And Now For The Comedy Thread Section....Hillary Now Blames Bernie For Her Loss

[esmith]

Why would I change my story on GOP elitist media? You shouldn't trust them if I were you. I watch Fox more than anything, it's very easy to tell differences between entertainment and journalistic outlets. Language, specific words, tone, etc. Only Fox is king of BS mountain.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....repetitious isn't it, just like you.


Oh by the way the point I was making was the filtering of source by Google and Bing not your compulsion to rattle on in your boorish manner

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems that way doesn't it.
Also when I want a link to an article I use Google to search for a source, the results never come back with Fox as as source unless I ask for Fox specifically, this also occurs if you use Bing. Little more corporate filtering it seems.

I think Google is mess'n with you.
It gives me Fox News sources regularly.
Did you do something to p1ss them off?

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. I wonder if this might shed some light on why the IMDb (a subsidiary of Amazon) shut down their message boards.

I didn't know that happened.

 

[tytlyf]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....repetitious isn't it, just like you.


Oh by the way the point I was making was the filtering of source by Google and Bing not your compulsion to rattle on in your boorish manner

Oh, so now google is liberal lame stream media? Got it. If it was obvious what the GOP elitists were doing, it wouldn't work. As mentioned before, history won't treat you kindly.

 

[esmith]

I think Google is mess'n with you.
It gives me Fox News sources regularly.
Did you do something to p1ss them off?

Probably, who knows. Maybe they don't like some of the Facebook groups/pages I belong to.

 

[Underhill]

I never said they weren't working for their interests, but even that can be rather murky. Does Putin work for Putin's interests or for Russian interests? Does Trump work for Trump's interests or American interests? (These are questions which should be asked about every leader, actually.)



That's all well and good, but that also does not change the reality that, if most Americans didn't see this as a problem, then shame on those Americans. I see nothing wrong with pointing this out. I realize it may be politically incorrect to "blame the victim," but in this case, I think it's warranted. Democracy or not, if our leadership and electorate are too stupid to recognize difficulties and challenges which face them, then we deserve what we get. No use crying about it or trying to find a scapegoat to blame.



Well, it depends on what we're talking about when we say "foreign influence." Are we talking about any foreign influence, including that of countries like Canada or Britain? Or are deciding to pick and choose which foreign countries are okay and which ones are not?

Of course we do. But it also depends on the type of influence. It's one thing to have the British PM on the phone with our president. It's another for a foreign country to try to overtly change our election results.

As for blaming the victim, I think that is a pointless exercise. I also think this whole attempt to dismiss the Russian influence is absurd. Nobody in their right mind thinks this kind of influence should be just written off as no big deal.

Yes, although it doesn't have to be this way. I think that we wasted a golden opportunity to build a closer, lasting friendship with Russia just at the end of the Cold War. Historically, Russia's security interests have always been defensive in nature. Other than that, their main objectives have been access to the sea (preferably with year-round ice-free seaports) and retaking Constantinople for Orthodoxy (although that's kind of a latent, "inactive" objective which hasn't really come up since Tsarist times).

Their relationship with Ukraine is complicated because the history of Russia actually begins in the region now known as "Ukraine." I don't want to bore you with a long history lesson, but suffice it to say, it would be far better to let them resolve this issue between themselves. It's not up to us to go over there and tell Russians or Ukrainians who they are or whose land belongs to whom.

America's interests, historically, have revolved around continued enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as Freedom of the Seas (mainly for commerce). These interests were somewhat modified and altered as US interests became more intricately tied with the interests of Western Europe. US "interests" also became even more complicated as we aligned our interests with the interests of any government deemed part of the "free" (aka "non-communist") world. Our interests then became more ideological than practical.

So, I think we, as a country, need to give far better clarity and reason as to what our "interests" actually are in this day and age. That might be an interesting topic for a new thread.

