There is alot at stake in blaming Russia for the breaches. This was broadcasted, without evidence? and readily accepted by the public.
For this reason it's essential that some security experts outside the standard government contractor "experts" validate or at least weigh the evidence implicating the Russian state as the attackers.
- Security contractors have financial interests in going along with the popular political line / pleasing the govt.
- Groupthink
- Russian actor involvement does not mean Russian state involvement
- There's benefit in claiming, only a state actor could have done this, to defend one's security system that is in fact weak enough that several non-state actors could have penetrated it
1) Now we know Manafort potentially received a cash payment of more than $12 million. Which, I mean, seeing how good he is at running a campaign is clearly money based on competence!
2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine.
3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical."
4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign.
5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on.
6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region.
7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama.
#5 was as expected, taken out of context. All Trump said was that if the Russian did hack Hillary's email, that they release the 'lost/deleted' ones, something FBI wants very much as well.
#7 that isn't very surprising considering Obama's policies are so far to the left of most Republicans and frankly so seldom make any sense.
#8 again, not surprisingly that this was taken out of context by someone. Trump correctly pointed out that NATO has serious issues that need some tough love if they're going to be resolved.
In mid-June, Democratic Party suspicions about the hackers seemed to be confirmed when CrowdStrike, an outside security firm retained by the DNC, reported that it traced the hackers to two separate units linked to Russia’s security services: the FSB, Russia’s equivalent of the FBI, and GRU, the country’s military intelligence agency.
5.) Trump explicitly said "russia, if you're listening, i hope you find hillary's emails"
7.) you're ignoring the fact that putin is a dictator that has $200 billion in wealth, and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries
If anyone is convinced Russia hacked the DNC, Jake Williams put together a talk[0] about the subject. If you follow him on Twitter, you'll realize quickly he wouldn't dump ice cold water on Trump were he on fire. The reality is there is just no way anyone could honestly claim with the certainty that the DNC has claimed that it was Russia.
They might have hacked the DNC, they might not have. I suspect it was just a leak from someone in the DNC, but we know Russia has motive since they fear a continuation of America's foreign policy would lead to war with the West.
More concerning is apparently our leaders can now deflect proof of misconduct by making unproven allegations against Russia.
> you're ignoring the fact that putin is a dictator that has $200 billion in wealth,
As opposed to the rags to riches dynasties running the US government one after another.
> and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries
Really? You want to play that game after the US has meddled in half the world and assassinated and deposed democratically elected leaders then installed dictators?
>trump's anti-NATO remark was so bad, republicans ripped up trump for it
Of course they would, they are all interventionist NEOCONs.
Can you provide a link with evidence it wasn't? Because every article I've seen cites Russia. Applying Occam's razor and asking "Who benefits?" along with everything about Trump's campaign manager, along with proposed policies re: anti-nato and pro-Russian regional invasions, it all leads to Trump being an unwitting or witting agent of Russia. Trump wants some of that oligarch money. Anyone who doesn't see that is being willfully ignorant.
What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management. Selective paranoia apparently.
Apart from paranoid in one side, you seem paranoid in the other. This case is almost a complete set of emails so it's unlikely it's a hack. Most probably a whistleblower, potentially Seth Rich.
Now the question, does it matter ? If the emails are legit it is the only thing that counts.
The hawkish neocon establishment, as can be easily observed.
"evidence"
You mean, "code with comments in Russian"? Then I presume if the comments had been in English, it would be evidence of a British involvement? Or maybe Australian?
>> 8) anti-NATO stance
Nope. This is actually really really wrong. What is being covered as his anti-NATO stance is a position the US has nailed on quietly for years. As someone who grew up in a Canadian military family, I heard the same criticism for years around the dinner table. A lot of nations, Canada included, do not contribute our fair share to our collective security. For decades Canada has signed on to NATO commitments but our government (liberal, more so than the conservatives) for just as long as yet to put pass the budgets in order to meet those commitments.
