PDA

View Full Version : How we would report the election if it happened in a foreign country



johnw
12-14-2016, 04:31 PM
Rather droll.

http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/14/13920628/russia-trump-hack-satire

PeterSibley
12-14-2016, 04:57 PM
Isn't that the way it's being reported in the US ? Seems about right.

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 05:14 PM
More fake news

TomF
12-14-2016, 05:26 PM
More fake newsyou missed phrases like "would, if" and words like "satirical "?

Those are typically understood as signs that what follows is NOT pretending to be factual, and should be read as illustrative instead.

Using your logic, is your screen name here "fake news"? Or are you actually Mr. S. Blue on legal documents?

johnw
12-14-2016, 05:49 PM
Isn't that the way it's being reported in the US ? Seems about right.

Well, maybe on the Huffington Post...

johnw
12-14-2016, 05:50 PM
More fake news

No, satire is not "fake news," it does not classify as news but as humor, a word which as used here means "the sense Sky has not got."

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 06:17 PM
Isn't that the way it's being reported in the US ? Seems about right.

That's why it's neither satire nor humor. It's representative of the dominant perception and belief on the Left on the truth of what has occurred. And for those that see it this way, it's neither ironic, nor funny.

Are you amused?

isla
12-14-2016, 06:33 PM
Are you amused?

Yes, mainly by your response ;)

TomF
12-14-2016, 06:36 PM
All satire has at its heart a sharp critique of something which *is* true. The trouble you are having here, Mr. Blue, is a failure to see that Putin's little interventions are anything to be concerned about.

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 06:54 PM
All satire has at its heart a sharp critique of something which *is* true. The trouble you are having here, Mr. Blue, is a failure to see that Putin's little interventions are anything to be concerned about.

Well, if it is something to be concerned about, why are we "joking" about it?:rolleyes:

TomF
12-14-2016, 06:54 PM
Ask Swift, or Dickens.

Keith Wilson
12-14-2016, 06:57 PM
'Fake news' to Mr Blue appears to mean merely something he doesn't like.


'There's glory for you!''I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

The Bigfella
12-14-2016, 06:58 PM
Yes, there's something ironic about the CIA complaining about another country interfering in a foreign election in order to ensure the installation of a right wing government, isn't there?

Keith Wilson
12-14-2016, 07:03 PM
Just a bit.

johnw
12-14-2016, 07:05 PM
Yes, there's something ironic about the CIA complaining about another country interfering in a foreign election in order to ensure the installation of a right wing government, isn't there?

Well, they would know what that looks like, wouldn't they?

johnw
12-14-2016, 07:10 PM
All satire has at its heart a sharp critique of something which *is* true. The trouble you are having here, Mr. Blue, is a failure to see that Putin's little interventions are anything to be concerned about.

Well, he's sort of a modern Vichy, you know. Hates certain groups in his own country more than a hostile foreign power.

TomF
12-14-2016, 07:12 PM
They've been perma-banned.Decreased the surplus population?

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 07:45 PM
Just a bit.

Why isn't anyone calling for the jobs of the homeland security types charged with securing these sensitive networks? Why have these breaches been allowed to occur? Why was the media relatively unconcerned during the debates, using wikileaks material with abandon, only to register alarm after Mr. Trump won?

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 07:52 PM
Those suddenly concerned about national security should ask themselves if this crap is running above the fold if Mrs. Clinton had won the election.

Waddie
12-14-2016, 08:14 PM
I knew the Democrats couldn't have simply lost the election because they had a weak nominee........The Russians made Manchurian candidates out of 60 million people. Dastardly !!!!

regards,
Waddie

johnw
12-14-2016, 09:00 PM
Those suddenly concerned about national security should ask themselves if this crap is running above the fold if Mrs. Clinton had won the election.

Well, given that she didn't get the support of the Russian intelligence service, and Putin did all he could to prevent her from getting elected, why would anyone worry about the election being tainted by the efforts of a foreign power if she'd won?

