And expect more Russian meddling (per our intelligence apparatus).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ru...l-10485024
Quote: I just returned from Europe. Clearly in France in its election, in Germany with its pending election, in England with its pending election we are seeing duplications of what happened in our election, so the Russian strategy continues. - Dan Coats
(05-31-2017 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And expect more Russian meddling (per our intelligence apparatus).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ru...l-10485024
Quote: I just returned from Europe. Clearly in France in its election, in Germany with its pending election, in England with its pending election we are seeing duplications of what happened in our election, so the Russian strategy continues. - Dan Coats
Russian meddling is to be expected. It is what they do. Collusion, OTOH, is a horse of a different color. Gray, like smoke.
(05-31-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And expect more Russian meddling (per our intelligence apparatus).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ru...l-10485024
Quote: I just returned from Europe. Clearly in France in its election, in Germany with its pending election, in England with its pending election we are seeing duplications of what happened in our election, so the Russian strategy continues. - Dan Coats
Russian meddling is to be expected. It is what they do. Collusion, OTOH, is a horse of a different color. Gray, like smoke.
Ok.
Okey-dokey.
I just find that such a weird response - it's too be expected.
If the level of interference we have seen recently was truly to be expected, everything would be business as usual. We wouldn't see the amount of reporting we are seeing, the statements from the intelligence agencies we are seeing, the statements from western foreign governments we are seeing.
It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts.
And it is exactly because it is not business as usual for western democracies that countries with upcoming elections should be wary and on their toes - and basically act as the French did.
(05-31-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And expect more Russian meddling (per our intelligence apparatus).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ru...l-10485024
Russian meddling is to be expected. It is what they do. Collusion, OTOH, is a horse of a different color. Gray, like smoke.
Ok.
Okey-dokey.
I just find that such a weird response - it's too be expected.
If the level of interference we have seen recently was truly to be expected, everything would be business as usual. We wouldn't see the amount of reporting we are seeing, the statements from the intelligence agencies we are seeing, the statements from western foreign governments we are seeing.
It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts.
And it is exactly because it is not business as usual for western democracies that countries with upcoming elections should be wary and on their toes - and basically act as the French did.
I think it's fair to say that things are different under Putin. If nothing else, things are more overt.
Russia: The Bailiff debate of the Quad.
(05-31-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And expect more Russian meddling (per our intelligence apparatus).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ru...l-10485024
Russian meddling is to be expected. It is what they do. Collusion, OTOH, is a horse of a different color. Gray, like smoke.
Ok.
Okey-dokey.
I just find that such a weird response - it's too be expected.
If the level of interference we have seen recently was truly to be expected, everything would be business as usual. We wouldn't see the amount of reporting we are seeing, the statements from the intelligence agencies we are seeing, the statements from western foreign governments we are seeing.
It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts.
And it is exactly because it is not business as usual for western democracies that countries with upcoming elections should be wary and on their toes - and basically act as the French did.
It's fair to say the Russians will do whatever they think in the best interests of Russia, and that includes meddling in elections when possible.
The meddling is generally without effect, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
the only reason some think it had an effect in USA 2016 is that there was a big upset.
(upsets happen. remember our regional 2004?)
but meddling plus upset do not equal collusion. that take s a leap of faith. A faith that some are way too willing to embrace, IMO.
(05-31-2017 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Russian meddling is to be expected. It is what they do. Collusion, OTOH, is a horse of a different color. Gray, like smoke.
Ok.
Okey-dokey.
I just find that such a weird response - it's too be expected.
If the level of interference we have seen recently was truly to be expected, everything would be business as usual. We wouldn't see the amount of reporting we are seeing, the statements from the intelligence agencies we are seeing, the statements from western foreign governments we are seeing.
It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts.
And it is exactly because it is not business as usual for western democracies that countries with upcoming elections should be wary and on their toes - and basically act as the French did.
