Every news outlet and social media site tried to influence the election....

Interfering and influencing are two different things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, as do most other countries, including the U.S. That is, we try to influence the policies in various ways including cyber. During the so-called "cold war" we broadcast pro-American, anti-communist messages over their airwaves. We bribe with trade deals and foreign "aid", coerce with military pacts and military buildups, disrupt enemy economies by creating economic pacts with their competitors, and other clandestine ways. And yes, we even "interfere" in elections such as how Obama tried to do against Netanyahu.

But the most dangerous kind of influence is actual penetration of governments with agents in high government places which are actually able to direct policies--as the Soviets did in the U.S. in the 1930's to 1950's era. Moscow had agents, both foreign as well as American Communists or fellow travelers or just useful idiots who were able to influence our policies in Asia and Eastern Europe to the point that China and all of Eastern Europe were basically handed over to Mao or Moscow.

We all know about Oppenheimer and the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss. But there were others equally or even more importantly, in the State Department, or Treasury, or Agriculture, or labor departments, as well as other influential places, and those who were close key advisers to FDR. And there were, very importantly, turncoat or sympathetic journalists and academics who spread false reports and propaganda.

China need not have become Communist. Chiang Kai Sheck
was actually defeating Mao with our provision of military equipment. He actually had driven the reds into Northern China where they tried to hold off Chiang's forces even though the Communists were badly equipped. But before Chiang could finish off the Reds the U.S. abruptly changed its stance toward him, forced a cease fire, and the Communists were able to recover and get re-equipped by Moscow, even with equipment we had given to it as an ally against the Nazis. And our military aid to Chiang dwindled or ceased. And he was driven to Formosa (Taiwan), which is the non-Communist remnant of China today.

This was all accomplished in various coordinated means of direct influence. There was false journalism (fake news long before the current crop), as well as key figures in our government cabinets and agencies. These were all used to influence the U.S. to desire the countries along the Soviet borders to be friendly to the Soviet Union.

Pro-Communist journalists who were either sympathizers or actually Communist Party members advanced Communist interests through organs such as Time Magazine and its Moscow correspondent, Richard Lauterbach who was confirmed by Venona as a Communist Party member, Guenther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor, Israel Epstein of The New York Times, Mark Gayn of Colliers, Edgar Snow of The Saturday Evening Post, and other smaller publications such as the New Republic and a Communist front publication Amerasia.

They wrote stories praising Mao and denigrating Chiang. Made it appear that Mao was actually doing the heavy fighting against Japan while portraying Chiang as doing little and ineffectivey when just the opposite was true. They painted Mao as the true and future leader who would make China the future haven of a free, egalitarian, productive, and happy nation. And made Chiang out to be a throwback to the old oppressive imperial regime.

They bolstered the efforts of diplomats such as Communist sympathizer John Stuart Service and others to return to the FDR administration reports glowingly, and falsely, favorable toward Mao and the Soviets. And this in turn made the work easier for those in high places as advisers to the President such as John Davies in State, and others such as Harry Hopkins, Laughlin Currie, and many more, who were at FDR's side and elbow.

In short, it was the advice of actual Soviet agents in FDR's administration which persuaded him to give China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin. Needlessly so.

FDR was persuaded by them to believe, as he said, as told to his first envoy to Moscow, William Bullitt, that Stalin "wanted only security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work for world democracy and peace." FDR also wrote to Churchill "I think there is nothing more important than that Stalin feel that we mean to support him without qualification and at great sacrifice." AT Yalta, the conference where he effectively handed Eastern Europe over to the Soviet sphere, he told British Field Marshall Alan Brooke "of one thing I am certain, Stalin is not an imperialist."

Among many others, FDR was influenced in his pro-Stalin thinking by Soviet spy and sympathizer Joseph Davies of the State Dept. and Soviet agent Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent who was ensconced in the Agriculture Dept.

