Trump and Russia

[Tiberius]

8 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Russia IS going to do this stuff again and has done it before.  The key is to be prepared and have a good defense for this.  We're almost 1/4th into the 21st century.  You can't just non SSL encrypt your email service as the former Secretary of State and then squeal like stuck pig when you get hacked.

 

She was only sec of state up to 2012, the hacking to the DNC took place long after that. Those are separate issues.

 

And seriously, it should be disqualifying for a candidate to try and benefit from a foreign powers crimes

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Magox said:

 

Are you saying that by Trump asking the "Russians" to release Hillary's emails in a campaign speech that this was a serious request by Trump?  And that there was an unsaid understanding to take marching orders from Trump's campaign speech?   or that Putin and KGB received the green light to release Hillary's emails because Trump said so at a campaign speech?    I'm trying to unpack what you and the media are saying here.     Also, it's not that the RUssians favor Republicans, it's that they don't support interventionists.   They were also favoring Bernie during the primaries and Jill Stein as well.   They also had a misinformation campaign against Marco Rubio.    So it's not a Republican issue, if Bernie wins the nomination they will go all in on Bernie.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

The idea that Trump was just joking is contradicted by the facts. Trump jr said "He'd love that!" when offered dirt on Hillary Clinton. The fact he was secretly negotiating with the Russians for a multi-hundreds of millions of dollars hotel in Russia and lied about it and every things also contradicts that point he was joking. The intelligence officials had told him Russia had hacked the DNC and yet Trump was actively promoting--over and over and over again--the wikileaks release of stolen material.

 

As to your interventionist point YES! Yes, Russia wanted Trump in order to shape American foreign policy. Thank you!

 

There is no way for you to know that the Russians would have gone all in for Bernie. That's counter factual and really not germain to the disussion of what happened.

6 hours ago, Magox said:

 

To the second part, what "Russians" are you talking about?   I think the press and others like to throw out the word Russians and use that word as a boogie term.  Just about all of these "Russian" contacts were benign.     If you could point out to me which "Russians" attempted to contact Trumps team.   I'd like to know which Russians we are talking about.  

 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-government-contact-timeline-2018-7#march-24-2016-papadopoulos-mifsud-and-a-russian-woman-meet-in-london-to-discuss-setting-up-a-meeting-between-the-trump-campaign-and-russia-4

 

Here is a list.

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Magox said:

 

 

And they should have told the FBI a "foreign power was trying to influence the election".    These are things that I keep hearing parroted left and right but for the life of me, I don't know what they are talking about.   I am more than willing to hear what you or anyone has to say about this.  What is it that they were supposed to tell the FBI?   What instance?  If you could provide me a specific example that the Trump campaign was made aware of that was given or provided to them from the Russian government.   Because when you say "foreign power", that implies Russian government/KGB/Putin.      I did plenty of reading of the report, I read tons of analysis and more from the lefts point of view than the rights and I have yet to see a specific example that would back up that the Trump campaign was aware of the Russian government's intentions to help the campaign that the FBI wasn't already privy to.   

Just one? Sure, the Trump tower meeting. Offered dirt, they said they's love it and all of those birds in the top of the campaign attended.

 

And don't take my word for it:

Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff

[Deranged Rhino]

If Brennan is your source... you need better sources.

[Tiberius]

9 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

And everyone else for that matter better up their game.  This is how Russia operate now.  They did the same to the Brexit vote and an election in France and others.  No one inside colluded with them.  They didn't need it.  They don't need it here either.

Great points! Yes, Russia influenced those events also. They make a difference in elections, don't they?

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

If Brennan is your source... you need better sources.

 What???

[B-Man]

The collusion hoax is a prime example of what the left is all about:

 

1. Invent a narrative

2. Use it to Stoke Fear

3. Say it's the End of Democracy

4. Say its the End of the World

5. Get the MSM to Peddle the Message

6. Smear Anyone Who Challenges it

7. Rinse and Repeat

 

 

 

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Democrats and NeverTrumpers can’t wholly abandon the collusion narrative, it’s too useful.

 

 

 

Related: Reminder: The Russia Collusion Hoax Was Hatched By Hillary Clinton and Her Aides Just Hours After Her Loss, and Fed to a Supportive Media to Explain Away Her Failure — and Theirs.

 

 

 

.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Great points! Yes, Russia influenced those events also. They make a difference in elections, don't they?

 What???

What? There’s never been a presidential election with two better known candidates than Hilary and Donald. I can’t imagine a single American who didn’t have their own experiential opinion about these two candidates. Russia had ZERO to do with the results in 2016. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned in the future but 2016? Please!

[/dev/null]

Some time between 8-12 hours ago, I scored a Hat trick!

 

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius.

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius.

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius.

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

Some time between 8-12 hours ago, I scored a Hat trick!

 

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius.

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius.

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius.

 

 

 

Empty net goals.

[Q-baby!]

12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

If Brennan is your source... you need better sources.

Says the guy who’s main sources are Twitter and Q. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by BigMcD

[Tiberius]

11 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

What? There’s never been a presidential election with two better known candidates than Hilary and Donald. I can’t imagine a single American who didn’t have their own experiential opinion about these two candidates. Russia had ZERO to do with the results in 2016. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned in the future but 2016? Please!

Counter factual. You can't say the Russian influence, which Mueller reported as "sweeping and systematic," had no impact. You just want that to be true. (I'm just arguing against the point you made, that's all.)

 

Don't you see your own contradiction? You say Russia didn't make a difference, but we have to be worried they will do the same thing again.

 

BTW,

In Push for Election Security, Top Official Was Warned to Not Tell Trump

• As homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen became increasingly worried about Russian attempts to influence the 2020 election.
• But she couldn’t discuss it at high-level White House meetings.

 

 

The argument here is that Trump's ego will get in the way so they can't discuss election security. Ya right. The guy wants Russia to help in 2020, we all know that, or should.

 

I can't believe anyone would support such a person.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Empty net goals.

 

BigMcD and another Tibs to add to your collection

 

don't need em

don't need em

don't need em

don't need em

don't need em

[Gary M]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

BigMcD and another Tibs to add to your collection

 

don't need em

don't need em

don't need em

don't need em

don't need em

 

I find their delusion fascinating.

 

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Counter factual. You can't say the Russian influence, which Mueller reported as "sweeping and systematic," had no impact. You just want that to be true. (I'm just arguing against the point you made, that's all.)

 

Don't you see your own contradiction? You say Russia didn't make a difference, but we have to be worried they will do the same thing again.

 

BTW,

In Push for Election Security, Top Official Was Warned to Not Tell Trump

• As homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen became increasingly worried about Russian attempts to influence the 2020 election.
• But she couldn’t discuss it at high-level White House meetings.

 

 

The argument here is that Trump's ego will get in the way so they can't discuss election security. Ya right. The guy wants Russia to help in 2020, we all know that, or should.

 

I can't believe anyone would support such a person.

 

Notice Mueller didn't say "effective."  Because there's no evidence it helped Trump.  And the idea that a few millions spent could overcome the billion+ Hilly spent is laughable. 

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Notice Mueller didn't say "effective."  Because there's no evidence it helped Trump.  And the idea that a few millions spent could overcome the billion+ Hilly spent is laughable. 

I agree in part. The only evidence we have is that they did in fact help Trump. "Sweeping and systematic" sounds like they weighed in pretty heavily. In an election as close as it was, it reasonable to conclude they made a difference.

 

You don't believe propaganda works? History kind of proves you wrong

 

 

[reddogblitz]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I agree in part. The only evidence we have is that they did in fact help Trump. "Sweeping and systematic" sounds like they weighed in pretty heavily. In an election as close as it was, it reasonable to conclude they made a difference.

 

You don't believe propaganda works? History kind of proves you wrong

 

 

 

This is my biggest problem with the way this Russia thing was handled.  it was pretty obvious from the beginning that Russia's strategy was disinformation.  Feed a bunch of fake stuff out there and let it become reality and get people all ginned up.  Even major news outlets bought it and reported it as true and used it as a source.