The Russia story is a complicated one. You seem to have a poor memory. We did try to build relations with Russia after the cold war. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were negotiated with and worked with. It was when Putin came on the scene that things turned murky for obvious reasons. If you do not know what those are, do a bit of research.

I suppose so. I remember it was a thing back when the movie Wargames came out over three decades ago. The senior programmer kept saying "There's no way some kid can break into our system" and naturally assumed he was working with someone else. But then there have been real life cases of mere teenagers hacking into some system.

Even Russian hackers aren't all that new to the scene either; they've been in the news for quite some time, long before any of this.

As far as what it takes to make sure some of the more critical systems be kept secure, I don't doubt that it takes massive resources and that it's a supreme challenge. But if the Russians are beating us at that game, then it's something we should take a closer look at. Maybe if we had been working to shore up our own security rather than doing things like hacking into Angela Merkel's cellphone, maybe it wouldn't have happened at all.

But it isn't as simple as the Russians versus the US. It is the Russians vs the Democratic Party, or GE, or Experian or whatever company or entity that controls their own security. There in lies the problem. When a state targets a group or company that cannot hope to match their resources, how do you respond? This is something the world needs to look at as an issue almost on par with nuclear proliferation. While the death tole may be lower, the economic consequences of ignoring it could be disastrous.

Exactly, and now we're living with the consequences of that choice.

But it's not just L.A. More and more people have been moving out of the cities, and even out of established suburbs to housing developments further away from major city centers ("exurbs," I think they're called), to which residents from those areas have to commute by car. People don't really want to live in cities or even suburbs if they can afford not to. But they still want to live close enough to the city, within reasonable driving distance. This is how more and more sprawl takes place.

Probably so. The energy crisis of the 70s should have served as a wake-up call, which it did briefly, but somehow we went back to sleep.

And this points up the other major problem with the political system - money rules over all. We speak of wanting to guard against foreign interference in our election process, but foreigners have money too. And they're certainly willing to spend it to try to influence our politics. Sometimes it's difficult to tell just where the money is coming from, since there's so much of it going into these political campaigns. We all hope it's from legitimate and legal sources, but trying to sift all that out is even more difficult than finding computer hackers.

Americans have known about this as well, at least in theory. Money buys influence. Money buys elections. Most people seem to tacitly accept this, as they have done for many decades at least. Money buys advertising and TV time (aka "propaganda"), and it's viewed as a legitimate expression of free speech. This means that the more money you have, the more freedom of speech you get. This is what we have accepted, and as such, we are now faced with the consequences of what we have accepted.

You're right. The politicians are squabbling like spoiled children, and what's worse is that they're doing so on a sinking ship.

As for the general public, we made our own bed. We made all these choices, whether as consumers or voters. Either we start making smarter choices, or we might face even worse consequences in the future.

At least on that much we agree.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course we do. But it also depends on the type of influence. It's one thing to have the British PM on the phone with our president. It's another for a foreign country to try to overtly change our election results.

The issue is foreign influence, is it not? Now you're trying to move the goalposts and specify "type" of influence.

As for blaming the victim, I think that is a pointless exercise. I also think this whole attempt to dismiss the Russian influence is absurd. Nobody in their right mind thinks this kind of influence should be just written off as no big deal.

"Nobody in their right mind," huh? That's a rather bold assertion.

I'm not trying to dismiss anything here, but nothing has been definitively proven anyway. I think the fact that some people are falling all over themselves in attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill is also quite absurd.

The Russia story is a complicated one. You seem to have a poor memory. We did try to build relations with Russia after the cold war. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were negotiated with and worked with.

Not really, no. We took advantage of the situation when they made a show of good faith by dissolving the Warsaw Pact. If two people have guns pointed at each other, the only way to end the standoff is for one side to be gracious and brave enough to lower their guard. That's what they did, and rather than graciously reciprocate, we did just the opposite by expanding NATO. Our government's response to their act of good faith was cowardly and treacherous, and that's why they have good reason to be resentful now. If you don't see it that way, then you're the one with the poor memory.

