Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 80761 times)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5558
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #100 on: December 22, 2016, 08:27:17 AM »
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

Get a clue, Democrats.  You've been outmaneuvered at every turn because you refuse to play dirty enough.  The only two democratic candidates to lose a presidential election in a quarter century both lost the exact same way, by blatantly false character assassination.  America supports your policies, but you have to stop playing by the rules if you want to give them the policies that they want, because the republicans have mastered the dark arts and they know every dirty trick in the book.  It's time to start playing on their level.

I can just picture Steve Bannon laughing greedily on the day Michelle Obama said "when they go low, we go high."  Damn you Michelle, for believing in the dignity of American politics! 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 08:46:28 AM by sol »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #101 on: December 22, 2016, 08:34:03 AM »
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

I think the DNC emails quite clearly reveal the opposite line of thinking within the DNC...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #102 on: December 22, 2016, 10:03:18 AM »
Right now, today, Trump has no power to do anything about this, other than make a public statement, which he did, and it was retarded.  Where is your outrage at the perpetrators of the lack of security in the first place?  You are seeking to indict someone who has yet to actually do anything, and have no issue with the current governmental representatives not doing anything about this.  Trump not denouncing it is because he's dumb, he sees it as an attempt to cast doubt on the outcome of the election, which it very clearly is.  It also very clearly is a serious thing that ought to be dealt with accordingly (because things can be two things at the same thing, these two can be true of the russian hack without it needing to be one or the other).

I understand condemnation of Trump's response.  It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Trump is not competent or smart enough to be anyone's puppet.  You need to be able to read and follow directions to be a puppet.  Trump accidentally got himself elected president, foreign governments are hostile to us (*gasp*) and way to let a foreign intelligence operation affect you maximally.

Keep calm and carry on folks.

I posses lots of outrage to go around across all levels of our government, don't worry :)

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #103 on: December 22, 2016, 10:18:34 AM »
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

I think the DNC emails quite clearly reveal the opposite line of thinking within the DNC...

I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

edit, that was kinda mean.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 10:20:23 AM by hoping2retire35 »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5558
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #104 on: December 22, 2016, 10:31:50 AM »
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Every presidential candidate for the next century will be studying the election campaigns of Clinton and Kerry for blueprints on how to destroy popular public servants in favor of unqualified idiots who can be puppeteered from behind the scenes.  This is our future.  Pizzagate is the vanguard of the new generation of American politics.

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #105 on: December 22, 2016, 10:41:33 AM »
It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Out of curiosity, when do you think that President Obama made the information public and why do you think that he's not doing anything about it?

Cassie

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3802
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #106 on: December 22, 2016, 11:57:33 AM »
SOL, I totally understand and agree with your points.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #107 on: December 22, 2016, 12:42:05 PM »
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Well, hopefully these suggestions would be more effective than firebombing republican campaign offices, rioting in the street and staging sit-ins on the floor of the senate when they don't get their way.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

cliffhanger

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #108 on: December 22, 2016, 01:06:15 PM »
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Well, hopefully these suggestions would be more effective than firebombing republican campaign offices, rioting in the street and staging sit-ins on the floor of the senate when they don't get their way.

Add burning your own church after spraypainting 'Vote Trump' on it to that list.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #109 on: December 22, 2016, 07:18:02 PM »
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

This is, incidentally, what Bill Clinton did in 1992. James Carville reinvented campaigning for the Democrats. No more "Jimmy Carter/Mr. Nice Guy" tactics.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
  • Location: MA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #110 on: December 23, 2016, 08:02:07 AM »
Quote
I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

I don't think the dems were playing as squeaky clean as you think - I mean look at the primary process.  I think they did underestimate the extent that a certain swath of voters could be manipulated by negative nationalist rhetoric and the culture wars, and I think a lot of people missed that.  The dems played their own dirty cards, but it didn't matter because 80000 midwest voters who really hated Hillary and thought their problems were due to other people who happened to be brown were enough to tip the election.  Everyone else just basically voted down party lines.

