It's PUTIN'S FAULT!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

This.
Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

Yes, but, as TDF noted, you use the key word here--"influence." That is significantly different from the words used in the other posts--"interfere" and "disrupt".

They did not HACK the election. That would involve tampering with the results.

No they did not. If they actually were able to physically change the vote count, especially if that reversed the results, that would be significant enough to void the election.

What they did is more or less what they always do to us and to others.

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.

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

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.

[detbuch]

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.

[PaulS]

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

[PaulS]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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.

[scottw]

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.” -

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 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.

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

[PaulS]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.Ted Kennedy must be turning green with envy in his grave

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.

you guys are big on cutting and pasting dictionary definitions and citing Politifact...is this a new tactic of the left to prove they are intellectually superior?...


new chic phrase for the left...."Reagan would be turning over in his grave. "

Obama said it in the piss and moan conference and so all the left repeats dutifully....

he's dead...he can't "turn over"

dead
ded/Submit
adjective
1.
no longer alive.
"a dead body"
synonyms: passed on/away, expired, departed, gone, no more; More
2.
complete; absolute.
"we sat in dead silence"
synonyms: complete, absolute, total, utter, out-and-out, thorough, unmitigated
"dead silence"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

The Russians only "interfered", if their actions had some effect, correct? Did the polls change materially after the email releases?

You say the Russians interfered. You can make a pretty good case. I can make an equally good case that what happened, is that the Democrats got caught behaving unethically. If they didn't behave that way, the Russians would have had nothing to gain by giving the emails to WikiLeaks. Funny, no one is talking about that.

If my school tells me that my son is misbehaving, and it turns out that he is in fact misbehaving...the last thing I care about, are the details of how he got caught.

Fix the cyber-security. But why is the left not talking, not even for a second, about the behavior that is brought to light by the emails.

I haven't heard a single person say that the hacking isn't a concern.

No one on the left seems upset by what your side was doing during the primary and the general. All you care about is shooting the messenger (who may deserve to be shot), but you are pretending that the message doesn't exist.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

Again, the Election occurred on its scheduled date, polls opened on time, people cast their votes, votes were tallied, and a victor was determined. Nothing the Russians did hampered the (action or procedure of) Elections. It occurred without issue.

Originally Posted by PaulS

2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

This definition can be applied to the fact that the Russians possibly meddled in the affairs of the DNC and HRC, not the election, by releasing damaging documents.

[PaulS]

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

[PaulS]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

unpresidented interference

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

unpresidented interference

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

probably the Russians

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

probably the Russians

Trump should prob. ask one of his Russian business associates to spell check his Twitter message so he doesn't continue to look so cartoonish.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

Words have definitions, but they also have connotations. The definitions that you list for interfere can be applied to any political campaign. Campaigns are composed of opposing parties. Everything said in a campaign in order to detract from the opposing party and for the gain of one's own party, could be called interference if you wish to apply interfere as the descriptor. So, Hillary's entire campaign, and everything she said, would therefor be interfering with Trump's campaign, and thereby, as well, interfering in the election or election process.

I doubt that you mean to say that. Maybe you do.

On the other hand, if influence is used as the descriptor, it is quite logical that our election campaigns are about influencing the outcome--ergo about influencing the election not interfering with it.

The difference in connotations makes sense to say "influence" rather than "interfere." The use of interfere connotes more of a use of force or coercion or actual physical action. Influence connotes, in this context, persuasion. Campaigns strive to persuade, not force.

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

I have not noticed the anger that you cite here. You have done this several times in other posts. Saying anger exists where it doesn't. If debate is anger, then by participating in the debate makes you angry as well.