[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Ukraine - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:41pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:22pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - Proclivities - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:11pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:46am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Wordle - daily game - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:00am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:29am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 7:40pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 27, 2024 - 5:08pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 25, 2024 - 6:56pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 25, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Uploading Music - dischuckin - Mar 18, 2024 - 11:55am
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » 2016 Elections Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 94, 95, 96  Next
Post to this Topic
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 10:13pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
No, we're trying to consider (the possibility of) foreign meddling with our elections as a standalone issue.

And what do you think might be done about it? Seriously.

Is the incentive to meddle going to go away?

Are the means to meddle going to go away?

Is there such a thing as a sanction that could effectively punish it? Even if you were willing to apply it (and I hope you aren't, but people get all irrational when they're angry) to a state, what if next time it's a pimply-faced teenager in India, or an anarchist collective in Norway? What disincentive are you going to apply that would reach every anonymous hacker with an axe to grind or lulz to seek?

I think we all realize the answer to these questions is no.

This is a fact of life now. If you have a dirty little secret and the stakes are high enough someone will try to expose it. If that dirty little secret would sink your chances in an election maybe the problem isn't the exposure, it's the secret.

 
We're not talking about all those other iterations, and we're not talking specifically about the method of meddling. We're talking about a state, waking up one day and saying, "let's see if we can nudge this election toward our man." And we're also not talking about retaliation. Yes, we need to field some candidates for whom this would not have been so damaging. Good luck. No, what we're talking about is the right's total willingness to accept {possibly-} compromised election results simply because the cards happened to fall their way. This should be a call to identify and implement a more secure and trustworthy system of voting. Hanging chads still a thing? Not really. How about vulnerable electronic voting machines? They might be, I don't know. The ones that don't have a paper ballot never really took hold. Citizens United? I know where you are on that, but money in politics has to be addressed. We got Ross Perot and Donald Trump specifically because they each introduced themselves by pointing out how rich they are. Not any other qualification, just "rich." But the right now thing to look at is how susceptible are our elections to the machinations of a foreign state? Suppose Podesta didn't fall for the "update." How else would they try? We need to be able to believe in the results. Obviously our participation rate is so low now, we must not have much faith as it is.

I know this is disjointed rambling. I'm not expecting you to unpack it. Tonight.  
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 9:53pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
No, we're trying to consider (the possibility of) foreign meddling with our elections as a standalone issue.

And what do you think might be done about it? Seriously.

Is the incentive to meddle going to go away?

Are the means to meddle going to go away?

Is there such a thing as a sanction that could effectively punish it? Even if you were willing to apply it (and I hope you aren't, but people get all irrational when they're angry) to a state, what if next time it's a pimply-faced teenager in India, or an anarchist collective in Norway? What disincentive are you going to apply that would reach every anonymous hacker with an axe to grind or lulz to seek?

I think we all realize the answer to these questions is no.

This is a fact of life now. If you have a dirty little secret and the stakes are high enough someone will try to expose it. If that dirty little secret would sink your chances in an election maybe the problem isn't the exposure, it's the secret.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 9:31pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
Jeebus, am I accidentally typing in Elbonian or something? You (and every other lefty on this page) is trying to make the issue who revealed the information.

 
No, we're trying to consider (the possibility of) foreign meddling with our elections as a standalone issue.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 8:49pm

steeler wrote:
Maybe I misconstrued what you have been posting. I thought I have seen several of your posts talking about a lack of evidence and corroboration, and partisan leaks.    That seems to go more towards casting doubt on the veracity of reports of Russian hacking as opposed to taking exception to a false sense of outrage over those purported hackings. I know you are protesting the latter, but it seems you also are arguing the former.

Jeebus, am I accidentally typing in Elbonian or something? You (and every other lefty on this page) is trying to make the issue who revealed the information.

I
don't
care

who revealed the information. If the information changed the outcome of the election then the people who changed their votes didn't care either. Is the information true? The people who wrote the leaked emails haven't denied it, so it seems it was. If you want the culprits...there they are.

