Russia, something or nothing?

[mkjeeves]

Not to mention: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-...-to-its-knees/

But who cares though if a foreign power hacks an American institution, private or not!

[jerrywall]

I mean, I believe we should look into Russia's attempts to interfere, but this is seriously crossing into "Can Ted Cruz prove he isn't the Zodiac Killer", and "Did Glenn Beck Rape And Murder A Young Girl In 1990" and "Is Obama's Birth certificate real" territory. Embarrassing company, IMO.

[Eric]

http://www.securityweek.com/us-elect...mission-hacked

You know good and well that's not what the Democrats are infuriated about. Honestly, this is first I have heard about. I just did a quick search and the first page on Google did not contain any major media outlet (unless you count Politico, The Hill, and Buzzfead).

[mkjeeves]

I mean, I believe we should look into Russia's attempts to interfere, but this is seriously crossing into "Can Ted Cruz prove he isn't the Zodiac Killer", and "Did Glenn Beck Rape And Murder A Young Girl In 1990" and "Is Obama's Birth certificate real" territory. Embarrassing company, IMO.

^ That falls close to "I don't care that NASA reported it, the moon landing didn't happen."

[Eric]

Heck, you know what, we should just make hacking illegal.

[jerrywall]

^ That falls close to "I don't care that NASA reported it, the moon landing didn't happen."

Not really. No one has come close to evidence that Russian Hacking changed the election results. But nice try. Trying hard to share company with Donald Trump and 9/11 truthers?

[mkjeeves]

Not really. No one has come close to evidence that Russian Hacking changed the election results. But nice try. Trying hard to share company with Donald Trump and 9/11 truthers?

Nice strawman, I never said it changed election results.

[jerrywall]

Nice strawman, I never said it changed election results.

The first post of this thread did.That's what, as far as I can tell, this entire thread is about.

[BDP]

I mean, I believe we should look into Russia's attempts to interfere, but this is seriously crossing into "Can Ted Cruz prove he isn't the Zodiac Killer", and "Did Glenn Beck Rape And Murder A Young Girl In 1990" and "Is Obama's Birth certificate real" territory. Embarrassing company, IMO.

How so? I don't think those assertions came from the US intelligence community or private sector investigations.

[jerrywall]

How so? I don't think those assertions came from the US intelligence community or private sector investigations.

The first post of this thread states "The GOP has benefited from Russian espionage in this election. "

This hasn't been proven. Has Russia attempted to influence this election? Probably. Like we do all over the world. Did it benefit anyone? Maybe. But it's impossible to disprove a negative and no intelligence community or private sector investigation has provided any solid evidence that it has.

Let's be mature adults. This is a direct attempt by some on this board and elsewhere to discredit the election. I don't like our incoming President, but at least I'm honest about it. This is not about some folks sudden "concern" about Russia. If Hillary had won we'd hear nothing about this except from the Trump campaign.

[BDP]

But we don't know that the first occurred, and the second? It depends on the level. I just think it's funny how attacked Romney was for identifying Russia as an enemy 4 years ago (by Clinton no less). That much hasn't changed, besides politics of convenience.

It is amazing how prescient Romney was and credit should go to him. Russia has done much since then to validate his concerns.

[BDP]

This hasn't been proven. Has Russia attempted to influence this election? Probably. Like we do all over the world. Did it benefit anyone? Maybe. But it's impossible to disprove a negative and no intelligence community or private sector investigation has provided any solid evidence that it has.

Very true. It's unprovabe, unless they have some communication that states that as the goal. And even if they did it would most likely be classified. And even if it was released, many would dismiss it as false. Many seem to trust former KGB than our intelligence communities at this pointy.

[mkjeeves]

The first post of this thread states "The GOP has benefited from Russian espionage in this election. "

This hasn't been proven. Has Russia attempted to influence this election? Probably. Like we do all over the world. Did it benefit anyone? Maybe. But it's impossible to disprove a negative and no intelligence community or private sector investigation has provided any solid evidence that it has.

Let's be mature adults. This is a direct attempt by some on this board and elsewhere to discredit the election. I don't like our incoming President, but at least I'm honest about it. This is not about some folks sudden "concern" about Russia. If Hillary had won we'd hear nothing about this except from the Trump campaign.

From the article at the top of the page: FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday, as President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation.

