Of course Russia is not to blame for everything but Putin does not have our best interests at heart and neither does Trump. Cybersecurity is a real issue because Putin has clear favorites in these races.
The fact that you don't understand the nuance even after I typed it out, is a testament to the pointlessness of these threads. Read it again
No I just asked a simple question, which you apparently can't answer and then you hurled some more insults. It just gets old trying to have a civil conversation when all you guys do is insult people, state no facts, have no information to back up anything, always claim to be right. I've done my due diligence and done the research, the majority of Europe and the majority of the United States do not want refugees. The select few that want refugees are brain washed liberals, and that's the truth of it all. Also please don't insult my use of the English language again after that paragraph you posted. I wanna help the refugees, but not by endangering everyone else, other ways our countries could help. @BurnPyro @Geressen Do you or do you not want refugees in Europe ? I'm the dumb one yet such a simple yes or no question stumps both of you. Could it be you understand the question, but you don't want to answer because you'd both answer you don't want refugees in Europe.
stop talking to that mirror. and call us all brainwashed again like a good consumer of bullshit. since you seem to think the world works on a black and white basis and our complaints that your question is not nuanced enough and are too dumb to understand basically everything my answer will have to be yes.
what bp and gerb have both been saying is that they would rather not have a refugee crisis period, but when forced to choose between allowing refugees and not, they would rather take a chance on people than hang them out to dry/die what i've seen from you, super (not that it's just you, but we're focusing on you right now) is that you seem to have a script in your head that bp and gerb are both reading off of, the problem of course is that you are the one with that script- they haven't seen it and they aren't speaking it. you're projecting on them the same way that they've projected on others, but you have yet to realize that
That doesn't mean he is necessarily willing to risk war to hack the people he doesn't like to make them look bad (especially since tensions are already high on that front). It's like saying: "Well, the EUC has clear favorites in this French election, clearly we need to be concerned about their cyber security because they might hack France!" (And no, I don't think the EUC has your best interests at heart either... but then I'm a cynical and jaded sort of person who things most political organizations and politicians don't have the people's best interest at heart.) Spoiler Yes, the US has made allegations of Russia interfering in US politics via hacked documents... but the US has also not once provided meaningful evidence to support those allegations. At best someone from inside Russia might have tried to hack the DNC... I think it's reasonable to think that Russia was trying to get access... I also think it's reasonable that Germany, Britian, China, and North Korea were also trying to get access among others. And even then, even IF Russia was behind it, though one-sided in terms of leaks (though it's not clear why), it's not like the leaks were untrue. They didn't provide any false information. Which is more than can be said of some critics of Trump and Russia (and Waters' assertion that Russia had invaded Korea, apparently).
oh the hacking won't lead to war, but that does not mean we should make it easy. so cybersecurity on everything getting a good looking at is fine because there should be no hacking. Russia uses many modern forms of information propaganda and warfare to asume they would not emply hackers is silly. we should not have a war with them over that. but we should not let them do as they like. are we agreed on that?
My issue is with effectively singling them out as the reason for cyber security. All the things you ascribed to Russia also apply to those nations and interests that are worried that a Le Pen victory could lead to a defacto default on currency (and other issues related to a promise of getting out of the Euro). Or the things people worry about with Wilders etc. I'm not saying looking at cybersecurity is a bad thing. But the piece I referenced clearly went way above and beyond that, even solidifying allegations as "fact" in spite of the lack of (published) evidence (and the fact that even those making the allegation that might actually have such evidence all agree that the alleged Russian hacking efforts didn't have a meaningful impact on the election anyway). I'm not saying let Russia do whatever. I'm saying that anti-Nationalist pro-Globalism propaganda has been unduly focused on Russia to the point it seems to make even otherwise reasonable people give kneejerk reactions. When Assad effectively says "some of the refugees are definitely terrorists..." There are two basic answers: 1. "Yeah no kidding. and 2. "For me this does/does not significantly alter the risk/reward ratio involved in helping these refugees out." Yet your kneejerk reaction is: "well that's just him being biased/spewing propaganda!" Which is disconnected: It's ad hominem... and it's completely unnecessary for the sake of defending your own position on the issue in the first place. Anyway, maybe we should have a separate thread on propaganda and/or Russia, or move to PMs or something. I don't mind discussing such things (obviously) but it's getting much more off topic.
nah its more based of off my knowledge of earlier things Assad has said and stuff Russia has done but I understand why I come across as you describe, my appologies if you think my reaction fall out off category 1 and 2. its partially a reaction to the way Supes is trying to use these things to justify his views.
