tambienben

I agree, but only so far. There is also the enormous amount of corruption that keeps these political machines opaque and inaccessable to the public, by design.

My point isn't that we are blameless, but that this has been forced upon us in varying degrees. Our options each election year are purposefully limited, and no matter the campaign promise, we get the same results each time--and those are the officials we have a modicum of control over through elections.

We're responsible for fixing it, but distrust in the system is an integral part of fixing it.

It still sounds as though they accuse the public for this, though. I can't abide that.

>The group also cited concerns over public distrust of political leaders and the media, saying it is drawing away from the focus on real threats.

So... depending on how they meant to word that, are they seriously wagging their finger at the public for not blindly falling in line behind this unprecedented, petty shit-show? That's an impressive amount of hubris.

You're going to have to qualify that claim.

>Luckily, we have more than two parties to vote for

Not to most americans--especially when it comes time to vote.

You wouldn't transfer a car to Google Play, would you?

Still, implicating other countries so soon seems premature and reactonary to me. Its like corporate news jumping to 'terrorism' immediately after any domestic tragedy. Our threat models need to include more than just nation states. Otherwise, we end up contributing to escalation through untethered fear.

Like I said, it really depends on the circumstances.

Sometimes having control over your fight-or-flight reaction is better for you, personally, given your value system, than say trampeling fellow coworkers in a panic on your way out the door.

Don't judge too harshly people who don't share your starry-eyed view of the world. Let them have their peace if they're so resolved.

They can be assumptions because life is complex & sometimes people tell themselves convenient lies to make themselves feel better.

It depends on the circumstances.

If true, Armageddon can't get here fast enough.

So why implicate Russia at all, if its so easy? Sounds like a red herring to me, and also just as conspiratorial as the parent comment.

Events specifically related to an incoming ICBM? Context matters. People will react differently depending on the circumstances, which means there are things to learn there.

The least nefarious reason for a 3 letter agency to do this would be to dry-run a reaction plan to such an event, and take what they learn from reactions & apply what they learn to improve said plan

Then again, it could be a dry-run to measure peoples sentiments toward a war with NK. Less likely, but still possible.

Pranksters=/=Russia.

COINTELPRO is a poor comparison. A better example would be Operation Mockingbird (CIA, before the Church Committee & all that that entailed), or Operation Northwoods--to a lesser extent (also before the Church Committee, under JFK).

Its my personally held opinion that Operation Mockingbird never died. I feel that the intelligence arms are the deep state running the show through misinformation campaigns. My personal opinion held in this, the 2nd paragraph, is 100% conjecture. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found to be true, though.