One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. The american tax payer is paying for the lion share of our collective security, and our current security environment has been suffering a tragedy of the commons.
>>Trump and NATO pivot to terrorism
One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. We actually fought and put the necessary dollars to support that fighting. We had to lease transport planes, but eventually spend the billions to buy our own, we upgraded equipment. In terms of spending, we took our military from using 1980s equipment (the prior combat uniform was drab olive) to a fighting military contemporary of 2007.
Britain also met commitments, and, likewise, America did to. Other nations (like france, germany, poland) were reluctant to put their soldiers in combat roles and avoided risks. The issue in Afghanistan highlighted the relucantance and lack of incentive for france, germany and poland to incorporate their troops within a NATO joint chain of command because of their reluctance to see their troops engage in combat.
None of these two issues that Trump has spoken about (NATO in Afghanistan and how horrible it was), and NATO as collective security, is him speaking about disbanding NATO. You americans paid a lot more for our collective security than the EU does, or canada (as percentage of GDP). And because of the tragedy of the commons, leaders will not spend more, or take more risks unless they have to, which NATO has proven year after year, that they wont unless they feel threatened. They would rather direct that budget to domestic needs and get a free ride from you, the american tax payer.
> 7) Trump calling Putin better than Obama
Trump believes Obama is the worst thing ever.
"One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. "
Nah, nah. There's two things NATO is about: (a) keeping money flowing in these economic empires and involved countries; (b) protecting the security of them. Money first, citizen safety second. Always in that order. Otherwise, U.S., U.K., France, etc wouldn't have screwed with so many Middle Eastern, Latino, etc countries for their resources in bloody wars. So, that's the game.
Now, what of security? Wait, I know what you mean: U.S.-directed spending on military activities that profit U.S. defense contractors. The revolving door where defense contractors bribe Congress reps, hire Pentagon people for six digits, and get billions in contracts from same people. They build tons of stuff with no proven value on top of what has value. They have cost overruns due to mismanagement. They get involved in various forms of fraud and shoddy work. They pocket billions in process with tens of millions to their executives & Congress people's stock going up. America, with many starving and poorly educated, spends as much money as possible on these defense contractors' bottom lines... more than many others put together... while the other countries spend more on infrastructure, medical, school, etc.
In such a situation, it's 100% reasonable not to match the spending of the U.S.. Matter of fact, countries should brag on not running their defense so foolishly. Any money they spend will probably just make some American executives or legislators wealthier. The problem here is American corruption and defense spending. That industry needs to get their shit together. The corruption won't go away. So, I've just asked they create jobs and line pockets building stuff that's actually useful in modern warfare. If they want spare soldiers, have them fix our crumbling highways and stuff when they aren't killing foreigners for questionable reasons. Should just get something out of our tax dollars like, say, Canadians are.
"One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. "
Wow. Thought you were American up to that comment as most countries are aware that was BS. Bush Sr and CIA funded terrorists in Afghanistan, training them to fight a superpower. U.S. govt also funded Sadaam in Iraq to tune of $600+ million in fight against Iran. We fought them since, as CIA admitted in 2013, we overthrew their government and installed dictator to help Britain steal their oil. Funded Sadaams war against them to punish their resistance. Slammed him when he resisted the meddling. Eventually, the Saudi terrorist they trained & supported brought a bunch of Saudi friends brainwashed by Saudi extremist religion into the U.S. to murder 3,000+ of us. U.S. response should've been to stop meddling, start some apologies w/ reconstruction money, and smash the hell out of Saudi Arabia until they stop promoting extremism. Instead, they convinced a bunch of people to smash Afghanistan and Iraq while walking hand-in-hand with Saudi king and training their military to be more effective.
