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.
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
The president-elect has attended only a handful of intelligence briefings in the past month, and says it's no big deal— but Donald Trump and future White House Chief Strategist Steven Bannon's far-right-wing media arm once criticized President Obama for the same.
Trump opined on Twitter (stated as "Fact") in September 2014 that Obama "does not read his intelligence briefings..." and mocked the president as "Too busy I guess!"
Not only was Trump's claim without merit, it was based on a dubious report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute — which was co-founded by Bannon.
The GAI report claimed that Obama had only attended 42 percent of his briefings between Jan. 20, 2009 and Sept. 29, 2014, pulling its data from the president's public schedule as reported by WhiteHouse.gov and Politico.
The president-elect also shared a Washington Post op-ed written by former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen that used the GAI's report's data and questioned Obama's priorities.
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
It might be worth mentioning that the people most interested in pursuing this Russia matter just happen to be disproportionately interventionist in sentiment in general. John Rambo McCain for example had some very strong words for Russia here.
It just simply hasn't been the same after Iraq though. False flag wars just aren't as easy to convince the public of as they used to be.
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
I probably stated it poorly; part of the problem with stuff like this. the connection seems tighter than the way you're reading it (at least from what it sounds like how you're reading what I said)
I'm pretty sure Legal could explain it better.
and of course, not knowing what that "something" is. fear is often scarier when it's an unknown rather than a known.
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
I probably stated it poorly; part of the problem with stuff like this. the connection seems tighter than the way you're reading it (at least from what it sounds like how you're reading what I said)
I'm pretty sure Legal could explain it better.
and of course, not knowing what that "something" is. fear is often scarier when it's an unknown rather than a known.
Sounds more like a phobia, and McCarthyism becoming a better fit than a refutation of it's McCarthyism likeness.
That said, I have my own concerns, but they aren't partisan, they apply equally to questionable relationships on the left as well. It has more to do with the incestuous nature of relationships of power than some myopic view of political interference.
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
I probably stated it poorly; part of the problem with stuff like this. the connection seems tighter than the way you're reading it (at least from what it sounds like how you're reading what I said)
I'm pretty sure Legal could explain it better.
and of course, not knowing what that "something" is. fear is often scarier when it's an unknown rather than a known.
I assume what you're trying to say is that the worrying connection could be quid pro quo. A tit for tat. You try and sabotage Clinton and the DNC with private information being released into the public sphere and I'll scratch your back when I'm in office. I mean, that's a high bar you set to prove and so far it seems like you're way underwater at this point. Your biggest gotcha is a play on the fallacy of association (policies just so happen to benefit Russia...but they also benefit the US lmao (e.g. lift sanctions, reduce/eliminate NATO, closer trading ties...or would you admonish Jefferson in the same vein for wanting to be friends and trading partners with all nations too?)). Maybe come back when you have some proof instead of wild accusations.
Regardless none of this has any worrying implications about the state of our "democracy". It's just pay for play politics 101 that people are trying to levy. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other, but I really hate the fallacy of association (since I've oft been the victim of).
It's more likely that Trump just happened to be pro-Russia because in an odd reversal since the Cold War, Putin is popular among some factions of the right for a few well-executed ventures abroad (most notably in Syria, where Obama dallied back and forth with his red line and gave weapons to terrorists while Putin's rather inexpensive involvement quickly gave results). Trump the populist taps into that "strong leader" sentiment and says something about how Putin is doing what strong leaders do. A compliment is given in return, and it explodes into a rather global matter. Trump, who is deep in the social mediaverse and easily influenced by compliments, seems to be pushed towards a position where he's taking an explicitly more pro-Russian stance. He also turns out to be a good conduit for spreading the word about all the things that piss people off about Clinton, and man are the emails good for stoking sentiment like that (which is partially deserved). Sort of an implicit alliance of similar goals and at least compatible viewpoints on various issues. I don't see any evidence or indication of explicit Russia ties; the only things people have really brought up is that some dude was on some Ukrainian leader's payroll for EU-related lobbying.
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
I probably stated it poorly; part of the problem with stuff like this. the connection seems tighter than the way you're reading it (at least from what it sounds like how you're reading what I said)
I'm pretty sure Legal could explain it better.
and of course, not knowing what that "something" is. fear is often scarier when it's an unknown rather than a known.
Sounds more like a phobia, and McCarthyism becoming a better fit than a refutation of it's McCarthyism likeness.
That said, I have my own concerns, but they aren't partisan, they apply equally to questionable relationships on the left as well. It has more to do with the incestuous nature of relationships of power than some myopic view of political interference.
