• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Russia is a threat to our democracy by uncovering how we rigged our democracy

Started by henge0stone, January 07, 2017, 11:28:36 AM

henge0stone

I am not a fan of Trump or Hillary, let me just say that outright. To discuss why I dislike both of them would take too long and has nothing to do with my post. I just want to put that out there so people don't freak out and say I love trump, even though I don't. I voted third party out of protest for two horribly flawed candidates.

Now that that's out of the way lets assume the Russians did hack the DNC (I'm still not convinced but it makes no difference) all they did was essentially what Snowden did and show the world that the DNC is a racist undemocratic organization (the elites anyway) who control the media to take down Hillary's rivals. We know this is true because Donna Brazile was fired for leaking questions to Hillary so there's more evidence of media interference. You know who controls the media to get what they want? Dictators.

So instead of saying wow the DNC is corrupt and needs to be radically changed, the Clintons blame russia to the point where they are basically trying to bring about WW III. Remember when liberals were arguing that Snowden helped us by letting us know our government is corrupt and doing illegal things to its citizens? What makes this any different?

Why shouldn't the DNC hacks affect the election? They were true and also what EVERY Bernie or Trump supporter was saying, that the media was all in for Hillary. It was so obvious that the leaks just confirmed it.   

Why are we also assuming that the endless anti-trump stories had no affect on the election? MSNBC and CNN ran them nonstop but those we are suppose to think had no impact?

Wtf happened to real liberals who want fair elections and not bias controlled media as well as a peaceful world? The Neo-libs are now neo-mccarthyists who want to blame all their troubles on russia instead of their unlikable failure of a candidate.

Yorkshire pud

The Clintons haven't blamed Russia. The CIA and the Senate committee have though. Now, if you're okay with the Russians (or any other government) hacking any servers (not just the DNC) on the US territories, fine. But don't go crying to Trump when it happens and it severely distrupts things (company losses, water, electricity, oil plants outages) because he won't be hearing you. He will blame the meeja for being unpatriotic or whatever. He might even blame the US security agencies for making it all up.

henge0stone

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on January 07, 2017, 11:43:47 AM
The Clintons haven't blamed Russia. The CIA and the Senate committee have though. Now, if you're okay with the Russians (or any other government) hacking any servers (not just the DNC) on the US territories, fine. But don't go crying to Trump when it happens and it severely distrupts things (company losses, water, electricity, oil plants outages) because he won't be hearing you. He will blame the meeja for being unpatriotic or whatever. He might even blame the US security agencies for making it all up.

Yes the Clintons have blamed Russia and so has the CIA who won't tell us what the evidence is. Why not tell the public if you have the smoking gun? That aside No I'm not okay with anyone hacking companies, water, electricity ect. but why are the same people who defended snowden also not grateful to wikileaks for uncovering corruption in a major political party? They sit around telling us how Russia is a threat to our democracy yet it sure seems like Clinton and the media were a pretty big threat to our democracy.


Juan

How is this different than the CIA finding out what skullduggery the Soviets were up to and having the USIA broadcast it to the Russian people via the VOA?
Plus the intelligence committee report, interestingly, only deals with the DNC emails - not the spirit cookers.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Juan on January 07, 2017, 12:57:39 PM
How is this different than the CIA finding out what skullduggery the Soviets were up to and having the USIA broadcast it to the Russian people via the VOA?
Plus the intelligence committee report, interestingly, only deals with the DNC emails - not the spirit cookers.

Spirit cookers is the new FEMA camp conspiracy. It'll be a different one in a few months.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: henge0stone on January 07, 2017, 11:55:11 AM
Yes the Clintons have blamed Russia and so has the CIA who won't tell us what the evidence is. Why not tell the public if you have the smoking gun? That aside No I'm not okay with anyone hacking companies, water, electricity ect. but why are the same people who defended snowden also not grateful to wikileaks for uncovering corruption in a major political party? They sit around telling us how Russia is a threat to our democracy yet it sure seems like Clinton and the media were a pretty big threat to our democracy.

I suspect (as you probably already know) the CIA won't reveal the evidence because it will reveal the leak to the Russians. This corruption? The one Trump said he would have Clinton thrown in jail over? That one?

TigerLily

Quote from: henge0stone on January 07, 2017, 11:28:36 AM
... Now that that's out of the way lets assume the Russians did hack the DNC (I'm still not convinced but it makes no difference) all they did was essentially what Snowden did and show the world that the DNC is a racist undemocratic organization (the elites anyway) who control the media to take down Hillary's rivals. We know this is true because Donna Brazile was fired for leaking questions to Hillary so there's more evidence of media interference. You know who controls the media to get what they want? Dictators. ...