The U.S. Army cryptographers who "hacked" Soviet correspondence to Communist agents in the U.S. government were able, under a project named "Venona, to decode about 3,000 coded messages which confirmed the names of hundreds of Communist agents in our Federal Gvt. agencies and departments. These Venona papers were declassified and released in the mid nineteen nineties. The FBI already had, since the early 1930's, several of these names listed as possible Soviet agents. And the KGB files which were released in the mid nineties also corroborated and confirmed the names and others. There had also been in the 1930's House UnAmerican Activities Committee ongoing investigation of Communists employed by the Federal government which had about 180 suspected or confirmed employed agents.

For various reasons, the FDR administration was lax or totally averse to removing those exposed by the FBI and the Army cryptographers and the House committee. The laxness, tardiness of dismissing the infiltrators lasted into the Truman administration.

The maligned Joseph McCarthy in 1950 restored the fight, this time in the Senate, to investigate, expose, and remove the enemy agents. For various reasons he was rejected, vilified, and destroyed for trying. In the end, he was proven right.

That is the kind of influence, interference, and disruption that is truly destructive to "our democracy." It is the kind which comes from within. And it only can happen within if we have those in high places who are supportive of it. Who are its agents.

The chicken-chit stuff that Putin does is more annoying than anything else. And, since we must spend time and energy talking about it, shouldn't we be as much, or more, concerned with if the information is true? I find it strange that we are more concerned with hacking and attempted influence than if what is revealed is true. Even more strange that we consider the truth to be an interference or a disruption.

Facebook is more to blame than Russia. Facebook is also probably to blame for the Arab spring uprisings as well. It's the most amazing tool to spread propaganda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:sleeps:

Again you seem to to read I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose.. but thats not the issue its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

I can't recall what new sites and social media sites hacked personnal email accts. before.

I'm pretty sure if you look(not very hard)you can find info that was reported by the msm for political reasons after being obtained obtained by less than scrupulous methods and democrats claiming that the content was far more important than the questionable way it was "stumbled upon"

I think Obama was successful in his first run for office after the sealed divorce records of his opponent were mysteriously obtained by the media

So we do know who hacked other people's emails?

While we don't know to what magnitude we do know it impacted some people's thinking (along w/Comey). Certainly no one can claim it threw the election though.

"See you support the hacks "

Once again, you respond to something that I didn't say. I actually said the opposite. We need to investigate the hacks and try to ensure it doesn't happen again. Fair enough?

But I think we also should discuss what the hacks revealed. You haven't said you have any issue with what they revealed. Yes, I like what they revealed. I can't deny that.

"or believe them to be the truth "

Is anyone disputing that? CNN fired the woman who gave debate questions to Hilary. The DNC fired the 2 guys who were hiring thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

I see a ton of news coverage about how the hacks are bad (and I agree). I haven't seen any stories suggesting that the hacked emails were untrue or fabricated. Have you?

Donna Brazil basically admitted giving debate questions to Hilary, when she said that as an activist, she was proud of what she did. She's not denying it, so I wonder on what basis you are questioning it.

speaking of Hack's.....

why would Putin want trump to win anyway?...he's completely abused Obama and his administration...you'd think he'd like to continue with the incompetents, especially if it's so easy to hack them that he can get any information that the might want or need

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory. This time by trying to get us all to be outraged by the alleged Russian hacking and tying that to waving the American flag and Trump's slogan of making America great again.

I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

ok...for starters...no more unsecured servers in the bathrooms of administration officials...even if their last name is Clinton

"its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue "

So the actions of the Dems that were revealed in the emails, have no importance?

I agree the hack is bad. But if the Dems weren't doing anything unethical, there would have been nothing to leak.

As I posted, Trump is conceding that if the FBI and the CIA are on the same page, than they are probably correct.

You want to say Trump is an azz, you get no argument from me. See, I can admit shortcomings in Republicans. I didn't see one word from you about what the emails reveal, except you question their accuracy. Given the way people got fired for what the emails claim they did, you seem to be the only one denying the validity of the leaked emails.