Quote
Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

That isn't the right answer.  I get your anger and rage, but it won't be effective and it plays right into the hands of the enemy. 

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3893
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #111 on: December 23, 2016, 08:04:36 AM »
I don't think the dems were playing as squeaky clean as you think - I mean look at the primary process.  I think they did underestimate the extent that a certain swath of voters could be manipulated by negative nationalist rhetoric and the culture wars, and I think a lot of people missed that.  The dems played their own dirty cards, but it didn't matter because 80000 midwest voters who really hated Hillary and thought their problems were due to other people who happened to be brown were enough to tip the election.  Everyone else just basically voted down party lines.

Keep in mind Trump actually got fewer votes than Romney in most of the midwest states he won.

Democratic turnout being much lower than in 2012 was the primary driver here - if Clinton had got even close to what Obama got, she would have handily won.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
    • Be Less Crazy
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #112 on: December 23, 2016, 08:43:24 AM »
Quote from: golden1 link=topic=65449.msg1350892#msg1350892

What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

I dunno, what did we get from the last 8 years of "going high"? A kleptocratic coup, that's what.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 01:18:32 PM by madgeylou »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5558
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #113 on: December 23, 2016, 10:41:27 AM »
What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

That isn't the right answer.  I get your anger and rage, but it won't be effective and it plays right into the hands of the enemy.

I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #114 on: December 23, 2016, 11:19:30 AM »
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I agree about 98% with your sentiments, but like I said in another thread, I think the Democrats could easily win without completely sinking to the morally bankrupt actions Republicans and Trump have sunk to. Here's an easy list that comes to mind:

1. Nominate a candidate with some charisma and without a bunch of negative baggage (whether or not that baggage is "deserved" does NOT matter at all). Clinton was a poor choice, even though she was eminently qualified. Obama had lots of charisma, Hillary Clinton almost none or maybe even negative charisma (such as her laugh that has been repeatedly used as a basis for insult and ridicule by her opponents).

2. Ditch the intellectual (and fair) arguments. Start with a simple (even stupid) slogan like Trump used that resonates with lots and lots of voters or potential voters. Make America Great Again -- Yay!! Just keep mentioning all the stuff voters care about, and for the love of God quit pandering to your "base."

3. Close to #2 above: Appeal to voters' basic wants and ditch all the complicated policy shit. Get in the dirt on the wedge issues, culture wars, etc. Tell voters you'll protect their Medicaid and social security and go after all those welfare cheats.  You can honestly say those things knowing that there are very few actual welfare cheats, and meat-eating Red Staters eat that shit up. Tell voters you'll kick the Islamic State's ass, you'll be tough on North Korea and China and Russia and Iran. Who doesn't agree with that? Details hardly matter, so don't even bring them up.

4. Level lots of effective and even personal zingers at your opponent, particularly in the debates. They don't have to be disgusting insults like Trump used ("look at her face!"), just targeted attacks like the kind Reagan, Obama, and Lloyd "You're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen have effectively delivered.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #115 on: December 27, 2016, 07:28:37 AM »
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I agree about 98% with your sentiments, but like I said in another thread, I think the Democrats could easily win without completely sinking to the morally bankrupt actions Republicans and Trump have sunk to. Here's an easy list that comes to mind:

1. Nominate a candidate with some charisma and without a bunch of negative baggage (whether or not that baggage is "deserved" does NOT matter at all). Clinton was a poor choice, even though she was eminently qualified. Obama had lots of charisma, Hillary Clinton almost none or maybe even negative charisma (such as her laugh that has been repeatedly used as a basis for insult and ridicule by her opponents).

2. Ditch the intellectual (and fair) arguments. Start with a simple (even stupid) slogan like Trump used that resonates with lots and lots of voters or potential voters. Make America Great Again -- Yay!! Just keep mentioning all the stuff voters care about, and for the love of God quit pandering to your "base."

