|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 08:57 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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. Well the first one to really push the issue was Clinton (on the campaign trail) - who I could easily see hyping up Russia as a threat in pursuit of policy goals. It's the one country that stands most strongly in opposition to many of her FP goals in the Middle East and elsewhere (China is a big one too, but it tends not to deploy troops abroad and it does have a dependence on weapons imports). I could feasibly imagine any of the following scenarios: 1. Groupthink based on an initial analysis by CrowdStrike. 2. Political influence leading to intelligence manipulation. 3. Hasty work done within a very short timespan. 4. The agencies actually were able to deduce that Russia did it. After Clinton lost, perhaps Obama perceived a need to oppose a more pro-Russian policy that Trump would be likely to pursue? In any case, whether or not it was Russia, I'm sure we could agree that the response left much to be desired. If it was Russia I can only sit back and laugh at how badly they played a fractured political establishment for personal gain.
If Obama wanted to oppose Trumps pro-Russian policy this is a very poor attempt since Trump can just undo all of it and say "Obama lied, there was no proof".
As for the response, as I said before, its walking a tightrope with how far you want to go to send a message without doing to serious damage to relations. Russia isn't going to go away and is for now at least the de facto #2 world power.
But yes Russia is probably enjoying the current divided response and congratulating themselves on a job well done (if they did it) Not sure if there was any way to actually prevent that. The US is to divided on principle. Kim Jong-un could walk into a press conference and in front of the camera's shoot the President (be it Trump or Obama) and they would still squabble over what happened or how to respond.
On January 06 2017 09:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 09:13 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 08:57 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. Did Russia's actions negatively affect the election? If yes, then the election is a sham. If no, then why do we care about foreign powers failing to affect the election?
Read the post... impossible burden of proof, utterly unrealistic answer on both accounts.
I'm done with you.
|
The same (pro-Trump/anti-Hillary) people blaring the horns of skepticism right now probably didn't ask for any proof that North Korea conducted the Sony hack (which we retaliated against) or that China conducted the OPM hack. Or any number of other things involving an intelligence assessment which we then took action on. There is most definitely bias on the pro-Trump/anti-Hillary side here, because of the results of the election we just had. And these are not people who would usually advocate backing down from hostile actions by other countries.
|
The Senate is set to hold confirmation hearings next week for six of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees. On the same day.
The nominees preparing to go in front of the Senate on Wednesday are: Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) for CIA director, Betsy DeVos for secretary of education, Rex Tillerson for secretary of state, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for attorney general, John Kelly for secretary of homeland security, and Elaine Chao for secretary of transportation.
Trump is also scheduled to hold a long-awaited press conference that day ― his first since the November election. The president-elect will undoubtedly make news by addressing a number of backlogged issues, including his ongoing feud with the intelligence community over Russia’s meddling in the election and the matter of his business conflicts.
Furthermore, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to hold a series of votes on the Senate floor on Wednesday as part of the GOP’s push to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
...
Democrats are hoping to slow-walk the confirmation process and give the incoming president’s nominees a thorough public vetting. Republicans are using two unconventional weapons ― time and attention span ― to rebuff them. It may not be best for the country, but it is smart politics. It also mirrors Trump’s tactics during the campaign. The former reality television star repeatedly starved his opponents of air time with staged dramatic events and his habit of making news unpredictably.
Huffington Post
|
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr., a veteran of four presidential administrations and one of the nation’s leading intelligence experts, resigned Thursday from President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team because of growing tensions over Trump’s vision for intelligence agencies.
Woolsey’s resignation as a Trump senior adviser comes amid frustrations over the incoming administration’s national security plans and Trump’s public comments undermining the intelligence community.
“Effective immediately, Ambassador Woolsey is no longer a Senior Advisor to President-Elect Trump or the Transition. He wishes the President-Elect and his Administration great success in their time in office,” Jonathan Franks, a spokesman for Woolsey, said in a statement.
People close to Woolsey said that he had been excluded in recent weeks from discussions on intelligence matters with Trump and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the incoming White House national security adviser. They said that Woolsey had grown increasingly uncomfortable lending his name and credibility to the transition team without being consulted. Woolsey was taken aback by this week’s reports that Trump is considering revamping the country’s intelligence framework, said these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.
Washington Post
|
On January 06 2017 09:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 06 2017 08:57 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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. Well the first one to really push the issue was Clinton (on the campaign trail) - who I could easily see hyping up Russia as a threat in pursuit of policy goals. It's the one country that stands most strongly in opposition to many of her FP goals in the Middle East and elsewhere (China is a big one too, but it tends not to deploy troops abroad and it does have a dependence on weapons imports). I could feasibly imagine any of the following scenarios: 1. Groupthink based on an initial analysis by CrowdStrike. 2. Political influence leading to intelligence manipulation. 3. Hasty work done within a very short timespan. 4. The agencies actually were able to deduce that Russia did it. After Clinton lost, perhaps Obama perceived a need to oppose a more pro-Russian policy that Trump would be likely to pursue? In any case, whether or not it was Russia, I'm sure we could agree that the response left much to be desired. If it was Russia I can only sit back and laugh at how badly they played a fractured political establishment for personal gain. If Obama wanted to oppose Trumps pro-Russian policy this is a very poor attempt since Trump can just undo all of it and say "Obama lied, there was no proof". As for the response, as I said before, its walking a tightrope with how far you want to go to send a message without doing to serious damage to relations. Russia isn't going to go away and is for now at least the de facto #2 world power. But yes Russia is probably enjoying the current divided response and congratulating themselves on a job well done (if they did it) Not sure if there was any way to actually prevent that. The US is to divided on principle. Kim Jong-un could walk into a press conference and in front of the camera's shoot the President (be it Trump or Obama) and they would still squabble over what happened or how to respond. Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 09:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 09:13 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2017 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 08:57 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. Did Russia's actions negatively affect the election? If yes, then the election is a sham. If no, then why do we care about foreign powers failing to affect the election? Read the post... impossible burden of proof, utterly unrealistic answer on both accounts. I'm done with you.
I am reading it. Which is why I am saying that "We have insufficient proof that the election was affected by Russia" is all the FBI/CIA should be saying to the public. Everything else is fairly meaningless. Either they do something or they don't, no reason whatsoever to make public any of this. All it does is make half the country want to reset the election and the other half of the country argue that it was okay for Russia to hack us. There is absolutely NOTHING gained by making this public because the stakes if it were true are too fucking high.
This is not the Sony hack where a company lost money. This is not the VISA hack where citizens lost their identity.
This is a hack that suggests Russia actually dictated what happened in the election.
That is not something that the USA can let slide without a severe and yes, dangerous response. It is a direct attempt by Russia to literally test how willing the USA will uphold the principles of MAD. The more scared the US is at actually pulling the trigger the more that Russia will push. It is Russia showing the world that it is willing to poke the eagle and that the eagle *will* blink.
So I repeat.
If the CIA or the FBI have evidence that shit happened, and they want to make that evidence public--then they better be fucking ready to follow through on it.
If the evidence the FBI or CIA has is insufficient to show anything, if the most they can say is that Russia hacked us but don't worry, they didn't actually affect the election in any way--then why go around saying shit?
What you want is for us to have enough shit on Trump to put his legitimacy into question but not enough shit on him that would actually require the US to do anything about it. And that cowardly and passive stance that liberals have when it comes to how the world works is the exact reason why they are losing on every level across the globe.
Yes, we all "know" that Russia affected the election. But guess what--what are you comfortable with the US doing? Anything less than an equal response will equate to us being okay with foreign powers tampering with American politics. So what are you willing to do?
|
On January 06 2017 09:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 06 2017 08:57 Gorsameth wrote: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. 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. Well the first one to really push the issue was Clinton (on the campaign trail) - who I could easily see hyping up Russia as a threat in pursuit of policy goals. It's the one country that stands most strongly in opposition to many of her FP goals in the Middle East and elsewhere (China is a big one too, but it tends not to deploy troops abroad and it does have a dependence on weapons imports). I could feasibly imagine any of the following scenarios: 1. Groupthink based on an initial analysis by CrowdStrike. 2. Political influence leading to intelligence manipulation. 3. Hasty work done within a very short timespan. 4. The agencies actually were able to deduce that Russia did it. After Clinton lost, perhaps Obama perceived a need to oppose a more pro-Russian policy that Trump would be likely to pursue? In any case, whether or not it was Russia, I'm sure we could agree that the response left much to be desired. If it was Russia I can only sit back and laugh at how badly they played a fractured political establishment for personal gain. If Obama wanted to oppose Trumps pro-Russian policy this is a very poor attempt since Trump can just undo all of it and say "Obama lied, there was no proof".
Wouldn't be the first time Obama misjudged a situation.
|
On January 06 2017 09:24 Doodsmack wrote:
The same (pro-Trump/anti-Hillary) people blaring the horns of skepticism right now probably didn't ask for any proof that North Korea conducted the Sony hack (which we retaliated against) or that China conducted the OPM hack. Or any number of other things involving an intelligence assessment which we then took action on. There is most definitely bias on the pro-Trump/anti-Hillary side here, because of the results of the election we just had. And these are not people who would usually advocate backing down from hostile actions by other countries.