It was when Putin came on the scene that things turned murky for obvious reasons. If you do not know what those are, do a bit of research.

I already know what I'm talking about here, so if you want to convince me that I'm wrong, you'll have to do better than this. I have no doubts that Putin is a mobster and a sleazeball, if that's what you're referring to. That puts him on par with 90% of the politicians in this world, even including our own politicians here in America. But if you're trying to convince me that he's the next "Hitler," that's another matter entirely.

But it isn't as simple as the Russians versus the US. It is the Russians vs the Democratic Party, or GE, or Experian or whatever company or entity that controls their own security. There in lies the problem. When a state targets a group or company that cannot hope to match their resources, how do you respond?

Do we know that it's the actual "state" targeting someone, or is it just an equivalent business entity within Russia? Russia is not a monolithic society. Putin is not the entire country. They have organized crime elements which have been operating for the past few decades with obvious complicity with organized crime elements within the US and other countries. The best course of action we could have taken would have been to double down and fight organized crime tooth and nail, but instead, we chose to glorify them with award-winning TV shows and movies.

This is something the world needs to look at as an issue almost on par with nuclear proliferation. While the death tole may be lower, the economic consequences of ignoring it could be disastrous.

It sounds like we might have to take the internet out of private hands and put it under state control.

 

[Underhill]

The issue is foreign influence, is it not? Now you're trying to move the goalposts and specify "type" of influence.

Now you are just being obtuse. Of course the type matters.

"Nobody in their right mind," huh? That's a rather bold assertion.

I'm not trying to dismiss anything here, but nothing has been definitively proven anyway. I think the fact that some people are falling all over themselves in attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill is also quite absurd.

We know Trumps top 2 people in his campaign met with foreign operatives claiming to have intelligence on Clinton. We know that Trump has fired the head of the FBI because he wouldn't stop investigating the Russia story. Just those two things alone are more than enough to make this quite a mountain. A hell of a lot more than there ever was with Benghazi and how many investigations into that were there?

Not really, no. We took advantage of the situation when they made a show of good faith by dissolving the Warsaw Pact. If two people have guns pointed at each other, the only way to end the standoff is for one side to be gracious and brave enough to lower their guard. That's what they did, and rather than graciously reciprocate, we did just the opposite by expanding NATO. Our government's response to their act of good faith was cowardly and treacherous, and that's why they have good reason to be resentful now. If you don't see it that way, then you're the one with the poor memory.

There was plenty of talk of disolving NATO but Putin came along and made that position untenable. There is plenty of blame on both sides. The Warsaw Pact wasn't a goodwill gesture so much as a result of the Russian economy collapsing and the countries involved throwing off the communist mantle and hoping to cozy up to new, wealthier trading partners.

I already know what I'm talking about here, so if you want to convince me that I'm wrong, you'll have to do better than this. I have no doubts that Putin is a mobster and a sleazeball, if that's what you're referring to. That puts him on par with 90% of the politicians in this world, even including our own politicians here in America. But if you're trying to convince me that he's the next "Hitler," that's another matter entirely.

He's vastly worse than most of the politicians in this country. Destroying free press in Russia, killing off opposition... I don't see our politicians coming close to that level of corruption. He is the primary reason why our relationship soured considerably. Add in what happened in Crimea and it's clear he isn't interested in any kind of normalized relationship with the US.

Do we know that it's the actual "state" targeting someone, or is it just an equivalent business entity within Russia? Russia is not a monolithic society. Putin is not the entire country. They have organized crime elements which have been operating for the past few decades with obvious complicity with organized crime elements within the US and other countries. The best course of action we could have taken would have been to double down and fight organized crime tooth and nail, but instead, we chose to glorify them with award-winning TV shows and movies.

It's both. It's hard to draw firm lines of distinction but there are enough ties to Putin that the democratic hacks are probably sourced from the government, especially considering there was, so far as we know, no monetary gain from the election work. The rest is hard to gauge. But those that worry companies are the government sponsored hackers as they have the most resources and are the most dangerous.

It sounds like we might have to take the internet out of private hands and put it under state control.

Which state would that be? It sounds like a terrible idea.

I readily admit to not having an alternative solution, but I just cannot see that happening.

 

[Stevicus]

Now you are just being obtuse. Of course the type matters.

The thing is, I'm trying to establish whether we're talking about a consistent principle in regards to this country's perceptions of foreign influence. When you say "type," aren't you just referring to perceptions of different countries? There is some foreign influence which we've been okay with, depending on which country is doing the influencing.

Any time a foreign-born celebrity makes a statement on US politics, that could conceivably change a few voters' minds. And that's what the Russians are being accused of doing.

We know Trumps top 2 people in his campaign met with foreign operatives claiming to have intelligence on Clinton. We know that Trump has fired the head of the FBI because he wouldn't stop investigating the Russia story. Just those two things alone are more than enough to make this quite a mountain. A hell of a lot more than there ever was with Benghazi and how many investigations into that were there?

I wouldn't want to get into any comparisons with Benghazi. If Trump looks bad from this, and if he's proven guilty, then he deserves to be impeached and removed from office. I'm not really arguing from that angle. What I'm talking about is how much actual "influence" this had on the election. How many voters changed their minds as a result of "foreign influence"? What percentage points, and which districts? Was it a lot of voters (mountain) or was it just a few voters (molehill)?

There was plenty of talk of disolving NATO but Putin came along and made that position untenable.

Putin didn't just "come along."

There is plenty of blame on both sides. The Warsaw Pact wasn't a goodwill gesture so much as a result of the Russian economy collapsing and the countries involved throwing off the communist mantle and hoping to cozy up to new, wealthier trading partners.

I visited the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, and they were by no means a dying country. They did have their share of economic problems, but times were much better than they had seen in previous eras. Gradually, each decade had been getting better than the previous decade during the post-Stalin era. The difference was an ongoing war in Afghanistan which was like their equivalent to Vietnam. Plus, the US and China were on much better terms - and the Russians were more afraid of the Chinese than they were of us.

In addition, I think the Russians finally recognized that the original reasons for forming the Warsaw Pact were no longer relevant. Gorbachev wanted to bring about reforms with his Perestroika and Glasnost, and people started to feel more free to speak without repercussions. If not for that abortive coup back in 1991, it might have turned out differently. Yeltsin kind of loused things up a bit.

He's vastly worse than most of the politicians in this country. Destroying free press in Russia, killing off opposition... I don't see our politicians coming close to that level of corruption. He is the primary reason why our relationship soured considerably. Add in what happened in Crimea and it's clear he isn't interested in any kind of normalized relationship with the US.

He's a mobster, but not necessarily a political fanatic or anyone hellbent on conquering the world.

But then again, one might well wonder about our own politicians and their ambitions. Our military is far more widespread and a lot busier than Putin's military. Indeed, it may be because our military has been so busy in the post-Cold War world that the Russians are sitting up and taking notice. After all, we're the ones who invaded Iraq on the phony WMD pretext. Our politicians have done a lot of questionable things around the world, from Vietnam to Chile to Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, numerous countries in the Middle East, Africa. We may have our reasons, at least enough to justify enough support among the American people and some of our allies, but a lot of other people in the world don't really see it that way. Some other countries have become wary of us and feel the need to look out for their own interests.

It's not that they don't want a normalized relationship with the US, but we're not exactly "normal" either, are we?

It's both. It's hard to draw firm lines of distinction but there are enough ties to Putin that the democratic hacks are probably sourced from the government, especially considering there was, so far as we know, no monetary gain from the election work. The rest is hard to gauge. But those that worry companies are the government sponsored hackers as they have the most resources and are the most dangerous.