Russophobia as it was used here was little more than a deflection. It was a way to try to avoid talking about the contents of the leaks in far too many places, and while it's certainly a failure of the democracy that leaks become a partisan issue, it's an even bigger failure of the democracy that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the two major party nominees.
"Look at this stuff that Wikileaks put out."
"SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies said that Russia did it."
"Yes but look at the stuff."
"I bet your just getting paid by RT aren't ya?"
This one video from Fox News was a pretty good example, even if the debate itself is kind of too confrontational and Fox-esque. The deflection to Russia is too obvious.
(about 6 minutes in, "carrying water for the Kremlin" and "you're going to have to move your show to RT")
On December 12 2016 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Certainly feels like people are more worried about the results of the election than they are about governments meddling in other countries elections.
Or maybe they've been raging against the US doing it dozens of times and this was the retribution they've been warning of? Of course I've heard none of the people freaking out about the meddling say they are outraged and seriously concerned when the US does it.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
I probably stated it poorly; part of the problem with stuff like this. the connection seems tighter than the way you're reading it (at least from what it sounds like how you're reading what I said)
I'm pretty sure Legal could explain it better.
and of course, not knowing what that "something" is. fear is often scarier when it's an unknown rather than a known.
Sounds more like a phobia, and McCarthyism becoming a better fit than a refutation of it's McCarthyism likeness.
That said, I have my own concerns, but they aren't partisan, they apply equally to questionable relationships on the left as well. It has more to do with the incestuous nature of relationships of power than some myopic view of political interference.
phobia isn't really apt. phobia is an unjustified/irrational fear. this is more like an inadequately, but potentially justified fear; depending on the degree of fear/concern. but I don't think we're communicating the point well here; so I don't think I'm helping you understand anything.
wegandi -> your points don't really seem that relevant to what I was trying to convey; I think you misunderstood what it was all about. and some of them are just kinda wrong. so not really worth responding to either way. nothing to be gained.
Well, I'm sure that they hold those views, but they never take them to their conclusion. The CIA should have never existed in the first place and the OSS should have been the end of it when the war was finished. The NSA and CIA have done far more harm to our country than any good and all this latest hubbaloo is like the new McCarthyism where if you have any views that happen to coincide with the Ruskies then you're suspect. Honestly, I'm pretty surprised how in the last couple years the Democrats have become this rabid anti-Ruskie party. It probably has more to do though as you said, clinging to anything to hit Trump over the head with than any real fundamental belief. It's been almost 30 years and people still can't get past the Cold War animosity. Lifting sanctions against Russia (just like Cuba, Iran, and everyone else) is the only sensible option available.
republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
I probably stated it poorly; part of the problem with stuff like this. the connection seems tighter than the way you're reading it (at least from what it sounds like how you're reading what I said)
I'm pretty sure Legal could explain it better.
and of course, not knowing what that "something" is. fear is often scarier when it's an unknown rather than a known.
Sounds more like a phobia, and McCarthyism becoming a better fit than a refutation of it's McCarthyism likeness.
That said, I have my own concerns, but they aren't partisan, they apply equally to questionable relationships on the left as well. It has more to do with the incestuous nature of relationships of power than some myopic view of political interference.
Russophobia as it was used here was little more than a deflection. It was a way to try to avoid talking about the contents of the leaks in far too many places, and while it's certainly a failure of the democracy that leaks become a partisan issue, it's an even bigger failure of the democracy that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the two major party nominees.
"Look at this stuff that Wikileaks put out."
"SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies said that Russia did it."
"Yes but look at the stuff."
"I bet your just getting paid by RT aren't ya?"
This one video from Fox News was a pretty good example, even if the debate itself is kind of too confrontational and Fox-esque. The deflection to Russia is too obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
(about 6 minutes in, "carrying water for the Kremlin" and "you're going to have to move your show to RT")
do they choose the most incompetent democrats they can find or what?
On December 12 2016 07:51 zlefin wrote: [quote] republicans are still more anti-russian than dems on average. it's only when it become more of an election related issue that you saw more talk otherwise; and only because there was a potential vulnerability to exploit. For the reasonable concerned people; the problem is not happening to have a couple views coinciding with the russian; but a pattern that's indicative of something (what that something is is unclear). it doesn't really seem anything like the mccarthyism to me. Seems far tamer than that.
Curious what people think that "something" actually is?
It's not McCarthyism yet, but it's getting closer by the day. Also a bit reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.
I don't know what most people think; I haven't seen any polls or data on a distribution of what people think that something is. What i've read online is not representative, and mostly comes from here. or were you looking for my opinion?
