policy mood of the country follows suit. The policy mood of the country becomes more liberal under a GOP POTUS, and more conservative under a Democrat. This is why, since FDR, you've only seen three terms of one party in a row. It's not how the mood of the country flows. It's why I said back when Clinton was leading big in the polls that she would be a one-term POTUS.
So you were wrong.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(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.
I don't believe people think Trump should be impeached because Wikileaks released information the Russians hacked from the DNC. The impeachment issue related to the Russians deals with collusion between Trump and the Russians.
(03-21-2017, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And this is why I disagree with those that say Russia "formed" our election. They formed it less than the DNC. Nobody was swayed by the content in those emails and most likely would not have short of them being policies she made to endanger lives. Then maybe some would have jumped from Clinton. But I didn't see one person here or Nationally say "I've been in Hill's corner, but I'm through with Hills because of the content of this email".
The emails were a Republican talking point in the media since Benghazi. Even you were riding that train as late as Comey's pre-election statement.
(03-21-2017, 07:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The emails were a Republican talking point in the media since Benghazi. Even you were riding that train as late as Comey's pre-election statement.
Exactly. before the elction the emials were huge to the republicans. Now they claim they were all meaningless.
(03-21-2017, 07:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The emails were a Republican talking point in the media since Benghazi. Even you were riding that train as late as Comey's pre-election statement.
No one said the emails were not an issue. I'm saying her sending emails from her unsecure server and deletion of evidence were the issue. I've already pointed to an early rallying cry in the Dem party was "There's no proof she was hacked.' This was used to deflect from the actual act of sending them. When that blew up it became "There's nothing damning in the Emails", then it became "The Russians did it"
If you think the trivial things those leaked emails actually said moved the dial one way or the other, then I disagree with that assertion. Just provide me withthe content of one leak that you think made a difference.
If anything leaking them helped her. What do you think the reaction would have been if all we knew was Hills email government business from her house and the Russians hacked them?
(03-21-2017, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one said the emails were not an issue. I'm saying her sending emails from her unsecure server and deletion of evidence were the issue. I've already pointed to an early rallying cry in the Dem party was "There's no proof she was hacked.' This was used to deflect from the actual act of sending them. When that blew up it became "There's nothing damning in the Emails", then it became "The Russians did it"
If you think the trivial things those leaked emails actually said moved the dial one way or the other, then I disagree with that assertion. Just provide me withthe content of one leak that you think made a difference.
If anything leaking them helped her. What do you think the reaction would have been if all we knew was Hills email government business from her house and the Russians hacked them?
I don't remember what others said to defend her. From the beginning I've stated using insecure communication to conduct state business to avoid FOI requests was, at best, stupid.
But, I do remember you condemning her for sending classified information and now you're claiming the content was meaningless.
Regardless, the emails played a role. There are still people on this board citing Benghazi and the emails as reasons they don't trust.
But, back to your original point. The impeachment talk relates to collusion with the Russians.
(03-21-2017, 05:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So you were wrong.
Yup.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(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.
Yes.
Plenty of reasonable people didnt like Trump. For months and months leading up to the election wikileaks controlled the narrative of every major news organization. Clinton bad look at this new leak etc etc etc.
It wasnt a massive victory for Trump. The majority of people voted against him. But the constant leakage coordinated by the Russians to help Trump caused enough people to vote 3rd party , not vote , or vote for Trump.
Without the Russians help he doesnt eek out a win while losing the popular vote.
(03-22-2017, 01:53 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Without the Russians help he doesnt eek out a win while losing the popular vote.
You are probably right. But in all honesty I voted 3rd party because of HRC's:
1. Extended stay and statements in the race against Obama in 08, coupled with her pleading for funds to recoup the cost of those additional unnecessary expenses.
2. The idea that 4 of the 5 last presiding presidents would share 2 names makes me want to pay a group of vagrants to defecate on everything I own and spend my days living in Belize on the insurance claim.
3. Bernie was a far superior candidate and the way the DNC, specifically DWS did him dirty reinforced my belief these people do not have the people's best interest in mind, rather their own. I had that opinion of the situation well before the DNC email leaks that semi-exposed what I already knew.
That being said I had the luxury of voting for Johnson due to my state being bluer than VD's region after a trip to the shoe show.
(03-21-2017, 09:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.
When you say "Russian interests" what exactly are we talking about here and how exactly does "swaying the election" help in these "interests"? What specifically is it that everyone is afraid of?
(03-21-2017, 10:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
So the argument summed up is that the Russians are basically trying to destabilize the US and hurt its global influence by tearing apart its democracy. I guess what I'm getting at here is I don't see how telling the American public the truth about the DNC rigging of their own party is somehow going to cause this massive uprooting of American democracy and sow a huge distrust amongst the American public. As far as I can tell, most people see politicians as a bunch of no good lying, cheaters anyway. People are acting like Russia's hacking of the DNC suddenly made millions of voters have this epiphany that Clinton can't be trusted as if we were Adam and Eve taking our first bite out of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. But the thing is, people have felt this way about politicians for years.
I find it a bit shocking that people want to sit there and say that Russians are destroying our democracy by sowing distrust. Does America not do that every day with it's own media? Do politicians not do this in every election?
There's 3 main goals in every election that is void of any Russian interference and those goals are.....
1. To show that my policies are better than the other candidates.
2. To show that I'm more trustworthy than the other candidates.
3. To show that I have better moral character than the other candidates.
All three of these things take place in every election. But we want to act like the Russians are introducing us to distrust for the first time and destroying the very fabric of our democracy by telling the American public the truth about how the DNC was acting inappropriately.
Does that not sound a bit odd to you? It's honestly like a bunch of Americans are sitting there going, "How dare the Russians reveal REAL evidence of wrong doing to us instead of allowing us to blindly believe that everything's perfectly fine"........It's the old overused saying that ignorance is bliss, and in this instance it couldn't be any truer.
My opinion? People in this country aren't mad and divided because the Russians leaked information about the DNC. That to me is absolutely ludicrous. People are mad because a billionaire TV reality star with no political experience whatsoever, that made offensive comments about women, hispanics, muslims etc... got elected. Who was it that released the video of Trump talking about grabbing women's private parts again? Who continually pushed this narrative that Trump was just some racist rich guy? Who was it that pushed this narrative that Trump just hates Muslims? Wants to take away women's rights? Is going to somehow bring back Jim Crow laws and revert our entire country back to the slave days?
And people want to say Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians hacked the DNC and released FACTUAL information that showed unfairness within their own campaign. Donald Trump did absolutely everything any man could ever do to lose the election except kill somebody and somehow people believe she lost because "Russia".
As I've already stated, sounds like a bunch of fear mongering to me. People like to use "phobia's' when describing things these days, so I guess you could say this is a huge case of Russia-phobia poking it's head out again. Americans should fear those big bad Russian guys because "KGB.....Vladimir Putin....and stuff".
I find it ironic that people who hate Trump accused him of fear mongering about ISIS as a way to get his travel ban pushed, yet here they are fear mongering about the big bad Russian guys that will infiltrate our democracy and destroy it by releasing information about the DNC scandal. Now, I'm not saying that the Russians don't have any ill will toward us whatsoever. I'm not even saying that the Russians don't want to increase their influence around the world considering we want the same thing. What I'm saying, is that all this Russian fear mongering of them destroying our democracy through the release of hacked emails is a bunch of over-exaggerated hooey when we are doing far more to destroy our own democracy through our own media and political attacks against one another. It's not like Russia conjured up and meticulously planned out and initiated some story about the DNC cheating its way to the elections. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Not because the Russians made it up, but because we, the Americans did it ourselves. But lets not talk about our self inflicting nature as Americans which is far more damaging than anything Russia has done. Lets just talk about how Vladmir Putin is possibly the antichrist ushering in the end of days. To me it's fear mongering to avoid our own faults.
Quote: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.
I am informing myself. I made this thread to get other peoples perspectives, not because I'm completely ignorant of everything. I wanted to see if anyone could tell me something I'm missing, because as it stands, it sounds like 99% fear mongeriing to me. Maybe I'll give a little breathing room and say 98%.
(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.
It's also quite possible that Vladimir Putin and "Russia's interests" are to install new toilets in every Russian home. There's a lot of "possibilities" that I hear and see people talking about but rarely are there ever any facts. I don't see the tampering with our election as a bad thing just because people want to say it serves "Russian interests". What does that even mean? "Russian interests" is an enormously large blanket statement that could mean absolutely anything. American minds have been trained to deny and refuse any outcome that can affect the Russians in any positive way because *insert conspiracy theory*.
I don't think it's okay for Russia to invade American privacy, but I also don't believe it's this really big bad "attack" on American democracy.
(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).
Unfortunately I haven't seen Star Wars. And I understand what you're saying Benton but does that not sound like a lot of fear mongering to you? It's not completely impossible that Trump actually doesn't care about America but it's also not impossible that he does. I feel like the theory behind this whole "Trump-Russia-Collusion-Destroy Democracy" thing requires so many moving chess pieces and bouts of extreme strategy and luck that there's a very small chance that any of this could actually happen, assuming there's a real huge danger and lack of care for America to begin with.
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So the argument summed up is that the Russians are basically trying to destabilize the US and hurt its global influence by tearing apart its democracy.
I would describe it a bit more sophisticated, but sure.
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I guess what I'm getting at here is I don't see how telling the American public the truth about the DNC rigging of their own party is somehow going to cause this massive uprooting of American democracy and sow a huge distrust amongst the American public. As far as I can tell, most people see politicians as a bunch of no good lying, cheaters anyway. People are acting like Russia's hacking of the DNC suddenly made millions of voters have this epiphany that Clinton can't be trusted as if we were Adam and Eve taking our first bite out of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. But the thing is, people have felt this way about politicians for years.
I find it a bit shocking that people want to sit there and say that Russians are destroying our democracy by sowing distrust. Does America not do that every day with it's own media? Do politicians not do this in every election?
There's 3 main goals in every election that is void of any Russian interference and those goals are.....
1. To show that my policies are better than the other candidates.
2. To show that I'm more trustworthy than the other candidates.
3. To show that I have better moral character than the other candidates.
All three of these things take place in every election. But we want to act like the Russians are introducing us to distrust for the first time and destroying the very fabric of our democracy by telling the American public the truth about how the DNC was acting inappropriately.
In a broad sense, you're argueing on how effective Russian activities were. That I don't know.
What is without question is that they tried to influence the result by a series of propaganda attacks. For whatever reason, maybe Putin thinks he can influence Trump, maybe he indeed does have some kompromat in his hands, maybe Putin thinks a president Donald Trump will do the destabilization for him, maybe Putin just hated Hillary, but he had a reason and acted on it. That he acted on it is without doubt.
Can you honestly say that you don't see a problem with that?
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: My opinion? People in this country aren't mad and divided because the Russians leaked information about the DNC. That to me is absolutely ludicrous.
Nope, people in America were mad and divided before.
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: People are mad because a billionaire TV reality star with no political experience whatsoever, that made offensive comments about women, hispanics, muslims etc... got elected. Who was it that released the video of Trump talking about grabbing women's private parts again? Who continually pushed this narrative that Trump was just some racist rich guy? Who was it that pushed this narrative that Trump just hates Muslims? Wants to take away women's rights? Is going to somehow bring back Jim Crow laws and revert our entire country back to the slave days?
Please stay honest. You overdramatize the opposition's stances to diminish the role your president plays. That is not a fair technique. I remember the red side talking about Obama, and Trump talking about how he's a Kenyan muslim. In light of things like that, this kind of finger-pointing is, how did you put it, absolutely ludicrous.
People aren't "mad" because Trump's a billionaire. People are mad because he is a permanent, not just the occasional liar, called Obama a sick guy based on a story inside his head, doesn't back down, estrangens the whole world, promised a great health care plan where everyone's covered and now pushes through a version that only help the rich folk. People are mad because he makes up stories about 3 million illegal votes, because he calls the media enemy of the people except for FOX, Breitbart and Infowars, because he gets his informations from Alex Jones and people like that, because his proposed budget cuts everything that helps the little, sick or old guy, because he doesn't show his tax returns although he promised, because there are shady connections between campaign members and Russia, because he's embarrassing your country, didn't really cut ties with his business and uses office to slam market chains that don't sell Ivanka stuff, because he attacks the judiciary, because he ties people to JFK assassinations and talks trash about muslim gold star wives, Arnie and everyone that critisizes him, because he is a hypocrite with his golf time amongst other things, and yes also because he is a proud, open sexist, because he tweets incredibly stupid nonsense and obviously is too dumb for the job, because of Bannon openly formulating sinister deconstruction goals who gets Trump's ear and a permanent place in the security council, because he is so incredibly vain and petty that he insists on huge crowd sizes, because he holds rallies, because he guts the EPA and is full-mode pro-pollution, there sure are more reasons out there, make your pick.
Just to clarify your view on people's madness here.
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: And people want to say Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians hacked the DNC and released FACTUAL information that showed unfairness within their own campaign. Donald Trump did absolutely everything any man could ever do to lose the election except kill somebody and somehow people believe she lost because "Russia".
As I've already stated, sounds like a bunch of fear mongering to me. People like to use "phobia's' when describing things these days, so I guess you could say this is a huge case of Russia-phobia poking it's head out again. Americans should fear those big bad Russian guys because "KGB.....Vladimir Putin....and stuff".
Hillary lost because she made mistakes, was a bad candidate and - probably the main reason - your country was bound to go red again, as it is always bound to change president's colors every 8-12 years.
How Democrats see it, that doesn't matter.
So Russia-phobia... tell me again, are you ok with Russia annexing souvereign countries. Are you ok with a foreign power trying to meddle with your elections. Are you ok with them sponsoring right-wing parties all over the world in the clear and openly formulated intent to destablilize them. Are you ok with Russian fake news creating false narratives and misinformations that get widely spread in social media. Are you ok with oppressing opposition, arresting journalists and murdering opponents, things Putin does with cold blood and not even too hidden. Are you ok with Russian presence and Russian expansion into the Middle East and Northern Africa and Europe. Are you ok with campaign and even cabinet members that got paid by foreign powers like Turkey or Russia.
It's not so much about fear, it's about seeing things as they are. We Europeans are quite aware about Russian policies and Russian propaganda attacks, you are in sheer denial, for whatever reason.
I have a hunch about that reason too: Democrats said Russian influence was a problem, so as a counter-reaction it really isn't and Putin is in fact America's friend. That's the complete line of thinking I ascribe to you, feel free to correct this.
Also, you are the side being so afraid of muslims. Hard to see those people argueing with other people's phobias. I don't want to block Russians from anything, I just don't see Putin as good guy and trustworthy and don't think he should be influential in our democracies in any way, shape or form. This is not an extreme or phobic stance by any stretch.
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I find it ironic that people who hate Trump accused him of fear mongering about ISIS as a way to get his travel ban pushed, yet here they are fear mongering about the big bad Russian guys that will infiltrate our democracy and destroy it by releasing information about the DNC scandal. Now, I'm not saying that the Russians don't have any ill will toward us whatsoever. I'm not even saying that the Russians don't want to increase their influence around the world considering we want the same thing.
What I'm saying, is that all this Russian fear mongering of them destroying our democracy through the release of hacked emails is a bunch of over-exaggerated hooey when we are doing far more to destroy our own democracy through our own media and political attacks against one another. It's not like Russia conjured up and meticulously planned out and initiated some story about the DNC cheating its way to the elections. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Not because the Russians made it up, but because we, the Americans did it ourselves. But lets not talk about our self inflicting nature as Americans which is far more damaging than anything Russia has done. Lets just talk about how Vladmir Putin is possibly the antichrist ushering in the end of days. To me it's fear mongering to avoid our own faults.
Maybe it is used that way, that I can not tell. But it's not the whole story.
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I am informing myself. I made this thread to get other peoples perspectives, not because I'm completely ignorant of everything. I wanted to see if anyone could tell me something I'm missing, because as it stands, it sounds like 99% fear mongeriing to me. Maybe I'll give a little breathing room and say 98%.
Asking why it's a problem that foreign powers get involved in your domestic affairs sure does sound a bit ignorant.
(03-22-2017, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: When you say "Russian interests" what exactly are we talking about here and how exactly does "swaying the election" help in these "interests"? What specifically is it that everyone is afraid of?
So the argument summed up is that the Russians are basically trying to destabilize the US and hurt its global influence by tearing apart its democracy. I guess what I'm getting at here is I don't see how telling the American public the truth about the DNC rigging of their own party is somehow going to cause this massive uprooting of American democracy and sow a huge distrust amongst the American public. As far as I can tell, most people see politicians as a bunch of no good lying, cheaters anyway. People are acting like Russia's hacking of the DNC suddenly made millions of voters have this epiphany that Clinton can't be trusted as if we were Adam and Eve taking our first bite out of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. But the thing is, people have felt this way about politicians for years.
I find it a bit shocking that people want to sit there and say that Russians are destroying our democracy by sowing distrust. Does America not do that every day with it's own media? Do politicians not do this in every election?
There's 3 main goals in every election that is void of any Russian interference and those goals are.....
1. To show that my policies are better than the other candidates.
2. To show that I'm more trustworthy than the other candidates.
3. To show that I have better moral character than the other candidates.
All three of these things take place in every election. But we want to act like the Russians are introducing us to distrust for the first time and destroying the very fabric of our democracy by telling the American public the truth about how the DNC was acting inappropriately.
Does that not sound a bit odd to you? It's honestly like a bunch of Americans are sitting there going, "How dare the Russians reveal REAL evidence of wrong doing to us instead of allowing us to blindly believe that everything's perfectly fine"........It's the old overused saying that ignorance is bliss, and in this instance it couldn't be any truer.
My opinion? People in this country aren't mad and divided because the Russians leaked information about the DNC. That to me is absolutely ludicrous. People are mad because a billionaire TV reality star with no political experience whatsoever, that made offensive comments about women, hispanics, muslims etc... got elected. Who was it that released the video of Trump talking about grabbing women's private parts again? Who continually pushed this narrative that Trump was just some racist rich guy? Who was it that pushed this narrative that Trump just hates Muslims? Wants to take away women's rights? Is going to somehow bring back Jim Crow laws and revert our entire country back to the slave days?
And people want to say Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians hacked the DNC and released FACTUAL information that showed unfairness within their own campaign. Donald Trump did absolutely everything any man could ever do to lose the election except kill somebody and somehow people believe she lost because "Russia".
As I've already stated, sounds like a bunch of fear mongering to me. People like to use "phobia's' when describing things these days, so I guess you could say this is a huge case of Russia-phobia poking it's head out again. Americans should fear those big bad Russian guys because "KGB.....Vladimir Putin....and stuff".
I find it ironic that people who hate Trump accused him of fear mongering about ISIS as a way to get his travel ban pushed, yet here they are fear mongering about the big bad Russian guys that will infiltrate our democracy and destroy it by releasing information about the DNC scandal. Now, I'm not saying that the Russians don't have any ill will toward us whatsoever. I'm not even saying that the Russians don't want to increase their influence around the world considering we want the same thing. What I'm saying, is that all this Russian fear mongering of them destroying our democracy through the release of hacked emails is a bunch of over-exaggerated hooey when we are doing far more to destroy our own democracy through our own media and political attacks against one another. It's not like Russia conjured up and meticulously planned out and initiated some story about the DNC cheating its way to the elections. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Not because the Russians made it up, but because we, the Americans did it ourselves. But lets not talk about our self inflicting nature as Americans which is far more damaging than anything Russia has done. Lets just talk about how Vladmir Putin is possibly the antichrist ushering in the end of days. To me it's fear mongering to avoid our own faults.
I am informing myself. I made this thread to get other peoples perspectives, not because I'm completely ignorant of everything. I wanted to see if anyone could tell me something I'm missing, because as it stands, it sounds like 99% fear mongeriing to me. Maybe I'll give a little breathing room and say 98%.
It's also quite possible that Vladimir Putin and "Russia's interests" are to install new toilets in every Russian home. There's a lot of "possibilities" that I hear and see people talking about but rarely are there ever any facts. I don't see the tampering with our election as a bad thing just because people want to say it serves "Russian interests". What does that even mean? "Russian interests" is an enormously large blanket statement that could mean absolutely anything. American minds have been trained to deny and refuse any outcome that can affect the Russians in any positive way because *insert conspiracy theory*.
I don't think it's okay for Russia to invade American privacy, but I also don't believe it's this really big bad "attack" on American democracy.
Unfortunately I haven't seen Star Wars. And I understand what you're saying Benton but does that not sound like a lot of fear mongering to you? It's not completely impossible that Trump actually doesn't care about America but it's also not impossible that he does. I feel like the theory behind this whole "Trump-Russia-Collusion-Destroy Democracy" thing requires so many moving chess pieces and bouts of extreme strategy and luck that there's a very small chance that any of this could actually happen, assuming there's a real huge danger and lack of care for America to begin with.
When you wrote, "I'm being completely serious," I took you at your word. I'm not going to make that same mistake twice in the same thread. President Bush expressed it better than me . . .
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
