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 JAD_333 View Post
    Not to mention how his tweets are affecting these companies stockholders... Lockheed down 4.5% after the tweet. Boeing down after criticizing cost of new Air Force 1. Come on; there must be another way to broach the subject of costs without spooking the stock market.
    ummm, haven't we(as in the people) (as well as decision makers at the top level) been criticizing the costs of these programs for years?

    I don't see what Trump doing it on twitter as opposed to thru a news 'briefing' has to do with anything here.

    Comment


    • YF,

      Apparantly, the CIA is sure of it and the FBI has their reservations.
      both CIA and FBI believe that Russia engaged in skullduggery. CIA assessed "with high confidence" that Russia had a specific goal-- getting Trump elected, but FBI's viewpoint is more "would this be prosecutable". FBI has a harder case to prove because assessing specific motives for a court of law is far more difficult.
      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
        the crux of this issue is the IC assessment that Russia hacked into both DNC and RNC e-mail, but only decided to release the DNC e-mails.

        the question is why.

        as far as i can tell, JAD's response is that Putin did this to sow general chaos and distrust. citanon's response is that Putin did this to assist the GOP in holding onto Congress while making HRC President.

        sorry, those explanations seem...off.
        According to that abcnews article...

        U.S. intelligence officials have maintained since October that Russian hackers targeted both Republicans and Democrats. But the hackers were far more successful in their cyberattacks on the Democrats — stealing thousands of emails between party officials and other data — than they were with Republicans, whose official party systems had better defenses against cyberattacks.
        If that's true then it would seem people are asking the wrong questions.

        Comment


        • Very strange that the only person calling the conclusion of ALL the US agencies "ridiculous" is Trump. He seems to be suggesting that hacker must be caught at his pc doing the hack - which of course is impossible, particularly if they are in St Petersburg where you do not have jurisdiction. More to the point this is simply not how the cyber spooks do their job and shows a complete lack of will to acknowledge or understand the importance and value of cyber intelligence. The NSA cannot be happy.

          I am told by an American friend that constitutionally it the Electoral College which elects the President and this is due later this month. He thinks a security briefing for the Electoral College may be asked for and this may lead some to change their vote and if it is true that indeed Hilary did win more votes then such a change could be justifiable but don't know how viable this would be myself. It would certainly be ironic if it were to happen that Muscovite interference resulted in the opposite of what they seemingly wanted.
          Last edited by snapper; 12 Dec 16,, 22:19.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            YF,



            both CIA and FBI believe that Russia engaged in skullduggery. CIA assessed "with high confidence" that Russia had a specific goal-- getting Trump elected, but FBI's viewpoint is more "would this be prosecutable". FBI has a harder case to prove because assessing specific motives for a court of law is far more difficult.

            "The fact the CIA and FBI disagree shows the need for a bipartisan investigation to get to the bottom of this. The investigation should be tough, strong, bipartisan and have access to all materials, classified and not,"

            That quote was by Schumer

            Comment


            • JAD,

              Unless the intel community can produce clear evidence that the Russian's intent was to help Trump win, other explanations are game. No?
              as i said, this would be more open to doubt had the Russians -only- hacked into the DNC and were not successful in hacking into the RNC. or, conversely, if they had hacked into both and released both.

              when it's just one or the other, the motive question becomes rather murkier.

              So, are we seeing a rush by the administration (dems) to find a smoking gun before the upcoming Electoral College vote on the 19th, in hopes enough electors bolt their commitment to Trump to throw the election to Clinton?
              yet that's not the point of Obama's ordered review, which seems to be more of a hotwash than an assessment-- after all, the IC assessment is already out there!

              given the, shall we say...Russo-philic tendencies of the new administration, I don't think that Obama asking for this review is particularly politicized. especially not when Congress is asking for the same. the only difference being that the IC review can certainly be stopped by the new POTUS.

              Would you welcome an Electoral College revolt??
              of course not, and neither do i think this review would lead to such in any event.