"I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking "

Who, exactly, is happy about the hacking? Sean Hannity maybe. That's about it.

Who on your side, is upset about what the hacks revealed? Anyone?

Also, I remember a few years ago, Mitt Romney claimed that Putin was going to be an adversary.

Do you all remember Obama's reaction to that?

"Hey, Mitt, the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back". Haw haw haw, Mr President, please stop, my stomach hurts from laughing.

Obama - always wrong, yet never in doubt.

I've been wondering that too, it's not like team Obama/Hilary have done anything to curtail the guy. But Trump might be more of an active ally.

Donna Brazil has been doing this for 35 years.

When Bush 41 was running against Dukakis, a Democrat staffer leaked a story to the press that Bush was having an affair, cheating on Barbara (yeah, right). The staffer was fired by the Dukakis campaign for such an outrageous action. The person who got fired for lying - Donna Brazil. She's STILL the head of the DNC, right? She's been lying about those who disagree with her for 30 years, and the Democrats still keep her around.

But Trump supports are more like :faga:

fixed it

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory.

wdmso reply: Wow thats a lie if i have ever seen one . Trump won so are trying to delegitimize Trumps victory not me ... ..

It's not a lie. It's an opinion. Based on, as I said (and which you left out of my quote) "This time by trying to get us all to be outraged by the alleged Russian hacking and tying that to waving the American flag and Trump's slogan of making America great again."


I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

wdmso reply: Making excuses like they always way do it .. sound like you accept it (support not against )

What I said was not an excuse. It was a factual statement. The hacking is not unusual for Russia. Nor is it unexpected. That you see that as a support for it implies to me that your seeing a lot of words in my quote that are not actually in it.


OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

wdmso reply: Admitting it happened lets start there but we cant even get there ..

My statement to which you replied put us there then asked what then.

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

wdmso reply: But Trump supports are more like the faga emoticon

Your emoticon doesn't address anything I said. Certainly not my last sentence which your emoticon followed.

Why does that surprise you? Didn't Manafort get like $20M from the Russions and Tillerson get a friends of Russia award or something like that? According to Trump's son "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets".

From Politico

More Republicans viewing Putin favorably

The GOP is warming to Russian President Vladimir Putin — even as evidence of his regime’s interference in the election intensifies.

While some Republicans in Congress have slammed the Russian strongman and called for investigations into the Kremlin’s attempts to influence the election, the party’s voters are increasingly fond of Putin.

The dramatic shift in sentiment — for a party that once defined itself by its staunch opposition to the Soviet Union — comes as President-elect Donald Trump has steadfastly refused to criticize Putin and signaled a different tone with Russia policy.

Trump has downplayed any role Russia played in the election and high profile hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. And some of his top appointments — including his pick for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his selection for secretary of state, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson — have longstanding ties to Russia and personal relationships with Putin himself.

The change in views has been swift.

Back in July 2014 just 10 percent of Republicans held a favorable view of Putin, according to a poll conducted by the Economist and YouGov. By September of 2016, that number rose to 24 percent. And it's even higher today: 37 percent of Republicans view Putin favorably, the poll found in December.

While the Russian president still has a net un-favorability rating among Republicans, his standing has improved dramatically – from a net negative of 66 points to a mere 10 points.
By comparison, only 17 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of President Barack Obama, the December poll found. Obama’s net negative among Republicans is 64 points – significantly worse than the party’s take on Putin.

Within the GOP there has always been a faction with more sympathetic views toward Putin and Russia. Republicans like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher have taken a more open-minded view of Putin’s behavior in places like Crimea and Syria. But for years Rohrbacher and others like him were pariahs who existed outside the mainstream.

Now Rohrabacher — who was a speechwriter for Reagan and talks of fighting communism — is being floated for State Department appointments. (Rohrabacher said Thursday that he had been considering a role in Trump’s State Department but decided to stay in Congress.)
There’s a lot of negative things about [Putin] that are accurate but there are a lot of negative things about him that have been said that are inaccurate,” Rohrabacher told POLITICO. “At least the other other side of the coin is being heard now. … Finally there’s some refutation of some of the inaccurate criticisms finally being heard.”

