(02-24-2018 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Did they use social media like that before? Of course not. They didnt have it to use. That is unprecedented. Did they use everything they had? Yes.

(02-24-2018 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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:  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.
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.

Did they use social media like that before? Of course not. They didnt have it to use. That is unprecedented. Did they use everything they had? Yes.

I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

(02-24-2018 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Well, I did say I didn't expect to convince you, didn't I? LOL

To be clear I said (or was trying to say) that I think I lot of people in the general election voted for him despite his character flaws. Whereas in the primary people supporting him, as opposed to, say Jeb Bush or Kasich, were much more likely to have high levels of racial resentment and/or authoritarian attitudes and voted for him *because* of the same things that made others hold their nose when voting for him in the general election. I base that on numerous analysis of the voting data done by stats people and political scientists. I'll try and dig some up later.

(02-24-2018 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

Well, again, I don't expect to convince you. If Trump's "rapists" remark had been an isolated gaffe, that would be one thing, but it set a pattern and tone for him, one that reflected his attitudes before his campaign, as well.* Again, he was condemned for racism by the previous Republican nominee. Both living Republican ex-presidents refused to vote for him. That is not normal. He has retweeted intentionally inflammatory falsehoods from American white supremacists and British neo-Nazis. Why is the POTUS even reading tweets from those sources?


*Hell, it was just yesterday (?) he read The Snake and applied it to immigrants. (Not illegal immigrants, immigrants.) He even said "If you say isn’t that terrible, who cares," indicating that he knew people would find it offensive and reveling in it.

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:

Quote:• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-serving, cold, political heart of hers.

I think the best and most succinct explanation I have heard (I now forget where) to explain why evangelical Christians continued to give their votes to the Republican candidate (as they usually do) despite his myriad flaws is that it was an act of self-defense. Clinton and the Democratic platform/agenda were perceived (not without reason, I might add) as actively hostile to the issues evangelicals care about. And, well, if you're under imminent attack, you use whatever is close at hand to neutralize the threat, and you sort the consequences - and misgivings - out later.

Democrats have difficulty understanding how many, many people of good will on the other side could have viewed their task as trying to choose the lesser of two evils, because Democrats only saw one evil on the ballot. For large parts of this country, there were two. FWIW, this Christian Republican personally did find both options highly unfit to be president, and voted for neither, but then again I had the luxury (if you can call it that) of living in a noncompetitive state. I don't find votes for Trump made by those who felt they had to in order to prevent Clinton from becoming president to be immoral or a betrayal of principles. I know lots of Trump voters (along with abstainers like myself) who, while happy Clinton didn't win, are critical of Trump. I think it's quite significant that his approval rating has always been well under water from day one, which wouldn't be the case without significant "support," i.e., disapproval, from people who nevertheless voted for him.

None of this is to excuse the pro-Trump cheerleading, sucking up to power, and glossing over of defects displayed by some evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham and whoever else. That I do find revolting and a betrayal of principles.

As for the racism charge, I'm not inclined to do any water carrying for Trump but Democrats have essentially yelled "racist"" at every Republican candidate, proposal, statement, etc. for the last 20+ years. A racist used to be someone who irrationally felt others were inferior. Now it means someone who wants a slightly lesser percentage growth in entitlement spending, or favors enforcement of existing immigration laws that were passed with bipartisan support, or a white person who makes inauthentic tacos for dinner, or whatever. The left has cried wolf on this issue for so long and so loudly that I'll forgive people who tune them out when they say this time there really is a wolf at the door. Trump, a lifelong Manhattan Democrat and big Democrat donor until about fifteen minutes ago relatively speaking, and who has appointed people of color in his administration, does not strike me as a "racist" as I and lots of other people would sensibly define that term. Democrats are free to disagree but this is not some objective moral fact that they get to cudgel other people for supposedly immorally ignoring. He strikes me as insensitive, not tactful, overbroad, coarse, and all sorts of other things, but the fact is that any Republican who is the opposite of those things (Mitt Romney?) would also be and has been called "racist."

As for the primaries, Trump no doubt attracted some unsavory voters but I'm sure the Democrats always get the Communist vote as well. He rarely won majorities in the primaries, meaning most people voted "other than Trump." But you can win a tennis match without winning a majority of the points and you can apparently win a 17-way primary while hardly ever being anyone's first choice.

