U.S. investigating potential covert Russian plan to disrupt November elections - Polidicks

Funny how Hillary can rig the entire DNC primary and get ignored, but when Russia "may have plans" people lose their shit

[QUOTE=Legel;51009426]Funny how Hillary can rig the entire DNC primary and get ignored, but when Russia "may have plans" people lose their shit[/QUOTE] I don't think you know what "rig" means The DNC being biased against a candidate but not actually messing with the voting process is not comparable to fucking tampering with electronic voting machines.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51008798]First thing Trump will do when elected is dismantle NATO and pull all support from Europe. Is this what you people really believe?[/QUOTE] Well I mean he sort of said it so yeah.

If this turns out to be true, we can't keep pussyfooting around with them. Their aggression must be punished. If we don't start taking a stand against them and cause them serious harm, then this game will go on and on-- because they'll realize that we're too frightened and passive to stand up for ourselves no matter the cost. That's exactly the takeaway they've gotten from the Ukraine and our lack of action there, and previously the same was true when they invaded Georgia (a NATO member, I might add) in 2008 while we did nothing to retaliate against them for it. When are people going to learn that passivity in the face of aggression is never right? It just enables further aggression, and things quickly go from bad to worse. It's limp-wristed, unintentional appeasement. We can't afford to keep tolerating their shit. We're going to have to start seriously considering the possibility of war against them. Whether that means (preferably) cyberwarfare, conventional warfare, economic warfare, or a combination thereof, the solution to this problem lies only in assertiveness. [editline]11 September 2016[/editline] For the record, Georgia has been working with NATO since 1994, and they were promised membership in April 2008 (they additionally conducted a referendum in 2008 in which 77% of those who voted agreed that they should join the alliance). Conveniently, Russia attacked them in August 2008. They are for all intents and purposes a member of NATO, which is exactly the reason why Russia attacked them (one of the most important reasons anyway): they wanted to test to see how/if we'd respond, militarily and diplomatically.

Either that or ramp ProxyWar2016 into full gear.

[QUOTE=Govna;51009810]If this turns out to be true, we can't keep pussyfooting around with them. Their aggression must be punished. If we don't start taking a stand against them and cause them serious harm, then this game will go on and on-- because they'll realize that we're too frightened and passive to stand up for ourselves no matter the cost. That's exactly the takeaway they've gotten from the Ukraine and our lack of action there, and previously the same was true when they invaded Georgia (a NATO member, I might add) in 2008 while we did nothing to retaliate against them for it. When are people going to learn that passivity in the face of aggression is never right? It just enables further aggression, and things quickly go from bad to worse. It's limp-wristed, unintentional appeasement. We can't afford to keep tolerating their shit. We're going to have to start seriously considering the possibility of war against them. Whether that means (preferably) cyberwarfare, conventional warfare, economic warfare, or a combination thereof, the solution to this problem lies only in assertiveness.[/QUOTE] You do realize they've got a shitton of nukes, right? You don't risk direct war with a country that's got a lot of nukes.

[QUOTE=Govna;51009810]That's exactly the takeaway they've gotten from the Ukraine and our lack of action there, and previously the same was true when they invaded Georgia (a NATO member, I might add) in 2008 while we did nothing to retaliate against them for it.[/QUOTE] Georgia is not a member of NATO. They were trying to join NATO, but they were not a member during the war.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51010191]You do realize they've got a shitton of nukes, right? You don't risk direct war with a country that's got a lot of nukes.[/QUOTE] He has more of a point then you do. *Despite the error about Georgia and NATO. Also, no level headed man will ever resort to using nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin is many things, but he is not a fool and not risk a nuclear holocaust because he knows every other nuclear armed country would retaliate. We only did so with Japan because no other country was armed with the atom bomb. Were we not suppose to have learned the lesson that passivity breeds more aggression when Hitler was rolling over Europe? Vladimir Putin has been doing the same thing for years without being impeded and will only continue to do so. When will he stop? When he has Poland and all the baltic states within his grasp as well? We don't need to send troops, but we can at least send aid in the form of munitions and supplies.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51010297]He has more of a point then you do. Also, no level headed man will ever resort to using nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin is many things, but he is not a fool and not risk a nuclear holocaust because he knows every other nuclear armed country would retaliate. We only did so with Japan because no other country was armed with the atom bomb. Were we not suppose to have learned the lesson that passivity breeds more aggression when Hitler was rolling over Europe? Vladimir Putin has been doing the same thing for years without being impeded and will only continue to do so. When will he stop? When he has Poland and all the baltic states within his grasp as well? We don't need to send troops, but we can at least send aid in the form of munitions and supplies.[/QUOTE] Yes, I can only see this escalating in the sense of more proxy warfare.

I'm not sure what your options would be anyway. The obvious one would be sanctions, but that's not enough for some people, especially with how they can get around it. What else is there though? Escalate to warning bombs and kick off the new Cold War?

Putin pretty much exploits the western fear of escalating anything. He won't stop until there's a proper response.

[QUOTE=Legel;51009426]Funny how Hillary can rig the entire DNC primary[/QUOTE] I hate how this is a narrative that a not-inconsequential amount of people actually believe. Also yeah it was ignored except for being in the news cycle 24/7 for a full week and front page news on every paper for the following two days.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;51010467]Putin pretty much exploits the western fear of escalating anything. He won't stop until there's a proper response.[/QUOTE] Again, what is "a proper response"? Are we just supposed to send a missile into the woods as a warning?

[QUOTE=Cructo;51010569]So it's okay because nobody did anything about it?[/QUOTE] Clinton's poll numbers went down, DWS stepped down, other than that I'm not really sure what you want to be done about it, whatever "it" is that we are talking about. [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] I also never said it's okay, I said it wasn't ignored.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51010742]What more could've been done about it? The leaked DNC emails show that the pro-hillary people rigged the primaries.[/QUOTE] Technically nothing needed to be done because the DNC race is a private affair and they can do what they want with it, in fact they don't even need to hold a race at all. Same with the RNC, and ironically both the DNC and RNC would have been much better off just choosing candidates, because their races have damaged their images tremendously. Getting rid of DWS was just a PR move and she now works for Hillary's campaign.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51010742]What more could've been done about it? [/QUOTE] I'm asking you, what did you expect? [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51010758]Getting rid of DWS was just a PR move and she now works for Hillary's campaign.[/QUOTE] It was actually a demand of several people in the Bernie camp. Whether or not it was good PR is irrevelant; people wanted her to step down and she did.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51010758]Technically nothing needed to be done because the DNC race is a private affair and they can do what they want with it, in fact they don't even need to hold a race at all. Same with the RNC, and ironically both the DNC and RNC would have been much better off just choosing candidates, because their races have damaged their images tremendously. Getting rid of DWS was just a PR move and she now works for Hillary's campaign.[/QUOTE] Taking the defense that what they did wasn't illegal is like trying to defend Brock Turner getting 3 months because a judge said so. Just because the law is poorly constructed enough to allow for a major political party to rig their nomination process and snub a meaningful and virtuous candidate doesn't mean it's right, and doesn't mean it isn't a grand injustice that nothing was done in retaliation. DWS stepped down.. and was immediately picked up as a major part of the Clinton campaign. There were no real repercussions and everyone trying to hand-wave away the ordeal as just "tough luck" rather than an egregious violation of the democratic process should be ashamed of themselves (not you specifically, but some.. other posters).

[QUOTE=srobins;51010778]Taking the defense that what they did wasn't illegal is like trying to defend Brock Turner getting 3 months because a judge said so. [/QUOTE] Comparing something that isn't illegal because no law exists to break and comparing it to a sentencing decision is disingenuous. [QUOTE=srobins;51010778]Just because the law is poorly constructed enough [/QUOTE] The law isn't poorly constructed; there just is no legal basis or precedence for what you are asking for. The idea that we are going to charge DNC staffers with a crime because they exchanged emails asking about Sanders religion is absurd. [QUOTE=srobins;51010778]to allow for a major political party to rig their nomination process and snub a meaningful and virtuous candidate doesn't mean it's right, and doesn't mean it isn't a grand injustice that nothing was done in retaliation. [/QUOTE] The process wasn't rigged. But if it was, would it be okay if the victim wasn't a meaningful and virtuous candidate? [QUOTE=srobins;51010778]DWS stepped down.. and was immediately picked up as a major part of the Clinton campaign. [/QUOTE] So she moved from a place of power over the entire Democratic party to working to elect Clinton. Sounds like a good deal to me? [QUOTE=srobins;51010778]There were no real repercussions and everyone trying to hand-wave away the ordeal as just "tough luck" rather than an egregious violation of the democratic process should be ashamed of themselves (not you specifically, but some.. other posters).[/QUOTE] What repercussions do you think should happen.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51010832]So you are saying it's okay that Clinton won the primaries even though it was rigged?[/QUOTE] They weren't rigged in the sense that genuine voter fraud occurred so sure? When I went to vote in my states primary I picked Bernie with absolutely no doubt in my mind that the DNC were pulling for Clinton, but they didn't do anything illegal, and honestly didn't seem as coordinated with Clinton's campaign as even I figured. So yeah I'm not really seeing the problem. The GOP doubtlessly did the same thing for Cruz but Trump actually got people to vote (unlike Sanders) and party leadership doesn't seem as cohesive as the Democrats. [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] Like if DNC staffers were caught stuffing ballot boxes or burning votes or hacking voting terminals or destroying Sanders campaign materials like signs and banners I'd have a problem but all we have for supposed "rigging" is a handful of emails from staffers looking for dirt on Sanders. And even though I'm minimizing it, I still don't think it was necessarily right. Clinton would have won regardless and all it does is reflect badly on the party. But what do people seriously expect when one candidate has been an important figure in the party for over 20 years and was Secretary of State under a Democratic president and the other candidate is an Independent who happened to work with the Democrats for years and jumped on their ticket for publicity?

[QUOTE=Cructo;51010971]Then you are admittedly supporting a candidate despite rigging the primaries and there's no problem because of Bill Clinton?[/QUOTE] How do you even deduce that from his post?

[QUOTE=Cructo;51010971]Then you are admittedly supporting a candidate despite rigging the primaries and there's no problem because of Bill Clinton?[/QUOTE] How was the election rigged? Let's start from the beginning because clearly you believe I'm some sort of tyrant that opposes democracy, or just someone who can't read that well because nothing in my post is about Bill.

[QUOTE=certified;51008172]Ah yes, Voter ID is an excellent proven remedy to hacked electronic voting machines.[/QUOTE] Great snipe. Record each individual act of voting and tie it to the ID during the tallying process, and keep a hard, undetailed record of the vote alongside the electronic system. [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] Aren't voting machines little more than an interface that produces a physical ballot anyway? These things shouldn't be connected to any sort of network in the first place.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51009456]I don't think you know what "rig" means The DNC being biased against a candidate but not actually messing with the voting process is not comparable to fucking tampering with electronic voting machines.[/QUOTE] If its the organisation that organised the voting, then yes, thats pretty huge...

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51009456]I don't think you know what "rig" means The DNC being biased against a candidate but not actually messing with the voting process is not comparable to fucking tampering with electronic voting machines.[/QUOTE] The word rig doesn't only mean literally stuffing ballots into the box or fucking with voting machines. Manipulating the process in order to give a specific candidate an advantage is a perfect example of "rigging" an election.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51015562]The word rig doesn't only mean literally stuffing ballots into the box or fucking with voting machines. Manipulating the process in order to give a specific candidate an advantage is a perfect example of "rigging" an election.[/QUOTE] Who manipulated the process in order to give a specific candidate an advantage, and how?