Yours or anyone who think's it's indicative of "something"
I don't know; I can only make some plausible guesses; though guessing with limited data is generally a poor source of information. but since you asked: something could be he has friends/business partners/high-level employees who have connections with Russian oligarchs.
It's unlikely anyone worth billions/running for president wouldn't. What's the concern?
I probably stated it poorly; part of the problem with stuff like this. the connection seems tighter than the way you're reading it (at least from what it sounds like how you're reading what I said)
I'm pretty sure Legal could explain it better.
and of course, not knowing what that "something" is. fear is often scarier when it's an unknown rather than a known.
Sounds more like a phobia, and McCarthyism becoming a better fit than a refutation of it's McCarthyism likeness.
That said, I have my own concerns, but they aren't partisan, they apply equally to questionable relationships on the left as well. It has more to do with the incestuous nature of relationships of power than some myopic view of political interference.
Russophobia as it was used here was little more than a deflection. It was a way to try to avoid talking about the contents of the leaks in far too many places, and while it's certainly a failure of the democracy that leaks become a partisan issue, it's an even bigger failure of the democracy that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the two major party nominees.
"Look at this stuff that Wikileaks put out."
"SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies said that Russia did it."
"Yes but look at the stuff."
"I bet your just getting paid by RT aren't ya?"
This one video from Fox News was a pretty good example, even if the debate itself is kind of too confrontational and Fox-esque. The deflection to Russia is too obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
(about 6 minutes in, "carrying water for the Kremlin" and "you're going to have to move your show to RT")
do they choose the most incompetent democrats they can find or what?
I only wish that Schiff were "the most incompetent Democrat you could find." He's quite vanilla in that regard. It's just that too many Democrats took after Clinton and decided to have their heads up their own ass on the Russia issue.
But that was just a politically driven conclusion.
President-elect Donald Trump is doubling down on his repudiation of the intelligence agencies he will soon lead, telling Time magazine he still believes the unified U.S. government assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the presidential election was not only wrong, but politicized.
"I don't believe it. I don't believe they interfered," Trump told Time in an interview for the current issue, which names him "person of the year." Asked if he thought the conclusion of America's spies was politically driven, Trump said, "I think so." He did not elaborate.
Graham is being ridiculous here, especially towards the end where he goes something along the lines of "Russia is now breaking apart the EU". Yeah, okey. I'm pretty sure we're entirely responsible for that ourselves. We don't need help in breaking apart at all. Even if Russia is funding right-wing groups that want to break the EU apart, it is basically just wasted money. Besides that, I read in an interview with one of the peeps who left Geert Wilders' party that they received the most money from the US (through corporations). So maybe the US is also trying to break apart the EU? All that is just as ridiculous as the suggestion that Russia was responsible for Brexit.
Wasn't the suggestion that there was a problem with the machine votes dismissed by looking at the stats in those regions from previous years and finding a more-or-less match in terms of discrepancy with regards to non-machine vote regions?
While I agree that it's wrong to blame Russia for these results, that comparison is really stretching it. One is done as a matter of government policy and applies pressure in a single direction, the other is done at private level without a unified cause. You'll often find US groups funding both pro and anti civil liberties causes in the same country.
Oh yeah, I probably should have put some sort of sarcastic disclaimer on that one. Heh.
I take that last statement back. No disclaimers needed. I'm going to choose to believe Putin on this one and say that American NGOs are indeed funding political groups abroad as the result of some sort of direct communication with the US government.
It's kind of funny how the American government admitting that the Russians are hacking them at every turn is making everything that Putin is saying about this sort of stuff more credible from where I'm standing.
Coming from a nation where people are actively taught to understand the intelligence apparatus and its mode of operation, the biggest surprise to me has been simply how unaware Americans (and other Westerners to be fair) are of what their own intelligence agencies do. The fact that Snowden was a shocking revelation is a huge head-scratcher to me, for example.
Snowden was more of an opportunity to bring existing resentment up to the surface, USA overreach in European affairs etc.. Most people probably are aware that every sizable nation has a very active intelligence branch.
What is the claim about Russia hacking the election.What did their hack achieve and in what states? I have not seen anywhere go into detail.Surely noone is claiming they hacked Michigan since that was 100% paper ballots?
On December 12 2016 10:58 Nyxisto wrote: Snowden was more of an opportunity to bring existing resentment up to the surface, USA overreach in European affairs etc.. Most people probably are aware that every sizable nation has a very active intelligence branch.
The NSA saw a nosedive in its approval among the general population and the mathematical/computational/linguistic recruiting pool in the wake of Snowden. As much as you might believe some of this stuff to be obvious, to far too many people it wasn't something that they even could have suspected.
EPT
