but you sir, are right....

...unless you mean right wing...

Anyone who has every criticized an election is guilty of illegal interference. Are you willing to hold yourself to that standard? Shoukd you be imprisoned for criticizing the conduct of elections?

Clinton criticizing Russian 'appearance of a democratic election' in Russia (could be called theatre production) is in no way equivalent to Russia hacking DNC, spreading misinformation in the news and twitter bots, smear campaign, etc. Did you forget that Russia tried (but failed) to hack into US voting machines?

Your statement is repugnant.

Especially the Intercept.

anyone who equates speech critizing corrupt elections with hacking, collusion, and espionage clearly has absolute contempt for the rights of citizens. There is nothing more right wing than defending fascism.

It's an effort to justify fascism and to declare speech itself illegitimate.

The post got removed, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8854946

But it sure garnered a lot of shameful posts defending it in the short time it polluted this thread.

"You think we're so innocent?"

An effort to defend fascism at all costs, both in Russia and in the US.

What the fuck? How is calling out a dictator in the same category, let alone just less "worse," than hacking our election to install a fascist? Are you for real?

at the time, accusing her of ordering the opposition movement into action like some kind of revolutionary sleeper cell. "They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work."

Analogous???

there's the problem. Clinton had Putin's number, and Trump as president is his revenge.

Trump is Putin's useful idiot.

Her mistake to 'challenge' the 'strongman' in this way, I guess, and we 'live' with the detritus.

....to, as you put it, "challenge" bad actors world wide.

Seriously? The "detritus" here seems to be a successful Russian campaign to sow chaos in our country, a thing he's doing in Germany and France as well. I guess Sec. Clinton "asked" for that too, and that's also "detritus"that we "live" with, as long as we swallow whole whatever propaganda puts out right?

what was it that you meant to say, because the words used and the order in which you chose to use them say otherwise.

If that wasn't your intent, might I suggest that you employ the edit function, lest anyone else read the words and the order and think you meant something you now say you did not?

No, Putin hacking our election is the result--or "detritus" to use your favorite word--of Putin being a corrupt psychopath who wants to finish his Exxon oil deal. It is NOT because Hillary did her job as SoS and called him out on his corruption. Jeeeezus, some people would blame everything on Hillary.

The joy some people here take in blaming her for doing her job is reprehensible. I truly wonder some days if I have wandered into freeperville by mistake.

to hammer the U.S.

And if you don't know that, then I'm really happy that you don't serve as our SecState.

..."analogous"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8855017

the original post, to which I responded, asserted an analogy, which I challenged.

accounts on here I believe you may be correct.

Putin took the 'bait,' wanted an excuse.

You actually claimed Hillary made a "mistake" by calling out a strongman.

And Putin didn't take anyone's bait. It was Putin who baited Trump and reeled him in.

Why mouth Putin's bullshit? Putin did this for his Exxon oil deal, not because of the Clintons.

I simply questioned whether there was a proper analogy, and there is nothing whatsoever shameful in doing such. Others did the same.

"She set the tone for certain actors inside the country; she gave the signal," Putin said of Clinton

at the time, accusing her of ordering the opposition movement into action like some kind of revolutionary sleeper cell. "They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work."

Analogous??? '

Others recognized the false equivalence, post #4: "Bullshit. False equivalence.

Clinton criticizing Russian 'appearance of a democratic election' in Russia (could be called theatre production) is in no way equivalent to Russia hacking DNC, spreading misinformation in the news and twitter bots, smear campaign, etc. Did you forget that Russia tried (but failed) to hack into US voting machines?

Your statement is repugnant."

that is a ridiculous assertion. Putin the KGB egoist and strongman is responsible for what he did and does, and diplomats must take great care in their behavior vis a vis him.

Blaming Clinton for Putin's hacking is indeed a ridiculous assertion, but you made it. YOU described Hillary calling out Putin as a "mistake." YOU described his subsequent hacking as the "detritus" of that "mistake." You chose these words. Words have meaning. And you continue to refuse to take them back.