Just when I think I'm done with the Politics threads they pull me back in. I feel compelled to respond to this. And to be clear, if I haven't already, I don't like Donald or Hillary. I was a Bernie supporter and voted for him in the Primary but voted for Hillary in the General because I consider Donald a sociopath, liar and dangerous.

let's assume the Russians did hack the DNC (I'm still not convinced but it makes no difference)
I'm curious what would convince you this isn't made up? The concerted effort of our combined intelligence agencies say they have a high confidence level in their findings and conclusions. They prepare a 50 page report citing this evidence and appear in front of Congress to testify to the validity of their findings. A filtered report for public consumption will be published Monday.  What more would it take to make you trust our own intelligence agencies in this matter? If you won't or can't believe them should we just disband them and go with Trump's gut?

.. all they did was essentially what Snowden did ...
In my opinion Snowden is a patriot and a hero. However if he returned to the U.S. he would be arrested. But for Russia doing "essentially" the same thing, no problem.  Snowden's intention was to reveal what he considered unethical and overreaching activities by our government. Russia's intention was to make the American people lose confidence in the democratic voting process and to sway public opinion toward Putin's candidate of choice.

Is it ok if Russia or any other country or terrorist group invades American systems private or public? Power grids, Corporate proprietary data, New York Stock Exchange, Aviation traffic control? In your opinion when does this reach the level of cyber warfare?

You know who controls the media to get what they want? Dictators. ...
Yes. Like Putin. Who Trump admires and gives an A in Leadership.  Mr. Trump who has not held a press conference since July. Which are specifically held so the free press can ask questions. Trump who called out and intimidated members of the free press at his rallies. Who generalizes the entire free press as "dishonest" and liars.






K_Dubb

Quote from: henge0stone on January 07, 2017, 11:28:36 AM
Now that that's out of the way lets assume the Russians did hack the DNC (I'm still not convinced but it makes no difference) all they did was essentially what Snowden did and show the world that the DNC is a racist undemocratic organization (the elites anyway) who control the media to take down Hillary's rivals. We know this is true because Donna Brazile was fired for leaking questions to Hillary so there's more evidence of media interference. You know who controls the media to get what they want? Dictators.

So instead of saying wow the DNC is corrupt and needs to be radically changed, the Clintons blame russia to the point where they are basically trying to bring about WW III. Remember when liberals were arguing that Snowden helped us by letting us know our government is corrupt and doing illegal things to its citizens? What makes this any different?

Where they expose corruption, leaks are an unequivocal good.  The idea that Russia can do us a favor is disturbing only to those stuck in a white-hat/black-hat world who have forgotten the moral agility that allowed their grandfathers to make peace with Stalin.

Anybody who doesn't get a chill upon realizing that Putin preferred our current President-elect is an idiot, though.

starrmtn001

Quote from: K_Dubb on January 07, 2017, 02:30:30 PM
Where they expose corruption, leaks are an unequivocal good.  The idea that Russia can do us a favor is disturbing only to those stuck in a white-hat/black-hat world who have forgotten the moral agility that allowed their grandfathers to make peace with Stalin.

Anybody who doesn't get a chill upon realizing that Putin preferred our current President-elect is an idiot, though.
+1 To Infinity! ;)

GravitySucks

Quote from: K_Dubb on January 07, 2017, 02:30:30 PM
Where they expose corruption, leaks are an unequivocal good.  The idea that Russia can do us a favor is disturbing only to those stuck in a white-hat/black-hat world who have forgotten the moral agility that allowed their grandfathers to make peace with Stalin.

Anybody who doesn't get a chill upon realizing that Putin preferred our current President-elect is an idiot, though.

It was made perfectly clear in the DNC emails that Clinton preferred our current president-elect as the Republican candidate because he would be so easy to beat in the general election.

K_Dubb

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 07, 2017, 03:26:01 PM
It was made perfectly clear in the DNC emails that Clinton preferred our current president-elect as the Republican candidate because he would be so easy to beat in the general election.

The leaks were timed to influence the general election, though when the nomination wasn't in doubt.  I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that the damage to Hillary was intended to benefit Trump.

TigerLily

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 07, 2017, 03:26:01 PM
It was made perfectly clear in the DNC emails that Clinton preferred our current president-elect as the Republican candidate because he would be so easy to beat in the general election.

Yes. And Clinton is an American citizen with voting rights. Pretty sure but may require a Congressional hearing. But another country imposing their will over our election process is another thing entirely.

Funny, I thought I was the Commie globalist and most of you supporting Russia now were the America First, don't mess with Texas or the U.S. guys. Now you're all Russkie fans. Feels like backward day

Juan

Quote from: TigerLily on January 07, 2017, 02:25:30 PM
The concerted effort of our combined intelligence agencies say they have a high confidence level in their findings and conclusions.

