The Next President is...

[tac airlifter]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

Now look to the President-elect's administration as the one wanting closer ties to Russia, as not believing the CIA's assessment that Russian hacks were meant to help get Trump elected, etc.  

Edit to add: I'll also say that I remember laughing when Obama mocked Romney during the 2012 Presidential debates re: Russia.  "The 80s want their foreign policy back, etc."  I was wrong then and so was the President, Romney was right to identify the Russians as the biggest (or top 2) geopolitical threats to the U.S. VEOs aren't an existential threat...Russian undermining of Western institutions (EU/NATO/U.S.), grabbing land in Europe

Very interesting post.  A few replies:

1. What Russian hacks are you talking about?  I have seen no proof the Russians hacked anything, just accusations.  Wikileaks and project veritas have rejected any claims the Russians helped them.  Secondly, even if the Russians did steal democrat emails..... there is no evidence the information contained therein was altered.  The democrats are ashamed their private words and behavior was publicized.  I see no evidence Russia had any part in this, but even if they did.... I'm glad we got to see the truth.  Would you really be mad if Russia hacked RNC emails and provided proof of a white nationalist conspiracy?  Or would you be talking about how so many suspicions were now validated by evidence?  Please genuinely think about your reaction if the tables were turned.

2. Some members of the "intelligence community" anynomously claiming proof of Russian hacks is not proof.  "I have proof but it's too classified for me to show you" will NEVER work on the American public again, after the WMD fiasco in Iraq.  Even if it's true, the legitimacy and trust is gone.  You got proof?  Show it.  "Trust us, its there, but we can't tell you how we know."  Nope.  Snowden proved that these people routinely lie to us.

3. NATO is a joke, Russia hasnt undermined them, they have made themselves irrelevant.  

4.  I'm glad you admit you were wrong about Romney and his claim.  Hillary and Obama were also wrong; remember the ridiculous Russian reset?  So, if you were wrong then, why should anyone believe you now?  

[brickhistory]

Errr, fcuking with a national election and therefore the national infrastructure is pretty much a casus belli.

I have not been recalled to active duty yet.  Did I miss the call/text?

I am not buying it.

I could absolutely believe that the current Administration wouldn't do anything about it if it were true, but the fact that the IC is not in lock-step on this happening makes me lean toward an excuse of why Hillary lost since she wasn't supposed to according to all the Democrats and all the standard media.

It couldn't have been her.  Nope, gotta be the Russki's...

They rolled her once before on the "reset" and have pretty much had their way like drunken Vikings with the rest of the current Administration, including the infamous "I'll have more room to maneuver" comment made by the soon to be ex-President back in the run-up to 2012.

Why on earth would Vlad want take on an unknown (at best) or a guy who has stated he is for America first yet can work a deal as well?

Yep, the logic checks yet again.  Gotta be the Russki's...

[SurelySerious]

Pretty sure they've been messing/attempting to mess with our election process in some way shape or form since at least '48. Seriously, like they weren't trying to subvert the process in their favor during the Cold War? And not once in that time did the candidate they found more favorable win (although probably not at all related to their efforts)? Bullshit. Nothing new; correlation is not causation.

[brickhistory]

To clarify, if they, the Russians, hacked voting machines to change votes and screwed with results, that's pretty serious and worth changing DEFCON.

If it's propaganda and spending money to stir the pot, then fair enough.  We do it; can't blame them for doing it.  Still don't think they did it.  Much easier to cry "wolf!' than defend the crap contained in Hillary's e-mails and the DNC's.  If the press chases that ball, there's less ink spilled on the real news revealed by Assange.  The press also has a vested interest to discourage coverage of the damaging e-mails since so many of them were revealed to be in the tank for Hillary - sending stories for an "ok" prior to running; revealing GOP dirt to the campaign and not publishing the dirt until it was coordinated with the DNC; dancing at Hillary's nomination event; having dinner with the campaign a week prior to its announcing itself; literally providing debate questions to Hillary; and on and on and on.