I thought that the "detritus" I stumbled on here was very contemptible. Make no mistake, no one needed to LOOK for the gratuitous insult flung at Hillary Clinton I did see. It came looking for me because I was so foolish as to read that person's post.

Are you really saying that a Secretary of State shouldn't "challenge" a bad actor? Or, are you saying that Putin isn't a bad actor, and like Dump says, we should play nice and let him hack our elections?

I never thought I'd see someone saying a Secretary of State should back down to a dictator and murderer on DU.

to actually call out Russians to oppose the tyrant Putin, and foment internal unrest, not a good idea, imo, IF she did this.

That says it all.

What she AND Obama did was much more nuanced that "calling out Russians to oppose Putin." She AND Obama tried to establish friendly relations with Putin's protege, Dmitri Medvedev, who apparently was much more liberal and pro-West than Putin. It actually made sense, and there is nothing unusual about it. Nobody called out Russians, if you mean the Russian people, to oppose Putin. If you've read something different, I think we'd all appreciate a link or two. (Not from RW sources, please)

What I did originally was to question the analogy, as did others. Post #4: "Bullshit. False equivalence.

Clinton criticizing Russian 'appearance of a democratic election' in Russia (could be called theatre production) is in no way equivalent to Russia hacking DNC, spreading misinformation in the news and twitter bots, smear campaign, etc. Did you forget that Russia tried (but failed) to hack into US voting machines?

Your statement is repugnant."

Language is important, and this thread has grown out of proportion to it's original intent, imo, because people feel like fighting, it appears. It's too damn bad, people waste much too much time on such foolishness.

at the time, accusing her of ordering the opposition movement into action like some kind of revolutionary sleeper cell. "They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work."

Analogous???

Why? If you don't agree with this analogy, why did you repeat it, without making any attempt to discuss why it is a false analogy. This is like when Fox throws out one of their "Can it be true?" headlines.

And worse, you added to the analogy. Again, you make no attempt to explain why YOU chose the words "mistake" and "detritus."

There is no excuse for your ignorance on the subject or for siding with Putin-Trump against the Democratic Party.

is NOT what happened here. She was a strong, literally existential threat to Putin.

Her election also would have meant ratcheting UP the sanctions that are both crippling his ambitions to restore the Soviet hegemony by taking control of ultimately literally dozens of nations on its borders.

Her election would also have severely threatened his continuation in office. There are limits to the losses the kleptocrats supporting him in his current position would accept before replacing him.

A President Clinton would have been more than a little hard nosed about his continued outright and creeping invasions. She absolutely would have continued Obama's frustrations of his plans.

at no time have I suggested that HRC is a weak woman.

benefit from reading some honest writings on recent history and world affairs. The notion that our protecting the literally dozens of surrounding nations from Russian military takeovers is somehow equivalent to Putin's flooding America with Hillary hate lies and other maneuvers in an attempt to take down our strong candidate and put a mentally defective one in the White House is incredibly insulting to our nation.

Also, I'm fully prepared to believe that Putin is a raging misogynist, but ascribing his actions largely to an apparently communicable "Hillary hate" and that we're all now paying for her foolishness in drawing his powerful blow is strikingly...peculiar.

and I ascribe his actions to no one but himself. He appears to have adopted a strong dislike for Secretary Clinton, and it's on him. We, however, are now suffering because of it and failures of our government, various aspects of it, to have recognized and/or addressed Russian actions.

This failure, sorrowfully, appears to have begun during President Obama's administration during which, as I recall, russian acts were not satisfactorily communicated to the DNC and/or Clinton campaign.

created by Clinton's womanhood arousing the passions of a strong-man woman hater. "He appears to have adopted a strong dislike for Secretary Clinton, and it's on him. We, however, are now suffering because of it..."

Why not try to reestablish some balance by setting her out of your mind and focusing on understanding the big picture? I remember when you and I shared a strong interest in Martin O'Malley. I looked for and respected your posts in those days. After he lost to Clinton, your posts changed so much that if it weren't for the name, I would never suspect you could be the same person.

Btw, life's too short for this stuff. I've given up waiting for you to recover from a negativism so tediously focused on Hillary and regain a positive, problem-solving outlook. Way late, but you're going on full hide.

Not I. STOP. I am not thinking about HRC, I am thinking of where we go henceforth with the clown we have in the White House.

Life IS too short, and I pay little attention to HRC these days, or in the past, but much more to the future, hopefully wherein the Democratic Party will find ways to be productive.

The big picture was HERE, but too many ignored it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813600

You are essentially telling us to not believe our lying eyes.

Stop.

Last edited Mon Mar 27, 2017, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

You proved me wrong.

She acted to strongly? As a woman did she over step her bounds?

...the US State Department interfered with Russia's election back then.

Sorry I have to ask this question, but who do we believe and/or trust, Hillary Clinton or Vladimir Putin?

Crickets.

as I suggested hours ago, but people would rather create 'wars' than understanding.

No, it's not analogous at all. It's literal Russian propaganda from an ex KGB chief with a penchant for misogyny. Same guy who insists that all those people he's killed and had killed deserved what they got and asked for it, by daring to question Putin. That's how strongmen work, and you can't really put scare quotes around that when you're referring to Putin.

When we have people taking his word as gospel and blaming a Democratic candidate for the illegal actions of Russia, Putin and his wide network of bots who have been very active in this election really did his work well, despite how sloppy it was, it didn't just fool Trump who parroted these very lines. This whole thread is disturbing.

I questioned the analogy, and appreciate you recognize it is not analogous.

You asserted an analogy, and then shrugged, or something. Are you now admitting that you recognize the mistake?

Still shrugging?

You seem a bit confused here.

and asked if there was, in fact, an analogy. I doubted that there was, as did others. I did not assert an analogy.

I am not confused, but many appear to be.

which wasn't the entire post. Then you typed a single word, asserting an analogy.

You didn't seem to indicate the doubt, the analogy was your contribution, and you do seem confused, and the post certainly was not clear, that might be why many saw your words and the syntax and concluded something you didn't manage to convey. Perhaps complete sentences and fewer emojis might help to get your message out more clearly?

Many read your words and your sentence, they did not read your mind.

Hillary simply made a statement that Russian people deserve free and fair elections. Hardly "interference".

tRump called for Russian hacking, used Russian hacks, and appears to have actively colluded with the Russians.

NOT the same. False equivalency.

Russian interference are very much current news.

Last edited Sun Mar 26, 2017, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

You have a problem with us calling out dictators?

You said this:

Insult?
I was just paraphrasing your comment to me.

Humm....

Here let me refresh your memory:

Star Member pangaia (11,547 posts)
25. And quite a few other times as well. It is pretty much how the US behaves.

Also, it's DemocratIC, and it's not "hypocritical" it's literally the definition of an act of war.

I think you just gave yourself away, pal.

yes, we have a long history of screwing over other countries, supporting dictators mainly because of corporate interests. Yes it sucks having this done to us. The main and very obvious difference is that we can fight back while our victims were weak. We control the wealth and have the mega military force to give putin a very bad spanking and we should. Did we get what we deserved, probably, but we should do our duty and make them pay dearly, whatever it takes. But, with our own fascist dictators in control we can probably expect decades of being FUBAR.

I can't believe I'm reading this Putin propanda here.

How the fuck is calling out a dictator for his rigged elections a "crime" worthy of what Putin did to us?

How much "larger issue" is there than Russia helping install a fascist as our President?

And you can keep your defeatist "maaaybe" attitude about doing anything about Trump's treason. I will not let you extinguish our righteous outrage. This outrage defeated Trumpcare and it will defeat Trump, sooner rather than later, despite folks like you.

The US has done its fair share of dirty deeds and unlike the fascists I'm not going to bury or change the history that doesn't suit me. I'm just as pissed as anyone that we have a putin installed president but as the saying goes what goes around comes around.

And no, I don't believe you're "just as pissed" as anyone. If you were, you wouldn't be saying we deserved it--which is a truly disgusting Putin defense.

Of our democratic rights is that a Secretary of State had the audacity to comment on corrupt elections.

You have argued that speech itself is illicit. Does it make you feel good to see the rise in hate crimes, to see families broken apart by immigration raids while you sit back and insist it's just deserts? What have they done to deserve the denial of rights, the terror, and oppression you insist is deserved because the Secretary of State dared to speak truthfully about fraudulent elections staged by a right wing dictator?

If what goes around comes around, when will it be your turn? Or are you content knowing that your privilege protects you from the impact of the Kremlin interference on the lives of the most vulnerable?

Your position is not based on history. You cite no historical evidence. The only function of equating speech with hacking, collusion and espionage is to justify the fascist takeover of America.

Last edited Sun Mar 26, 2017, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

And that is precisely what your post is defending. You may have the wealth and privilege to insulate yourself, but the citizens harmed by this fascist regime do not. If you mean to refer to the wealth and power of the nation, it's should be obvious that Trump and the rest in control of the state have no intention of "fighting back" against the Kremlin when it put them in power. What Putin and Trump have succeeded in doing is stripping away citizens of our most basic rights. How do you imagine the subaltern amass the wealth and power to fight back against that, or do we simply not matter? Why are you so determined to defend that erosion of our rights?

The US never interfered with a Russian election. The action you and a few others find so unacceptable is speech--speech critical of electoral corruption. While you deem that speech illegal, I seriously doubt you hold yourself to the same standard. Should you and others be imprisoned for criticizing the conduct of American elections? If it is illegitimate for a Secretary of State to comment on corrupt elections in Russia, why should it be acceptable for you to criticize elections here in the US?

.

Of all places let that sink in. Germany.France now and Canada next up with their leadership races. Those who defend an equivalence to the U.S is truly in denial of history.

the same as interfering in the Russian elections. In the USA, we actually try to have free elections and don't kill our opposition, yet.

Is not interfering. To compare the two is disgusting. You're obviously pleased with the outcome of Trump's victory and therefore feel compelled to defend the Kremlin's usurping of the the rights of US citizens to choose our own elected leaders. I resent your open hostility toward my rights and Efforts to defend fascist authoritarianism.

That others share your contempt for citizens democratic reveals the collaboration that has allowed fascism to take hold in this nation.

By your standard, anything who criticized an election would be guilty of illegally inteference. Equating speech with hacking, collision and bribery is authoritarin, and that you do so in order to defend fascist authoritarianism in both Russia and the US reveals a malevolent contempt for liberal democracy and the rights of the people.

Last edited Sun Mar 26, 2017, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

A lot of people around here are also criminals. Are you willing to give up your own rights to free speech? Or is it only criticizing fascists that is unacceptable?

That is INDEED an act of aggression.


SNIP
Cozy Bear: Last year, the group (also known as CozyDuke or APT 29) hacked the White House, State Department and US Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as companies and government agencies in Western Europe, China, Brazil and many other countries. Preferred method: Broadly targeted spearphishing.

Fancy Bear: This group targets defense ministries and military officials in the U.S., Western Europe, Brazil, China, Iran and many other countries, as well as intrusions into the German Bundestag and France's TV5 Monde TV last year. Preferred method: Registering domains that resemble legitimate domains and establishing phishing sites that spoof them.

https://news.fastcompany.com/who-are-cozy-bear-and-fancy-bear-the-russian-hackers-that-allegedly-breached-the-dnc-4010576

So, it is a false assumption to blame someone because someone after them uses the same malware code when it is widely available to any hacker anywhere. Not to mention, hackers are criminals for hire to the highest bidder, politics and borders be damned.

Key word is "allegedly"

election, yes, that we know.

.. but better than never.

remember putin is an ex-KGB agent well versed in the dissemination of lies & fake news.

And those domestic actors who abetted it ought to be treated as the traitors they are.

Trump the slave to winning actually asked in public for Russian intervention. That is where it starts and should have ended.

Decade or decades?

Months