Do think this stuff through, Sky.

ahp
12-14-2016, 09:40 PM
Yes, there's something ironic about the CIA complaining about another country interfering in a foreign election in order to ensure the installation of a right wing government, isn't there?

Indeed there is. I recall that our CIA put Shah Pahlavi on the Peacock Throne of Iran TWICE! The citizens of Iran had elected Mosadech (sp?) but he was too far left for our liking. Next we got ..... No wonder they don't like us.

ahp
12-14-2016, 09:41 PM
Sounds about right to me.

johnw
12-14-2016, 09:56 PM
Indeed there is. I recall that our CIA put Shah Pahlavi on the Peacock Throne of Iran TWICE! The citizens of Iran had elected Mosadech (sp?) but he was too far left for our liking. Next we got ..... No wonder they don't like us.

Aside from the ethical issues, that's the trouble with doing this. People really, really, resent it.

It comes back to bite you.

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 10:36 PM
Well, given that she didn't get the support of the Russian intelligence service, and Putin did all he could to prevent her from getting elected, why would anyone worry about the election being tainted by the efforts of a foreign power if she'd won?

Do think this stuff through, Sky.

Yeah, you're right. Election tampering only matters if it's successful.:rolleyes:

Of course, you haven't a scintilla of evidence that there was election tampering, but don't let that stop you. You're on a roll.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

PeterSibley
12-14-2016, 11:20 PM
That's why it's neither satire nor humor. It's representative of the dominant perception and belief on the Left on the truth of what has occurred. And for those that see it this way, it's neither ironic, nor funny.

Are you amused?

The view from outside the tent looking in. Read, beyond US borders.

PeterSibley
12-14-2016, 11:21 PM
Indeed there is. I recall that our CIA put Shah Pahlavi on the Peacock Throne of Iran TWICE! The citizens of Iran had elected Mosadech (sp?) but he was too far left for our liking. Next we got ..... No wonder they don't like us.

The irony isn't lost on the Rest of the World.:d

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 11:41 PM
The view from outside the tent looking in. Read, beyond US borders.

No, I was agreeing with you. I read papers (or at least give a light scan to them) from all over the world, almost daily.

Interestingly, the British press does not show great enthusiasm for the Russia "story."

Perhaps this is because the sources are anonymous and no other US intelligence agency will back the reed-thin source material, including and especially the FBI.

Or it could be that editors there perceive it as around-the-watercooler conspiracism.

I don't think the Telegraph (which endorsed Clinton) has a headline or front page piece going on it right now (or at least didn't earlier today, anyway).

More and more, it's looking and smelling) like yet another dead fish.

Sky Blue
12-14-2016, 11:55 PM
It isn't an apt analogy. Neither were writing satirically about the installation, by a corrupt rival, of the most powerful political actor in the world.

Better analogies might have lain somewhere in the works of Shakespeare or Machiavelli (perhaps).

C. Ross
12-15-2016, 12:19 AM
More and more, it's looking and smelling) like yet another dead fish.

I don't think so.

U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146


...no other US intelligence agency will back the reed-thin source material, including and especially the FBI.

The CIA was publicly outspoken about intent, the FBI circumspect.

But there's unanimity that the hacking occured, by Russia.


Ultimately, the CIA has assessed, the Russian government wanted to elect Donald Trump. The FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton's candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats. The latest intelligence said to show Putin's involvement goes much further than the information the U.S. was relying on in October, when all 17 intelligence agencies signed onto a statement attributing the Democratic National Committee hack to Russia

Several times you've asked, essentially, why no one made a big deal about this before the election. Admittedly there were plenty of clowns and dog-and-pony shows in our last election circus, but Russian hacks of the DNC and clear routing to Assange was a Very Big Deal as far back as October.