Yeah, you shouldn't be proud of your country sacrificing its people to support American imperialism and mass-murder in the Middle East. Those countries you knocked just used their brains. They decided they shouldn't die to make American politicians happy or U.S. defense contractors richer ($300+ billion richer). Now, those countries are destabilized plus ISIS formed in the wake threatening to kill more of us. Great. (thumbs up)
Seriously, I know the subject of politics is very opinion base, but there are departments in universities across many lands that attempt to study these systems. Like, look how pathetically anti-war, super-simplified, black/white narrative fitting your perspective is: "war exist to fund defense contractors".
oh please, you aren't even responding to my comment or claims. You are just pulling stuff out of your crack. NATO own studies have shown over and over again that an issue it constantly faced is the uneven spending (as ratio to GPD) of its members and the reluctance of members to put their troops within joint commands.
You made that up yourself. I said most of our military actions were about pushing politics or capitalism. Which the evidence supports, including many declassified documents. I said military spending in U.S. is excessive, has tons of failed programs, is justified by bribes/votes, and mostly lines pockets of defense contractors and Congress reps. U.S. records give me proof of first two, Congress records have proof of next (i.e. lobbying), and annual reports + track records show proof of last. You're straight-up reciting propaganda of U.S. military connected outfits that contradict results in their own documents. Such contradictions are confusing until you realize they can lie in some places and it's a felony in others. ;)
"oh please, you aren't even responding to my comment or claims."
Sure I am. You implied the U.S. spending is actually about the security of us and NATO. It's provably not. It's a mix of profiteering, waste, and security expenses. Of the security expenses, it's a mix of useless stuff given modern battlefield and stuff that's actually useful which usually costs far less. Your whole spending claim is bogus if it relies on false belief that U.S. military spending is about security. It's partly false if it believes that the small portion spent on security actually improves security. Most is again about jobs (eg votes in key districts), campaign contributions to Congress, military heads getting promoted for appearing to improve something, and so on.
"NATO own studies have shown over and over again that an issue it constantly faced is the uneven spending (as ratio to GPD) of its members"
And since you're belief is false, those that correctly realize most U.S. military spending has no value shouldn't try to support or match that. They should instead just buy what has value in their country spending a tiny fraction on that. Your recent claim supports they are doing this. Smart.
"the reluctance of members to put their troops within joint commands."
Joint commands fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons with the initiator of the war admitting in declassified documents they funded and created the enemies. Their newest war was projected to create even more. (It did.) That nations are reluctant to support those deployments is again the wise choice. Their citizens or targets shouldn't die for greed or politics.
Joint commands fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons with the initiator of the war admitting in declassified documents they funded and created the enemies.
Cool, so you are going to confuse Iraq with Afghanistan. clap
You are transparent and single dimension. In your narrative, you have erased any possibility that the cost borne by the American people in funding their military can contribute to global security. This is utterly utterly wrong and provenly so when allies who depend on US for security (but do not contribute back) place pressure on the US to develop and deploy technology and material for their defense. But then again, for someone who can only see THAAD is just a mix of profiteering,pork, cronyism, waste and other write offs, I am sure you know better than the false beliefs Korea holds for trying to acquire this useless development.
Again, your narrative isn't new. You haven't demonstrated my beliefs are false (again, if NATO is worthless, why does these nations make commitments they won't keep, why don't they simply leave NATO?) The only thing you have demonstrated is the ontogeny of your beliefs. It is one developed by someone who wants to understand the world through a very simplified lens, a black and white, war exist to fund defense contractors with the evil capitalist pulling some levers, and crony politicians patting each other's backs, not someone who wants to see security as is.
"Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012"
The question we have now is can it be done by enemies of freedom and still lead to more freedom?
There is the logic of polarisation, of fight - both sides use whatever comes their way to weaken the opposite. Russia wants to weaken the USA, so they expose the political dirt to destabilize, and that works in the short term - but I like to think that in the long term it removes the dirt and makes the free system stronger.