As I said in my opening post on this subject, what has been revealed about the DNC through these hackings/leaks does not necessarily mitigate concern about the hackings being the work of the Russian government —if that is the case. Your assumption seems to be that the allegations against the Russians — or at least the public angst over it — is designed to be just an attempt to distract people from what has been revealed about the operations of the DNC. Certainly there are some in the public who likely are doing exactly that. My point is that I doubt that is what the Obama administration is doing.  If it is, then we have way bigger problems than what was revealed by the leaked DNC emails.

Yes. That is exactly my point. And the louder you all chant "the Russians!" in seeming unison the more obvious it is.

If the Russians hacked the DNC's email then the DNC needs to work on IT security. The Russians aren't about to stop hacking whatever they can get into. We are geopolitical rivals, and chances are other actors (state and private) are trying to hack emails too. They will continue. No amount of hand-wringing or public protests will change that.

I think you realize that.

And of course we'd all be shocked if the White House were playing politics with an issue as important as exactly who it was who revealed the DNC's dirty little secrets, but c'mon—it's not like they weaponized the IRS against political opponents or something.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 7:56pm

 steeler wrote:

not to mention, if the politics of the White House could be imposed so completely on the intelligence agencies, how would one explain Comey reopening the investigation into the emails with voting having already started in some states?

 
True, and that's just the matter of re-opening the investigation. There's also the matter of Comey making a public statement about re-opening the investigation, even though "senior Justice Department officials" and "Justice leadership" strongly discouraged him from doing so because it would go completely against FBI and DOJ policy about not commenting on an ongoing investigation and not interfering with an election. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-officials-warned-fbi-that-comeys-decision-to-update-congress-was-not-consistent-with-department-policy/2016/10/29/cb179254-9de7-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-email-justice.html?_r=0


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 7:46pm

 kcar wrote:

There is no f*#kin' way that the career intelligence analysts in the federal government would remain silent if the White House tried to force heads of the CIA and FBI to publicly lie about those organizations' assessments of possible Russian involvement in hacks of Republican and Democratic party computer systems.

The CIA and DIA were not silent about the pressure placed on them from Dubya's White House to link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda—the last time I can remember when intelligence was manipulated to suit a President. Unfortunately, the press did not sufficiently report analysts' complaints because the country was looking for vengeance for 9/11. There are way too many media outlets now—mainstream and alternative—for that toeing of the line by the mainstream press to occur today. 

Trump won the election. I think he likely would have won even if DNC emails didn't get leaked: there were too many voters voting out of anger and not enough voters committed to Hillary as President. We can argue whether the RNC et al had better cybersecurity or whether the Russians decided not to leak RNC material, but it should be obvious that the Russians' leak of DNC emails had an effect on Democratic and Republican voters, an effect not counterbalanced by any similar leak of RNC material. The Republican party was doing the same sort of things that were revealed in the DNC email leaks. (Hell, GOP leaders were openly meeting about how to kill Trump's popularity and then how to change party rules to block his nomination. DNC emails disparaging Bernie Sanders pale in comparison). 

In the end, American voters made their own choice—a catastrophic one, in my opinion. They were not brainwashed by the Russians, but it's quite likely that many voters never thought much about whether the DNC emails or Hillary's email servers were game-changing issues.

I think the Russian government's involvement in the hacking of the DNC's emails via Fancy Bear and others is a far, far bigger deal than the actual content of the DNC emails. As editorialists have written, governments have found ways to influence elections in other countries and our own government has done so. But what the Russians did went too far and they should pay dearly. If you think I'm basing that opinion solely on an attitude favoring American exceptionalism, so be it. For all you Trump supporters, if the Russians had put their thumb on the scales against Trump, you would be baying for blood.   

 
not to mention, if the politics of the White House could be imposed so completely on the intelligence agencies, how would one explain Comey reopening the investigation into the emails with voting having already started in some states?


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 7:39pm

 steeler wrote:

Maybe I misconstrued what you have been posting. I thought I have seen several of your posts talking about a lack of evidence and corroboration, and partisan leaks.    That seems to go more towards casting doubt on the veracity of reports of Russian hacking as opposed to taking exception to a false sense of outrage over those purported hackings. I know you are protesting the latter, but it seems you also are arguing the former.   

