Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 67889 times)


LadyStache in Baja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
    • My Casa Caoba: Making meaning in Mexico
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #51 on: December 16, 2016, 07:09:56 AM »
p2f
Make $22/hr teaching English from home FOR REALZ! https://t.vipkid.com.cn/?refereeId=4568896

Latest blog post --> teaching conflict resolution to littles --> http://www.mycasacaoba.com/teach-kids-problem-solving/

Enigma

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Age: 38
  • Location: WashingtonDC/TN
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #52 on: December 16, 2016, 08:06:32 AM »
The true horror story here is the American media...  Every time I turn around they have sensationalized something and spun it as "Breaking News".  They were biased and pushed that Trump had absolutely no chance of winning the election, after all Hillary was going to win by a landslide.  In my opinion Russia may have slightly swayed the vote with false propaganda articles.  Yet fake news was coming from everywhere against both candidates just so bloggers could get their day in the spotlight.  As a Cyber Security expert, there are too many safeguards to the voting systems and most is still done by hand.  Yes, computers count the vote but the safeguards and paper trails are there for a reason...

History has shown conspiracy theories are created during every major event.  Recounts are showing that the votes were accurate and costing tax payers thousands of dollars to complete.  Wisconsin recount shows Trump gained votes costing the voters $50k in recounts.  Trump didn't need 306 electoral votes, nor did he need 3 democrat states to flip in his favor, nor did he need the popular vote which he didn't get (lost by 0.1%).  His votes came from the outlying counties (not the cities).  If it was up to the popular vote, Trump stated he would have ran his campaign that way and would have won.  I am inclined to believe that, after all he would have only had to focus on the major cities; whereas, Hillary would have had to sway votes from the outlying counties.

The American media also tried to sway the vote with sensationalized “Breaking News” timed almost too perfectly with negativity about Trump.  I myself could see where Trump's mistakes in the past were under a spotlight and where he was strongly lacking as a politician.  Hillary seemed more and more like a political puppet every time she would stray over giving a definitive yes or no to a negative subject.

If anything I trust the American media much less today than prior to the election.  They have been lying to me almost daily all to ruffle my feathers.  Telling me the next major thing just happened and I need to get emotional, defensive, upset, happy, or scared.  The media is really the unbiased agenda pushing scumbags here.

This would have been a better election if the media just let the candidates focus on their republican or democratic ideals, agendas, and plans for the future of America.
"Periodically calculating your net worth -- the value of your assets minus your liabilities -- is the best way to measure and track your financial well-being." - unk

FI: Sept 1, 2014 (Age 35) - Completed
RE: Friday July 12, 2019 (Just b4 40th Bday) - Goal

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2973
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #53 on: December 16, 2016, 08:11:54 AM »
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #54 on: December 16, 2016, 10:34:41 PM »
Interesting responses. Post-truth is an increasingly accurate description for these times, it seems. "Someone said the opposite of the thing I don't like!" Who to believe, indeed.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #55 on: December 17, 2016, 04:07:50 AM »
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?

How different would voting patterns be if the electorate knew the truth?  I don't think anyone is saying what Russia did was not a big deal. But to suggest that it would have been better to elect a candidate from a party that has been shown to be corrupt is hardly a convincing argument.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2973
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #56 on: December 17, 2016, 07:23:12 AM »
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?

How different would voting patterns be if the electorate knew the truth?  I don't think anyone is saying what Russia did was not a big deal. But to suggest that it would have been better to elect a candidate from a party that has been shown to be corrupt is hardly a convincing argument.

Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2016, 08:10:19 AM »
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this. Also, whether Russia hacked or not is irrelevant. Say they did. Doesn't change the several other e-mail scandals that were not related to hacks. Doesn't change how corrupt the Democratic nominee was. And doesn't change that the Democratic nominee said they wanted to start a war with Russia.

I was sad when Trump won but at least he never advocated to start a war with Russia.

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #58 on: December 18, 2016, 08:46:17 AM »
Fake news like this??  Did you watch Obama's press conference last Friday?  Was that faked, too?

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #59 on: December 18, 2016, 10:16:07 AM »
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #60 on: December 18, 2016, 10:29:51 AM »
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.

Indeed.  Clearly, we got the president we deserve. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #61 on: December 18, 2016, 11:32:58 AM »
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #62 on: December 18, 2016, 11:49:37 AM »
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.

My statement was "As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this." If you can point me to where they've made a statement otherwise, please inform me.

