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 YellowFever View Post

    I really don't care what the world believes.
    Dont confuse the dems world with the real one. They probably don't believe it - especially since intelligence in the USA is prostituted. It's thoroughly laughable I couldn't care less which side of politics gets hacked. since china has been doing it to everything that matters, like IP and key defense programs, to flogging USN property on the high seas, one should feel so encouraged that such instances evoke no democratic response, but hacking revealing the treachery of political process does. Just so lol, it's not anything other than what the fourth estate could have found if it weren't so utterly incompetent. I couldn't give a twinkie if the Russians hacked either of our political parties. As the tech journals keep saying, especially after sony, don't be so keen to hop on uncodified assessments. Those providing it as such most likely need to be fired. I think I'd rather trust an expert than an appointee thank you.
    Ego Numquam

    Comment


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
      YF,



      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 Post
          What I find skeptical is that the CIA has somehow ascertained Putin's intent to help Trump win the election.
          Exactly and precisely. So obviously political interference and posturing in internal US politics I'm surprised there aren't calls for the CIA's disbandment.
          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


            • Cit, thoughtful post...

              Originally posted by citanon View Post
              They probably do have pretty good evidence. They can't release it because then the Russians would know specifics about how they are being monitored.
              They say their conclusions are based on circumstantial evidence, which essentially means a fact was used to support another fact. If any fact in a circumstantial chain of reasoning is held back, the case collapses. So, if a key fact, such as there was a bug in Putin's office, was hidden, which would be entirely reasonable, we'd then have little choice but to trust the CIA's conclusion.

              The thing about the liberal response to this is that it overhypes Putin's influence via these hacks and actually strengthens his capabilities.
              I think I know what you're getting at. An example is Clinton's recent speech blaming her loss in part on the hacking. Her claim can't be verified. So, why say it?

              A hack of the RNC might have balanced things out. I almost wish it had happened because then the two parties would have been joined in indignation and reprisal. But with the parties at each others throat, Putin has to ask, what's not to like about that--ha ha--more gridlock to come.


              ...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.
              Will future candidates hold back criticism of Russia out of fear Russia may dump a treasure trove of dirt on their heads? Maybe we should ask what candidate or party will henceforth be dumb enough to ignore strong safeguards to protect their data from hackers? These hacks will probably lead to more secure systems in the future, and that's at least one good thing to come of it.


              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.
              At this point, it's going to be difficult for Trump and Clinton to walk back their comments about the hack, particularly comments about the effect it had on the election and what the hackers hoped to achieve. Trump may find it easier to reverse his position. He can simply say he has now been briefed on ALL the evidence and changed his mind. Whereas Clinton, who blames the hack in part for her loss, has no way to back out except to admit she doesn't know whether it caused her to lose. Thus, her speech does not show her in a very good light. She certainly squandered a good opportunity to tamp down emotions on both sides.

              Incidentally, she could just as well have blamed her loss on one or all of the following factors: 1) her secret email server, 2) Benghazi, 3) the Clinton Foundation, 4) being a woman; and/or 5) the aura of entitlement she carried throughout the campaign.
              Last edited by JAD_333; 19 Dec 16,, 09:15.
              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

              Comment


              • Here we had a scandal where the opposition claimed the Government was wiretapping up to 20 000 people in Macedonia (out of 2 000 000).

                The opposition were releasing tapes from Government officials making dealings on various topics. Of course they said it's "cut, paste and edited", unlawfully obtained, blah, blah, blah...

                The US response (via the Embassy here) was: "Look what's on the tapes, not how the opposition got them". It happened under Obama administration, so I guess Karma is really a bitch, eh?
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  Here we had a scandal where the opposition claimed the Government was wiretapping up to 20 000 people in Macedonia (out of 2 000 000).

                  The opposition were releasing tapes from Government officials making dealings on various topics. Of course they said it's "cut, paste and edited", unlawfully obtained, blah, blah, blah...

                  The US response (via the Embassy here) was: "Look what's on the tapes, not how the opposition got them". It happened under Obama administration, so I guess Karma is really a bitch, eh?

