Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country

User Forum Topic
Submitted by zk on May 12, 2017 - 6:41am

For a long time I've been saying that the right-wing media is destroying our country. This is what I'm talking about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...

Republican voters, being human and therefore credulous and gullible, believe whatever they hear on Fox Propaganda (and Breitbart and the rest of the right-wing media). They support republicans and con man don no matter what they do, because Fox Propaganda tells them republicans and con man don are doing a great job no matter what they do.

As I've said before, I don't think right-wing voters are more credulous than left-wing voters or anybody else. The difference is that there is a massive industry dedicated to right-wing propaganda.

Sure, the left has some propaganda available. But there are big differences between what's available on the left and what's available on the right. Mainly Fox Propaganda, but there is a lot more. Fox Propaganda is propaganda masquerading as real, hard, actual news. And it's the go-to "news" outlet of tens of millions of Americans. The left has nothing like that. Many conservatives will tell you that all of the mainstream media is left-wing propaganda. This is because they believe whatever they hear on Fox Propaganda, which has been peddling that idea since the day they come on the air. And now, you have Breitbart and a thousand other "news" websites, all of which create an alternate universe where a right winger can find all the sources he needs to validate what he's hearing on Fox Propaganda. Many of them have moved past Fox Propaganda and now have Breitbart and similarly virulent right-wing propaganda sites as their go-to "news" outlet. They never want or see a need to read the New York Times or the Washington Post. Why would they read actual news when they have available to them thousands of places that make them feel great about themselves and their ideas? Somewhere where everyone agrees with them?

So now we have a president with fascist tendencies, and a congress afraid to stand up to him, because it will hurt them with their base, because their base loves con man don, and they can's see con man don for what he is because they're watching Fox Propaganda, which is telling them how great he's doing. He's in the process of eliminating governmental checks on his power. There's a good chance he'll succeed, because nobody wants to stand up to him, because that would be an unpopular move with republican voters, who think he's doing a great job because they watch Fox Propaganda.

What happens when you have a fascist president with greatly reduced checks on his power? Unfortunately, I think we're about to find out. And we have right-wing media to thank.

Submitted by svelte on July 12, 2017 - 7:32pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
ZK, here's the answer:

You are the typical bleeding heart liberal. Too kind, too soft.

You're blaming the right wing media for ruining the country. Why not blame the people who consume the media. Don't they bear responsibility? After all, they themselves would agree that the individuals are to blame for their behavior.

From the Pew studies I've seen, the percentage of the population that is liberal and the percentage of the population that is conservative has remained relatively stable over the past few decades. What has changed is the number of people belonging to the two major parties which has dropped significantly.

I'm still trying to figure out what is going on here, but I think it is major. The conservatives are fed up with the Republican party and jumped at the first alternative that came along - Trump. This was driven, I suspect, by the changing economy. Charts show that jobs requiring a HS education are dwindling because of technology. The folks in rural areas that are HS educated really don't want to hear that - they attribute the job loss to immigrants, to jobs going overseas, etc. And Trump played right into that. The rural HS educated folks aren't about to move to the city to train for a new career. They want their old jobs back. And neither Trump nor anyone else can make that happen.

But the Dems are not much behind the Reps in terms of disarray. Look at the sad set of potential candidates on the Dem side. And the message is so muddy as to be nonexistent. Yes, I dare say you might see a revolt akin to what we are seeing from Republicans on the Dem side too. Who know what nutcase the Dems will run next time...I shudder to think.

It would all be fun to watch if it weren't so damn important.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 12, 2017 - 9:05pm.

Liz is not a nutcase.

White working class folks need government intervention. Admitting that need is the first step.

Aside the nutcase that Trump is, the policies he espouses are the opposite of what rural Whites need. They don't seem to realize it. So they bear the blame for their own misfortune.

I don't care if Democrats don't win national elections anymore. Let's go it alone state by state. California can prove that Democratic values work and immigrants are welcome here, be they from abroad or other US states. The high cost of housing doesn't seem to deter foreign immigrants.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 13, 2017 - 12:18pm.

I had brunch with a friend we talked about the right wing media. Are they to blame?

I think only partly. The right media is making shitloads of money catering to and validating people's xenophobic tendencies and fears. It's a money making business for Fox and friends.

The liberal argument is that people are influenced by and are a product of their environments. In many ways, they are innocent victims.

