Former CIA Director John Brennan: "Our Future Is In Jeopardy"

[Twilight Hue]

Except that "talking head" ran the CIA and was appointed by six presidents, not all from the same party.

And to simply dismiss what he's saying so lightly is like taking a high-dive into a pool but deciding not to check how deep the water may be. Carelessness can be very costly and in more ways than one.

I'm not making light of his credentials, just that he retired in January 2017.

He's been effectively out of the loop for over a year now and it just seems a little bit odd he would wait pretty much a whole year before making allegations last Wednesday.

 

[Shad]

Do you think Brennan was talking about FB?

As part of the Russian effort did include FB you have to include that factor

Its you making it about Facebook to deflect all the mass scale of Russians intrusion.

No it is including FB trolls are part of cyber warfare that I am dismissing as media has done the same thing. By including such mundane things they undermine their own reports.

 

[Shad]

Yeah, I think your Russian-English dictionary has a bad definition of "error", or perhaps "opinion" or "speculation".

He was making conclusion without evidence thus that is an error even if it is his opinion. Any opinion can be wrong.

Amusing quip about Russian Bots. I guess that is what some dialogue is reduced to these days... "Agree with me or you are a Russia Bot!"

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

He was making conclusion without evidence thus that is an error even if it is his opinion. Any opinion can be wrong.

Amusing quip about Russian Bots. I guess that is what some dialogue is reduced to these days... "Agree with me or you are a Russia Bot!"

Nope. Inability to use common English idiom is the tip off. Misusing "bot" is another one.

 

[idav]

As part of the Russian effort did include FB you have to include that factor



No it is including FB trolls are part of cyber warfare that I am dismissing as media has done the same thing. By including such mundane things they undermine their own reports.

Well as your probably well aware "election meddling" isn't necessarily illegal, it really depends if something illegal was done. In fact talking to a Russian isnt illegal but raises red flags for sure. All those campaign people could have just said "yeah I talked with the fools, and what". The investigation is about figuring out what they were up to. Mueller could just call it a day if he found all they did was influence social media but that's far from the case.

 

[Shaul]

This is bone chilling scary all right, though not in the way you probably meant. Brennan is an unelected bureaucrat and is almost the personification of the “deep state” invisible shadow government. For him to try to undermine a duly elected sitting President is scary indeed! It is reminiscent of Third World coups, not American ideals. We can have faith in the American government system of checks and balances to take care of any issues with Trump. Brennan is way out of line, dangerous, and should be held accountable for this attempt to delegitimize our electoral system. He is play a very dangerous gambit indeed. This goes beyond Trump. Allowing CIA officials to question our elected officials is nightmarish.

 

[Falvlun]

This is bone chilling scary all right, though not in the way you probably meant. Brennan is an unelected bureaucrat and is almost the personification of the “deep state” invisible shadow government. For him to try to undermine a duly elected sitting President is scary indeed! It is reminiscent of Third World coups, not American ideals. We can have faith in the American government system of checks and balances to take care of any issues with Trump. Brennan is way out of line, dangerous, and should be held accountable for this attempt to delegitimize our electoral system. He is play a very dangerous gambit indeed. This goes beyond Trump. Allowing CIA officials to question our elected officials is nightmarish.

He’s the former CIA director. Are citizens not allowed to question Dear Leader now?

 

[idav]

This is bone chilling scary all right, though not in the way you probably meant. Brennan is an unelected bureaucrat and is almost the personification of the “deep state” invisible shadow government. For him to try to undermine a duly elected sitting President is scary indeed! It is reminiscent of Third World coups, not American ideals. We can have faith in the American government system of checks and balances to take care of any issues with Trump. Brennan is way out of line, dangerous, and should be held accountable for this attempt to delegitimize our electoral system. He is play a very dangerous gambit indeed. This goes beyond Trump. Allowing CIA officials to question our elected officials is nightmarish.

