President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's just total bias tbh; I've given up even attempting a conversation with that poster. If the tables were turned he would be saying the exact opposite thing.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I take it you're familiar with FEC rules on how these monies can be spent and what must be done with them post-election?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So I'm guessing you are calling for the Trump campaign to pay for the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server? FECA aside.

If you felt the absolute need to make that first post, what in the world compelled you to make the following two?

And I think we can find a way to make those campaign finance laws work towards funding the investigation into what happened in their election if they want the FBI and not some private company to do it. And no, Trump would not have to pay for the investigation into Clinton's breaking the law as a government servant.

FreudianSlippers

Amerika wrote: »

If you felt the absolute need to make that first post, what in the world compelled you to make the following two?

Boredom I guess.


You don't have an answer I take it?

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Boredom I guess.


You don't have an answer I take it?

‘Boredom?” We have a much more colorful and displeasing word round these parts for that sort of thing.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Pretty much, we spent a long time getting to something I think was evident at my first comment on the matter. Although how you go from 'vast amounts of government resources' to 'spending any money' is a bit disingenuous on your part.

Well you said it should be paid for by the political parties not government.

I was just curious to know how far out of your way you'd be willing to not find out who did it.

Turns it you don't want the government to spend a bob on it.

It's well and good to notionally support finding the perpetrators in theory but not in practice. The politically motivated hacking has happened once in an election and it aided the candidate you support. But if the shoe is ever on he other foot, it will mean it has happened more than once and is a serious threat to democracy.

I'm surprised that's not a consideration for you in this back and forth.

FreudianSlippers

Amerika wrote: »

‘Boredom?” We have a much more colorful and displeasing word round these parts for that sort of thing.

I just find it quite apt and in line with Trump's positions on things - you make a statement, with no idea whether it's possible or viable, which you use to underpin your entire argument and then refuse to apply it analogously to a case you don't support.

It's worse than double-speak or spin... I'm not sure exactly what to call it honestly.

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well you said it should be paid for by the political parties not government.

I was just curious to know how far out of your way you'd be willing to not find out who did it.

Turns it you don't want the government to spend a bob on it.

It's well and good to notionally support finding the perpetrators in theory but not in practice. The politically motivated hacking has happened once in an election and it aided the candidate you support. But if the shoe is ever on he other foot, it will mean it has happened more than once and is a serious threat to democracy.

I'm surprised that's not a consideration for you in this back and forth.

Here’s a recent exchange at a White House press conference that makes it evident this investigation and the retaliation against Russia is simply a hypocritical political stunt because some didn’t like the outcome of the election.

JON KARL, ABC: So when the Chinese hacked OPM in 2015, 21+ million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal data stolen by the Chinese. Why did the White House do nothing publicly in reaction to that hack? Which in some ways, was even more widespread than what we saw here from the Russians?

JOSH EARNEST: These are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature but materially different.

KARL: 20 million people had their personal data taken… fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. This was a far-reaching act–

EARNEST: I’m not downplaying the significance of it, I’m just saying that it is different than seeking to interfere int he conduct of a U.S. national election. I can’t speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activity–

KARL: But nothing was announced. There was not a single step announced by the White House.

EARNEST: It is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I can’t speak to what response may have been initiated in private.

KARL: But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct? You don’t do that stuff secretly.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Here’s a recent exchange at a White House press conference that makes it evident this investigation and the retaliation against Russia is simply a hypocritical political stunt because some didn’t like the outcome of the election.

Do they should have done nothing this time too or they should have expelled diplomats etc. when the Chinese did it too?

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do they should have done nothing this time too or they should have expelled diplomats etc. when the Chinese did it too?

Better question would be ‘Why didn’t they do anything about China first?’

Fact is the Obama administration did nothing to publicly rebuke China, except scold them in a speech. How well did that work out? Sharyl Attkisson had something to say on the matter…

Last March, China government hackers continued a malicious pattern of cyber attacks on U.S. government and private networks, according to U.S. Cyber Command chief Mike Rogers. China has been linked by U.S. intelligence agencies to wide-ranging cyber attacks aimed at stealing information and mapping critical computer networks for future attacks in a crisis or conflict.

https://sharylattkisson.com/eight-facts-on-the-russian-hacks/

FreudianSlippers

Apparently the most powerful country on the planet isn't able to conduct concurrent investigations?

