Why Didn't Obama Do More About Russian Election Hack?

Harshaw · Dec 16, 2016

Slyfox696 said:
I didn't say there was a problem. I merely answered the thread title. :shrug:

So . . . in all the Russian hacking, there is no problem?

No, it didn't. That's the point.

:roll: Because you think I gave it more weight than I did. Which is based on your erroneous reading of the thread subject line, which was not mine. It was the headline of the NBC.com piece.

There's NO WAY you don't understand this by now.

You are the one who started the thread. You do realize this, correct?

So?

I'm not dishonestly reading you because you are not correct. That's absurd.

What, specifically, am I not correct about? That overconfidence in the election outcome led to passivity?

You'll need to take that up with NBC News, because that's not my assertion. It came directly from the story.

Or are you STILL stuck on the idea that I considered it the be-all, end-all reason?

That's your own dishonesty. That's not my problem. Once it's explained to you, if you continue saying the same thing, then it's because you're lying.

Had Trump not been alleging an unfair election, the CNN article suggests it wouldn't have mattered HOW overconfident the White House was in a victory, they would have released it.

Thus, it's less the level of confidence, and more about avoiding the appearance of undue influence. As you said, "I already said this. At this point, you're just dishonestly reading me."

. . . .

So it completely changes the narrative. You're trying to claim it was overconfidence. But it was more about avoiding the appearance of undue influence. It's completely different.

Dude. Just. Stop.

I never said that was the only reason, I quoted the claim from NBC News, so it's not even MY claim, and at BEST, what you have here is NBC and CNN disagreeing with each other on that specific point. You've decided CNN is superior, for whatever reason.

But in actuality, the points don't even contradict each other. He could have been BOTH overconfident of the result, and ALSO concerned about some appearance of impropriety. You claim the one cancels out the other. Or, at the very least, you claim one overrides the other, but that's not established.

Fair enough. It seemed that way, but if it's not what you meant, then I'll take your word for it. But then, your comment about "you'd like it to" doesn't make much sense. If you aren't insinuating I'm a Clinton supporter, then why would I care? Doesn't make much sense.

Your motives are irrelevant; for some reason, you want to dismiss any notion of Obama's overconfidence in the election being a factor. I don't really care why.

Yes, but you also negated the WHY he didn't, instead opting for saying, "I.E., he was successfully intimidated by their aggression?".

I didn't "negate" anything. Where did I deny the reasons he wouldn't want to get into a cyber-war? I said that he didn't.

That's suggestive and you know it. You're seemingly trying to play into the "Obama is a weak leader" narrative and even if you aren't, certainly it can be easily construed that way by those with whom you tend to align politically. By filling in the gaps, the CNN article debunks that theory.

I in fact DO suggest he's a weak leader, and I DO consider the reasons you cite to be insufficient when national security is at stake, as if we should roll over when the Russians hack us because of a theoretical imbalance of vulnerability. That, my friend, is giving in to intimidation.

I especially consider him a weak leader when he makes threats of serious consequences that he doesn't follow up on; I wouldn't consider that especially controversial of a position to take.

No, it doesn't. That's stupid. Understanding our infrastructure relied more heavily upon network capabilities and trying to negotiate with Russia over Syria is not intimidation. That's such a childish way to look at it and far beneath someone who is as seemingly intelligent as you. This isn't junior high school.

See above.

:roll:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't speak in general terms about something everyone already knows. Fine, allow me to rephrase, "hadn't refused to ACCEPT the results of the election IF HE LOST".

You're the one who's been really pedantic about language throughout this exchange.

Umm, it is LITERALLY in the part I quoted. I'll post it again:

Fair enough; that was my mistake.

Harshaw · Dec 16, 2016

Bob N said:
I'm sorry you do not understand what I'm discussing. Enjoy your weekend. eace

Thanks, I intend to. You do the same.

Tanngrisnir · Dec 16, 2016

jmotivator said:
Oh brooooother. I did you the service of reading your provided link ...but really, that passes as evidence for you?

Do me a favor: Which passage in that article do you feel is the most compelling piece of evidence?

I wasn't directly addressing evidence, but rather the question, "Why didn't he do more" and the claims he didn't do much at all.

Do me a favor and spare me the straw men.

jmotivator · Dec 16, 2016

Tanngrisnir said:
I wasn't directly addressing evidence, but rather the question, "Why didn't he do more" and the claims he didn't do much at all.

Do me a favor and spare me the straw men.

What straw man is that?

And please show me in the article the evidence that shows why Obama couldn't do more.

FYI, the White House is already on record saying that they didn't do more because they thought Hillary would win. :roll:

haymarket · Dec 16, 2016

MaggieD said:
All right. What have you done to Haymarket?