For the GOP, it’s been a sudden shift from a hardline on Russia, toward something resembling respect, if not warmth.

Daniel Vajdich, a former foreign policy adviser on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, recalled traveling to Foreign Relations Chair Sen. Bob Corker’s home state of Tennessee just after Russia annexed Crimea and supported rebel incursions in Eastern Ukraine.

For the Corker constituents Vadjich met, “no other issue—not Iraq, Syria or Iran— topped the emotion or frustration about what the Russians were doing in Ukraine and the way the Obama Administration was failing to do anything about it,” he said.

Now, the Republican president-elect Trump has said he would consider recognizing Crimea as part of Russia.

“It is dizzying,” said Vajdich, who has worked on the presidential campaigns of Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Ted Cruz, all of whom represented the decades-old consensus view of Russia. “It’s just totally unexpected and counterintuitive to see how Republicans have shifted. I do think it has something to do with the general attitude that Trump expressed towards Putin and Russia. There’s no doubt there’s a very direct causal relationship about the permission he gave people.”

There also may be some politics at play, said said Larry Sabato director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia, because Putin’s alleged involvement boosted the GOP. Among the alleged Russian incursions into the election were hackers obtaining and leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

“It’s just based on the ancient principle the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that,” said Larry Sabato director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia. “The Republican base, particularly the Trump part of the Republican base, is going to regard anyone and anything that helped their great leader to win as a positive force, or at least a less negative force.”

Trump, for his part, continues to contest that there was any Russian involvement in the election-related hackings.

“If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?” Trump wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.

In fact, Trump is incorrect to say that federal agencies did not talk about Russian interference until after he had won. They did so more than a month before Election Day.

The Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence released a statement on Oct. 7 saying they were “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

The Washington Post has since reported that the CIA concluded the efforts were aimed at lifting Trump’s prospects, rather than just destabilizing the election. And NBC has reported that Putin himself was personally involved in the effort.

Trump’s campaign contends that news of Russia’s involvement in the hacking is a media-driven plot to “delegitimize” the election.

Even if Trump’s ascendance allowed a more sympathetic view of Russia and Putin to become more mainstream, Vajdich does believe the appeal of Putin, and his leadership style, always existed in certain corners of the GOP.

“I think there’s something inherently attractive about Vladimir Putin when you compare him to President Obama and that’s something that’s going to resonate with some Republicans regardless of what Trump says,” Vajdich says.

“He’s decisive and unapologetically pursues Russian interests in a way Obama didn’t for America, in the minds of many Republicans.”

That reverence for Putin’s persona, if not his policies, extends even to those Republicans who decry Russia’s incursions abroad. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, for example, did not share Trump’s reservations about attacking Putin – he called Putin “small and bullying” at a September campaign event – but he still said he agreed with Trump that Putin was a stronger leader than Obama.

Even in 2014, in the midst of Russia’s widely condemned annexation of Crimea, Rudy Giuliani, who would become one of Trump’s most vocal surrogates, praised Putin for acting like “a leader.”

“[Putin] makes a decision and he executes it, quickly. And then everybody reacts. That’s what you call a leader,” Giuliani said.

And Russia has reciprocated.

State media has been full of praise for Trump, Tillerson and Flynn, noted Angela Stent, director of Georgetown’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and a a member of the senior advisory panel for NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 2010-2016. Russian media also portrayed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a persistently negative light.

“Certainly the Kremlin didn’t like Hillary Clinton,” Stent said.

But there’s another aspect to the affinity between some Republicans and Putin.

Putin has fashioned himself as a defender of traditional values around the world, something that has a particular appeal to the socially conservative elements of the Republican Party. He’s actively pushed anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion legislation in his country. Just this week, the Russian government prevented the UN Security Council, in their statement about outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, from praising the Korean’s promotion of LGBTQ rights during his time in office.

