| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 11 2016 05:47 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Seems like Russia went with the "hey let's just try to get that pro-Russian oligarch into power" strategy again, and it actually worked.. in the United States. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Is that the point? If not, then what's the point here? (this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing) Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:13 Incognoto wrote: People will jump on to literally anything these can these days to get a scandal up and going. The worst part is that it's hard to find unbiased information about it. No one knows which news sources are credible anymore. These days? The republicans have been grasping at straws to throw scandals at Hillary for the past decade. Also we do know credible sources still. Unsurprisingly, sources that were reliable before are still reliable, such as NPR, NYT, WAPO, HUFPO, etc... Sources that were never reliable, such as fox and breitbart, are still not reliable. Also when just about every credible source picks up on this, and given that we have had strong suspicions for months now about russia intervening in the election, it's hardly jumping on anything to get a scandal up and going. When multiple organizations are in agreement that russia interfered with our election, that's not jumping on anything to get a scandal up and going. I would think more people would be appalled by this, but it seems many people want to ignore it because they either like russia or like trump and this being true is obviously bad for both narratives. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:21 hunts wrote: These days? The republicans have been grasping at straws to throw scandals at Hillary for the past decade. Also we do know credible sources still. Unsurprisingly, sources that were reliable before are still reliable, such as NPR, NYT, WAPO, HUFPO, etc... Sources that were never reliable, such as fox and breitbart, are still not reliable. Does that justify anything though? I don't even know if I should be mad about Russia's hacking or not because I don't know how accurate or serious this issue is that. All I'm doing is lamenting the misinformation. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:24 Incognoto wrote: Does that justify anything though? I don't even know if I should be mad about Russia's hacking or not because I don't know how accurate or serious this issue is that. All I'm doing is lamenting the misinformation. What misinformation? Every credible news source is picking this up, and multiple different intelligence organizations seem to have come to the same conclusion, what misinformation? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:24 Incognoto wrote: Does that justify anything though? I don't even know if I should be mad about Russia's hacking or not because I don't know how accurate or serious this issue is that. All I'm doing is lamenting the misinformation. it's pretty simple really: a) you should be mad about it (to a moderate degree). b) you should encourage your nation's counter-intelligence service to take countermeasures, and issue reports on the topic. if you want more high quality news sources, you gotta pay for them. problem is people don't wanna pay. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote: So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president. Is that the point? If not, then what's the point here? (this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing) Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? They've lost even non-Trump-supporters on the tortured logic. But to bring you up to speed, it's just the nature of the opposition to trump up charges and see if any stick. The studied apathy to "seeing through this shit" is part of the schtick; you have to first want to see through it to the truth in the first place. It's all just bitter fighters and bitter losers. The American people are left saying, "So what?" and for good reason. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote: So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president. Is that the point? If not, then what's the point here? (this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing) Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? the point I care about is the Trump is refusing to accept it and basically saying the entire intelligence community is lying. other than that I don't think it's that big of a deal. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:41 Danglars wrote: They've lost even non-Trump-supporters on the tortured logic. But to bring you up to speed, it's just the nature of the opposition to trump up charges and see if any stick. The studied apathy to "seeing through this shit" is part of the schtick; you have to first want to see through it to the truth in the first place. It's all just bitter fighters and bitter losers. The American people are left saying, "So what?" and for good reason. Trump up charges and see if any stick, kinda like benghazi, deleted emails, hacked emails, made up health problems, made up charity problems, made up uranium deal etc...? And like the post above me says. Multiple intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion that russia interfered in our election. And trump is not willing to listen to it and is accusing them of lying. That is a big problem. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote: So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president. Is that the point? If not, then what's the point here? (this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing) Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:43 hunts wrote: Trump up charges and see if any stick, kinda like benghazi, deleted emails, hacked emails, made up health problems, made up charity problems, made up uranium deal etc...? And like the post above me says. Multiple intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion that russia interfered in our election. And trump is not willing to listen to it and is accusing them of lying. That is a big problem. I see your comparisons and can't wait to hear why this is big problem compared to them. "Why won't he just listen to it" sounds like a whine and a personal problem. How does it compare to early morning tweeting about porn videos in your book? Or any number of other Trump big problems tweets that got him elected? | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote: So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president. Is that the point? If not, then what's the point here? (this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing) Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? "Russia does something to support you". It was electoral sabotage dude. It's not something to be taken lightly. They hacked U.S. government officials and released information that they deemed relevant to their cause. They hacked republicans as well, but you didn't hear much about that because it didn't further their purpose. What if they had only released the emails of republican officials who were hacked, and not those of Hillary and the DNC? It would have changed the election results 100%. What are they doing with the information they didn't release? Could they possibly use it to blackmail U.S. politicians? Russia may no longer be an enemy of the U.S., but I would still call them a rival. What do they hope to accomplish through a Trump presidency? I would very much like to know. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:51 Danglars wrote: I see your comparisons and can't wait to hear why this is big problem compared to them. "Why won't he just listen to it" sounds like a whine and a personal problem. How does it compare to early morning tweeting about porn videos in your book? Or any number of other Trump big problems tweets that got him elected? So you see no problem with: "sir, there is evidence that russia has interfered in our election and it benefited you." "I don't believe it, I won, millions of ill eagles voted for the oposition too!" "But sir, several different intelligence agencies have independently come to the same conclusion that russia interfered." "don't care, let me go tweet something about how awesome I am." You're fine with this? You think another nation interfering with our elections is the same level as trump tweeting something dumb? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote: It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? | ||
|
Schmobutzen
Germany284 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9117 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:53 Tachion wrote: Russia may no longer be an enemy of the U.S., but I would still call them a rival. What do they hope to accomplish through a Trump presidency? I would very much like to know. Well that's easy: No more sanctions No longer supporting rebels fighting Assad No more talks of NATO expansion and building missile shields in EE Less public criticism by the US about their actions | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote: So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president. Is that the point? If not, then what's the point here? (this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing) Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/488876597/how-the-trump-campaign-weakened-the-republican-platform-on-aid-to-ukraine This is the point. Trump basically had no foreign-policy besides isolationism. He is not a foreign-policy guy. No one even pretends Trump is big on foreign-policy. But what is the one thing that Trump wants changed in the party platform? He asks for one thing, and it's basically like, the Russian issue of the year. Coincidence! Even his fumbling or bucking with the Chinese, for what purpose was that? To improve relations with Taiwan? How is that a good trade-off? This is coming from the political party that cries over Obama trying to improve relations with Cuba. But unlike Cuba, there are very serious repercussions to pissing off the Chinese, and making nice with Russia, which is the trend Trump seems to want to start. Why? Why the fuck would a U.S. President want to do any of this? It's of no benefit to us. Russia has been completely reverting to it's Soviet roots, which shouldn't be a shock, given it's ruled by a Soviet relic. This is all potentially disastrous to the world. But, oh, Trump's business has interest in Taiwan real-estate. The whole Trump family should be made to release their tax-records, and their assets be fully audited before he's allowed to become President. I think it'd be tremendous. Because everything in regards to Trump's relations with foreign powers is plainly disturbing. Given what the CIA is telling us, and the strange positions Trump has taken towards Russia, Taiwan, and China, I'm not sure how we could not demand full disclosure of every dollar or ruble Trump has touched. And I'm fucking disgusted that the GOP crowd laments our intelligence-agencies and uses Iraq as a reason to dismiss their findings. The example to take from Iraq isn't that our intelligence agencies just suck (when you want them to), the example to take from Iraq is that information can be cherry-picked and misused by the people you vote for. You blame the CIA -- try blaming yourselves for once. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote: Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote: CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Epic.LAN
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
