https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.a47c20c6bbec So we have a president who's the proffered option of the KKK who was leveraged into office by a Russian dictator... I'm sure everything will be FINE!
You guys didn't care to hear about Russia four years ago so I don't want to hear about them now. Reap what you sow... http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/25/5-times-liberals-mocked-mitt-romney-for-warning-about-russia/
You're a fucking moron. Russia is doing their best to undermine American democracy and install their preferred candidate as president, and your only response is partisan douchebaggery? Put down the script for a minute and realize that this sort of thing isn't good for either side.
You did not just use the federalist as a source? Oh wait, you did. The federalist is well known for distortion in everything it publishes. If it were a person it would be a pathological liar incapable of telling the truth. One of the things that is needed in America is to clean up the news media of misinformation and manipulation. We cannot give any respect to places like the federalist for factual reporting. It has lead to people being brainwashed and doing things against their own self interests, or worse yet completely destructive all around because they believe in fake news.
The actual fuck? Politicians brushing off the danger of Russia is in no way comparable to having your elections influenced by them. And if it's true that the RNC got hacked, and the information was never sent to WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks chose to withhold the information, then at best, they're useful idiots who've been weaponised by Russian intelligence. Is this how polarised the US has become? Sticking it to the internal opposition is more important than an external attack, and it is an attack, what the hell happened to a sense of patriotism? I'm just glad this attitude wasn't prevalent in the 1930's and 40's, otherwise the Japanese would've had an easy ride in WW2.
FWIW, if the Russians did actively influence the result, it raises a few questions that the US government (rather than just the incoming Trump) need to ask. It's pretty clear a number of Russians saw a real risk of direct war between the US and themselves with a Hillary-led government, and those fears directly come from the lack of leadership from the Obama administration and the EU. Both the Ukraine and Syria have offered opportunities to get the Russians onside - the shiny baubles of Crimea and a Med base would've got Russia to the table, but instead we've either actively pursued isolating Russia, or just been so stupid to allow it to happen by default. Assad was always a sacrificiable chess piece to Russia, his value was allowing a Russian footprint in the ME and access to the Med, maintain that footprint without the need for Assad and, well, turns out we're on the same side after all. Instead, Syria became a potential flashpoint in an active confrontation with Russia, and Russia may very well have decided the safest route was to simply ensure a Trump victory. Geopolitics is a difficult game, and simply sitting it out isn't an option. For all of the neo-con's nuttiness, at least they understood that. Obama never really grasped that, and his international efforts were pretty half-hearted.
Looks that way, don't it? There's no reason to think the bourgeois/liberal democracy of the last century or so is not about to go down the tubes. On that score, this article is worth reading: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...t-western-democracy-liberal-order-ussr-russia Two points. First, more than any other country, the US has embraced Lean'n'Mean Market-Fundamentalism (aka Globalism) in recent decades. Yes, the political class throughout the West seems to have been entranced by it, but the idelology has been taken hold most radically in the US. Globalism is the Race to the Bottom, the Race to Bangladesh. People throughout the West are waking up to this, even Americans. So you have a conman like Donald who will say Whatever He Has To to get elected and has a natural talent for exploiting latent anger to his own advantage. And he gets the Republican nomination ... the Republican party, the most Market-Fundamentalist-friendly entity in the US. But Donald needs the Republicans because he also needs those electoral votes in all those population-poor, Angry-White-Guy-With-Pickup'n'Gunrack states like Wyoming and Idaho. So he builds a powerful coalition of neo-Nazis and rustbelt people furious over globalism. And bingo. Second point: The US is absolutely hypnotized by voting gizmos. Has been as far back as I can remember. So naturally computers have infiltrated an already-questionable electoral system. And no computer system is unhackable. I can well imagine the Russians hacking the system on Donald's behalf, just as I can well imagine somebody in the US doing it. Did the Russians hack the DNC? Search me. But James Bamford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bamford) thinks it might have been a new Snowden. (Seeing Donald about to ascend to office, that person must be kicking him/herself but good right now.) The US is not a very democratic country by Western standards. And I think them chickens is a-comin' home to roost, yep.
Where to begin with this stupidity? So you will ignore a dangerous situation out of spite? And by the way, this isn't what Romney was talking about. He was saying that Obama shouldn't try for better relations with a Russia controlled by a snake. So what part of that do you think implies anybody should be pleased by this news? Your response is reckless and immature. Bravo!
Globalisation is inevitable and what we are seeing is a huge amount of denial in this regard. The questions are really over the the method by which it happens and the form it takes. Elections like Trump's are a symptom of people attempting to resist what they see as the undermining of their personal identity and place in this world, both on a micro and macrocosmic scale. What we are seeing in the modern era, among other things, is the beginning of the global fight for who controls the face of the globe for the next few centuries and what form it will take.
Now, the real question is this incident raises is whether or not Trumpites would be prepared to see a re-run election if it is established beyond doubt that Russia influenced the election? Up until now I have considered re-run calls to be sour grapes from Hillary loyalists, but this raises a serious constitutional question does it not? A president must take an oath that, inter alia, he is not unduly influenced by foreign powers? Would an election built on foreign influence not be compromised before the oath is even take by presenting the possibility that the oath cannot be sworn with any sincerity?
There is no Constitutional mechanism for a re-run on the election. We have a perfectly viable option, here, which is for the Electoral College to select somebody else. That was one of the original purposes behind the institution. If they decide to rubber stamp Trump's election, then there is impeachment. And he should be impeached within an hour of taking the oath, but I kind of doubt that would happen. Either way, we end up with Trump or somebody whose name wasn't even on the ballot.
Don't pretend you care. Trump could murder someone in front of you and you'd still support him, because you think he's on your team.
Like it or not, it doesn't matter if the Russians (or anyone else) hacked into the voting computers and switched Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida for Trump. Once the Electoral College votes in a few days, Trump will be president. Case closed. There is none. ZERO way that a "re-run" election would ever be held. You and your fellow travelers are sure having a hard time accepting Trumps election.
Interesting that liberals are now declaring Russia an "enemy" of the U.S.?? For decades I thought the Russians were supposed to be simple peace loving people who were simply misunderstood.
By the way, impeach Trump. I don't care. I like Mike Pence much better than him anyway on every level.
How is it you continue to be such an obtuse fool? It has nothing to do with me having a hard time accepting that Trump won. It's to do with the notion that a person may not have been democratically elected if his opponent's campaign was compromised by foreign meddling. But clearly you are okay with Putin dictating your election results if the victor is Republican, eh? How can one who insists he could be president either not understand that or simply not give a crap about democracy?
And yet I agree he'd be the better choice. I also think that his extremism is more readily battled by existing checks and balances. SCOTUS is more than a few conservative nominations away from allowing, for instance, mandatory electroshock brainwashing for homosexuals. Digital surveillance and totalitarian communication control, not so much. Of course, pro-choice is screwed either way.