The last time they used "high confidence" was when they assured Bush there were WMDs in Iraq - that's why to be leery.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: K_Dubb on January 07, 2017, 02:30:30 PM
Where they expose corruption, leaks are an unequivocal good.  The idea that Russia can do us a favor is disturbing only to those stuck in a white-hat/black-hat world who have forgotten the moral agility that allowed their grandfathers to make peace with Stalin.

Anybody who doesn't get a chill upon realizing that Putin preferred our current President-elect is an idiot, though.

And they'd be naive to think Putin wanted Trump to make America great again. Putin has Trump where he wants him, and Trump is such a narcissist and unable to think that Putin might in fact be insincere in his admiration, he'll bounce along in Putin's thrall.

TigerLily

Quote from: K_Dubb on January 07, 2017, 02:30:30 PM
Where they expose corruption, leaks are an unequivocal good.  The idea that Russia can do us a favor is disturbing only to those stuck in a white-hat/black-hat world who have forgotten the moral agility that allowed their grandfathers to make peace with Stalin.

Anybody who doesn't get a chill upon realizing that Putin preferred our current President-elect is an idiot, though.

But grandad never trusted Stalin and certainly wasn't a fanboy

GravitySucks

Quote from: TigerLily on January 07, 2017, 03:38:58 PM
Yes. And Clinton is an American citizen with voting rights. Pretty sure but may require a Congressional hearing. But another country imposing their will over our election process is another thing entirely.

Funny, I thought I was the Commie globalist and most of you supporting Russia now were the America First, don't mess with Texas or the U.S. guys. Now you're all Russkie fans. Feels like backward day

I am not a fan of Putin or the ruskies. I just don't believe the Russian government provided anything to Wikileaks. Were they the source of all the confidential russian government info that was dumped by wikileaks? 

Soros is an american citizen. I don't appreciate him meddling in the elections. There is no doubt as to his role in providing funding to groups to instigate violence at Trump rallies.

The US needs to find a way to coexist with Russia and China. Clinton would have made things worse not better. If the Russians are really good at hacking they have all of her deleted emails. They would have used these as blackmail material in a heartbeat. That is much more their style.

Climbing back into my Holodeck.

TigerLily

Quote from: Juan on January 07, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
The last time they used "high confidence" was when they assured Bush there were WMDs in Iraq - that's why to be leery.

No it's not. Plenty of times since then. Bush/Cheney would accept no other answer and dismissed data to the contrary which is the President's prerogative. And look how well that turned out

SredniVashtar

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 07, 2017, 03:46:33 PM
The US needs to find a way to coexist with Russia and China. Clinton would have made things worse not better.

She would have stood up to both of them, which is obviously why they prefer Trump. Appeasement doesn't work because the people you are trying to appease take what you are giving them and try to grab more. The whole 'Hillary wants WWIII' stuff was Russian propaganda reiterated endlessly across the internet by unconscious dupes. If you don't draw a firm line and are prepared to take action if that line is crossed then you look weak and lay yourself open to all sorts of trouble.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Juan on January 07, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
The last time they used "high confidence" was when they assured Bush there were WMDs in Iraq - that's why to be leery.

No they didn't. They said the opposite to Bush.

GravitySucks

Quote from: SredniVashtar on January 07, 2017, 03:53:53 PM
She would have stood up to both of them, which is obviously why they prefer Trump. Appeasement doesn't work because the people you are trying to appease take what you are giving them and try to grab more. The whole 'Hillary wants WWIII' stuff was Russian propaganda reiterated endlessly across the internet by unconscious dupes. If you don't draw a firm line and are prepared to take action if that line is crossed then you look weak and lay yourself open to all sorts of trouble.

Name one successful foreign policy accomplishment while she was SoS, and you cannot count the contributions to her foundation.

K_Dubb

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on January 07, 2017, 03:43:35 PM
And they'd be naive to think Putin wanted Trump to make America great again. Putin has Trump where he wants him, and Trump is such a narcissist and unable to think that Putin might in fact be insincere in his admiration, he'll bounce along in Putin's thrall.

I don't think Putin's preference has anything to do with Trump's narcissism.  Narcissists are dangerous when crossed, and Putin's bound to cross him sooner or later.  Nor is idiocy; we'd prefer a smart guy in N. Korea rather than that fool.

Simply questioning NATO may have been enough, or talking about working together with Russia (as he is still doing) elevating it to its old superpower status instead of a whipping-boy for sanctions, or tacitly acknowledging that the Middle East is best controlled by ruthless client dictators who gas their own people -- any or all of those would do it.

TigerLily

Hey! The limeys are here! Care to meet me in the kitchen for some Arsenic and Black Lace?

Edit. Oops. Never mind. Football time!

Spy

Quote from: SredniVashtar on January 07, 2017, 03:53:53 PM
She would have stood up to both of them, which is obviously why they prefer Trump. Appeasement doesn't work because the people you are trying to appease take what you are giving them and try to grab more. The whole 'Hillary wants WWIII' stuff was Russian propaganda reiterated endlessly across the internet by unconscious dupes. If you don't draw a firm line and are prepared to take action if that line is crossed then you look weak and lay yourself open to all sorts of trouble.