You've also asked, would it have been a big deal if Ms Clinton had won? I think it's indisputable. The Democrats would have been lamenting the "near miss". The Trump camp would be claiming the election was rigged, protesting loudly and perhaps semi-violently, if you take his more vivid supporters seriously. You really think Russian hacking wouldn't have been in play?

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 12:36 AM
Cris, why are you carrying on like this? There was an agreement that hacking occurred before the election. Wikileaks, remember? There's nothing new here except unhappiness that Trump was elected.

Do you believe Putin installed Trump? What evidence can you link to that establishes, even circumstantially, that Russia influenced the election or that a single vote was miscast on account of Russian meddling? Why are the sources remaining anonymous? Is there even an "assessment?" Where? Why hasn't the leadership of the CIA come out and provided a statement on this issue or a briefing on the "assessment?" Right now, all there is are some guys maybe saying stuff.

Cris, you have nothing, and you seem to have allowed your hatred for Trump cloud your judgment. We've seen nothing new here except the advent of Trump's election. Suddenly the hacking concerns people. No one was arguing the integrity of the election was at risk when everyone believed Hillary would win going away. When that didn't happen, why, it's the Russians.

It's crap. If there was more, undoubtedly we'd have it.

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 01:07 AM
I would note, too, that neither Reuters nor the BBC are carrying the Russian hack "story" on either of their online front pages, nor have they seen fit to include this "new development" that Putin was "personally involved" in the hack, information that was apparently developed by NBC just today. No one "knew" this yesterday, of course. It's "breaking news."

Why doesn't the story rate a mention on these other outlets, but it dominates the reporting of the NYT, CNN and NBC? This is a rhetorical question, of course.

There's a market for this "news" here in the US, but overseas? Not so much.

oznabrag
12-15-2016, 01:12 AM
I would note, too, that neither Reuters nor the BBC are carrying the Russian hack "story" on either of their online front pages, nor have they seen fit to include this "new development" that Putin was "personally involved" in the hack, information that was apparently developed by NBC just today. No one "knew" this yesterday, of course. It's "breaking news."

Why doesn't the story rate a mention on these other outlets, but it dominates the reporting of the NYT, CNN and NBC? This is a rhetorical question, of course.

There's a market for this "news" here in the US, but overseas? Not so much.

Right.

Treason ≠ Kim Kardashian's backside.

Got it.

C. Ross
12-15-2016, 01:41 AM
Cris, why are you carrying on like this?

Carrying on? I've written plenty of fruity things about Mr. Trump, but certainly not on these threads, nor really even since the election. It certainly is newsworthy. And hacking investigations are slow to gel. Leading Republicans are taking it very seriously. This isn't over.


Do you believe Putin installed Trump?

Of course not.

For the third or fourth time, this is your straw man. If you care to, please re-write what I've written. I have never written that they tipped the election, I merely find credible those analysts who claimed they tried.

The Russians have ample reasons to seek Trump's election over Clinton, and the evidence is they tried. This should be of grave concern, and strongly color our positions on Russia. But no, Mr. Trump won because Ms. Clinton was a terrible candidate, and Mr. Trump panders and demagogues shamelessly and brilliantly.


Why are the sources remaining anonymous? Is there even an "assessment?" Where? Why hasn't the leadership of the CIA come out and provided a statement on this issue or a briefing on the "assessment?"

When have intelligence officials ever done what you ask? This is a story because they reported to Congress as requested, and members of Congress (of both parties) released the story. Of course there is an assessment. It is a classified report to Congress.


Cris, you have nothing, and you seem to have allowed your hatred for Trump cloud your judgment.

I think not. The evidence is strong that the Russians intended to influence kur election. That's enough, regardless whether they favored one candidate or the other, or whether they were effective. It is not inconsequential that Mr. Trump has articulated pro-Russian positions, and has chosen to keep his business dealings opaque even though the evidence is strong he and some close to him have financial interests in Russia. Mr. Trump wants the bright spotlight - he's about to discover it throws ones blemishes into sharp relief.

C. Ross
12-15-2016, 02:02 AM
There's a market for this "news" here in the US, but overseas? Not so much.

Really?
Europe ready for CYBERWAR over fears Russia will hack Germany, France and Netherlands vote https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/742875/europe-cyberwar-russia-hack-germany-france-netherlands-elections/

Russian involvement in US vote raises fears for European elections. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/russian-involvement-in-us-vote-raises-fears-for-european-elections

Russian hackers 'threaten Germany 2017 election', MPs warn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38288181

Russia behind hack on German parliament, paper reports. https://www.dw.com/en/russia-behind-hack-on-german-parliament-paper-reports/a-36729079?

Top Republican leaders back Russia election hack inquiry.www.france24.com/en/20161213-top-republican-leaders-back-russia-election-hack-inquiry-trump-mcconnell?

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 02:06 AM
leading Republicans are taking it very seriously

#nevertrumpers and neo-conservative war hawks like Graham and McCain? Let me know when there is wholesale support in Congress for this business. The Democrats aren't exactly beating the drums as loudly as they could be, either. Mrs. Clinton is staying pretty quiet. Kerry, Schumer, others. NBC and the NYT are carrying all of the water on it. One wonders just how deeply Democrats really want the probe to go. Probably not very. Wikileaks may become relevant again, too. After Trump is inaugurated, I bet the "story" withers and dies.

You say the "evidence is strong." It isn't. All there is so far are anonymous sources saying stuff, and only to NBC (it seems). At this point, I won't accept sourcing from any of NBC, the NYT or CNN on any matter relating to DJT or the election itself. Their journalistic integrity is in doubt as shown by their conduct during this election season. They're not trusted, nor should they be.

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 02:11 AM
The Germans are running the same game for Merkel. If she loses, it won't be for policy reasons, but because, Russia.

Btw, why aren't war plans being drawn up for Russia having usurped American democracy? Seriously. If there is "strong evidence" this occurred, if this is the "political equivalent of 9/11," why aren't we taking out Russian targets as we speak? Are we just going to sit idly by and let them influence our elections and take over our government? Why the utter absence of bellicose language towards Russia for what NBC is reporting they've done? Where are the generals on this?

PeterSibley
12-15-2016, 03:22 AM
What the world hears.... http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/fresh-evidence-of-russian-interference-in-the-us-election/8124890

isla
12-15-2016, 05:26 AM
I would note, too, that neither Reuters nor the BBC are carrying the Russian hack "story" on either of their online front pages, nor have they seen fit to include this "new development" that Putin was "personally involved" in the hack, information that was apparently developed by NBC just today. No one "knew" this yesterday, of course. It's "breaking news."

Why doesn't the story rate a mention on these other outlets, but it dominates the reporting of the NYT, CNN and NBC? This is a rhetorical question, of course.

There's a market for this "news" here in the US, but overseas? Not so much.

You're not looking in the right places..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/15/vladimir-putin-personally-directed-russian-hack-us-election/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russian-cyber-attack-rex-tillerson-vladimir-putin-hacking-election-vendetta-hillary-a7476096.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-risks-damaging-intelligence-agencies-warns-former-cia-chief

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38325364
(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/trump-risks-damaging-intelligence-agencies-warns-former-cia-chief)

Peerie Maa
12-15-2016, 05:43 AM
The Germans are running the same game for Merkel. If she loses, it won't be for policy reasons, but because, Russia.

Btw, why aren't war plans being drawn up for Russia having usurped American democracy? Seriously. If there is "strong evidence" this occurred, if this is the "political equivalent of 9/11," why aren't we taking out Russian targets as we speak? Are we just going to sit idly by and let them influence our elections and take over our government? Why the utter absence of bellicose language towards Russia for what NBC is reporting they've done? Where are the generals on this?

Silly post

Tom Hunter
12-15-2016, 07:17 AM
@Sky Putin is doing this to hurt you, he is your enemy, and is actively doing things that hurt the country you live in and it's economy. He is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Syria, Ukraine and other places, including a plane load of people from the Netherlands. Don't make the mistake of thinking this is just about Trump being president, it's also about who get's elected to congress, and who get's murdered in London and Washington.

Norman Bernstein
12-15-2016, 08:41 AM
Why was the media relatively unconcerned during the debates, using wikileaks material with abandon, only to register alarm after Mr. Trump won?

You've been selling this fib for a while now, and it's just as false as when you first did. The media DID cover the hacks... extensively... well before the election. You just apparently prefer to pretend like they didn't.

isla
12-15-2016, 09:07 AM
You've been selling this fib for a while now, and it's just as false as when you first did. The media DID cover the hacks... extensively... well before the election. You just apparently prefer to pretend like they didn't.

I agree. This is from the BBC on 11th October..

Why the US fears Russia is hacking its presidential election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37605992


And this from CNN on 12th October..
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/lavrov-russia-us-election/index.html

And the 24th October..
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/23/opinions/elections-hacks-russia-warning-zegart/index.html

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 09:23 AM
@Sky Putin is doing this to hurt you, he is your enemy, and is actively doing things that hurt the country you live in and it's economy. He is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Syria, Ukraine and other places, including a plane load of people from the Netherlands. Don't make the mistake of thinking this is just about Trump being president, it's also about who get's elected to congress, and who get's murdered in London and Washington.

It's not at all clear to me, or to the American people for that matter, who has done what, to what extent, or why. The people cannot trust the American media to tell them the truth. I am also suspicious of those Republicans opposed to Trump warmly welcoming an investigation, while other Republicans and Democrats seem less enthused. Just yesterday, Lindsey Graham announced, for the very first time and with no evidence presented in support, that the Russians hacked his "campaign."

I'm considerably more troubled by partisans running around trying to convince everyone they know what this is, and the extent and meaning of it, when none of that information has been presented to Congress nor when not one single individual will to come out and be identified to stand behind the story, nor will leadership, nor the FBI, nor anyone else.

I'm much more inclined to believe that this is mostly about partisans protecting their interests, and that of their lobbyists and patrons, and are only too pleased if DJT is delegitimized in the process.

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 09:31 AM
I agree. This is from the BBC on 11th October..

Why the US fears Russia is hacking its presidential election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37605992


And this from CNN on 12th October..
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/lavrov-russia-us-election/index.html

And the 24th October..
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/23/opinions/elections-hacks-russia-warning-zegart/index.html

The candidates were not questioned about the matter. Why not? You'd think it would have been a ripe area of debate inquiry, but back then we were worried about groping and rudeness and Wikileaks revelations. No one was suggesting anything about installations, tipped elections or illegitimacy. Why not? Only now, after the election, is the media and others concerned that the election might have been tipped. It stinks.

Why didn't Mrs. Clinton herself make these arguments then? Why isn't she making them now?

ccmanuals
12-15-2016, 09:42 AM
The candidates were not questioned about the matter. Why not? You'd think it would have been a ripe area of debate inquiry, but back then we were worried about groping and rudeness and Wikileaks revelations. No one was suggesting anything about installations, tipped elections or illegitimacy. Why not? Only now, after the election, is the media and others concerned that the election might have been tipped. It stinks.

Why didn't Mrs. Clinton herself make these arguments then? Why isn't she making them now?

Righties sure have short memories.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIqZDUPN9E0

ccmanuals
12-15-2016, 09:43 AM
I wonder if republicans who have been screaming the last 8 years about securing our borders understand that in the cyber world we have borders, walls, and monitoring as well?