On mobile right now, so I can't search, but I do vaguely recall that proof was indeed provided for said accusations.
And weren't they wrong about NK and Sony?
|
On January 06 2017 09:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 09:24 Doodsmack wrote:
The same (pro-Trump/anti-Hillary) people blaring the horns of skepticism right now probably didn't ask for any proof that North Korea conducted the Sony hack (which we retaliated against) or that China conducted the OPM hack. Or any number of other things involving an intelligence assessment which we then took action on. There is most definitely bias on the pro-Trump/anti-Hillary side here, because of the results of the election we just had. And these are not people who would usually advocate backing down from hostile actions by other countries. On mobile right now, so I can't search, but I do vaguely recall that proof was indeed provided for said accusations. And weren't they wrong about NK and Sony?
Scale is also important here.
Sanctions to hurt foreign economies for those foreign powers affecting the US economy is a valid response that hurts in equal measure.
|
Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Trump is privy to the supposed evidence. Curious to see how he responds. Keep in mind members of Congress will see the same info and may come to a different conclusion.
|
Congress, including those who have been briefed is mostly on board with the conclusion of the FBI and the entirety of US intelligence.
|
I feel like this is very good advice. I highly doubt any democratic politician is going to listen though. (Whether or not the plots are imaginary it's one of the rare times where the "sexier" issue is actually the one that the public cares far less about than the boring one. It's extremely easy to understand why the GOP getting rid of medicare or social security directly affects voters. It's a few more steps of logic to explain to them how our relationship with russia directly affects them in any way).
|
On January 06 2017 10:09 On_Slaught wrote:
Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Trump is privy to the supposed evidence. Curious to see how he responds. Keep in mind members of Congress will see the same info and may come to a different conclusion.
Keep in my mind that I've been arguing how pointless it is for the FBI and the CIA to actually disclose any information. Keep it private unless you're willing to actually follow through with what you're accusing.
|
I find it hard to believe that the Russian hacks are "dictating" what happened in the election. It's the perogative of an intelegence organization to be benificial to the nation abroad. In this case you can nearly make the argument that the Russians did little more then air the dems dirty laundry. If they fabricated evidence or blackmailed Hillary we'd be in a different world of what to blame Russia for.
|
On January 06 2017 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 10:09 On_Slaught wrote:
Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Trump is privy to the supposed evidence. Curious to see how he responds. Keep in mind members of Congress will see the same info and may come to a different conclusion. Keep in my mind that I've been arguing how pointless it is for the FBI and the CIA to actually disclose any information. Keep it private unless you're willing to actually follow through with what you're accusing.
At this point they're too deep into making accusations to walk away without looking like fools for it. They should put up evidence.
|
something tells me. "we're going to build a wall (that has a lot of fencing) and we're probably going to pay for it" wouldn't have exactly had the same appeal on the campaign trail. but this is pretty obvious what was going to happen. Even though I mostly trust cnns reporting (once you take into account bias) this annoying click bait title stuff is getting a bit annoying. the headline is a bit past whats in the article actually says
Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that the President-elect's preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.
The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border.
The Trump team argues it will have the authority through a Bush-era 2006 law to build the wall, lawmakers say, but it lacks the money to do so. Transition officials have told House GOP leaders in private meetings they'd like to pay for the wall in the funding bill, a senior House GOP source said
"It was not done in the Obama administration, so by funding the authorization that's already happened a decade ago, we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump's campaign pledge to secure the border," Indiana Republican Rep. Luke Messer said on Thursday.
...
If Mexico refuses to pay for the wall the GOP could add billions of dollars into the spending bill that needs to pass by April 28 to keep the government open. But doing so would force a showdown with Senate Democrats and potentially threaten a government shutdown.
No decisions have been made, GOP sources said.
Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House leadership, declined to say Thursday if Congress would pay for the wall.
"We want President Trump to have all the tools he needs to build the wall," Scalise said. "We're in talks with him on the details of it as they're still putting together their team. We still got a few months before there's another funding bill that's going to move. We're going to work with him to make sure we can get it done. We want to build a wall. He wants to build a wall."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html
|
On January 06 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
I find it hard to believe that the Russian hacks are "dictating" what happened in the election. It's the perogative of an intelegence organization to be benificial to the nation abroad. In this case you can nearly make the argument that the Russians did little more then air the dems dirty laundry. If they fabricated evidence or blackmailed Hillary we'd be in a different world of what to blame Russia for.
Yes, the fact that the content is authentic makes the hacks have that much more weight behind them.
