Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2016 US General Election

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

  • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    It seems four Senators today have come out asking for an investigation into the allegations of Russian interference by our intelligence services. Schumer (D), Reed (D), McCain (R) and Graham (R). That sounds like a indirect rebuke to Trump's attacks on the US intelligence services.
    Or, one could say it's a bipartisan effort to get to the bottom of all this.

    ...I do consider it very, very poor form to publicly attack our intelligence services while siding with Russia.
    Some adjustment is called for here. First, he didn't attack the CIA; he said he didn't believe its conclusion, or assessment, as the case may be. He didn't side with Russia; he questioned whether other countries could have done the hacking. Obviously, the CIA hasn't put its 100% seal of approval on its assessment.

    A House Rep maybe but never the President or President elect of the country. The symbolism is extremely bad and on top of that siding with Russia and giving her cover to claim in her propaganda.
    Would you agree that Obama, or whoever put out the CIA assessment, would have thought of that? The lesson is, don't try to sell the public a half-baked cake and expect whichever USG official or president-elect in the crosshairs to just lie down in the freeway and get run over without a peep. It is especially suspect that the intel agency happens to be under the control of the current president, who just happens to be a member of party that just lost the election.






    Did anyone watch Meet the Press today. Someone got grilled about this subject. I rarely watch but this Sunday show was good on this very subject.[/QUOTE]
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • JAD,

      The Russian victory resides less in getting one candidate elected over another, but more in getting us all in a huff and consumed in doubts about the sanctity of our election process, and in dividing us into two angry camps. In that they have succeeded exceedingly well.
      we were already doing this without Putin and the hacking. i do recall a certain Presidential candidate talking about how the polls were rigged, how the polling stations were rigged, and that the elections were going to be rigged...and hint, that candidate wasn't HRC.

      The dems and Clinton (for the sake of posterity) would gain much favor among American if they henceforth downplayed the hacking issue, pledged to work with the incoming president, and, at the very least, acknowledged that he is their president, too, as I have done.
      HRC conceded quickly and graciously on Election Night.

      again, let's say this was the other way around-- do you envision even for one second that conservatives would have EVER let this go?

      "lock her up", yes?
      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
        HRC conceded quickly and graciously on Election Night.

        again, let's say this was the other way around-- do you envision even for one second that conservatives would have EVER let this go?

        "lock her up", yes?
        Yes, she did and so the problem doesn't revolve around her anymore. The problem was one person winning the Electoral vote and one the popular vote. Consequently those on the popular vote side will always feel they were screwed. You can analyze that all you want but it still will boil down to that one point for them. Then with the Electoral vote side telling them to get over it does not exactly smooth the waters. This back and forth could go on for the next four years and probably will. It pays to win both nowadays so none of us go through this again.

        Now imagine, if you can, Trump winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral vote. Would we ever hear the end of that? Probably not in any of our lifetimes.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JRT View Post
          Superficial. You seem to have only picked up on my disclaimer about Trump's use of inappropriate language, but seemed to avoid the substance, commentary uttered by Donald J. Trump within the videos, in context with recent posts about Putin and Tillerson, and oil.
          *yawn*

          Yeah I saw them when HRC was running them in campaign ads a long time ago. Welcome to 2015.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	673.gif
Views:	2
Size:	786.3 KB
ID:	1470002

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            JAD,

            we were already doing this without Putin and the hacking. i do recall a certain Presidential candidate talking about how the polls were rigged, how the polling stations were rigged, and that the elections were going to be rigged...and hint, that candidate wasn't HRC.
            Asty:

            True. But now that the election is over, are we going to keep on going with it just because he started it. Are we going to keep on accommodating the Russians by fighting over the integrity of our democratic institutions?


            HRC conceded quickly and graciously on Election Night.

            Yes, she did, but then she wiped the bloom off the rose by later joining Jill Stein's tilting at windmills.


            again, let's say this was the other way around-- do you envision even for one second that conservatives would have EVER let this go?

            "lock her up", yes?
            Hell no! But then which conservatives are you talking about? The radio jocks, the viral e-mail guys, the comment board trolls? Contrast them to graciousness of McCain and Romney when they lost to Obama. Stopping this nonsense starts with the leadership on both sides, and right now I see the dem leadership stoking fires, from the subtleties of Clinton on down. Just what the Russians want.
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
              I might have missed something.

              Please point out the quotes Chaffetz made where he threatened to investigate Hillary "if she won".