C. Ross
12-15-2016, 09:45 AM
The candidates were not questioned about the matter. Why not? You'd think it would have been a ripe area of debate inquiry, but back then we were worried about groping and rudeness and Wikileaks revelations. No one was suggesting anything about installations, tipped elections or illegitimacy. Why not? Only now, after the election, is the media and others concerned that the election might have been tipped. It stinks.

Why didn't Mrs. Clinton herself make these arguments then? Why isn't she making them now?

You can't be serious. Of course this was raised. "We were worried" about Mr. Trump's connections to Russia; this was explicitly highlighted as a concern as he refuses to release his tax returns (or now, to recuse himself from managing his businesses.). Then there was his misstatements and scramble on Crimea and the Ukraine, his alarming statements about approach to Putin, his shakiness on NATO, his wild careening on what to do with Syria, and so on.

The reason why Russian cyberattacks on the U.S. wasn't a headline on fire is because there are so many irregularities in this election. You wanted revolution and collapse of elite institutions? It looks like you're getting it. The intelligence community is simply doing everything they can, facing the disdain of their President elect. God help us.

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 09:53 AM
Meanwhile, DHS isn't buying a bit of it.

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/12/14/dhs-chief-no-evidence-that-hacking-by-any-actor-altered-the-ballot-count/

ccmanuals
12-15-2016, 09:58 AM
Meanwhile, DHS isn't buying a bit of it.

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/12/14/dhs-chief-no-evidence-that-hacking-by-any-actor-altered-the-ballot-count/

Of course the focus of DHS is not really an investigative agency but more of an enforcement one.

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 09:59 AM
the reason why it wasn't a bigger headline before the election

Is because Mrs. Clinton had a wide lead in the polls and was virtually assured of winning the election, indeed, so much so, the worry was that Trump and his followers would not accept the result.

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 10:02 AM
Of course the focus of DHS is not really an investigative agency but more of an enforcement one.

Anyone have any evidence of a Russian hack into the voting or its results? No? Thx.

DHS says there were no voting irregularities, no evidence of any bad actor doing anything to affect the integrity of the election. This is Obama's man saying this.

C'mon people.

Paul Pless
12-15-2016, 10:12 AM
Anyone have any evidence of a Russian hack into the voting or its results? No? Thx.

DHS says there were no voting irregularities, no evidence of any bad actor doing anything to affect the integrity of the election. This is Obama's man saying this.

C'mon people.

spinmeister

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 10:15 AM
spinmeister

Asking for evidence, any evidence at all, is hardly "spin."

DHS says the voting process was clean and there is no evidence of hacking or tampering. Anybody have any contrary evidence revealing that the DHS is wrong?

No? Thx

Paul Pless
12-15-2016, 10:24 AM
No? Only a simpleton or one who wants to misdirect or derail the conversation would continue to pursue the line of questions that you have and continue to do so, without also acknowledging the threat outside actors have on our electoral process outside the strict bounds of the ballot box.

You're no simpleton. . .

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 10:34 AM
Only a simpleton or one who wants to misdirect or derail the conversation would continue to pursue the line of questions that you have and continue to do so, without also acknowledging the threat outside actors have on our electoral process

Hogwash. I'm disagreeing with the narrative, not "derailing the conversation." Moreover, the questions are good questions, for which no answers have been provided. This is because there are no answers to provide. Nor is this thread an examination of election security threats.

DHS says they watched everything closely on election night and there's no evidence of tampering or hacking of the result. Once again, it's not about me.

Paul Pless
12-15-2016, 11:05 AM
DHS says they watched everything closely on election night and there's no evidence of tampering or hacking of the result. Once again, it's not about me.right, nobody is arguing that point, its a non point. . .
we're talking about something else, from which you obviously want to continue to defect the conversation from

spinmeister. . . :D

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 11:09 AM
we're talking about something else.

Oh? Who is "we?"

You just got here, remember?;)

Keith Wilson
12-15-2016, 11:13 AM
SB, you're trying WAY too hard. It's not at all effective, and only makes people more suspicious.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-15-2016, 11:21 AM
That ship left some time back.

