Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 07:54 am
@coldjoint,
That's pretty f*cking hilarious. How did the Russians interfere in the 1920 general election? How did they interfere in 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976 . . . you get the picture. Be prepared to do something you never do--substantiate your bullsh*t claims.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 08:08 am
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/active-measures-a-history-of-russian-interference-in-us-elections

This is how.

Excerpt:

In 1968, Moscow was so anxious to prevent the election of the veteran anti-Communist Richard Nixon that it secretly offered to subsidise the campaign of his unsuccessful Democratic opponent, Hubert Humphrey. Presumably much to Moscow’s relief, once in office, Nixon proved to favour détente with the Soviet Union. By the late 1970s, however, there was one US politician who, more than any other in the Cold War, caused fear and loathing in Moscow: Ronald Reagan.

During his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination in 1976, the KGB undertook a wide-ranging quest for compromising material on Reagan. It does not appear that the KGB’s investigations, for example into the alcoholism of Reagan’s father, had any effect on his failure to obtain the nomination that year. It did, however, plant some anti-Reagan articles in the foreign press outside the US. The KGB was less involved in trying to influence next presidential election, in 1980, than it had been four years earlier. This was because Moscow saw little to differentiate Jimmy Carter’s administration— dominated by the hard-line policies of his National Security Adviser, the Polish-born Zbigniew Brzezinski—from Reagan’s long-standing anti-Sovietism.

Moscow’s view dramatically changed with the prospect of Reagan serving a second term. The KGB’s Moscow headquarters (called the “Centre”) regarded it as an extreme priority to discredit the policies of his administration. It was probably this priority that led the Chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, in one of the last acts of his 14 year leadership of the KGB, to decree in April 1982 that it was the duty of all KGB foreign intelligence officers, whatever their department, to participate in active measures.

In February 1983, the KGB instructed its main residencies (stations) in America to begin planning active measures to ensure Reagan’s defeat in November 1984. They were ordered to acquire contacts on the staffs of all possible presidential candidates, in both Democratic and Republican headquarters, making clear that any candidate, of either party, would be preferable to Reagan. KGB stations around the world were ordered to popularise the slogan “Reagan Means War.” The Centre announced five active measures “theses” to be used to discredit Reagan’s foreign policy: his militant adventurism; his personal responsibility for accelerating the arms race; his support for repressive regimes around the world; his attempts to crush national liberation movements; and his responsibility for tension with his NATO allies. Despite its best efforts, the KGB’s efforts to interfere with the election had minimal effect. Reagan won in a landslide.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 08:34 am
@Lash,
They were singularly inept, based on the source you have provided. Therefore, they cannot be said to have interfered, for whatever their hopes may have been. I know you would love to go to bat for your conservative crony--forgetting, apparently, your phony claim to be "progressive"--but you need to have at least some command of logic. Your conservative boyfriend said that the Russians have interfered in elections since communism was installed in Russia,which was in late 1917. He didn't just say that they attempted to interfere. he said that they had interfered.
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 08:47 am
@Setanta,
I like facts. I don’t choose a side and lie or ignore the truth to support a political party’s narrative. That’s like anesthesia from reality.

I know the US and many other countries, including Russia in its modern iterations, have invested significant people and money into controlling other countries.

For every piece of information we discover, there is additional information we don’t discover. These machinations are the primary reasons the CIA, KGB, FBI and shadow organizations exist. They have been very busy.

It is astonishing how immature you are. Your inability to countenance disagreement and your proclivity to attack those who disagree with you with schoolyard names and childish accusations makes you the most trumpian member of A2K.

So, he’s my ‘boyfriend’? You are the Trump of A2K.

Narcissistic Trump. What a sad baby man you are. Go cry about downvotes.

Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 09:30 am
Other declassified election meddling by Russia/Soviets

the course of 11 presidential elections between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, we identified three secret attempts to influence an election.

• 1960: Through his ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Menshikov, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson help from a secret propaganda campaign. However, Stevenson declined the offer. He lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy.

• 1968: The Soviet Union’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Dobrynin, offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon. Humphrey declined the bribe.

• 1976: Fearing that anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson stood a good chance at winning in the wake of Nixon’s resignation, the KGB began a smear campaign. Soviet spies forged FBI paperwork to make it appear Jackson was secretly gay and sent the fake reports to newspapers around the United States during the election and for years after.

https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2017/jun/20/richard-burr/heres-every-time-russian-or-soviet-spies-tried-int/

With classified, secret information, this is probably the tip of the iceberg.


hightor
 
  7  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 10:02 am
@Lash,
from the politifact link:
Quote:
Burr said that when it comes to Russian spies, "this is not the first time they’ve been involved in our elections."

There’s no public evidence the post-Cold War Russian government has ever meddled at anywhere near the levels of 2016, when U.S. officials say the Kremlin tried to help Trump’s campaign.

However, during the Cold War there were a few Soviet attempts to hurt or help specific candidates. Yet 2016 was the first time in 40 years the United States is known to have seen this type of interference.

Since Burr’s claim has some truth to it but gives an impression that’s slightly misleading, we rate this claim Half True.


So yes, I think everyone knows that the USSR and the USA played dirty tricks, spied on each other, and attempted to subvert each country's political process for years. But nothing on the scale seen by the Russians in 2016. It should be pretty obvious that digital communication and specifically social networks have opened up an entirely new theater for this sort of thing; basically it enables a hostile power or group to enlist the support of large numbers of the target country's citizens who receive propaganda and misinformation right on their cell phones and computer monitors. So I think it's fair to distinguish between the kind of intervention seen in the last presidential election with the previous historic attempts at interference. It's just too easy — and in the case of Republicans, too obviously self-serving — to say "They always do that!"

Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 10:29 am
@hightor,
I think the advent of social media and time-worn practice has made all entities more effective spies.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 10:34 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

from the politifact link:
Quote:
Burr said that when it comes to Russian spies, "this is not the first time they’ve been involved in our elections."

There’s no public evidence the post-Cold War Russian government has ever meddled at anywhere near the levels of 2016, when U.S. officials say the Kremlin tried to help Trump’s campaign.

However, during the Cold War there were a few Soviet attempts to hurt or help specific candidates. Yet 2016 was the first time in 40 years the United States is known to have seen this type of interference.

Since Burr’s claim has some truth to it but gives an impression that’s slightly misleading, we rate this claim Half True.


So yes, I think everyone knows that the USSR and the USA played dirty tricks, spied on each other, and attempted to subvert each country's political process for years. But nothing on the scale seen by the Russians in 2016. It should be pretty obvious that digital communication and specifically social networks have opened up an entirely new theater for this sort of thing; basically it enables a hostile power or group to enlist the support of large numbers of the target country's citizens who receive propaganda and misinformation right on their cell phones and computer monitors. So I think it's fair to distinguish between the kind of intervention seen in the last presidential election with the previous historic attempts at interference. It's just too easy — and in the case of Republicans, too obviously self-serving — to say "They always do that!"

The question to be asking is not whether there are non-US citizens around the world and in the US participating in free speech for political reasons. The question is what their goals are and what interests they are supporting.

You could have foreign citizens supporting the interest of making US citizens stronger and more independent, while you can have US citizens supporting the foreign interests of making the US a more docile political-economic satellite of a global social-economic empire.

If that was the case, why would we demonize the foreigners helping us achieve independence while ignoring the US citizens selling us out to foreign powers?

Where is the logic in attacking foreign intervention while ignoring the possibility that US citizens could be doing more to support foreign interest than the foreigners are?

And finally, what exactly is the problem with supporting foreign interests if you are against tariffs and border control anyway? If all you want is to have one big free global economy, then what is the problem with letting Russians or any other people around the world participate in political discourse? After all, isn't that exactly what is going on in think tanks and universities around the world where students and faculty are engaging in cross-cultural dialogues about policy and democracy?
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:27 pm
@livinglava,
What the **** are you even talking about?
Quote:
If all you want is to have one big free global economy, then what is the problem with letting Russians or any other people around the world participate in political discourse?

Whether it's wanted or not, we don't have "one big free global economy" and it's really stupid to think that Russian troll farms are acting in anything other than their own nationalist interest. They're not "participating in political discourse"; they're actively, and deceptively, attempting to blur the lines between economic truth and political fiction.
Quote:
After all, isn't that exactly what is going on in think tanks and universities around the world where students and faculty are engaging in cross-cultural dialogues about policy and democracy?

No, it isn't.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:41 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
That's pretty f*cking hilarious. How did the Russians interfere in the 1920 general election?