That is a hilarious conspiracy theory I've heard somewhere, almost verbatim.
SEAN HANNITY: Deep state, biased media tag-team President Trump

 

[idav]

He’s the former CIA director. Are citizens not allowed to question Dear Leader now?

What do you think the US is some sort of democracy with freedom to speak freely???

 

[Stevicus]

But my point is that Russia is very much trying to influence that "intrigue" there but also here, so we shouldn't be taking this lightly.

I don't think we're taking it lightly, but I believe that we can put it into perspective.

Which is why Mueller's investigation is so very important.

That's not the point-- the real point is what Russia has tried to do here and in Europe.

The intelligence community is also telling us that there's plenty of evidence that the Russians are continuing what they were doing here and in Europe, and yet Trump & Co. have done almost nothing in prevention of what happened two years ago.

Why do you think that is? Why is it Trump won't denounce Putin and yet denounces western leaders that are our allies? Why was it that it took so long for him to impose the sanctions that he had signed into law? Doesn't that at all make you even a wee bit suspicious?

Realistically, what can we do, other than tell people to not be so engrossed or influenced by social media?

We could also implement reforms in our electoral system so it isn't so easy for monied interests to control the process, but who knows if that will ever happen? We could also beef up computer security, but again, if we allow the internet to be controlled by private sector interests, we're putting ourselves at risk.

But sure, we can denounce Putin, impose sanctions. But at the end of the day, we're still stuck in the mud with a system that we will have to fix ourselves. That's the bottom line.

Experts tell us he has the following of an estimated 80% or so of the Russian electorate, plus the Europeans definitely consider him to be a threat.

I'd like to see the reports from these experts. I'm not automatically doubting this, but 80% seems a bit high.

If you question that, ask the Ukrainians what they think.

A few points to be made here:

1. At one time, Russians and Ukrainians were the same people, the same nationality. Russian history is said to have begun with Kievan Rus'. They're only different today because the area known as Ukraine was invaded and controlled by other countries (such as Turkey, Poland, Lithuania). Turkey launched aggressive invasions into Europe, Ukraine, and Crimea, and the Russians and Turks have had an ongoing enmity since 1453. Ukraine literally means "on the border." They're also referred to as "Little Russians," although they don't like that term.

2. Crimea was never logically a part of Ukraine. It became part of the Ukrainian SSR after the Revolution for administrative purposes only. Similarly, the border between the Ukrainian SSR and the Russian SFSR was drawn differently than what was previously considered Ukrainian territory. Historically, Ukrainian territory was smaller than what the borders of the Ukrainian SSR would indicate, and this was a loose end which wasn't tied at the time of the breakup of the USSR.

3. The Russians had very genuine fears about Ukraine going over to NATO (along with corruption and intrigue within the Ukrainian government). It was bad enough that the Baltic Republics and Eastern Europe joined NATO, but with the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, it's reasonable to expect that the Russians would feel threatened and respond as they did. In any case, I don't see that Ukraine is entirely innocent in this whole affair. It always takes two to tango.

4. This situation is roughly analogous to a situation like the British-Irish dispute. Meaning that it's not something that we really want to get involved in.

The general rule of thumb is "Never underestimate your enemy", and Putin is very much taking actions that make him as such. For us to just sit around and play with our navel, which is what Trump has largely done with this, is literally dangerous, and Brennan was right to call Trump out on this.

Part of that rule of thumb is first to know your enemy. Putin is more of a mobster, and this could be simply a matter of Putin wanting to gain economically (much like organized crime has influenced politics in the US).

Militarily, the Russians have no place to go. They can't invade Europe, since the combined power of NATO would defeat them. They can't invade China or do much in the Far East. They could try to grab Central Asia again, but they've already been stopped in Afghanistan. They can't really invade Iran either, since NATO and our Middle Eastern allies would see that as an immediate threat.

Sure, they have nukes, but so do we. Mutually assured destruction has always been a possibility.