The conservative argument is that people are responsible for the products and services they consume. They have a choice and when they choose badly, they must bear responsibility.

Rural whites, egged on right wing media, have hitched their future on climate change denial, coal revival, drill baby drill, repeal of Obamacare and a border wall. They're not going to take solar jobs, or drive electric cars. Ok, fine, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and wish them the best. They are free to teach those beliefs to their kids. But they are responsible for their choices.

If one believes that the right wing media is ruining the country, one must look at the people who made them successful. The only way things will change is when the consumers experience a "what the fuck moment" and reject the drug pushers. If they keep on using the drugs, they will eventually die of overdoses. Real and SAD but such is life.

Submitted by zk on July 13, 2017 - 2:33pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

You're blaming the right wing media for ruining the country. Why not blame the people who consume the media. Don't they bear responsibility?

Everyone bears some responsibility for their choices. But I don't think the choices that Rufus makes are informed in the way that you think they are. Which causes you to think that he's making such stupid choices that he should be cast off and left to fend for himself.

You and I seem to disagree whether it's ok or fair or moral to take somebody who makes stupid choices (that don't intentionally hurt someone else) and leave them for dead/sick/poor . Not sure we'll ever agree on that.

So let's focus on why Rufus is making the choices he makes. Do you agree that, if we could get Rufus to make better choices and become a more productive member of society, we'd all be better off? If so, why wouldn't we try to do that?

Most of us depend on the media in some way. Virtually anybody who wants to stay informed and make informed decisions relies on the media. Finding out for yourself what's happening in the world is next to impossible. What if it turned out that the NYT and WAPO have been lying to us this whole time? What if they were nothing more than propagandists who want us to vote for unions and big government? Now, Brian, you and I might have a couple of advantages that allow us to see that fox is propaganda and NYT is not. We're intelligent and, probably due largely to the environment in which we were raised, we're educated and we pay attention. We didn't earn our brains or our environment. Those aren't choices we made. We had them when we were born. Another reason that we believe the NYT and not fox is that we aren't surrounded by people who believe fox and think NYT is fake news. Which, at this point in our lives, might be a choice. But how we grew up mostly wasn't.

So, you add up what we were given, and chances were always that we were going to lean towards the NYT and disbelieve fox. Key word being "given." If you were given less brains, a family that didn't emphasize education, a culture that told you guns were great, liberals are pansies, NYT is fake news, and fox is the only station to watch, how do you think you'd have turned out? Heck, even if you were smart, there's less chance of you coming out of that environment educated and somewhat aware of what's really happening.

To expect people like that to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and escape their poverty without any help or education is to be every bit as mean and selfish as republicans. The only difference is which disadvantaged group you want to remain disenfranchised.

And one of the chief disadvantages that faces Rufus's demographic is the fact that they're being disinformed by right-wing media.

We've had this argument before. This exact same one. Which is why I kinda rushed through writing this post. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Submitted by zk on July 15, 2017 - 8:01pm.

A fine article from the new York times on the alternate universe that viewers of right - wing media inhabit.

How can you have an effective democracy if the truth doesn't matter? You can't. Right wing media have made truth not matter.

Honestly, I think I'm ahead of the curve on this one. I don't see a lot of agreement with my sentiment that right-wing media are destroying our country. I see significant agreement that they're full of shit. But not much agreement that they're destroying our country. I think that at some point, possibly before long, there will be more agreement on that.

Unfortunately, I think that agreement will only be among those who haven't fallen for it, and that that won't help much.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/op...

Submitted by harvey on July 16, 2017 - 7:45am.

Nobody is "destroying" our country any more than it needs to be made "great again."

It is a dangerous trend. The right-wing media machine has learned how to weaponize ignorance, and they've engineered it into a very powerful machine. It hurts our economy and it causes unnecessary hardship for many, mostly the poor.

But our country has seen plenty of large-scale stupid in its history, from slavery to the civil war, prohibition, McCarthyism, the Vietnam war...we survived it all.

We'll get through this.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 16, 2017 - 10:48am.

harvey wrote:
Nobody is "destroying" our country any more than it needs to be made "great again."

It is a dangerous trend. The right-wing media machine has learned how to weaponize ignorance, and they've engineered it into a very powerful machine. It hurts our economy and it causes unnecessary hardship for many, mostly the poor.

