Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obama has sanctioned Russia for their attempts to influence the election.

What does the panel think?

I think a cynical man could easily say the administration is working real hard at destabilizing world affairs just a few weeks before they walk out the door.

Why would they want to do that?

It might be said that Russia was working hard to destabilise world affairs by hacking the election, and needs to be severely admonished.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why would they want to do that?

It might be said that Russia was working hard to destabilise world affairs by hacking the election, and needs to be severely admonished.

I said a cynical man. Me? I don't know, don't care. The most I know about this stuff is what I read on websites like this, and a wise man should know that you should never base a good opinion from internet forum postings.

I do know that Russia has been working to destabilize things, and that we're closer to a military conflict with them then we have been since the 80's. As one of the people who'd be involve in said conflict, I'd rather that not be a thing.

Well, ask yourself the question, why would Obama want the USA to enter into a war with Russia?

Surely there isn't a single benefit for him that can come out of it?

Well, I'm gonna toss some fuel on the fire here:

The thing is, though, all Russia really did was air out the Democrats' dirty laundry, right? They didn't hack any actual voting machines or otherwise directly alter the results of the election? As far as I know, all they did was basically release ill-gotten information to influence voters' decisions. Is that really so different from what any major news network does with all of their confidential sources and leaked info? Is that so different than all of the fake news generators we saw this past year?

Certainly, condemn Russia for the actual illegal act of hacking, but don't bang the drum of indignation over them trying to influence our election, when that is exactly what the candidates, their campaigns, their advertising, and their PACs and Super PACs were doing all year to the tune of a couple billion dollars.

I guess a question is, is the Federal Government in the right for leveling sanctions at a foreign country, for actions taken against a private entity?

The DNC is a private organization.

The Russians hacked the election.

It's like saying if you shoot the tyres out of a fast car, you aren't increasing the chance of an accident, only damaging the tyres.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

It's like saying if you shoot the tyres out of a fast car, you aren't increasing the chance of an accident, only damaging the tyres.

No, they hacked the DNC, and enabled the publishing of private records. They didn't "hack the election".

 djones520 wrote:
I guess a question is, is the Federal Government in the right for leveling sanctions at a foreign country, for actions taken against a private entity?

The DNC is a private organization.

But the DNC produces a large amount of representatives for the federal government, hacking either the DNC (which they did) or the RNC (which they didn't do on purpose) is grounds to sanction Russia.

 djones520 wrote:
I guess a question is, is the Federal Government in the right for leveling sanctions at a foreign country, for actions taken against a private entity?

The DNC is a private organization.

I don't know the legalese, but I would certainly think so. It was an illegal action taken against an American organization and American citizens in that organization, so only the government could respond (it's not like the local PD could serve a warrant on Russia).

I did read somewhere that Putin was still considering a response. If I were Putin, my response would be to, well, retweet the UK Russian Embassy's response and call it good until Trump moves into the White House. Because then the reset button gets pushed and it's yesterday's news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

But the DNC produces a large amount of representatives for the federal government, hacking either the DNC (which they did) or the RNC (which they didn't do on purpose) is grounds to sanction Russia.

I thought they did hack the RNC, too, but just didn't release any of it?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obama has sanctioned Russia for their attempts to influence the election.

What does the panel think?

I think Obama's had his head firmly up his arse when he made a joke of Romney's warnings about Russia. I think he's now in sore loser mode trying to blame everyone and everything else about Trump winning the election besides the Democratic Party.
Does anyone here really think the U.S. doesn't influence who is in power in other countries?
Time to review history if you think so.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I guess a question is, is the Federal Government in the right for leveling sanctions at a foreign country, for actions taken against a private entity?

The DNC is a private organization.

I don't know the legalese, but I would certainly think so. It was an illegal action taken against an American organization and American citizens in that organization, so only the government could respond (it's not like the local PD could serve a warrant on Russia).

I did read somewhere that Putin was still considering a response. If I were Putin, my response would be to, well, retweet the UK Russian Embassy's response and call it good until Trump moves into the White House. Because then the reset button gets pushed and it's yesterday's news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

But the DNC produces a large amount of representatives for the federal government, hacking either the DNC (which they did) or the RNC (which they didn't do on purpose) is grounds to sanction Russia.

I thought they did hack the RNC, too, but just didn't release any of it?

I heard attempts where made, but they couldn't beat their security.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-national-committee-security-foiled-russian-hackers-1481850043

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, I'm gonna toss some fuel on the fire here:

The thing is, though, all Russia really did was air out the Democrats' dirty laundry, right? They didn't hack any actual voting machines or otherwise directly alter the results of the election? As far as I know, all they did was basically release ill-gotten information to influence voters' decisions. Is that really so different from what any major news network does with all of their confidential sources and leaked info? Is that so different than all of the fake news generators we saw this past year?

Certainly, condemn Russia for the actual illegal act of hacking, but don't bang the drum of indignation over them trying to influence our election, when that is exactly what the candidates, their campaigns, their advertising, and their PACs and Super PACs were doing all year to the tune of a couple billion dollars.

Hillary Clinton's private email server was most likely hacked.
Reaction: meh...