But I hold to my position that the Russians would have an easier time putting it to Hillary (how's THAT for a visual...) than Trump.

Hillary & Co., to include, especially, the so-called MSM, simply can't fathom that they were wrong.

It's us, not them.

According to them anyway...

[tk1313]

Didn't Obama spend tons of money on propaganda and other dirty tactics trying to influence the election in favor of anyone except Netanyahu? I personally would like a refund from that failed effort. Also...
 

[fire4effect]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 4:24 PM, nsplayr said:

25 years is apparently what changed.  Your point is my point exactly - the Russians don't have our best interests in mind and I trust our own intelligence community more than I trust RT and the Kremlin propaganda machine.  Can the same be said uniformly across the right?

Now look to the President-elect's administration as the one wanting closer ties to Russia, as not believing the CIA's assessment that Russian hacks were meant to help get Trump elected, etc.  Flynn and Tillerson (National Security Adviser and Secretary of State to be [rumored]) have extensive ties with Russia, as did Paul Manafort, Trump's one-time campaign manager.

That's why I find it ironic.  The "liberals are commies and love Russia!" meme doesn't quite hold today the same way it did in the 80s.  Some liberals are commies and 'em, I agree, but let's allow our distain for Russian intersts to cross party lines when necessary as well.  Today it's the incoming GOP administration that can rightfully be charged with cozying up to Putin, not the Democrats.

Edit to add: I'll also say that I remember laughing when Obama mocked Romney during the 2012 Presidential debates re: Russia.  "The 80s want their foreign policy back, etc."  I was wrong then and so was the President, Romney was right to identify the Russians as the biggest (or top 2) geopolitical threats to the U.S. VEOs aren't an existential threat...Russian undermining of Western institutions (EU/NATO/U.S.), grabbing land in Europe and energy deals in the Middle East and offering a shitty alternative to Western-back norms and power is an existential threat, and that's what Romney was getting at I think.

Not sure if this was mentioned elsewhere. Hypocrisy, the one common denominator for all politicians.  

[matmacwc]

Never mind Obama sent a bunch of people to Israel to help BB lose an election with our tax dollars, which he didn't.  

And funny, the liberal says we can't go back 25 years to point out liberal hypocrisy.  

Edited December 14, 2016 by matmacwc

[pbar]

13 hours ago, pawnman said:

Well, Reagan's opposition to Russia revolved around them being a communist country.  To think that the US and Russia can't find common ground in things like fighting radical Islamic terrorism, or potentially hemming in a rising China, or any number of trade agreements, it ludicrous.  Just because we were enemies in the Cold War doesn't mean we have to remain enemies forever.

No, we should totally go out of our way to antagonize a ferociously paranoid nuclear weapon state.  What could go wrong?  <sarc>

[hispeed7721]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[nsplayr]

8 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Until the ODNI decides that the Russians actually did anything (they haven't), this is nothing more than hearsay.

The DNI absolutely said that the Russians conducted offensive cyber operations to interfere with the US election process. That much is not in disputed whatsoever. 

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

What is currently up for debate is what the Russians' intent was. Was it to sow general confusion and disruption or were their efforts specifically intended to hurt Clinton and help Trump?

The CIA apparently concluded in a classified assessment briefed to Congress that the intent was specific.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html

The DNI apparently isn't 100% sold on those conclusions, and communicated while they don't disputed the CIA's conclusions, they can't prove them either.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/310112-dni-not-sold-on-cia-assessment-of-russian-hacking-report

Look, I'm not in the camp saying Russians hacked the election and that's the reason Hillary lost. There were a lot of factors at play, including her own weaknesses as a candidate and Trump's particular strengths in the states that ended up mattering. Trump won the electoral college and will be the next President - that's a fact. But the reason a bipartisan group of senators is investigating Russian involvement is because it 100% happened and no matter the intent, it's bad.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/sen-mcconnell-backs-senate-investigations-russian-breach-n694876

I don't want foreign powers interfering in our elections to help either my allies or my political opponents and neither should anyone else. The Russians do not have our interests at heart and I don't want them hacking the RNC or the Trump administration any more than I want them hacking the DNC or the Obama administration.

Edited December 14, 2016 by nsplayr

[redshift2020]

The DNI absolutely said that the Russians conducted offensive cyber operations to interfere with the US election process. That much is not in disputed whatsoever. 
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement
What is currently up for debate is what the Russians' intent was. Was it to sow general confusion and disruption or were their efforts specifically intended to hurt Clinton and help Trump?
The CIA apparently concluded in a classified assessment briefed to Congress that the intent was specific.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html
The DNI apparently isn't 100% sold on those conclusions, and communicated while they don't disputed the CIA's conclusions, they can't prove them either.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/310112-dni-not-sold-on-cia-assessment-of-russian-hacking-report
Look, I'm not in the camp saying Russians hacked the election and that's the reason Hillary lost. There were a lot of factors at play, including her own weaknesses as a candidate and Trump's particular strengths in the states that ended up mattering. Trump won the electoral college and will be the next President - that's a fact. But the reason a bipartisan group of senators is investigating Russian involvement is because it 100% happened and no matter the intent, it's bad.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/sen-mcconnell-backs-senate-investigations-russian-breach-n694876
I don't want foreign powers interfering in our elections to help either my allies or my political opponents and neither should anyone else. The Russians do not have our interests at heart and I don't want them hacking the RNC or the Trump administration any more than I want them hacking the DNC or the Obama administration.

Except the POTUS, the media and other parts of the federal government declared from the high heavens above in no uncertain terms that Russia was NOT involved or hacking the election in October when during the debates the subject of election rigging was brought up and Hillary deriding that she couldn't believe her "opponent" wouldn't accept the peaceful result and transition of power and now those same people want to say that Russia hacked the election?! Give me a break.

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, redshift2020 said:

 

Except the POTUS, the media and other parts of the federal government declared from the high heavens above in no uncertain terms that Russia was NOT involved or hacking the election in October when during the debates the subject of election rigging was brought up and Hillary deriding that she couldn't believe her "opponent" wouldn't accept the peaceful result and transition of power and now those same people want to say that Russia hacked the election?! Give me a break.

 

What's your source for POTUS saying the Russians played no part? I would genuinely like to read/hear/watch that if you have a link.

Election rigging via voter fraud (Trump's accusation) and election meddling via hacking/leaking (intelligence community's assessment) aren't the same thing. And we're not taking about not accepting the results of the election. Hillary conceded and is off walking in the woods still. Obama has met with Trump and there will be a peaceful transition of power in January. Those things are settled facts as well.

I point back to the DNI/DHS statement from October, back when Hillary was leading in the polls. That was the United States and the Obama administration officially accusing Russia of meddling in the election. The statement was put out when Obama's preferred successor appeared to be winning and wasn't a sour grapes maneuver as the election hadn't happened yet. The argument could be made that Obama wasn't nearly forceful enough in denouncing Russian interference at that time.

This is part of why political debates are so frustrating today. There are apparently no facts and no bipartisan national objectives anymore.

It is a fact, according to public statements by the US intelligence community, that Russian state actors deployed cyber attacks to meddle in our election (exact intent is still up for debate). Russia is a geopolitical adversary and we should not accept their interference in our critical internal national affairs.

I would hope those two statements would be agreed upon and agreeable to everyone...if not I'll show myself out and I wish you all good luck in thawing relations with Russia in a way that's beneficial to the United States.

In all seriousness, I sincerely hope that when Trump is President he follows Congress' lead and brings the full weight of the USG to bear on this investigation because no matter who benefited or who was hurt politically, the integrity of our democratic process was hurt by Russian actions and that's a wound we shouldn't accept lightly. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by nsplayr

[redshift2020]

That's where I don't agree is that Russia had a profound effect on our election. Even *if* it was proven they hacked the DNC and Hillary they exposed the underbelly of a corrupt disgusting monster. Folks act as if the content of the leaks weren't true.

