(02-23-2018 04:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  For me, the object of the Russia probe is to figure out what happened and prevent Russia (or any other country) from interfering in the same way again.

Hasn't it been generally agreed (the multi-agency report said so) that Russia has been trying to influence our elections since the cold war? We do the same. Maybe not the same way, but we do it. I don't buy that there weren't dems and reps trying to hack the other side as well.

Also hasn't it been generally agreed that no votes were changed?

So the only interference is traditional espionage where people pretend to be one thing with one agenda and are actually something else with another... something WE do as much as any country... OR an email hack.

While certainly internet security is an issue, Clinton and the DNC WERE warned.
Plus it seems to me the best way to make an email hack ineffective is to not put any troubling information into an email.

I just don't see how you can stop people with different agendas from seeking to push their agendas and stop the others... whether it be neighbors or towns or countries or parties. It's almost impossible with countries because of jurisdiction and rules of law.

(02-23-2018 05:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 04:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  For me, the object of the Russia probe is to figure out what happened and prevent Russia (or any other country) from interfering in the same way again.

Hasn't it been generally agreed (the multi-agency report said so) that Russia has been trying to influence our elections since the cold war? We do the same. Maybe not the same way, but we do it. I don't buy that there weren't dems and reps trying to hack the other side as well.

Also hasn't it been generally agreed that no votes were changed?

So the only interference is traditional espionage where people pretend to be one thing with one agenda and are actually something else with another... something WE do as much as any country... OR an email hack.

While certainly internet security is an issue, Clinton and the DNC WERE warned.
Plus it seems to me the best way to make an email hack ineffective is to not put any troubling information into an email.

I just don't see how you can stop people with different agendas from seeking to push their agendas and stop the others... whether it be neighbors or towns or countries or parties. It's almost impossible with countries because of jurisdiction and rules of law.

Well, the original purpose of the Mueller probe was to look into collusion between Trump and Russia that materially changed the outcome of the election.

Not finding any, it turned into the Russian meddling probe (of Trump associates).

Well on its way to becoming the 'who filled out papers wrong' investigation.

Clearly, no collusion. what a stupid assumption. Nobody could give a narrative of how and when that would have come about or how it would benefit Trump to publish Hillary's yoga schedule.

Russian meddling - sure, just like there is every election year. Let's look into what the Russians are supposed to have done.

They uncovered politician's secret communiques and made them public. I can see how this would make some people mad, namely the NYT and WashPo. After all, that is THEIR job, and we don't need no stinkin' russians doing our "investigative journalism" for us. Really more of a union grievance. Make the Russians pay uniion dues and it goes away.

They bought ads extolling one candidate or another. Man that is bad, but I heard the RNC and DNC did the same thing. In any case the ads were few and many were after the election.

They spread rumors. Again, similar to the RNC and DNC.

what else did those sneaky Russians do? Whatever it was, it must be stopped, before it actually changes the mind of a real voter who might be the deciding vote in determining the future of the nation.

What a load of

(02-23-2018 04:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Not directed at me ... so of course I will respond!

(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a question. Is the objective of the "Russia" probe to see that justice is done, or simply to find some way to "get" Donald Trump? Because IMHO it's looking a lot more like the latter than the former.

For me, the object of the Russia probe is to figure out what happened and prevent Russia (or any other country) from interfering in the same way again. I think Russia picked sides this past election, but it doesn't mean they will pick the same side in the future. Let them interfere with their own elections! Beyond that, I trust the professionals in the DOJ, 99.9% of whom (perhaps higher) are honest public servants who are not and would never pursue an agenda. Whatever Mueller's team decides, I can live with, even if the conclusion is that Trump did nothing wrong.

I trust the rank and file. I don't trust the bureaucrats at the top--the Muellers, Comeys, Strzoks, and McCabes of the world. I'd say the same about any federal department from defense to you name it.

If the object of the Russian probe is to determine what happened and how to prevent it, why did it not start with the most obvious piece of evidence in the world--the hacked servers? A forensic examination of them would produce far more about what happened--and when and how--than just about any interviews. If Mueller's team somehow got those without that being disclosed, then I withdraw this comment. But I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. And no, I don't find a report by a "security consulting" firm that was essentially a captive arm of the DNC to be an appropriate starting point. Russia has been hacking us for years. We have been doing the same to them. And China, and everybody else who wants to be a player on the world stage. I think the focus should be on evaluating just what did happen, what was the impact, how it happened, and how to prevent it. I don't see how what are essentially process charges against Manafort (the "money laundering" wouldn't be money laundering but for the process violations) fits into that approach. Maybe it does, maybe there's some grand conspiracy that I haven't been privy to. But if it is, it's a doozy, for sure.

Quote:I voted against Bill Jefferson in the LA-2 election in both 2006 and 2008. Sad admission that I voted for Edwards in the 2008 Democratic primary, never would have done that if I had known he cheated on his wife.

