Originally posted by astralis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The 2016 US General Election
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Last edited by Parihaka; 18 Dec 16,, 19:01.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
-
Originally posted by YellowFever View PostSo you equate NK hacking Sony or whatever with charges of a foreign power directly interfering with one of our constitutional rights.
Tell me do you think Russia messed with your Brexit vote?
Would love to get your thoughts on that.
I'm just wondering if they can release the evidence of the North Korean hacking why can't they release the evidence of the Russian hack?
Comment
-
Originally posted by zara View PostNo, why would I think that?
I'm just wondering if they can release the evidence of the North Korean hacking why can't they release the evidence of the Russian hack?
And you're the one that brought up the Norks hacking into this so I was wondering how that relates to this charges of hacking of the election.
Comment
-
Originally posted by YellowFever View PostSo you agree with me that the evidence should be released.
And you're the one that brought up the Norks hacking into this so I was wondering how that relates to this charges of hacking of the election.
Comment
-
Originally posted by YellowFever View PostAgreed.
The thing about the liberal response to this is that it overhypes Putin's influence via these hacks and actually strengthens his capabilities.
As the election showed the Russian hacks had no real ability to change the outcome of the election. The real danger is that future candidates could self curtail criticism of Russia to avoid being embarrassed during the campaign. Then, foreign actors could gain real influence on US elections not by affecting the electorate but by affecting the behavior of the candidates.
The smart thing to do to counter this would have been for both sides to acknowledge the hacks happened, but also highlight their very limited effects, for rnc and DNC to get together with the intelligence community and go through a collaborative effort to upgrade their cyber security, and for Trump, Obama and Hillary to support an nonpartisan probe into the matter under the context of acknowledgement of its feeble effects.
Then future hacks would be discouraged.
Instead, the Democrats are hyping the effects, the intelligence community is going out on thin limbs about the intent, Trump is reactively attacking everybody, and the Russians are probably laughing their asses off while the Chinese are taking notes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by citanon View PostThey probably do have pretty good evidence. They can't release it because then the Russians would know specifics about how they are being monitored.
Hence my original statement that Obama played this very badly.
For all I know they might have intimately detailed conversations of Putin and somebody discussing this very issue but saying flat out that they know the intent of the Putin government without willing to back up what they say with evidence was a very stupid thing to do.
Obama placed himself into a corner and if he is unwilling to show the world the evidence, he just looks like a partisan hack.
Comment
-
YF,
Obama placed himself into a corner and if he is unwilling to show the world the evidence, he just looks like a partisan hack.
moreover, note it was the CIA and then the FBI whom was talking about intent, not Obama.
you only need to simply note the world response to know that pretty much every single US ally has now on high alert for Russian political hacking, ranging from Germany to UK to France to Australia, and neither do they much care whether or not the Russian intent was specific or not. for that matter the US isn't doing any asking-- it's not like the Iraq War where the US was trying to get allies to pony up hundreds of thousands of soldiers.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 PostYF,
you keep on saying this, but i can't make any sense of it. exactly -whom- doesn't believe Obama at this point in time?........other than, say, Donald Trump.
moreover, note it was the CIA and then the FBI whom was talking about intent, not Obama.
you only need to simply note the world response to know that pretty much every single US ally has now on high alert for Russian political hacking, ranging from Germany to UK to France to Australia, and neither do they much care whether or not the Russian intent was specific or not. for that matter the US isn't doing any asking-- it's not like the Iraq War where the US was trying to get allies to pony up hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
We know the intent of Putin was to get Trump elected, right?
Is this the same absolute that narrated that we know the elctinon was hacked in Trump's favor becuse the RNC documents weren't released?
I really don't care what the world believes.
I do know what he said is causing damage to the next president of the United States.
As an American I don't like that
At the 2:40 mark. Why did he mention Republican voters and Ronald Reagan if his intention wasn't to turn it political?
Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16,, 03:02.
Comment
-
YF,
So it's a given right?
or do you naturally challenge the findings of the IC every time?
it's certainly within your right to do so, of course, i just find it curious why on THIS aspect you choose to be skeptical.
I do know what he said is causing damage to the next president of the United States.
