Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 13:13:42 GMT -5
No one is saying Russia was the sole (or even most important) factor in Clinton's defeat. But people who hate Clinton/want to defend Trump are trying to downplay and dismiss the entire Russian angle for purely partisan reasons. Agree; I didn't mean to imply that anyone here was arguing that Russia was the sole factor in Clinton's loss. I mentioned it because I've seen many on the "pfft, Russian tampering is a non-story" arguing "yeah, that's not why Clinton lost" or "you can't prove that's the only reason Clinton lost." I basically agree -- but I think it's beside the point. Even if Clinton had won in a landslide and the effort was an utter failure, I think we should care about this as a country. Whatever the result, another country tried to put a finger on the scale of our elections. That matters. If anyone within a campaign was complicit with that attempt, it matters. It sets a pretty shitty precedent and we cannot fucking ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 6, 2017 14:07:05 GMT -5
1) Trump's accusation that Obama ordered wire tapping (or any surveillance) of Trump Tower, Trump himself, or any of Trump's people is bs. 2) The narrative of Putin and Russian operatives influencing the election is bs (to say nothing of the loony notion that Russia somehow "stole" the election). 3) That doesn't mean there was no contact between people in the Russian government and people in Trump's circle. 4) And it doesn't mean their was no surveillance and intelligence gathering going on by US agencies with respect to the same. Obviously, I think, things have been leaked--names and some general details--to the media that should never have been leaked. That's not good. But so far--and it's been four months--there's no damning evidence against Trump, here. There just isn't. So drawing out more details makes it look like there was political targeting going on, even if there wasn't. Sheeeeeeeeeit. What does the fact its been four months have to do with anything? Should a murder investigation be dropped if nobody's caught after four months? If a plane falls out of the sky for no apparent reason does the investigation stop after four months? Should Ben Bradlee have told Woodward and Bernstein that its been four months and there's no damning evidence against Nixon here, so drop it and move on? What the entire fuck is so magical about four months? If it takes four months and then four more and then another four months or however it takes that is what it should take to get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 presidential election. The Congressional investigations are just getting started (and just getting derailed in the House) and we don't even have a proper report from them on their findings. What's your rush to have this over and done, robeiae? I sure didn't see this sort of kvetching when the Republicans were dogging Hillary Clinton over Benghazi after four months had passed. I don't know what "the people who really know all the details want all of those details to come out, because it's going to look bad for all involved" even means. Who are "the people who really know all the details?" Name some names. Because if you can't, that makes it doubly important to find out exactly who they are and what it is they know that they don't the rest of us to know about. Yes, even if it takes longer than four months to find out. Just call me irrational. Seriously, yourself. Maybe I didn't say that exactly right, though, so I'll try again: The narrative being pushed by Dems and some in the media that Russia influenced this election in a significant way, above and beyond any past efforts by them or by other governments--including the US--to influence other elections is bs. You want to claim the reverse? Fair enough. I think you're wrong, though. And there is still no evidence that Trump won the election because of Russian action. Right? If based upon the evidence uncovered and what's been learned over the past four months, there's probably no federal prosecutor impaneling a grand jury to hand down indictments or Trump-Hating Liberal Democrat readying Articles of Impeachment, otherwise, WRONG. Really? And what might that "better evidence" be and where is it? I'm sure there must be some GOP freakazoid like Jason Chaffetz or Trey Gowdy creaming their jeans over a chance to pursue the Clintons over yet another "scandal." Or are you just taking Trump's old, "Lock Her Up!" chant out for a walk? The "b.s." is right there in that sentence. Nobody has to make Trump look bad. He's cornered that market all by himself. It's not "Trump opponents" not letting go because there is something definitely going on here and Trump and his sniveling supporters are trying to divert, deflect and deny with their bullshit. It has not worked, it is not going to work, it never will work, and saying it is will not make the story go away.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 6, 2017 15:42:28 GMT -5