              And the investigation threats was in regards to the contents of the emails being leaked and not the validity of the election.

              And what does this "he started it...no he started it" back and forth in the legislative branch have anything to do with my original point that Obama played this poorly by making the executive directive to investigate so public?
              http://www.politicaldog101.com/2016/...llary-clinton/

              OK, he didn't jinx the outcome by saying what he'd do "if she won," but the implications are pretty obvious.
              And, no, the threat wasn't about Russian interference, just by the same guy.
              Trust me?
              I'm an economist!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                *yawn*

                Yeah I saw them when HRC was running them in campaign ads a long time ago. Welcome to 2015.

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]42832[/ATTACH]
                Beating a dead horse? Your dismissive comment including the surrealistic South Park cartoon video is very far out of touch with the reality of this.

                Those were not television cartoons, rather those were real videos of Donald J. Trump's campaign speeches. Donald J. Trump has since won the election and has not yet been sworn into office. Those statements and promises that Donald J. Trump made during his campaign will remain relevant for as long as he holds the office. Pretending otherwise is just delusionary.

                These videos show Donald threatening the Saudis about their oil production, and also promising to use military force in the region to capture oil fields, and then take the oil with the help of Exxon Mobil under the protection of US military forces. These threats and promises become that much more relevant now that he is no-longer just a crackpot candidate, but rather has become President-elect, will soon be Commander in Chief as POTUS-45, and is now floating the rumor of possibly appointing Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobile, as Secretary of State.

                While you might prefer to dismiss or ignore this, oil producing countries will not ignore belligerent talk that openly threatens them directly or indirectly.

                Originally posted by Bloomberg
                Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson is Donald Trump’s choice as secretary of state, NBC reported on Saturday, a move that would hand top diplomatic powers to a man whose ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin go back almost two decades. ... Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson is Donald Trump’s choice as secretary of state, NBC reported on Saturday, a move that would hand top diplomatic powers to a man whose ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin go back almost two decades. ... Tillerson has ties to Putin that go back almost two decades. The pair met in 1999 on remote Sakhalin Island in Russia’s Far East. He was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship and as recently as 2015 visited with officials in Putin’s inner circle. That connection could make him a useful bridge between the Russian leader and Trump, who has repeatedly said he’d seek a more cooperative relationship with Moscow. ... Tillerson is grappling with international sanctions against Russia that froze a $1 billion investment and billion-barrel oil discovery in the Arctic Ocean. ... Under Tillerson’s leadership, Russia became Exxon’s single biggest exploration theater as the company amassed drilling rights across tens of millions of acres, dwarfing its holdings in its home country, formerly its largest drilling opportunity, according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. When the Putin regime forced Royal Dutch Shell Plc and other foreign investors to cede control of a massive gas export project on Sakhalin Island in 2007, Exxon’s holdings in the same region remained intact and untouched by the government.
                Originally posted by DonaldTrump
                In the video, the candidate Donald J. Trump in a public speech in Iowa during the run up to the 2016 election, makes the following promises about what he would do as President of the United States, "ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money, because they have certain oil camps, right? They have certain areas of oil that they took away, some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers. And, thats right. I would blow up the pipes. I would blow up the refineries. I would blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And you know what? You'll get Exxon to go in there, and in two months. Youu ever see how good these guys are, the great oil companies? They will rebuild that sucker. It will be brand new, and it will be beautiful. And then ring it. And I would take the oil."
                Originally posted by DonaldTrump
                In the other video, in another public speech, candidate Donald Trump states the following, "Did you see recently, where a couple of days ago, Saudi Arabia said 'Uh, lets raise the price, lets cut back production.'? Can you believe it? You're going to be paying five or six Dollars per gallon, for gasoline, pretty soon. And they want to raise the price of oil because we have nobody in Washington that sits back and said, 'You are not going to raise that Fucking price, you understand me?'."
                Last edited by JRT; 12 Dec 16,, 16:21.
                .
                .
                .

