Did Russians interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections and is such interference acceptable?

[lynnvinc]

Yup, I wonder why did not the early settlers go green and start living a hunter gatherer life…
You think that the chinese will make steel for Americans, forever?

China has its own serious env problems, but the products we buy from China, the pollution associated with that and with the shipping of those products – that’s our pollution.

I don’t know of any luddite environmentalists saying we should go back to caveman days.

There are many ways forward into a healthier environment without sacrificing our living standards or economic productivity. That is the path the US was beginning to get on with env regs and policies to mitigate CC, including incentives to produce energy and products in less polluting ways.

However, it just so happens that even without these incentives, going green on the whole saves a lot of money without lowering productivity and living standards. I know from actual experience and from research into this topic.

IF Trump were really into saving tax dollars he could cut out all the direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuels and put fees on them for the externalities harms they create – such as illnesses from local pollution (that portion of the money going into our healthcare system). Even miscarriages and stillbirths have some costs, which Medicaid often bares for the poor. Studies show that some miscarriages are due to environmental causes, such as air and water pollution (including that caused by fossil fuel extraction, processing and combustion) and the plethora of toxins from household and personal care products).

In fact the plan of some well-known and respected Republicans, such as James Baker and George Schultz, is to put a fee on fossil fuels and divvy up that money among Americans in monthly payments (which would be higher for the poor than the higher energy bills they might have as a result of the fees). See bakerinstitute.org/research/climate-change-conservative-answer/
citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
citizensclimatelobby.org/
citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus-adds-ten-members/

In this last link you will see that a number of Republican reps support this. Not all Republicans are bury-head-in-sand CC denialists. Some are good and decent people, smart and well educated, who want good for humanity and the people they represent.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You don’t think the media did their best to give you a picture of Trump?

Oh, I’m sure they did. But people don’t trust the media as much as they used to, so the effect of the media is limited. Actually unvetted social media is more effective in shaping people’s views.

 

[dvdjs]

What retreat? Show me the right wing group that is explicitly pushing for the “right” to destroy the environment.

I am reasonably certain the DNC has never explicitly advocated that any person have an abortion - just as, I will readily agree, the RNC has never explicitly advocated the destruction of the environment.

What the DNC has advocated is for safety and access, with the decision left to the people.
It is fair to point out, moreover, that under Democratic presidencies, much more so than under Republicans, we have seen a decrease in the number of abortions: if it were true that Democrats advocated for abortions, they have done a lousy job of it.

I agree that it is fair to say that the DNC’s position of having the decision, as a right, in hands of the people, secure from government control, fails to recognize the rights of the unborn and is not compatible with Catholic teaching. At a practical political level, however, I don’t see a way forward to reach the goal of a public policy that is compatible with Catholic teaching from any party. The Republicans do more nibbling around the edges, but in a way that IMO compromises the fundamental pro-life position, and thus has the presumably unintended consequence appearing to be driven by something other than the sanctity of life. More broadly, apart from an anti-abortion stance, they depart from Catholic social teaching fundamentally, IMO, as they champion markets over people, and their narrow understanding of the tenth amendment over the general welfare.

On the environment, the RNC, led by Trump, is embarking on a course action that is very likely, if not certain, t have dire environmental consequences. I don’t think that that is their intention, but they cannot be excused for innocent ignorance; they are inexcusably intentional about undercutting science and knowledge when it conflicts with their agenda.

 

[lynnvinc]

You don’t think the media did their best to give you a picture of Trump?

One thing I learned in my Poli Sci course is that positive media attention is best, negative media attention is good and helps, but less or no media attention is worst.

So even if the media were more positive toward Hillary, the fact that they gave so much to Trump – much more than to Hillary – actually would have had the impact of helping Trump, even if some of it were negative. Look what happened to Bernie, who got almost no media attention, despite a huge number of voters flocking to him. Imagine if Bernie had gotten even half of the media attention Trump got. He may even be president today.

So a main issue here is that the media did play a major role in the elections, and I’m thinking the Russian interference may not have been nearly as great as the internal media’s role.

And of course, there were other factors in the election outcome that harmed Hillary and helped Trump, including Hillary’s not-so-dynamic personality and the new find of Hillary emails Comey spoke of in Oct.

I don’t know if you watched Michael Moore’s after-election assessment, but he said he knew the rust-belt states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc) were hurting and may go to Trump and his message re jobs, and that Hillary made a mistake of thinking they were in her pocket. Bernie did not ignore those states and their jobs plight and perhaps they may have voted for Bernie, if he had been the Dem nominee, IF the media had not ignored him so badly.

 

[dvdjs]

As there is no evidence for Russian inteference.

That is not what the FBI and the NSA have said in sworn testimony. But what do they know compared to you?

 

[Seamus_L]

If it was Vladimir Putin saying that an online of army of 15.000 Americans were spreading fake news stories at times of high activity on the internet in order to sway peoples opinions in Russia, most people would probably say he’s nuts.

 

[starshiptrooper]

That is not what the FBI and the NSA have said in sworn testimony. But what do they know compared to you?

You mean the same NSA that spies on the American people and lies about it? The same FBI that interpreted the law instead of prosecuting Hillary Clinton in accordance with it?

 

[pepipop]

If it was Vladimir Putin saying that an online of army of 15.000 Americans were spreading fake news stories at times of high activity on the internet in order to sway peoples opinions in Russia, most people would probably say he’s nuts.

.

Exactly. Who would believe him! Either he would be seen as nuts, or, if he lost the election, it would be seen as a case of sour grapes, and that he just couldn’t handle the truth!

 

[Michael68]

One thing I learned in my Poli Sci course is that positive media attention is best, negative media attention is good and helps, but less or no media attention is worst.

So even if the media were more positive toward Hillary, the fact that they gave so much to Trump – much more than to Hillary – actually would have had the impact of helping Trump, even if some of it were negative. Look what happened to Bernie, who got almost no media attention, despite a huge number of voters flocking to him. Imagine if Bernie had gotten even half of the media attention Trump got. He may even be president today.

So a main issue here is that the media did play a major role in the elections, and I’m thinking the Russian interference may not have been nearly as great as the internal media’s role.

And of course, there were other factors in the election outcome that harmed Hillary and helped Trump, including Hillary’s not-so-dynamic personality and the new find of Hillary emails Comey spoke of in Oct.

I don’t know if you watched Michael Moore’s after-election assessment, but he said he knew the rust-belt states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc) were hurting and may go to Trump and his message re jobs, and that Hillary made a mistake of thinking they were in her pocket. Bernie did not ignore those states and their jobs plight and perhaps they may have voted for Bernie, if he had been the Dem nominee, IF the media had not ignored him so badly.

All of the media coverage of Trump was negative and continues to be the case today. Its the main reason I am boycotting the televised media

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

This thread needs to be taken out behind the barn. The conversation is beyond unproductive.

 

[TMC]

Who, beside Trump, still denies that Russia interfered in the election? Seems like its nearly unanimous in both parties. Nikki Haley is the latest to say so publicly, but seriously, who else still denies it?

 

[Michael68]

Who, beside Trump, still denies that Russia interfered in the election? Seems like its nearly unanimous in both parties. Nikki Haley is the latest to say so publicly, but seriously, who else still denies it?

I don’t think the Russians caused her to lose

 

[Michael68]

If you want to say Russia interfered with our elections, you might as well say that all the European leaders interfered in our elections. I don’t think one came out in favor of Trump and some really vicious stuff was said about him. That is interfering and nobody says anything because it was negative on Trump!

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think the Russians caused her to lose

They had to take out Rubin first.

 

[Michael68]

Wow, how do you get paid to post? I just do this for free! I’m losing out!!!

 

[pepipop]

Who, beside Trump, still denies that Russia interfered in the election? Seems like its nearly unanimous in both parties. Nikki Haley is the latest to say so publicly, but seriously, who else still denies it?

More importantly, who can ‘prove’ it, and/or actually show how it was done. Not just the rhetoric that the ‘Russians hacked and released emails, etc.’… but how actually did leaking this information, if it occurred, then translate into Americans changing their votes.

The MSM was much, much more negative towards Trump, than Hillary, worldwide. So, does that infer that the MSM is over and out and should be shut down. Seems to be the case from the analysis given, of the hacking, that the majority of US people are getting their news from the internet and that MSM coverage had no effect, whatsoever.

So the consensus being the votes were changed, by Russian hacking, due to people getting their news from social media and believed everything they read, and did no further research nor did they read the MSM outlets off the internet. Not forgetting, of course, all those voters that were forced to watch RT.

 

[dvdjs]

You mean the same NSA that spies on the American people and lies about it? The same FBI that interpreted the law instead of prosecuting Hillary Clinton in accordance with it?

Yes.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t think the Russians caused her to lose

Why does it seem absolutely impossible for you to understand that that is beside the point. Whether or not they were decisive in the outcome, the US needs to have a bipartisan investigation of what they did, how they did it, and how we can guard against it in the future.

 

[dvdjs]

More importantly, who can ‘prove’ it, and/or actually show how it was done. Not just the rhetoric that the ‘Russians hacked and released emails, etc.’…

That is what is under investigation by multiple agencies of our government.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is an interesting piece put out by CBS on March 31, that ups the ante.

cbsnews.com/news/fbi-probing-whether-trump-aides-helped-russian-intel-in-early-2016/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8a&linkId=36077589

U.S. investigators are looking into whether Trump campaign representatives had a role in helping Russian intelligence as it carried out cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee and other political targets in March 2016.

As Trump and the alt-reality media work harder and harder to deflect these investigations, the more I think that this is going to come out very, very bad for them.