Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    The Story as we know it
    Recently we've had leads that the US intelligence agencies are largely in agreement that Russia purposefully tried to swing the US election towards Trump in 2016. Members of congress and the president were briefed on this information. (You can read up on this fairly detailed New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us...ction-dnc.html though there are many others out there)

    The basic accusation is this. Russia, using hacker proxies like "The Dukes" broke into the DNC email servers, stole emails, then released them to Wikileaks in an effort to discredit Clinton. They also are linked to a lot of fake news sites and other propaganda outlets which waged a disinformation battle on the public internet in support of Trump. While the hackers are not official Russian state employees, they are well known by our inteligence community as paid proxies who do the state's covert dirty work so as not to be directly attributable, which is pretty basic spycraft stuff.

    To date there is no proof of any direct tampering in the election, this is, so far as we know, purely a matter of propaganda and info wars, backed in at least one case by illegal hacking to collect information. Intelligence officials have determined that they feel that Russia's aim was specific, to favor Trump in the election.

    It is well known that Donal Trump (as well as some members of his election team and transition team) has significant business ties to Russia, has openly praised Russia's leadership, and even famously encouraged Russia to "find" Clinton's "missing" emails. (Quotes both literal and euphemistic here) None of this establishes any hard link, only a possible one.

    Some of my thoughts
    I think the case for Russia deliberately tampering in the election with a result in mind is plausable and likely. They have a vested interest in manipulating the outcome and Trump is celarly a lot more Russia friendly than Clinton is. (see Syria policy statements for a good example) Hacking opperations like this are incredibly cheap to orchestrate and very difficult to conclusively trace. You always have plausable deniability. Many of the efforts, especially the fake news sites and such, are not even illegal by most international laws. The hacking is, but again, since you can use proxies it is near impossible to prove the state's hand in it. Cheap and effective and deniable is the perfect blend for espianage and the Russians have a long and storied history of espianage (as do we).

    Indeed I know the US certainly has plenty of propahanda opperations running around the world trying to influence politics in many different countries. We also have been caught red handed hacking for one purpose or another. Stucksnet being the most famous example of our efforts that were revealed publicly. Of course that was sabotage rather than propaganda work.

    Also, it is worth noting that propaganda still depends on people believing in it. Unfortunately it seems plenty of Americans are receptive to it. A lot of the false news and propaganda information released through Russian websites and facebook pages became accepted naratives among Trump supporters. Propaganda works well, but it requires willing and receptive ears.

    I think the Trump to Russia links are too tenuous to prove complicity between Trump and Russia. There is no need for it to motivate Russia to do what they did. Nor is there need for any direction or coordination between the two parties. Mutual interest is enough to explain the activity. Also, coordination would be dangerous to both, providing a means to prove a conspiracy and undo the results of the work, so it makes sense they would be motivated not to communicate or collude on such activity.

    What should we do about it?
    1. I would of course encourage everyone to pay attention to the sources of any "news" they consume and to do due dilligence in checking out if it is accurate and reliable information.

    2. I think it would be appropriate for the US inteligence apparatus to attack purvayers of non-satyrical fake news that is sourced outside of the US. (there are constitutional problems if it is inside the US)

    3. I think the US inteligence apparatus should agressively attack hackers whenever possible who are engaged in espianage against the US (I suspect they already do.)

    4. I think we should try to establish links to state actors and make efforts to place sanctions or other penalties that effectively increase the cost of these types of opperations

    5. I think we should not perform these kinds of espianage acts so that we can have moral justification for all of the above and should try to use our espianage largely in a defensive capacity, especially with reguard to our allies and other democratic nations.

    6. I think companies who run public information systems or social networks should make efforts to police fake news and propaganda with the same zeal they persue nudity or criminal activity.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Dionysus, futureboy liked this post
  3. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,949
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Also, Russia wants its sanctions lifted:

    "Lifting Western sanctions that were imposed on Russia because of its armed intervention in Ukraine has become the top priority not only for the Kremlin but for foreign companies working in Moscow.