But my impression from my own experience with the Russians is that they really don't want war. They remember the devastation they experienced in the World Wars, and they simply don't want that to happen again. Even Stalin wasn't that crazy.

Sure, they might try to get away with some sneaky stuff and dirty tricks, but realistically, there's only so far they can actually go. If nothing else, since they've been caught, then it appears that they can't even do that stuff very well.

Also, since you're a history teacher, you may appreciate the fact that historically, Russians have done very badly when attempting to fight offensive wars. They've always done far better when they're on the defensive, such as in WW2 or against Napoleon. The wars they've tried to start, such as the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, Afghanistan - they haven't done very well. When they tried to attack Finland, the Finns were badly outnumbered and still gave them a right bloody nose. They tried many times to oust the Turks from European territory, but that too was quite a struggle for them.

 

[Stevicus]

Wanted to revisit this.

You know how we fix this?

Political side:
Make gerrymandering illegal. Independent commissions must draw electoral districts. Eliminate “first past the post” voting in favor of proportional representation or ranked voting. Revise the electoral college so that states allocate their points proportional to the state’s vote. Automatically register every qualified American to vote and create a national ID that is sent out and universally accepted. Require that states provide so many polling places per population or area. Create a single government run website where a ballot for any federal, state, or local election can easily be found simply by typing in an address.

I can agree with all of this. Regarding the electoral college, we can also do away with the idea of "winner take all." If a candidate wins a state with 50% + 1 vote, then it doesn't seem right that they should be entitled to all electors in a state.

Another thing I'd like to see is to have the Vice-President and other key cabinet posts as elected positions as well. Just like states often elect governors and lieutenant governors separately, as well as other state posts, such as state treasurer, state attorney general, and so on. We should do this at the federal level, too. If we can vote for county sheriff, then why can't we also vote on who gets to be FBI or CIA director? That way, instead of being beholden to the president for appointing them to the job, they'd be beholden to the people.

Media side:
Make strict laws regarding what constitutes news. Enforce heavy fines for promulgating fictitious news. Put more money into dry, non-partisan public news. Bring back some form of the Fairness Doctrine.

This goes into difficult territory, as I'm sure there'd be objections on First Amendment grounds. But I do agree with the Fairness Doctrine and differentiating between commercial speech and non-commercial speech.

But the thing to consider is that technology has moved us far ahead in our ability to propagate messages and disseminate information. It was different back in the pre-internet days when TV channels were limited and newspapers were mainly local enterprises. If a person wanted to have his voice heard, he could write a letter to the editor or call in to a radio talk show. Or they could print up leaflets and hand them out at street corners.

But now, with social media and the like, we're in an era when random individuals can become instant internet celebrities. We have videos which "go viral" on the internet. Instead of having just a few media moguls making the call as to what the people should be allowed to see, we have average Joes out there posting stuff and being heard.

It's kind of unprecedented, when you really think about it.

That's why some people are genuinely concerned and worried, since there are some crackpots, loons, and trolls out there gaining followers. They're not necessarily Russians, though. We have plenty of our own homegrown crazoids.

Education:
Pump money into public education. Pay teachers a professional salary. Ensure each school has access to commensurate supplies. Reduce class size dramatically. Require logic and philosophy be taught, as well as civics. Regulate college tuition and pay for public colleges.

The problem is only one party would favor such actions. The Republicans would oppose any such measures. Cynically, I’d say they prefer an uneducated and disenfranchised population.

For the most part, I agree, although I don't completely believe that the Republicans want the population to be uneducated. I say this because they are staunch proponents of the military, and military needs educated people to build their weapons and advance their technology. They can't abandon education entirely.

I think the media and ruling class want the general public to be distracted and confused, but not necessarily uneducated. I'm looking mainly at the entertainment media - TV, blockbuster movies, popular music, sports. Much of it is put forth and supported by liberal Democrats, and yet they're feeding the youth of America such utter dreck.

 

[Stevicus]

Trump and followers are the ones that keep whining about a much needed investigation.

Investigation into what?

