Make Russia Great Again

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2020, 05:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Shouldn't they have already been working on that or have figured it out by now? Trump's election was not the first time with outsiders (or specifically Russians) trying to influence the voters.

Why wouldn't he downplay it? I believe the impact was fairly minimal. Most voters already had decided. Also I think the Media did more to try to influence voters than Russia did. Even Comey hurt Hills campaign more than Russia did. But I said it back then, and will say it again, Hills pandered to the wrong crowd. Agree or dis-agree?

So, did you plan to answer the questions or just think that it wouldn't be noticed that you failed to do so?

As to your questions:

Yes; they should have been. However, with a CiC denying that this is occurring and a Senate that is incapable of doing anything but hold his jock they are without the typical policy support necessary to do much about it.

Why not downplay it? Because a foreign government attempted to influence our domestic politics through illegal means. That is a threat you our democracy, something the POTUS is sworn to defend. Not taking that threat seriously is a violation of the Constitution. I don't disagree that the media influenced the election, they always do. I agree about Comey, because his decision to out the Clinton investigation and not Trump's did a lot of harm and put the thumb on the scales, but those are American individuals and media organizations which have the rights to do those things. They are not foreign states taking illegal actions. And I agree about Clinton, have from the start.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-24-2020, 05:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: Link?

The question was to you tho since you seem so fine with it when it benefits Trump.

Are you fine with it in general or just when it benefits Trump?

And let's talk photo ID? When have you ever voted and not had to show your photo ID? The argument is for those who don't have or can't afford photo id's to be allowed to vote. So you may want to rethink your Dems won't allow something that is already law and happening.

And for those that don't have an ID, just how many people out there do you think don't have at least a photo id? I mean really can't cash a check or do many things with out one. so I would say it's a very small % of our population and very unlikely most of them have the time to vote, but on the flip side, the states were going to allow them to have a Photo id for free.

And no, I rarely ever give my photo ID. I give my election card.

(02-24-2020, 07:08 PM)Dill Wrote: I believe that Bels, like many of the rest of us, thinks that the intel community HAS figured it out. The Russians interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. They are preparing to do the same in the 2020 election.  The problem is, Trump does not agree. He is doing the opposite of leading on the issue of national security by punishing people who sound the alarm. Mitch McConnell, with the President's blessing, is currently blocking legislation which would protect elections from foreign meddling. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/mcconnell-election-security/index.html

You say "Most voters already had decided"--the question is whether Russian trolls helped them to their decision. And also whether the release of DNC emails influenced people's decisions, and whether we can expect similar tactics again. Less than 80,000 votes in 4 states decided the election. The timely release of fake news can certainly determine an election, especially when so many are so bad at telling real from fake.

Further, it looks like Russians were able to hack into voting machines in most every state. How do we know they can't do that again and with greater effect?

When you say we have no right to "whine" about Russian interference, people are justified in wondering if you think we should just let it happen, not try to protect ourselves, for that would be "whining." 

The question, again, is whether you think we should defend ourselves or not? You have not answered it.

(02-24-2020, 09:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, did you plan to answer the questions or just think that it wouldn't be noticed that you failed to do so?

As to your questions:

Yes; they should have been. However, with a CiC denying that this is occurring and a Senate that is incapable of doing anything but hold his jock they are without the typical policy support necessary to do much about it.

Why not downplay it? Because a foreign government attempted to influence our domestic politics through illegal means. That is a threat you our democracy, something the POTUS is sworn to defend. Not taking that threat seriously is a violation of the Constitution. I don't disagree that the media influenced the election, they always do. I agree about Comey, because his decision to out the Clinton investigation and not Trump's did a lot of harm and put the thumb on the scales, but those are American individuals and media organizations which have the rights to do those things. They are not foreign states taking illegal actions. And I agree about Clinton, have from the start.

And I certainly did answer the question. I said If we are going to interfere in other countries elections then we need to EXPECT IT when it's our turn, expecting it means prepare for it. I also stated that they were very ill prepared for this when it happened in 2016. But we can't place the blame for that election on Trump, he had ZERO power at that time to do anything about it.

Most likely what he's denying is that there was collusion, but ofc with an ego like his, why would he admit that they "helped" him win the elections when there was a ton of other variables as well?

As far as denying the Democrats bill? That should be seen as normal, since the Dems wants to take Federal control over the States using this bill they have proposed.
The old Dems More Gov vs Repubs Less Gov debates.

But it's not like nothing has been done. The States have been given a lot of money to shore up any weaknesses in cyber security that they might have had. Not only that, but trying to punish someone like Russia for interfering, what a legal night mare. First you have to catch them, then get the right evidence, then find a way to prove it was authorized by Putin (or current leader of which ever country is in violation) and we all know they will all deny deny deny and not cooperate. You can't just flat out punish Russia with out knowing for sure that Putin was behind it, what if it was a rogue party of Chinese Nationals working in Russia? Which Country would you punish? Neither, cause both Russia and China would flat out deny their knowledge of what was happening.

We all know FB had a huge hand in doling out that mis-information from Russian Bots, should we punish them? Warren seems to have a plan to punish them and now the question is, is that a violation of our 1st? And how exactly does she plan to prove that they "knew" about the political postings and did nothing? Just more money being wasted by time spend in and out of court.

[Dill]

(02-26-2020, 06:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: But it's not like nothing has been done. The States have been given a lot of money to shore up any weaknesses in cyber security that they might have had. Not only that, but trying to punish someone like Russia for interfering, what a legal night mare. First you have to catch them, then get the right evidence, then find a way to prove it was authorized by Putin (or current leader of which ever country is in violation) and we all know they will all deny deny deny and not cooperate. You can't just flat out punish Russia with out knowing for sure that Putin was behind it, what if it was a rogue party of Chinese Nationals working in Russia? Which Country would you punish? Neither, cause both Russia and China would flat out deny their knowledge of what was happening.

