“In the closing days of the 1980 presidential campaign, while trailing Ronald Reagan in the polls, Jimmy Carter sent a political ally, industrialist Armand Hammer, to a secret meeting with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin at the embassy in Washington. Hammer asked the Soviets to help Carter win votes in key states by allowing Jewish “refuseniks” to emigrate to Israel.”
Sounds like a laudable humanitarian effort, right up Carter’s alley. How exactly would it constitute election tampering? If “Michael Regan” is saying that it is unethical for presidents to do good, since by doing so they might increase their popularity, my head just might asplode.
I’m sorry but talking people into voting your way isn’t “rigging”, “manipulating” or “hacking” an election. Even if you lie, which, apparently, the Russians didn’t do.
They got Wikileaks to publish untampered DNC emails whose accuracy isn’t in question. Telling the truth is called “journalism”, not “election rigging”, even if those truths are uncomfortable.
And even if you lie, that’s no different from what millions of Americans do to each other every election year. It’s not even close to “interfering”.
The Russians accomplished what Nixon attempted to with the Watergate break-in, and now with posts like this, we’re being told that the Russians did us a public service.
Guess it is time that we re-evaluate Nixon’s place in history.
I notice you didn’t respond or refer to my post at all. Did you mean to quote it?
Nixon bugged hotel rooms. Nixon resigned for bugging hotel rooms. Not for rigging the election. Say what you will about the hack of Podesta’s email. It could be the biggest crime in human history. But hacking an email server and telling people about the contents is not, and never will be, election rigging. period.
About the only actual thing with real political impact revealed was the DNC’s effort to stop Bernie. Bernie people were enraged by it, some swearing that they would never vote for Hillary even if she was running against Il Douche. Bunch of people I personally know swore that oath, but most came around. But not all, bless their idjit hearts.
So: were there 80,000 or so Bernie voters who boycotted Hillary in those crucial swing states? In that case, yes, the doc dumps swayed the election. If all the Bernie bots came around and saw the Darkness, then no. I have no idea, and no idea where to get an idea. But yes, it could have happened. More likely, I think, it was the Comey Bomb. But it sure didn’t help, and that matters. Anyway you slice it, it affected her vote. And she still got 3 million more votes than he did.
Now, do I hold Trump responsible? Was he “in on it”? Oh, hell, no! A veteran KGB guy uses a useful idiot, he doesn’t tell a shit-for-brains motor mouth about a secret plot.
You are essentially arguing a straw man. There are a few poorly informed people out there who think the term “Russia rigging the election” has to do with tampering with ballots. Everyone else knows that it is shorthand for Russia conducting a type of psychological warfare that involves espionage and disclosing of secrets for the purpose of having an election turn out a certain way.
If you can think of a short phrase that succinctly summarizes “Russia conducting a type of psychological warfare that involves espionage and disclosing of secrets for the purpose of having an election turn out a certain way” then please let us know. For the mean time, I think “Russia hacking the election” is a close enough phrase to let us know the subject under discussion, even if the phrase can’t be taken literally.
Shoot, there’s lots of phrases that don’t hold up under this type of literalism. “Common-sense Republican” for example.
I think the main problem was that the leaked DNC emails confirmed that they were in the tank for Hillary from day one. So the Sanders zealots simply stayed home on election day.
“Psychological warfare … for the purposes of having an election turn out a certain way” describes all election spending by all candidates, their respective parties, and unaffiliated PACs, in addition to the vast majority of publications in print, online or otherwise.
“Some Russians hacked John Podesta’s email server” is the only thing here that isn’t 100% routine in American politics, and what do you know “some Russians hacked John Podesta’s email server” is a far more accurate way to describe what happened than “the election was hacked”. But then we’d have a page 5 story of interest only to political wonks instead of this front page blockbuster it has been made out to be. We just recently had a controversy over “news” organizations making such world-shattering headlines out of such a dearth of fact. We called them “fake news”, but when NPR and CBS does it it’s just “a succinct summary”?
No, that’s not it. Russian propaganda vs. Russian hacking is a big difference in how things are perceived. The propaganda of calling it hacking is misleading. They phished some emails. They did not hack an election. Labeling it as such is just more fake news.
Finally someone with a bit of brains and honesty. Now if you were in the Pit you’d have the unhinged in a triggered frenzy for not towing the party line.
What complete nonsense. Next you’ll be saying that ISIL propaganda is indistinguishable from the BBC evening broadcasts.
Oh, I see. It’s a grand conspiracy to make this story more important than it really is. Perhaps the Illuminati is behind it.
Look, just because you can’t tell the journalistic difference between “Pope endorses Trump” and an NPR report on how much kale is sold in gentrifying neighborhoods, please don’t ask me to explain it.
I think I’ve explained my position quite clearly and don’t need anyone to try to put words in my mouth. See the half dozen threads on this topic that I’ve posted in if you want to know what I think.
That’s “toeing the line”, as old timey bare knuckle fighters were supposed to do. And I have said exactly this several times with no serious repercussions. Not even much in the way of comment, IIRC. But thanks for the compliment, anyway.
No, but most news organizations also publish editorials, advertising, and other propaganda, and that’s what psychological warfareis.
Yes, clearly the Illuminati must be involved for media organizations to hype up an inaccurate fear-based narrative to boost ratings. That never happens outside of conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:
So, in your opinion, “Russia hacks the US election” is more like the latest sales numbers for kale and less like “the Pope endorses Trump”? :dubious:
