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

[Falvlun]

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...

No, I think this is important. You asked for specificity and evidence. You then reject that very specificity and evidence when offered.

Anything I write would merely be a less specific, and less complete, version of the evidence, due to less knowledge and time.

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.

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

No, not speculation. Speculation is what you’re doing when you opine on Russian motives.

The intelligence community’s assessment is based on hard data, specific evidence, multitudes of experts, and extensive analysis.

Your conflation is no different than a creationist pretending that the scientific theory of evolution is no different than a layperson’s theory.

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.

Your last sentence is the operative one: their motives neither justify nor excuse their actions.

Our government is not here to work for the Russians. It’s working for us.

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.

And in the real world there’s real consequences for meddling in elections.

Again, your portrayal of this as mere freedom of speech is woefully inaccurate. Freedom of speech does not capture the concept of foreign government operatives impersonating Americans for the purpose of tricking them into voting the way the foreign government wants. It also does not cover the hacking portions of the campaign, including the DNC and state voter rolls.

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.

It matters because a foreign government is attempting to infiltrate ours, to insinuate it’s goals and desires into American consciousness so that we do what they want us to.

We are certain of the who.

As for the Americans who were influenced, your “suckers”, I am afraid that there is a large overlap between them and the very people who deny that it happened, or that it happened to them.

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.

This is ridiculously naive.

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.

And they can do it out in the open for everyone to see, in the legal channels.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The red dawn hysteria is of your own making. I am not hysteric nor do I expect Russians to invade. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Russians waged a covert campaign to influence our elections and I believe that they should be sanctioned for it, to discourage further attempts or wannabe copycats. I also believe the American public should be made aware.

This is a rather basic, sober response based on actual offenses committed by the Russians.

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.

I do not understand why you think we should “cut our losses”. There is no reason why we should not be exposing the Russians, or punishing them for their actions.

Of your Long-term plan, I agree.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not just the implausible findings of our government agencies I find questionable, the blame Russia mantra has been going on in Europe for quite some time before our own.
for example:

Russia was blamed for the outcome of the Brexit vote in the U.K.
Russia was blamed for financing the so called far-right (any Euroskeptic political party) in Europe instead of coming to grips with the fact that some people may have had enough of the E.U. And disagree with it. Marine Le Pen, ( a centrist painted as far right by political enemies) borrowed money from a Russian linked bank but it was only because. Banks in Europe refused to loan the FN or any of it's officers money, in essence attempting to stifle democracy by refusing to fund political parties they don't agree with.
. Russia meddling was Blamed a year before in Germany just in case Merkel didn't win, and they still blamed them not because she lost but because she didn't get as many votes as they thought she should have. Funny thing is they did an investigation and found zero evidence of Russian involvement but did find another culprit-and that was far-rightists in the United States.
. I don't trust our E.U.allies or their intelligence services any further than I can throw them and I suspect this ongoing U.S. smear against Russia has very much to do with justifying our continuing presence in Syria.

You still haven't answered my questions of you.

So, in other words, you’re pushing a conspiracy theory.

It’s a conspiracy theory in which all of our intelligence agencies are lying to us.

I’m not sure what your questions were, but if you repost I’ll try to address them.

 

[Falvlun]

Based on numerous articles that were in the news covering it.

Post some then. Otherwise it appears you just made that number up.

You have no evidence that anyone was influenced to vote or switch their vote.

And you have none that they didn’t. It swings both ways.

The point was that, based on Trump’s slim margin, there needn’t have been a large impact.

It is becoming one

I would say that “fake news” started around 1986 and really took off in 1996.

The DNC isn't part of government. Heck the Dems hired IT experts that stole their own data then tried to flee the country. All this points out is the DNC is incompetent when it comes to their data and what they put into their servers. Sounds like a problem for the DNC...

I was unaware that it’s legal to hack private organizations.

I guess you have never heard of Russia Today?

Isn’t that proving my point? It does not help you that your example is the Russian state propaganda tv.

That is the problem of the States which shows the weakness of those States security. The Fed can not do anything about that without the States' approval.