                  Pretty dumb thing for an embassy to say publicly. Do you have some documentation?
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                    Pretty dumb thing for an embassy to say publicly. Do you have some documentation?
                    "The SPO’s (special prosecutor office) unhindered operations are crucial to ensuring accountability for possible wrongdoing related to the wiretaps, and for moving the country beyond the current crisis." - https://macedonia.usembassy.gov/spee...t05182016.html

                    "In a statement read out by U.S. ambassador Jess Baily, the envoys criticised Skopje's failure to address the "many allegations of government wrongdoing arising from the disclosures" published by opposition leader Zoran Zaev."
                    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ma...0NW1X020150511
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • I saw in the news that politicians are still crying foul at russia for the hacks. But, shouldn't the focus be on the state of national security. The government still has Navy commercial ads going with hook of join us because our cyber team is sooo amzing...enough to get hacked.
                      Regarding the DNC's personnal issue, reeduction on phishing and other hacking methods with and overall and periodical beef up for it's cybersecurity (not after the breach) could do some good.


                      Also SF Gate did a little article about a Michael Mann a scientist that did work on global warming and climate issues had already recieved death threats because of his work, though they have died down with more recognition that global warming and it's consequences are real. He noted that he was becoming fearful again becuase of Trump's admin and their generally anti-scientific outlook. Points that bring fear are Rick Perry, Trump's nominee for energy secrstary, wrote in a 2010 book that "we have been experiencing a cooling trend" when temperatures have been rising and record breaking within Rick's previous term. Trump's proposed interior secretary Ryan Zink called climate change "not [a] proven science". And all these concerns are increased with Rex Tillerson on board. And it does not get better with the pick for EPA admin Scott Pruitt.
                      With the Trump transition team's request for employees and contractors involved in climate meeting during the Obama administration concerns for protecting related data in archives in doing so in such a way that would prevent tampering grew. This prompt scientists' concern about 4 to 8 years of sea raising denial. Michael E. Mann speaking in this article also shared concerns for his and other scientists' well being with the coming administration and for the integrity of the younger scientists.

                      He end the article with the words "The fate of the planet hangs in the balance."

                      So could there be another catholic like inquisition against science?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                        Dont confuse the dems world with the real one. They probably don't believe it - especially since intelligence in the USA is prostituted.
                        So, Bush forces the CIA to lie to our allies and to congress for the sole purpose of launching an unnecessary war of aggression. Congressional and Senate GOPer Benghazi investigations disbelieve Intelligence reports. Trump doesn't want Intelligence briefings, and doesn't believe what they tell him.

                        Which party doesn't trust the intelligence community?
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ouroboros View Post

                          And all these concerns are increased with Rex Tillerson on board.
                          Why is that? Tillerson is on record supporting the Paris climate accord. And this:

                          When Tillerson -- a longtime Raymond [former Exxon boss] deputy -- became CEO, ExxonMobil saw an opening to begin adjusting its position on climate change, according to Coll.

                          In 2007, the company publicly admitted climate change presents risks, and said it is responsible policy to begin working to reduce emissions.

                          "While there are a range of possible outcomes, the risk posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions could prove to be significant," Tillerson said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2007. "So it has been ExxonMobil's view for some time that it is prudent to take action while accommodating the uncertainties that remain." http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/12/news...limate-change/
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                            Why is that? Tillerson is on record supporting the Paris climate accord. And this:
                            Um...errr...denier!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              So, Bush forces the CIA to lie to our allies and to congress for the sole purpose of launching an unnecessary war of aggression. Congressional and Senate GOPer Benghazi investigations disbelieve Intelligence reports. Trump doesn't want Intelligence briefings, and doesn't believe what they tell him.

                              Which party doesn't trust the intelligence community?
                              so now Bush 'forced the CIA to lie'...... ok.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                                So, Bush forces the CIA to lie to our allies and to congress for the sole purpose of launching an unnecessary war of aggression. Congressional and Senate GOPer Benghazi investigations disbelieve Intelligence reports. Trump doesn't want Intelligence briefings, and doesn't believe what they tell him.

                                Which party doesn't trust the intelligence community?
                                I guess, it's the dems. After all, they were "lied" to by Bush's CIA.

                                Dor, you do all these nice economic summaries with facts, but when it comes to something like this, you go hyper-partisan. Case in point, you don't know enough about the frequency of Trump's intel briefings to comment on the subject.

                                You don't know how CIA reports are structured. So, naturally you would find it disconcerting that a Congressman would question one, like the one on the Benghazi attack. The latter was probed especially hard by GOP members at the hearings (before they became a witch hunt) because the initial White House public statement about it was false and/or misleading. Questioning is not disbelieving.
                                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X