And yet the same thing with the ex-soviet spies (for example https://www.google.pl/search?q=ex-soviet+spy+youtube) who defected to the west - all they see is the destabilisation caused by the western activists - they don't see how the whole value of the west is based on the improvements that happen because of the activism.
And this is not to say that there is no danger of destabilisation - it is a dangerous thing - as we have seen in the Near East recently. But we must face the danger with courage - because giving up the freedoms would make the western system the same as the other side. And it is probably not as dangerous as the dictatorship agents thinks it is. The dictatorships have a lot of internal tensions - if the dictator looses grip - it all goes boom - but in a democracy the tensions are released in small portions - by the activism.
I wouldn't paint the world in such stark colors. The only reason you would even consider these people "enemies" is because the respective governments having chosen to be on collision course.
Technicalities aside, these "revelations" should serve as a reminder that when it comes to politics (including every version of democracy), there is a shiny veneer of righteousness, and underneath is intricate machinery that serves the sole purpose of controlling and manipulating the population. Both the US and Russia are extremely good at this in their own ways. The Cold War presented plenty of opportunities to refine the craft.
It's never really as simple as just deciding a big percentage of the world's population are 'enemies'. Or that massive shadowy organizations are 'friends' just because they say they are. Our view on the world is extremely small, and by definition of being human - extremely biased.
Cyber war is much preferable to real war. Letting Putin throw the secrets of his enemies into the light to influence an election is probably going to stoke a retaliatory response but another generation of humans will grow up without total war upon them.
Mutually assured destruction is a hell of a deterrent.
A full on cyber war would be devastating if well orchestrated. Fortunately for us, it's all been piecemeal so far.
Full on cyber war to me looks like a erased economy by zeroing every asset and liability in the banks and funds, with pre-corrupted backups. It looks like bricked firmware on every router, industrial process controller, police/fire radio system, public utilities, even vehicles. It would be like an EMP hit. With nobody getting paid, no emergency services or utilities, public unrest would do all the work.
If they do it right, it's like Einstein's quote about world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
PS, I'm hoping you can't brick all the F-35's, missile destroyers etc, but that's probably optimistic considering all software issues that kind of gear has without it being attacked.
Further: US oligarchy[1][2]/establishment/(self proclaimed) elite blames Russia for every leak where they look bad. As if there are no real US American patriots who, unsatisfied with the course that same oligarchy has taken in the last 25 years, want to expose it and try to change it.
"Obama is a Socialist" sounds very strange to European ears - he would be a center-right politician at most in the UK or most EU countries.
And if you claim that SJWs are big enough threat to US stability to be a sensible target for a hypothetical Russian intervention then I'm not sure we have enough of a shared world-view to have a sensible discussion.
That probably depends where in Europe. Obama supporting gay marriage, accepting thousands of asylum seekers from the Middle East, and trying to legalize millions of illegal immigrants against the legislature, or the whole HUD programme would certainly be a far-far-left politician in Poland. You will rarely hear a politician like that on TV and their parties usually don't gather 5% of the vote required to have a representation in the parliament. Not to mention winning national elections.
He does some things which are in the interest of large corporations or sponsors but that's less about political views and really more of an acceptable form of corruption. Corrupt politicians are of course in stores everywhere pretending to believe any ideology they need to.
And it's not just Poland. I'm sceptical of this political conversion to metric in general.
Understood but none of things equate to being a socialist beyond the fact that certain bundles of policies tend to get lumped into broad 'left' and 'right' buckets at any given point in time (being in favour of more immigration isn't intrinsically left or right - I'd actually argue that it probably has a more natural home among 'right-wing' laissez-faire economic policies).
My point is that Obama would be regarded as far from being a Socialist outside of the US - with it's own peculiar calibration of the political spectrum.
What does SJW activity actually refer to? People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed? Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies? Both things are just basic human rights.
We'll probably never know for sure who did this release. It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid, but it won't affect the election. If there was a better demagogue than Trump running, it might affect the election.
A new kind of Socialist class warfare where Democrats now divide the population into countless different "identity" classes that struggle against each other.
This reduces cohesion within a society and often leads to violence between these groups.
> People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed?
So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a person running away is not armed?
I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link.
> Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies?
Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries.
I'm not going to promote a part time worker to a high position in my company just because the person is female. I'm going to promote the person that works the hardest and has a skill set that is highly valuable to the company.
> It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid
No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.
> , but it won't affect the election.
You contradict your previous statement.
> If there was a better demagogue than Trump running, it might affect the election.
You can believe in whatever you like, but you should be at least intellectually honest and recognise that this statement, like all of the statements in your comment isn't backed by any facts.
>> People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed?
>So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without >being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a >person running away is not armed?
>I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link.
Shooting fleeing people in the back is not okay, unless there is some imminent danger. I don't know of one is not an adequate answer, imho. The reason cops seems to shoot black teenagers who run away, and no so many white teenagers, is in my opinion due to a fear of those blacks.
>> Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies?
>Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries.
Sure, some of it is women taking time off to have families. Don't we want that to be an option? Anyway, this article says you women (who are probably less likely to have taken time off than older women who had more time to have a family) are only suffering 7% lower wages. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay...
>> It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid
>No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and >the Clinton Foundation.
> , but it won't affect the election.
Hillary did something stupid, but it was something stupid that the last few sec of states did too. The others didn't get investigated by congress multiple times. That's the difference, she did some stupid shit like others, but the dems didn't spend years trying to find something bad after that. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes..., including Colin Powell. I really hate that she did that, and I supported someone else in the primary. But now she's running against a truly evil, scary character, and there's just no choice.
My hope would be new legislation that says all people, including secs of state will lose their security clearance if they use private email. They all want to do it to hide it from prying eyes, but I do hate it.
Shooting someone who is retreating is illegal and doesn't fall under "Stand Your Ground" laws. If someone is retreating - unless they are shooting blindly behind themselves - you are no longer in a life-threatening situation.
Use of deadly force is only authorized in life-threatening situations or when you reasonably believe your life is in danger. Even then, it may be deemed your situation wasn't life threatening or believed to be life threatening. I believe "threat to others" is included in there for certain situations. Eg. police shooting a known armed suspect who is attempting to flee and may be a danger to others.
Obviously, this may vary slightly from state to state. Some states don't have castle doctrine, IIRC, and others are more strict with what falls under "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Furthermore, I think it's an insult to the past Democrats like FDR if you compare them with the likes of Hillary/Obama.
The left leaning presidents of old did not openly participate in corruption of the US Constitution nor did they willfully undermine the American worker for the benefit of Wall St.
Obama? He hired the architect of the Mortgage Crisis, Henry Paulson, as his Treasury Secretary. That's like hiring El Chapo Guzman as the head of the DEA. And it doesn't end there.
I think the entire political spectrum has been captured by corrupt oligarchs. There is no real right or left anymore, just a group of vicious oligarchs battling for supremacy using the old colors so that people accept them.
You'd think with the number of high profile cyber-sec wonks on here beating the It Was Russia™ drum, I wonder what they would think of Binney's statements, and technicalities he points out absent from such hollow saber rattling?
Then again, if what took place in the shadows is coming to light is true and can be cross verified, then you'd think that would ultimately be valuable to the public…
yeah, he is well known ahole, that's for sure. don't look for any altruism/good intentions in his actions, rather ice cold calculation on how to make profit on it in longer term, regardless of consequences
It requires quite a leap to disregard all his public statements and activities, the range of pro-democracy organisations that he has provided financial support for, his advocacy of democracy and the concept of the open society in general, his long-term advocacy for Karl Popper as a major voice in political philosophy and all the other things that point towards a genuine, coherent and consistent belief in the essential qualities a society needs to preserve peace and a functioning civil society.