Then I would say it's a matter for law enforcement and other agencies in the intelligence community to utilize their resources to defend against it. What else can we do at this point? Go to war with Russia?

Which state would that be? It sounds like a terrible idea.

I readily admit to not having an alternative solution, but I just cannot see that happening.

From what you're saying, if national governments involve themselves in hacking, then they would have more resources than individual companies and would be most dangerous. Eventually the state is going to get involved sooner or later anyway. That seems an inevitability based on the situation you're describing. If the danger at hand is comparable to nuclear proliferation, then it seems that there are few options to be able to defend ourselves against whatever potential destruction may be visited upon us.

 

[Underhill]

The thing is, I'm trying to establish whether we're talking about a consistent principle in regards to this country's perceptions of foreign influence. When you say "type," aren't you just referring to perceptions of different countries? There is some foreign influence which we've been okay with, depending on which country is doing the influencing.

Any time a foreign-born celebrity makes a statement on US politics, that could conceivably change a few voters' minds. And that's what the Russians are being accused of doing.

Sure, but there is a difference between openly stating and opinion and covertly trying to sway the vote through tampering, spreading lies, hacking computers...

I wouldn't want to get into any comparisons with Benghazi. If Trump looks bad from this, and if he's proven guilty, then he deserves to be impeached and removed from office. I'm not really arguing from that angle. What I'm talking about is how much actual "influence" this had on the election. How many voters changed their minds as a result of "foreign influence"? What percentage points, and which districts? Was it a lot of voters (mountain) or was it just a few voters (molehill)?

A molehill could have meant the difference. We are talking about thousands of votes to change the outcome, not millions.

Putin didn't just "come along."

Took leadership, became the problem.. however you want to describe it, things changed when he ran the show.

I visited the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, and they were by no means a dying country. They did have their share of economic problems, but times were much better than they had seen in previous eras. Gradually, each decade had been getting better than the previous decade during the post-Stalin era. The difference was an ongoing war in Afghanistan which was like their equivalent to Vietnam. Plus, the US and China were on much better terms - and the Russians were more afraid of the Chinese than they were of us.

In addition, I think the Russians finally recognized that the original reasons for forming the Warsaw Pact were no longer relevant. Gorbachev wanted to bring about reforms with his Perestroika and Glasnost, and people started to feel more free to speak without repercussions. If not for that abortive coup back in 1991, it might have turned out differently. Yeltsin kind of loused things up a bit.

They were in pretty bad shape for a while. I have no idea where you visited but the people in much of the country were suffering.

He's a mobster, but not necessarily a political fanatic or anyone hellbent on conquering the world.

But then again, one might well wonder about our own politicians and their ambitions. Our military is far more widespread and a lot busier than Putin's military. Indeed, it may be because our military has been so busy in the post-Cold War world that the Russians are sitting up and taking notice. After all, we're the ones who invaded Iraq on the phony WMD pretext. Our politicians have done a lot of questionable things around the world, from Vietnam to Chile to Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, numerous countries in the Middle East, Africa. We may have our reasons, at least enough to justify enough support among the American people and some of our allies, but a lot of other people in the world don't really see it that way. Some other countries have become wary of us and feel the need to look out for their own interests.

It's not that they don't want a normalized relationship with the US, but we're not exactly "normal" either, are we?

I don't claim we are innocent. I have complained many times about our military wagging the dog. But we still have free speech and freedom of the press. Our people often squander such freedoms and don't keep themselves informed, but internally our democracy is sound for the time being.

Then I would say it's a matter for law enforcement and other agencies in the intelligence community to utilize their resources to defend against it. What else can we do at this point? Go to war with Russia?

I don't claim to be an expert. War isn't going to happen. But it would help if people actually spent the smallest amount of time informing themselves so they don't fall prey in such large numbers to lies and disinformation of the kind these people, be it Trump or Russian hackers, used to our detriment.