It's fair to say the Russians will do whatever they think in the best interests of Russia, and that includes meddling in elections when possible.
The meddling is generally without effect, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
the only reason some think it had an effect in USA 2016 is that there was a big upset.
(upsets happen. remember our regional 2004?)
but meddling plus upset do not equal collusion. that take s a leap of faith. A faith that some are way too willing to embrace, IMO.
OO - when did I mention collusion in this post?
I was strictly posting about the fact that we will likely see overt actions taken to try and influence the British election again, and that they will likely mirror similar methods (hacked/leaked emails, propagation of fake news, fake social media support/attacks, etc.).
Not sure what you're quibbling about with that post.
(06-01-2017 02:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok.
Okey-dokey.
I just find that such a weird response - it's too be expected.
If the level of interference we have seen recently was truly to be expected, everything would be business as usual. We wouldn't see the amount of reporting we are seeing, the statements from the intelligence agencies we are seeing, the statements from western foreign governments we are seeing.
It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts.
And it is exactly because it is not business as usual for western democracies that countries with upcoming elections should be wary and on their toes - and basically act as the French did.
It's fair to say the Russians will do whatever they think in the best interests of Russia, and that includes meddling in elections when possible.
The meddling is generally without effect, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
the only reason some think it had an effect in USA 2016 is that there was a big upset.
(upsets happen. remember our regional 2004?)
but meddling plus upset do not equal collusion. that take s a leap of faith. A faith that some are way too willing to embrace, IMO.
OO - when did I mention collusion in this post?
I was strictly posting about the fact that we will likely see overt actions taken to try and influence the British election again, and that they will likely mirror similar methods (hacked/leaked emails, propagation of fake news, fake social media support/attacks, etc.).
Not sure what you're quibbling about with that post.
This:
"It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are
actually seeing results from their efforts."
I guess I should have been more precise. Electronic interference is the
new normal. Has to be new since it was not possible 30 years ago. But now that they can, they will. And of course the level of intensity will be rising - it is new, and they are getting better with practice.
But the main thing that got to me was the part about "seeing results"? What results could you mean other than electing Trump/defeating Hillary? And that starts the whole chain of illogic that culminates in the need to investigate collusion.
Are the French investigating collusion between LePen and Putin? No, because there was not an upset. We had an upset. People want some reason for it that will make it all make sense. What made the lame horse outrun Secretariat?
(06-01-2017 07:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2017 02:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Okey-dokey.
I just find that such a weird response - it's too be expected.
If the level of interference we have seen recently was truly to be expected, everything would be business as usual. We wouldn't see the amount of reporting we are seeing, the statements from the intelligence agencies we are seeing, the statements from western foreign governments we are seeing.
It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts.
And it is exactly because it is not business as usual for western democracies that countries with upcoming elections should be wary and on their toes - and basically act as the French did.
It's fair to say the Russians will do whatever they think in the best interests of Russia, and that includes meddling in elections when possible.
The meddling is generally without effect, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
the only reason some think it had an effect in USA 2016 is that there was a big upset.
(upsets happen. remember our regional 2004?)
but meddling plus upset do not equal collusion. that take s a leap of faith. A faith that some are way too willing to embrace, IMO.
OO - when did I mention collusion in this post?
I was strictly posting about the fact that we will likely see overt actions taken to try and influence the British election again, and that they will likely mirror similar methods (hacked/leaked emails, propagation of fake news, fake social media support/attacks, etc.).
Not sure what you're quibbling about with that post.
This:
"It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts."
I guess I should have been more precise. Electronic interference is the new normal. Has to be new since it was not possible 30 years ago. But now that they can, they will. And of course the level of intensity will be rising - it is new, and they are getting better with practice.
But the main thing that got to me was the part about "seeing results"? What results could you mean other than electing Trump/defeating Hillary? And that starts the whole chain of illogic that culminates in the need to investigate collusion.