The moon landing didn't happen either.

[jerrywall]

From the article at the top of the page: FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday, as President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation.

The moon landing didn't happen either.

It doesn't mean their help was effective. Cuba wanted to kill JFK. No question there. Guess Lee Harvey wasn't a lone gunman?

[jerrywall]

Very true. It's unprovabe, unless they have some communication that states that as the goal. And even if they did it would most likely be classified. And even if it was released, many would dismiss it as false. Many seem to trust former KGB than our intelligence communities at this pointy.

But making these statements, especially without proof, is dangerous. I said the same about the Birthers, so it's not like someone can claim some sort of partisanship. This type of shade dropping on the legitimacy of the president is a dog whistle ("I'm not saying he wasn't legally elected, but can you prove otherwise?") and can really hurt our effectiveness on the global stage. And considering that yesterday an off duty police office from a NATO member state assassinated a Russian diplomat, this is especially dangerous.

Do folks need to like everything or even anything Trump does? Of course not. Do they have to like his appointments? Nope. Do they need to grow up and accept he was legitimately elected as President and is our incoming commander in chief? Yup.

[TexanOkie]

From the article at the top of the page: FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday, as President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation.

Another disconnect here is that the intelligence consensus is about Russia's motive for the actions, not the effects of Russia's actions. Even if Russia's aim was to benefit the GOP, an analysis of whether the GOP did, in fact, benefit, thus far is anecdotal. A thorough study of media coverage of the leaked information, exit poll data, and accounting for other variables has not yet been completed.

[jerrywall]

Another disconnect here is that the intelligence consensus is about Russia's motive for the actions, not the effects of Russia's actions. Even if Russia's aim was to benefit the GOP, an analysis of whether the GOP did, in fact, benefit, thus far is anecdotal. A thorough study of media coverage of the leaked information, exit poll data, and accounting for other variables has not yet been completed.

Exactly.

[mkjeeves]

Quoting me to argue it hasn't been shown to have been effective is, as I said before, a strawman. But we know you didn't mean I claimed that...it's just what you want to address rather than....

what we do know via our intelligence community is Russia was meddling in our election because they wanted Trump in power. That's the discredit to Trump, not that it all means Hillary would have been elected if not for the Russians. And even more so, that Russia is hacking American institutions to involve themselves in our politics, as well as for other reasons.

Meanwhile, some people are denying/deflecting/defending them both.

[jerrywall]

Meanwhile, some people are denying/deflecting/defending them both.

Who?

[Midtowner]

Hm, why do I sense sarcasm in this post?

Because... you raise VERY interesting points that I would like to hear varying opinions on. Honestly, look at all the factors that pump money into campaigns every year and the wide array of interests they claim to support. Then, compare and contrast that with other countries who may have an interest in influencing elections for their own merit.

Mind you the reationships should be seen as similar. Many of these big corporations and banks (GE, Microsoft, many of the banks, etc.) who donate to these candidates aren't solely in the U.S. anymore (you know, that globalism thing), so aren't they more or less acting as global entities already?

Take Exxon or GE. The United States' relationship with either of those giants is more important than, say, our relationship with Bahrain. Those corporations, however, have many foreign investors and many foreign investments. They are not loyal to their nation, but to their shareholders just as nations are theoretically loyal to their citizens or subjects as the case may be. I would say my tone is more resigned to a new normal than sarcastic. American votes in major elections are commodities now and there are basically no rules on how those votes can be gathered so long as the votes really are human beings who are qualified to pull the levers in question.

With our military spending and our meddling in other countries' spheres of influence, why shouldn't they spend money trying to gain more favorable relationships with our government? If I try to take Russia's view here, Russia is a country which in current memory was invaded by adjacent powers losing millions and millions of lives in the process--twice in the last century--and here, a coalition of oppositional states has united against them, adding what were formerly friendly buffer states to their ranks. Should we view Russia's actions as hostile or should we see them as a rational response to the positions the United States has taken in Russia's own back yard?

Maybe the cure here isn't that we should tamp down on this interference. Perhaps it should be welcomed. Maybe Mexico and the Central and South American countries should be able to take their case to the American people as to why we should be welcoming immigrants? Maybe Russia and China should be able to directly make their case to the American people as to why we have no business meddling within their spheres of influence? Maybe Europe and Israel can try to convince Americans that we should be more meddlesome. I don't really have a problem with it.

