Merged All things Trump + Russia

[uke2se]

Yes, the idea you are thinking that was contained in my accusation of you basing your certain knowledge on nothing but cynicism. Do you need to look that term up?

Anway, would it be "typical" that someone looking to sink a political candidate by releasing a mass of documents on election eve, and too late for public fact checking processes, spice it up with disinformation?
In such a situation he surely wouldnt say, "Yes, they're all real."

In this case, it didn't matter. Macron won handidly despite Putin's interference. This leads me to think that, perhaps the answer to these contant hacks by Putin's cronies is the media blackout the French employ before their election. It sure seems to have prevented the spin-machine.

 

[Meed]

Silly to think Russia doesn't attempt to influence elections in other countries. Silly to think the US doesn't do the same thing. As long as they aren't tampering with actual votes or people's ability to vote freely, I don't see why it's such a huge story. Maybe I'm missing something.

As for Trump and co. having connections to Russia, I do think conflicts of interest are important. But I'm not sure if there's anything to the "this person and this person met with a Russian" hype.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think Russia hacking into servers is a huge story. If they simply endorsed a candidate, and ran ads where it is legal, it would not be a huge story.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Silly to think Russia doesn't attempt to influence elections in other countries. Silly to think the US doesn't do the same thing. As long as they aren't tampering with actual votes or people's ability to vote freely, I don't see why it's such a huge story. Maybe I'm missing something.

As for Trump and co. having connections to Russia, I do think conflicts of interest are important. But I'm not sure if there's anything to the "this person and this person met with a Russian" hype.

A lot of America seems to in many areas have lowered the bar of what is acceptable. President Trump FFS. I think many Australians would find it outrageous if a foreign power tried to influence an election like this.

 

[uke2se]

Silly to think Russia doesn't attempt to influence elections in other countries. Silly to think the US doesn't do the same thing. As long as they aren't tampering with actual votes or people's ability to vote freely, I don't see why it's such a huge story. Maybe I'm missing something.

As for Trump and co. having connections to Russia, I do think conflicts of interest are important. But I'm not sure if there's anything to the "this person and this person met with a Russian" hype.

The way they interfere is a big deal, and who they keep promoting. They are very obviously trying to destabilize the Western world by promoting nativism, nationalism and fascism. They do this by cyber warfare, and by targeting something that is desperately needed for a functioning democracy: information.

As for the Trump-Putin connection, it's quite a lot more than hype. We are looking at very real crimes, if the information being gathered by intelligence agencies is true.

 

[McHrozni]

Silly to think Russia doesn't attempt to influence elections in other countries. Silly to think the US doesn't do the same thing. As long as they aren't tampering with actual votes or people's ability to vote freely, I don't see why it's such a huge story. Maybe I'm missing something.

You're missing a lot of things. The Russian state is engaged in cybercrimes to aid their preferred candidate in an opaque way, outside of the legal channels and in the case of Macron, no ability to refute their message.

This is little different to sending unmarked troops (a war crime, by the way) to occupy a peninsula that "should be yours anyway" and annexing it two weeks later. It's no less than an act of war.

As for Trump and co. having connections to Russia, I do think conflicts of interest are important. But I'm not sure if there's anything to the "this person and this person met with a Russian" hype.

Why did the aides keep it a secret when asked on inquiries, then? This is not a criminal trial, there is presumption of guilt, not innocence.

McHrozni

 

[Henri McPhee]

Obama interfered in the French election. This means war.

 

[Meed]

A lot of America seems to in many areas have lowered the bar of what is acceptable. President Trump FFS. I think many Australians would find it outrageous if a foreign power tried to influence an election like this.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

The US has tried to influence elections in other countries 81 times between 1946 and 2000, and Russia has done so 36 times, according to this article. Not including military coups, direct invasions and things like that. And that's just the ones we know about.

The US also hacks other countries. And this was hardly a sophisticated hacked, it was just Podesta falling for a phising email.

Not saying it's a good thing. But it's clearly selective outrage over something that's very common. If the US thinks it's so outrageous they could start by not doing it themselves.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not saying it's a good thing. But it's clearly selective outrage over something that's very common. If the US thinks it's so outrageous they could start by not doing it themselves.

I agree that our government should not. However, that does not make Russia less guilty.

 

[Meed]

Why did the aides keep it a secret when asked on inquiries, then?

Why does Trump and team lie constantly about everything, even things as petty as the size of inauguration crowds and the electoral victory? I have no idea.

This is not a criminal trial, there is presumption of guilt, not innocence.

What do you mean, there's a presumption of guilt?

 

[Sideroxylon]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

The US has tried to influence elections in other countries 81 times between 1946 and 2000, and Russia has done so 36 times, according to this article. Not including military coups, direct invasions and things like that. And that's just the ones we know about.

The US also hacks other countries. And this was hardly a sophisticated hacked, it was just Podesta falling for a phising email.

Not saying it's a good thing. But it's clearly selective outrage over something that's very common. If the US thinks it's so outrageous they could start by not doing it themselves.

And pandering United Fruit Company. All makes a mockery American democracic high talk.

 

[Aridas]

Why did the aides keep it a secret when asked on inquiries, then? This is not a criminal trial, there is presumption of guilt, not innocence.

At least some of it is probably hype, to be fair, and was being concealed more because of lines of reasoning on par with not wanting to just give political opponents a bone. That's not to excuse any attempts to cover it up, though, nor to try to claim that all of it is hype.

Obama interfered in the French election. This means war.

You speak of Macron? That's quite the false equivalence being engaged in. Foreign celebrities and leaders are quite free to openly state their opinions about candidates. The problems start when underhanded methods start to be employed. If Obama was indeed quietly diverting tax dollars to support more progressive parties in foreign election, for example, that would be rather questionable. The problems become dramatically more serious when outright criminal actions, like hacking, become involved.

 

[Aridas]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

The US has tried to influence elections in other countries 81 times between 1946 and 2000, and Russia has done so 36 times, according to this article. Not including military coups, direct invasions and things like that. And that's just the ones we know about.

The US also hacks other countries. And this was hardly a sophisticated hacked, it was just Podesta falling for a phising email.

Not saying it's a good thing. But it's clearly selective outrage over something that's very common. If the US thinks it's so outrageous they could start by not doing it themselves.

The US also has a history of assassinations and attempted assassinations, along with all manner of other actions that would generally found criminal in a court of law. The citizens of the USA are still entirely entitled to be outraged if a foreign country tries to assassinate our President, just like they're entitled to be outraged at the assassination attempts, successful or not, carried out by the US. Two wrongs don't make a right, after all.

 

[uke2se]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

The US has tried to influence elections in other countries 81 times between 1946 and 2000, and Russia has done so 36 times, according to this article. Not including military coups, direct invasions and things like that. And that's just the ones we know about.

The US also hacks other countries. And this was hardly a sophisticated hacked, it was just Podesta falling for a phising email.

Not saying it's a good thing. But it's clearly selective outrage over something that's very common. If the US thinks it's so outrageous they could start by not doing it themselves.

There is a difference, as I see it. Russia is engaging in a destabilizing effort against multiple countries. We're not talking about influencing the election in a failed state. We're talking about the entirety of the Western world.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You know, is is perfectly acceptable to equally outraged at both US or Russian meddling without using one to excuse or relativise the other.
And it is only natural to be more concerned with being meddled with than knowing your government is meddling with others.

 

[Meed]

The US also has a history of assassinations and attempted assassinations, along with all manner of other actions that would generally found criminal in a court of law. The citizens of the USA are still entirely entitled to be outraged if a foreign country tries to assassinate our President, just like they're entitled to be outraged at the assassination attempts, successful or not, carried out by the US. Two wrongs don't make a right, after all.

It's overblown, selective outrage, as I've said. And when it comes from members of the federal government, it's also hypocritical.

John Podesta didn't know how to keep his emails secure and now they're out there. So voters had more information to work with, not less. I do see phising as wrong, but I don't see how the results of it were such a terrible thing.

You know, is is perfectly acceptable to equally outraged at both US or Russian meddling without using one to excuse or relativise the other.
And it is only natural to be more concerned with being meddled with than knowing your government is meddling with others.

I disagree. We are actually in a position to influence our government, so it makes much more sense to be concerned with what our government does than what other governments do.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I disagree. We are actually in a position to influence our government, so it makes much more sense to be concerned with what our government does than what other governments do.

I don't get that logic, quite the reverse, actually:

If we meddle in elections that are not democratic to begin with, then whatever we do to weaken the autocrats helps the move towards a freer society. If we support the dictator for the sake of regional stability (or to prevent Islamisation, things get murky, of course.

But if an autocratic systems influences our elections, that undermines democracy as a political system itself (which is precisely the stated goal of Putin's propaganda machinery.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sheldon Whitehouse in the Yates Senate hearing is pointing the finger right at Trump's finances listing all of Donnie Jr's recent trips to Russia and Trump's interest in investments in Russia, and pointing out that Trump Tower NY is "a repository" for Russian oligarch money.

He also through in a dig at Citizen's United allowing all this dark money into our campaigns.

 

[Minoosh]

In a way, Trump's election, including the EC win, the popular loss, his low approval rating and his unshakeable and aptly named "base" are a good advertisement for the U.S. political system. So far as we know, he has not ordered journalists killed. The best he can do is whine about "fake news."

Meanwhile Putin's approval ratings may or may not be legitimate. Who's going to dispute the numbers? People may go along with an autocrat because they fear retribution. Trump doesn't inspire that same level of fear. People and press have confidence in the U.S. Constitution, at least for now.

Trump may want a cowed populace but so far he has not made that happen. He wasn't able to hamper post-election protests, despite his desperate attacks on the First Amendment. His victory - not an EC landslide as he claims, and not a popular-vote win - undercuts his sniveling about rigged elections.

Whatever Russia did or didn't do, the ease with which the DNC was "hacked" and Clinton's inability to keep her emails off Anthony Weiner's laptop are at least somewhat alarming.

I find it frustrating that though Clinton might have tried to evade FOIA requests, Trump's lack of transparency is structurally protected. He'll never have to release his tax returns. He has very limited exposure to conflict-of-interest laws. Meanwhile, of course foreign diplomats will stay at Trump properties. Tribute, aka bribery, is how power has generally worked for hundreds if not thousands of years.

 

[Meed]

I don't get that logic, quite the reverse, actually:

If we meddle in elections that are not democratic to begin with, then whatever we do to weaken the autocrats helps the move towards a freer society. If we support the dictator for the sake of regional stability (or to prevent Islamisation, things get murky, of course.

But if an autocratic systems influences our elections, that undermines democracy as a political system itself (which is precisely the stated goal of Putin's propaganda machinery.)

You seem to be assuming, for some reason, that we only meddle in elections that "are not democratic" and that we are always meddling for the sake of weakening autocrats and promoting freedom. Also, your response does nothing to address my logic, you are making a completely separate point.