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Better question would be ‘Why didn’t they do anything about China first?’

Assuming they got it wrong last time by not acting overtly, do you then support the overt action this time?

Amerika wrote:

Fact is the Obama administration did nothing to publicly rebuke China, except scold them in a speech. How well did that work out? Sharyl Attkisson had something to say on the matter…

This time he did publicly rebuke so presumably you're happy about that?

FatherTed

Amerika wrote: »

Better question would be ‘Why didn’t they do anything about China first?’

Fact is the Obama administration did nothing to publicly rebuke China, except scold them in a speech. How well did that work out? Sharyl Attkisson had something to say on the matter…

Last March, China government hackers continued a malicious pattern of cyber attacks on U.S. government and private networks, according to U.S. Cyber Command chief Mike Rogers. China has been linked by U.S. intelligence agencies to wide-ranging cyber attacks aimed at stealing information and mapping critical computer networks for future attacks in a crisis or conflict.

https://sharylattkisson.com/eight-facts-on-the-russian-hacks/

Actually 5 Chinese officials were indicted....

the Justice Department on Monday unsealed an indictment of five members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and charged them with hacking into the networks of Westinghouse Electric, the United States Steel Corporation and other companies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/us-to-charge-chinese-workers-with-cyberspying.html?_r=0

KingBrian2

Putin must be having a fun time in the Kremlin issuing ping attacks on America.:D Denial of service, denial of service denial of service. Hee Hee.

recedite

FatherTed wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/us-to-charge-chinese-workers-with-cyberspying.html?_r=0

Ok, so "UglyGorilla” and “KandyGoo" were indicted, and who were the other three again? And where are they now? Do they know they are being punished?

Compare that to Russia, with 35 random individuals selected and expelled, and two Russian facilities on US soil closed off. Due to allegations.

johnp001

recedite wrote: »

Ok, so "UglyGorilla” and “KandyGoo" were indicted, and who were the other three again? And where are they now? Do they know they are being punished?

Compare that to Russia, with 35 random individuals selected and expelled, and two Russian facilities on US soil closed off. Due to allegations.

Also, is this not a separate incident to the hacking of state information? From what I read of the link this seems to be related to hacking of corporations rather than the previously mentioned hacking of federal employees data.

El_Duderino 09

johnp001 wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

Ok, so "UglyGorilla” and “KandyGoo" were indicted, and who were the other three again? And where are they now? Do they know they are being punished?

Compare that to Russia, with 35 random individuals selected and expelled, and two Russian facilities on US soil closed off. Due to allegations.

Also, is this not a separate incident to the hacking of state information? From what I read of the link this seems to be related to hacking of corporations rather than the previously mentioned hacking of federal employees data.

Presumably one of the main problems is with the Russians getting hold of information that can be used against the US. Why are you so willing to make a distinction between information gathered through hacks against the government or hacks against the government parties?

I take it for granted that a lot of Trump supporters aren't big fans of the Democratic party. Surely obstructing efforts to get to the bottom of the hacks against government parties is cutting off the US's face to spite the opposition party. 

It appears that Trump and Putin have struck a deal to the effect that the US won't oppose Russian expansion efforts etc. and Russia helped Trump with hacks and fake news. Some people seem to be OK with that arrangement because they support the Republicans or Trump. What if the Democrats make a better deal with Russia or a sweet deal with China in time for the next election. Will the same people feel the same opposition to investigating and shoring up security of the political system?

Surely the solution is to get to the bottom of the hacking and fake news and out a stop to it? Forget party allegiance or shafting the opposition candidate. USA is a major country and the integrity of it's political system affects us all.

johnp001

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Presumably one of the main problems is with the Russians getting hold of information that can be used against the US. Why are you so willing to make a distinction between information gathered through hacks against the government or hacks against the government parties?

I take it for granted that a lot of Trump supporters aren't big fans of the Democratic party. Surely obstructing efforts to get to the bottom of the hacks against government parties is cutting off the US's face to spite the opposition party. 

It appears that Trump and Putin have struck a deal to the effect that the US won't oppose Russian expansion efforts etc. and Russia helped Trump with hacks and fake news. Some people seem to be OK with that arrangement because they support the Republicans or Trump. What if the Democrats make a better deal with Russia or a sweet deal with China in time for the next election. Will the same people feel the same opposition to investigating and shoring up security of the political system?