From what you're saying, if national governments involve themselves in hacking, then they would have more resources than individual companies and would be most dangerous. Eventually the state is going to get involved sooner or later anyway. That seems an inevitability based on the situation you're describing. If the danger at hand is comparable to nuclear proliferation, then it seems that there are few options to be able to defend ourselves against whatever potential destruction may be visited upon us.

Perhaps you are right, but I hope not. The web has it's problems for sure, but it is not the kind of thing that could be well managed by the government.

 

[Wirey]

I think Google is mess'n with you.
It gives me Fox News sources regularly.
Did you do something to p1ss them off?

Google looks at past searches from your IP. If I Google "Yankees" it brings up baseball. If @esmith did it would probably bring up a history site. And if @Quetzal does it shows pictures of Kleenex and hand lotion. Just sayin'.

 

[Quetzal]

And if @Quetzal does it shows pictures of Kleenex and hand lotion.

Burts Bees makes an amazing body lotion for those wondering.

 

[esmith]

l If @esmith did it would probably bring up a history site. .

Nope just sat there and "spun". Oh guess my internet had hiccuped.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure, but there is a difference between openly stating and opinion and covertly trying to sway the vote through tampering, spreading lies, hacking computers...

And that's what I was getting at. So, it's not so much the "foreign influence" that people are worried about; it's just the hacking of computers - which I agree we need to guard against, both domestically and from foreign sources. What I was getting at is that it doesn't matter if it was Russians, Chinese, British, or even our own homegrown Americans who did the hacking or spread lies - it's just as wrong and harmful no matter who it is or what country they're from.

A molehill could have meant the difference. We are talking about thousands of votes to change the outcome, not millions.

Maybe, but influencing a few thousand votes is nothing compared to the millions of votes which might have changed if they had a better candidate to vote for. The Russians clearly had no influence over who the candidates were going to be, nor did they have much influence over the vast majority of voters or the issues at hand. Even if they influenced 1-2% of the vote (and even that seems high), then there's still the 98-99% of the electorate that they didn't influence - and they're the ones who made the outcome what it was.

Took leadership, became the problem.. however you want to describe it, things changed when he ran the show.

Yeah, but my point is that he didn't just pop in out of a vacuum. If we had taken crucial steps before Gorbachev's fall and/or during Yeltsin's reign, we might have avoided Putin's rise to power. I would say the same about Trump. If the Democrats and mainstream Republicans had been on task and governing the country properly, then Trump would never have gotten as far as he did.

They were in pretty bad shape for a while. I have no idea where you visited but the people in much of the country were suffering.

Suffering is a relative concept. One could look at the history of Russia during the entire 20th century and see one long endless suffering, from the 1905 Revolution (precipitated by the failed Russo-Japanese War) to WW1, then a Revolution, then Stalin's collectivization/industrialization/purges, then WW2, then the rebuilding period and post-Stalin thaw, which is when things started to get better. Yes, there was still suffering, and it probably would have appeared horrible by Western standards. But it was still improving and getting better than what they had suffered through before.

In any case, the trains were still running, food deliveries were still getting made, the factories were producing more consumer goods. No sign of anyone starving or living in homelessness. The lights were still burning, and the phones worked. Their educational system was still top notch. (It must have been, since it was able to turn out all those brilliant and ingenious hackers we keep hearing so much of; not to mention great chess players.) Their military might surely gave our own military experts and planners a good deal of headaches and sleepless nights. Higher education was free - and was of good quality. Healthcare was also free, but left something to be desired by Western standards.

One of the problems Gorbachev was trying to deal with was alcoholism, and to that end, he restricted sales of alcohol which raised a lot of hackles among the populace.

I don't claim we are innocent. I have complained many times about our military wagging the dog. But we still have free speech and freedom of the press. Our people often squander such freedoms and don't keep themselves informed, but internally our democracy is sound for the time being.

