Do we judge ourselves according to the standards of unprincipled liberal hacks? I disagree. If Hillary had won, she'd investigate, because it happened to her. (If it had happened to Trump, she wouldn't have.) However, none of that makes the Russian conduct anymore ok or tolerable.
Russian/Sino hacking is a problem. The name and shame is a step in the right direction. I am guessing that we could absolutely hammer each of those countries with our own hacking if we decided to take that step. The question then is; Would such a scheme escalate the problem, or be such a disincentive that the respective governments come to their senses and back away from their thuggish actions? Hiroshima worked well as a war fighting option, and, despite its brutality, probably saved more lives than it took.
I wonder what our involvement in Russian elections is.I am pretty sure we meddle in other countries elections. For the good of the people there of course
Of course we do. Obama was dumb enough to overtly do so in Israel, one of our greatest allies, while sending a couple billion in CASH to Iran, the world's greatest terrorist.
As usual, you bring up well reasoned points, but I'm going to take exception to part of point 1. It could not have happened "just as easily" to our side. The Republicans clearly take cybersecurity far more seriously than do the Dems, both at the party level (where, granted, the Republicans have a LOT more money available to throw at the problem) and at the individual level, as evidenced by HRC's criminal use of a private server, Wasserman Schultz and other D congressmen using Pakistani spies as IT experts, and numerous other indicators. Could it have happened to the R's? Of course it could. I'm sure their systems aren't completely bullet proof, but so far all evidence suggests they use best practices, and haven't suffered any negative consequences as a result.
Unless the Republicans have implemented Multi-Factor Authentication for all access to their systems I'm not sure the could have stemmed these attacks. I'd be surprised if the R's were using that in 2016.
I don't think there's any question but that the GOP took cyber-security more seriously. However, like you mentioned, they weren't immune. I'm sure that the Russian government hires the most skilled hackers who could eventually figure out how to screw with them if they wanted to.
If you don't want people to call you a Russian stooge, you shouldn't give them such a good reason. Link.
If a Democrat said something like that, the Right would (justifiably) crap in their pants. The so-called apology tour was much tamer.
So Trump says we need to have a good relationship with Russia, so now he is a Putin stooge? Man I don't get y'alls position on this. It would be good for us to get along with every nation as best we can. You cannot negotiate anything if you go into the meetings saying you hate the guys you are negotiating with and only intend to do them harm.
L Two things. First, you're not this dumb. Saying that we should have good relations with Russia isn't what's wrong with the statement. Second, Obama could have said the same crap about Iran and any other group of Muslim countries. And you'd think it was terrible. Or even Russia. He made all kinds of stupid comments about Russia before it became cool in liberal circles to dislike them. Were you supportive of them? My guess is that you weren't.
On the heels of the Mueller indictments of Russians, Syria foes, spy poisoning in UK, a commercial jet shot down in Ukraine and Crimea annexation one might think Russia was a bad actor and should be treated as such. Not this POTUS. The investigation is to blame. Trump and Putin's objectives are showing to be more closely aligned with each tweet.
It is okay to try and make relationships stronger, but the goals and intentions of each party have to be similar. It is difficult to imagine that the KGB rooskie has honorable intentions. The same could be said for the U.S. media and Democrats. Trump should point out the idiocy of the rooskies just like he does with low I Q Maxine Waters, Cryin Chuck Schumer and Sleepy Eyed Chuck Todd. Even the Obama Admin called out the idiocy of the Press, which is the only thing they got right.
Was he referring to this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict "When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia's most neuralgic and politically divided neighbour. Putin bit back, taking a leaf out of the US street-protest playbook – even though, as in Kiev, the protests that spread from Crimea to eastern Ukraine evidently have mass support. But what had been a glorious cry for freedom in Kiev became infiltration and insatiable aggression in Sevastopol and Luhansk."
?? No question Putin is as evil as, well Stalin.Did any POTUS meet with Stalin? Because of the evil things Putin did during previous years we should NOT try to meet with Putin? That would be stupid on our part.
That's an opinion piece that paints Russia's response as defensive. Furthermore, the columnist tries to downplay what we now know as fact, that Russian servicemembers were not only providing assistance but actually fighting with the Rebels, the most garish example is when they shot down the airliner. Without a doubt we meddled in Ukrainian politics to push out a Russian puppet in favor of our own. If that's the "foolishness" DJT is referring to then he's also lost all sense of proportionality.
How is this going over yours and Phil's heads? I don't have a problem with him meeting with Putin or wanting better relations. Did you read the statement?
How is this going over yours and Phil's heads? I don't have a problem with him meeting with Putin or wanting better relations. Did you read the statement?
How is this going over yours and Phil's heads? I don't have a problem with him meeting with Putin or wanting better relations. Did you read the statement?
Yes I read the statement. I don't see how you don't understand negotiating and diplomacy. He has to publicly show support for Russia. He can't get anything done by blasting the guy standing next to him. At least he didn't say, off the record, I will have more latitude after the next election.
I agree it was defensive. NATO and the EU are moving east on Russia, not the other way around. We have argued this before @Mr. Deez, but I think Bill Clinton bombing Serbia + westward expansion of NATO + EU supported undemocratic coup in the Ukraine to get a pro EU government has caused the problems. I also do not see Russia as a serious threat. I agree with Trump admitting it and trying to move forward to better relations. Obviously his statement that relations were the “worst ever” is foolish. Russia did not do anything significant in the election. If they posted fake stuff on facebook, so do a ton of americans on both sides. If they released DNC emails, welcome to the modern age. Anyone can hack and release emails. Plus those emails were incredibly inappropriate on their face. Even if true, none of that cost Hillary the election or was a big deal. The democrats are making it a big deal because 1) they are mad Trump won and 2) to try and score political points. In the process of playing their political games, they are trying to over-vilify Russia and over-state the russian “threat”. Such actions are worsening relations and recreating a cold war situation. Recreating the cold war and the potential for a nuclear war over tiddlywinks because you are mad you lost the election is downright irresponsible and borderline treasonous. I applaud Trump acknowledging US responsibility for the problems with Russia (although I wish he would acknowledge the EU shares the blame), for trying to mend fences and for calling out the witch hunt for what it is. I am with Trump on this one. #ActualPeaceInOurTime #NixonInChina2.0 Also, Obama going to anti-US Cuba (who messed with our embassy since) and opening up trade despite the embargo was far far far far far more treasonous than anything Trump has done, but Castro didnt allegedly “interfere with Hillary” so no one had a problem with Trump doing that.
I get it MrD. And sometimes I am slow but I got it the first time. (snicker) I was addressing it in reference to all the lefties in media saying Trump should not meet with Putin
The summit storyline, or at least much of it, should be that both Putin and Trump represent a movement away from globalism. As nationalist advocates, Trump’s characterization of Russia as a competitor is accurate. As resources, particularly energy, become more scarce and expensive to extract Russia and the US (and China) will continue to butt heads. But both political parties in the US are under control of a globalist ideology as is the deep state and also the EU. With this in mind, Russia is their enemy and Trump is a threat to the current order. This is the big story. Everything else stems from this.
Today, Paul Ryan said “that there is no question Russia interfered and continues to undermine democracy around the world.” Musberger sounds more and more right with these quotes. Russia is trying to undermine democracy around the world? Really? In Syria they are supporting their ally against terrorist groups. The pro democracy groups have been a small minority with no chance of obtaining enough popular support to run the country the entire civil war so far. I would like the pro democracy groups to win as well, but it is wishful thinking. In the Ukraine Russia responded to an undemocratic pro-EU coup on their border. Where “around the world” is Russia trying to undermine democracy? I have had it with irresponsible US politicians trying to recreate the cold war. Communism in Russia is dead. The Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago. Putin is 65. His KGB associates wont be around much longer. Russia is a shell of its former self. There is no reason to recreate the Cold War or the specter of nuclear war. Enough is enough.