    During the campaign, Trump indicated he would reconsider those sanctions and suggested he would get along fine with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "Trump can look at sanctions. They've been in place long enough," Kingston told NPR in Moscow. "Has the desired result been reached? He doesn't have to abide by the Obama foreign policy. That gives him a fresh start.""http://www.npr.org/2016/12/14/505581...m_content=2042

    Trump seems willing to do that and Kingston is there.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    I think there has been a narrative by the Obama admin and the DNC to paint Russia's involvement as pro-Trump.

    1) No security agency or independent intelligence agency has claimed Russia was trying to get Trump elected.
    2) There is a general agreement among intelligence that there was a general targeting of Hillary.

    This is an important distinction. While there seem to be real signs that Russia was looking to disrupt the election and to put pressure on Clinton, there is no indication that the goal was to get Trump elected. Rather, the attack may stem from a couple of incidents which Putin took offense to. One of those was his perceived view that Clinton had meddled in Russian elections.
    "Behind the allegations of a Russian hack of the DNC is the Kremlin leader's fury at Clinton for challenging the fairness of Russian elections."
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...n-putin-226153

    The upshot from the same article:
    “I think they expect her to win,” said one diplomat with extensive Russia experience, who believes the Kremlin directed the email hack. “But they’re sending her a message that they are a power to be reckoned with and can mess with her at will, so she had better take them seriously.”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...n-putin-226153

    In other words, even if we go with the theory that the DNC and Hillary hacks were ordered by Putin, himself, this is not the equivalent of showing that Russia attempted to rig the election.

    I think Russian interference should be investigated. It should be acted upon to deter such behavior in the future. However, the Democratic narrative that Russia stole this election, is simply off-base and deceptive in its own right.

    The main thing which should be done is following protocols put in place to prevent things just like this. Apparently, Podesta fell for a phishing attack when an IT guy accidentally typed that an email link claiming to be from Google was legit when he meant to type illegit. Ooops. Secondly, Podesta was warned to stop working through Google email as it was known to contain security holes. He simply refused the advice. Like Clinton, he refused to take security seriously. I think, in all honesty, those who did not grow up with technology have a harder time understanding the risks. They want the convenience, but don't always appreciate the steps they have to take in order to be secure. We saw Clinton kind of fall into this trap and we saw Podesta fall into it as well. They are not the only ones as we kind of got a glimpse of how past Secretaries of State kind of clumsily tried to balance security and convenience.

    Second, we need to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our back. We are so scared to offend or do anything perceived as imperialistic, we have no bite. We can offer sanctions. And if that does not work we can offer more sanctions.... and if those don't work, then we can offer.... even more sanctions??? In a global world, our sanctions alone won't curb a lot of behavior. Maybe, we need to actively contest the Arctic (something we should be doing anyhow). Maybe we should be creating military ties with more diverse nations. China? At least offer the threat of it. How about dropping a bomb on a Russian embassy in Syria? Ooops, but message sent. I am spitballing here. Probably, and Trump has actually spoken about this, we need to elevate our offensive cyber capabilities. Turn out the lights in the Kremlin perhaps?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. Likes legalese, Sigfried liked this post
  6. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The Story as we know it
    The story as you think you know it could be exactly the "fake news" you're concerned about. Just like the fake story that the Obama/Clinton team spun, with the aid of liberal media, about how a film caused a riot at the US embassy in Benghazi.

    Julian Assange said the DNC leak came from within the DNC, and not the work of the Russians. I've seen no reason to think otherwise. The same person(s) could be responsible for the Podesta email leak.

    If those emails weren't leaked from within, the phishing and leak could have been done to look like work of the Russians. Napolitano believes it was the work of people within US intelligence, who did not want Clinton elected. A "false flag" operation could make it look like the Russians were responsible, when they were not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What should we do about it?
    1. I would of course encourage everyone to pay attention to the sources of any "news" they consume and to do due dilligence in checking out if it is accurate and reliable information.
    Agreed, mostly because the liberal media does NOT present all the news, and carries water for democrats trying to spread certain narratives, often false. By choosing to ignore some news and going heavy on other news, they create a false impression of what the truth really is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    2. I think it would be appropriate for the US inteligence apparatus to attack purvayers of non-satyrical fake news that is sourced outside of the US. (there are constitutional problems if it is inside the US).
    What kind of "attack" do you think appropriate? The "Constitutional problems" about attacking inside the US are presumably because of the rights of free speech, yes? Are you saying we should attack the speech of others outside the US because their speech should not be thought of as a natural right? Are you for free speech or against it, or should free speech only be allowed to the people you think deserve it? Again, how should speech you don't like be attacked?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  7. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think there has been a narrative by the Obama admin and the DNC to paint Russia's involvement as pro-Trump.