Surely the solution is to get to the bottom of the hacking and fake news and out a stop to it? Forget party allegiance or shafting the opposition candidate. USA is a major country and the integrity of it's political system affects us all.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "government parties"?
My post was in the context of the question whether the diplomatic actions taken on the grounds of alleged Russian hacking were consistent with the lack of action taken when Chinese hackers previously accessed the records of US federal employees. Fr Ted posted a link describing the indictments of Chinese hackers but this was in relation to a separate incident which did not involve government records and which was more along the lines of corporate espionage.

Is the Trump-Putin deal you describe above a matter of record or your own conjecture?

El_Duderino 09

johnp001 wrote:

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "government parties"?

The US is effectively a 2 party system. Republicans and democrats are the parties of government. Trump and Sanders are effectively independent candidates but they ran under the parties. That's what I mean.

johnp001 wrote:

My post was in the context of the question whether the diplomatic actions taken on the grounds of alleged Russian hacking were consistent with the lack of action taken when Chinese hackers previously accessed the records of US federal employees.

They aren't consistent. The Russian campaigns represented a new level of espionage and aimed to influence the election and ultimately undermine president Clinton.

johnp001 wrote:

Fr Ted posted a link describing the indictments of Chinese hackers but this was in relation to a separate incident which did not involve government records and which was more along the lines of corporate espionage.

So the Chinese hacks wee different in nature and it represented the beginning of a trend. If they knew the extent of future area is, they should have acted more firmly when the Chinese did their attacks.

johnp001 wrote:

Is the Trump-Putin deal you describe above a matter of record or your own conjecture?

Trump says he won't oppose Russian foreign policy. Russia helped him win the election. That much is on public record since the report yesterday.

They appear to be of the same mind so they either arrived there by discussing it or by chance. The idea that they discussed it is my conjecture.

El_Duderino 09

FreudianSlippers wrote:

It's just total bias tbh; I've given up even attempting a conversation with that poster. If the tables were turned he would be saying the exact opposite thing.

I see what you mean. I was just curious to know how true.p supporters are treating the whole affair. I've seen so e posters dismiss the entire things as fantasy. Just on Trump's say so, he can convince some people that it's entirely made up.

Intelligence community says it's us highly confident it happened, trump says it ain't so. Some people are convinced it's not true. What happened to skepticism?

I don't know what happened and the only available evidence is from the US intelligence community. The evidence isn't complete but it's not bad either.

RDM_83 again

Whats the official place of the Democratic and Republic Parties in the US Government? Isn't the hacking of the Democrats simply the hacking of a private organization where as the Chinese hack is actually an action against the government of the USA (comprised by those federal workers).
Shouldn't the chinese hack have been considered a much bigger attack, the democrats and republicans always getting into power isn't anything to do with the american government

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The US is effectively a 2 party system. Republicans and democrats are the parties of government. Trump and Sanders are effectively independent candidates but they ran under the parties. That's what I mean.



They aren't consistent. The Russian campaigns represented a new level of espionage and aimed to influence the election and ultimately undermine president Clinton.



So the Chinese hacks wee different in nature and it represented the beginning of a trend. If they knew the extent of future area is, they should have acted more firmly when the Chinese did their attacks.



Trump says he won't oppose Russian foreign policy. Russia helped him win the election. That much is on public record since the report yesterday.

They appear to be of the same mind so they either arrived there by discussing it or by chance. The idea that they discussed it is my conjecture.

Trump never said he won't oppose Russian foreign policy he said wouldn't it be wonderful if we could reach out to Russia which Hillary and the Democrats were against from the start.

Trump's position was far more conciliatory and does not require America somehow forsaking the rights they cherish.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

Trump never said he won't oppose Russian foreign policy he said wouldn't it be wonderful if we could reach out to Russia which Hillary and the Democrats were against from the start.

He said something to the effect that Russian expansion is none of the US' business. Didn't he?

Either way, what do you expect trump to do when Russia expands West again?