But our country has seen plenty of large-scale stupid in its history, from slavery to the civil war, prohibition, McCarthyism, the Vietnam war...we survived it all.

We'll get through this.

I have no doubt we'll get through it. But we do have worthy competitors in the world. We just need to learn some humility, not expect to be number 1, at everything and be happy with it.

Trump and his voters want you be number 1. They talk badass but they won't put in the effort to sustain number 1 status.

In school, you have to study hard to be valedictorian. You can't slack off and blame immigrants for your own shortcomings.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 16, 2017 - 11:10am.

zk wrote:

And one of the chief disadvantages that faces Rufus's demographic is the fact that they're being disinformed by right-wing media.

We've had this argument before. This exact same one. Which is why I kinda rushed through writing this post. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Philosophically, I agree with you, Zk. You're a better man than me and your family should be proud to count you as a compassionate dad.

But in paractice, economists tell us that in thr agregate, out choices are rational. We seek our opportunities. Rufus has the choice to move to large metros for better jobs. He has the choice to educate his kids. But he chooses climate change denial, big SUVs and intelligent design.

Rufus is not ignorant for lack to access to education like a person in a small village in the developing world. His kind of ignorance is not changeable. We just need to lead by example, in the progressive metropolitan areas of the country. That is continue to innovate, prosper and be connected to the world. And maybe Rufus' kids will realize how stagnant they are and come join us.

For example, if Rufus is in deep Red Texas, his kids may see a better future in Austin, Dallas or Houston.

Submitted by livinincali on July 17, 2017 - 10:16am.

zk wrote:
A fine article from the new York times on the alternate universe that viewers of right - wing media inhabit.

How can you have an effective democracy if the truth doesn't matter? You can't. Right wing media have made truth not matter.

Honestly, I think I'm ahead of the curve on this one. I don't see a lot of agreement with my sentiment that right-wing media are destroying our country. I see significant agreement that they're full of shit. But not much agreement that they're destroying our country. I think that at some point, possibly before long, there will be more agreement on that.

Unfortunately, I think that agreement will only be among those who haven't fallen for it, and that that won't help much.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/opinion/sunday/no-one-cares-about-russia-in-the-world-breitbart-made.html?referer=https://news.google.com/

If you look at the ratings for the various news programs in prime time the numbers are just too low to have that much influence. Fox news has the best ratings but that translates to an average of about 4 million viewers in prime time. That's like 1% of the population. I don't spend much time watching news anymore. I find out information from various sources on the internet and will occasionally end up at a major news outlet article via a link but I'm not bookmarking Huff Post or New York times or fox news as my go to source for information.

The revenue difficulties a lot of news sources are having would seem to suggest I'm not the only one that's doing this. Therefore how much of the population is really being brainwashed by right wing media. Seems like less than 10% and most of that 10% is really just seeking out confirmation bias. They think liberals are full of it so they seek out people that agree with that belief.

Take something that was big news during the election cycle. The Clinton email scandal and then think about where did you first find out about that scandal. Everybody knew about it but they probably didn't learn about it because they flipped on Fox news or read the original new York Time piece. They picked up up from social media or a conversation with a friend. What did people primarily take away from that story? That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she's better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn't lying. Fox news slanted their coverage one way Huff Post slanted it another way but in the end fox news wasn't really responsible for formulating peoples opinions about that story. People arrived at their conclusion via other means not because their we're brainwashed by the media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...

Submitted by harvey on July 17, 2017 - 10:55am.

livinincali wrote:
Fox news has the best ratings but that translates to an average of about 4 million viewers in prime time. That's like 1% of the population.

Yes but 100% of the voting population gets their news from somewhere, and the prime-time ratings correlate to the overall reach of these news organizations.

"The media" is mostly conglomerates with different brands under the same corporate umbrella. There are only a handful of news organizations in the US that have any influence at all. Since Fox is the biggest at prime time it's very likely they are the biggest influence overall. The reach of News Corp is far, far bigger than 1% of the population. They don't generate $8 billion in revenue from only 4 million viewers.

And do you really think that News Corp doesn't have a social media strategy?

Quote:
That Hilary Clinton was full of shit.

Lol, no bias there.

Quote:
Fox news slanted their coverage one way Huff Post slanted it another way but in the end fox news wasn't really responsible for formulating peoples opinions about that story.

Fox News has an order of magnitude more influence than Huff Post, but people constantly fall for the false equivalence fallacy.

Like I've said many times before: right-wing media is a problem, but the "both sides are the same" propaganda that they so effectively promote is the bigger problem.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 17, 2017 - 2:56pm.

harvey wrote:

Like I've said many times before: right-wing media is a problem, but the "both sides are the same" propaganda that they so effectively promote is the bigger problem.

So true. The symmetry is only in the eyes of the guilty.
"Both sides are the same" reflects lack of context and intellectual honesty. It's the kind of arguments employed by Russia and China in international affairs.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 17, 2017 - 6:33pm.

livinincali wrote:
That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she's better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn't lying.

I don't think she was lying. I think the FBI report exonerates her from accusations of lying.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 17, 2017 - 6:58pm.

SK in CV wrote:
livinincali wrote:
That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she's better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn't lying.

I don't think she was lying. I think the FBI report exonerates her from accusations of lying.


Really? Claimed something like 8 Emails relative to her work at State Department on her server, found several thousand with almost 3000 classified at differing levels and more than 4 at Special Access. That is a pretty big lie in itself.

What you don't get is that it needs to be 'actionable'.. she did not lie under oath, she avoided being placed under oath (remember - she understood that distinction from being an attorney). You can't prosecute someone for lying unless it is under oath. It also looks like you didn't read the FBI report or pay much attention to it.

Important takeaway - politicians are not required to tell the truth, and they usually don't.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 17, 2017 - 7:25pm.

ucodegen wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
livinincali wrote:
That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she's better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn't lying.

I don't think she was lying. I think the FBI report exonerates her from accusations of lying.


Really? Claimed something like 8 Emails relative to her work at State Department on her server, found several thousand with almost 3000 classified at differing levels and more than 4 at Special Access. That is a pretty big lie in itself.

What you don't get is that it needs to be 'actionable'.. she did not lie under oath, she avoided being placed under oath (remember - she understood that distinction from being an attorney). You can't prosecute someone for lying unless it is under oath. It also looks like you didn't read the FBI report or pay much attention to it.

Important takeaway - politicians are not required to tell the truth, and they usually don't.

I'm quite sure she never claimed there were only 8 emails on her server related to her work at state. She did tell congress that she didn't think she had any emails that were marked classified. Comey, in his testimony, supported by the FBI report, confirmed that she had no emails that were properly marked classified when sent to her.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 17, 2017 - 8:39pm.

SK in CV wrote:
ucodegen wrote:
clipped out - look above

I'm quite sure she never claimed there were only 8 emails on her server related to her work at state. She did tell congress that she didn't think she had any emails that were marked classified. Comey, in his testimony, supported by the FBI report, confirmed that she had no emails that were properly marked classified when sent to her.

As for your statements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ
PS: Trey Gowdy is a former prosecutor - grilling James Comey. -Note, she originally told congress a low number of Emails total. I may dig that video up.

As for Hillary's Email - it keeps on 'giving'. I thought she gave all known Emails to FBI... oops!
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/watch...

On the marking issue - that is a very nebulous excuse. I don't know if you have had and operated with a clearance. It is not an excuse. Add to that fact that she was an originator of classified material with SCI/SA access - and you know when it is questionable. I have dealt with classified material, so I am not pulling this out of my *ss. I have had to remove material from someones desk that is in an open area an turn it into security - the markings were not on it, but I knew the origination of the material (and security got to deal with that person).
--It does beg the question as to how the material got on her Email account in the first place because the classified net is supposed to be air-gapped when at the SCI/SA level and at a minimum - MLS with encrypted channels. For computer nerds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel...

Submitted by SK in CV on July 17, 2017 - 9:08pm.

Yeah, Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows how to frame a question. "Clinton said blah blah blah, is that true?", when in fact, Clinton never said blah blah blah. Example: Clinton said she didn't use more than 1 device at a time. She didn't say she only used 1 device. I think she went through about 5 different cell phones. But never two at the same time.

There's another clip out there with Comey acknowledging that the emails were not properly marked classified.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 17, 2017 - 9:22pm.

SK in CV wrote:
Yeah, Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows how to frame a question. "Clinton said blah blah blah, is that true?", when in fact, Clinton never said blah blah blah. Example: Clinton said she didn't use more than 1 device at a time. She didn't say she only used 1 device. I think she went through about 5 different cell phones. But never two at the same time.

There's another clip out there with Comey acknowledging that the emails were not properly marked classified.


1) Most of the 'answers' were 'not true'. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying - and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.
2) Find it or it doesn't exist - Comey saying that they did not mark properly.
3) Classification marks can be as simple as "(C)" or "(S)" at the top of the page - the question would also be as to what standard.
4) Comey did state that they were marked classified - I can get you the time index if you want.. At that point, whether it is 'proper marking' or not is no longer the question. Comey said they were marked as opposed to your statement. With classified info, if there is doubt as to proper marking as classified (ie. says classified but not according to how it was supposed to be marked per DD 254 - you treat it as classified - period.)
5) When you are read into a classified project - you are notified as to the markings and responsibility.

The unspoken problem again, is how did this classified data get on an unclassified system - given MLS. Someone had to construct a bypass.

NOTE: Gowdy also knows when someone is being evasive on the answer and not answering directly - that is why the specific yes/no that he was looking for. He was also trying to frame the question as to be able to compare with legal statute.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 17, 2017 - 10:05pm.

ucodegen wrote:
1) Most of the 'answers' were 'not true'. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying - and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.

No, I'm saying Gowdy is lying.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 17, 2017 - 10:10pm.

SK in CV wrote:
ucodegen wrote:
1) Most of the 'answers' were 'not true'. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying - and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.

No, I'm saying Gowdy is lying.


Umm.. Gowdy was not making statements of fact. He was posing questions... to which Comey answered. One of these questions was whether the items were marked classified - Comey affirming that they were.

How is that Gowdy lying? Again, Comey was making statements of fact however Gowdy was asking questions of the 'yes' or 'no' type to be answered by Comey. ie. is this true or not.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 17, 2017 - 10:10pm.

ucodegen wrote:
2) Find it or it doesn't exist - Comey saying that they did not mark properly.

Not really. It exists whether I can find it or not. That might be the most stupid argument I've ever seen posted here.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-direc...

Submitted by ucodegen on July 17, 2017 - 10:13pm.

SK in CV wrote:
ucodegen wrote:
2) Find it or it doesn't exist - Comey saying that they did not mark properly.

Not really. It exists whether I can find it or not. That might be the most stupid argument I've ever seen posted here.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-director-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-were-not-properly-marked-classified/


And I could call that 'false news'...
Video is a better truth.. no translations, re-wording etc. I noticed that you omitted part of the requirements on handling classified info including the fact that mis-marking as per DD 254 does not make them unclassified.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 17, 2017 - 10:14pm.

ucodegen wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
ucodegen wrote:
1) Most of the 'answers' were 'not true'. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying - and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.

No, I'm saying Gowdy is lying.


Umm.. Gowdy was not making statements of fact. He was posing questions... to which Comey answered. One of these questions was whether the items were marked classified - Comey affirming that they were.

How is that Gowdy lying? Again, Comey was making statements of fact however Gowdy was asking questions of the 'yes' or 'no' type to be answered by Comey. ie. is this true or not.

Ok, then. Then nothing in that piece of the clip is evidence of Clinton lying. Gowdy claimed Clinton said something. Comey said "that would be false". That's not evidence Clinton lied. Because the things that Gowdy claimed Clinton said, were lies. She had never said those things.

They were marked classified. Incorrectly. Which is the same as if they weren't marked classified at all.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 17, 2017 - 10:30pm.

SK in CV wrote:

Ok, then. Then nothing in that piece of the clip is evidence of Clinton lying. Gowdy claimed Clinton said something. Comey said "that would be false". That's not evidence Clinton lied. Because the things that Gowdy claimed Clinton said, were lies. She had never said those things.

Humm so this time index about her claiming Emails being on the State Department server does not exist? and that all here Emails were available?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOFENuFH...

I can find a lot more.. all in her words, recorded.

You also bring into context that 3 (from your link) were not properly marked -- leaving approx 2997 marked.

Another note: Per your link;

FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.

Rep. Matt Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

FBI Director James Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

That one I would like to see(video).. because if you see the (C) at the top of an email - you may consider that it was cut-pasted, and to ask questions. Markings are not limited to the header. There are top of page requirements, for every page. See your second section

• Conspicuously place the overall classification at the top and bottom of the page.
• Mark other internal pages either with the overall classification or with a marking
indicating the highest classification level of information contained on that page.

NOTE: The per page marking is required in the even the body gets separated from the header or 'cover page' on printed versions of the document. It is to also cause the printed to have the markings (not complete markings) should someone print the Email.

Per your quote, it was marked at the top of the page - should have been marked on the header as well. This did not make it unclassisfied.

SK in CV wrote:
They were marked classified. Incorrectly. Which is the same as if they weren't marked classified at all.

You have never handled classified info - that last sentence is incorrect. They were marked, but may have not been marked as per the standard - location on the text, coloring, background. That does NOT make them unclassified.

Submitted by harvey on July 17, 2017 - 11:06pm.

Tell us ucodegen, why are you so tolerant of Trump's lies about his direct collusion with agents of one of our most dangerous adversaries?

He's a goddamn disgrace to our country, but you you still stand by him, unwavering, all the while chanting....

BUTTERY MALES!

Submitted by ucodegen on July 17, 2017 - 11:42pm.

harvey wrote:
Tell us ucodegen, why are you so tolerant of Trump's lies about his direct collusion with agents of one of our most dangerous adversaries?

He's a goddamn disgrace to our country, but you you still stand by him, unwavering, all the while chanting....

BUTTERY MALES!


Wow - name calling through innuendo, assuming facts not in evidence, red herring. - trying to change a subject.

If you have been paying attention (probably not), you would have seen me state multiple times that this was an election between multiple undesirables. Trump was included on that list.

Looks like you are channeling the Sith - absolutist, either;
hating Trump, loving Hillary or
hating Hillary, loving Trump.

Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary's Email server - for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don't think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don't think they were the ones that released them - how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.

Comey made a very interesting remark with respect to Russia's involvement in trying to influence the election. He said they were surprisingly overt. I suspect the real truth is that Russia knows all that was in Hillary's Email server - including the stuff that was professionally erased. They expected her to win and then blackmail her. That is how Russia works - not by making friends. Friends are unpredictable, people under blackmail are easier to control. This is why I think Russia was so overt in trying to 'court' Trump. Remember McCarthyism and peoples response to any taint of Communism and Russia? Put out some innuendo that someone is working with Communism and everyone avoids them.

Normally Russia is not overt in their 'black arts' - they want to get in without anyone seeing, and they don't want those that they have 'under control' able to refuse requests. When getting into computers, they break in carefully making sure that they don't raise flags or break things - either plant a RAT or get what they want and then leave locking the doors on the way out.

China is very overt. They will crash something to get in, they don't care if it gets traced back to them because in their eyes - the US does not have the 'balls' to do anything. The only thing I have seen that is not overt is China compromising ethernet chips that go onto PCs (latent compromise).

Submitted by harvey on July 18, 2017 - 6:27am.

Lol, weren't you the one that was suddenly an expert on airplane seats from the 1970s?

Such attention to detail, and yet no comment about our president's behavior for the past six months.

And still going on about her emails!

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 18, 2017 - 7:11am.

Seems to me like bringing up Hillary is another version of "they are all the same" to justify Trump.

First, they are not the same. And second, Hillary is not president. Hillary s emails are irrelevant at this point.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 18, 2017 - 7:27am.

ucodegen wrote:

You have never handled classified info - that last sentence is incorrect. They were marked, but may have not been marked as per the standard - location on the text, coloring, background. That does NOT make them unclassified.

What makes them unclassified is that the information wasn't classified.

What makes Clinton's assertion accurate is that if they weren't correctly marked classified, then they weren't marked classified.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 18, 2017 - 9:16am.

ucodegen wrote:

Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary's Email server - for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don't think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don't think they were the ones that released them - how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.

Not a single email from Clinton's server was ever released surreptitiously. Not a single one. There was no evidence that it was ever successfully hacked. Interesting that you think there was. Did fake news help form your impressions of the candidate?

Submitted by harvey on July 18, 2017 - 10:17am.

All of this nonsense is founded upon the premise that the Russian government and its intelligence apparatus are completely benign toward American national security.

But it's those "liberals" - the people that sit next to us and cheer along at our kid's soccer games - the neighbor who brings in your trash cans when you are on vacation but then votes for Hillary - they are the real threat!

That is the incredible and sorely disappointing theme of our time: So many Americans are so easily duped by cheap propaganda from likes of Sean Hannity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.