I don't even have a huge problem with fake news. Eventually, folks will catch on.

[Dustin]

[TheTravellers]

...

I don't even have a huge problem with fake news. Eventually, folks will catch on.

Not likely. Fake news looks like it might've had a role in Trump winning. Check out some of the links here about the Macedonian websites, and all the others who spread fake news and lies, and how many folks don't read past the headlines, and retweet and repost (or whatever it's called on Facebook, I'm not on there) without fact-checking/snopes-ing/verifying.

https://www.google.com/search?q=did+...utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Midtowner]

Not likely. Fake news looks like it might've had a role in Trump winning. Check out some of the links here about the Macedonian websites, and all the others who spread fake news and lies, and how many folks don't read past the headlines, and retweet and repost (or whatever it's called on Facebook, I'm not on there) without fact-checking/snopes-ing/verifying.

https://www.google.com/search?q=did+...utf-8&oe=utf-8

In the United States, we value free speech. Tamping down on news we deem "fake" is going to have a massive chilling affect on the press. The easiest thing is to invest in education to ensure the public is less susceptible to bad information. This might be something which could be integrated into classroom curricula.

And fake news didn't get Trump elected. You have to lay at least some of the blame at the feet of his opponent. She rightly or wrongly carried a LOT of baggage and the Democratic Party was so over-the-moon for her that not a single other qualified other candidate emerged. I think Elizabeth Warren would have been an outstanding candidate, for example.

[TU 'cane]

Take Exxon or GE. The United States' relationship with either of those giants is more important than, say, our relationship with Bahrain. Those corporations, however, have many foreign investors and many foreign investments. They are not loyal to their nation, but to their shareholders just as nations are theoretically loyal to their citizens or subjects as the case may be. I would say my tone is more resigned to a new normal than sarcastic. American votes in major elections are commodities now and there are basically no rules on how those votes can be gathered so long as the votes really are human beings who are qualified to pull the levers in question.

[snipped for the page]

I don't even have a huge problem with fake news. Eventually, folks will catch on.

Great post...


And as for "fake news," it's another piece of candy being thrown out there. Fake news didn't get anyone elected and the media coverage from the major networks and their websites more than made up for it in any case. OR, are people really suggesting that the voters who read that stuff actually tipped the entire election??? I thought the people who read alternative and fake news were just a very small minority of conspiracy theorists?

Those really falling for the mainstream blaming alternative and fake news sites need to realize they're doing it to save face. I think many are still in disbelief Trump won when it simply wasn't supposed to happen. Also, it's an excuse for entities like Facebook to continue molding us like clay. Now they have an active interest based upon a situation they've made up and can start aggressively filtering things they don't want people to see. It has to have the stamp of CNN, FNC, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS for it be deemed qualified. That's the whole point of this, right?

So which is it? Uneducated hick whites? Russia? Fake news?

The excuses (those three are just the main ones we've been told by the media) are piling on and it's reached a pathetic point. Pick one and go with it because some of us are getting bored.

[TheTravellers]

In the United States, we value free speech. Tamping down on news we deem "fake" is going to have a massive chilling affect on the press. The easiest thing is to invest in education to ensure the public is less susceptible to bad information. This might be something which could be integrated into classroom curricula.

And fake news didn't get Trump elected. You have to lay at least some of the blame at the feet of his opponent. She rightly or wrongly carried a LOT of baggage and the Democratic Party was so over-the-moon for her that not a single other qualified other candidate emerged. I think Elizabeth Warren would have been an outstanding candidate, for example.

Educating Americans would be the best thing ever, in lots of ways. However, it's not going to happen that way in our lifetimes, America's too polarized and so much of it is in an echo chamber, and lots of people just don't want to know anything that challenges their beliefs. Salon (or Slate) has some kind of app that helps point out fake news in your Facebook feed, not sure how good it is (not on Facebook), or how well it will work long-term, but Facebook needs to change things, they're a huge media company now, despite their denials, and they need to act like a responsible one, not just accepting anything for anybody's feed almost blindly. I didn't say fake news got Trump elected, but it may have played a part in it, and yes, Clinton was probably unelectable, I would've taken Warren any day over her.