This does not change the fact that it is illegal— and concerning— for Russia to hack state voter rolls.

They attacked both candidates or did you forget that?

I did not forget that this is a misleading conservative talking point, no.

Their primary goal was to aid Trump and denigrate Clinton. That does not mean occasional deviations are impossible— or that they change the primary goal. Imagine I donate $10 to Clinton and $100,000 to Trump. Is it honest to portray my support for Clinton on par, or as influential, as my support for Trump? Perhaps you could share what you are referring to.

Calling it a grave threat is the very hysterical reactions I am arguing against.

I am only quoting our intelligence agencies, who I think have greater information and experience than you. I defer to their judgement. I do not think it is hysterical to acknowledge that a campaign by a foreign government to elect their preferred candidate is a dangerous and undesirable precedent.

What did you want them to do? Announce themselves? Or should Russia meddle in elections openly like Obama did?

I would prefer they didn’t do it at all. But if they must, there are legal channels through which they could have worked. And yes, it would be preferable for Americans to know the information was coming from Russia, and not other Americans.

No I disagree with how much this increase is actually a threat.

Why do you think you are better equipped to assess that than our intelligence agencies?

Which was in reference to FB trolls. FB trolls are threat to democracy? Meanwhile FB enables someone to gain data on 50 million people....

Misinformation and manipulation are certainly a threat to democracy. But such threats do not preclude the existence of other threats, such as that posed by a forgone government meddling in our elections.

You think my dismissal of a hysterical reaction means I am not troubled. You are failing to consider there can be a spectrum of reactions. I am not racketing it up to 11 merely because Trump's name is attached to the issue.

What do you think the proper level is on your scale?

I would say I’m at a 7. I do not think it’s hysterical to accept the conclusions of our intelligence agencies, or to desire public awareness and Russian sanctions. Much of the fight is simply to convince people who are denying that it actually happened.

 

[Stanyon]

So, in other words, you’re pushing a conspiracy theory.

It’s a conspiracy theory in which all of our intelligence agencies are lying to us.

I’m not sure what your questions were, but if you repost I’ll try to address them.

No, once again you are misrepresenting what I have posted, the questions I asked of you were accompanied by quotes from you so they are easily found. If you cannot or will not answer the very simple questions that I asked then I see no reason to continue attempting an actual discussion with you.

 

[Falvlun]

No, once again you are misrepresenting what I have posted, the questions I asked of you were accompanied by quotes from you so they are easily found. If you cannot or will not answer the very simple questions that I asked then I see no reason to continue attempting an actual discussion with you.

You presented your theory that our intelligence agencies are part of a European-American conspiracy to gang up on Russia. That’s literally a conspiracy theory. You believe our intelligence agencies are not telling us the truth about Russia. That is a conspiracy theory. I don’t know how else to catagorize it.

If you haven’t noticed, I got a bit bogged down between you, shad, and mostly the verbose Stevicus. I am sorry your questions got lost in the shuffle. A post number would suffice.

 

[idav]

Well, there have been lots of investigations lately, .....

Exactly.

How is that possible?

Idk his upbringing?

 

[Stevicus]

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 don't have Facebook. I don't consider social media to be the news.

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

I agree, although the idea of him having so much power and global reach into multiple governments may be a bit hard to bite off. Russia is very large and difficult for one man to govern by himself. It's a big job just managing Russia, so it's questionable whether he can do that and get involved in all of this international intrigue that he's being accused of. Even at the peak of their power during the Cold War, they were still somewhat limited as to how much they could actually do. But that didn't stop our own government from grossly overestimating Soviet capabilities.

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.

Or, as an alternative, we could try talking with them and asking them what they want. As I said, their invasions of Ukraine and Crimea were due to loose ends left at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union, so it's a quasi "internal" matter from their point of view. I'm not saying that they're right, but it seems that there might be some room for negotiation and compromise here.

But if we decide that Putin = Hitler, then we're as much as saying that he's totally irredeemable, which would mean the situation at hand is unsalvageable.