As I said in my opening post on this subject, what has been revealed about the DNC through these hackings/leaks does not necessarily mitigate concern about the hackings being the work of the Russian government —if that is the case. Your assumption seems to be that the allegations against the Russians — or at least the public angst over it — is designed to be just an attempt to distract people from what has been revealed about the operations of the DNC. Certainly there are some in the public who likely are doing exactly that. My point is that I doubt that is what the Obama administration is doing.  If it is, then we have way bigger problems than what was revealed by the leaked DNC emails.  ,        



 
There is no f*#kin' way that the career intelligence analysts in the federal government would remain silent if the White House tried to force heads of the CIA and FBI to publicly lie about those organizations' assessments of possible Russian involvement in hacks of Republican and Democratic party computer systems.

The CIA and DIA were not silent about the pressure placed on them from Dubya's White House to link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda—the last time I can remember when intelligence was manipulated to suit a President. Unfortunately, the press did not sufficiently report analysts' complaints because the country was looking for vengeance for 9/11. There are way too many media outlets now—mainstream and alternative—for that toeing of the line by the mainstream press to occur today. 

Trump won the election. I think he likely would have won even if DNC emails didn't get leaked: there were too many voters voting out of anger and not enough voters committed to Hillary as President. We can argue whether the RNC et al had better cybersecurity or whether the Russians decided not to leak RNC material, but it should be obvious that the Russians' leak of DNC emails had an effect on Democratic and Republican voters, an effect not counterbalanced by any similar leak of RNC material. The Republican party was doing the same sort of things that were revealed in the DNC email leaks. (Hell, GOP leaders were openly meeting about how to kill Trump's popularity and then how to change party rules to block his nomination. DNC emails disparaging Bernie Sanders pale in comparison). 

In the end, American voters made their own choice—a catastrophic one, in my opinion. They were not brainwashed by the Russians, but it's quite likely that many voters never thought much about whether the DNC emails or Hillary's email servers were game-changing issues.

I think the Russian government's involvement in the hacking of the DNC's emails via Fancy Bear and others is a far, far bigger deal than the actual content of the DNC emails. As editorialists have written, governments have found ways to influence elections in other countries and our own government has done so. But what the Russians did went too far and they should pay dearly. If you think I'm basing that opinion solely on an attitude favoring American exceptionalism, so be it. For all you Trump supporters, if the Russians had put their thumb on the scales against Trump, you would be baying for blood.   
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 3:45pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
Healthy skepticism of those in office is part of democracy.  However, I do not go as far as you apparently do in considering nearly everything emanating from government officials (and the media reporting on what government officials are saying)  to be lies until proven otherwise.  Right now, given what I have read, I tend to believe what is being reported as being the views of the intelligence agencies and am inclined to believe that version and not that of the Russians or Trump's.  It makes no sense to me that the Obama administration, from the President on down through directors of the various intelligence agencies, would be putting out a scenario that falsely accuses Russia solely for partisan political purposes, in the waning days of the Obama presidency.  Does that scenario make sense to you? Not me.

I didn't say they were lying, they're just faking the outrage. Unless they really are outraged, which is worse: they should be grown-ups about this.

And for the I-don't-know—how-manyth-time: who hacked the DNC's emails is interesting/amusing/whatever, but it doesn't change what was in them. The point I made a page or so ago in starting this latest exchange was this: What was in them is what changed the course of the election, if indeed it did. No one is responsible for that content but the DNC. Not the Russians, not the Republicans, not Fox News. They didn't write them, they revealed them.

If those revelations turned the election the blame should fall on what was revealed, not who revealed it.

 
Maybe I misconstrued what you have been posting. I thought I have seen several of your posts talking about a lack of evidence and corroboration, and partisan leaks.    That seems to go more towards casting doubt on the veracity of reports of Russian hacking as opposed to taking exception to a false sense of outrage over those purported hackings. I know you are protesting the latter, but it seems you also are arguing the former.   