              In Wogglin's "words", why are we beating a dead horse? The only justification I can see at this point is to highlight the need for greater security against hacking and meddling in our voting mechanisms.
              what i would like to see is for this Administration to ensure that the -next- Administration, and the legislative branch, make clear to the Russians that their meddling will not be tolerated and will be punished. the last thing I want to see is a Trump Administration doing its level best to sweep this under the rug.

              What about sitting foreign leaders who supporting Clinton--Renzi of Italy; Hollande of France. They didn't hack anything that we know of, but did their support add weight to Clinton's chances to win?
              not the same as state-sponsored hackers, and you know it.
              Last edited by astralis; 12 Dec 16,, 22:35.
              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


              • Talk of Trump nominating Rick Perry for Sec-Energy.

                LOL.

                first Pruitt for EPA and now Perry as possible Sec-Energy


                Trump wants to turn over all the apple carts, doesn't he...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                  ummm, haven't we(as in the people) (as well as decision makers at the top level) been criticizing the costs of these programs for years?

                  I don't see what Trump doing it on twitter as opposed to thru a news 'briefing' has to do with anything here.

                  Then perhaps you should consider that the Commander in Chief, the guy who also approves the defense budget, when he barks, the market reacts. This is as close as you can get to a definitive statement that the F-35 program may see cuts or that the contractor's anticipated revenues may be less. If you're an investor, particularly a fund heavily into Lockheed, you'll be 100% more nervous if the president hints that program may be cut than if, for example, a Congressman wishes it would be.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • And now, a word from tankie's favorite boy, Paul Joseph Watson:

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by snapper View Post

                      I am told by an American friend that constitutionally it the Electoral College which elects the President and this is due later this month. He thinks a security briefing for the Electoral College may be asked for and this may lead some to change their vote and if it is true that indeed Hilary did win more votes then such a change could be justifiable but don't know how viable this would be myself. It would certainly be ironic if it were to happen that Muscovite interference resulted in the opposite of what they seemingly wanted.
                      10 electors have asked for briefings, 9 democrats whose votes don't matter, and one republican, whose vote does matter.
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • So....

                        A GOP congressman from Texas said the RNC was hacked as well, and Reince Priebus denied it vehemently....

                        And the press hanged Priebus for lying
                        ..


                        But now the GOP congress critter retracts his statement that the RNC was hacked.

                        We definitely need our emoticons back

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                          And now, a word from tankie's favorite boy, Paul Joseph Watson:
                          Fabulous except of course everyone of substance knows the the CIA has proof that he's actually a Russian agent sent to mislead weak-minded conservatives. Because Russia.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                            Fabulous except of course everyone of substance knows the the CIA has proof that he's actually a Russian agent sent to mislead weak-minded conservatives. Because Russia.
                            Anyone who tells me that Wikileaks has "impeccable" credibility is either deeply mislead or lying.

                            Comment


                            • Glenn Greenwald nails it.


                              (3) An important part of this story, quite clearly, is inter-agency feuding between, at the very least, the CIA and the FBI.

                              Recall that the top echelon of the CIA was firmly behind Clinton and vehemently against Trump, while at least some powerful factions within the FBI had the opposite position.

                              Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell not only endorsed Clinton in the New York Times but claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” George W. Bush’s CIA and NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, pronounced Trump a “clear and present danger” to U.S. national security and then, less than a week before the election, went to the Washington Post to warn that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin” and said Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

                              Meanwhile, key factions in the FBI were furious that Hillary Clinton was not criminally charged for her handling of classified information; pressured FBI Director James Comey into writing a letter that was pretty clearly harmful to Clinton about further investigating the case; and seemed to be improperly communicating with close Trump ally Rudy Giuliani. And while we are now being treated to anonymous leaks about how the CIA believes Putin helped Trump, recall that the FBI, just weeks ago, was shoveling anonymous claims to the New York Times that had the opposite goal:

                              https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/...-for-evidence/

                              Comment


                              • Swiped from the Greenwald article

                                Tucker tears a new hole on Schiff...


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X