droid
Well-known member
So... A senior member of Putin's Kleptocracy and likely source for the Steele Russian dossier found dead under mysterious circumstances.
https://t.co/StMg5dwUMG
https://t.co/StMg5dwUMG
Russian hacking of the US election
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
bruno
est malade
total nonsense. i believe assange and craig murray over the predictable russia-blaming democrats wishing to excuse their catastrophic loss. the 'hacker' was a democrat party insider and the (poorly guarded) emails had zero exposure in the media, not enough to influence the outcome. what did the democrats in was their unlikeable candidate and sycophantic media, plus a very determined and hard working rival.
Leo
Well-known member
no one said the wikileaks emails won the election for trump. i said they helped the trump campaign, which they surely did. and i was speculating (a bit factiously, at that) on the potential quid pro quo between the trump campaign and assange. wasn't rehashing clinton's campaign or making excuses.
bruno
est malade
right, i do think their impact was minor given the very little exposure they received in u.s. and global media. they did vindicate trump, but given the anti-trump onslaught the impact was likely nil beyond his circle. all i saw was constant anti-trump propaganda which perhaps made people weary enough to eventually cast the vote for him.
droid
Well-known member
They got a yuge amount of exposure in the media. The biggest exposure.
bruno
est malade
on the contrary, i have been massively engaged in reading and parsing all that i am able to, from local sources to u.s. media and abroad.
while i agree with you that there are many factors to the result, and agree that the russians hack as do most governments with self-interest, i dispute their impact in the result of this election and find the allegations suspect coming as they do from democrat-leaning sources.
bruno
est malade
bruno
est malade
i suppose the point is that there is a chance that a lot of this russia stuff is trotted out conveniently to deflect from political responsibility (i have not seen a democrat or podesta mea-culpa) and to delegitimise the whole election. also, if it were about values, petromonarchies would be put to task viz human rights, china would be confronted for its militarisation of the south china sea and so on. but i digress.
bruno
est malade
i suppose you're right, droid, i don't expect it will go anywhere. i did want to get that and other stuff off my chest. for example, recently, in hong kong, i said something mildly pro-trump and the counter-argument was: how can you defend him when your country has suffered pinochet! which is proof that political discourse has gone off the rails.
droid
Well-known member
No, I think they had a point.
Trump has used the tactics and rhetoric of fascism, explicitly reflecting racist nationalist themes and allying himself with the KKK & neo-nazis in order to gain the support of marginalised communities who have been immiserated by the exact kinds of economic policies and behaviour he extolls.
Trump has used the tactics and rhetoric of fascism, explicitly reflecting racist nationalist themes and allying himself with the KKK & neo-nazis in order to gain the support of marginalised communities who have been immiserated by the exact kinds of economic policies and behaviour he extolls.
bruno
est malade
hardly, he has denounced the kkk (in particular david duke) and i have seen nothing in the trump camp resembling the brownshirt/blackshirt tactics deployed by the left. i fail to see the racist nationalist themes in having a strong border, stopping the inflow of drugs/crime and prioritising rebuilding communities and infrastructure. equating trump with pinochet is completely absurd, there are no parallels between an elected democratic president and the leader of a military junta that disappeared three thousand people.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Trump's threatened to imprison political opponents, offered to pay legal fees for violent supporters, seemingly asked supporters to murder anyone trying to 'take away' guns, threatened to restrict press freedoms, proposed restrictions on religious freedom, jail people for flag burning (protected under the 1st amendment) and asked for political opponents to be hacked. Maybe these things were said in jest or for rhetorical effect, but these are not the actions and opinions of a president in a healthy democracy.
bruno
est malade
yes, i think most of this stuff is taken out of context or too literally.
if by threatening to imprison political opponents you mean hillary, that was a pithy/humorous response in the context of a debate where his opponent quite literally has gotten away with things that others have been jailed for.
while i am sure there have been instances of violence, the violent trump supporter thing has been pushed by a media that overwhelmingly helped fund the clinton campaign, and were compliant in getting out all points of attack against trump however ludicrous in order to paint him as a nazi/racist/etc. which he is clearly not.
having seen the context of the gun thing it was deliberately twisted, in my view he implied nothing of the sort. of course second ammendment advocates will justify right to bear arms as a right to defend against government tyranny and so on, but short of having tanks and drones they have no chance against the military so it is all nonsense.
the press freedoms thing is difficult, he wants to open up libel laws to counteract false accusations/news which the media is no longer required to police. that is hardly curtailing press freedom but it could have a chilling effect on real journalism, which is increasingly rare. in this i think you have a legitimate worry.
i'm not keen on the flag burning thing, i can see why someone would want to have the right to burn a flag and so on but ultimately there is little trump can do to ban this as it is in the hands of the supreme court. the asking for opponents to be hacked thing sounds like exaggeration (would love to see the context).
ultimately yes, i believe a lot of this stuff is taken literally and does not account for his sense of humour, i could be wrong but after seeing a lot of stuff in context i have yet to see anything that presents a danger to democracy. i think a lot of damage is already done, for example in the disprportionate influence of money/lobbyists in washington, if anything the steps trump has promised to curtail this are in the right direction. it remains to see whether he really does or can do this but if he does taht is actually a step in the right direction, hardly undemocratic.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Be very careful not to take his rhetoric on this at face value. He is shaping up to be far more corrupt than his predecessors.