Quote:
In 1919, inspired by Russia’s October Revolution (1917), two U.S. communist parties emerged from the left wing of the Socialist Party of America (SPA): the Communist Party of America (CPA), composed of the SPA’s foreign-language federations and led by the sizeable and influential Russian Federation, and the Communist Labor Party of America (CLP), the predominantly English-language group. They were established legally but were soon forced underground. Although the two parties feuded and various factions broke away to establish competing communist groups, the Communist International encouraged the unification of those organizations. In 1922 the CPA merged with the United Communist Party (which had been established when the CLP joined a breakaway faction of the CPA) to create the legal and aboveground Workers Party of America (WPA). When the United Toilers of America, a group that adopted the same tactics as the WPA, combined with the latter organization, the party renamed itself the Workers (Communist) Party, finally settling on the name Communist Party of the United States of America in 1929.

More.
Quote:
Later in the 1930s, with approximately 65,000 members and New Deal liberalism sweeping the country, the CPUSA became influential in many aspects of life in the United States. There were also untold numbers of “fellow travelers” who sympathized with the aims of the party though they never became members of it. At that time CPUSA members became national, regional, and community leaders in liberal, cultural, and student organizations. In addition, because of their roles as industrial union organizers during the mid-to-late 1930s, they became a major force in several important CIO unions by the early 1940s. In New York City, a stronghold of party support where communists actively engaged in housing struggles, CPUSA candidates were elected to the city council during its zenith.

Communists, inspired and aided by Russia, have always had a political presence in this country, anything else?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communist-Party-of-the-United-States-of-America
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:43 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Quote by living lava:
After all, isn't that exactly what is going on in think tanks and universities around the world where students and faculty are engaging in cross-cultural dialogues about policy and democracy?
Some people do live in another universe/reality. From "Universities and Cross Cultural Dialogue: Today, after many centuries of evolution, our main audience —the students at our universities — is no longer uniform. Our universities have become one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse societies we can think of, far more than at any other time.

This, owing to our new age of information and technology. Access to information and, consequently, to education, is growing at an unprecedented pace. Growth in the middle class in many countries is enabling large masses of youth to afford higher education. Either virtually or physically, universities are bringing much larger number of students from many parts of the world together.

Not only will this provide students with an opportunity to learn from each other and expose them to different languages, cultures, beliefs, and so forth, but this also provides universities with an opportunity to articulate the importance of common values and societal principles." In other words, it's about "common values and societal principles." It's not about "one big free global economy."
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:52 pm
Quote:
America's Fear of Communism in 1920 Becomes a Threat to Rights

Back then Communism also meant Russia. Do not tell me it did not.
http://www.manythings.org/voa/history/165.html
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:58 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:

Back then Communism also meant Russia. Do not tell me it did not.
http://www.manythings.org/voa/history/165.html
That's very funny! You present a statement, then confirm it with "history." You must be a genius! LOL
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 01:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You present a statement, then confirm it with "history.

Do you realize how incredibly stupid your statement is? Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 01:11 pm
@coldjoint,
Yes.
Tell me why it's stupid?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 01:23 pm
CJ was attempting to exculpate his boy Plump--which I'm sure is OK with Lash, who has described him as her president. However, he has not proven that Russian communists were effective in attempts to interfere in American elections, every election since 1917, nor has Lash, which is the bar to have been crossed. Nor does that witless spew about "every election" address the core suspicion about Plump and company colluding with Russians.

No Lash, I don't cry about down votes--I just point it out from time to time as evidence of your puerile pettiness. Hey, the sun is over the yardarm--time for you to go get a stiff drink, eh?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 01:27 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
It is astonishing how immature you are. Your inability to countenance disagreement and your proclivity to attack those who disagree with you with schoolyard names and childish accusations makes you the most trumpian member of A2K.


Quote:
Narcissistic Trump. What a sad baby man you are. Go cry about downvotes.


Oh, the irony here is killer . . .

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 01:57 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
who has described him as her president.

Which only proves Lash is in touch with reality and you are not.
Quote:
address the core suspicion

That is all it is a "suspicion", another break with reality by you thinking there is any evidence to prove anything different.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 02:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Yes.

Yes to what, that you are blissfully ignorant? I knew that.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 02:14 pm
Progress.
https://truthandlibertyblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/bq-5c1bf133419b9.jpeg?w=700&h=&crop=1
https://truthandlibertyblog.wordpress.com/memes/#jp-carousel-2667
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 04:58:26