As I said in my opening post on this subject, what has been revealed about the DNC through these hackings/leaks does not necessarily mitigate concern about the hackings being the work of the Russian government —if that is the case. Your assumption seems to be that the allegations against the Russians — or at least the public angst over it — is designed to be just an attempt to distract people from what has been revealed about the operations of the DNC. Certainly there are some in the public who likely are doing exactly that. My point is that I doubt that is what the Obama administration is doing.  If it is, then we have way bigger problems than what was revealed by the leaked DNC emails.  ,        


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 3:01pm

 steeler wrote:
Healthy skepticism of those in office is part of democracy.  However, I do not go as far as you apparently do in considering nearly everything emanating from government officials (and the media reporting on what government officials are saying)  to be lies until proven otherwise.  Right now, given what I have read, I tend to believe what is being reported as being the views of the intelligence agencies and am inclined to believe that version and not that of the Russians or Trump's.  It makes no sense to me that the Obama administration, from the President on down through directors of the various intelligence agencies, would be putting out a scenario that falsely accuses Russia solely for partisan political purposes, in the waning days of the Obama presidency.  Does that scenario make sense to you? Not me.

I didn't say they were lying, they're just faking the outrage. Unless they really are outraged, which is worse: they should be grown-ups about this.

And for the I-don't-know—how-manyth-time: who hacked the DNC's emails is interesting/amusing/whatever, but it doesn't change what was in them. The point I made a page or so ago in starting this latest exchange was this: What was in them is what changed the course of the election, if indeed it did. No one is responsible for that content but the DNC. Not the Russians, not the Republicans, not Fox News. They didn't write them, they revealed them.

If those revelations turned the election the blame should fall on what was revealed, not who revealed it.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 1:32pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
 Are you lumping the various intelligence agencies in within those bent on creating a distraction?

What little has been said by intelligence agencies has been leaked to reporters friendly to the (Democratic) administration. We don't know what they actually said, and there is nothing to corroborate it. And if it's true that Russia hacked the DNC emails why would they act surprised? Given the opportunity of course they would; that's why countries have spies. That's why our own intelligence agencies bugged Angela Merkel's phone.

So why leak this supposedly classified information that's so sensitive no one will speak on the record or provide any of the evidence? Because it stokes the partisan outrage that distracts from what was revealed.

How about those Republican congressmen who have called for an investigation? Is an investigation unwarranted?

An investigation will be an excellent opportunity for grandstanding, virtue signaling, and bellicose chest-thumping so it's not only warranted, it's virtually guaranteed.

It has been reported that the Obama administration used the "red phone" to communicate to the Soviet Union right before the election (purportedly on Halloween — scary) to warn them against any interference with the election.  Was that just political theater, to be revealed later for the purposes of creating a public distraction?

Yes, assuming it happened—this is the first I've heard of it. And it sounds like the kind of pro-forma objection anyone in that position would be expected to make. Another country caught spying on us! Outrageous! Stop immediately or there will be Serious Consequences!

It was also time travel, as there hasn't been a Soviet Union for 25 years. So that's pretty cool too. Not sure what good it would do to warn Gorbachev about this "email" thing tho...

That there may not be a particularly  viable enforcement mechanism does not. in and of itself, render an action unobjectionable.  Statements of disapproval do carry some weight in the world of diplomacy and global relations.

You seem to be positing that if there is not a particularly viable enforcement mechanism, everyone, including those in the administration, should just shut up and act as if nothing happened.


I'm proposing that everybody stop feigning shock and outrage and making threats they have no intention of following thru with. Y'know...honesty.

 
The reference to Soviet Union instead of Russia was my mistake; a typo.   

Healthy skepticism of those in office is part of democracy.  However, I do not go as far as you apparently do in considering nearly everything emanating from government officials (and the media reporting on what government officials are saying)  to be lies until proven otherwise.  Right now, given what I have read, I tend to believe what is being reported as being the views of the intelligence agencies and am inclined to believe that version and not that of the Russians or Trump's.  It makes no sense to me that the Obama administration, from the President on down through directors of the various intelligence agencies, would be putting out a scenario that falsely accuses Russia solely for partisan political purposes, in the waning days of the Obama presidency.  Does that scenario make sense to you? Not me.          


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 1:04pm

steeler wrote:
 Are you lumping the various intelligence agencies in within those bent on creating a distraction?

What little has been said by intelligence agencies has been leaked to reporters friendly to the (Democratic) administration. We don't know what they actually said, and there is nothing to corroborate it. And if it's true that Russia hacked the DNC emails why would they act surprised? Given the opportunity of course they would; that's why countries have spies. That's why our own intelligence agencies bugged Angela Merkel's phone.

