Tech Company Casts Doubt On DHS/FBI Russian Hacking Report

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by futures2015, Jan 3, 2017.

  1. bHero

    bHero Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I think it's odd we can be so unwilling to attribute certain characteristics to bad people, and underestimate them as a result.
     
    Shane3 likes this.
  2. etexhorn

    etexhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Sounds like our outgoing leader.
     
  3. KBrown

    KBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    True enough.

    People cite Hitler as being a leader because he convinced millions to support him. Well, a couple of points... 1) he lost the election. He only became chancellor because Wilhelm died. And he was only vice-chancellor in an attempt to keep the Nazi party in line or under some sort of control. 2) Millions flocked to Hitler because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, that Germany could rise again, the economic woes they were feeling were someone else's fault and he could fix that, etc, etc... Hitler didn't come to power by being a great leader. He came to power by being charismatic and tapping into an angry populace. Once in power he changed the rules so anyone who opposed him did so under threat of death. That is anything but "leader".
     
  4. rope4747

    rope4747 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    1. I'm still afraid President Trump is gonna be an unmitigated dumpster fire.
    2. I watch MSNBC as much as I watch Fox News, which is never.
    3. Putin is playing Trump like a piano.
    4. Didn't major in psyche but I did take 101 and 102, where I learned that massaging the ego of a narcissist is about as difficult as 2nd grade math.
    5. I made an A in 2nd Grade math.
     
    KBrown and scott_tiger like this.
  5. Boyd C

    Boyd C Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I don't underestimate Putin. I just have a difference of opinion as to whether his success has been driven by natural abilities or his willingness to use unethical and immoral means

    If I cheated, lied, and bribed my way onto the voice and then paid the judges under the table to vote me as winner, that doesn't make me a good singer.
     
  6. Selvinsankle

    Selvinsankle Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    China's democracy movement and Tiananmen Square protests in spring 1989 had popular support, far moreso than the Communist dictatorship under Deng Xiaoping. Yes, the Communists controlled the army, but Victor Hugo said, "One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas."

    Democracy was an idea whose time, it was believed, had come in China. They had overwhelming numbers on their side, but the Chinese people said, in effect, "We'll take the dictatorship we know."
    Germany did "rise again" under Hitler, and the economic woes they suffered in 1919-36 were someone else's fault (the Treaty Of Versailles). Under Hitler, Germany built the most powerful military force in world history, and their economy was booming (mainly due to government spending).

    Sure, he was a brutal, homicidal psychopath. But that doesn't mean Hitler wasn't an effective leader. Lots of leaders over the centuries -- Ramses II, Tiglath-Pilesar & Sennarcharib of Assyria, Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Kahn, Josef Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, to name a few -- have fit that same description.
     
  7. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I don't see it that way, and I don't hear it that way from the Chinese I meet in Southern CA. They want true freedom. The Chinese of 1989 saw, in Tiananmen Square, what happens when unarmed students challenge overwhelming military force. Frankly, communists anywhere do not give up power easily. I hope your Victor Hugo quote is correct, but the world today does not prove his point. The Chinese communists are still fighting, and trying to control, the invasion of ideas.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/business/media/new-york-times-apps-apple-china.html?_r=0


    Apple Removes New York Times Apps From Its Store in China


    By KATIE BENNER and SUI-LEE WEEJAN. 4, 2017

    Apple, complying with what it said was a request from Chinese authorities, removed news apps created by The New York Times from its app store in China late last month.

    The move limits access to one of the few remaining channels for readers in mainland China to read The Times without resorting to special software. The government began blocking The Times’s websites in 2012, after a series of articles on the wealth amassed by the family of Wen Jiabao, who was then prime minister, but it had struggled in recent months to prevent readers from using the Chinese-language app.

    Apple removed both the English-language and Chinese-language apps from the app store in China on Dec. 23. Apps from other international publications, including The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, were still available in the app store.

    “For some time now the New York Times app has not been permitted to display content to most users in China and we have been informed that the app is in violation of local regulations,” Fred Sainz, an Apple spokesman, said of the Times apps. “As a result, the app must be taken down off the China App Store. When this situation changes, the App Store will once again offer the New York Times app for download in China.”


    Mr. Sainz declined to comment on what local regulations the Times apps were said to have violated, who had contacted Apple and when, and whether a court order or other legal document had been presented.


    China’s main internet regulator, the Cyberspace Administration of China, did not respond to faxed questions.
     
  8. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Again. Putin runs Russia. There's no disputing that fact. I used the word "leader" in the generic form. I'm not crediting him with great leadership ability.

    I'm old school. We used to sometimes refer to dictators as "strongmen". It applies to Putin. He's strong as opposed to being weak. This does not mean I approve of him.
     
  9. Selvinsankle

    Selvinsankle Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I agree with you that many Chinese, esp. those living in the U.S., Canada, Europe, want democracy for their country. But the bolded part is the crux of the matter; they saw what happens when a popular movement is confronted by superior military force and decided it would be much easier to acquiesce than to fight for it and risk being killed.

    The American revolutionaries from 1776-83 were confronted by a vastly superior power, but decided democracy was worth fighting for. Same with Texians in 1835-36.
     
  10. rope4747

    rope4747 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Seriously? The guy reduced his country to a pile of charred rubble in 12 years. Without post-war charity from the Allies there's no telling how long it would've taken them to recover. The guy was an absolute trainwreck as a leader.
     