RosieTR

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
  • Location: Northern CO
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #63 on: December 19, 2016, 09:17:48 PM »
I was sad when Trump won but at least he never advocated to start a war with Russia.

Nah, he seems to prefer having one with China. Or "Djina" as he says. That ought to be fun.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2016, 04:01:10 PM »
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.

DNC scandles didn't help but I think they are giving to much credit for their loss to leaked emails. Lets be honest the emails didn't show much we didn't assume wasn't happening already. We knew the Clinton's were to pay to play. We also knew that they were flipping positions because popular opinion was forcing them to.

The reality is that we had a left wing and right wing populist movement in both major parties. One nearly succeeded and the other one went all the way.

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.

Do you think Bernie wouldn't have spent time appealing to the rust belt states? The thing that burns my ass about this election isn't that Hillary lost. Its that we had a left wing alternative to Trump, but the DNC drowned him in the bath tub before he could ruin they coronation. Most states kept to party lines, but Bernie had the same winning message that Trump had without the petty bullshit and lies.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #65 on: December 21, 2016, 06:10:48 AM »

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.


This is my interpretation of the loss as well. Of course there were many underlying factors, but this to me seems to be the driving force between Hillary's loss.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #66 on: December 21, 2016, 06:14:46 AM »
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.

DNC scandles didn't help but I think they are giving to much credit for their loss to leaked emails. Lets be honest the emails didn't show much we didn't assume wasn't happening already. We knew the Clinton's were to pay to play. We also knew that they were flipping positions because popular opinion was forcing them to.

The reality is that we had a left wing and right wing populist movement in both major parties. One nearly succeeded and the other one went all the way.

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.

Do you think Bernie wouldn't have spent time appealing to the rust belt states? The thing that burns my ass about this election isn't that Hillary lost. Its that we had a left wing alternative to Trump, but the DNC drowned him in the bath tub before he could ruin they coronation. Most states kept to party lines, but Bernie had the same winning message that Trump had without the petty bullshit and lies.
I don't understand people saying this.  Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views.  Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it? 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #67 on: December 21, 2016, 06:28:33 AM »
I don't understand people saying this.  Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views.  Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it?

How long until they 'flip' again? If they don't really believe in the position, how hard are they going to fight for it? Or will they say "Well, I introduced the bill, it won't pass, whatever, my obligations are met." Or will they fight hard for something like the ACA, and when public perception turns against it they fight just as hard to dismantle it? Maybe these actions would be ok, but they don't strike me as the actions of someone who is going to stand up for my views.

My impression of Clinton, specifically, is that she is so unwilling to state her opinion on controversial subjects until the public perception has been carefully weighed and measured. TPP and Keystone XL pipeline were two topics that I feel perfectly displayed her tendency to only say what people want to hear. It just paints, (for me) any emotional reaction she has about anything as false and calculated.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Location: NoVa
    • Chart prepping
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #68 on: December 21, 2016, 06:30:14 AM »
After the first time DNC got hacked they sent out new passwords via email.  That is all.
Check out my blog.  Early retirement from a military perspective.

http://chartprepping.com




Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
  • Age: 31
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #69 on: December 21, 2016, 06:33:04 AM »
Following.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #70 on: December 21, 2016, 08:09:51 AM »
Who was in power when the Russians meddled in the U.S. election?  Holding Trump accountable for this is not an intelligent response.  If you are not outraged that the Democrats were so cavalier about security, particularly with regards to email, particularly while under investigation for email security related misdeeds, you're so deep into leftist bias you are literally unable to recognize facts and form cogent opinions.

Does anyone here think the emails going back and forth within the Trump camp weren't horribly offensive, inappropriate, and damning?  Were they hacked?

Also, "Trump did Russia email hack" is on par with "Bush did 9/11" as far as conspiracy theory peddling goes.

Erosion of civil liberties?  Are you nuts?  I agree that's a real thing but a foreign power spying on you has zero to do with your civil liberties.  That's an entirely separate issue.

Trump's response to this was inappropriate, but as someone who is not in office yet and has very little he can do about it, also irrelevant.  There is a current POTUS and he did jack shit to prevent this, and has done jack shit about it since he found out about it.

Your anger is entirely misplaced, your damnations and aspersions are being cast in entirely the wrong direction.  It is unlikely that Trump will do a better job, but these things actually happened while someone else was POTUS, and they happened to someone else's campaign security infrastructure.  Desperately latching on to anything and everything you can to blame Trump is unnecessary, he's doing enough really stupid stuff, and rest assured, he will do more.

