Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2016 US General Election

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

  • 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


                      • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                        Um...errr...denier!
                        Earth to Wooglin: Please clarify.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • Was bored so was checking in how to electoral voting was going.

                          No drama (as far as I can tell) so far except for the 1 Democrat elector in Minnesota who changed votes (they didn't tell us who he voted for) and was promptly kicked off and the alternative voted for Hillary.

                          Damn, this is going to throw my prediction off.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                            Was bored so was checking in how to electoral voting was going.

                            No drama (as far as I can tell) so far except for the 1 Democrat elector in Minnesota who changed votes (they didn't tell us who he voted for) and was promptly kicked off and the alternative voted for Hillary.

                            Damn, this is going to throw my prediction off.

                            306 would have been a good bet.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • Nah....the jagoff in Texas will vote for someone else.

                              Why am I talking to you???

                              You're a denier!! :D

                              LoL

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                                Nah....the jagoff in Texas will vote for someone else.

                                Why am I talking to you???

                                You're a denier!! :D

                                LoL

                                Cause you like to be in bad company?

                                Make that 306.
                                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X