The danger of Hugo's Russia derangement syndrome

[American Swindle 102]

On 8/9/2018 at 8:52 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s pretty amusing.

I suppose chemical plants should be allowed to dump toxic waste in our drinking water and be unhindered from government regulation  because  “free market!”  Those authoritarian laws that protect people from harm are so oppressive.

This is cockamamie.  The government should protect private property rights, if a private company is dumping toxic waste or contaminating water, then the free market would force them out of business and hold them accountable.  

 Did the state DEQ of Michigan protect those in Flint from dirty water?  Is that organization still alive and well?  Some people got fired, but the state apparatus (which is likely ridden with un-incentived workers) is still intact.   

[jimmyjazz 45546]

35 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

 

Did you two scholars know that that term "ad" in "political ad" is an abbreviation for "advertisement"?  You may also be surprised to learn that there is a whole industry built around what is known as "campaign advertising" and PR organizations work in this field and develop persuasive messages for politicians.  I know it sounds crazy, but the PR industry does more than just try to sell you cars.  

And that is equivalent to working with our enemy . . . how?

You people.  And by "you people", I mean "you people".

[RomaVicta 29775]

37 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

 

Did you two scholars know that that term "ad" in "political ad" is an abbreviation for "advertisement"?  You may also be surprised to learn that there is a whole industry built around what is known as "campaign advertising" and PR organizations work in this field and develop persuasive messages for politicians.  I know it sounds crazy, but the PR industry does more than just try to sell you cars.  

That's an odd bit of condescension. And, I think, this kind of response is what is meant by begging the question. Please, someone crucify if I'm wrong and explain a better usage.

[American Swindle 102]

On 8/9/2018 at 8:38 AM, kevwun said:

If I was emperor, social media would be outlawed.  Charlie Strong was wrong about a lot of things, but he was right that social media is going to be the downfall of western civilization.

Thankfully your not.  Moderation, discipline dude.

[American Swindle 102]

On 8/9/2018 at 9:33 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Jesus Christ. Any one who was gonna vote for Hillary was not going to switch their vote to Trump.  The ignorance in your suggestion is staggering.

I know first hand people that were Bernie Sanders supporters that voted Trump as a protest vote.  What does that say about the effect that the DNC had on the election?  

[ndawg 1242]

14 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I know first hand people that were Bernie Sanders supporters that voted Trump as a protest vote.  What does that say about the effect that the DNC had on the election?  

Not a whole lot, actually.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

30 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

This is cockamamie.  The government should protect private property rights, if a private company is dumping toxic waste or contaminating water, then the free market would force them out of business and hold them accountable.  

 Did the state DEQ of Michigan protect those in Flint from dirty water?  Is that organization still alive and well?  Some people got fired, but the state apparatus (which is likely ridden with un-incentived workers) is still intact.   

First off, you do know he was being sarcastic, right? You have to know that. Unfortunately for you, you went full dolan drunpf and acted as though his response was about actually removing any environmental restrictions that keep companies from doing that shit. You never go full dolan.

The only people who seem to actually give any fucks at all about the water crisis in Flint, Michigan at a governmental level are the Democrats. Aside from a select few, the "R's" only want to cater to the corporations that make massive campaign contributions to get them re-elected. In summation, dont drink the bong water.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Yeah, that would be the whole fucking point of my reply, now wouldn't it?

You wrote that I equated "Russia nudging our country towards authoritarianism with Lexus ads."  I never referenced Lexus ads or any ads related to businesses selling products.  I referenced US based PR machines and their various persuasion methods which includes advertisements & related messages and various other influencing tactics proliferated via numerous types of US controlled media, most of which are based on psychological analysis, testing & profiling, etc.  I stated that these US controlled political PR machines are far more influential on the US public than the Russians and that the reason we are even talking about the relatively impotent Russians is because US political PR machines are pushing this story with intent to influence the public.  I don't know how you took from this that I equated Russian influence with car ads.

 

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

And that is equivalent to working with our enemy . . . how?

You people.  And by "you people", I mean "you people".

""""I didn't say it was."""""

 

20 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

That's an odd bit of condescension. And, I think, this kind of response is what is meant by begging the question. Please, someone crucify if I'm wrong and explain a better usage.