People who made the anti-establishment vote got their wish at the expense of putting a dictator in office who didn't drain the swamp.

He's not a dictator.

 

[Falvlun]

It's also in the rhetoric. Rhetoric can be harmful and lead to escalation if we're not careful in how we express ourselves.

If a country can’t handle Americans being mad that they meddled in our election, then maybe they shouldn’t be meddling in elections.

The sanctions aren't just over the elections. There are also concerns over Russian involvement in Syria, as well as the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia. Our butting in to matters involving former Soviet territory might be making them nervous, which could lead us one step closer to war. We need to back off.

I am only talking about sanctions regarding the election meddling. The Russian actions need to be fully exposed, and it needs to be made clear that it is not acceptable or accepted. We absolutely do not need to back off from that position.

As for what we allow in this country, our sense of openness and allowing other countries access to the internet and US media, this is one of the risks we take. Either we can shut the door, or we can just be more careful next time.

But I don't think that sanctions by itself will do all that much to prevent this from happening again. As I said earlier, anyone with a bag full of money can influence our elections and secretly undermine our democracy. That's what we've been "allowing" for a long time from the private sector, so why should it be any great surprise if a foreign government tries to do the same thing?

I do not accept your conflation of individuals or domestic influence peddling with that of forgiven governments.

I do not accept your conflation of foreign governments openly expressing their opinions vs governments waging a secret campaign.

I do not accept your assertion that the Russian campaign is normal or unavoidable.

Where is your evidence that this has occurred before? What has happened to your need for specificity and evidence?

You may opine that it's "ridiculous," but what are we really seeing here? It's not really xenophobia anyway. That's just the charge that gets bandied about. What's really going on is that there are some nations and cultures which some people consider their favorites, while others they regard as devious and evil. Politics in America seems to revolve around which foreign power is favored by a given candidate or faction. Foreign policy has always been one of the primary issues in political campaigns, whereas America's actual needs seem to be neglected.

You were the one bandying about xenophobia.

And yes, it is ridiculous to say it is “xenophobia” to have an issue with a foreign country meddling in our election.

It almost appears as if the political factions aren't really even for America anymore. They're for other nations, making it seem as if the whole system has been bought and sold by foreign elements for a long time now. So, Trump may have been bought or co-opted by the Russians, but who bought all the other politicians? Britain? France? Japan? Saudi Arabia? Israel? China? Among other things, American politics has ostensibly become a battleground of multiple foreign factions, while the average American has been losing out big time.

So, when I hear people lament today about the wiles of foreign influence, it comes off as laughable and asinine considering all that we've done over the past century. And as far as foreign powers go, I don't really see the Russians as being devils with horns. There are other countries with influence in America which are far worse and probably a greater threat. The Russians are motivated by wanting to protect themselves, while other countries which are buying up American property left and right have much more aggressive intentions. Countries which dump their goods on American markets and allow cheap labor outsourcing are a greater threat to American security than the Russians. Why should we allow that? Why should we listen to those who continue to advocate for such policies while they're concurrently screaming and howling about supposed "foreign influence"?

We dropped atom bombs on other countries but I’d still be howling if another country dropped one on us. “The we do it too” defense doesn’t change the fact that the Russians got caught doing something they shouldn’t and should now be exposed and sanctioned.

I also do not buy into your “poor Russia government, just trying to protect themselves” narrative. It is supported merely by your speculation. Furthermore, maybe don’t go poking a bear if you just wanna be safe.

 

[Falvlun]

A lot of legalese and government doublespeak. I was hoping you'd outline it in your words.

That “legalese” is the specificity you asked for. Names, places, actions, how is that not the evidence and specificity you claimed was lacking? My paraphrasing will only lose detail and technical acumen.

Ultimately, all they have is the Russians posted stuff on the internet and (possibly) did some computer hacking. They're not absolutely certain but they're "pretty sure."

Such lack of specificity here.
Best to go with what is actually stated:
“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.”

It could also just be certain groups or individuals within a government, but not necessarily representative of the entire government or nation.

No, it could not be. Not based on what our intelligence agencies have stated.

Much of your line of argumentation has emphasized the term "foreign government," as you put it in big bold letters above. If it's a domestic issue with our media or something done by our own government, that would ostensibly be viewed differently. But the fact that something "foreign" has done something to "us," that's the prime issue at hand in this.

Exactly.

The problem with a foreign government influencing our election is that they are doing it to benefit them. What about Trump benefits Russia?

Evidence of what, though? That the Russians posted stuff on the internet? That they exercised their option to utilize freedom of speech in this country? That they "used social media" and had "troll farms"? Is that supposed to impress me as something truly insidious?

A covert operation by a foreign government is not merely utilizing freedom of speech.

Oh, I'm convinced that something happened, but I'm just not as geared towards such an intensity of reaction as some people are. I'm also not clear on what, exactly, we can do to the Russians to punish them for this, other than impose sanctions and escalate the rhetoric, but that may have greater consequences. Right now, my view is that we should work on shoring up our own weaknesses so that no one can do this again.

If you’re convinced something happened, then why do you continue to say “alleged”, expressing doubt that something happened?

Part of shoring up our own weaknesses is exposing the Russian actions. It’s making sure people know it happened. It’s geberating public support for better cyber security or other measures. It is sending a clear message to other nations that we won’t tolerate it. I don’t see why working on our internal problems means we can’t address the external threats as well.

In order to do that, we would need to convince people, like yourself, that going on and on with this "oh you dirty Russians" routine is counterproductive. We need to look inward and solve our internal problems on our own, not bring in the Russians or other foreign powers into the mix.

The Russians brought themselves into this.

Well, I don't think your speculation is correct, based on what I know about Russian history and their perceptions of the outside world. I'm not saying that makes them into a bunch of choir boys, but I don't think they've ever been as aggressive as many people make them out to be.

And I don’t think your speculations are correct either.

Very well, but we have to move past this at some point. There's a point where we have to cut our losses and try to do better next time.

For example, we have the mid-term elections coming up soon. How do we convince Americans to not be fooled by trolls on social media? How do we make it so people aren't influenced by foreign meddlers in our electoral process?

Half the people don’t think it even happened or that they are somehow immune.

Short-term, Republicans need to stop lying about what happened and stop downplaying it, because their base isn’t going to listen to the left— or apparently our intelligence community anymore.

Long-term, we need a better engaged and educated electorate. It’s gonna be a long slog to get there.

 

[Stevicus]

If a country can’t handle Americans being mad that they meddled in our election, then maybe they shouldn’t be meddling in elections.

Maybe not, but that's beside the point.

I am only talking about sanctions regarding the election meddling. The Russian actions need to be fully exposed, and it needs to be made clear that it is not acceptable or accepted. We absolutely do not need to back off from that position.

Well, we've already brought it out into the open and made allegations.

Where is your evidence that this has occurred before? What has happened to your need for specificity and evidence?

It's in the realm of speculation, allegations, and rumors. It's often been alleged that the British used manipulation and trickery to get us into WW1. Then there were allegations regarding the Reagan campaign and secret dealings with Iran. Alleged Chinese influence in the 1996 election. Even back in Washington's time, there were Americans who were pro-British and those who were pro-French, but Washington didn't want any part of that.

You were the one bandying about xenophobia.

I was merely repeating the charge that others have made before me.

And yes, it is ridiculous to say it is “xenophobia” to have an issue with a foreign country meddling in our election.

Why? We allow foreign countries to meddle in our economy. That conceivably has a much greater long-term effect than merely influencing a single election for a single office.

We dropped atom bombs on other countries but I’d still be howling if another country dropped one on us.

So would I, but dropping an atom bomb is a pretty extreme event. Talk about conflating things...

“The we do it too” defense doesn’t change the fact that the Russians got caught doing something they shouldn’t and should now be exposed and sanctioned.