Are the French investigating collusion between LePen and Putin? No, because there was not an upset. We had an upset. People want some reason for it that will make it all make sense. What made the lame horse outrun Secretariat?
OO - you're making some pretty broad jumps for this post, in particular. You're reading into that word, results, and pulling out what you want, as if I am attacking you. My comment on results was simply that their actions were overt, hacked emails were being released for public consumption, and the public paid attention to them.
I have no idea how that phrase "seeing results" = implication of collusion. Those two do not, at all, have to be correlated.
In fact, if at the end of the investigation in the US there is proof that there was no collusion, but Russia was behind the hacking and dissemination of information, my comment will still stand that Russia was able to influence the election. They still released the emails and that was a significant talking point during the election. And as I stated in another thread, affecting the election, or as I said above, seeing results, does not suggest that this was THE thing that swung the election, just that it was a part of it.
Your entire train of thought is flawed on this particular thread, and your central point (differentiating how the elections ended and potential role of La Pen) belongs in the other thread, where that conversation has been going on.
I was simply pointing out we will likely see similar actions in England, based on an article I read. I did not bring up collusion or the investigation in the US about the Trump campaign. I have no idea why there was push back about that, when it wasn't a topic I brought up.
And I will still push back that this is business as usual and to be expected - when was the last time you remember such overt intrusion into western governance or elections? As crappy as it is to say, that's generally something the west has done to developing or underdeveloped nations.
(06-01-2017 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2017 07:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2017 02:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I just find that such a weird response - it's too be expected.
If the level of interference we have seen recently was truly to be expected, everything would be business as usual. We wouldn't see the amount of reporting we are seeing, the statements from the intelligence agencies we are seeing, the statements from western foreign governments we are seeing.
It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts.
And it is exactly because it is not business as usual for western democracies that countries with upcoming elections should be wary and on their toes - and basically act as the French did.
It's fair to say the Russians will do whatever they think in the best interests of Russia, and that includes meddling in elections when possible.
The meddling is generally without effect, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
the only reason some think it had an effect in USA 2016 is that there was a big upset.
(upsets happen. remember our regional 2004?)
but meddling plus upset do not equal collusion. that take s a leap of faith. A faith that some are way too willing to embrace, IMO.
OO - when did I mention collusion in this post?
I was strictly posting about the fact that we will likely see overt actions taken to try and influence the British election again, and that they will likely mirror similar methods (hacked/leaked emails, propagation of fake news, fake social media support/attacks, etc.).
Not sure what you're quibbling about with that post.
This:
"It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts."
I guess I should have been more precise. Electronic interference is the new normal. Has to be new since it was not possible 30 years ago. But now that they can, they will. And of course the level of intensity will be rising - it is new, and they are getting better with practice.
But the main thing that got to me was the part about "seeing results"? What results could you mean other than electing Trump/defeating Hillary? And that starts the whole chain of illogic that culminates in the need to investigate collusion.
Are the French investigating collusion between LePen and Putin? No, because there was not an upset. We had an upset. People want some reason for it that will make it all make sense. What made the lame horse outrun Secretariat?
OO - you're making some pretty broad jumps for this post, in particular. You're reading into that word, results, and pulling out what you want, as if I am attacking you. My comment on results was simply that their actions were overt, hacked emails were being released for public consumption, and the public paid attention to them.
I have no idea how that phrase "seeing results" = implication of collusion. Those two do not, at all, have to be correlated.
In fact, if at the end of the investigation in the US there is proof that there was no collusion, but Russia was behind the hacking and dissemination of information, my comment will still stand that Russia was able to influence the election. They still released the emails and that was a significant talking point during the election. And as I stated in another thread, affecting the election, or as I said above, seeing results, does not suggest that this was THE thing that swung the election, just that it was a part of it.
Your entire train of thought is flawed on this particular thread, and your central point (differentiating how the elections ended and potential role of La Pen) belongs in the other thread, where that conversation has been going on.
