Russian Hacking Scandal : Why it matters

[redneckdevil]

I'll also say why it doesn't matter.

Because without proof given, this is just another one of Obama's temper tantrum acts before leaving.

I swear, say what u will but damn democrates do not know how to leave gracefully and respectfully.

I'll give 4 examples in my lifetime.

George Bush senior left a nice letter of encouragement to Bill when he left.

Bill steals, vandalizes, and tried to have the stuff disorganized when Bush Jr. takes the office.

Bush Jr also does equally nice things like his father so the transition goes smoothly for Obama (forgot what exactly it was that he did for Obama).

Obama leaves and is throwing a huge temper tantrum of yet again spreading false information, does aggregating acts towards countries that the next president is trying to push good relationships with.

 

Hell here's the kicker, we still have NO proof that it was even the Russians that even hacked and gathered the info that was leaked.

NONE. So far it's just heresay.

And another reason why it doesn't matter because until their proof doesn't matter what agency said what was because we have already seen the double standards that the FBI AND the IRS have done with mrs clinton.

 

So until theirs proof, this is just propaganda that if said enough times, people will start to think it and that will make it true.

[Gorgon]

I kinda buy the notion of a deliberate campaign to discredit Clinton. Seems like a small investment for the potential return. Just the sort of thing a polonium poisoner would get up to. 

[BruceVC]

I kinda buy the notion of a deliberate campaign to discredit Clinton. Seems like a small investment for the potential return. Just the sort of thing a polonium poisoner would get up to. 

This is a good point. If Putin is prepared to send agents to London and successfully poison, it was in his tea I believe, a Russian dissident the hacking of the DNC  to benefit there own political aspirations should be no surprise to anyone  

[Chippy]

AFAIK there's no proof that the Russians effected the outcome of the US elections.  I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration are quick to move everyone's perception that way.  Do the liberal politics of today not apply to Russia?  Isn't it dangerous to do as the BBC did the other day and paint this situation as though "it was the russians...becasue we all know what they're like...".

Also, everyone scoffed at the George Soros connection, but why it so just acceptable to jump to the apparently obvious connection that:  it was the Russians.

[Volourn]

hacking the DLC is not hacking the election. Now, if it was proven that bRussia hacked the voting machines or used intimidation and trheats to get people to vote a certain way then you might have a point.

 

Plus, if you are pro Obama you should not be bragging about it since IF Russia *did* hack the election that is 100% on his administration. He would be the first President ever to my knowledge to allow  a hacking/takeover of a US election. Usually, it is the US hacking/intervering in toher countries' eclections - including Russia's - then BRAGGIUNG ABOUT IT. LMAO

[Blodhemn]

hacking the DLC is not hacking the election. Now, if it was proven that bRussia hacked the voting machines or used intimidation and trheats to get people to vote a certain way then you might have a point.

 

Plus, if you are pro Obama you should not be bragging about it since IF Russia *did* hack the election that is 100% on his administration. He would be the first President ever to my knowledge to allow  a hacking/takeover of a US election. Usually, it is the US hacking/intervering in toher countries' eclections - including Russia's - then BRAGGIUNG ABOUT IT. LMAO

It does send out an absolutely bizarre message. It's an embarrassingly arrogant argument and part of the attitude that made the left lose the election all on their own. They didn't need any help with that, clearly.

[HoonDing]

I really don't understand Barack Obama. The Chinese Navy commits an overt act of war, seizing an unmanned US vessel in international waters in full view of it's mother ship and not only refuses to return it but threatens military action against any attempt to retrieve it and the President is as meek as a kitten about it.

I hear in Chinatown people were dancing in the streets.

[Gorgon]

I think from their perspective there is precedence going back to the cold war in taking action against surveillance craft. They needed a very specific situation for a saber rattling stunt and clearly they jumped on the opportunity.   Both parties know it's a stunt though. So what does the US do about it, well there is no easy answer to that.

 

Maybe just saying 'stop being silly' is the right answer.  

[Darkpriest]

 

Because China is a threat to certain interests and Russia isn't. Same way they can get all in a rage over ISIS barbarianism but handwave away Saudi Arabia or Greatest Ally doing shady ****.

KP  its inaccurate and unfair to compare Saudi Arabia to ISIS

 

ISIS  is much, much worse 

 

 

Not really, ISIS is basically similar to how house of sauds came to power. they were nothing but wahabi thugs and bandits.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's all because Putin is one of the Karamazov brothers: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/the-secret-source-of-putins-evil

 

More liberal bellyaching. I disagree with his premise about Russian identity crisis, though there is an inferiority complex. Russia's real problem, as in so many other countries, is authoritarianism and corruption, i.e. lack of the rule of law. Peter is considered a great hero, because he vastly increased Russia's power and made it a player on the world stage.

[Zoraptor]

Meh, I hate those sort of articles, they're a once over lightly approach manifesting as actual analysis. The struggle between good occidentalism and recidivist barbaric oreintalism is as always primarily framing the author's western exceptionalism rather than saying much of anything about Russia itself.

 

Some of it makes literally no sense at all, eg "The more Western leaders, and especially American presidents, talk about resetting relations with Moscow, the more the Dostoevskian president distrusts them"- like Trump, presumably? Nah, stupid quote rooted in the old canard of the Inscrutable Oriental which assumes bad faith from one party simply because he's the 'bad guy' and that's what he does (commensurately we are the good guys, so we do good, don't you feel warm and special? Nah, cheap positive feelz for, well, moronz). You can easily see the point at which Putin started actively distrusting Obama and that point was Libya- when the west blatantly lied about their intentions and functionally rewrote a passed UNSC resolution to mean regime change instead of civilian protection. As soon as that happened Russia and China have vetoed everything involving military adventurism with a UN stamp. That decision also informs Putin's decision to protect Assad more than anything else, as well as Ukraine. Most of Obama's FP wounds have not really been inflicted by Putin, they're self inflicted and Putin's just taken advantage of them.

 

The ironic thing is that if the Russian goal was really to delegitimise the electoral process as a whole- ignoring that it's already fairly deligitimised by low turn out, gerrymandering, lack of term limits, corps as people and superPACs, other funding issues, voter suppression, crusty erratic voting machines etc- about the best way to deligitimise it is to have a weeks, months long campaign designed to say that Vladimir Putin got Donald Trump elected. For that it doesn't even matter whether he did it or not, if his goal is to reduce faith in the electoral process then he's won, automatically, with the enthusiastic help of his supposedly most strident opponents.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's the old Soviet propaganda tactic now adopted by the Western left - accuse the opponent of whatever you yourself are doing. Funny how the main stream media had to back off of their claims of "fake news", once it was pointed out they themselves are the main purveyors.

[HoonDing]

Those thousands of Russians dancing in the Red Square when Drumpf was elected sure weren't fake.

[Volourn]

You blame them? Hilalry wanted to start a war with Russia so, of coruse, they are celebrating that trump won. they don't have too worry as much about Amerikan bombs dropping on them.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's right, Russians just didn't want to deal with a violently unstable person as president.

[BruceVC]

You blame them? Hilalry wanted to start a war with Russia so, of coruse, they are celebrating that trump won. they don't have too worry as much about Amerikan bombs dropping on them.

 

That's right, Russians just didn't want to deal with a violently unstable person as president.

Are you guys suggesting Hilary  Clinton wanted to go to war with Russia?

 

Can you produce a link or explain further ?

[Volourn]

She wanted a no fly zone over Syria. Russian planes are flying over that country. The way to enforce no fly zones is to shoot down planes. What do you think Russia's reaction would be if the US shot down a Russian plane? Case closed. Her plan was so awfult hat even the man (Obama) who pimped for her in election told her she wa sa moron and to take a hike with her idiocy. But, now, he too has drank the koolaid and is trying his darnest to start a war with Russia.

 

R00fles!

[algroth]

That's right, Russians just didn't want to deal with a violently unstable person as president.

So they vouched for another violently unstable person? Priceless.

Edited January 10, 2017 by algroth

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm not aware of Trump ever being violent.

[algroth]

I'm not aware of Trump ever being violent.

Except through the whole of his loudmouthed political campaign. Seen You've Been Trumped too? I'm sure he has his positive qualities, but being level-headed is not one of them.

Edited January 10, 2017 by algroth

[Volourn]

Not being level headed and being violent are two different things. It isn't Trump who has a known history of throwing things at people in the White House. that was Hillary Clinton. L0L

[algroth]

Not being level headed and being violent are two different things. It isn't Trump who has a known history of throwing things at people in the White House. that was Hillary Clinton. L0L

No, he has a history of bulldozing over people's houses and threatening companies to shut them down in Peronist fashion if they don't do as he pleases. Pretty violent and hot-headed reactions all around, I'd say.

[redneckdevil]

Hell when Trump got elected, I was happy af we wasn't going to war with Russia I'd dance too

[HoonDing]

Russia got more nukes, China got more footmen. Pick your poison.

[licketysplit]

 

Not being level headed and being violent are two different things. It isn't Trump who has a known history of throwing things at people in the White House. that was Hillary Clinton. L0L

No, he has a history of bulldozing over people's houses and threatening companies to shut them down in Peronist fashion if they don't do as he pleases. Pretty violent and hot-headed reactions all around, I'd say.

 

You're dangerously extending the definition of violence there. But then, this is how so many on the left came to believe he's a nazi.