"President Putin sees himselfas the leader of the conservative world, battling decadent liberal values,” former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Mike McFaul told POLITICO. “When I was in the government there were overtures between evangelical and conservative religious organizations and Russians, including those associated with the government. … What brought them together was an ideological affinity about issues like LGBT in particular.”

The warmth toward Russia is not reserved to Trump and elements of the party’s base.

Rohrabacher went to great lengths in an unsuccessful attempt to derail legislation that Russia opposed in Congress. He even used information provided directly from the Russian government to make his case.

And he took to the op-ed pages of USA Today on Wednesday to defend Russia from accusations of attempts to influence the election, while also praising the work of hackers who targeted Democrats. He also wrote more broadly about his thoughts on the Russia-U.S. relationship.

“Putin is by no means guiltless in the deterioration of relations between our countries. Both sides failed,” he wrote. “We broke faith with a Putin-brokered deal with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, which resulted in his downfall and an expansion of radical Islamic power. Putin has had ample reason to lose faith in America’s resolve.”

“Several people like myself, in order to say what we thought was truth, have been willing to take on the common knowledge that we think was wrong,” Rohrbacher told POLITICO. “There’s been this vilification not only of the Russian leader but of Russia itself.”

While Rohrabacher’s views have been injected into the mainstream, the party still has elements that are vigorously opposed to Putin.

There will be many Republicans, Sabato said, “who will not adapt to this new reality, they have long regarded Putin as one of the great evils of the world…They may just not bring it up very much.”

Some Republicans remain unwavering and outspoken in their opposition to Putin. And they expect voters will get behind them.

“For years, American diplomats and leaders have pretended Russia is our ally—we’ve tried resets and ignored their aggressions— that’s nonsense,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who did not support Trump, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Putin and his friends are murderous thugs and it’s time Americans stopped pretending otherwise. Period.”

Isaac Arnsdorf contributed reporting.

Just look at the right with Obama on National security

Right-wing commentators ripped President Obama for dancing the tango at a state dinner in Argentina a day after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium, criticizing him for "dancing the night away" "while Brussels burns."

Iran HUMILIATES American Sailors -- And Obama Administration THANKS Them For It!


All I am saying Trumps no stance on the Russians Hacking is disturbing as is the dismissive attitude of his supporters in face of the information provide.. they see no evil hear no evil speak no evil when it Comes to Trump They see no conflict of interests in his Cabinet but saw it clearly with the Clinton foundation ?? and that presents a Dangerous development .. it should be an interesting 4 years :btu:

I'm pretty sure Trump has not yet been sworn in....any problems with the russians are still obama's responsibility...obama assured us in his piss and moan conference the other day that they're working on a report that will come out before he leaves office and after he gets back from his latest lavish vacation...sounds like they're not in a big rush so probably not a big issue :bl:

funny everyone gets upset when Trump says something and even more upset when he doesn't say anything....he's in so many heads :spin:

I wonder if someone will come out with a 3rd Manchurian candidate movie in 2021.

Do you mean personal e-mail accounts....or e-mail accounts of government officials being housed on personal servers? because there is a difference.

and that argument doesn't make what I said about news organizations and social media sites influencing the election any less legitimate.

http://alliantz.com/wp-content/uploa...WORD-MEANS.jpg

And what has Obama done regarding Russia? He made fun of Romney for predicting that Putin was going to be a bully!

Regarding Obama and national security, you left out a couple of criticisms that are a bit more legitimate, like his handling of Iraq and Syria (remember the "red line that" he warned Assad not to cross? Ooohhh, scary).

And my criticism of his doing the tango had nothing to do with timing, but merely that dancing is one more thing we can add to the list of things that Obama suckz at.

personnel email accts. Isn't that illegal? Most folks here don't seem to have a problem w/it. And they also don't seem to care that the Russians tried to influence our elections. I guess bc we have done it w/other countries they via it the same. maybe the double standard thing.