KingBrian2

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats the official place of the Democratic and Republic Parties in the US Government? Isn't the hacking of the Democrats simply the hacking of a private organization where as the Chinese hack is actually an action against the government of the USA (comprised by those federal workers).
Shouldn't the chinese hack have been considered a much bigger attack, the democrats and republicans always getting into power isn't anything to do with the american government

The hacks are politicized by Washington to maximize bad relations with Russia. At the moment the US already has sent military deployments to Eastern Europe as part of their NATO commitments. Their was a flurry of activity to improve relations with the Kremlin a few years ago and lets see can Trump deescalate the tensions built up by Congress.

El_Duderino 09

RDM_83 again wrote:

Whats the official place of the Democratic and Republic Parties in the US Government? Isn't the hacking of the Democrats simply the hacking of a private organization where as the Chinese hack is actually an action against the government of the USA (comprised by those federal workers). Shouldn't the chinese hack have been considered a much bigger attack, the democrats and republicans always getting into power isn't anything to do with the american government

The hack was on the democratic party, PACs, think tanks, lobby groups and organisations that might influence policy. The purpose of the attack was primarily to delegitimise Clinton's presidency and to influence the election of the US President. The Chinese attack was different but they were both a means to weaken the US so I don't really see much difference.

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He said something to the effect that Russian expansion is none of the US' business. Didn't he?

Either way, what do you expect trump to do when Russia expands West again?

I expect Trump to regard Russia for what it is a snr member of the UN security council who speaks for a lot of Nations unhappy with US foreign policy all across the world not only in Ukraine. Trump appreciates the concerns Russia has they had Islamists and Separatists throughout the 90's. The response thus far in Europe has been to let Washington set the agenda and do what they say. This is one way to lose allies and friends.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

I expect Trump to regard Russia for what it is a snr member of the UN security council who speaks for a lot of Nations unhappy with US foreign policy all across the world not only in Ukraine. Trump appreciates the concerns Russia has they had Islamists and Separatists throughout the 90's. The response thus far in Europe has been to let Washington set the agenda and do what they say. This is one way to lose allies and friends.

Ok I asked about this specifically.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Either way, what do you expect trump to do when Russia expands West again?

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok I asked about this specifically.

I answered your question i won't go down the road of speaking for Trump himself. He could end up messing the whole situation up but since US-Russia relations are at a historical low in part due to Congress than i give him a good shot and mending that broken relationship. It will be interesting to see how he interacts with other heads of state some of whom are even more hardline than the GOP when it comes to Russia. I'm also pleased that Trump was slightly more disinclined to attach American foreign policy to NATO a relic of the cold war.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

I answered your question i won't go down the road of speaking for Trump himself. He could end up messing the whole situation up but since US-Russia relations are at a historical low in part due to Congress than i give him a good shot and mending that broken relationship. It will be interesting to see how he interacts with other heads of state some of whom are even more hardline than the GOP when it comes to Russia. I'm also pleased that Trump was slightly more disinclined to attach American foreign policy to NATO a relic of the cold war.

So you're saying he'll support/not oppose Russian expansion west?

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you're saying he'll support/not oppose Russian expansion west?

Ah yes so putting your countries position first automatically translates as do what we say. America under Trump will agree with Russia on some issues and disagree on others, the drive towards militarization has been the agenda for Washington for a while. Trump made plain he won't be going down that route with Russia or indeed any Nation which is not threatening global security.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

Ah yes so putting your countries position first automatically translates as do what we say. America under Trump will agree with Russia on some issues and disagree on others, the drive towards militarization has been the agenda for Washington for a while. Trump made plain he won't be going down that route with Russia or indeed any Nation which is not threatening global security.

How will we know which countries are a threat to security? Presumably we'll wait to see which could tries he goes after and deem them the threats retrospectively.

If China is a threat (hacking etc), how is Russia not a threat (hacking etc)?

AnGaelach

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Either way, what do you expect trump to do when Russia expands West again?

As much as I dislike Putin and Russia's meddling in foreign countries, I don't see them being the boogeyman NATO plays them up to be. Aside from their nukes, they don't have the capacity to threaten the EU or NATO.

Russia's build up should spur European defence spending (which has spent decades in atrophy), but there's already estimates I've seen of them having to scale back drastically over the next few years. Russia will likely be content to play against the Chinese for control of Central Asia, I can't see them wanting a massive western expansion.