Most of the anti-Soros conspiracies I have heard have been obviously either ideologically driven or transparent pieces of realpolitik. On balance I'd still bet on the man being motivated by altruism even if you conclude he is wrong-headed in the his beliefs or methods.
I'm not sure I believe in radically open borders. I'm certainly not saying I agree with Soros on everything. I'm simply saying that people who believe he has sinister intentions are staking out a fairly extreme position.
It comes back to a tendency that I feel more and more is the most pernicious influence of all in the public sphere - the inability of people to believe that those on the other side of a debate are reasonable, rational, intelligent people who are doing their best to solve difficult problems. We (and I include myself here) have a deep-rooted impulse to characterise the other side as either charlatans, crooks or imbeciles.
Taking someone seriously who has reached different conclusions to oneself or has a different worldview triggers such cognitive dissonance that we'd prefer to ascribe to them either nefarious motives or else some kind of mental deficiency.
This isn't a morality issue. Soros is a very clever, rational, and self serving individual. This is currently the model citizen, as we are all supposed to rationally optimize our own individual utility within the free market.
Soros is a financial speculator, so he literally makes money off chaos. He made his billions by betting against the Bank of England. Everything he is doing to destabilize Europe and the West makes perfect sense from his point of view. He is simply rationally maximizing his own utility given the tools at his disposal. This isn't immoral, its rationally amoral.
Soros is the perfect counterexample to libertarian fantasies of rational self-interest-run societies. Because it becomes very clear very quickly that one person's self interest is another person's dystopian nightmare.
Childish good and evil narratives don't apply here. It is just a very clear case of good intentions causing immense harm. When there is profit to be made off chaos, you are economically incentivizing it, and will receive more of it.
All his public statements are about promoting stability, democracy and the open society. If your hypothesis is that wants to promote chaos to help him profit from speculation there is no way to do that without also ascribing to him direct intentionality on the matter. He can't 'unconsciously' be creating chaos and 'accidentally' profiting. The cause-and-effect feedback look is too tortuous for this to be a rational explanation for his actions.
So pick your position. He's either a duplicitous puppet-master with no sincere motivation aside from increasing his own wealth - or he is a sincere believer in freedom and democracy - even if he is deluded or incorrect about the long-term effects of his actions.
Note that the second position allows you to believe he still wants to increase his personal wealth - it allows for the possibility that he is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser degree. But there is clear blue water between that and many of the Soros-theories that sound to me like barking mad wingnut fodder.
Who cares about his motivations? Why should he be able to pour tens of millions of dollars into whatever country or election he pleases to push the voters where he wants them? Why should Rupert Murdoch be able to do similar by buying up media conglomerates? Why should anyone have this kind of power to obviate democracy?
Nothing in this data leads me to believe Soros does anything more than he states he does. There doesn't seem to be any hidden agenda or any evil master-plan.
His organizations and owned media regularly attack every politician or activist who is against uncontrolled immigration, all over the Europe.
His goal apparently is to induce religious and racial tensions, destabilize Europe with them and finally break the EU (he already achieves that, see Brexit). And who benefits the most on European countries problems and EU dismantle?
That someone supports a political agenda you disagree with does not make them nefarious and this kind of rhetoric really spoils the whole political process.
There are a lot of humanitarian reasons why someone might support migration to Europe from an active war zone, you know.
Yeah, and it's totally okay to argue that there's too much uncontrolled migration to Europe. I think there probably is, even though I'm a strong supporter of more open borders in general. That's a big difference from accusing someone who disagrees with you of actively trying to destroy the eu.
“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” he said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states. It can raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity, which will have the added benefit of providing a justified fiscal stimulus to the European economy.
Member states could raise new tax revenue in order to fund what is needed.
The answer is that the EU and its member states must find new sources of tax revenue, and do so in a way that spreads the repayment obligation as widely as possible. This could be done by levying special EU-wide taxes. The new tax revenue could come from a variety of sources, including the EU-wide VAT, which already provides revenue to the EU; a special tax on gasoline...
So basically EU member states must further in debt themselves to private central banks by borrowing what they don't have to pay for the importation of people who come from a polar opposite ideology. With that very ideology partially to blame for the situations which causes the destruction that lead one to become a "refugee" to begin with. They must also on top of borrowing what they don't have (further enriching the bankers), use the force of taxes to take the money from legitimate hardworking citizens to pay for non-citizens to live within their society. And you wonder why Brexit passed...
> I'd be surprised if inducing religious and racial tensions to destabilize Europe was Soros' goal. Any evidence from non anti-semitic sources?
Well, to be spitefully exact, the government of Israel (jackasses that they are!) seems to believe roughly the same thing, especially given Soros' funding of Palestinian activist organizations.
Soros' agenda doesn't have to be card-carryingly evil in order to go against the will of the voters.
While I believe that Soros is a psychopath I feel that you are paranoid about Russia here. (considering that you are likely Polish I can understand that) They have an arrest warrant against Soros, he'll be put into prison should he ever touch Russian soil again and all Soros funded organisations in Russia have been banned and dismantled. All protests by the EU have been ignored.
Why I believe that Soros is crazy aside from the contents of this leak: He collaborated with the Nazis to profit over the death of Jews even though he is Jewish himself. And then he later bragged about how much money he made this way without showing any regret for his actions.
The leaks also show that he financially supports Palestinian organisations to this day that have the goal to destroy Israel.
Our leaders must be crazy themselves because they apparently hold his views on various self destructive policies in highest regards.
I really wonder what kind of drugs they were on when they decided that it would be a good idea to import millions of illiterate, young men from an alien culture that hates us. We now have terror attacks here in the EU on a regular basis and the rise in violence and rapes can't be hidden anymore.
I guess some men and women just want to see the world burn.
>I really wonder what kind of drugs they were on when they decided that it would be a good idea to import millions of illiterate, young men from an alien culture that hates us. We now have terror attacks here in the EU on a regular basis and the rise in violence and rapes can't be hidden anymore.
Not only do the elites not see themselves as the same people as us, they fear strong middle classes as a legitimate threat to their power. Mass immigration is just one of many steps towards creating a population that can be ruled by force without accountability.
"Others have made the assertions that based on reading some of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks that George Soros is attempting to influence Hillary Clinton."
"others have made assertions", wow that's some damning evidence! Such garbage on HN
Yea, I saw "to have Obama leave office with a more transparent and clear targeted drone killing policy" (paraphrased) and I thought "hmm, I could get down with that.", and I'm confident the vast majority of open society supporters could as well.
We'll see if anything interesting comes out but it might just make Soros's supporters further assured he's on their side and attempting to do what he and his organization says they're attempting to do.
there is government employee testimony proving the true hackers are unknown. It's easier to paint it as a known boogeyman. Have to keep advancing western geo-political agendas and must continue building up the military industrial complex.
Can you even imagine the sorts of things Nixon could have gotten away with if he has simple been able to say in his era "I-It was an attempt by the Russians to defame me!"?
And there was a massive groundswell of support within the government to keep 'their team' from losing. Keep in mind the only reason Nixon is such a big deal is because Republicans were equally outraged, at least morally, at what Nixon did. I don't think that would happen today if Obama did something worse and I have my doubts about Republicans too.
Regarding the presumed meddling of Russia, what is conveniently left unsaid, is that whoever made the leak possible should be awarded a US medal for Advancement of Democracy or something along those lines.
For this reason it's essential that some security experts outside the standard government contractor "experts" validate or at least weigh the evidence implicating the Russian state as the attackers.
- Security contractors have financial interests in going along with the popular political line / pleasing the govt.
- Groupthink
- Russian actor involvement does not mean Russian state involvement
- There's benefit in claiming, only a state actor could have done this, to defend one's security system that is in fact weak enough that several non-state actors could have penetrated it