• Trump's chief of staff acknowledges that Russia was behind DNC hacks
    71 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Govna;51643017] And this meanwhile is just crap. Every one of your posts is like reading a schizophrenic's manifesto written in MS Word. Russia [i]is[/i] the enemy here. "But they showed that our elections are rigged!" Yes, and it doesn't fucking matter. Everybody who had any sense about American politics already knew this. Do you know [i]why[/i] they hacked into the DNC and released this information? It wasn't to help us, and it's not because they're actually a benevolent ally to us. They did it because they wanted Trump in office. Because he's a patsy with no political experience and a kiss-ass fanboy to Putin. In other words: a disaster for the United States. Clinton, while corrupt, would not have been this way. She has actual political experience and foreign policy experience (knows how to run a country in other words), and she's a staunch opponent of Russian imperialism and meddling in the West's affairs. While Trump drags our economy and geopolitical power down with policy blunders and his general incompetence, he's also going to attempt to lift the sanctions we have in place against them for their behavior in the Crimea/Ukraine and the Middle East. And then there's the statements he's made about breaking up (or at least weakening) NATO, which would (obviously) be advantageous for Russia. If they actually cared about "spilling secrets" for the sake of transparency, then they also would've gone after Trump and the RNC exposing their corruption. But that's not what's going on here. Again, they [i]are[/i] our enemy. They are not looking out for our best interests, and people attempting to brush aside this fact are just as much of a threat to us as they are. If it isn't just plain stupidity on their part to not understand what's going on here, then it must be maliciousness; either way, it's intolerable given the circumstances we're faced with today, and something is going to have to be done about it-- otherwise, the Russians will continue to exploit it as the weakness it is.[/QUOTE] I'm not even sure what that means other than slandering my use of 'the elite', which is vague but still meaningful unless you're willfully ignorant. On the other hand, when you post I get the sense of someone that doesn't go far past NYT and WaPo in their sources of information. It doesn't matter if 'everyone knew it', since hard evidence is always desirable and this election was particularly unique with both parties having alternative candidates challenge their establishments. How they'd react is of huge interest, but more so with the Democrats since they maintained the status quo and, for a center-left party, ironically presented the hawkish, neoliberal candidate this election. I (and presumably many others as evidenced by the fact that people are [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/barbara-hollingsworth/poll-45-americans-say-news-media-poses-primary-threat-outcome-us]more concerned about the media influencing the election[/url]) am glad someone offered our domestic alternative media and leak culture, which his risen in this time of record low distrust for media and congress, some tangible pieces of information about the inner workings of a private, but huge political party with ties to the media and finance. It told us, among other things, how they handled this challenge. I simply don't give a fuck where it came from, because I and many others don't feel like our own system works for our interests in the first place, so appeals to patriotism will fail because politicians who talk like you don't deserve it. It had little to do with Trump and everything to do with Clinton. She's the NATO hawk whose state dpt head helped agitate in Ukraine during 2013, she's the one that called for a no-fly zone in Syria that will mean conflict with Russia. Additionally, she's the one that calls for a kind of open society and trade deal that hurts native workers and otherwise represents the kind of unpopular wealthy liberal that Putinism itself developed in reaction to, directly aligning the latter with Trumpian nationalism (which annihilated the blue wall in the rust belt). Really, Russian meddling in our affairs comes from recognizing the unpopular nature of the foreign policy and economics of western liberalism in the era of globalization, after a weak attempt at liberalizing Russia failed and we turned to regime change in its periphery (making the European project a zero sum game and conditioning an illiberal, conservative siege mentality in response). Such things reached a height ironically with the help of people like Hillary Clinton after 2011, and the 2016 election was working to the background of all this. There's a deep level of irony in demanding patriotism out of the populace that doesn't trust anything you say, is sick of your economics which only increase inequality and collapse the middle class, and is deeply fatigued a policy of war and regime change. You are right to point out our empire is declining, but it's not because of Trump, he is only symptomatic of it. This is why your attempts to paint Russia as the enemy we must focus on will inevitably come off as a pathetic attempt to distract from or weaken vindicated dissent after an unexpected loss, demanding people rally behind the flag in order to deflect from corruption and anger with the status quo and the money behind it. This will fail because it's so transparently bullshit, [i]the flag ultimately doesn't represent anyone but the dissenting masses[/i]. Besides, it didn't influence the election. Polls show Hillary was shit at the start and it hardly changed until Comey, but it's hard to say he caused her to lose. Something as important as the rust belt going red with economic nationalism suggests fundamental problems with Clinton, whose husband had to go around in the last weeks of the election, desperate to give her the working class appeal that he had. Ultimately, it's not Trump or Russia that is causing weakening faith in the economics and political processes of liberal-democracy all over the West, it's an angry middle class that's becoming rapidly just working class (to say nothing of the younger generations). You are better off coming to terms with this than blaming scapegoats for your own failures.