Believe it or not they are coming out with articles as of 18 hours ago that many believe it was our own intelligence community that leaked the information to Wikileaks.

I just refuse to believe that Russia can have any possible effect on the outcome of our election. I mean for crying out loud just how exactly can they influence the US population when our own media fails miserably at the job as hard as they try? How are they convincing Mr and Mrs middle America that they should vote for whom Russia supposedly supports?

My point is, this particular "issue" is a distraction that has no bearing on the outcome of the election and only serves to undermine the legitimacy of the President Elect, divides the nation, is not in our best interests. They are trying to steal his place in history because of false notions on Donald Trump.

[tk1313]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I point back to the DNI/DHS statement from October, back when Hillary was leading in the polls. That was the United States and the Obama administration officially accusing Russia of meddling in the election. The statement was put out when Obama's preferred successor appeared to be winning and wasn't a sour grapes maneuver as the election hadn't happened yet. The argument could be made that Obama wasn't nearly forceful enough in denouncing Russian interference at that time.

1. So if it's illegal Russian meddling, but it hasn't hurt our particular political party yet, we'll turn a blind eye?
2. Obama drawing a line in the sand and not doing sh!t when someone crosses it? Go figure.

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Russia is a geopolitical adversary and we should not accept their interference in our critical internal national affairs.

I would say Putin is our problem, not Russia as a whole... But then again, that's what you get when an ex-KGB guy takes control. And I expect the trickle-down will fvck us long term. Like ISIS, we'll be paying dearly for not nipping that problem in the bud.

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

...the integrity of our democratic process was hurt by Russian actions and that's a wound we shouldn't accept lightly. 

We do a great job of muddying our own democratic process. In fact, the DNC did a great job of undermining their own party with the coin flips and super-delegates. Not to mention the Stein recount is showing that Detroit (I think we all know who won there) reported more votes than there were ballots cast. I wonder what would happen if we took a look at a couple sanctuary cities in California or perhaps even New York? If the true intent of the recount is to assure no voter fraud was committed instead of to punish traditionally liberal-leaning states for voting Republican, let's get this gigantic waste of resources started in the blue states!

 

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I would hope those two statements would be agreed upon and agreeable to everyone...if not I'll show myself out and I wish you all good luck in thawing relations with Russia in a way that's beneficial to the United States.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and I disagree with a lot of what you say. Conflicting opinions are good, even if your opinion is wrong. :)

Edited December 14, 2016 by tk1313

[HerkPerfMan]

50 minutes ago, redshift2020 said:

Believe it or not they are coming out with articles as of 18 hours ago that many believe it was our own intelligence community that leaked the information to Wikileaks.

Despite my fear of prompting a link to an InfoWars "article," I'll ask the question: who is "they"?

50 minutes ago, redshift2020 said:

I just refuse to believe that Russia can have any possible effect on the outcome of our election. I mean for crying out loud just how exactly can they influence the US population when our own media fails miserably at the job as hard as they try? How are they convincing Mr and Mrs middle America that they should vote for whom Russia supposedly supports?

This is how. Based on your SNAP status and your not-so-subtle, Russia-leaning screen name, you may be one of Putin's operatives described in the article!

[redshift2020]

This is how. Based on your SNAP status and your not-so-subtle, Russia-leaning screen name, you may be one of Putin's operatives described in the article!

Redshift actually refers the how a tactical aviation radar works or redshifted light in astronomy. I have American roots dating to the 1600s, family in the revolutionary, civil war and every conflict that America has been involved with, so you with that said, kindly GFYS.

Secondly the source is the WASHINGTON POST who hates Donald Trump. Two tools for you today cause that's what you are, calling me a Russian. I'm the furthest thing from it.

[brickhistory]

Say, liberals and current Administration and press (but I repeat myself...),

 

IF this happened and you knew about it, why aren't you baying for the blood of, or at least an investigation of, the current Executive Branch and departments that allowed this happen and what are they doing to stop it from occurring again?

Why isn't this being brought up in the UN Security Council by the current Administration?

Why hasn't the United States Government publicly responded and taken action against this aggressive action upon the American people? 

You know, the one's actually in charge now?

Why haven't people been fired/court-martialed/pilloried on the editorial pages of the NYT, WaPo, HuffPo (ok, another repetition), MSNBC, CBS/ABC/NBC, Univision, et al?

Oh, neverTrump.  Got it...

 

[Ram]

I'm not confident that Putin attempted to influence the election in Trump's favor.  I just think that's an unintended (and a bonus for Putin) second-order effect of what the then-Soviet and now-Russian gov't always does:  Attempt to subvert the legitimacy of democratic governments by sowing seeds of doubt among the populace.

 

This is purely my personal assessment, but I think Putin was convinced (like many others were) that HRC would win the election.  Thus, to do the most possible long-term damage to her administration and possibly cause a lengthy and distracting investigation into her election, legitimacy, and corruptibility, he targeted HRC.

[HerkPerfMan]

17 hours ago, redshift2020 said:

Redshift actually refers the how a tactical aviation radar works or redshifted light in astronomy. I have American roots dating to the 1600s, family in the revolutionary, civil war and every conflict that America has been involved with, so you with that said, kindly GFYS.

Secondly the source is the WASHINGTON POST who hates Donald Trump. Two tools for you today cause that's what you are, calling me a Russian. I'm the furthest thing from it.

That's exactly what a covert operative would say! But seriously, it seems my sarcastic accusation did not translate well.

5 hours ago, Ram said:

I'm not confident that Putin attempted to influence the election in Trump's favor.  I just think that's an unintended (and a bonus for Putin) second-order effect of what the then-Soviet and now-Russian gov't always does:  Attempt to subvert the legitimacy of democratic governments by sowing seeds of doubt among the populace.

Exactly. And it's become much easier on the internet and through social media. Of course, we run our own influence campaigns around the world in favor of candidates with positions favorable to U.S. interests.

3 hours ago, gearpig said:

I can't believe they would do such things. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ 

And those same disinformation and influence campaigns are not limited to national elections.

Whoever hacked the DNC committed a crime which should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. If the perpetrators were foreign government agents or directed by foreign governments, it was espionage and should be treated as such.

As far as Russia influencing the electorate for a particular candidate, I think the line in the sand would be whether there was communication, collaboration, or collusion with that particular candidate's campaign - which, to be clear, the FBI has already investigated. Without that, there's not much that can be done about external influence except to shake our fists at Putin and do the same to him in the future.

As far as the effectiveness of any external disinformation and manipulation campaign, it's impossible to tell. If HRC had won, we would say Russia's efforts failed. Since Trump did win, it's easy to say that it was those damn Russians when, in reality, it was a multitude of factors. Many voters decided in the final few weeks before the election, and they broke for Trump in huge numbers - was it Russian disinformation, or the FBI email investigation announcements, or people flocking to Trump's message, or a combination of 100 other things?

I hate to drag the Electoral College into this, but it's worth noting that it makes any external influence campaign easier - using the same tactics as a presidential campaign. They only need to influence a few voters in key states to the get the desired outcome.

[tk1313]

12 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Everyone has to admit that something seems suspicious about the Intelligence Community straight up denying the legislative committee that supervises them... access to information that they allegedly have found or conclusions that they have supposedly reached.