    1) No security agency or independent intelligence agency has claimed Russia was trying to get Trump elected.
    2) There is a general agreement among intelligence that there was a general targeting of Hillary.
    Inaccurate according to the latest information we have. The real core of the recent news is that the Washington Post got one of the people who was given a recent security briefing to leak to them the information from the briefing.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.622eb8a10861
    "The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

    “It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”""

    We also have this public statement from the head of the NSA
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us...ction-dnc.html
    "There shoudldn't be any doubt in anybody's mind," Adm. Michel S. Rogers, the director of National Security Agency and commander of the United States Ceber Command, said at a postelection conference. "This was not something that was done casally, this was not something done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily." he said. "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."

    And again, it's not hard to see many ways in which Russia benefits from Trump as president in terms of policy vs Hillary Clinton. It makes sense that they would push for one side over the other. It's also very easily done, though of course no guarantee it will be effective.

    It makes a lot of sense for the Russian state to want a Russia freindly president who supports closer business ties wiht Russia, favors their policy in Syria, and in various other wasys seems willing to cooperate with them vs one who talked about no fly zones in Syria and demonizes their involvment in the balkan conflicts as of late and stood very opposed to them during her tenure as secritary of state. It doesn't make so much sense they just feel like embarasing her because they don't like her.

    Becides, if you are going to attack one candidate, you are going to end up supporting the other one. Everyone is pretty aware of that fact so the effect, whatever you think the motive might be, is exactly the same.
    This is an important distinction.
    Why? If you attack clinton, you effectively push the election towards Trump. And you will note that most of the efforts linked to Russia were timed to happen after the primaries. Why not come after clinton during the primaries and get Bernie Sanders selected? If they just want to embarass clinton, why not do it earlier?

    I'd further point out your articles are from July and thus don't take into account recent events nor the assessment of the CIA and NSA who are going to know a whole lot more about the issue and specific actions than Politico. While I've no doubt that the Russians didn't like Clinton, they clearly do like Trump just fine and again, attacking clinton during the primary is supporting Trump. They certainly weren't thinking Johnson was going to win.

    Second, we need to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our back. We are so scared to offend or do anything perceived as imperialistic, we have no bite. We can offer sanctions. And if that does not work we can offer more sanctions.... and if those don't work, then we can offer.... even more sanctions??? In a global world, our sanctions alone won't curb a lot of behavior. Maybe, we need to actively contest the Arctic (something we should be doing anyhow). Maybe we should be creating military ties with more diverse nations. China? At least offer the threat of it. How about dropping a bomb on a Russian embassy in Syria? Ooops, but message sent. I am spitballing here. Probably, and Trump has actually spoken about this, we need to elevate our offensive cyber capabilities. Turn out the lights in the Kremlin perhaps?
    We have plenty of bite. Ask Sadam Hussain or the Taliban about our bite. Or pople in former yugoslavia or anywhere else we send our armed forces. What we hopefully don't do is start actual killing wars for the sake of pride or bragging rights or because we are annoyed. That is because we have some kind of morality and integrity, or at least I like to think we do. Not always as much as I'd like but some.

    I think trying to turn out the lights in the Kremlin is missing the mark. The Russians are using proxies to go after us and its the proxies we should target. Russia wants deniability, let them have it, but make anyone who plays patsy for them suffer for it and then others may think twice about playing that role.

    ---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The story as you think you know it could be exactly the "fake news" you're concerned about. Just like the fake story that the Obama/Clinton team spun, with the aid of liberal media, about how a film caused a riot at the US embassy in Benghazi.
    [Personal Attack Deleted]This is not fake news, its from prestigeous and well respected news sources that still practice journalism with some integrity. It's not some hack op-ed piece.

    Julian Assange said the DNC leak came from within the DNC, and not the work of the Russians. I've seen no reason to think otherwise. The same person(s) could be responsible for the Podesta email leak.
    [Personal Attack Deleted]

    I'll clue you in, it was a man named Craig Murray who just recently claimed that he received the emails from an "insider". He may be telling the truth. He may be lying or he could be fooled. He does seem a trustworthy person by and large. If true, and he is not deceived it does not mean that the DNC was not hacked (there is ample evidence it was along with the clinton foundation and the state department) or that groups with Russian ties weren't actively working to push pro Trump anti hillary propaganda during the election. There are quite a lot of articles on the matter.

    This story covers a number of groups attempting to trace the sources of fake news stories. Nearly all of them reach the same conclusions, Russia is involved in creating spreading some portion of these stories.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politi...-news-reality/

    If those emails weren't leaked from within, the phishing and leak could have been done to look like work of the Russians. Napolitano believes it was the work of people within US intelligence, who did not want Clinton elected. A "false flag" operation could make it look like the Russians were responsible, when they were not.
    All he has is speculation not evidence. He conflated the statements of William Binney who says a disgruntled employee of the NSA COULD have hacked the DNC as a claim that he said they did. Its just a bunch of blind speculation.

    What kind of "attack" do you think appropriate? The "Constitutional problems" about attacking inside the US are presumably because of the rights of free speech, yes? Are you saying we should attack the speech of others outside the US because their speech should not be thought of as a natural right? Are you for free speech or against it, or should free speech only be allowed to the people you think deserve it? Again, how should speech you don't like be attacked?
    Cyber attack to disrupt their site and make it harder for them to do disinformation like that. And yes, the Constitutional issue would be the first ammendment. I do not believe in "natural rights" I think it is a mistaken notion (as I have detailed in other debates).

    As to free speach in general, its a good question and my answers is somewhat complicated and a bit conflicted. I very much prize free speach, but I don't think that means that you can't contend peoples speach or that you should simply tolerate anything anyone says.

    1. The speach I'm targeting in this instance is that which is false and intended as political propaganda from one state actor agaisnt another.
    2. The means of combating it ivolves no physical harm to anyone nor absolutely prevents them from expressing themselves.
    3. I don't feel that intentionally lying to people is inherently valuable speech or especially worth protecting. That is very differfent from speech you simply don't like. There are certainly instances where we consider lying to be an illegal act such as deffamation or fraud. The fake news that comes from some sources only differes from fraud in that it is not directly selling something but instead is indirectly profiting from the lies being peddled.

    The reason free speach is so important is that we don't want to have the truth silenced, even if it's just the truth of an individual's opinion or view. Without some freedom of speach we have the possibilitin for total control of information and thought. That said, fake news, created with the intent to deceive people of what is known to be true or accurate is not doing us any good. In fact you might call it a kind of anti speach, destroying credibility of reporting in general and leading people to beleifs that are not simply disputable but are downright fabrications. It's not clear to me what kind of social value it could have.

    Now I fully appreciate that there is a delecate balance here. We don't always know what is truly fake or what is simply mistaken. But there are plenty of sites out there who peddle in fake news that is blatantly and intentionally false and makes no efforts to lable itself as satire or enternainment. We also don't always know beyond any doubt that one person killed another but we still have a criminal justice system and we do our best. Clearly the punishment should fit the crime and I don't think Fake news is a great crime. I only call for it when there is clear evidence some group is making an organized effort to use propaganda agaisnt us. I think an organized effort to stop them is appropriate.
    Last edited by mican333; December 19th, 2016 at 10:08 AM.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    On the emails, you may be right about all of it. Doesn't much matter to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I only call for it when there is clear evidence some group is making an organized effort to use propaganda agaisnt us.
    A fabricated news story claiming the Pope endorsed Trump is propaganda used against "us"? How, exactly?

    Is all fake news influencing elections an attack on "us" or just what originates from outside the US? I'm thinking of National Enquirer stories about Cruz having five mistresses. Was that an attack on "us"?

    If an external source tries to influence our elections with paid protesters, commercials, social network ads etc, rather than fake news, is that an unacceptable use of propaganda against "us"? What if it isn't during an election, but just an attempt by outsiders to change American culture and business practices on an ongoing basis? Is that an attack on "us" deserving retaliation?

    Again, I'm having trouble seeing much difference between any of the above and how liberal news outlets wield influence on a daily basis. Right now, CNN keeps pushing the idea that because Trumps grown children have roles in the transition process, that there is already a conflict of interest. Trump hasn't taken office, so there is NO conflict. But they insist on creating the impression there is.

    Likewise, they're pushing against Secretary of State nominee Tillerson, with the headline and story "Tillerson's Exxon Didn't Put America First". Only those who read the full story find that it is about how Exxon missed the shale boom. But low-information headline readers get the anti-Tillerson sentiment up front.

    You KNOW this has been going on for a decades, Sig. You're heard me complain about it here on ODN, and you've read about it elsewhere, along with seeing it happen yourself, right? Did you EVER see any of that as a propaganda attack on "us"? I doubt it.

    But now you're upset that someone other than the mainstream media may have had influence over voters with slanted or deceitful stories, and you want something to be done about it. And you're not alone. The whole liberal Left (I know, you're a moderate) is with you.

    Frankly, I'm enjoying the Left foaming at their twisted panties over the whole thing.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  9. Likes Someguy liked this post
  10. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,949
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post

    Likewise, they're pushing against Secretary of State nominee Tillerson, with the headline and story "Tillerson's Exxon Didn't Put America First".
    "Tillerson's Exxon didn't put America first and missed historic U.S. shale boom" That's the complete title of the article.

    and CNN is a corporate media outlet, not a liberal one.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Not on my CNN app's first headline menu.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    and CNN is a corporate media outlet, not a liberal one.
    ROFL. Are you effing kidding?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,949
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post

    ROFL. Are you effing kidding?
    No, for example I see nothing about the voter suppression efforts on CNN that led to the Trump win http://www.alternet.org/recount-fias...voting-america or any of the findings of the attempted recount.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    1: It amazes me that liberals are up in arms (an ironic euphemism considering) about their emails being hacked, yet conveniently ignore the fact that the emails are legit and expose the DNC for being utterly corrupt to the very core of its being. I definitely view the context of the emails much more seriously than the fact that they were exposed. If the DNC wasn't corrupt all to hell to begin with, then the hacks wouldn't have helped Trump at all.

    2: For a so-called progressive party, their security apparatus is woefully under developed. With all of the youth that is apparently swinging towards the left ideologically, it interesting how weak and mismanaged their IT is. One would assume being IT is the industry of youth, as it's been called, Liberals would have their pick of liter of young people with high degrees of IT wherewithal to man their fronts (another ironic saying when applied to liberals) in the cyber world.

    The Wall Street Journal reported, among other sites that
    " Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.

    But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said. And people close to the investigation said it indicated a less aggressive and much less persistent effort by Russian intelligence to hack the Republican group" but we're unsuccessful. Interesting how the party of "old, angry white racist men" have better IT security than the party of "youth and progress"

    3: Equally interesting how the party of "peace and international cooperation" the party of NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, NATO and the EU want pissed at Trump because he wants better international relations with Russia and wants to pursue the path towards peace and friendship rather than war. Why exactly do liberals want to fight the Russians? Because they alledgedly exposed precisely how corrupt and contemptible the left truly is? The left seems to want to fight Russia... But how? You need weapons to fight and men capable of doing so and winning. The left lacks both of these. You aren't going to win a war with harsh language and being offended.

    4: Why did no one on the left arm to mind when Obama tried to interfere in the Israeli elections and the UK referendum on BREXIT? Liberals like to pretend they possess some sort of moral superiority in all things, yet get exposed for being hypocritical on a regular bases.

    5: By what standard would you decide what is "fake news" and who would be doing this vetting? No matter how you slice it, it would be viewed as biased and an attempt to socially engineer the population. Apart from that, people should be free to consume any sort of news they desire. You agreeing with it isn't necessary. Also, the main news sources have been proven beyond doubt to be horribly biased. CNN, NBC, FOX, MSNBC, ABC are all horribly, shamefully biased. Biased news, by definition, is fake news... So, unless you plan on banning all news, this isn't a real issue or solution

    ---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

    Wsj source:
    https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.c...id-metropcs-us
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  14. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,949
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    yet conveniently ignore the fact that the emails are legit and expose the DNC for being utterly corrupt to the very core of its being.
    Challenge to support a claim. support or retract please.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    On the emails, you may be right about all of it. Doesn't much matter to me.
    OK. It was the free speech question in your post I thought was interesting and a good challenge anyhow so I'm happy to focus on that.

    A fabricated news story claiming the Pope endorsed Trump is propaganda used against "us"? How, exactly?

    Is all fake news influencing elections an attack on "us" or just what originates from outside the US? I'm thinking of National Enquirer stories about Cruz having five mistresses. Was that an attack on "us"?
    Well, the case here would be these specific qualities...
    1. It is a deliberate attempt to influence our election outcome
    2. It is specifically sponsored by a foreign national government

    So that rules out the national inquirer but it could include a Russian state-sponsored website that attacks or supports a specific candidate with fake news stories. As to why it constitutes an attack... it's on the principle that a soverign nation should not have its political choices controlled or manipulated by outside governments. Of course "attack" in this case is pretty broadly defined. I wouldn't call it an act of war or the like, its just spycraft and espianage.

    If an external source tries to influence our elections with paid protesters, commercials, social network ads etc, rather than fake news, is that an unacceptable use of propaganda against "us"? What if it isn't during an election, but just an attempt by outsiders to change American culture and business practices on an ongoing basis? Is that an attack on "us" deserving retaliation?
    On the first part, yes. We actually have laws already that prohibit that. See here... http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml "Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S."

    As to the latter part. It depends on what they are doing exactly. Cultural propahanda... probably doesn't cut it. Hacking into the government or political parties probably does make the grade as an act of espianage.

    Again, I'm having trouble seeing much difference between any of the above and how liberal news outlets wield influence on a daily basis. Right now, CNN keeps pushing the idea that because Trumps grown children have roles in the transition process, that there is already a conflict of interest. Trump hasn't taken office, so there is NO conflict. But they insist on creating the impression there is.
    Well, the main difference is they are operatives of a foreign government, not a corporation.

    I can explain the conflicts of interest in a nother thread if you like.

    Likewise, they're pushing against Secretary of State nominee Tillerson, with the headline and story "Tillerson's Exxon Didn't Put America First". Only those who read the full story find that it is about how Exxon missed the shale boom. But low-information headline readers get the anti-Tillerson sentiment up front.
    I'm not looking to discuss the particulars of US Trump coverage. You and I would certainly agree that headlines are horribly misleading much of the time. Its a personal pet peeve of mine.

    You KNOW this has been going on for a decades, Sig. You're heard me complain about it here on ODN, and you've read about it elsewhere, along with seeing it happen yourself, right? Did you EVER see any of that as a propaganda attack on "us"? I doubt it.
    Did they come from a foreign govenrment? Are they actually fake news?

    When I am talking about fake news, you mean stuff that is 100% fake as fake gets. For instance, one bit of "news" kicking around was that Obama was delivering speaches in front of an Islamic prayer rug. In actuallity the photo used was of the gold patterend curtains in the White house west wing which are not islamic and have been there for many presidents. It was just total ******** someone invented. Then there is the whole Pizza-Gate story which agian, utterly fabricated.

    The news you are upset about (though I havn't read it since you didn't link it) sounds more along the lines of poor journalism or slanted coverage. I'm sure there is plenty of that out there as well, but it's a lot harder to judge than stuff that is just clearly made up with no actual sources etc...

    But now you're upset that someone other than the mainstream media may have had influence over voters with slanted or deceitful stories, and you want something to be done about it. And you're not alone. The whole liberal Left (I know, you're a moderate) is with you.
    I never said I was especially upset. I mostly thought it was an interesting story and I wanted to get peoples views on what they though should be done and why. The angle of whether or not we should respect freedom of speach with respect to foreign propaganda really interests me. I really don't like fake news, but that is more a broad based view. I hate it domestically as much as foreign born, in fact I think at least propaganda from a rival government has a kind of justification, making fake news for your own country strikes me as deeply unpatriotic.

    Frankly, I'm enjoying the Left foaming at their twisted panties over the whole thing.
    Happy you can take pleasure in it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. support or retract please.
    The fact they not one single person involved in the emails has disputed the legitimacy of them stands as support.

    ---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    and CNN is a corporate media outlet, not a liberal one.
    This might be the most ridiculous statement ever made in ODN's history
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    1: It amazes me that liberals are up in arms (an ironic euphemism considering) about their emails being hacked,

    2: For a so-called progressive party, their security apparatus is woefully under developed.

    3: Equally interesting how the party of "peace and international cooperation" the party of NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, NATO and the EU want pissed at Trump because he wants better international relations with Russia
    Sorry Somguy, this is not the "let's wave our cocks at the idiot liberals thread" If you want to just take digs at liberals, go back to to your own threads for that. This is about consideration of foreign governments trying to influence our elections. All these points are off topic so take em elsewhere.

    4: Why did no one on the left arm to mind when Obama tried to interfere in the Israeli elections and the UK referendum on BREXIT? Liberals like to pretend they possess some sort of moral superiority in all things, yet get exposed for being hypocritical on a regular bases.
    What did we do to influence the outcome of Israeli elections or BREXIT do tell.

    5: By what standard would you decide what is "fake news" and who would be doing this vetting? No matter how you slice it, it would be viewed as biased and an attempt to socially engineer the population. Apart from that, people should be free to consume any sort of news they desire. You agreeing with it isn't necessary. Also, the main news sources have been proven beyond doubt to be horribly biased. CNN, NBC, FOX, MSNBC, ABC are all horribly, shamefully biased. Biased news, by definition, is fake news... So, unless you plan on banning all news, this isn't a real issue or solution.
    Fake news is made up ********. Its complete fabrication. I'm not talking about Fox News's crappy journalism or MSNBC's slant etc... Bias is fine by me (well, from a moral standpoint). Slants are fine. I'm talking about compleat lies.

    Here is a good example of the kind of sites I mean for fake news.
    http://abcnews.com.co/

    It does all it can to look like ABC News so it can fool people but the stories are complete fabrications.
    It's current front and center story is "Obama signs executive order banning the pledge of allegiance from schools"
    Also "Capital Hill Shooter identified as right wing extremist"

    This one is commercial, they are selling advertising and they have both right wing and left wing click bait. It's a good example of what I mean by Fake News. There are tons of them out there, a good number based in Eastern Europe and Russia. Many are in the US and run by Americans. Even liberals.
    Last edited by Sigfried; December 16th, 2016 at 06:03 PM.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,949
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    The fact they not one single person involved in the emails has disputed the legitimacy of them stands as support.[COLOR="Silver"]
    That's not support. Start by describing what you mean by "corrupt". Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract your statement.



    [Flame deleted]







    ---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Sorry Somguy, this is not the "let's wave our cocks at the idiot liberals thread" If you want to just take digs at liberals, go back to to your own threads for that. This is about consideration of foreign governments trying to influence our elections. All these points are off topic so take em elsewhere.
    Especially given the fact that free trade deals like NAFTA are conservative initiatives.
    Last edited by mican333; December 18th, 2016 at 09:32 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's not support. Start by describing what you mean by "corrupt". Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract your statement.[COLOR="Silver"].
    Actually Cowboy, I think its a pretty reasonable argument.

    Consider the situation. How could we know the emails are accurate or not?
    Typically we would need to compare them to the original emails on the DNC servers and see if they are the same or not.
    The DNC could easily do this. If they wanted to prove the emails were fraudulent, they could release originals and show the differences. Sure, folks could accuse them of doctoring the "originals" but they could invite a computer phorensices expert to testify to the source as much as such a thing is possible. The fact that they could do this but havn't suggests that the emails are likely genuine. It also may be why they didn't doctor them, too easy to show they have been doctored and thus undermine their value.

    I'd also add that I found nothing in those emails that seems "out of character" with what I'd expect the DNC to be doing or saying behind closed doors. None of it was all that dreadfully scandelous beyond concerns among Democrats wanting to see an even handed primary. Some cited media collusion, but anyone who knows politics should know the parties try to influence the media whenever possible. That is not really a scandal unless they clearly have direct control over the media and the emails don't show that. If they were really to be doctored for propaganda, I'd expect some really juicy stuff in there.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,949
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    I'd also add that I found nothing in those emails that seems "out of character" with what I'd expect the DNC to be doing or saying behind closed doors. None of it was all that dreadfully scandelous beyond concerns among Democrats wanting to see an even handed primary. Some cited media collusion, but anyone who knows politics should know the parties try to influence the media whenever possible. That is not really a scandal unless they clearly have direct control over the media and the emails don't show that. If they were really to be doctored for propaganda, I'd expect some really juicy stuff in there.
    How is that corrupt and how does that support the democratic party "being utterly corrupt to the very core of its being"? The point is still unsupported.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How is that corrupt and how does that support the democratic party "being utterly corrupt to the very core of its being"? The point is still unsupported.
    It shows that they are corrupt in that while they claim to be an impartial arbiter of the primary process, they were in fact actively working to favor one of the candidates over the other. As to Someguy's hyperbole, it's to be expected, and fine if you want to call it out or have him try and fail to explain it to you.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    So I have been thinking on this a bit.

    I have a problem if a foreign government is manipulating the vote count in some direct way. (Which didn't happen here)

    I don't have a problem if a foreign gov is doing what I expect the media to do. Such as printing expose' or bringing TRUTHS to light. Which is at worst what occurred this cycle.

    The concern I have for foreign gov is their ability to expose state secrets or do espionage, such as expose private financial information so as to aid theft, or to shut off the power grid.
    In doing the above (which I generally don't have a problem with the result), they may expose their ability to do the later, (which is a big issue). I think generally the concern from the gov is more about being hurt politically as a party, than it is about actual national security. Over all, our national security is served by knowing more about our political candidates. That is generally what we got.

    So, all in all I'm not very upset about this particular instance, and I see the gov response as political rather than a defense of the nation.

    I do have an issue with the president bad mouthing Russia in the way he has, as I see it as unwise and unhelpful. I don't think the evidence is strong enough to point a legal finger at, but is the kind of thing you answer with your own secret attacks. Like printing "you suck" on Vlad's home laptop.. or something or maybe more appropriately exposing something about Vlad's family dark secrets. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly on this issue as Obama is pretty neutered in his rhetoric by the fact that he won't be there long.


    Good topic Sig. It's been in the news and there is a lot of BS out there maybe even some in my post


    To all.. am I just under reacting? Right on? Your thoughts.. I'll limit myself to answering direct questions as I have other threads to give attention too.. and very limited time as late.
    Thanks to all for your patience in other threads.
    To serve man.

  23. Likes Sigfried, Someguy liked this post
  24. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Let's Talk about Russia and the 2016 Election

    MindTrap

    I don't feel especially strongly about it either, but I do think it is interesting and worthy of debate and discussion. We are going to be seeing more and more of this kind of thing so we need some sense of what it means, and how we deal with it.

    I think you are letting the Russians off a little lightly here. You say they should not be stealing but that is exactly what they did. They broke into the computers of a US political party and stole private information. They then allegedly used it for political gain by trying to influence our elections.

    Do you think the laws we have that prohibit other governments or foreign citizens or companies from spending money in our elections are worth while? Should we allow anyone in the world to participate in American political elections?

    They make sense in principle to me. Though I'm not sure in this global age, in this information age that they have any real meaning any more beyond not putting adds on network TV or broadcast Radio.

    I think we agree with the notion that we should respond with measures in keeping with the significance of the attacks. But just how significant is the potential for internet propaganda to meaningfully impact another countries election? My own take is it likely didn't impact the outcome of ours, some disagree with me as it was close.

    I think we agree that manipulating actual votes is more serious than information because it still leaves the ultimate choice to individual voters. But that is principle, and the reality is that advertising is influential. Billions are spent on it each election for that reason, and the ultimate impact of propaganda vs changing votes, is not different, it is determining/invluencing who wins an election. That is a pretty heavy thing to allow other nations to have a meaningful influence over.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Presidential Election
    By evensaul in forum Predictions and Wagers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 15th, 2015, 08:32 AM
  2. Clinton 2016
    By Vandaler in forum Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2013, 03:55 PM
  3. Replies: 104
    Last Post: November 14th, 2012, 10:29 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •