US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6510

On January 06 2017 08:11 LegalLord wrote:

Frankly this is just a long-winded way of saying "we don't need proof, how can so many sources be wrong?" I suppose we could give the example of the pollsters predicting a Clinton win. The consensus of so many people saying Clinton 99%, Clinton 99.9%, didn't change the reality that it wasn't actually a sure deal. I made the case that it wasn't well before the result showed that the less-likely, but still highly plausible, event occurred. And yet the 99.9%-ers (Sam Wang PhD etc) were heralded as the true masters of data and probability while being wrong.

If it's so obvious, then why can't the intelligence folk simply provide the proof? "So many different reasons that it's obvious" isn't proof. Neither is circumstantial evidence. The intelligence wing needs to make the case, simple as that. If they have some methods to protect, then I'm sure they are capable of figuring out a way to give only the unclassified info to the public, given that this isn't the first time that they needed to prove something to the public.

On January 06 2017 08:19 Incognoto wrote:
I think we're still far away from ww3, even in these hairy times

On January 06 2017 08:21 Mohdoo wrote:


Until someone is willing to be nuked, there will be no ww3. It still comes down to the fact that you'll probably end up nuked if shit actually gets wild.

On January 06 2017 08:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:


How is the accusation of "White house is a puppet government of Russia" in the same weight class as "some goods will not be as cheap for you, maybe, I hope so."

If the US gives the sanction, they admit that Russia controls the US. If they don't give the sanction, then they show that you can do anything to them without repercussions.

So no, sanctions are shit.

"White house is a puppet government of Russia"

On January 06 2017 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Okay, here's my actual deal with the whole thing.

IF Russia did it (and I believe they did)
AND the CIA/FBI/etc... know so (they have proof)

Then why tell the public? Don't they need to just go to Obama, say "here's the target," then Obama signs off on it and we have a few dead Russians?

Moscow wouldn't be able to say anything--since that would admit they hit the US.
DC wouldn't be able to say anything--since that would admit to a wet-works program.

And the Cold War continues as it always has?

What's the point of bringing it up?

On January 06 2017 08:24 LegalLord wrote:

Wait, are you advocating for killing some random Russians deployed somewhere in the world?

Two can play at that game, and who has more military personnel deployed beyond its borders?

On January 06 2017 08:29 Gorsameth wrote:

In what world is Moscow not able to say anything? You just killed Russian citizens for (as far as the world is concerned) no reason. Heck even with proof of the hack you still killed Russian citizens over an email hack.

I don't wanne go all doom and gloom ww3 because its not going to happen but holy crap if it ever is then it will be because of shit like what your advocating.

"Lets randomly kill some Russians over an email hack. That will show the bastards not to mess with us"

As for "why tell the public?" because the public suspects and wants answers about whether of not a foreign power tried to influence the elections? Seems a pretty legit reason to issue a statement to me.

On January 06 2017 08:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:


If the FBI and CIA honestly believe that the election is a sham--its their responsibility to reset it and fix it.
If the FBI and CIA does not believe the election is a sham--then they need to stop saying Russia did shit.
If the FBI and CIA believes spy shit happened and that the US needs to do something about it--why bring it up to the public and just fix it their damn selves?

On January 06 2017 08:39 Gorsameth wrote:

1) influence does not equal sham. If Russia hacked voting machines and gave Trump a billion extra votes then yeah you have a basis for overturning the results but not the release of information in an attempt to influence public opinions
2) See 1
3) Because the people are asking what happened and the Government is more or less beholden to the people? We know someone hacked the DNC, we know Wikileaks published the results of that hack. There is suspicion it was Russia, a foreign power, trying to influence the elections. Yes you come forward to inform your citizens about what happened.

You would have a point if the hack happened but information was never made public and the world was unaware it happened.
That is not the case.

Stop dealing in fairy tales and start basing your replies on the real world and what is/has actually happened.
Thank you.

On January 06 2017 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
it's always about strength of evidence and likelihood as a result of a combination of specific evidence on a particular act and MO or circumstantial evidence about a particular actor.

proof or gtfo is an attitude a radical skeptic of the sort whose very worldview is at stake would demand, not one with an open mind.

even if we discard this likelihood and weight talk, the evidence is pretty overdetermined, though mainly based on evidence pointing to the groups involved, and then tracing these groups' affiliations. the public bit.ly accounts is about as smoking gun as they come.


any response would have to be a part of a credible overall strategy towards confronting the kind of asymmetric warfare that this attack is a part of. so it's mainly about securing and reaffirming our own values, re-establishing confidence in our own systems, and getting some better leadership worthy of that trust. i would be very against pushing on russia/china at the state-state level.

On January 06 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:
If there is no proof, the proper course of action is, to put it simply, to GTFO.

There doesn't really seem to have been any particularly effective forethought as to how to properly address this situation - assuming the proof actually exists. If the proof does not exist then it's just stupidity that arose from some incompetent organization (DNC) hiring a contractor who made the claim that the DNC was hacked by Russians - which is how this all started.

On January 06 2017 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
For reference, here is the logic for this whole thing:

Is there proof the election was negatively affected?
Yes: Cancel Inauguration and redo the votes, punish Russia with something as big as attempting to usurp governmental control of the United States.
No: Who gives a fuck then?

This isn't some kind of dick waving contest, this isn't some kind of bad press bullshit. The accusation is that the election is a sham because the accusation is that Russia influenced the election.

If they did not influence the election--then who gives a fuck?
If they did influence the election--then the response needs to be big.

On January 06 2017 08:57 Gorsameth wrote:

At which point every intelligence agency and other outside party would not have agreed with them and that would have been the end of it.
Yes you believe everyone hates Russia and they they would shrug their shoulders and just blame Russia for the hell of it but by doing so they force themselves to give a response (since such an action, if it happened cannot go without some form of response or it sets the precedent that it is allowed).

Governments tend not to piss off others and damage politicians relations for a good laugh at the coffee machine and without a greater goal in mind. (more then just "lol I don't like Russians").

Considering Obama's attempts at increasing relations with nations across the globe. many of who were unfriendly to the US in the past (Cuba, Iran to name the obvious ones) I see no reason to think he would take a dump on Putin's carpet to cover for an inept DNC.

Much easier to blame some non-affiliated group if that's your goal.


And what do you think the reaction is from legitimate Trump voters when there is a redo because of this? Are you trying to set the country on fire?

"The Obama administration, after seeing that our candidate lost, have decided to redo the elections until you people get it right and elect Hillary".
And your going to mind wipe the country to undo the email reveal while your at it to remove the Russian influence?

Seriously, nothing your saying has any grounds in reality. Atleast LegalLord bothers to stay grounded in the real world.

On January 06 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:


As i have repeated over and over. They either to show evidence or shut up. No evidence means no action. if the evidence shows that the election was not negatively affected, then no action.

Done, that's it, super easy.

If their evidence shows proof the election is a sham, then the election is a sham. If they had that evidence, they'd show it already. Its obvious the evidence they have is not a big enough emergency to warrant the pony show this is.

There is nothing complex or out of the ordinary with that stance.

On January 06 2017 09:13 Gorsameth wrote:

How do you prove that the emails made Trump win and cost Hillary the election?
How do you proof that?
Because just proving that Russia did the hack is not sufficient to call the entire election a sham. Overturn the result and hold new elections.

I would say such proof is pretty much impossible. So you are fine with foreign governments, probably geopolitical opponents, influencing US elections to ensure favourable candidates are elected because the burden of proof required to take action is impossible.

There is a world between "The entire election is a sham" and "No one did anything" in which a foreign government hacked US officials in an attempt (of indeterminable effect) to influence policy. (assuming for the moment that Russia actually did it).

What do you think an appropriate response would be in such a situation to deter others from trying it again (regardless of whether or not it worked)? Other then your earlier desire to start WW3 by randomly killing some Russians.