Problem is everyone says Russia hacked the democratic party, well thank god for that otherwise the American people would have never known any of what we learned. For some reason all news sources keep pushing the Russian agenda and it's getting a bit absurd. I'm also still waiting for the proof that it was Russia that hacked us, as i've yet to see anything on that end either. The United States has been hacked by different parts of Europe, India, China, and parts of the Middle East, yet all we ever hear about is Russia.
oh you also hear about China and the US all the time but those are less imediate problems. and to be clear I do not care who hacked you, I care about who might hack us for why/
anyway on topic we were talking about how me and gerb are actual human beings and others have no empathy and want to see other humans herded like cattle on the borders
I don't want to downplay the suffering of 'economic migrants', which i am sure is very real, anyone who has been to the poorest countries in the world comes back talking about the truely desperate lives people live. But I don't think an asylum system can function unless it is dealing with a manageable amount of people- and by this I don't just mean those that can be physically provided for, but also those that will be culturally and emotionally accepted by the larger populace. So I think the emphasis should be on identifying those who are genuinely refugees, and on discouraging those who are simply(!) trying to escape a manageable level of poverty. I also think 'Trumpites' who favour mercantile policies should consider whether a 'beggar your neighbour' approach will have on immigration. When you deny poorer countries the one competitive advantage they have (low wages making them attractive for manufacturers) then you prolong their misery and increase the number on your doorstep. Personally I feel the emphasis should be on finding mutually beneficial relationships with the poorest countries , of making investments and adding the necessary infrastructure. I often think what the money spent Firking up iraq could have achieved if it had been spent on Somalia or Eritrea.
We are not democrats we are your small european allies. France said no once and you morons started calling french fries freedom fries (both weak derivatives of @BurnPyro 's Flemish fries ) also while england does drop bombs and many are against it The Netherlands limmit our involvement to recon. @badgerale you nailed it I think the problem is that there has not been this large of a refugee wave since the balkan trouble and the scramble to find places to house refugees did not acount for the size of the communities of the locations and if youdo not house them they will be unchecked and probably more vulnerable to crime and more likely to contribute to it.
You're posting this as a joke, right? Can you point to the source of these numbers, or are you just trying to push your narrative? Also, these are refugees of civil war and isis. Targeted drone strikes didn't displace 6.6 million people or "obliterate 7 countries".
True, though there is an argument that the policies of Obama (and Bush) helped to push these recent civil wars and raise of the latest Radical Islam movements including Isis. Several memos from State have shown that they were aware that supporting various rebel factions in Libya and Syria would likely have that effect, and they went forward with it anyway (though initially the military refused on the Syrian front... then there were some changes in terms of high-ranked military officers and narrative...). What Obama has done is by no means limited to "targeted drone strikes." Though they certainly did not help, since drone strikes and assassinations are one of the reasons people in those regions hate the US and the West and made it easier for ISIS and similar groups to recruit... though I wouldn't say they alone were the main push.
Sure Obama didn't start these imperial policies Bush Jr. did. Tell me this did Obama change direction on the foreign policies bush began from 200-2008? I don't believe so he continued to expand Bush's policies on counterinsurgency and began two brand new theatres of war using proxy armies hired by the CIA and military industrial complex. Obama's third day in office he was bombing militants in Pakistan..... Obama was a 3rd and 4th term of Bush Jr.'s foreign policy which served to destabilize four more countries Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Libia. WTF is the point of me sourcing refugee numbers for you when the writing is on the wall? http://www.newsbud.com/2013/11/01/e...cy-death-squads-the-population-as-the-target/ Obama had the opportunity to stop american imperialism in the middle east, and he didn't. All these idiots enthralled by identity politics ignored what Obama was doing, because he was on team lefty and because he was the embodiment of leftist politics "er ma gerd the first black president and he is lefty democrat." His motto was "hope and change". From what I read there was no "change" in Bush Jr.'s foreign policy only a continuation and expansion of war in the middle east through Obama. Obama carries the refugee burden since he continued the foreign policy that created these refugees in the first place. Read the article I posted it explains how America created these "Civil wars" you are talking about. No my meme is not a joke. It is what has happenned. For 8 years Obama was allowed to do these things and none of these purple "grab me by the pssy" hat wearing lefties protested, but Trump puts a refugee travel ban through and it is the end of the world.... LOL.