Well, I think you are a lot more likely to change me than I am to change you. I guess I am just less set in my ways.

It always seems odd to me that the LiberalLeft, who pride themselves on their morals and the defense of their principles, look so negatively at the Religious Right, who pride themselves on their morals and the defense of their principles.

(02-24-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:

Quote:• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-centered, cold, political heart of hers.

I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

(02-24-2018 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:

Quote:• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-centered, cold, political heart of hers.

I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

If anything will encourage Russia to keep it up, it is the continued hue and cry from the left. That spells SUCCESS, if what was wanted was to sow discord and distrust. I think every time Adam Schiff approaches a microphone, glasses of vodka are hoisted in Moscow for toasts. Nobody is helping Russia more at this time than Adam and his adherents.

I am not sure what you mean by the “severity”of all this. Nobody has shown that even one vote was turned from either candidate to the other, and certainly nobody has shown or alleged that electoral votes were shifted.

(02-24-2018 02:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I think you are a lot more likely to change me than I am to change you. I guess I am just less set in my ways.

It always seems odd to me that the LiberalLeft, who pride themselves on their morals and the defense of their principles, look so negatively at the Religious Right, who pride themselves on their morals and the defense of their principles.

I find the supposed 'more accepting and more inclusive' statement that the left ascribes to the themselves (in particular with regards to race and sexual leaning), and that they cudgel right leaning libertarians, capitalist factions of the right, and in huge particularity the social conservatives and religious right with on a near continuous basis, in a very interesting dichotomy with a huge 'non-acceptance' that they seem to broadcast to those same right-leaning libertarians, capitalist viewpoint holders, and in huge particularity social conservatives and even more so when that social conservatism is accompanied by a religious conviction.

(02-24-2018 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:

Quote:• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-centered, cold, political heart of hers.

I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

If anything will encourage Russia to keep it up, it is the continued hue and cry from the left. That spells SUCCESS, if what was wanted was to sow discord and distrust. I think every time Adam Schiff approaches a microphone, glasses of vodka are hoisted in Moscow for toasts. Nobody is helping Russia more at this time than Adam and his adherents.

I am not sure what you mean by the “severity”of all this. Nobody has shown that even one vote was turned from either candidate to the other, and certainly nobody has shown or alleged that electoral votes were shifted.

Your last comment perfectly proves my point - it seems like we can't all come to an agreement on how severe these actions were. You and Owl#s appear to hand wave away the overt acts as business as usual. That we just shouldn't care about it. Me and others believe that this was a more serious act than previous operations (both known and unknown).

I really fail to see why we should hand wave this away - the intent and brassiness of the actions alone merit concern, and even Congress agreed that they merited an actual response. Unfortunately, our POTUS disagrees with that.

I also think it's pretty ignorant to assume that all of the actions didn't change any votes - the number of people who saw the fake news and propaganda that were pushed by the trolls (POTUS and his son retweeted them!!!) indicates that there is a good chance that at a minimum, either people were made more or less likely to vote in the election. The question of whether that had any sway on the winner is a better one, and one that I agree with you likely has a negative response. But the Russians have always been very effective at putting out propaganda, and they've done a masterful job again.

And finally, nice job somehow flipping the script and alleging that no, it isn't the Russians that are to blame for our divisions, its a Democratic Senator who seems to care too much that a foreign adversary actively meddled in our elections. I guess if a bank robber tried to rob your PO box and was caught after the fact, you'd be more angry at the bank than the robber?

(02-24-2018 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:

Quote:• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-centered, cold, political heart of hers.

I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

As indicated earlier, Team Hillary was a great force multiplier for those Russian efforts, and the process that seemed to be in effect at the Obama White House and the moves in response to and using a paid-for political operative version of the National Enquirer in the FISA court are another massive force multiplier for Team Russia as well.

And, in light of the current 'collusion' narrative showing nothing of the sort, the semi-continuous chanting of that investigation being tied to Trump is yet another massive force multiplier for Team Russia Political Action Committee.

Look if Mueller comes up with nothing more than "bunch of Russkies that we will never be able to extradite bought Facebook ads and ran bots", and "Well Trump hired a guy who avoided taxes to be campaign manager for an extremely limited amount of time" (not defending bad judgement there on Trump's part), the entire fing "collusion" hullabaloo will not only be a false narrative, but one emphasized and magnified for two+ years.