 

So what are we going to do about it?

 

Russia has been doing the same thing with good results all over the world.  The Brexit vote.  The French election.  Ukraine?  They're coming for us again and no doubt have already started.  Yet congress has done nothing to make sure this does not happen again.   Getting Trump will do nothing to stop fake Pizza child rape stories and dueling protests that people believe and freak out about.

 

How about hardening up our political parity's computer systems?  Have heard nothing of that.  How about a public service campaign encouraging people to not believe everything they read on line?  Nothing.  I have read about upcoming information wars since the 1970s.  It has arrived.  We're not ready.  This is the problem, not Trump IMHO.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This is my biggest problem with the way this Russia thing was handled.  it was pretty obvious from the beginning that Russia's strategy was disinformation.  Feed a bunch of fake stuff out there and let it become reality and get people all ginned up.  Even major news outlets bought it and reported it as true and used it as a source.

 

So what are we going to do about it?

 

Russia has been doing the same thing with good results all over the world.  The Brexit vote.  The French election.  Ukraine?  They're coming for us again and no doubt have already started.  Yet congress has done nothing to make sure this does not happen again.   Getting Trump will do nothing to stop fake Pizza child rape stories and dueling protests that people believe and freak out about.

 

How about hardening up our political parity's computer systems?  Have heard nothing of that.  How about a public service campaign encouraging people to not believe everything they read on line?  Nothing.  I have read about upcoming information wars since the 1970s.  It has arrived.  We're not ready.  This is the problem, not Trump IMHO.

 

But the reality of the Russian operation is limited success, if any, in swaying opinion. As scary and dangerous sounding as the Russian "hacking the election" stories were, they paled in comparison to the threat posed by a sitting President weaponizing the powers of surveillance and our intelligence agencies against his political opposition. 

Who divided us more? The Russians and their Facebook ad buys? Or the effort on the part of the DNC/Clinton campaign/Obama White House to paint the incoming president as a treasonous colluder with Russia? Or their efforts to paint any person who disagreed with their positions as Putin loyalists or Russian bots? 

 

Russia had some successes in 2016, but they didn't create Brexit. They didn't elect Trump. They didn't divide the world or the country. 

 

The left did. 

 

And they're still doing it. 

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I agree in part. The only evidence we have is that they did in fact help Trump. "Sweeping and systematic" sounds like they weighed in pretty heavily. In an election as close as it was, it reasonable to conclude they made a difference.

 

You don't believe propaganda works? History kind of proves you wrong

 

Sure propaganda works.  But like I said, when you spend over a billion dollars on your own propaganda, a few million spent against you isn't going to do *****. 

[DC Tom]

33 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

But the reality of the Russian operation is limited success, if any, in swaying opinion. As scary and dangerous sounding as the Russian "hacking the election" stories were, they paled in comparison to the threat posed by a sitting President weaponizing the powers of surveillance and our intelligence agencies against his political opposition. 

Who divided us more? The Russians and their Facebook ad buys? Or the effort on the part of the DNC/Clinton campaign/Obama White House to paint the incoming president as a treasonous colluder with Russia? Or their efforts to paint any person who disagreed with their positions as Putin loyalists or Russian bots? 

 

Russia had some successes in 2016, but they didn't create Brexit. They didn't elect Trump. They didn't divide the world or the country. 

 

The left did. 

 

And they're still doing it. 

 

Plus, when you get down to it, their purpose was to sow discord.  If manipulating an election were as cheap and easy as this, then Clinton would have done it - and won.

 

Russia didn't "hack" the election.  They "hacked" American society.  They still are.  

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Plus, when you get down to it, their purpose was to sow discord.  If manipulating an election were as cheap and easy as this, then Clinton would have done it - and won.

 

Russia didn't "hack" the election.  They "hacked" American society.  They still are.  

This is it exactly. When it was widely thought Clinton would win they went after her. When Trump won they went after him and the MSM was more than willing to do whatever they could to denigrate Trump.