[QUOTE=MR-X;51643030]Um, hack or not Hillary would have lost. She neglected important states and they flipped on the DNC. While I'm sure exposing corruption had an effect on voters it isn't the primary reason why she lost. She lost because of a lot of different reasons.[/QUOTE] There's an under 1% difference in enough states that it would bring her over the threshold. She would've won had the wind blown a different direction that night.
[QUOTE=MR-X;51643030]Um, hack or not Hillary would have lost. She neglected important states and they flipped on the DNC. While I'm sure exposing corruption had an effect on voters it isn't the primary reason why she lost. She lost because of a lot of different reasons.[/QUOTE] You can't just look at the outcome and ignore what actually went in between just because there were other variables. No matter what the goal was, who it was for, what it was intended to do, it still happened. "who cares because other stuff" is just pushing it away.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51643300]I'm not even sure what that means other than slandering my use of 'the elite', which is vague but still meaningful unless you're willfully ignorant. On the other hand, when you post I get the sense of someone that doesn't go far past NYT and WaPo in their sources of information. It doesn't matter if 'everyone knew it', since hard evidence is always desirable and this election was particularly unique with both parties having alternative candidates challenge their establishments. How they'd react is of huge interest, but more so with the Democrats since they maintained the status quo and, for a center-left party, ironically presented the hawkish, neoliberal candidate this election. I (and presumably many others as evidenced by the fact that people are [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/barbara-hollingsworth/poll-45-americans-say-news-media-poses-primary-threat-outcome-us]more concerned about the media influencing the election[/url]) am glad someone offered our domestic alternative media and leak culture, which his risen in this time of record low distrust for media and congress, some tangible pieces of information about the inner workings of a private, but huge political party with ties to the media and finance. It told us, among other things, how they handled this challenge. I simply don't give a fuck where it came from, because I and many others don't feel like our own system works for our interests in the first place, so appeals to patriotism will fail because politicians who talk like you don't deserve it. It had little to do with Trump and everything to do with Clinton. She's the NATO hawk whose state dpt head helped agitate in Ukraine during 2013, she's the one that called for a no-fly zone in Syria that will mean conflict with Russia. Additionally, she's the one that calls for a kind of open society and trade deal that hurts native workers and otherwise represents the kind of unpopular wealthy liberal that Putinism itself developed in reaction to, directly aligning the latter with Trumpian nationalism (which annihilated the blue wall in the rust belt). Really, Russian meddling in our affairs comes from recognizing the unpopular nature of the foreign policy and economics of western liberalism in the era of globalization, after a weak attempt at liberalizing Russia failed and we turned to regime change in its periphery (making the European project a zero sum game and conditioning an illiberal, conservative siege mentality in response). Such things reached a height ironically with the help of people like Hillary Clinton after 2011, and the 2016 election was working to the background of all this. There's a deep level of irony in demanding patriotism out of the populace that doesn't trust anything you say, is sick of your economics which only increase inequality and collapse the middle class, and is deeply fatigued a policy of war and regime change. You are right to point out our empire is declining, but it's not because of Trump, he is only symptomatic of it. This is why your attempts to paint Russia as the enemy we must focus on will inevitably come off as a pathetic attempt to distract from or weaken vindicated dissent after an unexpected loss, demanding people rally behind the flag in order to deflect from corruption and anger with the status quo and the money behind it. This will fail because it's so transparently bullshit, [i]the flag ultimately doesn't represent anyone but the dissenting masses[/i]. Besides, it didn't influence the election. Polls show Hillary was shit at the start and it hardly changed until Comey, but it's hard to say he caused her to lose. Something as important as the rust belt going red with economic nationalism suggests fundamental problems with Clinton, whose husband had to go around in the last weeks of the election, desperate to give her the working class appeal that he had. Ultimately, it's not Trump or Russia that is causing weakening faith in the economics and political processes of liberal-democracy all over the West, it's an angry middle class that's becoming rapidly just working class (to say nothing of the younger generations). You are better off coming to terms with this than blaming scapegoats for your own failures.[/QUOTE] I'm having trouble trying to figure out what point you're trying to make with all of this. So you're more concerned about media influencing the election than you are with Russia, but what does that matter if Hillary lost and the democrats have no power right now? What do you think the Trump administration ought to be doing regarding the leak and where it came from?
Everything that brought hillary very nearly to power didn't magically go away, and trump isn't the revolutionary he styled himself as. How else could we have easily spread hysteria about fake news, russian hacking, whitelash, and so on in response to this unexpected win for populism? Nothing has really changed, but polarization has gotten to such a point that everyone and everything else has. Western democracy is facing challenges it hasn't really seen in a long time. [Quote]What do you think the Trump administration ought to be doing regarding the leak and where it came from?[/quote] I don't know.
The DNC is corrupt as fuck, and we need to do something about it. At the same time, [b]Russia is trying to subvert our government[/b], and we [b]absolutely[/b] need to do something about that.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51643612]Everything that brought hillary very nearly to power didn't magically go away, and trump isn't the revolutionary he styled himself as. How else could we have easily spread hysteria about fake news, russian hacking, whitelash, and so on in response to this unexpected win for populism? Nothing has really changed, but polarization has gotten to such a point that everyone and everything else has. Western democracy is facing challenges it hasn't really seen in a long time.[/quote] Again, I don't understand what point you're trying to make right now. What are you trying to convince people of? [quote]I don't know.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much the entire point of this thread. It's really the only question that matters regarding this whole situation.
God, I didn't know the republicans were so weak that they'd actually want a foreign power interfering in our internal politics. How pathetic. [editline]9th January 2017[/editline] Like do you people realize what a pisshole Russia is politically lmao. My sister is planning on going into foreign service and doesn't want to get stationed there because they have a reputation for having diplomats tires slashed and shit like that when things aren't going their way lmao. [editline]9th January 2017[/editline] But by all means, if you think the country run by an autocrat has our best interests at heart, I'll just step out. No point in arguing with delusion that deep.
[QUOTE=froztshock;51643819]God, I didn't know the republicans were so weak that they'd actually want a foreign power interfering in our internal politics. How pathetic. [editline]9th January 2017[/editline] Like do you people realize what a pisshole Russia is politically lmao. My sister is planning on going into foreign service and doesn't want to get stationed there because they have a reputation for having diplomats tires slashed and shit like that when things aren't going their way lmao. [editline]9th January 2017[/editline] But by all means, if you think the country run by an autocrat has our best interests at heart, I'll just step out. No point in arguing with delusion that deep.[/QUOTE] anything that reinforces their beliefs must be a good thing. they wouldn't have it any other way.
[QUOTE=Pops;51642337]i believe assange said in the hannity interview that the gop emails had nothing controversial in them, hence why he didn't release them. also, i can't seem to find it, but there was a time magazine issue all about how the us interfered with a russian election back in 78 or something, to get a candidate they liked in power. why is it okay when we do it, but not okay when they do it back to us?[/QUOTE] It was in 1996. Pundits claim that this was the last legitimate election in Russia's history. As result, we got Putin later down the line, so, by proxy, the US itself is to blame for these hacks ;)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.