We still can have a normalized relationship with them, even if they don't have free speech or freedom of the press. That may not be the ideal situation, but we have relatively normalized relations with China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries which do not have free speech or freedom of the press. Heck, someone just posted a thread about Pakistan executing someone for blasphemy against Mohammad. And Pakistan is considered a friend and ally of the United States. We help supply them with weapons.

And by the same token, I'm not claiming the Russians are innocent either. They have their dark side, too, but that doesn't mean that they're a nation of scoundrels either. A lot of what they do is easily understandable to those who understand their history and what they've been through in their national existence. If people would only take the time and bother to try to understand why they do what they do, rather than reacting like children frightened of the boogieman, maybe it wouldn't seem so "scary" and "dangerous." We only fear that which we don't understand.

Even if they do become an enemy, then it's equally important to know one's enemy. I'm not proposing that we let down our guard, but if we're really going to make any formal accusations against the Russian government, we'd better make sure we have our ducks lined up and that we have a very solid, unquestionable case. Bring it in to World Court or whatever forum may be appropriate; let the Russians face their accuser and put forth their defense, if they have any.

I'm not saying they're a bunch of choir boys. They do have their interests, but as long as we know what they are and what they want, then we have a basis for working with them. That's how we've dealt with them in the past. That's how we were able to cooperate with them during WW2. We needed each other back then, and frankly, we need each other now. If the US and Russia can reach a genuine agreement and spirit of cooperation, we could together quickly end many of the current geopolitical dilemmas which plague us, from North Korea to Syria. At least on some issues, we can trust that Russia will do what is good for their own interests - and I'm sure they would like to quell a lot of the unrest along the periphery of their own territory.

I don't claim to be an expert. War isn't going to happen. But it would help if people actually spent the smallest amount of time informing themselves so they don't fall prey in such large numbers to lies and disinformation of the kind these people, be it Trump or Russian hackers, used to our detriment.

But when you say "large numbers," how large are we talking about here? The voters are subjected to numerous ads and an incessant flow of "information" (fake or otherwise) coming from a variety of sources. It's the First Amendment in the raw - just an endless barrage of open exercise of free speech and freedom of the press - especially at election time. And that's all legal and Constitutional; it's the democratic system in action. And it's open to foreigners, too. Even if they're not citizens and can't vote, they can still voice their opinions that might be heard or read by US citizens who do vote. Some of those opinions might be biased or based on a perception of geopolitics that may not put America at the center of the universe. But if they're here on our soil or if they have access to the internet, then their opinions may find their way into America.

But lies and disinformation are just as much risks even from domestic sources. Maybe people should just be better informed overall. I agree with that part.

However, having said that, I'm not entirely sure how much it had an effect on the election. People don't live in a bubble where all they do is watch TV or sit on the internet. Well, maybe some people do, but others also have to do things out in the real world, and that's also where their opinions and perceptions are formed.

Perhaps you are right, but I hope not. The web has it's problems for sure, but it is not the kind of thing that could be well managed by the government.

Possibly not. But there have been more than a few out there who have lamented some of the "darker" aspects of the internet, how it gets misused - along with the usual complaints of trolls, hate speech, fake news, scammers, hackers, viruses, denial-of-service attacks, and on and on and on. Not to mention sexual predators and other sort of scummy stuff that goes on.

I'm no expert on computers, but I've been around enough to realize that the weakest link in a computer network is when access is given to some dummy who doesn't know what they're doing and does everything wrong. All it takes is one person downloading something they're not supposed to, and everything gets messed up. I think it's the same with a lot of businesses and organizations. I often encounter people telling me "our system is down" or "my computer is running really slow today." This seems to happen a lot. Sometimes, one wonders how much aggravation is really worth it.

At least for elections, if we can't trust computers, then we can't trust computers. If we have to count every vote by hand, then that's what we must do.

I think it would also behoove the movers and shakers in the computer and software industry to think about the ramifications of what it would mean to their business, if people started to think of computers more and more as "untrustworthy" devices to the point where they may be considered "dangerous."