Office of Personnel Management system was hacked.
Reaction: meh...

Prior to the election, the DNC server has hacked/leaked.
Reaction: meh...

Close confident of Hillary Clinton and campaign manager (John Podesta), was phished and leaked.
Reaction: meh...

Hillary Clinton loses election and Democrats generally spanked across the board.
Reaction: RUSSIA 'HACKED' THE US ELECTIONS!!!!1!11!!! TRUMP IS THE ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!!! RECOUNT!!!!

...

...

I have to say that Obama's labeling 35 Russians as person-non-grata is about fething time... should've done this when Snowden landed in Moscow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
I guess a question is, is the Federal Government in the right for leveling sanctions at a foreign country, for actions taken against a private entity?

The DNC is a private organization.

IN this specific case? I would have to think so...

How would this be any different than China hacking into Sony? (didn't Obama sanction them too?? I don't recall...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

It's like saying if you shoot the tyres out of a fast car, you aren't increasing the chance of an accident, only damaging the tyres.

No, they hacked the DNC, and enabled the publishing of private records. They didn't "hack the election".

djones has the right of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

But the DNC produces a large amount of representatives for the federal government, hacking either the DNC (which they did) or the RNC (which they didn't do on purpose) is grounds to sanction Russia.

I thought they did hack the RNC, too, but just didn't release any of it?

They TRIED to hack the RNC... and as far as I know, they couldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obama has sanctioned Russia for their attempts to influence the election.

What does the panel think?

I think Obama's had his head firmly up his arse when he made a joke of Romney's warnings about Russia. I think he's now in sore loser mode trying to blame everyone and everything else about Trump winning the election besides the Democratic Party.
Does anyone here really think the U.S. doesn't influence who is in power in other countries?
Time to review history if you think so.

Agreed. Obama has had plenty of time to sanction Russia over this... it took Hillary Clinton to LOSE the election for Democrats in general to care about these beligerent actions.

:ahem: Obama... the 80's called...

In some ways one could call it unproductive because it's just going to be tit for tat sillyness or potentially even dangerous escalation.

In other ways I one could call it stupid to engage that activity in this manner where it's likely just going to feed the opponent's ego and inflict little real harm as opposed to say...responding in kind...

Alternatively, one could also say it's a shrewd, if potentially dangerous, political move on Obama's part. Toss Trump the hot potato of "well...what do you do now?", and force the decision to either potentially engage in acts that many will perceive or portray as fitting the "puppet" theory, or have to roll with it and start off foreign policy with Russia on Obama's terms using Obama's playbook (at least on some level).

Finally, one could call it legitimate sanctions against a meddling foreign power.

Perhaps it could be called all, none, or some of these things.

 djones520 wrote:
I think a cynical man could easily say the administration is working real hard at destabilizing world affairs just a few weeks before they walk out the door.

That cynical man might have to overcome the fact that Paul Ryan immediately said sanctions were "overdue", as he's certainly not going anywhere soon and his party will soon have the helm. This isn't a partisan political issue, it's a "quit fething with our internal affairs" issue.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I think a cynical man could easily say the administration is working real hard at destabilizing world affairs just a few weeks before they walk out the door.

That cynical man might have to overcome the fact that Paul Ryan immediately said sanctions were "overdue", as he's certainly not going anywhere soon and his party will soon have the helm. This isn't a partisan political issue, it's a "quit fething with our internal affairs" issue.

Yeah, from what I've seen the pushback against Russia has broad bipartisan support in the Senate. The cries of "Russian interference" are not just sour grapes from the Dems; the Republicans want this dealt with in such a way that makes other nations reluctant to follow Russia's example.

I don't want to be the wet blanket in this discussion, but can we put this into a little perspective? Yes, Russia did hack a private company and tried to swing an election. It's bad, and they should be slapped on the wrist for it.

The US on the other hand has sent WEAPONS into regions to supply insurgents to totally topple governments and leaders that were democratically elected.

Kind of a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

I haven´t been keeping up on this, Has there been any actual proof of this yet or is this one of those "post-facts" things?

 Breotan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Trump swatted aside the GOP candidates with ease. Trump is a third party candidate who successfully hijacked a party for his own ends!

The "old guard" at the GOP still haven't figured out how he pulled it off. Then again, neither have the Democrats.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I find it ironic that the GOP claim Trump's victory as a victory for the GOP when Trump is an independent masquerading as the GOP poster boy.

The election result was a GOP victory in name only.

This may be true in Trump's personal election but the GOP won big in other areas such as State seats and local races. The GOP was also expected to lose the Senate and they kept it instead. It's also a victory for the GOP in that Trump is expected to sign off on much of their legislative agenda. What he actually does remains to be seen.

From where I was standing, the GOP looked as though they were jumping on the Trump bandwagon and rode that to victory. Without it, I think they would have struggled to make the gains they made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I don't want to be the wet blanket in this discussion, but can we put this into a little perspective? Yes, Russia did hack a private company and tried to swing an election. It's bad, and they should be slapped on the wrist for it.

The US on the other hand has sent WEAPONS into regions to supply insurgents to totally topple governments and leaders that were democratically elected.