I was simply pointing out we will likely see similar actions in England, based on an article I read. I did not bring up collusion or the investigation in the US about the Trump campaign. I have no idea why there was push back about that, when it wasn't a topic I brought up.
And I will still push back that this is business as usual and to be expected - when was the last time you remember such overt intrusion into western governance or elections? As crappy as it is to say, that's generally something the west has done to developing or underdeveloped nations.
"My comment on results was simply that their actions were overt, hacked emails were being released for public consumption, and the public paid attention to them."
and why did Russia do this? That is the basis for the collusion witch hunt. that is why every handshake with a Russian is front page news, and suspicious. why is a business meeting with a russian reason for subpeona? Well, the russians hacked, and they must have had a reason.
i quite agree that the email publications had little effect on the election. I think the turning point was the "deplorables" speech. JMHO. Hillary did herself in by accidentally telling us what she really thought of us. But the belief that the Russians did this, and had a reason to do this, is the foundation for the collusion theory, as the next question is always "Why"?
Why are we investigating if not for collusion? it is a commonly accepted (even if unproven) given that Russia meddled. Might as well investigate why it will be rainy in Baton Rouge.
I think the chain has a lot of weak links. That Russia meddled in not one of them. That the Trump campaign asked them to IS one of them.
(06-01-2017 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2017 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2017 07:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2017 02:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2017 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It's fair to say the Russians will do whatever they think in the best interests of Russia, and that includes meddling in elections when possible.
The meddling is generally without effect, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
the only reason some think it had an effect in USA 2016 is that there was a big upset.
(upsets happen. remember our regional 2004?)
but meddling plus upset do not equal collusion. that take s a leap of faith. A faith that some are way too willing to embrace, IMO.
OO - when did I mention collusion in this post?
I was strictly posting about the fact that we will likely see overt actions taken to try and influence the British election again, and that they will likely mirror similar methods (hacked/leaked emails, propagation of fake news, fake social media support/attacks, etc.).
Not sure what you're quibbling about with that post.
This:
"It's almost as if something has changed. This is not business as usual - at a minimum the amount of effort and manpower being put forth by some foreign government, to undermine western elections, has increased significantly, to the point where they are actually seeing results from their efforts."
I guess I should have been more precise. Electronic interference is the new normal. Has to be new since it was not possible 30 years ago. But now that they can, they will. And of course the level of intensity will be rising - it is new, and they are getting better with practice.
But the main thing that got to me was the part about "seeing results"? What results could you mean other than electing Trump/defeating Hillary? And that starts the whole chain of illogic that culminates in the need to investigate collusion.
Are the French investigating collusion between LePen and Putin? No, because there was not an upset. We had an upset. People want some reason for it that will make it all make sense. What made the lame horse outrun Secretariat?
OO - you're making some pretty broad jumps for this post, in particular. You're reading into that word, results, and pulling out what you want, as if I am attacking you. My comment on results was simply that their actions were overt, hacked emails were being released for public consumption, and the public paid attention to them.
I have no idea how that phrase "seeing results" = implication of collusion. Those two do not, at all, have to be correlated.
In fact, if at the end of the investigation in the US there is proof that there was no collusion, but Russia was behind the hacking and dissemination of information, my comment will still stand that Russia was able to influence the election. They still released the emails and that was a significant talking point during the election. And as I stated in another thread, affecting the election, or as I said above, seeing results, does not suggest that this was THE thing that swung the election, just that it was a part of it.
Your entire train of thought is flawed on this particular thread, and your central point (differentiating how the elections ended and potential role of La Pen) belongs in the other thread, where that conversation has been going on.
I was simply pointing out we will likely see similar actions in England, based on an article I read. I did not bring up collusion or the investigation in the US about the Trump campaign. I have no idea why there was push back about that, when it wasn't a topic I brought up.
And I will still push back that this is business as usual and to be expected - when was the last time you remember such overt intrusion into western governance or elections? As crappy as it is to say, that's generally something the west has done to developing or underdeveloped nations.