In a weird way I hope that collusion is shown at this point, so that US citizens who supported and aided the election loser arent the main architects and agents of continued and persistent damage from initial Russian activities.

(02-24-2018 03:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:

Quote:• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-centered, cold, political heart of hers.

I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

As indicated earlier, Team Hillary was a great force multiplier for those Russian efforts, and the process that seemed to be in effect at the Obama White House and the moves in response to and using a paid-for political operative version of the National Enquirer in the FISA court are another massive force multiplier for Team Russia as well.

And, in light of the current 'collusion' narrative showing nothing of the sort, the semi-continuous chanting of that investigation being tied to Trump is yet another massive force multiplier for Team Russia Political Action Committee.

Look if Mueller comes up with nothing more than "bunch of Russkies that we will never be able to extradite bought Facebook ads and ran bots", and "Well Trump hired a guy who avoided taxes to be campaign manager for an extremely limited amount of time" (not defending bad judgement there on Trump's part), the entire fing "collusion" hullabaloo will not only be a false narrative, but one emphasized and magnified for two+ years.

In a weird way I hope that collusion is shown at this point, so that US citizens arent the main architects and agents of continued and persistent damage from initial Russian activities.

I'm shocked you left out Mitch McConnell's role in your list of critiques.

(02-24-2018 03:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As indicated earlier, Team Hillary was a great force multiplier for those Russian efforts, and the process that seemed to be in effect at the Obama White House and the moves in response to and using a paid-for political operative version of the National Enquirer in the FISA court are another massive force multiplier for Team Russia as well.

And, in light of the current 'collusion' narrative showing nothing of the sort, the semi-continuous chanting of that investigation being tied to Trump is yet another massive force multiplier for Team Russia Political Action Committee.

Look if Mueller comes up with nothing more than "bunch of Russkies that we will never be able to extradite bought Facebook ads and ran bots", and "Well Trump hired a guy who avoided taxes to be campaign manager for an extremely limited amount of time" (not defending bad judgement there on Trump's part), the entire fing "collusion" hullabaloo will not only be a false narrative, but one emphasized and magnified for two+ years.

In a weird way I hope that collusion is shown at this point, so that US citizens arent the main architects and agents of continued and persistent damage from initial Russian activities.

I'm shocked you left out Mitch McConnell's role in your list of critiques.

I dont seem to recall McConnell meeting the days after the election and deciding to push a Russia/collusion narrative to explain an electoral loss.

Nor do I recall McConnell paying for the a Russian-sourced Steele Dossier.

Nor do I recall McConnell peddling a Russian-sourced version of a National Enquirer level dossier payed by a political campaign for political ends it to the FBI and Obama White House to investigate.

Lot of substantive, directed, and intentional activity took place well before McConnell, Lad. Lots of it.

As I said before

Quote:In a weird way I hope that collusion is shown at this point, so that US citizens who were the losers in an election arent the main architects and agents of continued and persistent damage from initial Russian activities.

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

Did they use social media like that before? Of course not. They didnt have it to use. That is unprecedented. Did they use everything they had? Yes.

I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

So let me get this straight. You’re the one who keeps narrowing the definition but I’m the one whose viewpoint is too narrow? Gotcha.

Thanks to my friend tanq for reciting chapter and verse so I don’t have to. Hell yes the Russians have been doing everything they could to disrupt and influence us for decades. As have we to them. Ever hear of Radio Free Europe? And I’m sorry if you can’t somehow equate the Cold War to Twitter, but believe me they have done everything they could for a long time.

I kind of sense a problem that the left has here. They have to create the notion that Russian hacking and interference started with the 2016 political campaign. If they concede that this sort of stuff has gone on for decades, then it becomes about a 99.9% probability that Hillary’s contraption got hacked, and badly so. Like maybe treason bad. And that raises questions that nobody on the left wants to contemplate.

In a related vein, Susan Rice lawyers up strong and really doesnt answer some very pointed questions.
Stiflers response. /sarcasm

Silence of the Rice

(02-24-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:

Quote:• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-centered, cold, political heart of hers.

I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

If anything will encourage Russia to keep it up, it is the continued hue and cry from the left. That spells SUCCESS, if what was wanted was to sow discord and distrust. I think every time Adam Schiff approaches a microphone, glasses of vodka are hoisted in Moscow for toasts. Nobody is helping Russia more at this time than Adam and his adherents.