C. Ross
12-15-2016, 11:28 AM
Anyone have any evidence of a Russian hack into the voting or its results? No? Thx.

DHS says there were no voting irregularities, no evidence of any bad actor doing anything to affect the integrity of the election. This is Obama's man saying this.

C'mon people.

Strawman #2. I think; there may be more I your arsenal.

Some people might claim the Russians hacked voting machines. That was on the fringe of the fringe Jill Stein recount effort. It's silly.

Some people might think the Russian efforts at hacking and releasing emails, fake news, and agitprop bent public opinion. That will be exceptionally hard to prove. I think we can be confident that Mr. Trump did and would have won the electoral college vote and Ms. Clinton did and would have received a majority of the popular vote regardless of the Russians. It was just too weird a year to attribute the difference to any single thing.

But neither of those are the point.

These are the points:
1. A foreign government TRIED to intervene deceitfully in our election. That alone is a problem. What else are they doing? To ignore this would be negligent.
2. The foreign government in question has been a particular focus of our elected president. He has suggested significant changes in our approach to them, our role in NATO, and our response to Russian interests in third countries of interest to us, such as Syria and Iran. Since the President has more autonomy in foreign affairs and defense matters than in any other area, this should be of acute interest to every American citizen.
3. Our elected president and several members of his designated cabinet-to-be have substantial commercial interests in Russia. To date these are undisclosed, and our president elect tells us he does not intend to disclose his interests or recuse himself of them. The connection with #2 makes this issue nearly unprecedented. Other than Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a slaveholder whose financial interests were directly at interest, can you think of a single American President who (a) won't tell us where his financial interests lie, (b) advocates unilateral changes in policies towards several nations, including (c) the nation that was just discovered to have attempted to influence our election, and where (d) the elected president's changes in policies may financially benefit himself and members of his administration?

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 11:35 AM
Strawman #2. I think; there may be more I your arsenal.

Some people might claim the Russians hacked voting machines. That was on the fringe of the fringe Jill Stein recount effort. It's silly.

Some people might think the Russian efforts at hacking and releasing emails, fake news, and agitprop bent public opinion. That will be exceptionally hard to prove. I think we can be confident that Mr. Trump did and would have won the electoral college vote and Ms. Clinton did and would have received a majority of the popular vote regardless of the Russians. It was just too weird a year to attribute the difference to any single thing.

But neither of those are the point.

These are the points:
1. A foreign government TRIED to intervene deceitfully in our election. That alone is a problem. What else are they doing? To ignore this would be negligent.
2. The foreign government in question has been a particular focus of our elected president. He has suggested significant changes in our approach to them, our role in NATO, and our response to Russian interests in third countries of interest to us, such as Syria and Iran. Since the President has more autonomy in foreign affairs and defense matters than in any other area, this should be of acute interest to every American citizen.
3. Our elected president and several members of his designated cabinet-to-be have substantial commercial interests in Russia. To date these are undisclosed, and our president elect tells us he does not intend to disclose his interests or recuse himself of them. The connection with #2 makes this issue nearly unprecedented. Other than Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a slaveholder whose financial interests were directly at interest, can you think of a single American President who (a) won't tell us where his financial interests lie, (b) advocates unilateral changes in policies towards several nations, including (c) the nation that was just discovered to have attempted to influence our election, and where (d) the elected president's changes in policies may financially benefit himself and members of his administration?

Now you're all over the place. No one is ignoring it. People are questioning the preferred narrative of the NBC's and the Huffington Posts of the world. Those changes you note represent a lot of oxen being gored. I suggest that is what this kerfluffle is really about.

There's an investigation ongoing. Let us see if it bears any fruit.

Keith Wilson
12-15-2016, 11:47 AM
If that's 'all over the place', a narrow-beam laser is a vague and diffuse light source. Really, SB, best to stop digging.