But even if it were not a factor at all -- even if she would have lost in a landslide without it, even if Trump were totally awesome and the best candidate ever -- we should care about this. A foreign government has no fucking business mucking about with our political institutions, period. And if the Trump campaign had anything to do with it, we should fucking care. If it's someone lower than Trump, heads should roll. If it goes all the way to Trump, it's as bad as or worse than Watergate. I care about it. I really do (and again, out government is mucking with other countries all the time; so is the UN). And I've read Amadan's glorious report, as well (which is mostly about Russia Today, which has been peddling propaganda for over a decade). I have no problem with the intelligence community looking in to this stuff. They should. It's their job. But this shit shouldn't be a political weapon, people in the intelligence community shouldn't be leaking stuff to the press, and we shouldn't be hearing classified stuff to defend OR rebut accusations against US citizens. Again, there isn't a smoking gun here that makes Trump or his team guilty of any sort of collusion with the Russians. Again, there isn't any evidence that Russian activity had a measurable impact on the results of the election. And the investigation is four months (more, actually) old. But you know, let's suppose that the last was, in fact, true. That would suck. But ultimately, what would the "solution" be? Block access to RT in the US? Force social media companies to shut down accounts that someone in the intelligence community doesn't like? Maybe shut down the entire internet for the six months leading up to the next election? Because I'm not seeing what the expectations really are, in this regard (though again, there's no evidence that Russian activity was critical, here). Seriously, where's the line? What constitutes "interfering"? Many heads of state (and former heads of state, and other international political figures) voiced their support for Hillary Clinton. Is that okay? Because fundamentally, an endorsement is an attempt to influence an election, right? Look at Vicente Fox's comments on the race: www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-vicente-fox-20160507-snap-story.htmlHe's just about calling Trump a would-be dictator. For the record, I'm fine with that; but let's not pretend it wasn't an attempt to help Clinton beat Trump. The point is, I don't think we can control propaganda from outside the US anymore than we can control opinions. It's ultimately on the voters. And that kinda sucks, too, given the voter apathy that plagues the US.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 6, 2017 16:57:58 GMT -5
I care about it. I really do (and again, out government is mucking with other countries all the time; so is the UN). And I've read Amadan's glorious report, as well (which is mostly about Russia Today, which has been peddling propaganda for over a decade). I have no problem with the intelligence community looking in to this stuff. They should. It's their job. But this shit shouldn't be a political weapon, people in the intelligence community shouldn't be leaking stuff to the press, and we shouldn't be hearing classified stuff to defend OR rebut accusations against US citizens. So, do I understand correctly that your position is basically that the entire IC is cobbling together a "Russian interference" narrative from Russia Today because they want to make Trump look bad? I am suspicious at how obtuse you are suddenly being. This is classic goalpost moving, and I suspect it's because you know you're defending an untenable position because of your contrarian desire to oppose Trump-bashers. There may or may not have been collusion from Trump's people, and it may or may not have made a difference, and there have certainly been inappropriate leaks, but Russia interfering in our election is a big deal. It goes well beyond Vincente Fox or Vladimir Putin popping off about who they don't like. We're not just talking about propaganda. Get real, Rob, this is BS and well below your usual level of analysis.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 6, 2017 17:25:07 GMT -5
So, do I understand correctly that your position is basically that the entire IC is cobbling together a "Russian interference" narrative from Russia Today because they want to make Trump look bad? Nah, I don't think the entire IC is doing anything like that. Again, the leaking is a serious issue, imo, but that's necessarily limited to individuals. And I don't think all of the stuff about Russian interference necessarily makes Trump look bad, when taken at face value. It's certainly being used to that end by others (pols, media, etc.). *shrug* Look back through the thread. I've been saying basically the same thing all along. And much of what we're talking about IS propaganda. Regardless, there's still no evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. There's still no evidence that Hillary would have won without the supposed Russian interference (regardless of the assumed level). Trump is still in the wrong to accuse Obama. Trump is still full of shit, imo. And I still can't fathom how millions upon millions of people could vote for him. But they did. Russia didn't force their hand. And they are all--just like you and me--responsible for their choices in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 6, 2017 17:51:41 GMT -5
Even if Clinton had won in a landslide and the effort was an utter failure, I think we should care about this as a country. Whatever the result, another country tried to put a finger on the scale of our elections. That matters. If anyone within a campaign was complicit with that attempt, it matters. It sets a pretty shitty precedent and we cannot fucking ignore it. Agreed. Although I have to admit, I can't get over the irony of Clinton being the victim of a foreign government influencing our election to elect a celebrity over an establishment politician, given that in Haiti, in 2011, Clinton influenced their election to help elect a celebrity over an establishment politician. Don't get me wrong, I don't want foreign governments influencing our elections. But US foreign policy is a long history of the US dishing it out but not wanting to take it in return.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 6, 2017 19:59:43 GMT -5
What the hell, Rob. Are you deliberately missing the point as many different ways as you can? I should not have to walk you through the logic.
This isn't about whether or not Trump colluded. (That's a separate, much more serious but also much weaker, accusation.)
This isn't about whether it makes Trump look bad.