"My comment on results was simply that their actions were overt, hacked emails were being released for public consumption, and the public paid attention to them."
and why did Russia do this? That is the basis for the collusion witch hunt. that is why every handshake with a Russian is front page news, and suspicious. why is a business meeting with a russian reason for subpeona? Well, the russians hacked, and they must have had a reason.
i quite agree that the email publications had little effect on the election. I think the turning point was the "deplorables" speech. JMHO. Hillary did herself in by accidentally telling us what she really thought of us. But the belief that the Russians did this, and had a reason to do this, is the foundation for the collusion theory, as the next question is always "Why"?
Why are we investigating if not for collusion? it is a commonly accepted (even if unproven) given that Russia meddled. Might as well investigate why it will be rainy in Baton Rouge.
I think the chain has a lot of weak links. That Russia meddled in not one of them. That the Trump campaign asked them to IS one of them.
Again - what in the heck are you arguing with me for?
I'm not trying to go down this road on this thread.
You're literally trying to argue about a point I am actively trying to avoid in this thread because it isn't germane to the discussion at the moment.
Lad, without collusion, what's the story here?
That Russia tried to hack our elections? No news there. Russia tries to hack everything of ours that they can. So does China. So do we to theirs. That's what intelligence services do. That's why Hillary's placing of classified material insecure server was a problem.
If they hacked Podesta's emails (and it is no sure thing that they did), what do you think are the chances that they hacked Hillary's server? The two ARE inexorably related, because you can't complain about the one without acknowledging the likelihood of the other.
They're also different. One impacts national security. The other doesn't.
(06-01-2017 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Lad, without collusion, what's the story here?
That Russia tried to hack our elections? No news there. Russia tries to hack everything of ours that they can. So does China. So do we to theirs. That's what intelligence services do. That's why Hillary's placing of classified material insecure server was a problem.
If they hacked Podesta's emails (and it is no sure thing that they did), what do you think are the chances that they hacked Hillary's server? The two ARE inexorably related, because you can't complain about the one without acknowledging the likelihood of the other.
They're also different. One impacts national security. The other doesn't.
The story: overt influence attempts in both French and American elections, with another major western election on the horizon (England).
Please tell me the last time two of the biggest western democracies, in the same 1-yr period, were overtly targeted by the same, sovereign nation.
edit: HOLD UP. Regardless of the road you're going down. Answer me this - since this is so normal, shouldn't we make sure EVERYONE is aware of how normal this is, by pointing out that ahead of the next major western election, that people should be aware of these attempts so they can be prepared?
That was the point of bringing it up. Why try and attack that?
Russia is hacking everything of ours that they can, every day. So is China. So are we doing to them. If that's your point, Lad, then fine, no argument here.
The more interesting question is how do we respond. It seems that we have three alternatives:
1) Ignore the threat, and piss and moan when it happens,
2) Nuke Moscow, or
3) Recognize the threat and take all possible steps to prevent/minimize damage.
Podesta and Hillary chose 1). I choose 3). What about you?
(06-01-2017 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Russia is hacking everything of ours that they can, every day. So is China. So are we doing to them. If that's your point, Lad, then fine, no argument here.
The more interesting question is how do we respond. It seems that we have three alternatives:
1) Ignore the threat, and piss and moan when it happens,
2) Nuke Moscow, or
3) Recognize the threat and take all possible steps to prevent/minimize damage.
Podesta and Hillary chose 1). I choose 3). What about you?
See my edit to the previous post.
Your non-sequitur counterarguments about HRC and Podesta to EVERYTHING Russian hacking related are getting tired. ESPECIALLY when they are in response to a post that was addressing #3 of your list. My post was meant to broach the subject of Russia meddling, which would theoretically make people more aware of the acts and therefore more prepared to deal with them when making their choices at the voting booth.
I don't know why you have an issue with #3.