Save your cries of wolf for when he does something really bad.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 08:12:21 AM by TheOldestYoungMan »
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #71 on: December 21, 2016, 08:21:23 AM »
4 years after his election, Obama was still blaming Bush for everything.  Now it seems, in the last year of his presidency, he gets to blame Trump.  This isn't OK when Republicans do it (see Bill Clinton's reaction when asked about 9/11 and what he did about AQ after the Cole bombing, he was (rightly) outraged at the suggestion that he could've/should've done more, as though it was somehow his fault), it isn't OK when Democrats do it.

As far as I know, blaming the incoming candidate for this shit prior to them taking office is unprecedented.  We are once again being asked to believe by the left in two mutually exclusive things:

1.  Trump is a masterful operator who knows all and sees all, and can perfectly coordinate with a global spy network to rig the election in his favor (and still manage to almost lose/certain secure no mandate at all).

2.  Trump is a hopeless lunatic gas-bag egotist, incompetent in all things, incapable of anything, and an idiot.

I will let you have one and one only!
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9132
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #72 on: December 21, 2016, 08:22:04 AM »
Does anyone here think the emails going back and forth within the Trump camp weren't horribly offensive, inappropriate, and damning?  Were they hacked?

I'd be very surprised if they weren't.  It was in the interests of the people doing the hacking not to release them though.  That's where the outrage comes from, the influence on the election that this illegal activity had.

Trump isn't responsible for the email hacking.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #73 on: December 21, 2016, 08:42:23 AM »
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #74 on: December 21, 2016, 08:48:43 AM »
4 years after his election, Obama was still blaming Bush for everything.  Now it seems, in the last year of his presidency, he gets to blame Trump.  This isn't OK when Republicans do it (see Bill Clinton's reaction when asked about 9/11 and what he did about AQ after the Cole bombing, he was (rightly) outraged at the suggestion that he could've/should've done more, as though it was somehow his fault), it isn't OK when Democrats do it.

As far as I know, blaming the incoming candidate for this shit prior to them taking office is unprecedented.  We are once again being asked to believe by the left in two mutually exclusive things:

1.  Trump is a masterful operator who knows all and sees all, and can perfectly coordinate with a global spy network to rig the election in his favor (and still manage to almost lose/certain secure no mandate at all).

2.  Trump is a hopeless lunatic gas-bag egotist, incompetent in all things, incapable of anything, and an idiot.

I will let you have one and one only!


I think most of us would say that it's clearly #2, with the amendment that "an idiot" be changed to "a useful idiot for Putin."
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #75 on: December 21, 2016, 09:53:03 AM »
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #76 on: December 21, 2016, 10:17:57 AM »
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.

Oooh... I like these kinds of conspiracy theories!
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #77 on: December 21, 2016, 10:28:47 AM »
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 11:49:11 AM by Lagom »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #78 on: December 21, 2016, 11:33:18 AM »
seems appropriate to post here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/745069/Calexit-campaign-US-referendum-California-embassy-in-Russia

seems like all the news i like reading lately come from British sources.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #79 on: December 21, 2016, 12:05:21 PM »
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality. 
"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

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #80 on: December 21, 2016, 12:09:30 PM »
Well argued.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #81 on: December 21, 2016, 12:27:13 PM »
Well argued.

Obviously, not arguing with you. That would be a exercise in futility.
"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

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #82 on: December 21, 2016, 12:47:13 PM »
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality.

I appreciate in discussion when people can admit, especially in the realm of politics, that their view probably contains at least some distortions. Even if they do pretty extensive research. There is no pure source of completely biased free information in the political realm.

I am biased towards believing the Obama administration over Trump, but Democrats have been heavily politicizing Russian influence in this cycle which makes it hard to take all of their statements at face value. I don't think ratcheting up fear of the Russians is good policy even if they are dealing with hacking and adversarial behavior by Putin.

Currently overplaying the influence of Russia in this election after the fact is destabilizing. If all they can prove is that Russia funded and encourage the propagation of fake news to influence voters I think they need to drop this shit now. We shouldn't fight propaganda with fear and undermine our own government leaders to do it. We all know Putin is a ruthless propaganda machine we don't have to go down the same road. Foreign governments trying to spread propaganda and misinformation is nothing new and we all do it. You fight that with better news coverage and winning the trust of your people through good policy, not fear mongering of foreign powers.

If they truly wanted to be effective in creating anti Russian sentiment, they need to be smarter about finding a way to get conservative news outlets and Trump on their side.