                Comment


                • JAD,

                  Hell no! But then which conservatives are you talking about? The radio jocks, the viral e-mail guys, the comment board trolls?
                  or...our President-Elect?

                  it's not -HRC- that's burning up Twitter and the media right now regarding the hacks. ah, and a certain John Bolton today not-so-subtly mentioned that perhaps all of this was a false-flag operation.

                  i agree that leadership from both sides is needed to tamp this down, which is why I'm actually encouraged by McCain, Graham, and Schumer working on it. HRC has been silent on this issue. I'm sure we both know whom is the loudest voice in the room, and whether or not that voice is demonstrating "leadership". in this case, pointing a finger at dem leadership seems rather disingenuous to me.
                  Last edited by astralis; 12 Dec 16,, 14:31.
                  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 DOR View Post
                    http://www.politicaldog101.com/2016/...llary-clinton/

                    OK, he didn't jinx the outcome by saying what he'd do "if she won," but the implications are pretty obvious.
                    And, no, the threat wasn't about Russian interference, just by the same guy.
                    Firstly, apologies since I am on my mobile device and can't quote the entire articles, only link them.

                    So you link me to a "news" site which is nothing more than a thinly veiled opinion piece, which basically uses 2 other opinion pieces as sources for the "report"...

                    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...investigations

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.ededd3caad72

                    It looks pretty much like the author of the original Washington Post opinion piece is the person that made the implications by using phrases like "Announcing even before the president (meaning Clinton) takes office..."

                    (Snicker..still get a kick out them being so wrong)

                    So a fake news site uses an opinion piece by a liberal blogger.....and uses it as the basis of a story.

                    Got ya. That's gotta be 100% true without any slant whatsoever.

                    Don't link me to convoluted opinion pieces and tell me it's the truth.

                    Links me to the exact Chaffetz quotes (preferably video so the "journalists" can't add their own commentary to it) so we can discuss it if you want.

                    And I am really wondering how all this relates to a "hacked election" and how badly I think Barry handled it
                    Last edited by YellowFever; 12 Dec 16,, 16:50.

                    Comment


                    • YF,

                      All the nations try to influence another to their advantage (see Obama's speech in UK before Brexit for example) and the Russian's got the better of us in this round. It is the nature of our world.

                      So let's take our lumps and quietly (operative word: quietly) try to fix whatever needs fixing so this doesn't happen again.
                      not for elections.

                      this is false equivalence-- and in fact, this is the same accusation that Putin uses for the US, about how shadowy US operatives caused the color revolutions in Eastern Europe as well as protests against his election.

                      note that Germany is also loudly warning Moscow that election interference won't be tolerated, either.

                      this is similar to our cyber discussions with the Chinese (and the French!)-- political-military hacking is to be expected, but we won't tolerate state hacking of economic enterprises, etc. there's a line in the sand that must be clearly delineated.
                      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


                      • Trump targets Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jet costs

                        Donald Trump on Monday criticized Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jet program as too expensive, the latest attack by the U.S. President-elect on large defense contractors.

                        The aerospace giant's shares dropped 4 percent after Trump's tweet, while shares of several other defense contractors also weakened.

                        "The F-35 program and cost is out of control," Trump said on Twitter. "Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th."

                        Last week, he also used Twitter to target Boeing Co (BA.N) for its "out of control" costs on a new fleet of Air Force One planes, urging the federal government to "Cancel order!"

                        Lockheed Martin's F-35 program leader, Jeff Babione, responded by saying the company understands concerns about affordability and has invested millions of dollars to reduce the jet's price.

                        Babione said Lockheed's goal was to reduce the price of the F-35 by 70 percent from its original estimates. "We project it to be about 85 million dollars in the 2019 or 2020 time frame,” he told reporters in Israel.

                        A week before Trump won the Nov. 8 presidential election, the U.S. Defense Department and Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) concluded negotiations on their ninth contract for 90 F-35 fighter jets after 14 months of negotiations, the Pentagon said.

                        Lockheed won the contract, valued at up to $7.18 billion, in late November and has received an interim payment.

                        Trump campaigned on a promise to cut waste in federal government.

                        Lockheed and its key partners, Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), Pratt & Whitney and BAE Systems (BAES.L), are developing and building three variants of the F-35s for the U.S. military and 10 allies including Britain, Australia, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

                        After Trump's Monday morning tweet, shares of Northrop Grumman were down 4.5 while shares of BAE Systems (BAES.L) were 2.4 percent lower in London.

                        Shares of General Dynamics (GD.N), Raytheon, and United Technologies (UTX.N) were all lower Monday, as were shares of Boeing.

                        United Technologies Corp , which had a run-in with the President-elect over a plan to ship 2,100 jobs to Mexico from Indiana operations of its Carrier air conditioning unit. The company last week agreed with Trump to keep about 800 of the threatened manufacturing jobs in Indiana, and retain another 300 headquarters jobs, in return for state tax incentives.