I am not sure what you mean by the “severity”of all this. Nobody has shown that even one vote was turned from either candidate to the other, and certainly nobody has shown or alleged that electoral votes were shifted.

Your last comment perfectly proves my point - it seems like we can't all come to an agreement on how severe these actions were. You and Owl#s appear to hand wave away the overt acts as business as usual. That we just shouldn't care about it. Me and others believe that this was a more serious act than previous operations (both known and unknown).

I really fail to see why we should hand wave this away - the intent and brassiness of the actions alone merit concern, and even Congress agreed that they merited an actual response. Unfortunately, our POTUS disagrees with that.

I also think it's pretty ignorant to assume that all of the actions didn't change any votes - the number of people who saw the fake news and propaganda that were pushed by the trolls (POTUS and his son retweeted them!!!) indicates that there is a good chance that at a minimum, either people were made more or less likely to vote in the election. The question of whether that had any sway on the winner is a better one, and one that I agree with you likely has a negative response. But the Russians have always been very effective at putting out propaganda, and they've done a masterful job again.

And finally, nice job somehow flipping the script and alleging that no, it isn't the Russians that are to blame for our divisions, its a Democratic Senator who seems to care too much that a foreign adversary actively meddled in our elections. I guess if a bank robber tried to rob your PO box and was caught after the fact, you'd be more angry at the bank than the robber?

Not at convinced that either I or Owl#s ever said it should be waved away. Is that your perception? I think you can investigate Russian meddling all you want - just don’t use it a vehicle to justify a stupid investigation into “collusion”.

Schiff s actions continue to divide us and increase distrust in our elections. So, wittinglyor not, his actions are in the best interests of those who want discord and distrust - the Russians.

I imagine some votes were changed by the Russian actions - probably on a very small scale, and very unlikely to have flipped Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, AND Michigan.

This collusion myth just plays into their hands, and the perpetuators play into their hands.

If you want an investigation in Russian meddling, set it up as such, not as an investigation into collusion netweeen the Trump campaign and Russians.

(02-24-2018 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As indicated earlier, Team Hillary was a great force multiplier for those Russian efforts, and the process that seemed to be in effect at the Obama White House and the moves in response to and using a paid-for political operative version of the National Enquirer in the FISA court are another massive force multiplier for Team Russia as well.

And, in light of the current 'collusion' narrative showing nothing of the sort, the semi-continuous chanting of that investigation being tied to Trump is yet another massive force multiplier for Team Russia Political Action Committee.

Look if Mueller comes up with nothing more than "bunch of Russkies that we will never be able to extradite bought Facebook ads and ran bots", and "Well Trump hired a guy who avoided taxes to be campaign manager for an extremely limited amount of time" (not defending bad judgement there on Trump's part), the entire fing "collusion" hullabaloo will not only be a false narrative, but one emphasized and magnified for two+ years.

In a weird way I hope that collusion is shown at this point, so that US citizens arent the main architects and agents of continued and persistent damage from initial Russian activities.

I'm shocked you left out Mitch McConnell's role in your list of critiques.

I dont seem to recall McConnell meeting the days after the election and deciding to push a Russia/collusion narrative to explain an electoral loss.

Nor do I recall McConnell paying for the a Russian-sourced Steele Dossier.

Nor do I recall McConnell peddling a Russian-sourced version of a National Enquirer level dossier payed by a political campaign for political ends it to the FBI and Obama White House to investigate.

Lot of substantive, directed, and intentional activity took place well before McConnell, Lad. Lots of it.

As I said before

Quote:In a weird way I hope that collusion is shown at this point, so that US citizens who were the losers in an election arent the main architects and agents of continued and persistent damage from initial Russian activities.

All McConnell did was tell Obama that, should a bipartisan announcement be made condemning Russia for trying to interfere with the election, that he would not back the announcement and would view it as an act of partisan politics.

And a lot of the issues you bring up around the Steele dossier are founded on your own skepticism of the document and the potential that could exist for it to be full of lies. The funding source of it doesn't matter if the material is true. Also, I do not believe it has been proven that the Steele dossier played a pivotal role in any FISA requests. Lots of speculation being masqueraded as fact right there.

I won't deny that the Democrats have "helped" Russia, but that's only because of the Republican response. At this point, both are to blame because neither can agree with the other. The only solution would be for either both of them to agree to not worry about a foreign adversary meddling in our elections, or both to agree to worry about it. But at this point, both are too far entrenched on their own sides for that to happen, and our conversations here are a perfect example of that.