If they can prove that votes where straight out hacked then they need to get off their ass right now and do a full information dump to 3rd parties for review of the evidence. I suspect they can't, even though I would personally be happy to see Trump get tossed out on his ass.

Trump has many conflicts of interest, there is no doubt of that. But in fairness economically almost every leader and businessman has entanglements with super powers like Russia if they have any kind of significant wealth. The Clinton's and Bush's had plenty of dealings with people we'd rather they didn't. I don't think that's an excuse but it needs to be said to put fears in perspective.

I can't say if Obama had these kinds of fiscal entanglements but he definitely bought into the EU, Globalization western vision of the world that simply economically doesn't work out well for a large number of people. And clearly Russia is contrary to that vision because the death of NATO and fracture of the EU will open up new alliances and the possibility of expansion to acquire more land and resources.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #83 on: December 21, 2016, 01:45:21 PM »
Incidentally, I pretty much agree with RangerOne. The Dems are definitely overplaying the Russia boogeyman card, which is not the right move at all, but that is very clearly not what I'm doing despite Quidnon's (and others) non-engagement of the facts that concern me and others.

Let me yet again (no doubt futilely) repeat these points:

1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

2. A proper nonpartisan response to such a blatant attempt to subvert the sovereignty of this great nation is to decry, investigate, and respond appropriately to the foreign aggressor. Note that I am not saying this response should be overly extreme, only that I would expect our president to respond strongly. I surely hope all Americans would agree that we shouldn't just bend over when another country tries to mess with us.

3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

4. This is curious because he could easily smack down Russia and simultaneously look like a stronger leader. It begs the question why he has not.

Perhaps the above doesn't bother you (post fact world and all). But that doesn't change these details. You seem unwilling to question the president elect in literally any situation. Strange that you would make condescending comments on other people's supposed partisanship.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #84 on: December 21, 2016, 02:29:01 PM »
1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

What evidence has any intelligence agency released to support this? Seriously if there is any share it with me. To the best of my search skills, the only 'evidence' I've found is usually along the lines of either (A) a news entity reporting "some guy, whom won't be disclosed, with an undisclosed role in some undisclosed department told us they have evidence the Russians did it but they didn't disclose the evidence" or (B) "We're sourcing an (A) story."

To the best of my knowledge, the only leaks with public evidence are the DNC hacks; Julian Assange claims it was an inside leak.

Quote
3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

Which public statement has any intelligence agency made in regards to this? Again, if you have links please provide. I desperately want them because I am trying to knowledgeable on this issue. The fact you are saying it is a universal consensus but I can't find one, even one, department saying "The Russians did it" (let alone provide evidence) worries me deeply. One of use is gravely wrong.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 02:32:15 PM by kayvent »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #85 on: December 21, 2016, 02:31:35 PM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
    • Be Less Crazy
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #86 on: December 21, 2016, 02:31:47 PM »
Have you guys seen this article from noted journalist and futurist Alex Steffen?

https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.sycvyzjtd

I don't think there's anything coincidental about the fact that Putin worked to get Trump in, and I don't think anyone is overplaying the danger.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #87 on: December 21, 2016, 02:37:41 PM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 02:44:41 PM by kayvent »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #88 on: December 21, 2016, 02:45:46 PM »
1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

What evidence has any intelligence agency released to support this? Seriously if there is any share it with me. To the best of my search skills, the only 'evidence' I've found is usually along the lines of either (A) a news entity reporting "some guy, whom won't be disclosed, with an undisclosed role in some undisclosed department told us they have evidence the Russians did it but they didn't disclose the evidence" or (B) "We're sourcing an (A) story."

To the best of my knowledge, the only leaks with public evidence are the DNC hacks; Julian Assange claims it was an inside leak.

Quote
3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

Which public statement has any intelligence agency made in regards to this? Again, if you have links please provide. I desperately want them because I am trying to knowledgeable on this issue. The fact you are saying it is a universal consensus but I can't find one, even one, department saying "The Russians did it" (let alone provide evidence) worries me deeply. One of use is gravely wrong.
How many intelligence agencies do you want to say this.  A quick google shows multiple links, here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.9d750f948cc5
You also have the President here speaking about it: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/14/barack-obama-entire-news-conference-post-election-nov-14-sot.cnn
And if you want to ignore all of the news agencies how about a report direct from the office of Director of National Intelligence? : https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #89 on: December 21, 2016, 02:50:04 PM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak.
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.  Such as why he was removed from being the ambassador. From your article "Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.
His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump."
Also if you read your article some more, we have GOP members agreeing that the information is credible: 'Now whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's the subject of investigation,' said Sen. John McCain on CBS Face the Nation. 'But facts are stubborn things, they did hack into this campaign.'

« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 02:51:55 PM by Gin1984 »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #90 on: December 21, 2016, 02:51:05 PM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak.

I’m not going down that road. This is starting to sound like you want to make the fallacious “but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!” argument.

Is your position, then, that the president elect should just rely on his gut to make all of his decisions, regardless of the facts he is presented? That the media lies more often than not? That it’s more likely than not that the USIC has made a politically motivated, intentionally false statement? That it’s more likely than not that Trump is the sole voice of reason and truth in American politics right now? If your answers are yes, then there is no point in pretending that any subsequent discourse between us will be productive.

Edit - and ditto what Gin1984 said.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 02:53:33 PM by Lagom »

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #91 on: December 21, 2016, 03:08:44 PM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak.
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
"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

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4373
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #92 on: December 21, 2016, 03:15:06 PM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak.
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important.  Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honesty is very much in question.  And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 05:01:12 PM by Gin1984 »

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #93 on: December 21, 2016, 04:55:07 PM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak.
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important.  Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honest is very much in question.  And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.

Everyone involved in this is in question.  He is no less trustworthy than the director of the CIA, which is an institution that is based upon deceit & manipulation.  Nor the mouthpeices for the FBI, which has openly contradicted the statements by the CIA.  No one has provided a stitch of evidence, so who do you believe?  I choose to believe no one, and wait till the details come out on their own, if they ever do, which is doubtful.  My point is that there are several narratives being floated around, any of which are plausible from our, less-than-secret-clearance, perspectives.  Anything teh media has been able to provide is full of conjecture.  I do find it reasonable to expect that Russia would try to hack the DNC and/or the RNC.  Maybe they succeeded, maybe they didn't.  What I find difficult to believe is that they leaked this data to Wikileaks, rather than keep it to threaten a President Hillary over public disclosures.  Think about what is more advantageous to a foreign intelligence service; secrets with bad public optics when dealing with a malicious foreign head of state, or the gamble of revealing those documents during an election cycle in the hopes of what? Swinging the election?  They couldn't have known that would have been the result, mind you.  Almost no one thought Trump would win more than 2 weeks out, some no more than 2 hours before midnight.
"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

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
  • Age: 31
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #94 on: December 22, 2016, 05:27:27 AM »
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #95 on: December 22, 2016, 06:14:53 AM »
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?

Good question.  I'd have to think on this.
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 #96 on: December 22, 2016, 06:26:14 AM »
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?

I think it heavily depends on how much we like the person or country influencing the election and what the results are.

When President Obama explicitly says that the U.K. is going to go to the back of the queue in trade deals if they vote to leave, that's not influencing the election because we like the President and it's not happening to us.

Because we didn't like the results of this presidential election, we're finding any excuse we can. Even over-blowing the effects of Russian hacking and insinuating that the U.S. will become a puppet of Russia.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
  • Location: MA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #97 on: December 22, 2016, 06:36:01 AM »
1.  We do this type of shit all the time to other countries just like Russia and China and other world powers.   Remember a few years back when it came out that we were tapping the phones of world leaders?  Obama didn't bring attention to this partially for that reason is my guess.  Intelligence is a dirty business. 

2.  Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign, but they did see him and his supporters and the easiest targets for their operations, probably due to their known history of susceptibility to propaganda via Fox News et al. 

3.  Do we really want to antagonize Russia right now?  I am not saying they should get a free pass, but they do have a lot of nukes, plus they are flying our asses into space at regular intervals since we ditched our manned space program. 

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #98 on: December 22, 2016, 07:55:27 AM »
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak.

I’m not going down that road. This is starting to sound like you want to make the fallacious “but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!” argument.

Is your position, then, that the president elect should just rely on his gut to make all of his decisions, regardless of the facts he is presented? That the media lies more often than not? That it’s more likely than not that the USIC has made a politically motivated, intentionally false statement? That it’s more likely than not that Trump is the sole voice of reason and truth in American politics right now? If your answers are yes, then there is no point in pretending that any subsequent discourse between us will be productive.

Edit - and ditto what Gin1984 said.

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.
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #99 on: December 22, 2016, 08:13:05 AM »

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.

I blame the firewall.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM