@Onyx Z32 Both. But since Russia was the main topic, let’s expand on that a bit.
It’s generally that the administration is showing they can’t be trusted. There seems to be a recurring theme of them hiding things, lying, literally making shit up to try and make themselves look better. DJT either has a shit memory with too much confidence in it, or he just tries to bullshit his way out of everything. This behavior translates to ineptitude in regards to policy, management, tact, etc. Trust, I believe, is an important factor in regards to holding the highest office and DJT is losing the trust of just about everyone aside from his base. The same base that conveniently believes everything he says because of the ‘fake news’ outlets always bashing him. How convenient that bad press for them is fake but Sean Hannity is scripture.
Policy wise, they are doing a lot that I do not agree with, but I know others might. So I respect that and think it will go in the right direction soon enough.
Updated - - -
Honest question; why do you always say that people want to change the result of the election? I’m not seeing that. I literally have not seen one outlet claim that the election result was in question. In fact, whenever the election hacking even comes up most people explicitly clarify that they do not think anything Russia did directly effected the outcome.
I think the concensus that “Russia hacked the election” is a statement that is more sensationalist than is reality.
1 - Russia hacked the DNC and released information damaging to Hillary, in an attempt to help Trump. That’s not hacking the election.
2 - Russia led an INTENSE propaganda campaign, in an attempt to help Trump and hurt Hillary. That’s not hacking the election.
Russia did not hack the election. They saught to help Donald Trump win the election, by releasing damaging information on Hillary (that was obtained by hacking) and by leading a propaganda campaign.
Ok, I’ll re-phrase for the contraversy over attribution. IF Russia hacked the DNC and released information damaging to Hillary, in an attempt to help Trump. That’s not hacking the election.
It’s not very likely were hacked and more likely someone on the inside leaked it.
I guess my previous point was if the US is going to screw with other countries elections which they have they can’t expect other countries not to do the same. It’s not helping anyone to spin a narrative that Russias involvement in the election ultimately changed the outcome.
I’m sure Trump will do something stupid enough at some point that the new can run with forever.
At the end of the day, the Russians didn’t hack our election, they used the Internet to spread propaganda. Those two things are NOT the same. But stupid people that don’t understand the Internet think that anything bad that happens on the Internet is Hacking.
suggesting this situation is intent to collude is like you trying to set up a meeting with me to sell me something and by taking that meeting i have communicated an intent, accountability or obligation to buy from you.
if taking this meeting was a crime can you imagine what the implications would be elsewhere or just in general human communication and negotiating?
you’re all of a sudden not allowed to do certain things because of other things that may or may not be true or even wrong or bad depending on your own perspective?
Trump Jr was being solicited, he was not the solicitor in this case.
This is every day, generic espionage. i do it daily in my field. you can conflate things through communication to engineer situations or perspectives. basic sales process
I don’t know how else to explain it… Even Fox News is talking about how stupid this was. C’mon man.
if taking this meeting was a crime can you imagine what the implications would be elsewhere or just in general human communication and negotiating?
We’re talking about foreign dignitaries trying to have an effect on our election process. This isn’t car sales negotiating. Are you really trying to equate the two? Do you for some reason believe that an adversarial country trying to have an effect on the US election is just business as usual? I’m sorry, but what the fuck?
Trump Jr was being solicited, he was not the solicitor in this case.
I think @boardjnky4 used the right analogy above. Cops aren’t arresting themselves when they go undercover and solicit someone for prostitution.
As a side note; Al Gore was on Colbert last night. (I know you guys love Al) He told a story about how his campaign had been approached in a similar fashion but they denied the meeting and called the FBI. I’d like to verify that, but that’s what junior SHOULD have done. Instead, he couldn’t contain his excitement about the idea. Maybe because there’s something about our relations with Russia that could be changed to benefit him and senior. Hmmmmm. :tinfoilhat:
Updated - - -
This is every day, generic espionage. i do it daily in my field. you can conflate things through communication to engineer situations or perspectives. basic sales process
lol @ everyday espionage.
“Espionage, commonly known as spying, is the practice of secretly gathering information about a foreign government or a competing industry, with the purpose of placing one’s own government or corporation at some strategic or financial advantage. Federal law prohibits espionage when it jeopardizes the national defense or benefits a foreign nation (18 U.S.C.A. § 793). Criminal espionage involves betraying U.S. government secrets to other nations.”
I’m not sure I’d classify the DNC emails as propaganda. Certainly you can take them out of context but it’s not Russian propaganda that the DNC worked against Bernie, Donna Bazile from CNN gave Hillary debate questions in advance, John Podesta and others criticized Hillary for making bad decisions like the private server, etc… all revelations from the DNC email. But yeah it’s a stretch to say they “hacked the election.” More like “Hacked Hillary’s reputation.”
Also it should be pointed out that John Podesta’s email wasn’t hacked, he was a victim of a phishing email that asked him for his password…
Phishing and stealing credentials is absolutely a form of hacking. Hacking is defined as “use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system.”
Agreed the stolen material is not propaganda, but releasing cherry picked bits of information to start a narrative that hurts a presidential candidate is a manipulative practice.
IMO it’s a leap to think that Jr. met with anyone who was themselves or was connected to a “foreign dignitary.”
The guy who sent Jr. the email (Goldstone) is a pop singer’s publisher (see pic above.)
The translator had worked as a contractor for Hillary’s state department.
The lawyer Veselnitskaya was not just meeting with Jr. but also Democrats lobbying against the Magnitsky Act. She was even a guest at a congressional hearing.
The other guy Akhmetshin “reportedly” has ties to Russian intelligence, but he also “reportedly” has ties to Fusion GPS (Democrat oppo research) and he’s an US citizen. He does seem like the most suspect of the crew, but he also talks openly about his Russian past… not exactly discrete.
So which is more likely? They’re part of a grand conspiracy, meeting with Jr. before Trump is even nominated? Or just lobbyists embellishing to get a meeting since that’s what lobbyists do?
Then when you consider Trump’s actions policy wise, what is he doing to repay Russia for their “help?” Launch cruise missiles against pro-Russian Syrian forces? Reversing Obama’s decision to let Poland have missile defense? Keeping in place Russian sanctions? Publicly stating he supports Georgian sovereignty and banning US funding that might support the Russian occupation? Sending US natural gas to countries typically supplied by Russia?
Not necessarily a leap, but that wasn’t the point. Junior thought he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government. Which is why his intentions are being called into question. The content of the meeting is in addition to that.
The guy who sent Jr. the email (Goldstone) is a pop singer’s publisher (see pic above.)
The translator had worked as a contractor for Hillary’s state department.
The lawyer Veselnitskaya was not just meeting with Jr. but also Democrats lobbying against the Magnitsky Act. She was even a guest at a congressional hearing.
The other guy Akhmetshin “reportedly” has ties to Russian intelligence, but he also “reportedly” has ties to Fusion GPS (Democrat oppo research) and he’s an US citizen. He does seem like the most suspect of the crew, but he also talks openly about his Russian past… not exactly discrete.
Yea, that’s all true. We also don’t know who else was in the meeting yet since that # changes by the day. However, the email chain from Junior literally stated the Russian government’s support for Trump. His intent was clear. Not necessarily illegal at this time, but clear none the less. Also, why lie about it if it was totally fine? The Magnitsky Act is a whole different giant subject. Probably a lot for this thread, but see below.
Then when you consider Trump’s actions policy wise, what is he doing to repay Russia for their “help?”
He has already talked about wanting to lift sanctions that would be worth billions to Russia. Sounds like one hell of a reward to me. Adding the Magnitsky Act is the other half of this Russian banana split. Which, by the way, was passed with bi-partisan support. (365 for; 43 oppose)
Edit - I should add; I’m not sold either. I just find it pretty damning.
I see your point, but the guy fell for a phishing scam that went out to 100’s of people and on both political sides. It was more passive than directly targeted just at him.
Eh, it’s not cherry picking when you’re literally thanking Donna Brazile for giving you a debate question. Or calling Bernie a “doofus.” But when people know what’s really going on or that what you’re privately saying is different from your public expression then it’s certainly going to change minds.
That’s how phishing works, though. You start with a phish, gain all of the access that you can, and hope to pivot from there, to gain more access. So let’s say maybe that Podesta DOESN’T fall for it. Maybe some lowly staffer falls for it. Then the attacker maybe uses the staffer’s email account to email Podesta. Possibly send him a malicious attachment via email and gain access to his computer? There are a number of angles that an attacker can take. Just so happens he took the low hanging fruit.
It’s cherry picking because there may be instances where they witheld information (maybe from hacking RNC, or maybe from email context within the DNC emails) that would HELP Hillary.