(02-24-2018 03:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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


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.

Did they use social media like that before? Of course not. They didnt have it to use. That is unprecedented. Did they use everything they had? Yes.

I said overt, not anything about social media. Is there evidence they ever placed ads or organized rallies before? What about sending agents to talk to potential voters? Or gown about getting fake news stories into the media that pushed a narrative? Any ornament those examples could have happened in previous elections, prior to the advent of social media. It isn’t like there weren’t overt ways for them to meddle before this election.

Your view is far too narrow and focusing on only one aspect of their overt actions thos election.

So let me get this straight. You’re the one who keeps narrowing the definition but I’m the one whose viewpoint is too narrow? Gotcha.

Thanks to my friend tanq for reciting chapter and verse so I don’t have to. Hell yes the Russians have been doing everything they could to disrupt and influence us for decades. As have we to them. Ever hear of Radio Free Europe? And I’m sorry if you can’t somehow equate the Cold War to Twitter, but believe me they have done everything they could for a long time.

I kind of sense a problem that the left has here. They have to create the notion that Russian hacking and interference started with the 2016 political campaign. If they concede that this sort of stuff has gone on for decades, then it becomes about a 99.9% probability that Hillary’s contraption got hacked, and badly so. Like maybe treason bad. And that raises questions that nobody on the left wants to contemplate.

I keep narrowing the definition? Get real man. I've literally been talking about election interference the ENTIRE time. My definition has not strayed - you're the one that incorrectly assumed I was comparing it to the Cold War and then only wanted to talk about social media.

And the right has its own problem - the fact that they are too tied up with Trump to admit that what Russia did was a bit too blatant this time around. I mean, if Russia has been doing the same thing for years, why is now the first time we've noticed? It can't be because the scale of their operation was larger and more overt, could it?

(02-24-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am going to enlarge 'Russians' to 'Soviets' for this response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inf...e_movement

from Politifact:


There are a lot of investigative reports in KGB funding political activity in the US, mainly from the late 60s to the mid 80s.

Direct (but behind the curtains) funding of various labor groups, environmental groups, and peace groups I know I've seen documentation on but need to try and re-discover them.

In addition this is a neat short concise article:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/soviet...s-politics

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/01/...ark-kramer

And, none of these even touch on Ted Kennedy's overtures to the Soviet Union for help in the 1984 election. That is our candidate directly asking for help, and has been pretty much verified across the board. Less verifiable than the Kennedy request, was that the Soviets actually responded with help, but that aid was not effective in any more than a negligible manner.

It would seem that there are deep roots in Soviet 'participation' in US politics, albeit nothing as effective as that seen in 2016. And, I guess for them, it is an investment that keeps on giving..... especially with the concerted effort by Team Hillary to paint the results of the election as being 'derived' by the Russians. Quite the feat that the efforts and aura of that witch keeps giving off noxious vibes even after the stake got rammed through that self-centered, cold, political heart of hers.

I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

If anything will encourage Russia to keep it up, it is the continued hue and cry from the left. That spells SUCCESS, if what was wanted was to sow discord and distrust. I think every time Adam Schiff approaches a microphone, glasses of vodka are hoisted in Moscow for toasts. Nobody is helping Russia more at this time than Adam and his adherents.

I am not sure what you mean by the “severity”of all this. Nobody has shown that even one vote was turned from either candidate to the other, and certainly nobody has shown or alleged that electoral votes were shifted.

Your last comment perfectly proves my point - it seems like we can't all come to an agreement on how severe these actions were. You and Owl#s appear to hand wave away the overt acts as business as usual. That we just shouldn't care about it. Me and others believe that this was a more serious act than previous operations (both known and unknown).

I really fail to see why we should hand wave this away - the intent and brassiness of the actions alone merit concern, and even Congress agreed that they merited an actual response. Unfortunately, our POTUS disagrees with that.

I also think it's pretty ignorant to assume that all of the actions didn't change any votes - the number of people who saw the fake news and propaganda that were pushed by the trolls (POTUS and his son retweeted them!!!) indicates that there is a good chance that at a minimum, either people were made more or less likely to vote in the election. The question of whether that had any sway on the winner is a better one, and one that I agree with you likely has a negative response. But the Russians have always been very effective at putting out propaganda, and they've done a masterful job again.