I assume you are talking about John, not Edwin. I would never have voted for Edwards for dog catcher. I just knew he was a first class sleaze ball from the first I ever heard of him. I was so pissed off at Bush in 2004 that I considered voting for Kerry. But no way was I going to vote for any ticket that had Johnny the Ambulance Chaser on it.

(02-23-2018 05:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 04:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  For me, the object of the Russia probe is to figure out what happened and prevent Russia (or any other country) from interfering in the same way again.

Hasn't it been generally agreed (the multi-agency report said so) that Russia has been trying to influence our elections since the cold war? We do the same. Maybe not the same way, but we do it. I don't buy that there weren't dems and reps trying to hack the other side as well.

Also hasn't it been generally agreed that no votes were changed?

So the only interference is traditional espionage where people pretend to be one thing with one agenda and are actually something else with another... something WE do as much as any country... OR an email hack.

While certainly internet security is an issue, Clinton and the DNC WERE warned.
Plus it seems to me the best way to make an email hack ineffective is to not put any troubling information into an email.

I just don't see how you can stop people with different agendas from seeking to push their agendas and stop the others... whether it be neighbors or towns or countries or parties. It's almost impossible with countries because of jurisdiction and rules of law.

Has it? I haven't seen anything in the news that has pointed to Russia taking such overt measures as sending their agents to the US and actively engaging with our general populous or working from abroad overtly at the scale they did in the 2016 election. Politifact called out three specific times that Russia tried to influence elections between 1960 and 1976, and there is no evidence of them trying between 1976 and 2016 (http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina...ied-int/).

But let's just say that Russia has been doing this type of work at a similar scale for all of the past elections - they were obviously much more successful this time around and spreading propaganda and misinformation. Trump and Trump Jr. both retweeted fake news stories being pushed by @TEN_GOP, which was revealed to be a Russian account. So the investigation has been fruitful in helping us understand how Russia used social media to push out propaganda that reached millions of people, and I wonder if, without the investigation, we ever find out about these accounts.

(02-23-2018 05:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Also hasn't it been generally agreed that no votes were changed?

My understanding is that no one believes any votes were changed (i.e., the voting machines and vote counters were not hacked). I think it is impossible to say whether, and if so how many, voters either stayed home or changed their vote due to Russian meddling. Personally, I would be quite surprised if it was enough to swing MI, WI, and PA back to Clinton. But it is truly impossible to say this with any certainty.

(02-23-2018 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, the original purpose of the Mueller probe was to look into collusion between Trump and Russia that materially changed the outcome of the election.

Not finding any, it turned into the Russian meddling probe (of Trump associates).

I doubt you know the results of the Mueller investigation since it is ongoing. I am content to wait until it runs its course. I think there is enough to at least be suspicious of coordination between some Trump campaign officials and Russians.

(02-23-2018 06:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well on its way to becoming the 'who filled out papers wrong' investigation.

That isn't how I would characterize the investigation. I would go with "who lied to the FBI, and why?" or "who lied on their paperwork regarding their work for or contact with foreign governments, and why?"

(02-23-2018 06:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see how what are essentially process charges against Manafort (the "money laundering" wouldn't be money laundering but for the process violations) fits into that approach. Maybe it does, maybe there's some grand conspiracy that I haven't been privy to. But if it iOS, it's a doozy, for sure.

The money laundering was uncovered as part of the broader investigation. It fits in because Manafort and Gates appear to have been working for the pro-Russia Ukranian government, failed to tell the government that they were acting as foreign agents, and then laundered millions of dollars made doing this work, then lied about it to the FBI. And both worked for the Trump campaign (and Gates for the Trump transition team as well).

(02-23-2018 06:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 04:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I voted against Bill Jefferson in the LA-2 election in both 2006 and 2008. Sad admission that I voted for Edwards in the 2008 Democratic primary, never would have done that if I had known he cheated on his wife.

I assume you are talking about John, not Edwin. I would never have voted for Edwards for dog catcher. I just knew he was a first class sleaze ball from the first I ever heard of him. I was so pissed off at Bush in 2004 that I considered voting for Kerry. But no way was I going to vote for any ticket that had Johnny the Ambulance Chaser on it.

Yes John. I always thought he was a bit of a sleaze. But I appreciated that he announced his candidacy in New Orleans and held a few other events in New Orleans (this was still just a few years after Katrina). He had already dropped out of the race when I voted for him, but he was still on the ballot.

I'm sorry, but if all "the Russians" did was to put some provocative posts on Facebook and the like, I really don't see any basis for all the hyperbolic claims. So they spent a million dollars or so on social media. That pales into insignificance alongside what the candidates and parties spent. And if their objective was to disrupt our system, they have pretty much succeeded with all the overreaction.

I am certainly unable to see where hacking the DNC and John Podesta constitutes an "attack on our democracy." The way I see it, Hillary and her people have never taken information security seriously--witness the server issues and Lanny Davis, among others--and this time they got burned. Given that historically cavalier attitude toward security, she was probably not a qualified candidate on that basis alone.