So why leak this supposedly classified information that's so sensitive no one will speak on the record or provide any of the evidence? Because it stokes the partisan outrage that distracts from what was revealed.

How about those Republican congressmen who have called for an investigation? Is an investigation unwarranted?

An investigation will be an excellent opportunity for grandstanding, virtue signaling, and bellicose chest-thumping so it's not only warranted, it's virtually guaranteed.

It has been reported that the Obama administration used the "red phone" to communicate to the Soviet Union right before the election (purportedly on Halloween — scary) to warn them against any interference with the election.  Was that just political theater, to be revealed later for the purposes of creating a public distraction?

Yes, assuming it happened—this is the first I've heard of it. And it sounds like the kind of pro-forma objection anyone in that position would be expected to make. Another country caught spying on us! Outrageous! Stop immediately or there will be Serious Consequences!

It was also time travel, as there hasn't been a Soviet Union for 25 years. So that's pretty cool too. Not sure what good it would do to warn Gorbachev about this "email" thing tho...

That there may not be a particularly  viable enforcement mechanism does not. in and of itself, render an action unobjectionable.  Statements of disapproval do carry some weight in the world of diplomacy and global relations.

You seem to be positing that if there is not a particularly viable enforcement mechanism, everyone, including those in the administration, should just shut up and act as if nothing happened.


I'm proposing that everybody stop feigning shock and outrage and making threats they have no intention of following thru with. Y'know...honesty.


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 12:17pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
The issue of what was exposed about the operations of the DNC and the issue of how it was exposed do not have to be considered together.  Sure, partisan anger over Russian hacking of the DNC would be misplaced if it were just based upon the partisan nature.  However, that does not mean that people should not be concerned about Russian hacks related to a component of our electoral process.  And that concern should not be mitigated by whether the information exposed by the Russian hack is considered by some, or even many, to be beneficial.  The outrage, as you call it, does not need to be calibrated on an ends-justify-the-means basis.         , 

The outrage may not need to be calibrated in a partisan fashion, but it clearly is.

One of the key indicators of this is the suggested response: haven't seen one. What do the outraged want as a response, again assuming the accusation is true?

Go to war?
Economic sanctions?
Hack Putin's emails and publish them so his political opponents can read them in prison?
Expel an ambassador?
Sternly-worded letter?

What would be the point of any of that? What behavior would it be expected to change?

The kerfuffle is an attempt to distract our attention from what was revealed, an ad hominem on a giant scale. Yes, Putin has an agenda. So does the DNC and its apologists. The facts remain.

  Are you lumping the various intelligence agencies in within those bent on creating a distraction? 

How about those Republican congressmen who have called for an investigation? Is an investigation unwarranted?

It has been reported that the Obama administration used the "red phone" to communicate to the Soviet Union right before the election (purportedly on Halloween — scary) to warn them against any interference with the election.  Was that just political theater, to be revealed later for the purposes of creating a public distraction?

That there may not be a particularly  viable enforcement mechanism does not. in and of itself, render an action unobjectionable.  Statements of disapproval do carry some weight in the world of diplomacy and global relations.

You seem to be positing that if there is not a particularly viable enforcement mechanism, everyone, including those in the administration, should just shut up and act as if nothing happened.    

        

 

 

       


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 11:35am

 islander wrote:
This would be my vote. A nice public statement from Trump and Tillerson saying "we know what you did and we won't stand for it, as a result we will not even discuss the lifting of the sanctions already in place until we see a stop to these activities". Of course we would have to stop the same/similar activities, and we would have to see Trump/Tillerson not act to support the fossil fuel industry at the same time, so as a betting man I'll sit this one out.

OK, let's get started! We'll stop buying...whatever it is Russia still sells us. Until...what?

How do you know when something invisible has stopped? What's the goal here—just to vent phony rage at the actions of a sovereign nation?