TomF
12-15-2016, 12:31 PM
More than just hacks: Russia's 'hybrid warfare' has been targeting western Europe for monthsGermany, France, Britain, Poland and Sweden have all expressed concern about Moscow's meddlingJust in case anyone is thinking that concerns have not been expressed except after Trump's win, here's an analysis and overview of the months-long concern which has been expressed for quite some time now. Published today, I presume, because comments like Sky Blue's may be flooding cyberspace with false narratives. Source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-cyber-warfare-election-hack-1.3896613)

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 02:29 PM
false narratives

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a sitting member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (and a John Kasich supporter), smells a rat (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/14/rep_peter_king_almost_like_cia_is_carrying_out_a_d isinformation_campaign_against_donald_trump.html).

Dan McCosh
12-15-2016, 02:35 PM
Meanwhile, DHS isn't buying a bit of it.

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/12/14/dhs-chief-no-evidence-that-hacking-by-any-actor-altered-the-ballot-count/ No one was questioning the ballot count. What is being questioned is the hacking of computers, etc. during the election process.

johnw
12-15-2016, 03:30 PM
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a sitting member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (and a John Kasich supporter), smells a rat (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/14/rep_peter_king_almost_like_cia_is_carrying_out_a_d isinformation_campaign_against_donald_trump.html).

I guess he can't help but smell himself. The CIA is doing its job. King objects, because, like you, he is a Vichy Republican, ready to accept the assistance of a foreign power's intelligence and propaganda efforts to do down his domestic opponents.

johnw
12-15-2016, 03:35 PM
Anyone have any evidence of a Russian hack into the voting or its results? No? Thx.

DHS says there were no voting irregularities, no evidence of any bad actor doing anything to affect the integrity of the election. This is Obama's man saying this.

C'mon people.

Please re-read the satirical piece we are discussing. It is about Russian hacking of the emails and FBI interference in the election. If you wish to discuss the question of whether the Russians hacked the voting machines, perhaps you should start a thread on the topic instead of attempting to change the subject of mine.

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 03:37 PM
I do love all these Cold Warriors springing to life, finally discovering their inner neoconservative, finally coming to embrace Reaganism at long last, after all this time.

Hawks!

Sky Blue
12-15-2016, 03:41 PM
Please re-read the satirical piece we are discussing. It is about Russian hacking of the emails and FBI interference in the election. If you wish to discuss the question of whether the Russians hacked the voting machines, perhaps you should start a thread on the topic instead of attempting to change the subject of mine.

What is the subject of your thread, johnw? You didn't indicate anything apart from your opinion that the linked matter was "rather droll." There is more?

skuthorp
12-15-2016, 03:41 PM
How we would report the election if it happened in a foreign country?Unsafe. BTW the white house press secretary seems to have let himself out today.

C. Ross
12-15-2016, 04:00 PM
I do love all these Cold Warriors springing to life, finally discovering their inner neoconservative, finally coming to embrace Reaganism at long last, after all this time.

Hawks!

Dang, you're right! Under Trump it's au courant to love the Russians and hate the Chinese. And no further word on whether we release South Korea (and by extension Japan) to a do-it-yourself defense program. But what will we do with Cuba? So much ideology, so little realpolitik!

oznabrag
12-15-2016, 04:35 PM
The Germans are running the same game for Merkel. If she loses, it won't be for policy reasons, but because, Russia.

Btw, why aren't war plans being drawn up for Russia having usurped American democracy? Seriously. If there is "strong evidence" this occurred, if this is the "political equivalent of 9/11," why aren't we taking out Russian targets as we speak? Are we just going to sit idly by and let them influence our elections and take over our government? Why the utter absence of bellicose language towards Russia for what NBC is reporting they've done? Where are the generals on this?

It is clear that you regard yourself as omniscient so, if such plans were afoot, you REALLY BELIEVE you would know about it.

Sad.