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.

 Ustrello wrote:
Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes

Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.

If you actually think an identifiable voting group moved so strongly to Trump across the nation because of the DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda...prove it.

Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...

EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.

And that's a cop out. The wall wasn't obliterated. It simply didn't turn out. Which is important but not for the reasons you and others keep insisting it is.

If you actually think an identifiable voting group moved so strongly to Trump across the nation because of the DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda...prove it.

If you think an identifiable voting group moves so strongly to Trump for reasons other... prove it?

It's probably fallacious to declare "Hillary would have won if not for "DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda." However it's fallacious as well to just assume these things had no effect and Trump won because of an ambiguous and poorly defined surge in a particular voting group. The numbers can work with that theory but they do not prove it. It's just the narrative that is politically convenient for conservatives and Republicans so its what they're running with (real numbers on this matter will be made available in late 2017 when more in depth election stats are released).

The 2016 election was very close and extremely close in key states. The numbers were so close that if you move some things around you could easily change the outcome. Thinking that the information campaign couldn't possibly have an effect is foolish.

Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...

Any given platinum rock band can fill a stadium to capacity. It's not really an indication that they'd win an election.

 LordofHats wrote:

Any given platinum rock band can fill a stadium to capacity. It's not really an indication that they'd win an election.

And the real question is whether Trump will attract a bigger crowd than Obama's '08 Inauguration show.

Unlikely as Obama had Beyonce and so far Trump has..... errrrr....

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.

And that's a cop out. The wall wasn't obliterated. It simply didn't turn out. Which is important but not for the reasons you and others keep insisting it is.

There was a sizable shift that translated into Trump winning... and the states where Congress was on ballot, the GOP kicked ass'ed too.

If you actually think an identifiable voting group moved so strongly to Trump across the nation because of the DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda...prove it.

If you think an identifiable voting group moves so strongly to Trump for reasons other... prove it?

It's probably fallacious to declare "Hillary would have won if not for "DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda." However it's fallacious as well to just assume these things had no effect and Trump won because of an ambiguous and poorly defined surge in a particular voting group. The numbers can work with that theory but they do not prove it. It's just the narrative that is politically convenient for conservatives and Republicans so its what they're running with (real numbers on this matter will be made available in late 2017 when more in depth election stats are released).

The 2016 election was very close and extremely close in key states. The numbers were so close that if you move some things around you could easily change the outcome. Thinking that the information campaign couldn't possibly have an effect is foolish.

We won't really know for sure, but there are indicators that highlights that the GOP came out to vote.

Like I said earlier, I think the email scandal and the late Comey letter to Congress critters had more impact in depressing some usual democrat voters.

Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...

Any given platinum rock band can fill a stadium to capacity. It's not really an indication that they'd win an election.

Too bad Hillary Clinton couldn't fill a stadium...

That's what I was comparing too... which I thought it was obvious.

Now... Sanders? gak... I'd be he'd take Trump's money as to who can pack a stadium.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Any given platinum rock band can fill a stadium to capacity. It's not really an indication that they'd win an election.

And the real question is whether Trump will attract a bigger crowd than Obama's '08 Inauguration show.

Unlikely as Obama had Beyonce and so far Trump has..... errrrr....

Oh I think he will have a pretty large crowd, just not the one he wants.

Fewer people voted for Trump than Romney or McCain, but somehow that is proof that demographics shifted in his favor?

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes

EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.

I've said as much previously. The emails released by wikileaks provided nothing new, no "smoking gun", and ultimately failed to give us anything we didn't already know. The announcement by Comey that he was investigating Hillary more damning as it appeared to vindicate views held by conservatives but I doubt even that changed enough minds to swing the election. Honestly, I think the way the Democrats handled Bernie Sanders had more to do with curbing enthusiasm for Hillary than just about any other single factor.

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes

EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.

I've said as much previously. The emails released by wikileaks provided nothing new, no "smoking gun", and ultimately nothing we didn't already know. The announcement by Comey that he was investigating Hillary more damning as it appeared to vindicate views held by conservatives but I doubt even that changed enough minds to swing the election. Honestly, I think the way the Democrats handled Bernie Sanders had more to do with curbing enthusiasm for Hillary than just about any other single factor.

It may have caused some people to stay home rather than vote for Hillary, but I don't think it caused Trump to gain votes.

Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

Just Tony wrote:It may be a quick example. but it isn't an example of a program that gives stuff away for free, while asking people to pay for it if they can.

When you get a chance, try an experiment: go to a public place or your place of employment and set out a bowl of candy with an honor box for payment. Leave a sign for what constitutes a share, and what is the correct price per piece of candy. I'm sure the amounts will jive.

Here are some examples:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/11/154750001/the-psychology-of-the-honor-system-at-the-farm-stand

And today at his farm stand, Cochran says, just as at the donut shop years ago, most customers leave more money than they owe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/magazine/what-the-bagel-man-saw.html?_r=0

But he will say that telecom companies have robbed him blind, and another bagel-delivery man found that law firms aren't worth the trouble. He also says he believes that employees further up the corporate ladder cheat more than those down below. He reached this conclusion in part after delivering for years to one company spread out over three floors -- an executive floor on top and two lower floors with sales, service and administrative employees. Maybe, he says, the executives stole bagels out of a sense of entitlement.

If I remember correctly from another study poor people usually tend to pay better with honour systems than people who are more removed from the regular employees (manager entitlement, like the bagel guy assumed).

Just Tony wrote:No, my issue is people not being motivated to better themselves. I could easily milk the system right now with the number of children I have, especially with one of them being special needs. Instead, I pay for insurance through the military and worked to get a better paying job than what I had ($24.28/hr as opposed to the $13/hr) to make sure I take care of my family's needs. In contrast, I know of more than a few people in my area right now (Lafayette, IN) that will NOT look for work as they are getting a better deal sponging off the system. I still pay taxes on that, and I know that there are families that DO need that kind of assistance, but I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are people breaking that system.

And here's a couple questions for you: 1. Have you or anyone you know ever been on unemployment? 2. If so, how long did you or they wait to look for work? For most people with a drive to better themselves or at least be self sufficient, the answer would be "I started looking on day 1." However, there are many people who've been on that system for over a year without anything to show. Honestly, Family Express gas stations pay $10/hr in my area and are always hiring, and there is income adjusted housing. They aren't the only jobs being unfilled. You tell ME the system isn't broken. And you tell me that it wouldn't rile you to be supporting people like that.

There are people who abuse the system but they are in the minority. Most the people who get help from social services need it. And overall the system is much better and cost effective than the alternative (moochers included). Even the abusers spend the money on goods and services and "contribute" to the economy. The money doesn't just disappear and some of it gets back to the government as taxes. What doesn't end up as taxes ends up in the pockets of somebody else who can spend it.

Overall poor people, if given money, will mostly spend it on essential stuff and usually don't waste it. They know what they need. It's similar with homeless people who when given free housing end up costing the government less than before. The economic uncertainty, problems, and stress of not having money (or support) leads to much bigger costs than just helping people. And yes it's hard and there is a psychological component because people often see it as an "us versus them" thing despite the overall performance and benefits that social services provide all of us (even if we are only paying taxes and not directly getting money into out accounts).

More about this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/07/the-double-standard-of-making-poor-people-prove-theyre-worthy-of-government-benefits/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/

http://www.scanph.org/node/2075
https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-streets-31-065-giving-them-housing-10-051-3107834a8632#.1g47aa15n
http://salvationarmynorth.org/2012/05/free-housing-for-the-homeless-costs-taxpayers-less/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/04/housing-first-approach-works-for-homeless-study-says/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free

Handing mentally ill substance abusers the keys to a new place may sound like an example of wasteful government spending. But it turned out to be the opposite: over time, Housing First has saved the government money. Homeless people are not cheap to take care of. The cost of shelters, emergency-room visits, ambulances, police, and so on quickly piles up.

Housing First isn’t just cost-effective. It’s more effective, period. The old model assumed that before you could put people into permanent homes you had to deal with their underlying issues—get them to stop drinking, take their medication, and so on. Otherwise, it was thought, they’d end up back on the streets. But it’s ridiculously hard to get people to make such changes while they’re living in a shelter or on the street. “If you move people into permanent supportive housing first, and then give them help, it seems to work better,”

The recognition that it makes sense to give money away today in order to save money later isn’t confined to homeless policy. It has animated successful social initiatives around the world. For more than a decade, Mexico has been paying parents to keep their children in school, and studies suggest that the program is remarkably cost-effective, once you take into account the economic benefits of creating a more educated and healthy population. Brazil’s Bolsa Familia is a similar program. The traditional justification for such initiatives has been a humanitarian or egalitarian one. But a cost-benefit analysis suggests that, in many cases, such programs are also economically rational.

Yes the system is broken but it a different way. A few moocher or cheats don't break it but people who depend on it usually don't have a gradual re-entry into being a normal taxpayer with low paying jobs. They usually lose benefits once they meet some threshold and the security of the known is psychologically safe and easier to rationalise (our minds play tricks on us, we are not as rational as we like to think). There might be a gas station near you that is hiring at $10/h but for somebody on benefits that means they could get a bit more money (as they would lose their benefits) but be uncertain about their future and if they were to lose their job they would have to go through all the governmental bureaucracy (again) to get the old benefits (and if they actually managed to save up some money that counts against them), and even then they can be pushed around by the people who are supposedly there to help them and cause more stress.

The certainty of the existing status quo feels safer (and our brains like it). The solution to this problem is not eliminating these services but making them simpler, easier, and less of a yes/no thing. In the long run overpaying for poor people won't bankrupt a country but it gives them the stability to get their life back into shape and become a taxpayer again. Exacerbating their anxiety about their situation by cutting money everywhere doesn't help them get a job.

On the other hand, if the gas station is always looking for someone then maybe they need to raise their offer to get more/better applicants (supply and demand and all that).

I do have a big issue with the "people not being motivated to better themselves" bit. That's demonstrably not true because a lot of rich people live of money that is generated by a wealth management or asset trust and they make more money all the time. They don't move a finger when the money is in a trust but somehow that's not seen as lowering their "motivation to better themselves" or become entrepreneurial. If you are rich then suddenly getting money for doing nothing is a virtue. If that were really true then we should tax the hell out of anybody who manages to accumulate any significant sum of money. We wouldn't want them to become lazy, would we?

 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.

 whembly wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Google is your friend... former IC/Natsec folks are all over this.

John Schlinder is my fav... he equally despises both Trump and Clinton... who comes off as an extreme IC honk.

There's a huge debate among themselves whether or not it's worth burning the assets/sources to validate this report's assertions.

Guess you already stopped reading the actual report and rather focus on what people said on the Internet.

I almost had a hope. Almost.

It won't matter much for the result, anyway.

I really wonder how the R team will manage President Trump's twitter "lil storms". Hopefully, they will manage to make him understand that's not a good idea to keep using it while being at the White House.

Let's watch what happens next.

Uh... wat.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Donald Trump’s Statement After Intelligence Briefing on Hacking

Translation: Russian did it... but, we sure as feth won't admit it outright.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The point was to attack Hillary, so they probably consider it resources well spend.

Are you kidding?! This result was the best ROI they'll ever see! They got a politically naïve dupe elected that will provide a quicker avenue to sanction relief than they'd ever see via HRC as POTUS.

So you can show me that they change votes?

Cool... I'll wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ooooooooooooooooo:
US intel releases declassified report on Russian hacking.

Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.

If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.

Or, start WW3.

He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.

Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.

His opponent was HRC.

And what about these opponents?

Spoiler:

Got an explanation for that?
Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.

Erm... yes I can.

Know why? Those other candidates weren't on the ballot against Clinton.

You won't have to wait long.

Just so I understand your snark, and intent of the pronoun word salad, does "So you can show me that they change votes?" refer to showing whether Trump will vote to remove the sanctions or does it refer to whether they, the Russians, altered citizens' votes on the election?
I've got my response prepared, I just want to make sure it addressing your comment correctly.

 d-usa wrote:
Fewer people voted for Trump than Romney or McCain, but somehow that is proof that demographics shifted in his favor?

Eh? Come again??

Trump got 62,979,879

Romney only got 60,933,504

McCain got 59,948,323

 Ahtman wrote:
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

It's a concern, certainly, but even if Russia did hack the DNC as alleged, they didn't fabricate anything nor did they hack actual votes either of which would be far more troubling. Still, given your stance what do you think about Homeland Security moving in to "protect" our elections?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ELECTION_HACKING_HOMELAND_SECURITY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-06-17-24-20

Associated Press wrote:Citing increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors and an election infrastructure that's "vital to our national interests," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Friday that he's designating U.S. election systems critical infrastructure, a move that provides more federal help for state and local governments to keep their election systems safe from tampering.

There is more to it, obviously, and I suggest you read the whole article. The article states the security concerns and expected benefits of this designation as well as bringing up some possible issues such as withholding some election information from the public and maybe making protected records more accessible. There are no specifics in the article about what information would be secret or what protected records could be compromised by this designation. There is also the question of whether this action is constitutional or not.

 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!


This is the entire point! Influenced voters, didn't influence voters...RUSSIA fethed WITH OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS! This is unacceptable. The same individuals trying to defuse this as "Ehm!", or argue it away as nonimpactful are letting their political party bias blind them from what should be an apolitically aligned matter. I'd be just as pissed if they fethed with Trump or the RNC! Stay the hell out of our elections and internal matters.

Anybody trying to diffuse the seriousness of this matter or creating absurd standards for what is or isn't acceptable when it comes to something as serious as foreign entities attempting to manipulate an American election, is just undermining the credibility of any argument or criticism they have made, will make or have thrown at the opposition with regards to political integrity, influence peddling or the like. The double standard is patently unacceptable.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!


This is the entire point! Influenced voters, didn't influence voters...RUSSIA fethed WITH OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS! This is unacceptable. The same individuals trying to defuse this as "Ehm!", or argue it away as nonimpactful are letting their political party bias blind them from what should be an apolitically aligned matter. I'd be just as pissed if they fethed with Trump or the RNC! Stay the hell out of our elections and internal matters.

Anybody trying to diffuse the seriousness of this matter or creating absurd standards for what is or isn't acceptable when it comes to something as serious as foreign entities attempting to manipulate an American election, is just undermining the credibility of any argument or criticism they have made, will make or have thrown at the opposition with regards to political integrity, influence peddling or the like. The double standard is patently unacceptable.

w00t!

What actions do you suggest to retaliate?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.

It's completely nefarious.

Just because we're one of the aholes doing it doesn't make it okay. It does make us hypocrites because apparently we only care when the shoe is up the other butt.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ooooooooooooooooo:
US intel releases declassified report on Russian hacking.

Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.

If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.

Or, start WW3.

He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.

Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.

His opponent was HRC.

And what about these opponents?

Spoiler:

Got an explanation for that?
Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.

Erm... yes I can.

Know why? Those other candidates weren't on the ballot against Clinton.

Nope, try again. They were all up against Clinton. It was only a question of which of them would be the last one standing against her. But you absolutely cannot blame Clinton or the Democrats for Trump being the Republican nominee. That falls on the Republicans alone, own up to it for once.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ooooooooooooooooo:
US intel releases declassified report on Russian hacking.

Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.

If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.

Or, start WW3.

He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.

Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.

His opponent was HRC.

And what about these opponents?

Spoiler:

Got an explanation for that?
Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.

Erm... yes I can.

Know why? Those other candidates weren't on the ballot against Clinton.

Nope, try again. They were all up against Clinton. It was only a question of which of them would be the last one standing against her. But you absolutely cannot blame Clinton or the Democrats for Trump being the Republican nominee. That falls on the Republicans alone, own up to it for once.

Eh? I think you misuderstood my original point.

I said:

Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.

His opponent was HRC.

Highlighting the fact that Trump won in large part that HRC was his opponent.

Democrats nominated her.

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.

It's completely nefarious.

Just because we're one of the aholes doing it doesn't make it okay. It does make us hypocrites because apparently we only care when the shoe is up the other butt.

I was going to say that "two wrongs don't make a right" but that works as well.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

So what you're saying is that rich people are all selfish s because they don't buy their own personal fire department and just leech off of the free service provided by the government? Or does this concern over entitled people only apply to things that you personally don't think should be funded by taxes?

Generally 'rich' folks pay property taxes and ad valorem taxes on their vehicles, often quite a bit. Seeing as property taxes are often used to cover fire and police I would submit they are paying into the system.

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!


This is the entire point! Influenced voters, didn't influence voters...RUSSIA fethed WITH OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS! This is unacceptable. The same individuals trying to defuse this as "Ehm!", or argue it away as nonimpactful are letting their political party bias blind them from what should be an apolitically aligned matter. I'd be just as pissed if they fethed with Trump or the RNC! Stay the hell out of our elections and internal matters.

Anybody trying to diffuse the seriousness of this matter or creating absurd standards for what is or isn't acceptable when it comes to something as serious as foreign entities attempting to manipulate an American election, is just undermining the credibility of any argument or criticism they have made, will make or have thrown at the opposition with regards to political integrity, influence peddling or the like. The double standard is patently unacceptable.

w00t!

What actions do you suggest to retaliate?

Punitive actions aren't the issue here either. There are levels of sanctions that haven't been touched upon yet and other means to put the squeeze on Comrade Putin, but once again, THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

If Russia gets away with just a "Let's move on." after the damning report just issued, as our exaggerator-in-chief wishes, then they'll...or some other emboldened wannabe...will just keep playing at this game. Here again, South America or Europe, you name it. You're trying to pull everyone's attention away from the actual issue here with the whole bullgak "Show me proof..." nonsense. The report today showed the proof is in the pudding that concerns about Russian interference in our election were not unfounded and were actually directed from the highest of sources in the Kremlin. You'd almost think Putin had some KGB experience under his belt, oO, as you like to say.
Sorry, Whembs, but you've absolutely undermined yourself by trying to lessen this matter for obvious personal political alignment. Your position in trying to diffuse what happened is akin to finding out about your spouse cheating and saying afterwards, "Well, does she love me any less?"

Lessen it? Dude. I want more than the pansy assed slap on the wrist than Obama did.

I suppose us voters will just have to overcome foreign attempts at influence by looking at policy positions and past actions of those we are vot-HAHAHA!!! Sorry, couldn't say that with a straight face.

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.

One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.

It's completely nefarious.

Just because we're one of the aholes doing it doesn't make it okay. It does make us hypocrites because apparently we only care when the shoe is up the other butt.

Actually, it just means we need to expect this in the future and work on stopping it. It's called counter-espionage and it's been around since WWII. I'm more concerned hearing that the Russians got into polling precincts and State agencies than I am about Democrat emails. Emails are a personal security issue and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to have their dirty laundry aired for everyone to see. The States' voting infrastructure is a different beast because (at least in theory) as we move to electronic voting, the possibility of hacking the actual election returns becomes a very real possibility.

EDIT: Oh, it isn't just the Russians doing it. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese, Arabs, and non-government groups like Anonymous are also doing it. Hell, even our friends like England, Germany, and Korea are probably doing it. We need to be more pro-active with our computer security.

Oh, yeah. I gotta get one of these!


http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/alec-baldwin-pokes-fun-at-trump-in-russian-maga-hat/ar-BBxZwtY?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

 Cothonian wrote:

 TheArmorOfContempt wrote:


Proof that policy was irrelevant was pretty much the debates themselves. It makes me feel like a dick to say it but anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump would be a good President is straight up an idiot.

Could we stop with the insults?

Moving along...

In regards to the ethics committee. I always thought that it was weird that our government could have an office that could decide, on its own without oversight, what is and is not "ethical." The problem is that whoever the governing power is could quite easily "adjust" what is ethical, and proceed to persecute whomever they see fit.

For example, during the last 8 years... I was never a fan of Obamacare, never wanted it to pass. I had seen other government healthcare programs and never liked the way they were run, also heavily disliked the almost guaranteed price/tax increases that would inevitably come with it.

For that, people flat out called me racist to my face. Racist, because I did not like a proposed government policy. So by not liking a bill, words on paper, that involved tax increases, I was a racist. Apparently it was not "ethical" to be against a proposed change to how healthcare worked.

Thus, that is why I am fine with calls for the ethics committee to be disbanded. I'd rather leave investigations to the many law enforcement agencies currently available. Law enforcement at least operates based on set guidelines, and everything they do is consistently under strict scrutiny. Some lawmaker does something bad, let the FBI take them down. That's what they're there for.

People hurt my feelings with mean words so I voted for a person that clearly had zero clue about the details on any issue relevant to my country's future. Followed immediately by a total lack of understanding over the difference between ethics and law...

Just Wow...

Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

..err outside of the hardcore brexiteer crowd most people in the k saw Obama's answer as being little more than A. the truth B him answering a question accurately.

I'm not disputing the idea that the USA has and does try -- through various means -- to influence elections in other countries but I don't think that's quite the way people are meaning here.


https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

From August to November 2012, RT ran
numerous reports on alleged US election
fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities,
contending that US election results cannot
be trusted and do not reflect the popular
will.

In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of
democracy" in the United States, RT
broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty
candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates.
The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third
of the population and is a "sham."


RT aired a documentary about the Occupy
Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and
4 November. RT framed the movement as a
fight against "the ruling class" and described
the current US political system as corrupt and
dominated by corporations.

...well... errmm ...



That said : when Trump doubted Russian culpability on Dec 31, he said "I know things other people don't know," vowed to disclose this information ...... we're still waiting yeah ?


https://twitter.com/VicenteFoxQue/status/817480450285375488

diplomacy in the Trump era : all international interactions to be carried out on Twitter.