Why did he mention Republican voters and Ronald Reagan if his intention wasn't to turn it political?
for myself, i think Obama probably owes Romney an apology for mocking him in 2012 regarding this. Obama's belief that Russia is in long-term decline is correct, unfortunately Russia has also shown an impressive capability to muck things up in the short and medium term.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 YellowFever View Post
I really don't care what the world believes.Ego Numquam
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View PostYF,
bottom-line, when the entire US intel community is saying "high confidence", is there a good reason for you to -disbelieve- it?
or do you naturally challenge the findings of the IC every time?
it's certainly within your right to do so, of course, i just find it curious why on THIS aspect you choose to be skeptical.
lol by pointing out that said next President mocking the efforts of the very people whom will be working for him is unwise?
he was referencing the poll i put up here earlier, which is fair game. the same people whom mocked Obama for being weak on Russia are now warming up to Russia because their messiah Trump told them to. funny how it works.
for myself, i think Obama probably owes Romney an apology for mocking him in 2012 regarding this. Obama's belief that Russia is in long-term decline is correct, unfortunately Russia has also shown an impressive capability to muck things up in the short and medium term.
Oh, I am perfectly willing to believe that the Russians hacked the DNC server and Podesta's email.
What I find skeptical is that the CIA has somehow ascertained Putin's intent to help Trump win the election.
During the press conference, he was asked numerous times whether there is definte proof that Russia helped Trump win the election.
His response was basically there is proof that Russia hacked the DNC emails and the drip drip drip release of it hurt Hillary. And that he will release the evidence that can be released without giving away secrets and methods before he leaves office, which he admits won't be much.
Yes, we know the emails most likely hurt Hillary. Do we know for a fact that RNC emails would not be released if they were able to hack into it?
Most of the content of the emails that were leaked were about how they were going to screw Bernie over and Hillary's cozy relationship with the so-called mainstream media.....oh and Poddsta's recipe.
Some scumbag fron the Washington Post said that Putin basically "weaponized" those emails
WHAT??!!!
And I have no doubt of Putin's capability to muck things up. Especially since he has our "real news" media such as the NYT and WaPo doing all the legwork for him.
Citanon's post #4526 sounded very reasonable, didn't it?Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16,, 06:18.
Comment
-
Lawmakers fume over agency refusal to brief House panel on Russia hacking claims
Anger on Capitol Hill boiled over Wednesday night after the intelligence community’s alleged “intransigence” forced the cancellation of a House Intelligence Committee briefing on claims of Russian interference in the U.S. election.
"Somebody has the time to leak it to The Washington Post and The New York Times, but they don’t have the time to come to Congress," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the committee, told Fox News' "The Kelly File." "It’s their job to come. They don’t have any choice. They have to come in, especially when they have created this."
Amid concerns about reports that conflict with details previously provided to the committee, Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., originally had requested a closed, classified briefing for members from the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.
But Fox News was told the CIA Director John Brennan declined to provide a briefer, citing its focus on the full review requested by President Obama. The other agencies did not respond to the committee’s request, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction.
Nunes had to cancel the briefing in response.
"It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign," Nunes said in a statement. "The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes."
King pointed out the irony in the lack of cooperation.
"The consensus was that there was an attempt by the Russians to put a cloud over the election, to create disunity. Well, that’s what’s happening right now, but it’s the intelligence community that’s doing it,” he said.
King added that lawmakers have not received any assessment from the CIA that Russia interfered to help Trump win the presidency over Hillary Clinton, allegations first reported by The Washington Post Friday.
The intelligence community defended its position late Wednesday, releasing a statement noting senior administration officials regularly provide “extensive, detailed classified and unclassified briefings to members and staff from both parties on Capitol Hill.”
But the statement said they are focusing on the review ordered by President Obama on foreign efforts to influence U.S. elections.
“Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the Intelligence Community stands ready to brief Congress—and will make those findings available to the public consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We will not offer any comment until the review is complete,” the statement said.
King, referring to recent press reports, said “it’s almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States."
He added, "It’s absolutely disgraceful and if they’re not doing it, then it must be someone in the House or the Senate who’s leaking false information and there should be a full investigation of this."
A Washington Post report Friday, citing anonymous sources, said the CIA determined Russia interfered in the election with the purpose of helping Trump’s campaign. But, as Nunes first noted in a letter Monday, DNI James Clapper told their committee on Nov. 17 that the intelligence community lacked strong evidence connecting Russia to the WikiLeaks disclosures.
Nunes wrote, “According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position … I was dismayed that we did not learn earlier, from you directly about the reported conflicting assessments and the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.”
Separately, Fox News has learned additional details about the “full review” Obama ordered from his intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference.
The review is being led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and is a multi-agency effort. Investigators plan to take existing intelligence and reconstruct what happened.
Fox News is told one focus is on whether there is new intelligence that substantiates analysis the interference was designed to ensure a Trump victory, or whether a review of the existing intelligence with “fresh eyes” leads to new conclusions.
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Watch the 5:12 mark:
Yeah I have a problem with the IC community if they're this wildly back and forth.
So let's see the evidence so I can make up my damn mind.Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16,, 06:02.