And finally, nice job somehow flipping the script and alleging that no, it isn't the Russians that are to blame for our divisions, its a Democratic Senator who seems to care too much that a foreign adversary actively meddled in our elections. I guess if a bank robber tried to rob your PO box and was caught after the fact, you'd be more angry at the bank than the robber?

Not at convinced that either I or Owl#s ever said it should be waved away. Is that your perception? I think you can investigate Russian meddling all you want - just don’t use it a vehicle to justify a stupid investigation into “collusion”.

Schiff s actions continue to divide us and increase distrust in our elections. So, wittinglyor not, his actions are in the best interests of those who want discord and distrust - the Russians.

I imagine some votes were changed by the Russian actions - probably on a very small scale, and very unlikely to have flipped Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, AND Michigan.

This collusion myth just plays into their hands, and the perpetuators play into their hands.

If you want an investigation in Russian meddling, set it up as such, not as an investigation into collusion netweeen the Trump campaign and Russians.

I'm still onboard that a collusion investigation was justified. I mean, Trump doesn't care about orphans that much and Trump Jr. was far too in love with getting dirt on HRC from Russians.

(02-24-2018 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I actually posted the politifact article earlier - I appreciate a bit more info on the other items. I think that 2016 was not only the most effective, but likely the most concerted effort yet. The number of man hours dedicated to the initiative is pretty staggering. And I find the fact that many on this board can't really agree on the severity of this act has potential dire consequences for future elections, as I think Russia will be encouraged to keep up the work.

If anything will encourage Russia to keep it up, it is the continued hue and cry from the left. That spells SUCCESS, if what was wanted was to sow discord and distrust. I think every time Adam Schiff approaches a microphone, glasses of vodka are hoisted in Moscow for toasts. Nobody is helping Russia more at this time than Adam and his adherents.

I am not sure what you mean by the “severity”of all this. Nobody has shown that even one vote was turned from either candidate to the other, and certainly nobody has shown or alleged that electoral votes were shifted.

Your last comment perfectly proves my point - it seems like we can't all come to an agreement on how severe these actions were. You and Owl#s appear to hand wave away the overt acts as business as usual. That we just shouldn't care about it. Me and others believe that this was a more serious act than previous operations (both known and unknown).

I really fail to see why we should hand wave this away - the intent and brassiness of the actions alone merit concern, and even Congress agreed that they merited an actual response. Unfortunately, our POTUS disagrees with that.

I also think it's pretty ignorant to assume that all of the actions didn't change any votes - the number of people who saw the fake news and propaganda that were pushed by the trolls (POTUS and his son retweeted them!!!) indicates that there is a good chance that at a minimum, either people were made more or less likely to vote in the election. The question of whether that had any sway on the winner is a better one, and one that I agree with you likely has a negative response. But the Russians have always been very effective at putting out propaganda, and they've done a masterful job again.

And finally, nice job somehow flipping the script and alleging that no, it isn't the Russians that are to blame for our divisions, its a Democratic Senator who seems to care too much that a foreign adversary actively meddled in our elections. I guess if a bank robber tried to rob your PO box and was caught after the fact, you'd be more angry at the bank than the robber?

Not at convinced that either I or Owl#s ever said it should be waved away. Is that your perception? I think you can investigate Russian meddling all you want - just don’t use it a vehicle to justify a stupid investigation into “collusion”.

Schiff s actions continue to divide us and increase distrust in our elections. So, wittinglyor not, his actions are in the best interests of those who want discord and distrust - the Russians.

I imagine some votes were changed by the Russian actions - probably on a very small scale, and very unlikely to have flipped Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, AND Michigan.

This collusion myth just plays into their hands, and the perpetuators play into their hands.

If you want an investigation in Russian meddling, set it up as such, not as an investigation into collusion netweeen the Trump campaign and Russians.

I'm still onboard that a collusion investigation was justified. I mean, Trump doesn't care about orphans that much and Trump Jr. was far too in love with getting dirt on HRC from Russians.

WAS?

Wasn’t it the Hillary campaign that paid for Steele to get dirt on Trump from the Russian?

Personally, I cannot see that either campaign “colluded”with the Russians. i don’t care if the dirt uncovered comes from the Russians, the Mafia, or the Little Sisters of the Porr, as long as it is true. Another case of both sides do it, but only the Republicans are bad.