Unfortunately, the other major candidate was a populist whose approach perfectly matched her soft underbelly. Populists historically get elected when people are pissed off and then proceed to set things back. I like what Trump did inner one. But now he is treading into issues like immigration and trade where I think he has the potential to do great harm. And thanks perhaps in part to "the Russians," the country is probably more fractured at any time since 1861.

I see a lot of ways that this could end poorly.

(02-24-2018 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but if all "the Russians" did was to put some provocative posts on Facebook and the like, I really don't see any basis for all the hyperbolic claims. So they spent a million dollars or so on social media. That pales into insignificance alongside what the candidates and parties spent. And if their objective was to disrupt our system, they have pretty much succeeded with all the overreaction.

I am certainly unable to see where hacking the DNC and John Podesta constitutes an "attack on our democracy." The way I see it, Hillary and her people have never taken information security seriously--witness the server issues and Lanny Davis, among others--and this time they got burned. Given that historically cavalier attitude toward security, she was probably not a qualified candidate on that basis alone.

Unfortunately, the other major candidate was a populist whose approach perfectly matched her soft underbelly. Populists historically get elected when people are pissed off and then proceed to set things back. I like what Trump did inner one. But now he is treading into issues like immigration and trade where I think he has the potential to do great harm. And thanks perhaps in part to "the Russians," the country is probably more fractured at any time since 1861.

I see a lot of ways that this could end poorly.

They spent millions of dollars to pretend to be American citizens to sow discord between American citizens and then eventually explicitly support one candidate and work against another. They developed Twitter accounts that got support, publicly, from the current POTUS and his children. They organized protests and counter protests that were attended by Americans who were unaware that the event was organized by a foreign power.

The trolls felt like what they were doing was such an overt attack, that they felt the need to destroy evidence of their actions. One of my favorite things from these indictments:

Quote:Defendants and their co-conspirators thereafter destroyed evidence for the purpose of impeding the investigation. On or about September 13, 2017, KAVERZINA wrote in an email to a family member: "We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues." KAVERZINA further wrote, "I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018...y-charges/

Also, why put "Russians" in quotes?

(02-24-2018 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They spent millions of dollars to pretend to be American citizens to sow discord between American citizens and then eventually explicitly support one candidate and work against another. They developed Twitter accounts that got support, publicly, from the current POTUS and his children. They organized protests and counter protests that were attended by Americans who were unaware that the event was organized by a foreign power.

I don't see any of that as an "attack on our democracy." That's playing the game of international relations the way it has always been played. And we play the same way with them and other countries.

Quote:The trolls felt like what they were doing was such an overt attack, that they felt the need to destroy evidence of their actions.

You mean, like Hillary and BleachBit?

Quote:Also, why put "Russians" in quotes?

I think you know exactly why.

(02-24-2018 09:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They spent millions of dollars to pretend to be American citizens to sow discord between American citizens and then eventually explicitly support one candidate and work against another. They developed Twitter accounts that got support, publicly, from the current POTUS and his children. They organized protests and counter protests that were attended by Americans who were unaware that the event was organized by a foreign power.

I don't see any of that as an "attack on our democracy." That's playing the game of international relations the way it has always been played. And we play the same way with them and other countries.

Quote:The trolls felt like what they were doing was such an overt attack, that they felt the need to destroy evidence of their actions.

You mean, like Hillary and BleachBit?

Quote:Also, why put "Russians" in quotes?

I think you know exactly why.

I'm assuming you put "Russians" in quotes because you don't actually believe Russia was behind the hacking, trolling, etc. Why else would you put it in quotes?

And I've posted this before, and responded to Ham about this, but the overt nature of the meddling during this election was different than anything in the past. Can you point to a similar campaign that was waged against us before?

(02-24-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you put "Russians" in quotes because you don't actually believe Russia was behind the hacking, trolling, etc. Why else would you put it in quotes?

I believe that somebody in Russia did something. But to conflate that into some mythical frontal assault on "our democracy" by "the Russians" strikes me as a little bit beyond the pale.

Quote:And I've posted this before, and responded to Ham about this, but the overt nature of the meddling during this election was different than anything in the past. Can you point to a similar campaign that was waged against us before?

They fought the Cold War against us for 40 years, until Reagan ratcheted the price up higher than their economy could support. They didn't use Facebook back then because it didn't exist. Instead they used soldiers and ships and airplanes. I'd say that pretty much dwarfed this.

(02-24-2018 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you put "Russians" in quotes because you don't actually believe Russia was behind the hacking, trolling, etc. Why else would you put it in quotes?

I believe that somebody in Russia did something. But to conflate that into some mythical frontal assault on "our democracy" by "the Russians" strikes me as a little bit beyond the pale.

Quote:And I've posted this before, and responded to Ham about this, but the overt nature of the meddling during this election was different than anything in the past. Can you point to a similar campaign that was waged against us before?

They fought the Cold War against us for 40 years, until Reagan ratcheted the price up higher than their economy could support. They didn't use Facebook back then because it didn't exist. Instead they used soldiers and ships and airplanes. I'd say that pretty much dwarfed this.

I don't understand your first comment - are you saying you don't believe that the Russian government organized a concerted campaign to disseminate propaganda into the US during the 2016 election to attempt to influence the outcome? If not, why not? Indictments have been handed out outlining the efforts, our intelligence agencies have indicated that the Russian government was behind such efforts, and heck, even social media companies have started exposing the Russian bot accounts.

And to your second comment - it didn't address what I asked. You addressed the Cold War and posturing by both sides. You did not address overt attempts by Russia to try and affect the outcomes of our elections.

(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  IMHO, of course.

The only relevant part of your post. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to present that as fact.

Not sure exactly what your point is here. I was directly responding to OO's comments on my opinion with further elaboration on my opinion.

If you are upset a message board discussion went off on a tangent, then I suggest you stay away from message boards... :-)

(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a question. Is the objective of the "Russia" probe to see that justice is done, or simply to find some way to "get" Donald Trump? Because IMHO it's looking a lot more like the latter than the former.

I think Republican and Trump appointee Rothenstein stated it pretty clearly in his original appointment:

(b)The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii)any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c ) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...atters.pdf

So far, it seems everything falls under that.

BTW, here's an article from the time with both Dems and Republicans praising the appointment of Mueller, a Republican.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...101810310/

Jason Chaffetz's words: ""Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted."

(02-24-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you put "Russians" in quotes because you don't actually believe Russia was behind the hacking, trolling, etc. Why else would you put it in quotes?

I believe that somebody in Russia did something. But to conflate that into some mythical frontal assault on "our democracy" by "the Russians" strikes me as a little bit beyond the pale.

Quote:And I've posted this before, and responded to Ham about this, but the overt nature of the meddling during this election was different than anything in the past. Can you point to a similar campaign that was waged against us before?

They fought the Cold War against us for 40 years, until Reagan ratcheted the price up higher than their economy could support. They didn't use Facebook back then because it didn't exist. Instead they used soldiers and ships and airplanes. I'd say that pretty much dwarfed this.

I don't understand your first comment - are you saying you don't believe that the Russian government organized a concerted campaign to disseminate propaganda into the US during the 2016 election to attempt to influence the outcome? If not, why not? Indictments have been handed out outlining the efforts, our intelligence agencies have indicated that the Russian government was behind such efforts, and heck, even social media companies have started exposing the Russian bot accounts.

No I’m saying that I’m absolutely certain that the Russians did, and can and will do, everything in their power to try to disrupt us as much as possible. And if you think that indicting Manafort for failing to file a disclosure form and knock-on effects of that failure is addressing the problem, then we have a very different view of the world. If we want to accomplish anything, then the investigation should have been who did what to influence our election, and how do we prevent that. I’ve seen nothing along those lines. Instead this has turned into exactly what the Russians wanted in their wildest dreams—a he said, she said witch hunt that has exacerbated our divisions. A real investigation starts one place that they have never, so far as I can tell, been. The DNC servers that were allegedly hacked. You don’t take the word of a security firm that is basically a captive of the DNC. You check it out yourself. Hell, think about it, the firm doing the analysis probably screwed the pooch to let it happen, so they would be motivated to do their own CYA even if the DNC connection wasn’t strong enough to bias them. This has been from the start an “investigation” playing around the edges of circumstantial evidence instead of determining whether any crime was comited. The indictments handed down against “the Russians” over whom they are unlikely ever to get jurisdiction are a joke.

Quote:And to your second comment - it didn't address what I asked. You addressed the Cold War and posturing by both sides. You did not address overt attempts by Russia to try and affect the outcomes of our elections.

So you are saying that the Cold War was not as serious as posting stuff on social media? Really? Having served during that time and stared down Russian Kashin and Kotlin class destroyers, I beg to differ. And as far as the hacking goes, remember what the intel guys said. They didn’t have any smoking gun that it was “the Russians.” What they said is that they had a high degree of confidence (words of art in the intel community) that it was them because of the methods and rechniques used. So obviously they had used those methods and techniques many times before, possibly unknown to us average folks for reasons of national security. And I’d be willing to bet that whatever those prior occasions were rose to at least this level.

(02-24-2018 10:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  IMHO, of course.

The only relevant part of your post. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to present that as fact.

Not sure exactly what your point is here. I was directly responding to OO's comments on my opinion with further elaboration on my opinion.

If you are upset a message board discussion went off on a tangent, then I suggest you stay away from message boards... :-)

(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a question. Is the objective of the "Russia" probe to see that justice is done, or simply to find some way to "get" Donald Trump? Because IMHO it's looking a lot more like the latter than the former.

I think Republican and Trump appointee Rothenstein stated it pretty clearly in his original appointment:

(b)The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii)any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c ) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...atters.pdf

So far, it seems everything falls under that.

BTW, here's an article from the time with both Dems and Republicans praising the appointment of Mueller, a Republican.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...101810310/

Jason Chaffetz's words: ""Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted."

B-1 is the stupid one. And it is the reason this was originally called the Trump-Russia collusion probe.. Why is it now referred to as the Russian meddling probe?

We have had 13russians and zero Americans indicted for meddling with the election. Maybe that is because the actions of the Russians are legal for Americans. And certainly it is because no A,ericans colluded with the Russians to enable them to buy a minuscule amount of Facebook ads.

The investigation, as you show, was convened to investigate whether or not a stupid narrative was true. It was not comvened to investigate money laundering. Nobody has ever called it the money laundering investigation. It was not convened to check paperwork. And it was not convened to see how many people it could trip up in interviews. It was convened to see if Trump has enlisted Vlad to steal emails and publish them, on the theory that that changed the course of the election. So far, more evidence exists to convict the Big Bad Wolf of blowing down a house.

(02-24-2018 10:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you put "Russians" in quotes because you don't actually believe Russia was behind the hacking, trolling, etc. Why else would you put it in quotes?

I believe that somebody in Russia did something. But to conflate that into some mythical frontal assault on "our democracy" by "the Russians" strikes me as a little bit beyond the pale.

Quote:And I've posted this before, and responded to Ham about this, but the overt nature of the meddling during this election was different than anything in the past. Can you point to a similar campaign that was waged against us before?

They fought the Cold War against us for 40 years, until Reagan ratcheted the price up higher than their economy could support. They didn't use Facebook back then because it didn't exist. Instead they used soldiers and ships and airplanes. I'd say that pretty much dwarfed this.

I don't understand your first comment - are you saying you don't believe that the Russian government organized a concerted campaign to disseminate propaganda into the US during the 2016 election to attempt to influence the outcome? If not, why not? Indictments have been handed out outlining the efforts, our intelligence agencies have indicated that the Russian government was behind such efforts, and heck, even social media companies have started exposing the Russian bot accounts.

No I’m saying that I’m absolutely certain that the Russians did, and can and will do, everything in their power to try to disrupt us as much as possible. And if you think that indicting Manafort for failing to file a disclosure form and knock-on effects of that failure is addressing the problem, then we have a very different view of the world. If we want to accomplish anything, then the investigation should have been who did what to influence our election, and how do we prevent that. I’ve seen nothing along those lines. Instead this has turned into exactly what the Russians wanted in their wildest dreams—a he said, she said witch hunt that has exacerbated our divisions. A real investigation starts one place that they have never, so far as I can tell, been. The DNC servers that were allegedly hacked. You don’t take the word of a security firm that is basically a captive of the DNC. You check it out yourself. Hell, think about it, the firm doing the analysis probably screwed the pooch to let it happen, so they would be motivated to do their own CYA even if the DNC connection wasn’t strong enough to bias them. This has been from the start an “investigation” playing around the edges of circumstantial evidence instead of determining whether any crime was comited. The indictments handed down against “the Russians” over whom they are unlikely ever to get jurisdiction are a joke.

Quote:And to your second comment - it didn't address what I asked. You addressed the Cold War and posturing by both sides. You did not address overt attempts by Russia to try and affect the outcomes of our elections.

So you are saying that the Cold War was not as serious as posting stuff on social media? Really? Having served during that time and stared down Russian Kashin and Kotlin class destroyers, I beg to differ. And as far as the hacking goes, remember what the intel guys said. They didn’t have any smoking gun that it was “the Russians.” What they said is that they had a high degree of confidence (words of art in the intel community) that it was them because of the methods and rechniques used. So obviously they had used those methods and techniques many times before, possibly unknown to us average folks for reasons of national security. And I’d be willing to bet that whatever those prior occasions were rose to at least this level.

Not sure where I referenced Manafort nor where I suggested the Cold War was less serious. Care to point those out?

In reference to the Cold War I said that the you didn’t address my question about evidence of such overt attempts to influence our elections, which you still haven’t done. All you did was attack a position I didn’t take.

(02-22-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FTR, I do not oppose gay marriage, and did not oppose it 20 years ago. I also am fine with plural marriage, and any kind of marriage that does not involve inanimate objects or animals. I really don't care about marriage. If nobody married, that would be fine with me. If you and your special other(s) of whatever sex, or religion want make your own arrangement, fine with me. NOMB.

But my personal beliefs notwithstanding, I think you are succumbing to a stereotype when you think that so many people on the right are single issue voters and that issue is gay marriage. Just not that big a deal to most people, left or right. Well, it is a big deal to some on the left, like yourself. Seems to be a bit of a litmus test for you. You keep bringing it up like it is some sort of identifier of good people and bad, defined by their acceptance of GM.

I did not vote for Trump. But I don't give much of a damn about his sleeping with playboy models, etc. I bet you didn't care much for similar behavior from Democrats (Kennedy, Kennedy, Clinton, Weiner, Spitzer, Edwards, yada yada yada), but continued to vote your straight tickets. If not, your defections were probably not because of their lack of morals. Maybe because the were weak on guns or gay marriage. How you ever voted against a Democrat on the basis of morals? If so, who?

I think you make a mistake when you characterize the choice many religious people made in 2016. It was not so much FOR a philandering egotist, as it was AGAINST the party of pro-choice, or as they see it, murdering children. Of course, there was much more contributing to that upset - a desire for real change, a hope that a change in leadership would bring about real change in America. Even you must acknowledge that Hillary was the "More of the Same" candidate. I can hardly blame the desire to avoid more of the same on hating gay marriage.

My original response was to your statement: "You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. " You lumped the gay marriage and abortion together.

FTR, I agree with your clarified statement that abortion has a lot more single issue voters on the right than gay marriage. And I understand and respect that position a lot more than opposition to gay marriage and LBGT rights. (Though I do think for a subset controlling women is as important to them as abortion, but that's a different subject.)

I think a disconnect here is that many people, myself included, think Trump repeatedly and intentionally crossed over the line into blatant racism and bigotry and other behavior that should be disqualifying regardless of ideology or party. And yes, racism and bigotry are a litmus test for me. Sorry, that's how my Christian, Republican parents raised me. (They both became independents in recent years due to those values. My dad has passed, but I am 100% sure he would be disgusted by Trump.)

I'll grant you that in the general there were people who voted for him despite these things, not because of them. However, 1) as I said above, that is not acceptable to me. His history of racism and bigotry, and of emphasizing that in his campaign, should have been disqualifying. And 2) in the primary, almost all the preliminary research has shown that Trump voters were supporting him because of his racial and authoritarian attitudes.

I don't expect this to convince you, just trying to explain my feelings on the matter...

(02-24-2018 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 10:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you put "Russians" in quotes because you don't actually believe Russia was behind the hacking, trolling, etc. Why else would you put it in quotes?

I believe that somebody in Russia did something. But to conflate that into some mythical frontal assault on "our democracy" by "the Russians" strikes me as a little bit beyond the pale.

Quote:And I've posted this before, and responded to Ham about this, but the overt nature of the meddling during this election was different than anything in the past. Can you point to a similar campaign that was waged against us before?

They fought the Cold War against us for 40 years, until Reagan ratcheted the price up higher than their economy could support. They didn't use Facebook back then because it didn't exist. Instead they used soldiers and ships and airplanes. I'd say that pretty much dwarfed this.

I don't understand your first comment - are you saying you don't believe that the Russian government organized a concerted campaign to disseminate propaganda into the US during the 2016 election to attempt to influence the outcome? If not, why not? Indictments have been handed out outlining the efforts, our intelligence agencies have indicated that the Russian government was behind such efforts, and heck, even social media companies have started exposing the Russian bot accounts.

No I’m saying that I’m absolutely certain that the Russians did, and can and will do, everything in their power to try to disrupt us as much as possible. And if you think that indicting Manafort for failing to file a disclosure form and knock-on effects of that failure is addressing the problem, then we have a very different view of the world. If we want to accomplish anything, then the investigation should have been who did what to influence our election, and how do we prevent that. I’ve seen nothing along those lines. Instead this has turned into exactly what the Russians wanted in their wildest dreams—a he said, she said witch hunt that has exacerbated our divisions. A real investigation starts one place that they have never, so far as I can tell, been. The DNC servers that were allegedly hacked. You don’t take the word of a security firm that is basically a captive of the DNC. You check it out yourself. Hell, think about it, the firm doing the analysis probably screwed the pooch to let it happen, so they would be motivated to do their own CYA even if the DNC connection wasn’t strong enough to bias them. This has been from the start an “investigation” playing around the edges of circumstantial evidence instead of determining whether any crime was comited. The indictments handed down against “the Russians” over whom they are unlikely ever to get jurisdiction are a joke.

Quote:And to your second comment - it didn't address what I asked. You addressed the Cold War and posturing by both sides. You did not address overt attempts by Russia to try and affect the outcomes of our elections.

So you are saying that the Cold War was not as serious as posting stuff on social media? Really? Having served during that time and stared down Russian Kashin and Kotlin class destroyers, I beg to differ. And as far as the hacking goes, remember what the intel guys said. They didn’t have any smoking gun that it was “the Russians.” What they said is that they had a high degree of confidence (words of art in the intel community) that it was them because of the methods and rechniques used. So obviously they had used those methods and techniques many times before, possibly unknown to us average folks for reasons of national security. And I’d be willing to bet that whatever those prior occasions were rose to at least this level.

Not sure where I referenced Manafort nor where I suggested the Cold War was less serious. Care to point those out?

You said it was unprecedented, that nothing this severe had ever happened before. I merely pointed out that something far more severe had happened for decades. Now I’m fairly certain that “the Russians” did not use social media to try to influence the 1980 election. But I’m willing to bet that they used every means at their disposal to try to influence every election that they could.

Quote:In reference to the Cold War I said that the you didn’t address my question about evidence of such overt attempts to influence our elections, which you still haven’t done. All you did was attack a position I didn’t take.