3. Close to #2 above: Appeal to voters' basic wants and ditch all the complicated policy shit. Get in the dirt on the wedge issues, culture wars, etc. Tell voters you'll protect their Medicaid and social security and go after all those welfare cheats.  You can honestly say those things knowing that there are very few actual welfare cheats, and meat-eating Red Staters eat that shit up. Tell voters you'll kick the Islamic State's ass, you'll be tough on North Korea and China and Russia and Iran. Who doesn't agree with that? Details hardly matter, so don't even bring them up.

4. Level lots of effective and even personal zingers at your opponent, particularly in the debates. They don't have to be disgusting insults like Trump used ("look at her face!"), just targeted attacks like the kind Reagan, Obama, and Lloyd "You're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen have effectively delivered.

Fair points. All the democrats really have to do to win is motivate their supporters. If they can't even manage to do that, they don't really deserve to win.

As far as Zingers, the "Do you know what else I prepared for? Being President." Should go down as a classic, imo.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #116 on: December 27, 2016, 09:07:14 AM »
This too will pass.

I'd argue that we went through something similar in Canada for 10 years with the 'Harper' conservative government.   He had a number of annoying programs - the war on science, banning hijabs, the war on the environment, the Muslim behavioural hotline and the never ending deficit spending.    And don't forget the plans for the giant 'Mother Canada' statue on Cape Breton - similar to the statue of liberty, yet without any cultural significance whatsoever.



The previous government was liberal (i.e. on the left), yet oddly they were the most fiscally responsible government we've had in decades.   At the end, we were all getting disgusted with their apparent corruption, the PM retired and they were booted out of office.

It took them 10 years to find a credible party leader (Justin Trudeau) who is nonetheless mocked for his youth and inexperience.   In a most annoying fashion, the liberal government is already showing signs of the same old corruption problems they had 12 years ago.

In time, the democrats will develop new leadership and supplant the republicans.    Hopefully they will raise the standard of political discourse above the playground insults of M. Trump.


golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
  • Location: MA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #117 on: December 27, 2016, 09:14:21 AM »
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi". 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
  • Location: MA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #118 on: December 27, 2016, 10:15:38 AM »
Quote
This too will pass.

I have been trying to cultivate this view while still being wary.  Trump is not like "normal" candidates, and his appeal is not based in reason and logic as far as I can tell.   It is entirely possible that people will get disgusted and this will blow over in 4-8 years.  Or it could be worse than that. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9315
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #119 on: December 27, 2016, 01:29:11 PM »
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #120 on: December 27, 2016, 01:40:32 PM »
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda? Now if we just had a spunky fighter pilot to save us all...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9315
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #121 on: December 27, 2016, 01:47:08 PM »
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda? Now if we just had a spunky fighter pilot to save us all...

The emperor was the quiet power behind everything.  Ain't Trump.  Donald is more of a Jabba figure . . . Likes slave girls, kinda gross, seems to be wealthy but nobody really knows if that's true . . . But somehow he got elected to Vader's position.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #122 on: December 27, 2016, 01:52:29 PM »
The emperor was the quiet power behind everything.  Ain't Trump.  Donald is more of a Jabba figure . . . Likes slave girls, kinda gross, seems to be wealthy but nobody really knows if that's true . . . But somehow he got elected to Vader's position.

Ha - good point.  And probably the one most likely to employ bounty hunters and keep frozen people for decorations. :D
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #123 on: December 27, 2016, 03:09:43 PM »
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.   

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2561
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #124 on: December 27, 2016, 05:02:52 PM »
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.

It's only a high-stress job if you give a shit, try to do a good job, and care what happens as a result of your actions or lack thereof.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #125 on: December 27, 2016, 06:12:39 PM »
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda?

No.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #126 on: December 30, 2016, 06:50:52 AM »
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.

It's only a high-stress job if you give a shit, try to do a good job, and care what happens as a result of your actions or lack thereof.