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." - Comey on Hillary's e-mail abuse

That gave me all I needed to know about our intelligence community... Basically, if you're not a powerful politician, get ready to face the full extent of the law. Otherwise, just repeat "I didn't know" or "I don't recall"... Mention how smart phones and technology are scary and makes your head hurt, and be on your way with not so much as a "now, don't you do that again, you scoundrel you"

 

[nsplayr]

On 12/14/2016 at 6:57 PM, brickhistory said:

IF this happened and you knew about it, why aren't you baying for the blood of, or at least an investigation of, the current Executive Branch and departments that allowed this happen and what are they doing to stop it from occurring again?

Why isn't this being brought up in the UN Security Council by the current Administration?

Why hasn't the United States Government publicly responded and taken action against this aggressive action upon the American people? 

In terms of who should be investigated...the victims of the hacking were the DNC, campaigns on both sides, and individuals like John Podesta and Colin Powell.  Not exactly under the purview of the USG to guarantee the cyber security of every single person, but I'm sure there is some legwork being done to help put up better defenses in the future.

Personally, I agree with Rubio in that no matter who the victim is, we should not take political advantage of hacks conducted by a hostile foreign government.  It's very hard to defend everyone and everything all the time, but we can choose not to take advantage of other people's misfortune.  If/when the Russians start hacking the USG or GOP campaigns/institutions under President Trump we should combat it and retaliate and I will not be a fan of any future Democratic political campaigns that take advantage of hacked information.

I am pissed at the current administration for not reacting more strongly back in October based on what they apparently knew at the time.  It's a tough problem, you don't want to politicize intelligence but in the final stretch of a Presidential campaign everything is political...how would you have responded differently given what's known to the public now?

As for a response, it's apparently been ongoing behind the scenes with more actions forthcoming.  Although with a new administration taking over in a month that doesn't believe the hacks even happened, I'm not sure there will be a lasting effect unfortunately...the Russian perpetrators will likely face very minor consequences for a major act of aggression.

On 12/15/2016 at 6:36 AM, gearpig said:

I honestly don't think Russia hacked the emails.

It was Russia.  100%.  That is a fact.  The Russians don't even deny it.

The entire US intelligence community is united in disagreeing with you.  The Democratic President, the Republican Speaker of the House, the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, and many other congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle agree it was the Russians.  The GOP-controlled Senate is planning hearings on the subject.

All of these national leaders are basing this belief that it was Russia on having access to the entire breadth of classified sources and methods at the disposal of the USG.  What are you basing your opinion on?

Edited December 16, 2016 by nsplayr

[Seriously]

20 hours ago, tk1313 said:

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." - Comey on Hillary's e-mail abuse

That gave me all I needed to know about our intelligence community... Basically, if you're not a powerful politician, get ready to face the full extent of the law. Otherwise, just repeat "I didn't know" or "I don't recall"... Mention how smart phones and technology are scary and makes your head hurt, and be on your way with not so much as a "now, don't you do that again, you scoundrel you"

The more classified information you learn, the more you learn you don't know what you don't know.

Without actually seeing any of the information, speculation is worthless.

[hispeed7721]

It was Russia.  100%.  That is a fact.  The Russians don't even deny it.

Not saying it's what happened...but even if Russia didn't do it, it's more beneficial (to Russia) for us to believe they did. It would be smart for Russia to lead us to believe it was them.

I think a lack of denial is nowhere near proof that they did or didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[redshift2020]

It was Russia.  100%.  That is a fact.  The Russians don't even deny it.
The entire US intelligence community is united in disagreeing with you.  The Democratic President, the Republican Speaker of the House, the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, and many other congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle agree it was the Russians.  The GOP-controlled Senate is planning hearings on the subject.
All of these national leaders are basing this belief that it was Russia on having access to the entire breadth of classified sources and methods at the disposal of the USG.  What are you basing your opinion on?

So what you're really saying is, let's ignore the criminality Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Podesta, and the DNC because their crimes were revealed by a third party. That is what you are saying.

[SurelySerious]

It was Russia.  100%.  That is a fact.

Of course the Russians don't deny it; it benefits them, in their mind, to claim it either way. Just like when the Taliban claims random things in Afghanistan, it furthers their cause.