Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Sorry Jad, you posted while I was typing, I'll move the last few posts over there.
    Much obliged, Pari...
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday ripped Republicans who are "gleeful" about Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, saying anyone who isn't condemning the meddling is "a political hack."

      “Most Republicans are condemning what Russia did. And to those who are gleeful about it — you're a political hack. You're not a Republican. You're not a patriot,”

      http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/busine...terference-are
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
        Uh....umm...yeah.

        Get back to me if you want to discuss the election hack and how it affects American politics.

        In the meantime, there are many new posts for you to salivate at in the Syria thread so I suggest you rant there.
        It's not about any crime of any one criminal regime but the fact that your next President is ok with that. What does that say about liberty?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
          Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday ripped Republicans who are "gleeful" about Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, saying anyone who isn't condemning the meddling is "a political hack."

          “Most Republicans are condemning what Russia did. And to those who are gleeful about it — you're a political hack. You're not a Republican. You're not a patriot,”
          But if you stay comparatively silent about Rampant IP espionage, theft of personal details, and or National defense programs, in an actual hack (not phishing) That's completely OK.

          Nope, this intelligence thing has been blurred for political reasons - the Democratic process wasn't hacked. The effect on the voters is completely dubious, especially given MSM's complicit Democrat bias in failed reporting of Wiki leaks, and those that now see the process of conflating Intelligence Reports for political narrative will distrust your Intelligence agencies even more even if their assessment is that Russia did try to influence the election (Ho hum, pot, meet kettle) because of the frankly rather irresponsible way that information is reported.

          Good work Dems, and (presumably) those same retards at the GOP with the Slam Dunk that was WMD. You managed to conflate hacking of a private political entity as if it was the government itself (last time I checked the U.S.A wasn't a CCP one party state). But at least you managed to make 52% of registered Dems believe machines were hacked (who can't respect election results now).

          It's becoming clearer just why Trump won - not that it means a free pass on his history either.
          Ego Numquam

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            GVChamp,



            it's standard Russian info-ops.

            it wouldn't have been such a big deal had the President-Elect not screamed like a narcissistic man-child and pissed on everyone except the Russians, to include fellow Republicans and the intelligence community, in his various responses.
            The President-Elect screamed about it because it was front-page half-news in the NY Times, leaked by administration officials (or high-ranking Democratic law-makers), and part of an obvious effort by Progressive Media to at a minimum discredit Trump and a long-shot effort to overturn election results. Again, Progressives were in Hillary's office in a manner of hours/days telling her that it was HIGHLY PROBABLE the voting machines WERE hacked, and rigged, and that Hillary should contest the results.
            These were "cyber security experts," by the way.
            Looking at the data a little closely, though, it's obvious they entirely jumped the gun and had NO EVIDENCE for the claims that machines were hacked.

            I have no idea what forms the base of the intelligence agencies judgments. I assume it is better than the "the vote was rigged" judgment, but I see no convincing reason to trust the intelligence agencies estimation of "high confidence" and their timeline/narrative doesn't even make sense (by 2016 Russia had developed a clear preference but their cyber-operation to influence the election results started in December 2015?)


            I'm a Russia-hawk, so whatever, attack Russia (should've done it in 2004!), but it's obvious the narrative the Progressives are trying to advance and was obvious when they were trying to convince us Trump was the Manchurian candidate. It's really not going to do anything, GOP leadership is going to support Trump, the GOP base is going to support Trump, and no one cares what Lindsey Graham thinks.
            Last edited by GVChamp; 09 Jan 17,, 15:32.
            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

            Comment


            • I'm a Russia-hawk, so whatever, attack Russia (should've done it in 2004!), but it's obvious the narrative the Progressives are trying to advance and was obvious when they were trying to convince us Trump was the Manchurian candidate. It's really not going to do anything, GOP leadership is going to support Trump, the GOP base is going to support Trump, and no one cares what Lindsey Graham thinks.
              ALL of this could have been very easily deflected by merely nodding one's head and saying "yes, yes very serious charges, we will look into this in a bipartisan way, but in the end Russia did not influence the ultimate results of the election."

              pretty much what Pence was trying to say from the beginning, and what Trump is now kinda sorta grudgingly saying.

              instead the President-Elect -chose- to scream about it in possibly the worst way, ie insulting everyone EXCEPT for the Russians. he didn't HAVE to- he could, you know, be a mature adult.

              of course as you said, from your perspective this is all to the good because it will certainly increase the political price that the administration will need to pay if they want to get friendly with Russia.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                ALL of this could have been very easily deflected by merely nodding one's head and saying "yes, yes very serious charges, we will look into this in a bipartisan way, but in the end Russia did not influence the ultimate results of the election."

                pretty much what Pence was trying to say from the beginning, and what Trump is now kinda sorta grudgingly saying.

                instead the President-Elect -chose- to scream about it in possibly the worst way, ie insulting everyone EXCEPT for the Russians. he didn't HAVE to- he could, you know, be a mature adult.

                of course as you said, from your perspective this is all to the good because it will certainly increase the political price that the administration will need to pay if they want to get friendly with Russia.
                Thats because the narrative from the start has been the Russians "hacked the election", giving false impressions that somehow Putins antics put Trump directly in the White House.

                That was impossible to prove and the intelligence geeks said as much.

                So better it would have been had they said that on day one.
                Last edited by YellowFever; 09 Jan 17,, 16:00.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  ALL of this could have been very easily deflected by merely nodding one's head and saying "yes, yes very serious charges, we will look into this in a bipartisan way, but in the end Russia did not influence the ultimate results of the election."

                  pretty much what Pence was trying to say from the beginning, and what Trump is now kinda sorta grudgingly saying.

                  instead the President-Elect -chose- to scream about it in possibly the worst way, ie insulting everyone EXCEPT for the Russians. he didn't HAVE to- he could, you know, be a mature adult.

                  of course as you said, from your perspective this is all to the good because it will certainly increase the political price that the administration will need to pay if they want to get friendly with Russia.
                  Responsible adults do not leak half-baked unresearched rumors to fake news outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times. Political hacks do, and the response they got was deserved. If Senior Democratic Leadership wants to create a narrative and poison discourse, Trump will respond 10-fold, which I think it is a perfectly good response.


                  The actual inter-agency report was not prepared until, what, last week? We've been talking about this since November? So what's the talk been? Speculation, with sanctions issued based on speculation. Even still, none of us have access to the information, and even Congress doesn't. Only senior legislative officials and the Executive does.
                  "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                  Comment


                  • Classic example of how Trymp and the media are both acting inappropriately.

                    Trump says just the right thing in the offical statement after the classified breifing...and then goes on Twitter and basts off.

                    And a typical hack calling Trump's offical statement false because we do not know exactly how much the hack helped Trump.



                    Probably the next "big" item on the lefty agenda:

                    How much effect the hack had on the election.

                    It won't go anywhere but it'll hurt Trump so let's do it.

                    Comment


                    • GVChamp,

                      Responsible adults do not leak half-baked unresearched rumors to fake news outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times. Political hacks do, and the response they got was deserved. If Senior Democratic Leadership wants to create a narrative and poison discourse, Trump will respond 10-fold, which I think it is a perfectly good response.
                      you mean the 'narrative and poison discourse' which led a certain candidate to say "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you'll probably be rewarded mightily by our press"? :-)

                      the DNC first announced that something funny was going on in May-June 16, after they hired Crowdstrike to look into it. that Crowdstrike report already blamed Russian government agencies. -not- November. intel officials were stating that this was true by July. the first official pronouncement by ODNI/DHS was in October.

                      to put it in a way that you and YF might better appreciate, think of the way Clinton first responded to the media regarding her private server issues. reflexive Clintonworld deny-deny-deny, which just made things worse. Trump's response to all of this has been quite similar in result, giving the PERCEPTION that the Russians have successfully driven a wedge between the incoming administration and the US intel agencies which will work for him.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • Losing sight of the real challenge is easy in today's atmosphere of gobbledygook surrounding the Russian hack. Russian leaders, Trumpites, and non-partisan commentators all fuzz up the hack in tangential considerations. After all, what does the hack have to do with WMD really. Nothing. But it makes a nice distraction from the reality of what happened, and shows how absurdly some people reason. Are we to believe that the WMD fiasco has been repeated in hundreds, more likely thousands of CIA assessments since then? How does one wrong assessment render all that follow wrong? Well, of course, citing it over and over again distracts from the danger of what really happened. And there's the China hacks excuse, leading people to accuse Obama of hypocrisy for imposing visible sanctions on Russia, but not China, as if equating the two puts them in the same category. Just more distraction; China's hacks are national security threats, whereas Russia's in this case are existential--threats to our democratic process. Also a distraction is Trump's insistence that the government's assessment constitutes a deliberate attempt to undermine his election victory. I can understand his suspicion in this regard. Little done in Washington is not somehow political. But come Inaugural Day he will take an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution from all enemies "domestic and foreign". If Russia's hack is nothing else, it is a threat to free and open elections. Why else are some of the most vehement critics of Russia's hacks Republicans. Trump will continue to downplay Russia's meddling in order to advance his aim of improving relations with Putin, but if so he may find himself on a fool's errand, as one experienced Russia hand warns:

                        http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/op...f=opinion&_r=0

                        How We Fool Ourselves on Russia

                        By WILLIAM J. BURNS
                        JAN. 7, 2017

                        In the quarter-century since the end of the Cold War, profound grievances, misperceptions and disappointments have often defined the relationship between the United States and Russia. I lived through this turbulence during my years as a diplomat in Moscow, navigating the curious mix of hope and humiliation that I remember so vividly in the Russia of Boris N. Yeltsin, and the pugnacity and raw ambition of Vladimir V. Putin’s Kremlin. And I lived through it in Washington, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations.

                        There have been more than enough illusions on both sides. The United States has oscillated between visions of an enduring partnership with Moscow and dismissing it as a sulking regional power in terminal decline. Russia has moved between notions of a strategic partnership with the United States and a later, deeper desire to upend the current international order, where a dominant United States consigns Russia to a subordinate role.

                        The reality is that our relationship with Russia will remain competitive, and often adversarial, for the foreseeable future. At its core is a fundamental disconnect in outlook and about each other’s role in the world.

                        It is tempting to think that personal rapport can bridge this disconnect and that the art of the deal can unlock a grand bargain. That is a foolish starting point for sensible policy. It would be especially foolish to think that Russia’s deeply troubling interference in our election can or should be played down, however inconvenient.
                        Continue reading the main story

                        President Putin’s aggressive election meddling, like his broader foreign policy, has at least two motivating factors. The first is his conviction that the surest path to restoring Russia as a great power comes at the expense of an American-led order. He wants Russia unconstrained by Western values and institutions, free to pursue a sphere of influence.

                        The second motivating factor is closely connected to the first. The legitimacy of Mr. Putin’s system of repressive domestic control depends on the existence of external threats. Surfing on high oil prices, he used to be able to bolster his social contract with the Russian people through rising standards of living. That was clear in the boomtown Moscow I knew as the American ambassador a decade ago, full of the promise of a rising middle class and the consumption of an elite convinced that anything worth doing was worth overdoing. But Mr. Putin has lost that card in a world of lower energy prices and Western sanctions, and with a one-dimensional economy in which real reform is trumped by the imperative of political control and the corruption that lubricates it.

                        The ultimate realist, Mr. Putin understands Russia’s relative weakness, but regularly demonstrates that declining powers can be at least as disruptive as rising powers. He sees a target-rich environment all around him.

                        If he can’t easily build Russia up, he can take the United States down a few pegs, with his characteristic tactical agility and willingness to play rough and take risks. If he can’t have a deferential government in Kiev, he can grab Crimea and try to engineer the next best thing, a dysfunctional Ukraine. If he can’t abide the risk of regime upheaval in Syria, he can flex Russia’s military muscle, emasculate the West, and preserve Bashar al-Assad atop the rubble of Aleppo. If he can’t directly intimidate the European Union, he can accelerate its unraveling by supporting anti-Union nationalists and exploiting the wave of migration spawned in part by his own brutality. Wherever he can, he exposes the seeming hypocrisy and fecklessness of Western democracies, blurring the line between fact and fiction.

                        So what to do? Russia is still too big, proud and influential to ignore and still the only nuclear power comparable to the United States. It remains a major player on problems from the Arctic to Iran and North Korea. We need to focus on the critical before we test the desirable. The first step is to sustain, and if necessary amplify, the actions taken by the Obama administration in response to Russian hacking. Russia challenged the integrity of our democratic system, and Europe’s 2017 electoral landscape is the next battlefield.