Shit...  he'll probably live forever.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #127 on: December 30, 2016, 07:19:22 AM »
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia? I am not really up to date on what is going on but my understanding is some have the perception there was an outsider 'hack' of the election when there was in fact only an insider 'leak' of the DNC's emails. So it would seem, by diplomatic standards, this is unwarranted.

So is this just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

Not really sure, someone splain why please.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 12:38:09 PM by hoping2retire35 »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2607
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2016, 07:33:26 AM »
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia? I am not really up to date on what is going on but my understanding is some have the perception there was an outsider 'hack' of the election when there was in fact only an insider 'leak' of the DNC's emails. So it would seem, by diplomatic standards, this is unwarranted.

So it seems this is just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

Not really sure, some splain why please.

Here's what the BBC had to say about it.

"CrowdStrike identified two actors inside the DNC network that it had seen before - one that it calls Cozy Bear (linked to Russia's FSB [formerly known as the KGB]) and the other Fancy Bear (linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence).  Cozy Bear breached the network and stole data. Fancy Bear was linked to the release of the data from the DNC and other political figures."  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38370630

and

"US intelligence agencies, including the FBI and CIA, concluded that the aim of the hack was to cause damage to Mrs Clinton and the Democrats and favour Mr Trump."   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38464612
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 859
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2016, 08:30:39 PM »
There were attempts to hack the GOP network as well, though we don't know if the hacks were successful.  They could have been, but the information found might not have been useful to release at this time.

I think the concern is that Putin, an old KGB man, has been successfully trying to destabilize Western democracies by using hackers and a well-funded propaganda organization (his "troll army").

Last year I read this very fascinating description of his agency in St. Petersburg.  He  employs shifts of workers to make fake social media accounts, which are used to spread fake news and influence opinion at home and in other countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

Here's a discussion from the RAND think-tank about his strategy:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE198/RAND_PE198.pdf

Putin has targeted other countries, not just the U.S.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/german-spy-chief-russian-hackers-could-disrupt-elections-bruno-kahl-cyber-attacks
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2016/12/01/les-elections-en-europe-dans-la-cyberguerre_5041350_3214.html

« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 08:32:20 PM by Poundwise »

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2016, 10:01:25 PM »
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/joint-dhs-odni-fbi-statement-on-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

Quote from: FBI
Today, DHS and FBI released a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) which further expands on that statement by providing details of the tools and infrastructure used by Russian intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and infrastructure associated with the recent U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political and private sector entities.


Quote from: hoping2retire35
So is this just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

No. Unless, of course, you don't trust FBI.gov.

The joint report is at https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf. It, and the related files, have the technical details.



Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #131 on: December 31, 2016, 03:34:09 AM »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #132 on: December 31, 2016, 03:25:34 PM »
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasť acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?

LaineyAZ

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #133 on: December 31, 2016, 03:46:52 PM »
If our oligarchy is happy - meaning the stock market is doing well - that's all that matters.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Location: NoVa
    • Chart prepping
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #134 on: December 31, 2016, 09:49:19 PM »
This was an interesting article from the tech community on the Joint Analysis Report released by DHS and FBI.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/
Check out my blog.  Early retirement from a military perspective.

http://chartprepping.com




Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #135 on: January 01, 2017, 04:54:49 AM »
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasť acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?

Well, Obama did also claim that he has talked to Putin in person, and on the phone and told him sternly that the meddling was unacceptable.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #136 on: January 01, 2017, 10:17:30 AM »
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasť acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?
There is nothing Obama can do that cannot be undone by Trump, unless he has the support of Congress, and the congress is majority GOP, who have chosen party over country.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #137 on: January 01, 2017, 10:50:15 AM »
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #138 on: January 01, 2017, 12:44:06 PM »
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.