In Europe, I think the greater fear is terrorism, which seems to feeding nationalist sentiment and anti-immigrant attitudes. Russia has also fallen victim to Muslim terrorism. So, there are those who still view the Muslims as the greater threat than the Russians at this point. If the enemy is Muslim terrorism originating in the Middle East, then Russia could be a potential ally of convenience in that regard.

Perhaps we can give Putin something that might convince him to withdraw his support of Assad in Syria and pave the way for a pro-Western regime in that country. Perhaps ISIS and other Mid-East insurgencies could be stopped if we had Russian cooperation. We could also possibly rein in Iran and North Korea if we brought Russia on side.

I think it might be worth it in the long run. If America is facing serious threats today, then we would be better served by checking our egos at the door and looking at the world situation more pragmatically.

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?

Maybe they are, but there are those who consider that our trade deficit, globalism, free trade, and outsourcing are much more serious threats to America's well-being. I don't particularly care if the economists are concerned, since they're among those who got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[Falvlun]

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.



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.



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.

It is nice to see that we do have much common ground.

 

[Shad]

Post some then. Otherwise it appears you just made that number up.

Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads, Russian agency $46K
Hearings | Intelligence Committee

Look at the funding comparison. Now take into account supporter that spent money but are not part Trump's nor Hillary campaign. Also take into account those that spent nothing but still promote either via social media sharing and such.

And you have none that they didn’t. It swings both ways.

Except you are the one taking the position that the Russians did something to change the election not I.

The point was that, based on Trump’s slim margin, there needn’t have been a large impact.

You acknowledge you have no evidence but keep on speculating that the Russian tipped the election.

I would say that “fake news” started around 1986 and really took off in 1996.

Fake news has existed for a long time even back during WW2 when it was used to keep casualties down and strategic planning out of the news. The cause of fake news has merely changed. Heck when Lincoln put forward the Emancipation Proclamation even pro-Unionist started to claim Lincoln started the Civil War to free the slaves in papers.

I was unaware that it’s legal to hack private organizations.

I pointed out the DNC is not the government thus not the responsibility of the government to maintain nor protect from hacking. Just as your PC isn't the responsibility of the government to protect

Isn’t that proving my point? It does not help you that your example is the Russian state propaganda tv.

Not really as you focused on the "hacking" as a major event while never mentioning state run media broadcasting 24/7 into America at all. I am pointing out influences which have existed for decades but not brought up by people such as yourself.

This does not change the fact that it is illegal— and concerning— for Russia to hack state voter rolls.

No it doesn't but it established the concern is overblown as those system have no connection to the voting system and are not the responsibility of the Fed. It pointed out weak security thus a target of opportunity rather than attempting to hack systems that actually matter to an election.

I did not forget that this is a misleading conservative talking point, no.

It is my talking point not some group you can put into a box. You are projecting my political affiliation merely as a smear tactic. It isn't Republican..... You should actually look at some of the view points I have supported on RF. Take a look at threads such as same-sex marriage and religious exemption for businesses open to the public. I have argued for same-sex marriage and against religious exemption. Those are hardly conservative views.

Their primary goal was to aid Trump and denigrate Clinton. That does not mean occasional deviations are impossible— or that they change the primary goal. Imagine I donate $10 to Clinton and $100,000 to Trump. Is it honest to portray my support for Clinton on par, or as influential, as my support for Trump? Perhaps you could share what you are referring to.

Pure speculation. So the anti-Trump rallies were really a facade right? Based on what?

I am only quoting our intelligence agencies, who I think have greater information and experience than you. I defer to their judgement. I do not think it is hysterical to acknowledge that a campaign by a foreign government to elect their preferred candidate is a dangerous and undesirable precedent.

You keep deferring all you like. Did you defer when the intelligence community claimed WMD in Iraq were a fact? Did you defer when the CIA thought arming and funding Islamic Radicals was a great idea? You put a lot of trust into organizations which have lied to you and the general population. Organizations which have zero issues interfering in other nation's elections.

It is hysterical in the amount of weight people are giving the matter in comparison to other acts by Russia. Obama's open mic. Crimea. Ukraine. Syria. Iran.

I would prefer they didn’t do it at all. But if they must, there are legal channels through which they could have worked. And yes, it would be preferable for Americans to know the information was coming from Russia, and not other Americans.

You hold a very naive view of global politics

Why do you think you are better equipped to assess that than our intelligence agencies?

Never said I was better equipped. I am just not accepting an argument from authority based on the weakest of data sets. I am stating an opinion that disagrees with the threat assessment in light of past and present Russian programs and actions

Misinformation and manipulation are certainly a threat to democracy.

Best to start looking at the two big parties within the current system first.

But such threats do not preclude the existence of other threats, such as that posed by a forgone government meddling in our elections.

Comparing the two creates a view, in my opinion, the greater threat to America is the two party system and their own voting base. Seriously 2016 had two of the worst and very unpopular candidates in decades. That should ring alarm bells.

What do you think the proper level is on your scale?

10 - War, 0 - No threat at all. I would be at a 3.

I would say I’m at a 7. I do not think it’s hysterical to accept the conclusions of our intelligence agencies, or to desire public awareness and Russian sanctions. Much of the fight is simply to convince people who are denying that it actually happened.

Except you are making a conclusion that this "tipped" the election in favor of Trump without an actually data to support say strategic advertisement that tipped the Elector Collage in favor of Trump when he had the lower popular vote.

 

[Shad]

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.

The hacking of the rolls is illegal. I think the key difference is I expect many governments to attempt to meddle in election be it donations, media, etc while others do not so are surprised when it happens. So in my view part of the reaction is from shock due to revelation of standard geo-politics which has existed for decades.

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.

I have little idea what Mueller is looking for as the investigation has shifted focus from collusion to meddling. This is why some are calling it a witch hunt as it has gone afield

 

[Shad]

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

You can not accept that opinions and conclusion based on no evidence is an error because the conclusion and opinion is exactly what you want to hear.

Bringing up "Russian bot" is a common tactic of leftists to shut down views that they do not agree.

 

[Shad]

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

Are we not allowed to question a former CIA director? Why is one authority treated as infallible on a whim because of a title they once held? Does CIA director grant infallibility? Do they lose it when they retire or are they still God-like? What if they move to Florida for retirement?

 

[Stevicus]

No, I think this is important. You asked for specificity and evidence. You then reject that very specificity and evidence when offered.

But it wasn't specificity and evidence. It was government double talk and speculation. That's not evidence.

Anything I write would merely be a less specific, and less complete, version of the evidence, due to less knowledge and time.

Yes, but you're the one who wants to convince people that the Russians are some kind of real, dangerous threat. They "attacked" our democracy, which is a very serious charge. But when we get to actual specifics, all anyone has is that the Russians employed trolls who posted stuff on social media. Considering the magnitude and seriousness of the charge being leveled at the Russians, I expected more. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, not speculation. Speculation is what you’re doing when you opine on Russian motives.

The intelligence community’s assessment is based on hard data, specific evidence, multitudes of experts, and extensive analysis.

It's still just an assessment, and they still don't know for certain. If you don't know for certain, then it's speculation.

Your conflation is no different than a creationist pretending that the scientific theory of evolution is no different than a layperson’s theory.

I think you should be aware that there's a difference between hard sciences and social sciences.

Your last sentence is the operative one: their motives neither justify nor excuse their actions.

Our government is not here to work for the Russians. It’s working for us.

This isn't really a question of justifications or excuses. The real issue is whether the government is working for America's interests when it rises to panic mode over "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming." Is that "working for us"? Riling people up into a panicked frenzy?

And in the real world there’s real consequences for meddling in elections.

Again, your portrayal of this as mere freedom of speech is woefully inaccurate. Freedom of speech does not capture the concept of foreign government operatives impersonating Americans for the purpose of tricking them into voting the way the foreign government wants. It also does not cover the hacking portions of the campaign, including the DNC and state voter rolls.

I agree that computer hacking is a very serious matter which we need to double down and stop, but that's a much wider problem which requires more far-reaching solutions. Unfortunately, this country has been too lackadaisical when it comes to dealing with computer hackers and scammers. But that comes from all over the world, not just Russia. We've seen scammers from Nigeria to the Caribbean to the Far East, and our government does next to nothing to the governments which harbor and shelter these criminals. Why should we be so obsessed over Russian hackers when the hacking community is world-wide?

But apart from the hacking, all the ballyhoo over social media, trolls, people impersonating Americans, etc. - that IS a matter of free speech whether you like it or not. If Americans are so easily "tricked," then that's one of the pitfalls we have to deal with.

It matters because a foreign government is attempting to infiltrate ours, to insinuate it’s goals and desires into American consciousness so that we do what they want us to.

If that is their goal, they'd have much more success by attempting to infiltrate the mainstream media, since they are responsible for creating public opinion and guiding the American consciousness. And there are a lot of foreign-born individuals working in media.

But it still doesn't tell us the "why."

As a counter-example, some people are worried about foreigners from the Middle East holding influence because they believe they will try to convert more Americans to Islam.

Some people are worried about foreigners from Latin America because they believe it will change the linguistic and cultural landscape of the country.

Others might be worried about foreigners from the Far East because they believe that those countries are an economic threat and could use their influence to impoverish Americans and make themselves more powerful. (Another theory is that all the immigrants from China have the potential to form a fifth column as a prelude to invasion.)

These may be examples of paranoid xenophobia, but at least they outline some sort of possibilities of what could happen.

But as for the Russians, I just don't see it. No one has said what could actually happen, if indeed the Russians successfully infiltrated our government. Will they use their influence to convince Americans to eat borscht and drink vodka? Are they planning to invade America or Europe? This is what I mean by "specificity."

Even the paranoid xenophobes who worry about Latino immigrants can come up with specifics. Why can't you?

What do you believe the Russians are planning to do? What is their specific goal in wanting to infiltrate the US government? What can they possibly do here with this influence into the American consciousness? What would be the end game in all of this, if the Russians had been successful in doing this?

My view is that if they did do this, it's likely because they want the US to back off from castigating Russia over Ukraine, Crimea, and other disputed areas left as loose ends when the Soviet Union broke up. I don't think they have any designs on wanting to attack or control America, but they want America to back off and stop interfering in what they see as their own internal matters.

We are certain of the who.

Are we that certain?

As for the Americans who were influenced, your “suckers”, I am afraid that there is a large overlap between them and the very people who deny that it happened, or that it happened to them.

People get tricked and suckered at every election, mostly by other Americans. The ruling class of America has grown quite arrogant and overconfident in recent decades, and if the real truth were brought out, all of this hand-wringing over the Russians is likely due to the deflated egos of our hubristic ruling class who got beaten at their own game. It's just emotional pride and ego which motivates this obsession over Russian interference, and nothing else.

This is ridiculously naive.

I disagree.

And they can do it out in the open for everyone to see, in the legal channels.

It's not all above board.

The red dawn hysteria is of your own making. I am not hysteric nor do I expect Russians to invade. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Russians waged a covert campaign to influence our elections and I believe that they should be sanctioned for it, to discourage further attempts or wannabe copycats. I also believe the American public should be made aware.

This is a rather basic, sober response based on actual offenses committed by the Russians.

It's really just sour grapes rooted in ego and hubris. I remember the shock and disbelief on Election Night. Some even suggested the need for counseling for those who were just so psychologically devastated by the results of the election. This all emanates from emotion, pride, ego. This led to the conclusion that "Americans would never vote for Trump of their own free will. They must have been tricked!!!"

It's hardly what I consider to be a sober response.

I do not understand why you think we should “cut our losses”. There is no reason why we should not be exposing the Russians, or punishing them for their actions.

If we have a dispute with another country for whatever reason, there are diplomatic channels which can be used. We can take it to the UN for arbitration or bring it before the World Court and present all the evidence and charges against Putin. That would be exposing them in a proper forum. Other than that, it's too late to reverse the results of the election, so it's all spilled milk now anyway. There's very little else that we can do, and there's no place to go from here. Either we can try to patch things up with the Russians, or we can escalate the rhetoric and increase international tensions just because the arrogant insiders in Washington got their egos deflated and their fee-fees hurt.

I'm sorry if you don't understand it, but I refuse to be suckered in or manipulated by this kind of political rhetoric. Maybe other Americans go along with it, but that points up the very problem you addressed earlier about Americans being easily tricked. It's because of those who argue in a very heavy-handed, audacious manner in the hope that it will cause people to be fold up from intimidation. I recognize this tactic very well, and I refuse to give in to it. If Americans operated that way, then the likelihood of people being tricked would be reduced greatly.

 

[Stevicus]

Exactly.

So which one was the one that Trump and his followers were "whining about a much needed investigation"?

Idk his upbringing?

No, how is it possible that a "dictator" can exist in a democracy?

 

[Underhill]

Quite honestly, @metis I don't know how anyone could consider his comments even-slightly non-partisan. He has been an extreme anti-Trump voice since before Trump became POTUS.

So what you are saying is that he has character and taste.

Personally, I haven't seriously listened to what this hack says for quite a long time. Brennan was one of the most lack-luster CIA chiefs in memory.

Sure, because we as the public have a very good notion of what constitutes a 'good' CIA chief. (sarcasm that)

I know my friends who work in DC have a great deal of respect for him and virtually none for a president that cannot bother to read the briefs they put together if they are over one page of large text.

 

[idav]

So which one was the one that Trump and his followers were "whining about a much needed investigation"?



No, how is it possible that a "dictator" can exist in a democracy?

Mueller.

All sorts of ideologies exist in a democracy. Trump isnt a dictator literally he just wants to be one.

 

[idav]

The hacking of the rolls is illegal. I think the key difference is I expect many governments to attempt to meddle in election be it donations, media, etc while others do not so are surprised when it happens. So in my view part of the reaction is from shock due to revelation of standard geo-politics which has existed for decades.




I have little idea what Mueller is looking for as the investigation has shifted focus from collusion to meddling. This is why some are calling it a witch hunt as it has gone afield

As it may be true countries meddle in foreign elections that's more of a reason to protect your own, not just sweep it undet the rug just cause you think that's the way the world should work.

All investigations are about weeding out potential suspects. Collusion is simply about two parties conspiring illegal activity together which is an important question to answer. Cyberwarefare is a huge threat to national security especially with hacking election rolls which DHS just notified the states affected not giving very much time to prepare for the upcoming election. It also has to do with our power grids and infrastructure being at risk from hackers, that's cyberwarefare. If some savvy developers didnt even have to hack FB then that's on FB. However people were pulling all the stops hacking and or legitamely getting data unethically. The FB thing remains a breach of security which is why they are currently in hot water.

Muellers team is investigating potential illegal activity done through warrants and weeding out suspects. Investigations can have one or more guilty parties and may or may not include the president. That's why its not about trump, he has to be weeded out, like you have to eleminate a husband as a suspect when their wife gets murdered even if they did nothing wrong, anything is possible.

 

[Stevicus]

Mueller.

All sorts of ideologies exist in a democracy. Trump isnt a dictator literally he just wants to be one.

Does he? I thought he just wanted to make America great again.

 

[Falvlun]

Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads, Russian agency $46K
Hearings | Intelligence Committee

Look at the funding comparison. Now take into account supporter that spent money but are not part Trump's nor Hillary campaign. Also take into account those that spent nothing but still promote either via social media sharing and such.

These are the funds for a single Russian group’s Facebook ads. It doesn’t take into account any other funds put into this wide-reaching campaign. The article also notes that due to the incendiary and divisive content they utilized, it’s likely their buying power went further than an equivalent amount spent by the campaigns.

I don’t need think this fully supports your “half of a percent” figure for all media.
But it does show where you got your figure from, so thanks!

Except you are the one taking the position that the Russians did something to change the election not I.

You acknowledge you have no evidence but keep on speculating that the Russian tipped the election.

To clarify, my position is that the Russian government waged a campaign to influence our election.

I do not have a position on how successful that campaign was— I have not seen evidence nor do I know how it could be calculated.

I suspect that it was non-zero, because it seems unlikely they would engage in such without benefit.

You have argued that the influence effect would have been minimal.

I am not saying the Russians did tip the election. I am saying that, even if their effect was minimal, that that may be all that was needed. In other words, I am arguing that even minimal influence could have been effective.

I pointed out the DNC is not the government thus not the responsibility of the government to maintain nor protect from hacking. Just as your PC isn't the responsibility of the government to protect

It’s illegal to hack private entities as well as public ones. It is not the federal government’s responsibility to ensure private systems are secure, but it is their responsibility to prosecute criminals. And regardless of who’s responsibility it is, hacking the DNC was clearly a prized component of the Russian election meddling campaign.

No it doesn't but it established the concern is overblown as those system have no connection to the voting system and are not the responsibility of the Fed. It pointed out weak security thus a target of opportunity rather than attempting to hack systems that actually matter to an election.

Blaming the victim does not absolve the criminal.

Again, regardless of responsibility, it’s a serious event if a foreign government gains illegal access to our voter rolls.

Pure speculation. So the anti-Trump rallies were really a facade right? Based on what?

It is not pure speculation the Russian government primarily favored Trump and denigrated Clinton. That’s the established evidence of our intelligence agencies and Mueller.

I am aware of one anti-trump rally orchestrated by the Russians, according to the mueller indictment, but it occurred after the election. Do you have anything else?

You keep deferring all you like. Did you defer when the intelligence community claimed WMD in Iraq were a fact? Did you defer when the CIA thought arming and funding Islamic Radicals was a great idea? You put a lot of trust into organizations which have lied to you and the general population. Organizations which have zero issues interfering in other nation's elections.

Is it your opinion that our intelligence agencies are always untrustworthy or inept? Should we just dissolve them, then?

Of course they will make the occasional mistake. Perfection is not a reasonable measure.

As far as my confidence in this particular case, it is not a single organization. It is corroborated by all of them. It is corroborated by the independent special counsel investigation. And even the deeply partisan House intelligence Committee confirmed that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election.

At some point, you simply can’t ignore that mountain of evidence.

It is hysterical in the amount of weight people are giving the matter in comparison to other acts by Russia. Obama's open mic. Crimea. Ukraine. Syria. Iran.

It is not hysterics to calmly disprove the attempts to deny that the russians meddled in our elections.

If there weren’t so many people ignoring the evidence and denying reality, it likely wouldn’t be as hot a topic that it is.

Never said I was better equipped. I am just not accepting an argument from authority based on the weakest of data sets. I am stating an opinion that disagrees with the threat assessment in light of past and present Russian programs and actions

The data set is rather robust.

What would convince you? Your opinion appears to be evidence-proof.

Best to start looking at the two big parties within the current system first.

Comparing the two creates a view, in my opinion, the greater threat to America is the two party system and their own voting base. Seriously 2016 had two of the worst and very unpopular candidates in decades. That should ring alarm bells.

There is no reason why external threats must be ignored to address internal problems. The existence of one problem, even if it is “bigger”, does not mean other problems also can’t exist.

10 - War, 0 - No threat at all. I would be at a 3.

Well, seeing as we are not at war or even advocating war, your previous assessment that we’re at an 11 was overblown.

 

[Falvlun]

The hacking of the rolls is illegal. I think the key difference is I expect many governments to attempt to meddle in election be it donations, media, etc while others do not so are surprised when it happens. So in my view part of the reaction is from shock due to revelation of standard geo-politics which has existed for decades.

I think this is a reasonable insight.

I have little idea what Mueller is looking for as the investigation has shifted focus from collusion to meddling. This is why some are calling it a witch hunt as it has gone afield

I think you have it backwards. Mueller had to first confirm that the Russians meddled, especially since so many deny that they did. Collusion investigation follows that foundation.

Here’s the DOJ order. It includes a “full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.”