This isn't about why Trump won and whether or not he would have lost if X, Y, or Z.
It's about whether or not a foreign power exerted influence on our election at an unprecedented level, in a way that should make us sit up and take notice NO MATTER HOW WE FEEL ABOUT TRUMP.
If you think this was nothing new, just standard propaganda, and the IC is making a big deal out of nothing, then I'm just dumbfounded.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 6, 2017 20:14:52 GMT -5
Be dumbfounded, then.
I'm not missing anything. I just disagree with you. Shit, I FUCKING SAID to you in the beginning of this exchange exactly what now is dumbfounding you:
Again, I'm not changing my tune here, I'm not shifting any goalposts, I'm saying the same thing over and over again (granted, I said it poorly one time). I'm not impressed with the arguments that this was some unprecedented effort on Russia's part. I mean, there was no internet, no Facebook, no twitter in the past, so sure there's new techniques of spreading propaganda (and maybe a more naive population? I don't know), of trying to influence other countries' political processes (though we have--as has Russia/Soviets, China, and others--instituted regime change, so I don't know how this is more invasive than that), but ultimately realpolitik is still the way of things on an international level. It's nothing new, imo, so trying to tell me that it is won't get you anywhere.
Huh, maybe everyone IS more naive, or at least doesn't have a real good grasp of history, anymore...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 20:42:55 GMT -5
I don't like it when the U.S. meddles in other countries' politics, unless e.g., that country's government is killing or oppressing a segment of its population or the country is meddling in (conquering, oppressing, or what have you) some other country where it doesn't belong.
But I actually think there's a difference between a leader expressing support for one candidate over another in some other country's election (e.g., Putin coming out and saying "I think Trump is awesome and I hope he wins. I'd rather deal with him than Clinton"), or even openly saying "we hate Clinton and we'll be your enemy if she wins," and a country, oh, hacking into private emails and leaking them into the news, meanwhile innocently whistling and pretending it knows nothing about it.
To the extent the first two examples would influence voters, the voters are well aware what they are weighing: Putin's words and/or threats. Hey, that might even work against Trump -- voters might be "fuck you, Russia. We hate you. We're not voting for anyone you favor." In the third, voters know the alleged content of the emails, but not how they were acquired and leaked, and why. I wonder very much whether this would have made a difference -- I suspect it would with at least a fair portion of on-the-fence voters.
I'm not saying the U.S. has never done shit I hate. Certainly it has, and I'm not excusing or condoning it. And I'd like us to cut it the fuck out. But that doesn't mean we should shrug this off.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 12, 2017 7:44:57 GMT -5
This is what I'm talking about: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop&utm_term=.7f675297b6fbI don't have a problem with the gist of this, the idea of the FBI targeting someone involved in a political campaign or the like because of concerns that person is in cahoots with a foreign government/interest. I'm sure it happens far more often than most people think, actually. And I'm sure it might have happened to, say, people connected to Obama when he first ran for office. But what I was saying above--in reference to the stuff on Rice--is that neither "side" really wants all of this to come out, imo. Because it looks bad. Also, I'd note that so far, there is nothing indicting that Page has committed any crimes. There's a bunch of circumstantial stuff that indicates he--an investment banker working in Moscow--had contacts in the Russian government. Yeah, those FISA warrants have to meet a ridiculously high bar... *rolls eyes across floor*
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 13, 2017 12:29:24 GMT -5
This is robeiae posting, not Ohio:
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Apr 13, 2017 15:23:09 GMT -5
Because it's now obvious that robeiae cannot be trusted with full moderator powers, I've stripped him of most of these powers. Let the celebrations begin.
(and yeah, of course we're the same person; but since I don't participate in discussions, hopefully this will limit my errors--which frankly look like shit because the big ones have all been at Ohio's expense)
This means that I'll have to log in as CG Admin daily, but you probably won't see many posts. However, everyone is free to message either account--or Cass--with complaints/issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 16:24:03 GMT -5
It's unfortunately easy to do. After accidentally doing it once myself, I got in the habit of stopping before I start typing or deleting anything and looking the screen over, just to make sure. I've caught myself more than once.
I'm really sorry it happened, Ohio. I know Rob would far rather argue with you than delete you -- I hope you know that, too.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 13, 2017 17:05:52 GMT -5
To be clear here, there was nothing wrong with Ohio's post, at all. I was just replying to perfectly fair points he had made.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 13, 2017 19:02:49 GMT -5
Five green stars? This is outrageous. I vote one yellow star and Newb status as just recompense for your "accident."
|
|