|simon666 - 2017-03-20 |
Crybaby libtard snowflakes can't get over the fact that Trump won with the biggest inauguration crowd since Regan and need to make up sore loser FAKE NEWS about how Russia hacked the election but no evidence supports it!!! SO SAD!!!
|Chocolate Jesus - 2017-03-20 |
so progressives are on the side of people like schiff, michael hayden, and john brennan now? the cia and war are good, and detante with our allies and enemies is bad?
what will you dummies defend next? cointelpro? the phoenix program?
politics makes strange bedfellows. the republicans all love putin now lol
Remember when we lied to you about Iraq's WMD program and Saddam Hussein's link to Al Qaeda? We'll make it up to you by undermining Trump's ability to stop another Cold War with Russia.
I think it fair to say, ChocoJ, that the old cold war never ended. What happened was we completely failed to win the peace. Now the SU is reforming. Under the leadership of it's former KGB head. And they are interfering with our elections. To help Donald Trump win. At what point do you suggest we react? Or should we just annex as a satellite state of Russia? I'm confused as to what exactly you are expecting of "liberals".
What did russia do to interfere in our elections again?
Russia is not reforming the Soviet Union. Our own interferene in their 96 elections saw to that. What you'll have is an oligarchic deep state apparatus led by Putin that's more like a libertarian fealty state.
That aside, this crap from the Democrats is weak. Admit you lost, build a better party that actually responds to the needs of real people and move on.
NOTE: Trump and the RNC do NOT respond to the needs of real people, nor do libertarians.
>build a better party that actually responds
>to the needs of real people and move on
That'd scare off the big corporate donors, so they won't do that.
"Admit you lost, build a better party that actually responds to the needs of real people and move on."
I remember one time we were discussing Hillary's college plan, and when I spelled out to you all the good it would do and all the people it would help, you decided you still wouldn't support Hillary because it turns out you weren't geographically poised to be one of the people it helped.
That's like refusing to support an initiative to provide 1000 good manufacturing jobs at a new factory because you don't happen to live on a bus line that goes to that factory.
My point, of course: here we had a candidate who wanted to respond to the needs of real people, but because you live in a shit town that wouldn't be targeted, you wouldn't support her. So much for your interest in the well-being of "real people".
A Bernie buster telling people to admit election defeat and move on....
I don't even need to say anything because this says it better than I could:
@ChocoJ: A lot. Firstly, the flood of paid online agitators and trolls. This is well documented in the open media: you should have no trouble finding this.
Secondly, a large, organized spear fishing campaign was conducted against both parties, R and D. The R part was confirmed by Mitch McConnell, a hard core liberal whose name you may be familiar with? The contents of the D hack were disseminated over a period of months leading up to the election, the R part was withheld. Are you suggesting this was some script kiddie? Do you appreciate the number of workers required to actually implement such a scheme. This is a state actor, not an individual hacker or leaker.
Thirdly, and most importantly, there are the contacts between the Trump organization and Russia. You will note, Donald began by claiming this whole thing was made up. At the latest, he's been reduced to claiming that HE ALONE has never colluded with the Russians on the above actions. See his last tweet, and compare wording to previous denials.
I will add, this is hardly the first time the Republicans have colluded with foreign enemies of the US to tilt an election. Ronald Reagan's people negotiated a deal with the Iranians to keep the hostages until the day after the election. Google Iran/Contra affair for how that ultimately played out.
Finally, it's not like Vlad doesn't have a good excuse to do this. For we have been doing these same things in the former satellite states of the old SU since the collapse. Color revolutions? We're in there. Phony news? We're the gold standard.
Now, none of this excuses running a shitty candidate who reeks of establishment in a time when everyone is clamoring for an outsider. The Democrats lost the election. But again, I ask you, at what point do our intelligence agencies push back against outside interference? We impeached a president because of the ATTEMPT to do what was done on a massive scale. And you can be sure, it will happen again.
Putin believes in the Asian breadbasket enabling him to slowly conquer earth nonsense. Another 19th century dumbshit philosophy reborn for our 21st century anti-intellectual hellstates. What sucks, is Obama believed in it with him, which lead to our murder guts fuck invade-o-rama bombapalooza foreign policy fun with Russia. The result? Earth sucks worse now.
We used to have two sides of a dumbass pseudoscience coin fighting out dead philosophies with living people, but one of the sides has been replaced with an arcade token with a clown on it. The only good part is now people will look at board game smug asshole driven foreign policy as a bad thing, instead of the righteous death fury that Democrats worshiped like a god for eight years.
Don't forget people also hate the Democrats for being the party of global illegal warfare and civilian war crimes, which I'm sure the Republicans enjoy handing over to them.
"But again, I ask you, at what point do our intelligence agencies push back against outside interference?"
They probably should have acted when the DNC colluded with the media to promote Trump and got caught doing it. Or when they rigged the primary against Sanders and got caught doing it.
Or when Hillary also had secret deals with the Russians over uranium and got caught doing it, years ago.
The joke is, they did the right thing through inaction and letting her get away with it, and they will probably continue to do so.
Trump is corrupt, surely, but so long as corrupt is the cherished tribal status quo, I don't know what you reggies expect from intelligence agencies. After you demand they protect crime lords you like, then go after the ones you don't like, their only practical response is to either go after no one or go after everyone. Going after everyone isn't feasible, and going after the ones you specifically want will piss off the other tribe they also have to deal with. Allowing politicians to be rampant criminals is the only choice they have so long as the American people are full of hate tribes that think it's okay to lie, hate, and kill so your idealogue can be as big a monster as you pretend to hate when someone else does it.
If the lettered agencies are looking useless, it's because they know things that if they told you would prompt you all to immediate animal violence.
They trust the people as much as they honestly should.
The INVESTIGATION ITSELF, on the other hand, is a big deal.
Especially since we're finally seeing some Democrats finally starting to hold the GOP at large accountable for their tactics and policies, instead of passively allowing them to offload it all onto Trump. That is what will actually accomplish something, not personality cult bullshit about Trump the man and not unprovable conspiracy theories from the Jimmy Dore crowd.
Now now Meme, two of your three examples are entirely legal. News sources are biased: there is nothing illegal about Fox news or MSNBC. Also, the Democratic party can run their primaries however they please, it's a private organization and if they want to crown a queen rather than have a competitive race it is ENTIRELY up to them. If you are suggesting the CIA intercede here, you are recommending they do something incredibly illegal and potentially treasonous.
I have heard dog whistles on point three, can you point to independent analysis and reporting to explain exactly what was done and why it was illegal? I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't know much about this, other than Russia has a much larger stockpile of nuclear weapons than we do so giving them some mere uranium is hardly a big deal. Was it even the separated isotope, or just raw yellowcake? Lay it out for me.
"Also, the Democratic party can run their primaries however they please, it's a private organization and if they want to crown a queen rather than have a competitive race it is ENTIRELY up to them."
And the only thing less democratic than putting it to a vote, is to actually respect the outcome of the vote. I mention this because, when we put Bernie vs. Hillary to a vote, vastly more people preferred Hillary, which therefore means that Bernie was robbed.
Dear Bort, the whole friggin' point of superdelegates is to prevent the base from nominating a populist ( like Sanders ) who would go on to lose the general. This isn't a controversial position, go look at how the superdelegates came about. Amazingly, the Republicans actually did run a competitive election, and the populist candidate that nobody thought could win did in fact prevail in the primary. What came after was pure luck: historically, such people as Trump get slaughtered in a general. I don't ding the Democrats for this, although it's hard not to point out that sometimes it's better to go long than safe.
Let me ask you this. What if the field was level and Sanders prevailed? He probably would have lost in the general, although we can't know that now. What we do know, for a fact, is Hillary did lose. I am suggesting that a Sanders loss would have been much easier to recover from, and given Donald Trump a lot less breathing room. A Sanders/Trump matchup would have made a _very_ clear choice for voters, and you wouldn't have so many people making an equivalence between the two to excuse Donald's actions.
The superdelegates concurred with the will of the voters, and you consider that UNDEMOCRATIC? You make my point for me. As did Bernie, who first denounced the superdelegates as undemocratic, then tried to get them to support him over the will of the people because he felt he was owed a coronation.
"What if the field was level and Sanders prevailed?"
There WAS a level field; that's why Sanders lost. And I have zero faith rural America was hankering to vote for an atheist socialist Jew from Vermont who wants to raise your taxes to start a government-run health plan that happened to fail in his home state. Oh yeah, now there's a can't-fail candidate.
Nevertheless, I confess I kind of wish Sanders had won the primary, and gotten destroyed in the general. Then we'd be done with him, and his followers would leave the world of politics for at least a little while.
Look on the bright side. The reason the Dem's won eight years ago was that Obama and his people steamrolled the useless and pathetic establishment democrats. Now, with the Clintons dead and buried, you might be able to win the next election with more competent leadership.
You're welcome to disparage Bernie, and I'd be inclined to agree with you, but for the fact that the guy who did win was even more unlikely. As I said, sometimes you need to go long. Not often, but not never as was the Clinton's MO. Triangulation helped beat the R's after Bush I, but it's poison now. Time to move forward.
Oscar I feel like you are conveniently glossing over this claim about paid trolls. When I googled it all I found was stuff about Correct the Record on Reddit and some blog posts about pro-Putin trolls. I think there's maybe a bit less evidence than people think.
It doesn't even appear to have a wikipedia article, but if you could point me to one I'd be happy to accept it.
This clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OauLuWXD_RI) which by the end almost tries to peg the Russian trolls as anarchists more than pro-Putin trolls, is possibly the most substantial evidence I found.
If you want to save a click, I'll tell you what the main takeaway is: It's not Russia's fault that Americans are dumbasses.
The point of all this is that if there WERE Russian trolls, they were being counteracted by David Brock, so what effect did they have REALLY? Seemingly, Americans have learned nothing and Russia has learned a lot about Americans.
I'm currently writing a fanfiction about the left pushing the MGTOW narrative so that conservatives (in the French sense of the word) don't have kids.
I know it's gotten harder to find certain things, but in this case I used google news and just searched on "paid russian trolls". A little spelunking produced the NYT article from 2015 that broke the story about the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg.
That doesn't really address your specific concern, but at least you will agree that this thing exists, and was functioning during the primaries and general election. It would be more than a little naieve to assume it wasn't used. I think this investigation will produce more relevant information outside of people's personal accounts about their activities, which is what we've gotten so far.
Also: post some of your fic. in the comments! I'm curious how you do on long form.
Yes, I will agree to admit that the paid trolls exist, but I have questions about their motives.
Haha just kidding about that fanfic, I was toying with writing one about anthropomorphic stock tickers raping yuppies in Chili's bathrooms while their coworkers talked business, but I ran out of motivation and it seemed too similar to Chuck Tingle's work.
|Nikon - 2017-03-20 |
"The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign.""
Anyone who believed it was Russian to judgment.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|