Okay, fine. Expose them and sanction them, for whatever good it will do. I think we're already doing that, so now we can end the matter.

I also do not buy into your “poor Russia government, just trying to protect themselves” narrative. It is supported merely by your speculation.

Speculation supported by extensive knowledge of their history and culture. Have you ever visited Russia? Do you speak the language? Have you studied their history? Have you read their literature and gained insight into their cultural ethos? Tell me how much you actually know about Russia, and then we can compare speculation.

Furthermore, maybe don’t go poking a bear if you just wanna be safe.

We're the ones poking a bear.

 

[idav]

Investigation into what?

Seriously?

He's not a dictator.

Of course, he is only one by ideology, we are a democracy.

 

[Stevicus]

That “legalese” is the specificity you asked for. Names, places, actions, how is that not the evidence and specificity you claimed was lacking? My paraphrasing will only lose detail and technical acumen.

If I wanted to address the authors of those reports, I would do so. Right now, I'm talking to you, not them.

But let's move on...

Such lack of specificity here.
Best to go with what is actually stated:
“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.”

This is just a fancy way of saying "We think this has happened, but we're not entirely sure. But we're pretty sure." In other words, speculation.

No, it could not be. Not based on what our intelligence agencies have stated.

But they don't know for certain. It's just their "assessment."

Exactly.

The problem with a foreign government influencing our election is that they are doing it to benefit them. What about Trump benefits Russia?

Perhaps they saw Hillary as a potential warmonger who might have led America into a war with Russia.

Would we act any differently towards a country where two factions were vying for power, one which was openly hostile towards America and one which was not? Wouldn't we have a preference and even try to influence/interfere with the internal affairs of such a country? We've done it before, and many Americans would argue that it was perfectly justified for American interests. It may lie in the realm of the "dark side" of our foreign policy, but sometimes such things have been deemed necessary.

I'm not saying that it justifies or excuses anything, but we also have to try to look at things from their side, too.

A covert operation by a foreign government is not merely utilizing freedom of speech.

However elaborate or numerous they might have been, trolls and shills are still what they are. Those with the money and resources (not just governments) can do this, precisely because we have freedom of speech. Some people see this as our greatest strength, but it can also be a weakness.

What we should really be wondering about is how many American voters were actually influenced, and if it was a lot, why and how could it have possibly happened? That's what we need to be asking ourselves.

If the Russians took advantage of that weakness, then shame on them, but what do we expect? This is the real world where they play for keeps. This is not a parlor game.

If you’re convinced something happened, then why do you continue to say “alleged”, expressing doubt that something happened?

Why does that matter to you so much? We're still not entirely certain of the "who" or the "why" in this puzzle, other than the "assessments" (read "speculation") of our intel community. I'm convinced that they used social media and employed trolls and shills, but I put that down in the "so what" department. I have no love for internet scammers, but I also find it hard to sympathize with those who get suckered in by them.

Part of shoring up our own weaknesses is exposing the Russian actions. It’s making sure people know it happened. It’s geberating public support for better cyber security or other measures. It is sending a clear message to other nations that we won’t tolerate it. I don’t see why working on our internal problems means we can’t address the external threats as well.

First, as a point of order, these "external threats" exist solely due to our own propensity to meddle in affairs all over the world. We fancy ourselves a "global leader" and refer to our president as the "leader of the free world." Absent that, there would be no "external threats." Keep that in mind.

Second, being that we are a "world leader," the rest of the world which we're presuming to lead might very well conclude that they also have a stake in who that "world leader" might be. This is why we have foreign lobbyists and the like to advocate and pursue their own national interests in their dealings with America.

They may try to influence our voters, our culture, our media, but it's up to Americans to decide whether such influences are positive contributions to enhance America - or threats by enemies who have ill intentions towards us. Are we able to tell the difference?

The Russians brought themselves into this.