                        The attacks on Boeing and Lockheed Martin raise concerns that the incoming Trump administration will threaten defense contractors' profit margins.

                        “His emerging habit of using Twitter as a bully pulpit could become a threat to controversial high profile programs,” Cowen analysts wrote last week after Trump criticized the cost of Boeing's Air Force One replacement program. “Even if Trump only launches a bombastic Twitter shout-out, this more aggressive approach to contractor relations could impact the stocks.”

                        Earlier this month, the Pentagon's chief arms buyer said he was hopeful that Lockheed F-35 block buy will proceed.

                        (Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey; Editing by Bill Trott and Nick Zieminski)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                          YF,



                          not for elections.

                          this is false equivalence-- and in fact, this is the same accusation that Putin uses for the US, about how shadowy US operatives caused the color revolutions in Eastern Europe as well as protests against his election.

                          note that Germany is also loudly warning Moscow that election interference won't be tolerated, either.

                          this is similar to our cyber discussions with the Chinese (and the French!)-- political-military hacking is to be expected, but we won't tolerate state hacking of economic enterprises, etc. there's a line in the sand that must be clearly delineated.
                          So the proper step is to investigate quietly and if wrong doing is found, retaliate using whatever tools are available to us.

                          I am saying Obama could've handled it better than ordering the security apparatus to investiagete it so publicly and then getting back to him before he leaves office?

                          The last parts really get to me.

                          Congress is doing their own investigation if he's afraid Trump will bury it.

                          Who knows how long the investigation will take? Why do they need to get back to him before he leaves office?

                          This could've been handled in many reasonable ways but he went down the way that was the most political.

                          So why can't the Democrats be reasonable and basically say what you did to my "So what do we do about this" question instead of whining about it?

                          Take the bumps and take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again and move on.
                          Last edited by YellowFever; 12 Dec 16,, 17:38.

                          Comment


                          • YF,

                            So the proper step is to investigate quietly and if wrong doing is found, retaliate using whatever tools are available to us.

                            I am saying Obama could've handled it better than ordering the security apparatus to investiagete it so publicly and then getting back to him before he leaves office?

                            The last parts really get to me.

                            Congress is doing their own investigation if he's afraid Trump will bury it.
                            i'm not sure why this needs to be "investigated quietly". as i said, this violates regular norms. when China hacked US companies, the US also loudly complained as this was outside norms as well.

                            moreover, the -Congressional- investigation was announced quite publicly, so what is the difference?

                            the intelligence community reports to the Director of National Intelligence, whom in turn reports to the President. so if we want an actual IC investigation, yeah, the investigation needs to be completed prior to Obama leaving office.

                            as i said, this is far better than say, Comey announcing days prior to the election that the case against HRC was going to be re-opened. can you imagine the cry of politicization if Obama decided to do this at the same time?
                            Last edited by astralis; 12 Dec 16,, 17:57.
                            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


                            • Whole business stinks to me. First you have a candidate publicly asking the Muscovites to hack his opponent and guess what? They oblige. Then he claims in advance that if he loses it will be because the result was illegally altered - it was of course, threatening to press charges against his opponent etc; Was she guilty? Did that matter? Then shortly before the end of the campaign the FBI come out with questions about some elses email and not a word is mentioned regarding the Muscovite hacking that one of the candidates publicly called for... I suppose the point was relegate any debate about the actual issues, where only one candidate had any plans, to a side issue and so it became a type of 'post factual' shouting match where headlines mattered more any plans to deal with issues. I suppose you could this free and fair but based on an comparison of plans to deal with issues it was not.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                                Whole business stinks to me. First you have a candidate publicly asking the Muscovites to hack his opponent and guess what? They oblige. Then he claims in advance that if he loses it will be because the result was illegally altered - it was of course, threatening to press charges against his opponent etc; Was she guilty? Did that matter? Then shortly before the end of the campaign the FBI come out with questions about some elses email and not a word is mentioned regarding the Muscovite hacking that one of the candidates publicly called for... I suppose the point was relegate any debate about the actual issues, where only one candidate had any plans, to a side issue and so it became a type of 'post factual' shouting match where headlines mattered more any plans to deal with issues. I suppose you could this free and fair but based on an comparison of plans to deal with issues it was not.
                                Except you have your facts wrong, as the hackings happened long before Trump said anything.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X