I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated claims made by the intelligence communities.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3588
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #139 on: January 01, 2017, 01:01:24 PM »
Nobody is foolish enough to go to actual war (as opposed to proxy wars) when both sides have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate every major city on the planet before breakfast.

Or at least that's what I am banking on this year.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9315
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #140 on: January 01, 2017, 01:11:43 PM »
Nobody is foolish enough to go to actual war (as opposed to proxy wars) when both sides have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate every major city on the planet before breakfast.

Or at least that's what I am banking on this year.

Meh.

Nuclear annihilation renders anything you do pointless, so there's no reason to waste time contemplating it.  If it happens, it happens.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #141 on: January 01, 2017, 03:25:45 PM »
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.

I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated claims made by the intelligence communities.

Potentially "relatively unsubstantiated," since even the arstechnica op-ed stated:

Quote from: arstechnica
In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.

In other words, computer forensics methods by secretive government agencies probably isn't in the unclassified realm. Considering that many Congressional Republicans (even excluding his detractors like McCain and Graham) are calling for stronger measures should indicate that there is fire to the smoke and not just "sour grapes," as Trump suggests.

Of course, Trump has special knowledge of the hacking that no one has. We'll find out tomorrow and it'll be Great!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #142 on: January 04, 2017, 05:05:38 AM »
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated claims made by the intelligence communities.

Potentially "relatively unsubstantiated," since even the arstechnica op-ed stated:

Quote from: arstechnica
actual war.


In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.

In other words, computer forensics methods by secretive government agencies probably isn't in the unclassified realm. Considering that many Congressional Republicans (even excluding his detractors like McCain and Graham) are calling for stronger measures should indicate that there is fire to the smoke and not just "sour grapes," as Trump suggests.

Of course, Trump has special knowledge of the hacking that no one has. We'll find out tomorrow and it'll be Great!

I wasn't saying that the intelligence community doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the Russian government was the main perpetrator. I was merely drawing parallels to similar situations in which mistakes have been made based on intelligence community assurances, even when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of congress.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2607
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #143 on: January 04, 2017, 05:39:31 AM »
I wasn't saying that the intelligence community doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the Russian government was the main perpetrator. I was merely drawing parallels to similar situations in which mistakes have been made based on intelligence community assurances, even when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of congress.

One big difference with Russian hacking seems to be that the intelligence community in this case is not under political pressure to come up with a result that the politicians in charge like, but is coming up with a result that they don't.  So no conformation bias.  (Extraordinary to think that the USA and UK ever had elected politicians who were looking for an excuse to go to war, but that seems to have been how it was.)
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 992
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #144 on: January 04, 2017, 06:42:02 AM »
CIA director John Brennan was on PBS last night doing an interview. He talked about the report that Obama requested on Russian election interference.

minimalistgamer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Location: United States of America
  • Gamer and minimalist.
    • Minimalist Gamer
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #145 on: January 08, 2017, 08:11:12 PM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
I paid off my mortgage! You can read the details here -
https://minimalistgamer.blogspot.com/2017/01/paid-off-our-mortgage.html

Feel free to ask any questions.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #146 on: January 09, 2017, 07:28:23 AM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

Except that given that the electoral college did not follow its mandate (choosing not being told how to vote via popular vote elections), it is just a bunch of small popular votes and then given certain states more power.  That is not acceptable either.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2561
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #147 on: January 09, 2017, 07:44:05 AM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

minimalistgamer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Location: United States of America
  • Gamer and minimalist.
    • Minimalist Gamer
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #148 on: January 09, 2017, 07:58:30 AM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)
I paid off my mortgage! You can read the details here -
https://minimalistgamer.blogspot.com/2017/01/paid-off-our-mortgage.html

Feel free to ask any questions.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2561
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #149 on: January 09, 2017, 08:18:39 AM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

I recognize that tone is hard to read online. So I am going to not assume that you are trying to be condescending by telling me things as though I do not know them. Though I will admit it's quite difficult, given your first parenthetical remark.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 08:32:11 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.