Of course every news article has the effect of trying to influence an election unless there is zero bias in an article and very, very few articles have zero bias.

That wasn't my word - that was the author's.

I think JohnR said something about "interference" though.

Maybe you need to go through other people's posts like you seem to go through mine.

You seem on edge recently. Did something happen?

Did the American media get accused of "interfering" with the election when they broke the story about Trump's disgusting language on the Access Hollywood tape?

I haven't heard anyone doubt the accuracy of what was in the hacked emails. If the emails are valid, than while we need to increase cyber-security, I see the release of the emails as allowing voters to make an informed decision.

When Romney was unknowingly recorded making his idiotic comments about lots of people not wanting to work, I don't recall pushback about how the truth was obtained.

When secrets are revealed about Democrats doing unethical things, all they do is attack the messenger. They never want to talk, not even for a second, about what was revealed.

It was the liberals who interfered in this election. In the primary, the DNC and the media worked with Team Hilary to sabotage poor Bernie. In the general, CNN got debate questions to Hilary, and the DNC actually paid thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

Those actions constitute "interfering". Reporting those facts is not interfering. The method of getting the emails may well have been a violation of international law, but sharing the emails was not interfering. Influencing, maybe, but people were free to choose whether or not to care about the democrats' unethical actions.

Maybe you and Kevin should address your issue to John since he used the word "interference".

I think I'm gonna start using the work "interference" soon though.

Paul, you mean this quote by John? Looks like he used the word influence...not interference.

And I know that was the authors quote, not yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

unpresidented interference :wave:

I think someone went in and edited his twitter after he posted that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hey Nebestrodamus...the EC voted ..Mitt Romney is still unemployed...and the Cleveland Browns are 0-14

probably the Russians

It's not that they don't have a problem with it. They just don't have this all-holy outrage over it after its been going on so long (Russians trying to influence us or worse) and the rage didn't get all revved up till now. And now, after the election turned out not the way some wanted, they get all up in high dudgeon over it--with accusations of "interference" with or "disruption" of the election--of the election being hacked.

And when its admitted that it didn't change the outcome of the election and the election wasn't hacked, the narrative shifts to, well, its not about the election, but about the hacking. Never mind that such rage over hacking wasn't demanded of us before.

I think the media threw out the red meat of Hillary possibly losing because of Putin's manipulation of the election in favor of Trump. This provided some last gasp issue to somehow delegitimize Trump's victory. And those on the left swarmed all over it. It was such a tasty treat that everybody was not only invited to swallow it, but demanded we must or be accused of hypocrisy.

And yeah, the double standard thing is relevant. Why aren't we demanding each other to be outraged over our interference into other countries' business? Probably because we've gotten used to it all.

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.



Soviets would use every tool at their disposal to ensure Nixon did not win. In 1960, they held U-2 pilot Gary Powers after his plane crashed illegally in Russia, and specifically delayed his release until after the presidential elections. They used Powers as a bargaining chip, and, according to Khrushchev himself, it worked. In his memoirs, the Soviet leader stated, “We kept Nixon from being able to claim that he could deal with the Russians; our ploy made a difference of at least half a million votes, which gave Kennedy the edge he needed.” -

decades and decades of American leftist politicians, activists and celebrities fawning, conspiring and leg humping the various foreign workers paradises of the world and their esteemed leaders....

and now outrage because some embarrassing emails "may have been" hacked and exposed :huh:

verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.

It is pathetic that you guys are denying this. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. 1st no one seems to care Trump seems like a serial liar and now this (how many times have we heard "what difference does it make what he says" - remember that when you're trying to teach your kids morals. Comparing the hacking of personal emails to someone taping Romney's speach is a joke. I especially like the outrage of "poor Bernie". An independant socialist his whole life runs against a person who has been a Democrat their whole life and people are surprised when the establishment would rather have the person who was a loyal Democrat their whole life.

No one here claims it changed election which is the reason I think you guy's anger is so evident.