Begging the question is a fallacy in which one builds their conclusion into their premises and then shows that their conclusion follows from their premises which had the conclusion already built in.  Here is a really overt example:

1. A is true
2. B is true
3. Therefore, A and B is true.
4. It follows from fact 3 that A is true.

I don't know if you are suggesting that this is what I did, but that is the fallacy.  

[ndawg 1242]

Read what you wrote, @Aphelion:

Quote

Our society is filled with messages based on psychological analysis & studies, the intent of which is to persuade or motivate the public to some specific action.  We call them "advertisements," and Americans are the world leaders in constructing effective ad campaigns and we have by far the most powerful PR machines on the planet.

Sure, you can narrow the scope after the fact, but that would be a pretty stupid road to travel down, too. First, there is no such thing as "US controlled media." The US government doesn't control the media here (at least not yet). Second, imposing the Fairness Doctrine on our media companies would be a great idea, and in no way conflicts with demanding that our government hold Russia accountable for their actions. Third, you are asserting that the influence of US controlled media is greater than that of Russia, but that is both immeasurable and completely irrelevant. Putin's guy won the election, he's shown no signs of discontinuing his influence in our elections, and Trump's given him every reason to escalate his efforts. And, uh, as we've seen in the news recently, our election process is quite easily tampered with.

But, yeah, continue your preposterous equivalencies, by all means.

[American Swindle 102]

47 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Not a whole lot, actually.

In my opinion, I that there's likely many more Sanders supporters that said "fuck the DNC, i'm voting for Trump."  

[RomaVicta 29775]

46 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

You wrote that I equated "Russia nudging our country towards authoritarianism with Lexus ads."  I never referenced Lexus ads or any ads related to businesses selling products.  I referenced US based PR machines and their various persuasion methods which includes advertisements & related messages and various other influencing tactics proliferated via numerous types of US controlled media, most of which are based on psychological analysis, testing & profiling, etc.  I stated that these US controlled political PR machines are far more influential on the US public than the Russians and that the reason we are even talking about the relatively impotent Russians is because US political PR machines are pushing this story with intent to influence the public.  I don't know how you took from this that I equated Russian influence with car ads.

 

""""I didn't say it was."""""

 

Begging the question is a fallacy in which one builds their conclusion into their premises and then shows that their conclusion follows from their premises which had the conclusion already built in.  Here is a really overt example:

1. A is true
2. B is true
3. Therefore, A and B is true.
4. It follows from fact 3 that A is true.

I don't know if you are suggesting that this is what I did, but that is the fallacy.  

First, thanks for the definition. I have trouble with the concept of that fallacy.

Second, you seem to want to say that:

1. Advertising companies create ads in mass media to persuade buyers.

2. Political campaigns create ads in mass media to persuade voters.

3. Political agents/foreign disruptors use of data gathering and targeting voters with intention to deceive and create chaos by use of mass media to persuade voters.

4. It follows of these are generally the same.

Edited August 10, 2018 by RomaVicta

[jimmyjazz 45546]

In exhibit H19 of "things that continue to surprise me but shouldn't", I should note that this whole new spin of "it's just advertising" has been blitzing the airwaves and social media since . . . oh, a couple of days ago.

Y'all are far more manipulated than those you accuse of being manipulated.

[Pods 7526]

Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan. That goes at least triple for Putin, he's old school KGB.

The Russians are still interfering because it is still, working. The repeated cognitive dissonance displayed by the right wing posters on Surly is perfect evidence. 

Russia is playing brinksmanship with the West and the risks are only worth it, if it is paying off. If it wasn't working, they would have stopped. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

22 minutes ago, Pods said:

Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan. That goes at least triple for Putin, he's old school KGB.

The Russians are still interfering because it is still, working. The repeated cognitive dissonance displayed by the right wing posters on Surly is perfect evidence. 

Russia is playing brinksmanship with the West and the risks are only worth it, if it is paying off. If it wasn't working, they would have stopped. 

Not only is the shit working, they have the republicans they've helped to install running cover for their operations.

[Pods 7526]

16 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Not only is the shit working, they have the republicans they've helped to install running cover for their operations.

