How dangerous is Russia's meddling?

1. 60

   dianetrotterposted 6 years ago

   How could Nikki Haley be tricked into addressing an international issue that didn't exist?  She talked to them for 22 minutes.                                                                     
   
   TRUMP'S U.N. AMBASSADOR ALLEGEDLY PROMISES TO PROTECT FAKE COUNTRY IN PRANK CALL WITH TWO RUSSIANS
   BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 12/28/17 AT 8:12 PM
   http://www.newsweek.com/nikki-haley-pra … and-763565

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think Russian meddling in our elections is dangerous. I think this particular incident is funny and a tiny bit disturbing.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It absolutely is dangerous. We are seeing the damage it causes already.
      
      Unfortunately, Trump supporters dismiss the danger by saying we interfere in other countries, so we have no right to complain. Yes, it happens. But that's not the point of your post.
      
      Their rationalization is a nice way to excuse any Russian involvement in getting Trump elected -- and their responsibility for helping elect him.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Agree.

         replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   I don't know that Russian meddling is any more dangerous than US meddling in other countries, or Chinese meddling, or Israeli meddling, or meddling by any European country.
   
   Pot, kettle. Every nation jockeys for power and influence by whatever means necessary. Sometimes, that activity is revealed.Sometimes not.
   
   If we find this offensive, we need to stand against it across the board. That includes demanding our own nation stop these practices also.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Russian meddling is dangerous to us.  We should do what we can to mitigate against it, just as other countries will do what they can on their own turf.
      
      Whether or not we engage in the same tactics has no bearing on whether or not we do what we can to prevent it happening to us.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Have to go with LTL here - if we're going to raise an outcry over the tremendous danger and immorality of Russians (or anyone else) trying to influence people's minds in our elections then we need to shut down our own efforts in their elections.  To fail to do so is hypocrisy at its worst.
         
         But I'm curious - what danger to you find in their "meddling"?  All they could do, even by fixing voting results, is to get one lying, unethical scumbag elected over another lying, unethical scumbag.  I suppose you could call it economic warfare by wanting a liberal politician wanting to continue the road of socialism, but that seems quite a stretch for the "danger" of meddling.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "If we're going to raise an outcry over the tremendous danger and immorality of Russians (or anyone else) trying to influence people's minds in our elections then we need to shut down our own efforts in their elections.  To fail to do so is hypocrisy at its worst."
            
            I agree with you it's hypocritical, but we do a lot of interfering in and dictating to oter countries in many areas. For example, we've supplied arms to militant groups in other countries. If Russia supplied arms to militant groups here in the U.S. should we throw up our arms and say, oh well, we do it, too?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               LOL. So you compare supporting rebels to using social media and possibly sharing dirt on a candidate?
               
               Seriously,  by your reasoning we could just sit around and snipe about everything without taking responsibility for anything or trying to affect positive change.....oh,wait. It appears that's already being done.
               
               Never mind.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Snipe? Like you just did?
                  
                  Happy New Year, Trump supporter. Your minimization is duly noted.
                  
                  Seriously, have a dink on me. You sound a little tense. 

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     What's a dink?
                     
                     I'm not a Trump supporter. You've been told this. But, I have ceased to expect a response from you that implies you read what anyone else writes. Unless, of course,that response includes regurgitating shared beliefs.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        LOL

                        replyreport
         2. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "All they could do, even by fixing voting results, is to get one lying, unethical scumbag elected over another lying, unethical scumbag."
            
            Well, I thought the point of a free election is for us to pick our own leaders, lying scumbag or not.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I was unaware that the nasty Russians fixed the voting machines - that we DID "pick our own leaders".  Or did the Russian mafia hold a gun to your head while you filled out a ballot?

               replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well said as usual. You are exactly right.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Same question as to PP: what is the danger?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               We've already previously discussed what could be considered meddling and I am quite aware that you consider pretty much anything short of vote machine tampering to be trivial and not worthy of concern.
               
               What would be the point of rehashing the subject?

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps I'm wrong.  Perhaps Russian meddling, even fake news on internet sites, has a high probability of producing WWII.  The topic here is "What is the danger?", not "how did they meddle?".
                  
                  If there is actual danger to Americans or America, my opinion of what constitutes meddling and what we should be concerned about would likely change, but I can't see any real danger in their actions.  It's one thing to be offended, to dislike their actions, but it's quite another to declare real, probable danger to the country.
                  
                  So I'll ask again - what danger does it represent?  It might teach us all not to believe what we read, it might teach us to ignore what Russians (or other countries) say about our candidates, it might even teach us to delve a little deeper into foreign policies a candidate holds.  But none of those is a "danger" to us - rather they're all helpful without any but the most minor of side affects (that I can see).

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Surely, you understand that "danger" means more than we're all going to die?
                     
                     There is a danger my sides are going to be sore from giggling too much.
                     
                     See?
                     
                     But, seriously, there is a danger that Russians could influence enough voters to swing an election .
                     
                     I know you don't think it's a big deal whether Russians, CNN, or Infowars influence our elections, but I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
                     
                     As for your suggestion that we will, as a people, become better educated about how we are influenced by fake news, that is a good possibility and it is my hope.

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        OK - they may swing an election.  So?  What harm is caused?  Who (besides one of the candidates) is hurt?  What damage is done?
                        
                        That's what I mean - swinging an election isn't "damage".  Every candidate and most of the populations is guilty of that, and no one accuses them of damaging the country!  So if no harm is done, what's the hoorah about?
                        
                        I think you're right - we'll just have to agree to disagree, for if that's all the "damage" anyone can come up with there isn't much reason to be all that upset.  Disillusioned at our own stupidity, maybe, but that's about all.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Wow, I never thought I would hear an American citizen think it's no big deal if a foreign government interferes with, and affects the outcome of,  a U.S. election.
                           
                           There really is nothing more for us to discuss on this subject.

                           replyreport
                           1. 90

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Fair enough.  And it didn't occur to me that anyone would ever think that a dozen or more nations from all over the world haven't been doing it for decades.  Or that it's all right if we do it to them but not vice-versa.
                              
                              Guess if we all thought the same it would be a dull world, wouldn't it?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hmm. I never said I didn't think other nations haven't been doing it, and I never said it is alright if we do it but not vice versa.
                                 
                                 I said neither of those things has any bearing on whether or not we should do our best to mitigate against any interference in our elections.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    dianetrotterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    After reading comments, I think intent is very important.  The UN was established to support (meddle) other countries in the alliance.  Trump is meddling when he talks about watching Iran.  I don't think it is for bad intent.  It is for the helpless people who are trying to have a democracy.
                                    
                                    Ukraine, I think, is a member of the UN.  Even if they are not, we are supplying weapons to Ukraine to protect themselves from Russian attacks.  Russia is providing resources to North Korea.  What is NK using the resources for, nuclear weapons to use against the US.
                                    
                                    Ukraine does not consider the US weapons as meddling but Russia does.
                                    
                                    Russia knows the whole story about rocket man and wants to negotiate a treaty between US and NK.  Why can't they just stop providing resources to NK?

                                    replyreport