It's like nothing has been done under Trump's leadership.  People have to work around and against him. He believes Putin over his own intel agencies, right? https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-dhs-guts-task-forces-protecting-elections-from-foreign-meddling

Russia WAS caught. And then Obama FLAT OUT punished Russia, knowing that Putin was behind it.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/russia-sanctions-announced-by-white-house/index.html

Trump thought it could have been China or a 400 Lb guy. No reason why Russia would back a Putin lover with no governing experience and plans to undo 70 years of US foreign policy. The guy who is responsible for protecting the nation doesn't want to admit the threat exists.

Congress had to sanction Russia over his objections.
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/20/trump-administration-opposes-grahams-russia-sanctions-bill-after-meeting-with-kremlin-official/

(02-26-2020, 06:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We all know FB had a huge hand in doling out that mis-information from Russian Bots, should we punish them? Warren seems to have a plan to punish them and now the question is, is that a violation of our 1st? And how exactly does she plan to prove that they "knew" about the political postings and did nothing? Just more money being wasted by time spend in and out of court.

Punish?  Why not start instituting policies and procedures for making sure it won't happen again. You are having difficulty imagining that defense and prevention are even possible.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-26-2020, 07:02 PM)Dill Wrote:
It's like nothing has been done under Trump's leadership.  People have to work around and against him. He believes Putin over his own intel agencies, right? https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-dhs-guts-task-forces-protecting-elections-from-foreign-meddling

Russia WAS caught. And then Obama FLAT OUT punished Russia, knowing that Putin was behind it.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/russia-sanctions-announced-by-white-house/index.html

Trump thought it could have been China or a 400 Lb guy. No reason why Russia would back a Putin lover with no governing experience and plans to undo 70 years of US foreign policy. The guy who is responsible for protecting the nation doesn't want to admit the threat exists.

Congress had to sanction Russia over his objections.
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/20/trump-administration-opposes-grahams-russia-sanctions-bill-after-meeting-with-kremlin-official/


Punish?  Why not start instituting policies and procedures for making sure it won't happen again. You are having difficulty imagining that defense and prevention are even possible.

LOL Obviously missing some things here.
I already mentioned the ejections of the 35 or so Russians and obviously wasn't nearly enough, even the sanctions drawn up and then Enforced by Trump.

Punish? Is not tossing out 35 diplomats not a punishment along with the Sanctions?

Would you rather Trump directly and verbally accuse Putin in public and get ready to run for the Red Button? or try to gloss it over and keep things somewhat peaceful and handle it internally?

Honestly, we are back to Trump can do nothing right.

[hollodero]

(02-26-2020, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Would you rather Trump directly and verbally accuse Putin in public

Yes.

And if there's really too much fear to stand up for the US, then at least I'd love for Trump no not stand there and side with Putin over his own intelligence (that concurrs with other countries' intelligence, that also are affected by Russian meddling). Or make quirky jokes about the matter with him. Or constantly lie to the American public about this matter. It's be nice for a start if Trump woulld not do all these things.

[Dill]

(02-26-2020, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL Obviously missing some things here.
I already mentioned the ejections of the 35 or so Russians and obviously wasn't nearly enough, even the sanctions drawn up and then Enforced by Trump.

Punish? Is not tossing out 35 diplomats not a punishment along with the Sanctions?

Of course that is a "punishment." Russia is a sovereign nation which deliberately attacked the U.S. And punishment is in that case an appropriate part of deterrence. (And by the way, this isn't Fox News: if you looked at the links I put up, you can see that Trump has opposed enforcing Congressional sanctions. He was working to get them lifted before he was sworn in.)

Facebook is a US corporation, headquartered in the US, which did not deliberately attack the U.S. It operated a platform which would be exploited by others. So the point is not to "punish" them, but to institute policies and controls to prevent the Russians from using them again.

(02-26-2020, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Would you rather Trump directly and verbally accuse Putin in public and get ready to run for the Red Button? or try to gloss it over and keep things somewhat peaceful and handle it internally?
Honestly, we are back to Trump can do nothing right.

Absolutely I would rather Trump directly and verbally accuse Putin in Public, as Bernie did last night and as Obama did in 2016.  And as Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Maro Rubio or lindsey Graham or Kasich would have done, had any one of them become president.

How would you "handle it internally"?  This is not like allowing the Chinese to save public face while chastising them behind the scenes for human rights violations. We are talking about an ONGOING ATTACK on US property and institutions. The options are clearly not either/or: "the red button" or silent acquiescence.  For Trump "handle it internally" means just keeping knowledge of it away from Congress and the people. Why should the Russians stop when they can play the president? ("It was really Ukraine" says Putin. "I'll send Rudy to get to the bottom of it," says Trump.)

Why do you constantly frame this attack as if nothing can be done about it? To legitimate Trump's inaction?

If so then, honestly, we are back to Trump can do nothing wrong. Cuz if we recognize that in this case he has been continually--for three years now--putting partisan interest over US national security, we'd have to admit that is bad. VERY bad, as in complete dereliction of duty.   Is that why you are unable to recognize that the many obvious proactive options that were open to Obama are still open to Trump--and he chooses not only to ignore them, but also to prevent Congress and the people from hearing about the danger?

It's like Trump's own paralysis, in the face of foreign attack by the dictator he so wants to befriend, is flowing downhill from the White House to Trump's base.