patrick.net

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump’s programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia?

Because Russia is not ready for tensions to be reduced yet. Two previous administration started with honeymoon with Putin and we all know how this ended: after "look into the soul" emboldened fuck attacked Georgia and after "peregruzka" he attacked Ukraine and Syrian people. Russia needs to be first brought into the state in which it will be ready to negotiate reduction of tensions. Something Reagan did in the 80s. So hit the fucks with real sanctions (not this kids gloves shit they are under now), drop oil prices even further and then, after several years we can talk.

Ironman says

During a recent interview with Democracy Now, Noam Chomsky demonstrated what everyone with a clear head and capacity for critical thought should already know. Just because you have a strong dislike for Donald Trump, doesn’t mean you latch on like a lunatic to every nonsensical Russia conspiracy theory because you’re still crying about Hillary’s loss.

Very true, now can we let the various agencies and committees investigate this without all of the second guessing and political spin like the crap you post constantly.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That’s not a major issue.

Sorry Norm, it is a major issue no matter who won.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can’t believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, "Sure, that’s just what they ought to be doing."

"They" should be establishing connections with Russia through normal diplomatic channels, not back room phone calls to people the intelligence community feels are enough of a threat to the country they need to be under surveillance. Establishing connections is what the state department is for.

Ironman says

doesn’t mean you latch on like a lunatic to every nonsensical Russia conspiracy theory because you’re still crying about Hillary’s loss.

If the polls showed Hillary in the lead in nearly all polls, but the polls were manned/Womanned by liberals taking polling data near cities, then why did the people in small towns vote for Trump?

If CNN and MSNBC shows every delegate scenarios with HRC winning and then talks about drape selection in the White House, and the Dems start gloating in the weeks before the election, then how could the people vote for someone else?

If rioting in left leaning cities does not cure the pain, and if blaming the loss on Russia is not proven, then who will the democrats blame for their own behavior?

www.youtube.com/embed/kxig2AF1-gw

Ironman says

bob2356 says

like the crap you post constantly.

Hmmm, is somebody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read and post your crotchety whining every day??

Since you spend 20 hours a day posting it's impossible to go through any thread without having to wade through masses of your crap.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Chomsky: Russia Hacked Election Laughable

Once again, Chomsky is right. It's ridiculous hypocrisy to express any outrage over Russia exposing emails that indicate unethical behavior in order to sway public opinion about one of the candidates. What America has done is to foreign elections is far more outrageous.

Dan8267 says

Once again, Chomsky is right. It's ridiculous hypocrisy to express any outrage over Russia exposing emails that indicate unethical behavior in order to sway public opinion about one of the candidates. What America has done is to foreign elections is far more outrageous.

The 5th grader on the playground logic. He did it too, he did it too, he did it too.

It's not hypocrisy for those of us who have been saying for decades that the US should not be interfering in other nations sovereign affairs.

Lefties , lefties-even Chomsky thinks you are fools!

bob2356 says

not hypocrisy for those of us who have been saying for decades that the US should not be interfering in other nations sovereign affairs.

Agree. The US should not have worked against itself by destabilizing the Middle East and the secular puppets they had put in place decades back, such as saddam, Mubarak, khadafi

Give them(Muslim-majority MENA countries)democracy, they will pick sharia.

bob2356 says

The 5th grader on the playground logic. He did it too, he did it too, he did it too.

What an incredible false equivalency. That's like saying one man who flirted crudely with a woman is equivalent to another man who raped a woman. It's not the same thing. It would be completely fair for the U.S. government to expose the wrongdoings of a politician in Russia, say emails showing that Putin ordered the assassination of his political rivals. No one would say that the U.S. government is interfering with Russian elections by influencing them in this matter. But the U.S. has outright overthrown governments and installed dictators. Now that interferes with elections.

Influencing and interfering are two entirely different things. Chomsky is right. You are wrong.

bob2356 says

It's not hypocrisy for those of us who have been saying for decades that the US should not be interfering in other nations sovereign affairs.

It may not be hypocrisy for those people, but they are still wrong. Russia did not interfere with our elections. They influenced them just like every news agency, every person writing an opinion on any candidate, every person having a political discussion at a Starbucks has influenced the election. Influence is not sabotage. Equating the two is a lie.

Fox News influence the election a hell of a lot more than the Russians. Perhaps we should bomb Hannity.

lostand confused says

Lefties , lefties-even Chomsky thinks you are fools!

Why is that surprising. Chomsky is a liberal, not a left-wing conservative, just like me. Liberalism is the opposite of conservatism, the opposite of all conservative tribes.

Dan8267 says

It may not be hypocrisy for those people, but they are still wrong. Russia did not interfere with our elections. They influenced them just like every news agency, every person writing an opinion on any candidate, every person having a political discussion at a Starbucks has influenced the election. Influence is not sabotage. Equating the two is a lie.

Fox News influence the election a hell of a lot more than the Russians. Perhaps we should bomb Hannity.

Every news agency, every person writing an opinion on any candidate, every person having a political discussion at a Starbucks illegally hacked into mail servers?

You dodged the question. Since you are comfortable with russians "influencing an election" by breaking into private servers what else would you be comfortable with the russians influencing? Air traffic control? Nuclear power plants? Military networks?

bob2356 says

Sorry Norm, it is a major issue no matter who won.

Those who do it, can't bitch when it's done to them.

bob2356 says

"They" should be establishing connections with Russia through normal diplomatic channels, not back room phone calls to people the intelligence community feels are enough of a threat to the country they need to be under surveillance. Establishing connections is what the state department is for.

ALL, and I mean ALL, incoming Admins use back channels for discussion all the time. It's as normal as a burger and fries for lunch.

However, the surveillance was on the banks - not on the Trump Staff. This might have been deliberately chosen to spy on them, in order to gather transition team information with the Russian Bank as cover for Domestic Political Purposes, very dangerous.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

ALL, and I mean ALL, incoming Admins use back channels for discussion all the time. It's as normal as a burger and fries for lunch.

Want to expand on your extensive inside knowledge of incoming admins using back channels. Like who and when and why for say the last 3 admins. Curiosity overwhelms me.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

However, the surveillance was on the banks - not on the Trump Staff. This might have been deliberately chosen to spy on them, in order to gather transition team information with the Russian Bank as cover for Domestic Political Purposes, very dangerous.

The earth MIGHT be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow. Very dangerous.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

bob2356 says

Sorry Norm, it is a major issue no matter who won.

Those who do it, can't bitch when it's done to them.

Sorry I missed the story about US intelligence releasing hacked emails to influence putin's last election. Can you post it?

It's a major issue when we do it too. Ironically meddling in other countries elections has almost always blown up in our faces.

bob2356 says

Want to expand on your extensive inside knowledge of incoming admins using back channels. Like who and when and why for say the last 3 admins. Curiosity overwhelms me.

From another post:
Veteran foreign affairs cold-warrior James Matlock (Ambassador to the Soviet Union in the Reagan Admin. when the USSR fell. Matlock also served as the Director of Soviet Affairs in the State Department, and the Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and Senior Director for European and Soviet Affairs on the National Security Council Staff, etc.) has these comments on the current Democrat/Neo-lib Ass-Clown Witch Hunt.-
“It is quite common for foreign diplomats to cultivate candidates and their staffs. That is part of their job. If Americans plan to advise the president on policy issues, they would be wise to maintain contact with the foreign embassy in question to understand that country’s attitude toward the issues involved. Certainly, both Democrats and Republicans would contact Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin during the Cold War and discuss the issues with him. As the person in charge of our embassy in Moscow during several political campaigns, I would often set up meetings of candidates and their staffs with Soviet officials. Such contacts are certainly ethical so long as they do not involve disclosure of classified information or attempts to negotiate specific issues. In fact, I would say that any person who presumes to advise an incoming president on vital policy issues needs to understand the approach of the country in question and therefore is remiss if he or she does not consult with the embassy in question.”
http://jackmatlock.com/2017/03/contacts-with-russian-embassy/

bob2356 says

Every news agency, every person writing an opinion on any candidate, every person having a political discussion at a Starbucks illegally hacked into mail servers?

Whistle-blowers often do things that are illegal but necessary to catch criminals. We tolerate law enforcement agencies breaking the law all the time in order to catch potential criminals. The NSA has done far more serious crimes to American citizens. Should we disband the NSA?

Furthermore, the U.S. government has recently hacked into servers and Internet-connected devices, not to copy information, but to perform material sabotage and destruction of highly expensive property. Remember those centrifuges that were hacked? Do you have outrage over that?

Most importantly, it's not the violation of a U.S. law that you really object to. Honestly, if the Russians did exactly what they did without breaking any laws, would you have no objection to their actions or the fact that people were persuaded by the emails? What if the Russians legally purchased the data collected by ISPs now that republicans let those ISP sell that data? It's not like you own your email. With the recent relaxing of regulations, any single SMTP server in the chain that forwards your email to the destination can copy and sell that information. Talking about your erectile dysfunction, some mail server company can sell that to Pfizer who will then send Viagra ads to you.

So let's say Putin purchased the email contents from an ISP and then published them. Are you really saying you would have no objections to that? Unless the answer is yes, then the actually hacking into the server is a red herring. It's not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about the fact that the American public found out something they should have but the persons delivering that information have selfish motives. Well tough, that doesn't mean the American public should be kept in the dark about the wrongdoings.

There is no case you have made that if we could wave one of those Men In Black mind erasers on the American public to make them forget about the emails that we should do that. If you cannot make such a case, then ultimately we're better off that the Russians published those emails. That's the bottom line.

bob2356 says

Want to expand on your extensive inside knowledge of incoming admins using back channels. Like who and when and why for say the last 3 admins. Curiosity overwhelms me.

I reject your specific framing. I can think of a very controversial one, and another one in the next election. Both in the 1980s.

Let me know if you need more hints.

bob2356 says

The earth MIGHT be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow. Very dangerous.

Yes, the use of the Patriot Act by an outgoing, administration against political opponents is a good thing, nothing to worry about. Same as an asteroid strike. We all know that just because one lame duck President uses the Patriot Act to laterally spy on his Party's Political Opponents, nobody will ever do it again.

Just like the warrantless wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act were sold as only for terrorism and counter-intel, yet now is used ~70% of the time for the Drug War.

bob2356 says

Sorry I missed the story about US intelligence releasing hacked emails to influence putin's last election. Can you post it?

Again, I reject your specific framing that requires exact tit-for-tat. Here is one claim from Russia's last elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

BTW, similar things in Hungary, but this meddling in from Soros, who also "influences" in our election. No complaints from the Blue Team who is always whinging about powerful entities in our elections, but except when they're on it's own side.

Another way is to undermine legitimacy by giving $15,000 to the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society? Ever wonder how penniless Artists manage to survive while putting on anti-government events? Their Uncle Sam helps them out!
Imagine if Russia gave $15,000 to Berkeley Artists to support the "North Korea-America Friendship Society."

And more general election interference:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-us-has-been-meddling-in-other-countries-elections-for-a-century-it-doesnt-feel-good_us_57983b85e4b02d5d5ed382bd
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.f6f4fb50d3da

I just put up Time Magazine Article, which was featured on the damn cover, this week featuring bragging of US Officials that they advised, arranged financing to pay arrears of governement worker salaries on the eve of the election, brought in slick US PR teams, etc.

There's also this one, which details how Yeltsin used "Timely" IMF loans to repay government workers and brag about how he was the "only one" who could get such loans, "so vote for me."
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

bob2356 says

It's a major issue when we do it too. Ironically meddling in other countries elections has almost always blown up in our faces.

Sometimes. Other times we get what we want. We also support coups when we feel we can't swing elections, right Chavez? If you remember the US recognized the Chamber of Commerce Coup within hours - but this time, nobody else did and the entire Caribbean and Latin America rejected Bush's interference.

In any case:

1. There is no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC
2. The DNC hack revealed that the DNC Leadership clearly favored one candidate and tried to sabotage the other, against their own bylaws
3. Not one but TWO Chairs resigned within weeks for skulldruggery.
4. The DNC has not handed over their server to counter-intelligence despite repeated requests, almost certainly because they know it's bullshit and prefer to keep the rumors going because...
5. Focusing on Russia puts a cloud over Trump while allowing the Clintonistas to dodge Reform and Reflection over their 2016 Loss

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

Every news agency, every person writing an opinion on any candidate, every person having a political discussion at a Starbucks illegally hacked into mail servers?

Whistle-blowers often do things that are illegal but necessary to catch criminals. We tolerate law enforcement agencies breaking the law all the time in order to catch potential criminals. The NSA has done far more serious crimes to American citizens. Should we disband the NSA?

Nice shuck and jive misdirection totally ducking the question. So we are back to Naa Naa johnny did it too.

You have some really wacko ideas.

If whisle blowers are reporting a crime there are quite a few laws to protect them. Reporting a crime isn't illegal. Releasing classified information is illegal. Snowden broke the law, there is no way around it. The statute is clear. Why didn't he go though the NSA's IG or the oversight committees first? That is the procedure, he knew it. Snowden never contacted anyone. He says he did, but somehow doesn't have any proof, not even a email. There were legal avenues for him to pursue.

Were do we tolerate law enforcement breaking the law all the time to catch potential criminals? There would be no case if cops broke the law to arrest someone. There are something like a million cops out there. A few are going to be lazy, corrupt, or just plain psychotic enough to try it. Having something happen and condoning it are two very different things. Except to you apparently.

The NSA is supposed to be overseen by congress. The intelligence oversight committees know what the NSA does. It's their job to make sure it's legal.

Robert Sproul says

s the person in charge of our embassy in Moscow during several political campaigns, I would often set up meetings of candidates and their staffs with Soviet officials. Such contacts are certainly ethical so long as they do not involve disclosure of classified information or attempts to negotiate specific issues. In fact, I would say that any person who presumes to advise an incoming president on vital policy issues needs to understand the approach of the country in question and therefore is remiss if he or she does not consult with the embassy in question

You are defining requested and scheduled meetings in embassies with staff present and notes taken as "back channel"? That's an interesting take on it.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Yes, the use of the Patriot Act by an outgoing, administration against political opponents is a good thing, nothing to worry about. Same as an asteroid strike. We all know that just because one lame duck President uses the Patriot Act to laterally spy on his Party's Political Opponents, nobody will ever do it again.

Very long jump from spying on foreign officials and getting incidental conversations to uses the patriot act to laterally(they went sideways somehow?)spy on his parties political opponents. But you seem to have made it with no trouble. Time to buy more stock in tin foil hat makers.

bob2356 says

Nice shuck and jive misdirection totally ducking the question.

Hardly, but I guess you're going to dodge mine.

bob2356 says

If whisle blowers are reporting a crime there are quite a few laws to protect them.

Laws on paper mean nothing if the courts and the police are corrupt and don't respect those laws.

bob2356 says

Releasing classified information is illegal.

What the fuck does this have to do with Russia releasing political emails of democrats?

bob2356 says

Snowden broke the law, there is no way around it.

So did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and every founding father. Harriet Tubman also broke the law. As did the family that hid Ann Frank.

What Snowden did was right just as much as all the above people and for the same reason: freedom.

You know who didn't break the law? Hitler. Hitler broke no laws. He was the law. Everything he did was legal.

Legal and right are not synonymous. Illegal and wrong are not synonymous.

Snowden did more to protect Americans then you ever could. That makes him a hero. The fact that he had to be a criminal to be a hero indicates a problem with the law, not his actions.

bob2356 says

Why didn't he go though the NSA's IG or the oversight committees first?

Only a fool thinks such a committee would correct the problem. The fact that years later that committee hasn't corrected the problem that has been exposed indicates that it would never have corrected the problem. Your course of action would have only gotten Snowden fired and put under investigation as the criminals in the NSA retaliated against him. And yes, the NSA also committed criminal actions. Where's your outrage and demand for accountability over violating wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment?

bob2356 says

It's their job to make sure it's legal.

Well, they've failed at their job.