Comment
-
Originally posted by YellowFever View PostWhat I find skeptical is that the CIA has somehow ascertained Putin's intent to help Trump win the election.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Meanwhile, the WSJ indulges in some wishful thinking.
Despotism and Donald Trump
Decrying Trump while ignoring the tyranny of the administrative state.
Guess it depends on what you mean by “authoritarian.”
During the election, Donald Trump was routinely likened to Hitler. The headlines suggest not much has changed.
From the New Republic: “Donald Trump Is Already Acting Like an Authoritarian.” National Public Radio: “Donald Trump: Strong Leader or Dangerous Authoritarian?” The New York Times: “Beyond Lying: Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Reality.” The New Yorker: “Trump’s Challenge to American Democracy.”
What’s striking here is that the same folks who see in Mr. Trump a Mussolini in waiting are blind to the soft despotism that has already taken root in our government. This is the unelected and increasingly assertive class that populates our federal bureaucracies and substitutes rule by regulation for the rule of law. The result? Over the Obama years, the Competitive Enterprise Institute reckons, Washington has averaged 35 regulations for every law.
In the introduction to its just-released report on how to address this federal overreach, CEI President Kent Lassman puts it this way: “It is time for a reckoning.”
Philip Hamburger is a law professor at Columbia and author of “Is the Administrative State Unlawful?” He believes the president-elect’s cabinet selections thus far—Scott Pruitt for the Environmental Protection Agency, Betsy DeVos for Education, Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Puzder for Labor—may give Mr. Trump a unique opening not only to reverse bad Obama rules but to reform the whole way these agencies impose them. If Mr. Trump really hopes to drain the swamp, says Mr. Hamburger, cutting these agencies back to constitutional size would be a terrific start.
For one thing, almost all these departments are legacies of some progressive expansion of government. While an uneasy William Howard Taft, for example, made Labor its own cabinet office on the last day of his presidency, Woodrow Wilson named its first secretary.
Meanwhile, HUD is a child of LBJ’s Great Society. The EPA was Nixon’s attempt to buy liberal approval for his administration. As for the Education Department, it was a reward from Jimmy Carter for the endorsement the National Education Association gave him in 1976. At the time this cabinet seat was established, even the New York Times called it “unwise” and editorialized against it.
There’s a good case that Americans would be better off without most of these departments meddling in our lives and livelihoods, however politically unfeasible this might be. The next best news, however, is that Mr. Pruitt, Dr. Carson, Mr. Puzder and Mrs. DeVos are not beholden to the orthodoxies that drive the rules and mandates these bureaucracies impose.
Mrs. DeVos, for example, has spent her life promoting school choice, and her husband founded a charter school. It is difficult to imagine an Education Department under Secretary DeVos ever sending out a “Dear Colleague” letter to bully universities into expanding the definition of sexual harassment and then encouraging them to handle allegations in a way that has turned many campus tribunals into Star Chambers. Not to mention making a federal case about bathrooms.
Ditto for HUD. Under President Obama, HUD bureaucrats, under the banner of “fair housing,” have taken it upon themselves to decide what the right mix of race, income and education is for your town—and will impose fines and punishments for communities that resist. Anyone remember the people’s elected representatives directing HUD to impose its ideas of social engineering on the rest of America?
Or take the EPA. Whether it’s some Ordinary Joe running afoul of wetlands laws or the department’s deliberate attempt to destroy the market for coal, the EPA needs more than good science. It also needs some honest cost-benefit analysis about the prescriptions it pushes.
And then there’s Labor. Under Obama Secretary Tom Perez, the department has so overstepped the authority Congress gave it (for example, on its overtime rule) that federal judges have stepped in to block it, notwithstanding the courts’ traditional deference. As an employer himself, Mr. Puzder appreciates the fundamental reality of labor: which is that you don’t help workers by making them too expensive to hire.
The good news is that Mr. Trump does not have to fight government by regulatory fiat alone. House Speaker Paul Ryan has a raft of legislation that would reassert the authority of the people’s elected representatives over an unaccountable bureaucracy—including a regulatory budget that would limit the costs an agency can impose each year.
Even without legislation, there are things Mr. Trump could do. Mr. Hamburger, for example, dreams of a president ordering federal agencies to submit all their rules to Congress for approval. He further believes the stars are in rare alignment for reform, with Mr. Ryan pushing it in the House, cabinet secretaries who appear sympathetic to the cause and a popular mandate against rule from above.
“Oddly enough, the danger is that Mr. Trump will not think big enough,” says Mr. Hamburger. “To paraphrase him, the impact of changing the way Washington issues rules would be YUGE—and it would make him a historic and transformative president.”In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
Comment