If you think that hacking the DNC and Podesta’s cell phone were bigger threats to our democracy than pointing nuclear missiles at us, go ahead. I’ll not be joining you there. If you think buying ad time on social media is a bigger threat to our democracy than placing classified material into a non-secure environment repeatedly over four years, again you can go there but I won’t. My point is tha5 as fa4 as “attacks on our democracy” go, this was chicken feed compared to what has been done routinely in the past.

And what do you say to my comments about the way this investigation has proceeded compared to what should have happened?

(02-24-2018 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 10:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  IMHO, of course.

The only relevant part of your post. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to present that as fact.

Not sure exactly what your point is here. I was directly responding to OO's comments on my opinion with further elaboration on my opinion.

If you are upset a message board discussion went off on a tangent, then I suggest you stay away from message boards... :-)

(02-22-2018 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a question. Is the objective of the "Russia" probe to see that justice is done, or simply to find some way to "get" Donald Trump? Because IMHO it's looking a lot more like the latter than the former.

I think Republican and Trump appointee Rothenstein stated it pretty clearly in his original appointment:

(b)The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii)any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c ) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...atters.pdf

So far, it seems everything falls under that.

BTW, here's an article from the time with both Dems and Republicans praising the appointment of Mueller, a Republican.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...101810310/

Jason Chaffetz's words: ""Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted."

B-1 is the stupid one. And it is the reason this was originally called the Trump-Russia collusion probe.. Why is it now referred to as the Russian meddling probe?

We have had 13russians and zero Americans indicted for meddling with the election. Maybe that is because the actions of the Russians are legal for Americans. And certainly it is because no A,ericans colluded with the Russians to enable them to buy a minuscule amount of Facebook ads.

The investigation, as you show, was convened to investigate whether or not a stupid narrative was true. It was not comvened to investigate money laundering. Nobody has ever called it the money laundering investigation. It was not convened to check paperwork. And it was not convened to see how many people it could trip up in interviews. It was convened to see if Trump has enlisted Vlad to steal emails and publish them, on the theory that that changed the course of the election. So far, more evidence exists to convict the Big Bad Wolf of blowing down a house.

I don’t believe what the Russians were indicted for can only be levied against foreign nationals. One of the charges was for defrauding the US - is that only applicable foreign nationals?

(02-24-2018 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 10:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I believe that somebody in Russia did something. But to conflate that into some mythical frontal assault on "our democracy" by "the Russians" strikes me as a little bit beyond the pale.
They fought the Cold War against us for 40 years, until Reagan ratcheted the price up higher than their economy could support. They didn't use Facebook back then because it didn't exist. Instead they used soldiers and ships and airplanes. I'd say that pretty much dwarfed this.

I don't understand your first comment - are you saying you don't believe that the Russian government organized a concerted campaign to disseminate propaganda into the US during the 2016 election to attempt to influence the outcome? If not, why not? Indictments have been handed out outlining the efforts, our intelligence agencies have indicated that the Russian government was behind such efforts, and heck, even social media companies have started exposing the Russian bot accounts.

No I’m saying that I’m absolutely certain that the Russians did, and can and will do, everything in their power to try to disrupt us as much as possible. And if you think that indicting Manafort for failing to file a disclosure form and knock-on effects of that failure is addressing the problem, then we have a very different view of the world. If we want to accomplish anything, then the investigation should have been who did what to influence our election, and how do we prevent that. I’ve seen nothing along those lines. Instead this has turned into exactly what the Russians wanted in their wildest dreams—a he said, she said witch hunt that has exacerbated our divisions. A real investigation starts one place that they have never, so far as I can tell, been. The DNC servers that were allegedly hacked. You don’t take the word of a security firm that is basically a captive of the DNC. You check it out yourself. Hell, think about it, the firm doing the analysis probably screwed the pooch to let it happen, so they would be motivated to do their own CYA even if the DNC connection wasn’t strong enough to bias them. This has been from the start an “investigation” playing around the edges of circumstantial evidence instead of determining whether any crime was comited. The indictments handed down against “the Russians” over whom they are unlikely ever to get jurisdiction are a joke.

Quote:And to your second comment - it didn't address what I asked. You addressed the Cold War and posturing by both sides. You did not address overt attempts by Russia to try and affect the outcomes of our elections.

So you are saying that the Cold War was not as serious as posting stuff on social media? Really? Having served during that time and stared down Russian Kashin and Kotlin class destroyers, I beg to differ. And as far as the hacking goes, remember what the intel guys said. They didn’t have any smoking gun that it was “the Russians.” What they said is that they had a high degree of confidence (words of art in the intel community) that it was them because of the methods and rechniques used. So obviously they had used those methods and techniques many times before, possibly unknown to us average folks for reasons of national security. And I’d be willing to bet that whatever those prior occasions were rose to at least this level.

Not sure where I referenced Manafort nor where I suggested the Cold War was less serious. Care to point those out?

You said it was unprecedented, that nothing this severe had ever happened before. I merely pointed out that something far more severe had happened for decades. Now I’m fairly certain that “the Russians” did not use social media to try to influence the 1980 election. But I’m willing to bet that they used every means at their disposal to try to influence every election that they could.