Kind of a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

When the USA sends weapons into regions, invades Iraq and so on, that's democracy. That's Freedoooommmmm!!!!

When Russia backs its ally, Syria, and defends interests on its doorstep i.e Ukraine,

well, that's evil, a new cold war, new Nazis and so on...

But yes, you are correct, the double standards here are enough to make you want to vomit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obama has sanctioned Russia for their attempts to influence the election.

What does the panel think?

Well, it came on the same day that Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Syria agreed a ceasefire in Syria, and it's worth pointing out that the USA was nowhere to be seen - they've been sidelined, reduced to peeking through the keyhole. For a superpower to be ignored like that, well, that's gotta hurt...

In truth though, it's no surprise - Putin has been running rings around Obama for years.

As for the claims of foreign inteference, If you're wondering what that laughter is, it's coming from the direction of South America.

They must be having a right laugh at Washington banging on about foreign interference.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

I haven´t been keeping up on this, Has there been any actual proof of this yet or is this one of those "post-facts" things?

There have been a number of news reports about the CIA and FBI statements on the matter. It is not a "post-fact" thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

It's like saying if you shoot the tyres out of a fast car, you aren't increasing the chance of an accident, only damaging the tyres.

No, they hacked the DNC, and enabled the publishing of private records. They didn't "hack the election".

You are evading the point. The Russians illegally hacked the Democrats (and probably the Republicans) in order to get material that they released in order to affect the course of the election. No-one would even have know they had hacked the DNC records if they had not released them.

I am frankly astonished that you guys are happy with this intrusion by a foreign government into your national elections. What's next, the North Koreans get to hack your state level elections?

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-29/gop-readies-swift-obamacare-repeal-with-no-replacement-in-place

House conservatives want a two-year fuse for the repeal. Republican leaders prefer at least three years, and there has been discussion of putting it off until after the 2020 elections, staffers said.

Isn't it amazing how governing is actually different from campaigning.

who knew ?

Here is an interesting article from the BBC about this year's fake news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38168792

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-29/gop-readies-swift-obamacare-repeal-with-no-replacement-in-place

House conservatives want a two-year fuse for the repeal. Republican leaders prefer at least three years, and there has been discussion of putting it off until after the 2020 elections, staffers said.

Isn't it amazing how governing is actually different from campaigning.

who knew ?

Well I hope around 5 million people are ready to lose their healthcare, when ever it happens.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, I'm gonna toss some fuel on the fire here:

The thing is, though, all Russia really did was air out the Democrats' dirty laundry, right? They didn't hack any actual voting machines or otherwise directly alter the results of the election? As far as I know, all they did was basically release ill-gotten information to influence voters' decisions. Is that really so different from what any major news network does with all of their confidential sources and leaked info? Is that so different than all of the fake news generators we saw this past year?

Certainly, condemn Russia for the actual illegal act of hacking, but don't bang the drum of indignation over them trying to influence our election, when that is exactly what the candidates, their campaigns, their advertising, and their PACs and Super PACs were doing all year to the tune of a couple billion dollars.

Excellent post.

Nobody blames the Washington Post for bringing down Nixon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is an interesting article from the BBC about this year's fake news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38168792

For the benefit of American dakka members not familiar with the BBC, I'll point out in the interests of balance, that in 2003, the BBC were churning out a tidal wave of propaganda to support the British government's case for invading Iraq.

So I find it ironic that the BBC have an article on fake news.

Even worse, I have to pay a TV licence for the BBC

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

I haven´t been keeping up on this, Has there been any actual proof of this yet or is this one of those "post-facts" things?

There have been a number of news reports about the CIA and FBI statements on the matter. It is not a "post-fact" thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

It's like saying if you shoot the tyres out of a fast car, you aren't increasing the chance of an accident, only damaging the tyres.

No, they hacked the DNC, and enabled the publishing of private records. They didn't "hack the election".

You are evading the point. The Russians illegally hacked the Democrats (and probably the Republicans) in order to get material that they released in order to affect the course of the election. No-one would even have know they had hacked the DNC records if they had not released them.

I am frankly astonished that you guys are happy with this intrusion by a foreign government into your national elections. What's next, the North Koreans get to hack your state level elections?

Who said I'm happy with it? I'm not evading a point. DNC talked some gak, Russian's made it public. Earlier in the year we were provided a wonderful news clip about Trump talking about some horrible things. Stuff he thought was said in private, ended up being made public.

I guess the point I'm wondering, is where is the line drawn? I don't agree with bombastic claims that they "hacked the election". There is no evidence of official tampering. The Russian's played the media game. They did it dirty, but they certainly did not "hack the election".

Amazing that no one is angry at the members of the media that directly colluded with the Clinton campaign in an effort to influence the US elections. Maybe Federal sanctions against them are in order?

21 Days until President Trump

Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

The acceptance of a foreign power illegally obtaining information that did influence the election for the highest office in the land is disturbing. Whats even more disturbing is the handwaving and acceptance of it because it benefited 'your guy'

Both sides should be sharing outrage that a hostile foreign power had this much influence in our election