But then we have the option to boot them out of this, too. This is essentially our problem, not theirs. Right now, they're simply a focal point of internal political bickering within our own political system. To constantly harp on the Russians is not really helping anything.

And I don’t think your speculations are correct either.

The scenario outlined in the movie Red Dawn never really came to pass. In the final analysis, there's only so much they can do to hurt us without being seriously hurt themselves. This is just Mickey Mouse stuff they're doing. Dirty tricks and practical jokes.

Our differences here seem to revolve around our disagreement over perceptions of Russia, but more than that, I get the sense that you take our political system and the democratic process far more seriously than I do.

I believe that our system has been corrupted to the core for decades, long before Trump came on the scene and back when the Russians were known as the "Evil Empire."

I never took that kind of rhetoric seriously either, and as far as speculation goes, most of the Cold War speculation about "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" turned out to be wildly inaccurate and just plain wrong. That's why I believe my speculation to be more correct than yours, due to our history and track record of over 2 centuries of US-Russian relations.

Half the people don’t think it even happened or that they are somehow immune.

I would suggest that there would need to be some sort of tangible or visible effect. The fact that Trump is president doesn't really prove that it happened, since a lot of people believe they voted for Trump out of their own free will, not because they were unduly influenced by the Russians. This is as much an accusation against the voters as anything else, and the idea that some outside nefarious force tricked them doesn't seem readily evident in people's daily lives.

Some might believe that they were fooled by Trump, but not by the Russians.

Short-term, Republicans need to stop lying about what happened and stop downplaying it, because their base isn’t going to listen to the left— or apparently our intelligence community anymore.

Long-term, we need a better engaged and educated electorate. It’s gonna be a long slog to get there.

Short-term, I think we need to cut our losses and move on. All this bickering over it doesn't help. This is like when a referee makes a bad call at a championship game, with people obsessing about it for weeks or months afterwards. Sure, one can make a protest, but to constantly go on with "we would have won if it wasn't for the stupid referee" starts to move into sour grapes and poor sportsmanship. It's bad form and it makes America into an even greater laughingstock than we would have been if we had taken a more low-key approach.

Long-term, I agree that we need a better engaged and educated electorate. We also need to get more people voting, since half the people don't vote most of the time anyway.

It might also be helpful if people were more aware of how to recognize shills and political hacks on the internet. I can usually identify them when I see them.

 

[Stevicus]

Seriously?

Well, there have been lots of investigations lately, so I was just wondering which one you're referring to.

Of course, he is only one by ideology, we are a democracy.

How is that possible?

 

[metis]

I'm not making light of his credentials, just that he retired in January 2017.

He's been effectively out of the loop for over a year now and it just seems a little bit odd he would wait pretty much a whole year before making allegations last Wednesday.

He has made allegations long before that, including during the 2016 campaign whereas he had strong reservations about Trump being fit for the job. However, it's more recently that he has ramped up his criticisms of Trump and his staff, and for very good reason.

 

[metis]

Realistically, what can we do, other than tell people to not be so engrossed or influenced by social media?

Do you call the news-- I mean the real news-- "social media"? Personally, I don't get my news from Facebook or any such sites, much preferring to get news from a variety of sources.

I'd like to see the reports from these experts. I'm not automatically doubting this, but 80% seems a bit high.

I'm just parroting a couple of the experts on Russia that I listened to. Even if you and I were to question that figure, Putin was in no danger of getting defeated even without the cheating

Also, since you're a history teacher, you may appreciate the fact that historically, Russians have done very badly when attempting to fight offensive wars

They already invaded two countries and have been engaged in the Ukraine for a couple of years now. Do I expect them to invade much of the rest of Europe? No. But obviously they are doing their best to undermine the democracies there, and that is VERY serious, and we and our president should make it clear that this is unacceptable and may be met with even more sanctions.

Unfortunately, we have a president who won't do that with the Russians but will instead impose sanctions on China that appears to already be starting a trade war. See what the DOW did yesterday? Ya think the economists are concerned?