Normally sanctions have some kind of objective: allow UN inspectors in to count artillery shells, return to the bargaining table, release a political prisoner...something. Articulate a verifiable goal or it's just another endless war-on-the-moment's-boogieman.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 11:06am

 islander wrote:

This would be my vote. A nice public statement from Trump and Tillerson saying "we know what you did and we won't stand for it, as a result we will not even discuss the lifting of the sanctions already in place until we see a stop to these activities". Of course we would have to stop the same/similar activities, and we would have to see Trump/Tillerson not act to support the fossil fuel industry at the same time, so as a betting man I'll sit this one out.

 
economic sanctions only hurt the vulnerable

there's not a lot we can do regardless

except huff and puff

if it was up to me i'd go full tilt boogie on the trade



 
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 10:51am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
The issue of what was exposed about the operations of the DNC and the issue of how it was exposed do not have to be considered together.  Sure, partisan anger over Russian hacking of the DNC would be misplaced if it were just based upon the partisan nature.  However, that does not mean that people should not be concerned about Russian hacks related to a component of our electoral process.  And that concern should not be mitigated by whether the information exposed by the Russian hack is considered by some, or even many, to be beneficial.  The outrage, as you call it, does not need to be calibrated on an ends-justify-the-means basis.         , 

The outrage may not need to be calibrated in a partisan fashion, but it clearly is.

One of the key indicators of this is the suggested response: haven't seen one. What do the outraged want as a response, again assuming the accusation is true?

Go to war?
Economic sanctions?
Hack Putin's emails and publish them so his political opponents can read them in prison?
Expel an ambassador?
Sternly-worded letter?

What would be the point of any of that? What behavior would it be expected to change?

The kerfuffle is an attempt to distract our attention from what was revealed, an ad hominem on a giant scale. Yes, Putin has an agenda. So does the DNC and its apologists. The facts remain.

 
This would be my vote. A nice public statement from Trump and Tillerson saying "we know what you did and we won't stand for it, as a result we will not even discuss the lifting of the sanctions already in place until we see a stop to these activities". Of course we would have to stop the same/similar activities, and we would have to see Trump/Tillerson not act to support the fossil fuel industry at the same time, so as a betting man I'll sit this one out.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 10:46am

 Lazy8 wrote:
What's in plain sight is plenty bad enough. More revelations would not change our understanding of his character or competence.

True. But that doesn't mean that other releases wouldn't have consequences. If not, then why the slow "drip, drip, drip" reveal of the DNC e-mails?  An honest look at the timing of "bombshells" and their impact on the polling would show that number and timing certainly do have an impact. That is why I think Comey's announcement was more significant than Russian involvement (although I'd still say less serious despite the impact). 

Again, cumulatively there was less than 90K votes that determined the election. if 45K had switched, or those 90K stayed home (or some combination thereof), we would be talking about how Trump was Robbed and how we can hand the presidency to someone who can't even screen for basic phishing scams.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 10:41am

 steeler wrote:
The issue of what was exposed about the operations of the DNC and the issue of how it was exposed do not have to be considered together.  Sure, partisan anger over Russian hacking of the DNC would be misplaced if it were just based upon the partisan nature.  However, that does not mean that people should not be concerned about Russian hacks related to a component of our electoral process.  And that concern should not be mitigated by whether the information exposed by the Russian hack is considered by some, or even many, to be beneficial.  The outrage, as you call it, does not need to be calibrated on an ends-justify-the-means basis.         , 

The outrage may not need to be calibrated in a partisan fashion, but it clearly is.

One of the key indicators of this is the suggested response: haven't seen one. What do the outraged want as a response, again assuming the accusation is true?

Go to war?
Economic sanctions?
Hack Putin's emails and publish them so his political opponents can read them in prison?
Expel an ambassador?
Sternly-worded letter?

What would be the point of any of that? What behavior would it be expected to change?

The kerfuffle is an attempt to distract our attention from what was revealed, an ad hominem on a giant scale. Yes, Putin has an agenda. So does the DNC and its apologists. The facts remain.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 9:59am

 islander wrote:
Well we also know that there was a lot of far more offensive tapes of Trump around that we never got to see either. Maybe he really is a great dealmaker/negotiator?   

What's in plain sight is plenty bad enough. More revelations would not change our understanding of his character or competence.
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 9:48am

 miamizsun wrote:
the answers you seek are here!

not here

but here! 

 
It doesn't look like anything to me.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 21, 2016 - 9:38am

 islander wrote:

Well now I don't know what to believe.

 
:gritteeth:
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 94, 95, 96  Next