On another note, how would you folk say the reaction to this leak compares to previous leaks (Manning, et. al.)? It feels more impactful by being directly involved in internal, rather than FP, matters. At least in terms of public sentiment. Only Snowden seems comparable in terms of public outcry.
|
On January 06 2017 10:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:something tells me. "we're going to build a wall (that has a lot of fencing) and we're probably going to pay for it" wouldn't have exactly had the same appeal on the campaign trail. but this is pretty obvious what was going to happen. Even though I mostly trust cnns reporting (once you take into account bias) this annoying click bait title stuff is getting a bit annoying. the headline is a bit past whats in the article actually says Show nested quote +Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that the President-elect's preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.
The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border.
The Trump team argues it will have the authority through a Bush-era 2006 law to build the wall, lawmakers say, but it lacks the money to do so. Transition officials have told House GOP leaders in private meetings they'd like to pay for the wall in the funding bill, a senior House GOP source said
"It was not done in the Obama administration, so by funding the authorization that's already happened a decade ago, we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump's campaign pledge to secure the border," Indiana Republican Rep. Luke Messer said on Thursday.
...
If Mexico refuses to pay for the wall the GOP could add billions of dollars into the spending bill that needs to pass by April 28 to keep the government open. But doing so would force a showdown with Senate Democrats and potentially threaten a government shutdown.
No decisions have been made, GOP sources said.
Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House leadership, declined to say Thursday if Congress would pay for the wall.
"We want President Trump to have all the tools he needs to build the wall," Scalise said. "We're in talks with him on the details of it as they're still putting together their team. We still got a few months before there's another funding bill that's going to move. We're going to work with him to make sure we can get it done. We want to build a wall. He wants to build a wall."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html
I triple dog dare the Congressional Democrats to force a government shutdown and throw out the rest of their already shattered credibility by proving they are just as partisan an opposition party as the Republicans.
|
On January 06 2017 11:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 10:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:something tells me. "we're going to build a wall (that has a lot of fencing) and we're probably going to pay for it" wouldn't have exactly had the same appeal on the campaign trail. but this is pretty obvious what was going to happen. Even though I mostly trust cnns reporting (once you take into account bias) this annoying click bait title stuff is getting a bit annoying. the headline is a bit past whats in the article actually says Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that the President-elect's preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.
The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border.
The Trump team argues it will have the authority through a Bush-era 2006 law to build the wall, lawmakers say, but it lacks the money to do so. Transition officials have told House GOP leaders in private meetings they'd like to pay for the wall in the funding bill, a senior House GOP source said
"It was not done in the Obama administration, so by funding the authorization that's already happened a decade ago, we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump's campaign pledge to secure the border," Indiana Republican Rep. Luke Messer said on Thursday.
...
If Mexico refuses to pay for the wall the GOP could add billions of dollars into the spending bill that needs to pass by April 28 to keep the government open. But doing so would force a showdown with Senate Democrats and potentially threaten a government shutdown.
No decisions have been made, GOP sources said.
Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House leadership, declined to say Thursday if Congress would pay for the wall.
"We want President Trump to have all the tools he needs to build the wall," Scalise said. "We're in talks with him on the details of it as they're still putting together their team. We still got a few months before there's another funding bill that's going to move. We're going to work with him to make sure we can get it done. We want to build a wall. He wants to build a wall."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html I triple dog dare the Congressional Democrats to force a government shutdown and throw out the rest of their already shattered credibility by proving they are just as partisan an opposition party as the Republicans.
I kinda hope they do it, because it would spectacularly backfire.
|
On January 06 2017 05:18 On_Slaught wrote:
What are the chances Trump's tweets reveal something top secret? Over this Russia thing I'd say 25%.
Over the course of the next 4 years? Maybe 70%.
People around him will figure out quickly enough now to let him in on anything top secret. You really think the director of the CIA will let the effectiveness of her/his whole department, and the safety of their spies, depend on Trump's ability to hold back on Twitter?
|
On January 06 2017 10:19 Nevuk wrote:https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/816790426971701252I feel like this is very good advice. I highly doubt any democratic politician is going to listen though. (Whether or not the plots are imaginary it's one of the rare times where the "sexier" issue is actually the one that the public cares far less about than the boring one. It's extremely easy to understand why the GOP getting rid of medicare or social security directly affects voters. It's a few more steps of logic to explain to them how our relationship with russia directly affects them in any way).
Sanders, making a sane opposition among his insane colleagues. I'm no big fan of his, but damn he's onto the right track. It's not even that tired old cliche where you do 100 hot takes on the latest tweet in the hours after it's posted and grab four talking heads on big news outlets to hand-wring. He's got an issue-based response, he's taking pledges on serious subjects seriously. To repeat it, he didn't choose some insult at the former Miss Universe to highlight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