SredniVashtar

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 07, 2017, 04:01:50 PM
Name one successful foreign policy accomplishment while she was SoS, and you cannot count the contributions to her foundation.

That's a complicated question, as you probably know, but you are using it as some kind of cynical checkmate. What sort of things would you consider worthy of being called an accomplishment? The way you phrase it  you make it seem as though foreign policy is all about trophy hunting when it's going to be much more subtle than that. Was Nixon's visit to China an accomplishment, or did it give legitimacy to a evil regime?  It depends who you ask. Also, Clinton was answerable to people above her, so you can't say that what she did was her own volition, she may have been carrying out the wishes of the president. I'm not a Clinton fan, particularly, but she would have been a tougher challenge for Putin. God knows what you are going to get with Trump. You're going to have to pull  him off Twitter first.

SredniVashtar

Quote from: TigerLily on January 07, 2017, 04:05:16 PM
Hey! The limeys are here! Care to meet me in the kitchen for some Arsenic and Black Lace?

Edit. Oops. Never mind. Football time!

I think it was Arsenic and Old Lace, unless there is some kinky version I haven't heard of. Black Lace brings back terrible memories of school discos but it happens to be one of Yorkie's favourites. He can usually be found roaring around the back streets of Doncaster with this blasting from the speakers of his moped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POv-3yIPSWc

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: SredniVashtar on January 07, 2017, 04:34:23 PM
I think it was Arsenic and Old Lace, unless there is some kinky version I haven't heard of. Black Lace brings back terrible memories of school discos but it happens to be one of Yorkie's favourites. He can usually be found roaring around the back streets of Doncaster with this blasting from the speakers of his moped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POv-3yIPSWc

Confession time: I had the misfortune to holiday in Teneriffe in 2004,  and the 'entertainment'  in the hotel was the surviving member. Yep he called himself Black Lace. Needless to say, I retired to the pool bar for a sherbet lemon.

henge0stone

Quote from: TigerLily on January 07, 2017, 02:25:30 PM

You know who controls the media to get what they want? Dictators. ...
Yes. Like Putin. Who Trump admires and gives an A in Leadership.  Mr. Trump who has not held a press conference since July. Which are specifically held so the free press can ask questions. Trump who called out and intimidated members of the free press at his rallies. Who generalizes the entire free press as "dishonest" and liars.

Clinton has literally helped to rig elections in venezuela. To see time warner as her backer and virtually every station (minus fox of course) shill for her constantly is a level of media influence that I would ascribe to a one party state and was frightening.

I'm not a Putin fan but we should be working with russia and not bringing back the cold war days. We work with plenty of asshole dictators (look at Saudi Arabia for example) because peace is just better than war. Hillary and Obama basically calling for WWIII is pure insanity.

Are you really saying Trump hasn't held enough press conferences? How many conferences did Clinton hold during the campaign? Think she went a whole year without one and the press didn't really give two shits. The press is 1000 times harder on trump than it ever was on Hillary.

The press should be hard on trump but they were clearly bias towards hillary. Not saying trump is great though. He defense stop is frisk which is a huge problem (and should be) for every American. I'm also diametrically opposed to most of his less regulation views. No I don't think he will ultimately be a good president for the working class either.

The press are extremely bias though and especially towards trump and anyone who isnt in their corporate interest. Bernie was way more left than Hillary but he was destroyed by them the same way trump was. Hillary rigged the game to run against trump and she still couldn't win. So really we have Hillary to thank for trump too. Nice to know that she wanted to gamble with a trump presidency just so she could win.

Liberals should want an honest election system which wikileaks showed was defiantly not the case. This inner corruption is the biggest threat to democracy not the Russians. BTW the CIA has been a hillary shill for some time now so I don't really trust them either. Where is the evidence anyway? They say they have it but won't tell us. Really an open and honest agency  ::)

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: henge0stone on January 07, 2017, 04:47:01 PM
Clinton has literally helped to rig elections in venezuela.

Really? And then before that over the previous 70 years or so:  Tibet, Indonesia, Iran, Nicuragua, Italy, Columbia, various African countries..



Quote
Liberals should want an honest election system which wikileaks showed was defiantly not the case. This inner corruption is the biggest threat to democracy not the Russians. BTW the CIA has been a hillary shill for some time now so I don't really trust them either. Where is the evidence anyway? They say they have it but won't tell us. Really an open and honest agency  ::)

This CIA being accountable to Clinton? Can you show your proof? Or is it just the meanderings of a conspiracy theory website?

And they won't show you proof because youll then tell the Russians where their leak is. You not knowing is saving a mole's life. Be thankful.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod