Putin's lapdog

[HannahT]

Two issues. And yes, the more serious point is the Russians can hack a political party's database....at will. It may be time to provide cyber security to our political parties. If it happened to the DNC, it can most certainly happen to the GOP.

Cyber Security has been talked about forever now. No doubt the DEMS were included in those conversations. Sadly, and I don't see the GOP working any differently - common sense towards security of this fashion shouldn't be after thought once you get hacked.

 

[Albion]

....after the naïve statements Trump has made to date regarding NATO and his adoring comments of Putin's leadership. Now we learn the Russians hacked the DNC.....

We've still got the fact that Hillary has been the Secretary of State and, as such, fawned over Putin herself with that plastic "reset" toy she actually seems to have thought was not going to make a former KGB officer think of her as a lamebrain. Why would he go out of his way to NOT have her to push around for four years as president? There isn't any reason.

And by the way also, Hillary loves conspiracy theories, so aside from the fact that she had to come up with something, anything, to blunt the effects of this WikiLeaks revelation, it's the kind of world she lives in anyway. How dangerous is THAT for the future of our nation?

 

[wing2000]

Cyber Security has been talked about forever now. No doubt the DEMS were included in those conversations. Sadly, and I don't see the GOP working any differently - common sense towards security of this fashion shouldn't be after thought once you get hacked.

Agreed. However, security is rarely prioritized until after the damage is done. I see it every day in the corporate world....

 

[HannahT]

Agreed. However, security is rarely prioritized until after the damage is done. I see it every day in the corporate world....

I agree with you. Our world is changing, and our political parties aren't the only ones that need to get with it.

I mean no doubt they would be the FIRST ONES that claim the 'greedy' corporations don't care what happens to their customer's information because they allowed themselves to get hacked...because they wouldn't spend the money. Within the last couple of years we have had some MAJOR hacks talked about in the news, and the government is very slow to react. They say what they know they have too, but other than that? Not so much.

Besides this silly approach is going to open the door for more jokes about competency - ie: did they use the same security guy that Hillary did? Do they believe wiping a server is done with a cloth too? You know they will tie that together with a bow. Sigh.

 

[Eryk]

The flaw in this reasoning is that no one could be easier for Putin to push around than Hillary.

It's the right-wing nationalists who oppose NATO. That's why Putin supports these groups in Europe.

 

[Albion]

It's the right-wing nationalists who oppose NATO. That's why Putin supports these groups in Europe.

OK, but that's Europe and this is not. Also, this fails to convince for two reasons: 1. Trump isn't against NATO; he merely wants our allies to may a few percent of the budget for our defense of Europe, and 2. if Putin couldn't have anyone LESS capable of stopping his aggression than Hillary--and this has already been proven in Crimea, Syria, and elsewhere--it would make no sense for him to go out of his way to put a strongman and patriot into the White House instead of her, merely because it's uncertain how his relations with NATO would develop.

 

[Eryk]

it would make no sense for him to go out of his way to put a strongman and patriot into the White House instead of her,

Putin praised Trump in RT, which is funded by the Russian government.

https://www.rt.com/usa/326328-trump-russia-putin-relations/

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I don't see Russophobia selling very well in this election. Outside the chattering classes in New York and Washington, there aren't many Americans interested in restarting the Cold War.

Two issues. And yes, the more serious point is the Russians can hack a political party's database....at will. It may be time to provide cyber security to our political parties. If it happened to the DNC, it can most certainly happen to the GOP.

It may well already have. The emails just haven't been leaked... yet.

 

[Oafman]

I'm unsure why Trump's name is at the top of this campaign logo. Putin will be the boss:

 

[Goonie]

I don't see Russophobia selling very well in this election. Outside the chattering classes in New York and Washington, there aren't many Americans interested in restarting the Cold War.



It may well already have. The emails just haven't been leaked... yet.

The Russians are waiting until after the election, if their man gets in.

 

[The Cadet]

The flaw in this reasoning is that no one could be easier for Putin to push around than Hillary. And he has plenty of experience doing exactly that, so there's little reason to think he doesn't realize this fact.

Actually, there's reason to believe that Clinton was rather difficult for Putin to deal with.

And by the way also, Hillary loves conspiracy theories

Cite?

We've still got the fact that Hillary has been the Secretary of State and, as such, fawned over Putin herself with that plastic "reset" toy she actually seems to have thought was not going to make a former KGB officer think of her as a lamebrain. Why would he go out of his way to NOT have her to push around for four years as president? There isn't any reason.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153

“Clinton was a more skeptical voice on the reset,” McFaul says. “She was tougher on the Russians. She pushed back. She was a difficult interlocutor with both [foreign minister Sergei] Lavrov and Putin — and I say that as a compliment.”

The reset effort was troubled from the very start: Clinton arrived with a novelty button for a news conference with Lavrov. It was supposed to say "reset" in both English and Russian, but instead bore the Russian word for “overload” — a mistake Lavrov didn’t fail to mention. Clinton became the butt of Russian jokes over this typo. Yet the reset had its successes, including a NATO transit point on Russian soil for troops headed to Afghanistan and a new nuclear arms reduction treaty.

Behind the scenes, however, Clinton and Putin — who, it soon became clear, was still the real power in the Kremlin — had an uneasy dance. In March 2010, when Clinton visited Russia, Putin summoned her to his luxurious residence outside Moscow. Knowing her fondness for wildlife — elephants, in particular — Putin invited Clinton to a basement trophy room filled with mounted animal heads. (A Clinton aide later described the gesture, though well meaning, as having a Bond villain feel.) Yet when the two emerged for a photo op, Putin launched into a public scolding of Clinton. The slouching Russian rattled off a list of complaints, from a decline in U.S.-Russia trade to the impact that sanctions against Iran and North Korea were having on Russian companies.​

http://time.com/4422723/putin-russia-hillary-clinton/

But among Kremlin hardliners, who have since come to dominate Russian politics, Clinton’s efforts to flatter and befriend Medvedev all seemed like part of a scheme to undermine Putin and subvert his role as a counterweight to U.S. dominance in world affairs. One incident in particular drove home that perception.

In the spring of 2011, the U.S. and its allies began pushing for a military intervention in Libya to prevent the regime of Muammar Ghaddafi from massacring rebel forces and their civilian supporters. But without Russia’s acquiescence, the West could not pass a resolution in the U.N. that would provide a legal basis for the intervention. So Clinton and Obama began pressuring Medvedev to play along, and he ultimately agreed not to veto the resolution in the U.N. Security Council.
​

This seems to be at best a surface-level investigation of Clinton's record on Russia.

 

[Albion]

The bottom line to this is that the Dems have been caught exchanging racist, anti-semitic, posts and plans to cheat Bernie and rig the nomination process...and the only way to escape from the consequences of this bombshell is to claim that the Russians did it and that they want Trump to be elected.

Even if Putin were to favor Trump, the contents of the leaks are what matters. Note that the Clinton organization has yet to figure out how to make it seem as though the Russians actually wrote them.

 

[The Cadet]

The bottom line to this is that the Dems have been caught exchanging racist, anti-semitic, posts and plans to cheat Bernie and rig the nomination process...and the only way to escape from the consequences of this bombshell is to claim that the Russians did it and that they want Trump to be elected.

Even if Putin were to favor Trump, the contents of the leaks are what matters. Note that the Clinton organization has yet to figure out how to make it seem as though the Russians actually wrote them.

I'd say it matters quite a bit if an unfriendly and expansionistic force is getting involved in our elections and clearly favoring a candidate. Particularly if they're doing so largely because they think the other candidate will be a patsie. Particularly if they're doing so in ways that are actually quite illegal. Like with Climategate, this is less about whistleblowing and more about muckraking - releasing not a handful of damning, powerful emails, but thousands of personal communiques in order to smear and slander those making them as much as possible.

Also, way to not defend your previous points.

 

[Oafman]

The bottom line to this is that the Dems have been caught exchanging racist, anti-semitic, posts and plans to cheat Bernie and rig the nomination process...and the only way to escape from the consequences of this bombshell is to claim that the Russians did it and that they want Trump to be elected.

Even if Putin were to favor Trump, the contents of the leaks are what matters. Note that the Clinton organization has yet to figure out how to make it seem as though the Russians actually wrote them.

What was leaked is the big story. I gather the author of the emails was forced to quit, which was absolutely right.

But how and why those emails became public is also a story. And by all accounts, this was the result of phishing emails originating on Russian servers. It is worth considering what the Russians have to gain by releasing them.

 

[Eryk]

Even if Putin were to favor Trump, the contents of the leaks are what matters. Note that the Clinton organization has yet to figure out how to make it seem as though the Russians actually wrote them.

There is more than one issue here. Neither one of them is a red herring. In this thread we are talking about Trump's connections with Putin. On the issue of the emails, the FBI believes that they were breached by Russian government hackers. A foreign government is trying to sway a U.S. election. That is definitely worth talking about.

 

[Albion]

I'd say it matters quite a bit if an unfriendly and expansionistic force is getting involved in our elections and clearly favoring a candidate. Particularly if they're doing so largely because they think the other candidate will be a patsie.

We already know how the line goes, T.C. There's no need to recite it again for us here.

 

[Albion]

What was leaked is the big story. I gather the author of the emails was forced to quit, which was absolutely right.

But how and why those emails became public is also a story. And by all accounts, this was the result of phishing emails originating on Russian servers. It is worth considering what the Russians have to gain by releasing them.

The point is that the big story is, well, the BIG story! The Democrats, with their allies in the media, are working hard to make it NO story.

And by the way, the Saudis have blood on their hands from 9/11 and, arguably, a lot of the Jihadist activity since, but Clinton has been quite willing not just to be supported by them but actually bribed by them. I didn't hear anything about that from the DNC.

 

[JustOneWay]

And by the way, the Saudis have blood on their hands from 9/11 and, arguably, a lot of the Jihadist activity since, but Clinton has been quite willing not just to be supported by them but actually bribed by them. I didn't hear anything about that from the DNC.

You are confusing democrat Clinton with republican Bush.

But who are we to expect you to properly place the responsibility of letting the Saudis get away with their part in 9/11 back on the one who was in charge?

 

[Oafman]

The point is that the big story is, well, the BIG story! The Democrats, with their allies in the media, are working hard to make it NO story.

Political party tries to downplay significance of scandal? Hardly a breathtaking headline is it? Of course they're trying to minimise the impact. Who wouldn't?

And by the way, the Saudis have blood on their hands from 9/11 and, arguably, a lot of the Jihadist activity since, but Clinton has been quite willing not just to be supported by them but actually bribed by them. I didn't hear anything about that from the DNC.

Bribed by them? Really? Is this the donations to the Clinton Foundation again? Can you make a convincing case for those donations being followed by some sort of political or economic decision going in the Saudi's favour? Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss.

 

[Albion]

Political party tries to downplay significance of scandal? Hardly a breathtaking headline is it?

That wasn't the point, however. Yes, I'd expect either party to try to downplay any scandal hitting them during the campaign.

Bribed by them? Really? Is this the donations to the Clinton Foundation again? Can you make a convincing case for those donations being followed by some sort of political or economic decision going in the Saudi's favour?

Of course.