Plus a whole host of otherwise patriotic Americans ready to carry Russia's water and attack Russia's enemies. This thread is a prime example. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

Read what you wrote, @Aphelion:

Sure, you can narrow the scope after the fact, but that would be a pretty stupid road to travel down, too. First, there is no such thing as "US controlled media." The US government doesn't control the media here (at least not yet). Second, imposing the Fairness Doctrine on our media companies would be a great idea, and in no way conflicts with demanding that our government hold Russia accountable for their actions. Third, you are asserting that the influence of US controlled media is greater than that of Russia, but that is both immeasurable and completely irrelevant. Putin's guy won the election, he's shown no signs of discontinuing his influence in our elections, and Trump's given him every reason to escalate his efforts. And, uh, as we've seen in the news recently, our election process is quite easily tampered with.

But, yeah, continue your preposterous equivalencies, by all means.

The statement you quoted is true.  "Advertisements" are not confined to simply car ads.  Political messages are often given with the intent to influence the public in the form of advertisements.  This was the point of my initial response to your post.  The fact that you infer "car ads" from "advertisements" in a thread about political influencers is a fault of yours, not mine.  It's interesting that you left off the very next sentence of the quote which said "And beyond advertisements, more subtle influencing messages are also proliferated via various other US controlled media."

By US controlled media, I obviously meant media controlled by US companies and organizations.  I don't believe that you really think I meant or believe that the media is controlled by the US state.

 

45 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

First, thanks for the definition. I have trouble with the concept of that fallacy.

Second, you seem to want to say that

1. Advertising companies create ads in mass media to persuade buyers.

2. Political campaigns create ads in mass media to persuade voters.

3. Political agents/foreign disruptors use of data gathering and targeting voters with intention to deceive and create chaos by use of mass media to persuade voters.

4. It follows of these are generally the same.

 

I would state my position as follows:

Claim:  Russian is using very advanced weaponized psy-ops mass manipulation techniques on the American public, which are having significant effects on the views of the American public.  

My counter point:  The Russians are using well-known garden variety manipulation techniques through the limited media conduits they have into the US (the messages of which are not very good quality).  These methods have had relatively insignificant effect compared to what we do ourselves.  The actual incredibly powerful manipulation organizations, which is our own American PR machines, are strongly pushing this story to generate fear and outrage to prompt certain behavior.  Russian influence on US public manipulation is analogous to the West Nile virus on public disease concern.  Our own PR organizations are a far bigger concern and if the country gets torn apart it (which I don't believe it will) it will be from within.  

 

 

43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

In exhibit H19 of "things that continue to surprise me but shouldn't", I should note that this whole new spin of "it's just advertising" has been blitzing the airwaves and social media since . . . oh, a couple of days ago.

Y'all are far more manipulated than those you accuse of being manipulated.

What I am referring to is widely known and discussed phenomenon of the PR industry getting heavily involved in politics starting at least as early as the beginning of the 20th century.  The same industry that sales you coke and chevys is the same that sales the public political candidates and political ideas.   This has been discussed by the liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky for decades.   It was not invented by conservatives in the last two weeks.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Guest

[jimmyjazz 45546]

15 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The statement you quoteWhat I am referring to is widely known and discussed phenomenon of the PR industry getting heavily involved in politics starting at least as early as the beginning of the 20th century.  The same industry that sales you coke and chevys is the same that sales the public political candidates and political ideas.   This has been discussed by the liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky for decades.   It was not invented by conservatives in the last two weeks.

 

And nowhere did I claim political advertising is new.  What's new is the influence of outside actors via social media -- we know for a fact this is new because social media has only been a major thing for about a decade at best, when we're discussing the average voter.

The problem isn't nearly so much "political advertising" as much as it is "use of personal data fed to our enemies so they could target our voters".

But you knew that.  You're just obfuscating.

[ndawg 1242]

24 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The statement you quoted is true.  "Advertisements" are not confined to simply car ads.  Political messages are often given with the intent to influence the public in the form of advertisements.  This was the point of my initial response to your post.  The fact that you infer "car ads" from "advertisements" in a thread about political influencers is a fault of yours, not mine.  It's interesting that you left off the very next sentence of the quote which said "And beyond advertisements, more subtle influencing messages are also proliferated via various other US controlled media."

By US controlled media, I obviously meant media controlled by US companies and organizations.  I don't believe that you really think I meant or believe that the media is controlled by the US state.

I didn't infer "car ads," I simply plucked them out as an example of how broad the stroke of that brush you're painting lies with really is. And if you really understood PR and Noam Chomsky, you'll understand how critical your repeated error really was.

24 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Claim:  Russian is using very advanced weaponized psy-ops mass manipulation techniques on the American public that are having significant effect on views American public.  

My counter point:  They Russians are using well-known garden variety manipulation techniques through the limited media conduits they have into the US (the messages of which are not very good quality).  These methods have had relatively insignificant effect compared to what we do ourselves.  The actual incredibly powerful manipulation organizations, which is our own American PR machines, are strongly pushing this story to generate fear and outrage to prompt certain behavior.  Russian influence on US public manipulation is analogous to the West Nile virus on public disease concern.  Our own PR organizations are a far bigger concern and if the country gets torn apart it will be from within.

Your assessment of the present claim is ridiculous. There's nothing notably "advanced" about what Putin is doing. In fact, it's all pretty basic. The magic that makes it all work is a combination of politicians maintaining plausible deniability, Fox News blasting propaganda out to their devoted audience, the Trump administration repeatedly and pathologically lying, and fundamentally broken education system.

Indeed, I can also argue that Fox News, an American media company, is a necessary part of what's making Putin's utterly obvious campaign succeed out in the open. You're attempting to drive a wedge in the discussion by implying that our focus on Russia's attacks comes at the expense of cleaning up our own house. You're flat out wrong there, too, champ.

Edited August 10, 2018 by ndawg

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I didn't infer "car ads," I simply plucked them out as an example of how broad the stroke of that brush you're painting lies with really is. And if you really understood PR and Noam Chomsky, you'll understand how critical your repeated error really was.

Your assessment of the present claim is ridiculous. There's nothing notably "advanced" about what Putin is doing. In fact, it's all pretty basic. The magic that makes it all work is a combination of politicians maintaining plausible deniability, Fox News blasting propaganda out to their devoted audience, the Trump administration repeatedly and pathologically lying, and fundamentally broken education system.

Indeed, I can also argue that Fox News, an American media company, is a necessary part of what's making Putin's utterly obvious campaign succeed out in the open. You're attempting to drive a wedge in the discussion by implying that our focus on Russia's attacks comes at the expense of cleaning up our own house. You're flat out wrong there, too, champ.

The original claim I responded to:

"It's about generating scientifically tested psychotypes, appealing to unconscious emotional processes, and repeatedly incorporating false information and propaganda tailored to individuals on a mass scale to grossly alter the perceptions and responses of millions of citizens for a predictable outcome.  It's similar to people not giving informed consent to be manipulated as a test subject in weapons grade psy-ops program."

Probably wouldn't hurt to read the thread.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

On 8/9/2018 at 1:53 PM, HaroldBS said:

I seriously doubt people from foreign countries posting half literate memes is the "biggest existential threat this country has ever seen".  

The DNC rigging their primary and Hillary Clinton ignoring the rust belt had way more to do with Trump getting elected than anything else.  Most Republicans held their noses to vote for him simply because they didn't want Clinton to have 2+ SCOTUS picks.

 

1234

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

58 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

In exhibit H19 of "things that continue to surprise me but shouldn't", I should note that this whole new spin of "it's just advertising" has been blitzing the airwaves and social media since . . . oh, a couple of days ago.

Y'all are far more manipulated than those you accuse of being manipulated.

The Russians interference in 2016 wasn’t just advertising in media.  The results of their influence operation dominated the American information space for the months leading up to the election.

All that MSM time talking about the leaked emails- Putin thanks you

All the times Trump was in front of a camera screaming “WikiLeaks, “the election was rigged” “fake news!”  Or him protecting Russia...Putin thanks you

All the conspiracy theories and fake news Russia injected into our actual media reporting...Putin thanks you

All this in conjunction with the bots, trolls, ads, spies on the ground like Butina, and hacking into the state voting rolls.

It was a digital invasion.

[ndawg 1242]

So? Your position hinges on the notion that Putin's methods are less advanced than has been characterized (I'll get to that in a second), and therefore we should be more worried about American news organizations, who employ a far much more effective PR campaign on the American people than the Kremlin. Number one, it's preposterous to suggest that we should calibrate our estimation of the severity of a threat by how "advanced" it appears. Second, the "advanced" part about what Russia is doing is using analytics to target and tailor propaganda. This is actually quite significant, and I regret that my response didn't highlight this. And yes, of course American media could target Americans too, but they'd either have to start legally collected massive amounts of data they don't presently possess, or they'd have to illegally use data that someone else collected. And until ABC starts actually promoting political messages to specific people in key electoral districts, it really isn't going to matter to this discussion.

Probably wouldn't hurt to think through what you're saying.

[bernorange 8348]

IMO, you (Hugo) worry far too much about what Putin wants.  The email story dominated the news cycle because the American public was interested in the story.  If they had not been, it would have evaporated into the either like so many nothingburgers.  You are focusing on the (assumed) messenger and not the message.  It's understandable because it goes against the grain of your political desires and boogymen are useful for provoking fear based reactions (see GOP and Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi!  #bothsides).  My point with the OP is that we don't need any more boogymen and fear based political outcomes.  We had enough with 9/11 and DHS/Patriot Act.  We don't need to tear up the bill of rights to protect us from boogymen.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ndawg said:

So? Your position hinges on the notion that Putin's methods are less advanced than has been characterized (I'll get to that in a second), and therefore we should be more worried about American news organizations, who employ a far much more effective PR campaign on the American people than the Kremlin. Number one, it's preposterous to suggest that we should calibrate our estimation of the severity of a threat by how "advanced" it appears. Second, the "advanced" part about what Russia is doing is using analytics to target and tailor propaganda. This is actually quite significant, and I regret that my response didn't highlight this. And yes, of course American media could target Americans too, but they'd either have to start legally collected massive amounts of data they don't presently possess, or they'd have to illegally use data that someone else collected. And until ABC starts actually promoting political messages to specific people in key electoral districts, it really isn't going to matter to this discussion.

Probably wouldn't hurt to think through what you're saying.

Putin is a true mastermind.  He’s so advanced that he’s not advanced.   Apparently he’s even above the law of non-contradiction.  

[ndawg 1242]

14 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Putin is a true mastermind.  He’s so advanced that he’s not advanced.   Apparently he’s even above the law of non-contradiction.  

No, I was wrong for declaring your assessment of the claim absurd on the basis of it not being actually "advanced." But whether it's advanced or not advanced has no bearing on the relative importance of Russia's propaganda efforts, and the influence of US based media companies. So, there's no contradiction, just a mistake on my part. You're still advancing a line of thinking that is complete horseshit.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

23 minutes ago, bernorange said:

IMO, you (Hugo) worry far too much about what Putin wants.  The email story dominated the news cycle because the American public was interested in the story.  If they had not been, it would have evaporated into the either like so many nothingburgers.  You are focusing on the (assumed) messenger and not the message.  It's understandable because it goes against the grain of your political desires and boogymen are useful for provoking fear based reactions (see GOP and Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi!  #bothsides).  My point with the OP is that we don't need any more boogymen and fear based political outcomes.  We had enough with 9/11 and DHS/Patriot Act.  We don't need to tear up the bill of rights to protect us from boogymen.

You dont have to like that the intelligence community concluded that it was Russia who interfered in the 2016 election. You dont have to like that my brothers and sisters in uniform stand ready to defend your rights. You dont have to like any goddamned thing. All of whatever you like is your prerogative.

However, the objective truth is the objective truth and you can't change the facts. The IC did conclude that it was Russia, and we are still going to stand ready to defend the Constitution. You dont get to pick your own facts because you dont like the ones that are real.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Well, the intelligence community has been found to be shot full of libtards, so no, I won't trust them, thank you very much.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the intelligence community has been found to be shot full of libtards, so no, I won't trust them, thank you very much.

So go wear your "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" shirt and maga hat while the rest of us work to defend the Republic. Clearly you are uninterested in working toward that goal.

[formermav43 4599]

14 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

So go wear your "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" shirt and maga hat while the rest of us work to defend the Republic. Clearly you are uninterested in working toward that goal.

Whoosh

[Js1 85095]

16 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

So go wear your "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" shirt and maga hat while the rest of us work to defend the Republic. Clearly you are uninterested in working toward that goal.

Anyone wanting that shirt would have to borrow that shit from bernorange who is making full transition from wannabe Rand Paul libertarian to the new phase of his life.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

18 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

So go wear your "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" shirt and maga hat while the rest of us work to defend the Republic. Clearly you are uninterested in working toward that goal.

LOL.  Go read some more of my posts.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

39 minutes ago, bernorange said:

IMO, you (Hugo) worry far too much about what Putin wants.  The email story dominated the news cycle because the American public was interested in the story.  If they had not been, it would have evaporated into the either like so many nothingburgers.  You are focusing on the (assumed) messenger and not the message.  It's understandable because it goes against the grain of your political desires and boogymen are useful for provoking fear based reactions (see GOP and Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi!  #bothsides).  My point with the OP is that we don't need any more boogymen and fear based political outcomes.  We had enough with 9/11 and DHS/Patriot Act.  We don't need to tear up the bill of rights to protect us from boogymen.

My political desires have nothing to do with it.  If fact, I think it’s a blessing in disguise that Trump won.  We get to find out what we’re really made of now.  We get to see how committed to the ideas of truth, justice, and liberty we really are.

If Hillary had won, much of this would have been swept under the rug and this battle would have been worse later down the road.

You think I have some political agenda, I don’t.  If shining a big light on the truth many choose to deny is a political agenda, then I’m guilty I guess.

Yeah it sucks, it’s unpleasant, and it will get worse before it gets better.  But I’m hopeful we can eventually recover and democracy will prevail in the end.

But before we get there, we’re going to have to be honest with each other and come to some agreement on what the facts are.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

15 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Whoosh

If that went over my head and he was being sarcastic, I withdraw my comment at him. However it still stands at anyone else who does legitimately believe the intelligence community would allow any political ideology to persuade their reporting of findings in such a massive overarching report of this magnitude.

[Anastasis 23393]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOL.  Go read some more of my posts.

How dare you question the level headed assessment capabilities of the IC libtard. 

[bernorange 8348]

So much to unpack here.

19 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

You dont have to like that the intelligence community concluded that it was Russia who interfered in the 2016 election.

I never expressed any value judgement.  I've been quite candid that I haven't read through the 47 or so page document that Hugo linked earlier.  I'm real impressed that everyone who negged me for stating so has read every page and done a critical analysis of it.  I'm obviously behind the curve on that.  I asked if it referenced any hard evidence and did not get any affirmative answer, so I have couched my references to same with possibility instead of certainty.  You don't have to like that I'm trying to be clear and honest to the best of my knowledge.

19 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

... You dont have to like that my brothers and sisters in uniform stand ready to defend your rights. ..

Wat?  Where did I ever express any disagreement with the military?  What is the purpose of throwing this (off-target) shade?

19 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

...However, the objective truth is the objective truth and you can't change the facts. ...

Please do show me where I changed any fact. 

19 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

.. The IC did conclude that it was Russia, ...

I never said that it didn't, did I?  I did ask whether their indictment referenced any hard evidence or not.  Do you know if it does?  You are aware that there have been warnings that the IC is not necessarily apolitical/neutral/objective in this matter, right?  You are aware that the voices behind these warnings include former Senators from the left that held positions on the Intelligence committees, right?  A modicum of skepticism until real evidence is evident is not crazy given the circumstances. 

But, even conceding that Russia was the actor that hacked HRC's email server and delivered the contents to wikileaks.... Holy shit, doesn't that validate every criticism levied at HRC for putting national security at risk?  IfeellikeI'mtakingcrazypills.gif

The messenger/actor behind the leak is not nearly as concerning to me as:

1. The content of the leaked emails

2. The circumstances whereby the emails were housed in an unsecured server in violation of every security protocol to classified data.

3. The bad faith by HRC in handling the issue.

19 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

.. and we are still going to stand ready to defend the Constitution. ...

Glad to fucking hear it.  What does "defend the Constitution" mean to you?  Because, the whole point of this thread is an exercise in waking people the hell up that Hugo's Russia derangement syndrome is leading to domestic actors looking to subvert the bill of rights.

[bernorange 8348]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

... We get to see how committed to the ideas of truth, justice, and liberty we really are. ...

We've been seeing it since 9/11.  Folks in favor of legislation in line with the Dem Senator's proposals referenced in the OP are not very committed to liberty.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

16 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Glad to fucking hear it.  What does "defend the Constitution" mean to you?  Because, the whole point of this thread is an exercise in waking people the hell up that Hugo's Russia derangement syndrome is leading to domestic actors looking to subvert the bill of rights.

Let the record show that you've been equally concerned with the hundreds of times Trump and his cronies have wiped their ass with the Constitution, including recent inferences that most media outlets should be shut down.

Oh wait, you didn't do that, because you're a partisan hack.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

LOL.  Neg rep from the guy who got called on his own hypocrisy.  Wah.

[bernorange 8348]

I don't cry on the forums every time Trump says something stupid.  I didn't take him seriously during the primaries and I still don't today.  The man is a charlatan and is fond of making empty threats.

Partisan hack?  Bullshit.  And you complained just a few posts ago that someone wasn't familiar with your posting history.  tsk tsk.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

IMO, you (Hugo) worry far too much about what Putin wants.  The email story dominated the news cycle because the American public was interested in the story. 

    Perhaps we hold wildly different value systems. Putin is a murderer. He murders his countrymen who criticize him. Repeatedly. Our president seems to, on nearly every occasion unless pressured differently, submit to his will. On the Scale of Wrong, Hillary's e-mails wouldn't register a ping on the radar. 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

17 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I don't cry on the forums every time Trump says something stupid.  I didn't take him seriously during the primaries and I still don't today.  The man is a charlatan and is fond of making empty threats.

Partisan hack?  Bullshit.  And you complained just a few posts ago that someone wasn't familiar with your posting history.  tsk tsk.

You have an odd definition of "complain".  You also don't self-reflect, ever.

[formermav43 4599]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let the record show that you've been equally concerned with the hundreds of times Trump and his cronies have wiped their ass with the Constitution, including recent inferences that most media outlets should be shut down.

Oh wait, you didn't do that, because you're a partisan hack.

A “partisan hack” who literally just a few posts above complained about our response to 9/11, the DHS, and the Patriot Act. Huh.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

15 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

A “partisan hack” who literally just a few posts above complained about our response to 9/11, the DHS, and the Patriot Act. Huh.

Then perhaps he should have phrased the OP differently given that he focused on what amounts to a rogue subset of the left who is floating an idea almost everyone disagrees with, all the while completely ignoring what the fucking POTUS is suggesting.

Really?

This is your line in the sand?

Give me a fucking break.

[Anastasis 23393]

There is lots of dumb shit posted on this forum, and I have made more than my contribution to that endeavor. But I don't think that calling out bern as a partisan hack rings anywhere near true Jimmy. 

[Anastasis 23393]

19 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

A “partisan hack” who literally just a few posts above complained about our response to 9/11, the DHS, and the Patriot Act. Huh.

But Russia?

[Js1 85095]

The faux libertarians are standing up for each other. So cute.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There is lots of dumb shit posted on this forum, and I have made more than my contribution to that endeavor. But I don't think that calling out bern as a partisan hack rings anywhere near true Jimmy. 

Fine, replace "partisan" with "disingenuous".  It's a silly one-sided complaint about literally one Senator who wrote a position paper he himself acknowledged was flawed.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

I'm going to admit I'm just skipping around this threadbortion but can someone clarify just so I can get some landmarks_

 

There are actually posters here who think Hugo's "Russia Derangement Syndrome" is a bigger threat to our country than the best info we have which is 43% of Republicans think Trump should be able to shut down media that reports negative info on him? Is this what is being flown up the flag pole?

[bernorange 8348]

15 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

    Perhaps we hold wildly different value systems. Putin is a murderer. He murders his countrymen who criticize him. Repeatedly. Our president seems to, on nearly every occasion unless pressured differently, submit to his will. On the Scale of Wrong, Hillary's e-mails wouldn't register a ping on the radar. 

I agree with your assessment of Putin.  He's a bad actor.  He's a dangerous dude.  He's not the only one either.  He's not the only one with an arsenal of nukes either.  The world is a dangerous place.

There is a perception that Trump is under Putin's thumb.  It certainly seems that way in the realm of political theater which is what most folks pay attention to.  In terms of actual policy, I'm not sure that sentiment is supportable.

I didn't start this thread to discuss the relative merits of HRC's emails vs. Putin.  I started it to bring attention to the fact that the current hysteria poses real risks to liberty.  All the work people did to oppose SOPA, PIPA, etc., to support net neutrality - to secure the internet as a medium for free speech.  Well, you can throw it all out the window if people don't wake up.

[Anastasis 23393]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fine, replace "partisan" with "disingenuous".  It's a silly one-sided complaint about literally one Senator who wrote a position paper he himself acknowledged was flawed.

Meh.  Bern has been nothing but consistent when it comes to civil liberties, government actions in that space, and the slow creep to erosion of those liberties. You can dismiss the current as one senator or whatever, but I think that somebody will bump this thread and that quote ca. 2022 or so.