  11. Selvinsankle

    Selvinsankle Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Are you trying to lure me into a defense of Naziism? I didn't say Hitler was a great leader, merely responding to KB's claim that he didn't restore Germany's military power. In that, he was "effective."

    If Japan doesn't bomb Pearl Harbor, forcing U.S. into the war and forcing Hitler to fight a two-front war, I think Germany wins WW2.
     
  12. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I think you're being too harsh on the Chinese. The 13 colonies breaking away from England got lucky. We almost did not survive our attempt, even with the long supply lines the British had to deal with. We also had the crucial help of France. Which country would have helped the Chinese searching for democracy in 1989?

    What you're advocating, imo, is a massive civil war that could have cost hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of casualties.
     
  13. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Underestimating thugs can be dangerous, as the world learned about Hitler. For this thread, we seem to be having a semantics argument. Putin is a dangerous man, that needs to be carefully watched, but we've had diplomatic relationships with thugs in the past and we will continue doing so in the future. I believe/hope that we're no longer in the regime change business.
     
  14. rope4747

    rope4747 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    No, you said he was effective, which is still absolute horsesh-t.
     
  15. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Please read some history.
     
    bHero likes this.
  16. bHero

    bHero Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    You seem blinded by emotion. No one here likes Hitler, but his ability was obvious. He was charismatic, had the support and following of millions, and waged an almost successful war the likes of which we haven't seen since Napoleon. He conquered most of Europe with the small country of Germany. Obviously a he was unhinged, but didn't lack for leadership skills. This was known as far back as his time in the military. He joined the workers party right before 1920, and was in charge of it shortly after. Staged a coup, lost and went to prison. Wrote that book, got out in 1924, and then led the party again to becoming the most popular party in the country a few years later. Again, he was a strong, effective and charismatic leader. By 1933 he was Chancellor of Germany, he changed the laws to start grabbing power (while saying they were to protect the people) and get rid of "inferior people" and led the country out of a depression at the same time. Again, strong leadership, twisted person. Now, would anyone on earth want to model his style, hell no. But it worked for several decades.
     
  17. rope4747

    rope4747 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Charisma and the ability to manipulate is not leadership. By your definition Jim Jones and Charlie Manson are strong effective leaders.
     
  18. rope4747

    rope4747 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Yeah, Shane. That's exactly what it is. As soon as I "read some history" I'm going to immediately recognize the phenomenal leadership abilities of Putin, Hitler and Stalin. Damn Angelo State University and its leftist propaganda machine.
     
  19. bHero

    bHero Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    In minor ways they were. Hitler achieved something similar on a massive scale though. If we're talking about actual leadership flaws (outside of obvious mental defects of being psychopaths), Hitler's was that he didn't trust anyone, was an a-hole to direct reports, and, most importantly, he lacked morals. His had an unwavering vision that makes for effective leadership, but his vision was grounded in principals that lacked morality.
     
  20. KBrown

    KBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Bwahahaha.
     
  21. KBrown

    KBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    You don't get to get away with this... :) You don't get to play the victim card when you start and lose a war and that war diminishes you.

    Germany is not a victim of the Tearty Of Versailles any more than Japan is a victim of their losing WWII and surrendering.

    I thought their economic boom was illusionary. IOW, they wrote lots of IOUs to give the appearance of a strong economy but it was never going to be sustainable. I recall the comparison to the 1980s US military build-up and spiking debt.
     
  22. KBrown

    KBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Where did I claim Hitler didn't restore Germany's military power?

    I merely claimed Hitler 1) didn't win election to Chancellor 2) got his way by changing the rules and suppressing any opposition, not by being a leader.
     
  23. KBrown

    KBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Germany was fighting a two-front war six months before the US entered WWII.
     
  24. KBrown

    KBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Hitler was effective. But not because he was some great leader.
     
    Shane3 likes this.
  25. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I assume you must be attempting another bad joke? I've been online for almost two decades. I've never before seen Reagan compared to Hitler. You're stretching that idea beyond even what Gamma dreams up.

    Hitler was stealing resources and wealth from nations all over Europe. Completely different scenario from Reagan in the '80s.

    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/historys-biggest-robbery-nazis-stole-europes-gold/

    To keep Hitler’s war machine going, the Nazis captured bullion from European central banks that today would be worth $19 billion, writes George M. Taber, author of Chasing Gold: The Incredible Story of How the Nazis Stole Europe’s Bullion.

    Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was Adolph Hitler’s moneyman, and for six crucial years he formulated the dictator’s economic program. At the time, Schacht was Germany’s most famous and respected financier because he had broken the country’s hyperinflation of 1923, one of history’s worst. At the height of that financial crisis, one American dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 marks. Schacht in 1932 threw his immense reputation and economic skills behind Hitler and became both the president of the Nazi central bank and the finance minister.​
     
  26. KBrown

    KBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    No one compared Reagan to Hitler. Read it again.

    It merely pointed out the US's military build-up at the cost of skyrocketing debt and resulting economic impact that had to a similar build-up at the cost of higher debt in Germany in the 1930s.
     
  27. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Then CNN could be your choice for fear-mongering.

    Ivana Kottasova, reporting from Davos, almost sounds like a Russian name.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/11/news/economy/global-risk-geopolitics/index.html

    The world is becoming a very scary place
    by Ivana Kottasova @ivanakottasova January 11, 2017: 12:26 PM ET
     

Share This Page