|
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. |
The CIA has identified Russian officials who fed material hacked from the Democratic National Committee and party leaders to WikiLeaks at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin through third parties, according to a new U.S. intelligence report, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Central Intelligence Agency and others have concluded that the Russian government escalated its efforts from discrediting the U.S. election process to assisting President-elect Donald Trump's campaign.
The intelligence assessment was presented to President Barack Obama on Thursday and will be briefed to Trump on Friday. Trump has rejected the broad intelligence community's assessment that Russia staged cyber attacks during the election campaign to undermine Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
...
Details of the report emerged as the top U.S. intelligence official, James Clapper, said on Thursday he was "even more resolute" in his belief that Russia staged cyber attacks on Democrats during the 2016 election campaign.
Not all 17 intelligence agencies participated in preparing the assessment. An unclassified version of the report is expected to be released on Friday morning, two officials said.
The report contains some of what the officials called “minor footnotes” about open questions and other uncertainties, in part because some of the evidence supporting the conclusion is inferential.
One such example, the officials said, was that intercepted messages and conversations among senior Russian officials in Putin’s inner circle indicated they were aware of the hacking campaign and celebrated Trump’s election as a victorious end to the campaign.
The officials declined to discuss the nature of the communications, including whether they were domestic, international, or both.
"People who knew what this was about were celebrating a victory over the United States,” said one official.
Another example of inferential evidence, the officials said, was that as time passed and the early leaks attracted media attention that undermined or eclipsed Clinton’s campaign, the Russians increasingly focused their hacking “almost exclusively” on Democratic rather than Republican targets.
Yahoo
|
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.
Looks like "Mexico is paying for the wall" = "The American taxpayers are paying for the wall." so why would Democrats get behind that? Trump broke yet another campaign promise.
|
On January 06 2017 11:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 10:19 Nevuk wrote:
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). 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.
Before the end of Trump's presidency you will admit you would have rather had Bernie Sanders. Probably before most of the Democrats here do.
On January 06 2017 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 11:06 LegalLord wrote: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. Looks like "Mexico is paying for the wall" = "The American taxpayers are paying for the wall." so why would Democrats get behind that? Trump broke yet another campaign promise.
Probably because it will be nearly indistinguishable from Hillary's "barrier" plan, at least as far as the structure itself.
|
Republican voters have much concern about corruption.
Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, who came under scrutiny last year for her office’s dealings with Trump University and President-elect Donald Trump, will take a job in Trump’s White House, according to a person familiar with the decision.
It was not immediately clear what her title would be. Bondi was not among a lengthy list of White House appointments Trump announced on Wednesday.
A Washington watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service last year charging that Trump’s charitable foundation violated its tax-exempt status by making a $25,000 donation to a political group associated with Bondi in 2013. Bondi later decided not to pursue claims by Florida residents that Trump University had defrauded them.
Bloomberg
|
On January 06 2017 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 11:55 Danglars wrote: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. Before the end of Trump's presidency you will admit you would have rather had Bernie Sanders. Probably before most of the Democrats here do.
Bold prediction, but the extreme tail of probabilistic likelihoods does allow for this. Thus far, not resorting to the self-defeating mechanisms of Dems is great credit to him. Attacking Trump on policies (yes, after posited and reversed three times in tweets) and the effects of his decisions as president is the right way to bring him down.
|
On January 06 2017 08:19 Incognoto wrote:
I think we're still far away from ww3, even in these hairy times
Tension with Russia has dropped substantially with Trump winning.War with Russia was a real chance with Clinton in charge.
For me Trump is far too friendly with Israel.Should Israel be attacked or threatened expect the US to take a far more hands on approach than if Clinton had won.
Tensions in the South China sea remain.Obama had patrols sail through the disputed regions last year, it will be interesting to see if Trump continues this policy.
They have a US news correspondant on the radio here.He brought up strategic analysts recommending US pre-emptive strikes to take out North Koreas nuclear program.Can't see too much online, a couple of articles but it would be a very dangerous move.
|
On January 06 2017 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 11:55 Danglars wrote: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. Before the end of Trump's presidency you will admit you would have rather had Bernie Sanders. Probably before most of the Democrats here do.
I'm pretty sure virtually all Democrats on this forum would rather have had Sanders elected than Trump, myself included. It's not even close.
|
Neither the US or Russia wants a war. It is a pretty big stretch to think Clinton could get one (assuming she would actually want it).
|
Zurich15313 Posts
Another clarification, on why the FBI doesn't need to examine the DNC servers to come to their conclusion.
in reply to
|
On January 06 2017 17:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2017 11:55 Danglars wrote: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. Before the end of Trump's presidency you will admit you would have rather had Bernie Sanders. Probably before most of the Democrats here do. I'm pretty sure virtually all Democrats on this forum would rather have had Sanders elected than Trump, myself included. It's not even close.
It wasn't over Trump for Democrats. I figured you all would know I meant over Hillary.
Speaking of the done one, you pushing Hillary to run for mayor?
Hillary Clinton may not be done with politics after all. Some people reportedly want her to run for Mayor of New York.
New York City is holding a mayoral election this year, and if she chose to run, Clinton would be competing against a Democratic incumbent. Mayor Bill de Blasio is in the final year of his first four-year term. He also managed Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, but has had a cooler relationship with her recently. De Blasio made headlines by waiting several months before endorsing her in the Democratic presidential primaries.
Source
|
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.
Democrats force anything? They don't have anywhere near a majority. If there's another government shutdown while Republicans hold both the house and the senate, it's quite clearly on the Republicans being completely disfuncional. Bit that I expect a government shutdown when Obama isn't there to threaten a veto.
|
On January 06 2017 16:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 08:19 Incognoto wrote:
I think we're still far away from ww3, even in these hairy times War with Russia was a real chance with Clinton in charge.
lol
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
You forgot coal, Trump is also betting on coal.
|
how conservative 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
people who cant distinguish between military power as a diplomatic tool and actual wars can easily fall into the trap of confusing hillary's fp stance with warmongering. they didnt do a good job distinguishing the position.
but the unique challenge of having to fight a two front war on fp certainly created the conditions that made this failure consequential. stein and stay at home voters were deeply delusional as to ww3 and russia escalation dangers and inability to address this flank while also needing to rebuff trump's machismo (which did not worry lefties lul) was a real factor in the loss
|
|
|
I really hope the 2020 Dem campaign just focuses on Trump being a massive policy hypocrite who is ending up a tool of the Republican establishment interested in business as usual when he isn't tweeting dumb shit. Swamp draining-dead. Border wall-real real dead. Anything happening to Clinton-dead. Standard Republican agenda on healthcare and social security-almost certainly happening.
I think his budget plans are probably going to be wholly subsumed by Ryan, too.
|
|
|
On January 07 2017 00:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I really hope the 2020 Dem campaign just focuses on Trump being a massive policy hypocrite who is ending up a tool of the Republican establishment interested in business as usual when he isn't tweeting dumb shit. Swamp draining-dead. Border wall-real real dead. Anything happening to Clinton-dead. Standard Republican agenda on healthcare and social security-almost certainly happening.
I think his budget plans are probably going to be wholly subsumed by Ryan, too.
It all depends on the economy I think,if it is doing well and the people feel happy about their financial situation then trump will get re-elected no matter how many promises he broke or messed up things it has caused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