Quote:In reference to the Cold War I said that the you didn’t address my question about evidence of such overt attempts to influence our elections, which you still haven’t done. All you did was attack a position I didn’t take.

If you think that hacking the DNC and Podesta’s cell phone were bigger threats to our democracy than pointing nuclear missiles at us, go ahead. I’ll not be joining you there. If you think buying ad time on social media is a bigger threat to our democracy than placing classified material into a non-secure environment repeatedly over four years, again you can go there but I won’t. My point is tha5 as fa4 as “attacks on our democracy” go, this was chicken feed compared to what has been done routinely in the past.

And what do you say to my comments about the way this investigation has proceeded compared to what should have happened?

I’ve never said what was a bigger threat to our country - the Cold War of the 2016 election meddling. I VERY clearly said that their over attempts to meddle in our election - OUR ELECTION - were unprecedented. Please provide evidence to counter that.

(02-24-2018 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FTR, I do not oppose gay marriage, and did not oppose it 20 years ago. I also am fine with plural marriage, and any kind of marriage that does not involve inanimate objects or animals. I really don't care about marriage. If nobody married, that would be fine with me. If you and your special other(s) of whatever sex, or religion want make your own arrangement, fine with me. NOMB.

But my personal beliefs notwithstanding, I think you are succumbing to a stereotype when you think that so many people on the right are single issue voters and that issue is gay marriage. Just not that big a deal to most people, left or right. Well, it is a big deal to some on the left, like yourself. Seems to be a bit of a litmus test for you. You keep bringing it up like it is some sort of identifier of good people and bad, defined by their acceptance of GM.

I did not vote for Trump. But I don't give much of a damn about his sleeping with playboy models, etc. I bet you didn't care much for similar behavior from Democrats (Kennedy, Kennedy, Clinton, Weiner, Spitzer, Edwards, yada yada yada), but continued to vote your straight tickets. If not, your defections were probably not because of their lack of morals. Maybe because the were weak on guns or gay marriage. How you ever voted against a Democrat on the basis of morals? If so, who?

I think you make a mistake when you characterize the choice many religious people made in 2016. It was not so much FOR a philandering egotist, as it was AGAINST the party of pro-choice, or as they see it, murdering children. Of course, there was much more contributing to that upset - a desire for real change, a hope that a change in leadership would bring about real change in America. Even you must acknowledge that Hillary was the "More of the Same" candidate. I can hardly blame the desire to avoid more of the same on hating gay marriage.

My original response was to your statement: "You got to remember, Obama and Hillary are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, etc. None of the three are strong Christians. " You lumped the gay marriage and abortion together.

FTR, I agree with your clarified statement that abortion has a lot more single issue voters on the right than gay marriage. And I understand and respect that position a lot more than opposition to gay marriage and LBGT rights. (Though I do think for a subset controlling women is as important to them as abortion, but that's a different subject.)

I think a disconnect here is that many people, myself included, think Trump repeatedly and intentionally crossed over the line into blatant racism and bigotry and other behavior that should be disqualifying regardless of ideology or party. And yes, racism and bigotry are a litmus test for me. Sorry, that's how my Christian, Republican parents raised me. (They both became independents in recent years due to those values. My dad has passed, but I am 100% sure he would be disgusted by Trump.)

I'll grant you that in the general there were people who voted for him despite these things, not because of them. However, 1) as I said above, that is not acceptable to me. His history of racism and bigotry, and of emphasizing that in his campaign, should have been disqualifying. And 2) in the primary, almost all the preliminary research has shown that Trump voters were supporting him because of his racial and authoritarian attitudes.

I don't expect this to convince you, just trying to explain my feelings on the matter...

I doubt strongly that almost all the voters supporting him did so for racist reasons. I think that just smacks of the myth that that Republicans by and large are racist. Why do you believe that?

I think many more supported him because of his statements on taxes, jobs, international trade, foreign affairs, etc.

Many others supported him as a better, but not good, alternative to Hillary “more of the same”Clinton. I wonder if your Dad would have fit in this category.

I have heard your litany of so-called racist remarks by Trump, and am unimpressed. I think people can put the spin on them they want, and the left wants to spin them as racist. In any event, he was still running against Hillary.

I will take one example. I am of mixed heritage with family both north and south of the Rio Grande, and I support a stronger immigration policy and a tighter border, but not a wall, as do many of my cousins. Not going to get that from thenDemocrats. so who is left? the guy who said they are rapists? Well, some doubtless are. Most are not, although other crimes may well lie within their scope, such as income tax evasion or failure to register. Should he have parsed his words better? surely. Still, who do I like better, the guy who will at least give it his attention or the woman who will do exactly the wrong thing? If wanting a stronger border is racist, then you must believe I am racist against myself and my family. All this from that one remark.

It does not surprise me that a person who is so anti racist as you should feel no compunction at designating 25% of our population as “deplorable”. I just think that you are far wrong.