                        A second step is to reassure our European allies of our absolute commitment to NATO. American politicians tell one another to “remember your base,” and that’s what should guide policy toward Russia. Our network of allies is not a millstone around America’s neck, but a powerful asset that sets us apart.

                        A third step is to stay sharply focused on Ukraine, a country whose fate will be critical to the future of Europe, and Russia, over the next generation. This is not about NATO or European Union membership, both distant aspirations. It is about helping Ukrainian leaders build the successful political system that Russia seeks to subvert.

                        Finally, we should be wary of superficially appealing notions like a common war on Islamic extremism or a common effort to “contain” China. Russia’s bloody role in Syria makes the terrorist threat far worse and despite long-term concerns about a rising China, Mr. Putin has little inclination to sacrifice a relationship with Beijing.

                        I’ve learned a few lessons during my diplomatic career, often the hard way. I learned to respect Russians and their history and vitality. I learned that it rarely pays to neglect or underestimate Russia, or display gratuitous disrespect. But I also learned that firmness and vigilance, and a healthy grasp of the limits of the possible, are the best way to deal with the combustible combination of grievance and insecurity that Vladimir Putin embodies. I’ve learned that we have a much better hand to play with Mr. Putin than he does with us. If we play it methodically, confident in our enduring strengths, and unapologetic about our values, we can eventually build a more stable relationship, without illusions.

                        William J. Burns is president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former Deputy Secretary of State. He served as U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • Can someone please tell me how the Russian hacks were a "threat to free and open election" or "our election process"?

                          I keep asking and nobody seem to answer me.

                          I voted for Trump knowing he was an asshole.* I voted for Trump knowing a vote for him would be a vote against Clinton.

                          I knew way before the* emails ever leaked that she had shady practices in the Clinton foundation.* I knew of her cozy relations with the press and I knew the DNC much prefered her over Bernie.

                          I knew all this and still voted for Trump.

                          In effect what you are saying is the American people can't be trusted to arrive at their own conclusion as to how they voted.

                          And why is it that Trump is left holding the bag on this one when he had absolutely zero to do with it?

                          Why isn't Obama roasted over the coals for letting this happen and not saying something before the results of the elections were known.*

                          What new revelations did we find out?

                          That Russia (and the Chinese and the Norks and Iran and everyone including the kitchen sink) is attacking us through cyber means to gain our secrets?

                          We knew that.

                          We knew Wikileaks is hell bent on exposing our secrets and Asdange doesn't care where the leaks come from.

                          So how did they hurt our election process?

                          Please explain that to me.

                          Did those life long Democrats in the Wisc. Mich. and Penn wanted to vote for Hillary and changed their votes because of the released emails?

                          I'd like to see you try without calling the American voters stupid.
                          Last edited by YellowFever; 09 Jan 17,, 18:19.

                          Comment


                          • It appears the classified version of the report (“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”) convinced Trump of Russia's culpability, although he continues to view it as an attempt to cast doubt on his election victory.

                            http://www.yourstephenvilletx.com/ne...ussia-for-hack

                            http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...on_season.html

                            IMO, the Russian hacking didn't help Trump much, if at all. Trump would have won by a greater margin in the battleground states had it not been for pussygate. The hack mostly reinforced Trump's existing supporters. Hillary's supporters saw it for what it was, a slimy attack on their candidate. I trace her defeat back to Bernie Sanders's challenge in the primaries and the bitter disappointment his followers felt when he lost.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                              GOP leadership is going to support Trump, the GOP base is going to support Trump, and no one cares what Lindsey Graham thinks.
                              I disagree. Trump may have destroyed the GOP electoral machine but the vast majority of congressmen and senators are establishment. Trump has two opposition parties to deal with, not one. His only real option is to do as Obama did, rule by fiat.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                I disagree. Trump may have destroyed the GOP electoral machine but the vast majority of congressmen and senators are establishment. Trump has two opposition parties to deal with, not one. His only real option is to do as Obama did, rule by fiat.
                                Agreed, I don't see the GOP being a rubber-stamp for Trump at all.

                                For one thing, they'd like to get reelected...and that means distancing yourself from the crazy that's to follow January 20th.
                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X