He is trying to get on Santa's NICE list. :2wave:

haymarket · Dec 16, 2016

Mach said:
This was my first thought as well. He simply isn't that type of guy. Although to continue your analogy, once they learn to bring a gun to a knife fight, they will no longer be Democrats at all.

Or a different type of Democrat at least.

fmw · Dec 16, 2016

I'll jump in again. What we know as fact is that the DNC and Clinton campaign were hacked and emails were published by Wikileaks. Everything else - EVERYTHING - is speculation, innuendo and propaganda. People want to punish Russia for hacks without having any proof that Russia was behind those hacks. There are opinions and assessments but no actual evidence. Let's wait until there is some evidence before we decide what we should do about it. Hopefully this nonsense will calm down after the electoral college is finished with its work. One can only hope and the left can move to the next speculation to attack trump.

chuckiechan · Dec 16, 2016

Harshaw said:
Why Didn'''t Obama Do More About Russian Election Hack? - NBC News

(Note: STILL calling it an "election hack." Oy.)

Story:

So, confident in a Hillary win, and apparently not thinking it was "worth it," Obama purposely let it slide. This was after:

He made an entirely empty threat.

Which drew criticism from both sides, which was drowned out by the Billy Bush recording:

You think? You think passivity in the face of such blatant Russian mischief might have consequences? Especially when part of it was that he didn't want to provoke the Russians? I.E., he was successfully intimidated by their aggression?

At what point did they seem to care? When people starting looking at the damning content of the leaked materials, of course:

Note: the Chinese hack of the OPM was far worse than the Russian hack, actually breaching real government security and obtaining lots of personal information on lots of government employees, and nothing's been done in response to that.

Note, too, that very few people around the country cared much about the revelation of the Russian hacks until the Jill Stein recount effort failed.

I think Russian disinformation put it in his administrations head that they were pushing Hillary and it was OK. And he was too stupid to think any different. As usual, if Obama knew he did nothing. Or nothing happened that was actionable until Hillary and the Democrats got driven into the political wasteland of blue ghetto politics. Then it was "Do something Obama!"

Thoreau72 · Dec 16, 2016

Slyfox696 said:
Do cite your sources, because I can source all day long the news agencies who are saying Russia actively worked to interfere with the election.

Here's one such source (start at 1:40):

Please provide your sources that Russia wasn't trying to interfere in the election or that the e-mail was leaked and not hacked. Thanks.

Thanks for the dodge, the unstraight answer. You should study up on the differences between a hack and a leak. I am computer illiterate for all practical purposes, but even I understand the difference between a hack and a leak.

Slyfox696 · Dec 16, 2016

Harshaw said:
So . . . in all the Russian hacking, there is no problem?

All I've been discussing has been the thread title topic. That's it. You seemingly are trying to expand the topic, but I'm not interested in that discussion at the moment. Only the discussion of "Why didn't Obama do more...".

Because you think I gave it more weight than I did.

No, because it was incomplete. As I've said.

Which is based on your erroneous reading of the thread subject line, which was not mine.

It is still the topic of the article and the topic of the thread. If you didn't care to discuss the topic of the thread, exactly what was your purpose in posting it?

So?

...if you cannot connect these dots on your own, I'm afraid no one else can do it for you.

What, specifically, am I not correct about? That overconfidence in the election outcome led to passivity?

For one thing, yes. Because the CNN article I posted clearly showed it wasn't the overconfidence nearly as much as Trump's rhetoric before the election regarding rigged elections.

You'll need to take that up with NBC News, because that's not my assertion. It came directly from the story.

And you re-posted only that, which is why I posted the CNN article to supplement it in order to create a much more complete picture than you did.

I have told you this multiple times, I don't understand why you are still struggling with it. And I don't say that in a snarky way, I genuinely don't understand why you don't understand the fact the CNN article answered the topic of your thread much better than your NBC source did.

Or are you STILL stuck on the idea that I considered it the be-all, end-all reason?

I don't believe I was ever stuck on it in the first place. I believe I have addressed the multiple reasons cited in the CNN article.

I never said that was the only reason

I never said you did.

There are three reasons cited in the CNN article for Obama's actions before the election, which is the topic of the thread. Your opening post addressed two of the three. We're discussing the first one from your OP, regarding the level of confidence in victory. In regards to the first reason from your OP, you're claiming it is overconfidence, when it was not, as noted in the CNN article I posted. Me correcting you regarding confidence level has nothing to do with cyber war or Syrian negotiations.

Again, I've said this several times. I'm not sure where you are having issues.

I quoted the claim from NBC News, so it's not even MY claim

But you ran with it in your own commentary in the opening post. So you claimed the position. And it was inaccurate.

, and at BEST, what you have here is NBC and CNN disagreeing with each other on that specific point. You've decided CNN is superior, for whatever reason.

They are not so much as in disagreement as the CNN article provides a more thorough account. They both say the belief of a Clinton win was there, but the CNN article explains why that was important. They are not at odds with each other, but the CNN article is more accurate. You still seem to be leaning on the NBC article, which provides an incomplete picture of the situation.

But in actuality, the points don't even contradict each other.

Amusingly enough, I wrote all of that directly above and hadn't read this from you yet. I'm glad we agree on this.

He could have been BOTH overconfident of the result, and ALSO concerned about some appearance of impropriety. You claim the one cancels out the other. Or, at the very least, you claim one overrides the other, but that's not established.

The CNN article definitely suggests that were the results of the election more in doubt, the White House might have chosen differently. The CNN article ALSO suggests that had Trump not engaged in "election is rigged" rhetoric, the White House might have chosen differently.

Like you said, they don't contradict each other, but the conclusion to be drawn needs to be drawn after the CNN article, as the NBC article provides an incomplete picture.

Slyfox696 · Dec 16, 2016

Harshaw said:
Your motives are irrelevant

You brought them up. :shrug:

for some reason, you want to dismiss any notion of Obama's overconfidence in the election being a factor. I don't really care why.

So you don't care it's not really true?

I didn't "negate" anything.

I meant "neglected". Was in a hurry.

Where did I deny the reasons he wouldn't want to get into a cyber-war? I said that he didn't.

Omitting the reasons why does not lend itself to a quality understanding of the situation. Then when you say the charged words you did, it suggests the why is based on Obama's leadership and not the valid reasons which actually existed.

And, like the confidence argument from above, filling in the gaps was my point from the beginning. And that's what I have done.

I in fact DO suggest he's a weak leader

Exactly. You omitted the valid reasons for avoiding a cyber war and instead push the "he's weak" narrative. That's not an honest argument.

and I DO consider the reasons you cite to be insufficient when national security is at stake, as if we should roll over when the Russians hack us because of a theoretical imbalance of vulnerability. That, my friend, is giving in to intimidation.

No, it's being realistic. First of all, you have to remember the context in which we are discussing, which was why Obama didn't do more publicly before the election. Second of all, as I said before, this isn't junior high. The chest thumping has to take a seat behind grown up understanding of realities.

I especially consider him a weak leader when he makes threats of serious consequences that he doesn't follow up on; I wouldn't consider that especially controversial of a position to take.

You have absolutely no idea what actions our government has or has not taken. All you know is there haven't been anything of note publicly. But you don't know what's been done privately. Maybe it's been nothing...maybe it's been a whole lot more than nothing.

As I said to you earlier, we simply do not have the knowledge to say one way or another.

You're the one who's been really pedantic about language throughout this exchange.

Not at all. I've been interested in a full and honest discussion about the topic. There's a big difference between that and taking an offhand comment about a situation most people on a forum would have knowledge.

Fair enough; that was my mistake.

I appreciate that. Truly, I do. It's not often people will acknowledge their mistake.

Thoreau72 said:
Thanks for the dodge

How is directly addressing the topic of the conversation a dodge?

I said we have evidence Russia meddled in the election. I provided you with video proof of Fox News, who is not the ally of the Democratic party, confirming Russian influence in the election. How is that a dodge? Are you unaware of the post to which you replied?

You should study up on the differences between a hack and a leak. I am computer illiterate for all practical purposes, but even I understand the difference between a hack and a leak.

I work in technology. I'm well aware of the difference. And I asked you to provide evidence it was a leak and not a hack and you've not done so. However, it's irrelevant to my comment to which you originally replied, which was regarding Russia's meddling in the election. You seem to be suggesting Russia WASN'T involved in our election and that the information was leaked. But, even though we have lots of evidence of a hack and you haven't provided evidence of a leak, it is STILL irrelevant to the point that Russia has been confirmed to try and influence the election.

So, basically, you've pretty much been wrong in every way. I've provided evidence Russia meddled in our election as I originally said and you disputed. Now I'm asking YOU for evidence the e-mails were leaked, despite numerous reports of them being hacked. I've proven my statement and now I'm asking for evidence of yours.

Can you do that?

TheGoverness · Dec 16, 2016

Slyfox696 said:
You brought them up. :shrug:
So you don't care it's not really true?

I meant "neglected". Was in a hurry.

Omitting the reasons why does not lend itself to a quality understanding of the situation. Then when you say the charged words you did, it suggests the why is based on Obama's leadership and not the valid reasons which actually existed.

And, like the confidence argument from above, filling in the gaps was my point from the beginning. And that's what I have done.

Exactly. You omitted the valid reasons for avoiding a cyber war and instead push the "he's weak" narrative. That's not an honest argument.

No, it's being realistic. First of all, you have to remember the context in which we are discussing, which was why Obama didn't do more publicly before the election. Second of all, as I said before, this isn't junior high. The chest thumping has to take a seat behind grown up understanding of realities.

You have absolutely no idea what actions our government has or has not taken. All you know is there haven't been anything of note publicly. But you don't know what's been done privately. Maybe it's been nothing...maybe it's been a whole lot more than nothing.

As I said to you earlier, we simply do not have the knowledge to say one way or another.

Not at all. I've been interested in a full and honest discussion about the topic. There's a big difference between that and taking an offhand comment about a situation most people on a forum would have knowledge.

I appreciate that. Truly, I do. It's not often people will acknowledge their mistake.

How is directly addressing the topic of the conversation a dodge?

I said we have evidence Russia meddled in the election. I provided you with video proof of Fox News, who is not the ally of the Democratic party, confirming Russian influence in the election. How is that a dodge? Are you unaware of the post to which you replied?

I work in technology. I'm well aware of the difference. And I asked you to provide evidence it was a leak and not a hack and you've not done so. However, it's irrelevant to my comment to which you originally replied, which was regarding Russia's meddling in the election. You seem to be suggesting Russia WASN'T involved in our election and that the information was leaked. But, even though we have lots of evidence of a hack and you haven't provided evidence of a leak, it is STILL irrelevant to the point that Russia has been confirmed to try and influence the election.

So, basically, you've pretty much been wrong in every way. I've provided evidence Russia meddled in our election as I originally said and you disputed. Now I'm asking YOU for evidence the e-mails were leaked, despite numerous reports of them being hacked. I've proven my statement and now I'm asking for evidence of yours.

Can you do that?

You killed it. I have to give you props for that. :thumbs:

Harshaw · Dec 16, 2016

Slyfox696 said:
All I've been discussing has been the thread title topic. That's it. You seemingly are trying to expand the topic, but I'm not interested in that discussion at the moment. Only the discussion of "Why didn't Obama do more...".

No, because it was incomplete. As I've said.

It is still the topic of the article and the topic of the thread. If you didn't care to discuss the topic of the thread, exactly what was your purpose in posting it?

...if you cannot connect these dots on your own, I'm afraid no one else can do it for you.

For one thing, yes. Because the CNN article I posted clearly showed it wasn't the overconfidence nearly as much as Trump's rhetoric before the election regarding rigged elections.

And you re-posted only that, which is why I posted the CNN article to supplement it in order to create a much more complete picture than you did.

I have told you this multiple times, I don't understand why you are still struggling with it. And I don't say that in a snarky way, I genuinely don't understand why you don't understand the fact the CNN article answered the topic of your thread much better than your NBC source did.

I don't believe I was ever stuck on it in the first place. I believe I have addressed the multiple reasons cited in the CNN article.

I never said you did.

There are three reasons cited in the CNN article for Obama's actions before the election, which is the topic of the thread. Your opening post addressed two of the three. We're discussing the first one from your OP, regarding the level of confidence in victory. In regards to the first reason from your OP, you're claiming it is overconfidence, when it was not, as noted in the CNN article I posted. Me correcting you regarding confidence level has nothing to do with cyber war or Syrian negotiations.

Again, I've said this several times. I'm not sure where you are having issues.

But you ran with it in your own commentary in the opening post. So you claimed the position. And it was inaccurate.

They are not so much as in disagreement as the CNN article provides a more thorough account. They both say the belief of a Clinton win was there, but the CNN article explains why that was important. They are not at odds with each other, but the CNN article is more accurate. You still seem to be leaning on the NBC article, which provides an incomplete picture of the situation.

Amusingly enough, I wrote all of that directly above and hadn't read this from you yet. I'm glad we agree on this.

The CNN article definitely suggests that were the results of the election more in doubt, the White House might have chosen differently. The CNN article ALSO suggests that had Trump not engaged in "election is rigged" rhetoric, the White House might have chosen differently.

Like you said, they don't contradict each other, but the conclusion to be drawn needs to be drawn after the CNN article, as the NBC article provides an incomplete picture.

Ugh. We're back to you insisting I put more weight on "overconfidence" than I did.

As you say you are, I am truly, honestly baffled as to why you keep doing this.

As you didn't do anything here but repeat yourself, I will leave my previous responses as my own.

Harshaw · Dec 16, 2016

Slyfox696 said:
You brought them up. :shrug:
So you don't care it's not really true?

I meant "neglected". Was in a hurry.

Omitting the reasons why does not lend itself to a quality understanding of the situation. Then when you say the charged words you did, it suggests the why is based on Obama's leadership and not the valid reasons which actually existed.

And, like the confidence argument from above, filling in the gaps was my point from the beginning. And that's what I have done.

Exactly. You omitted the valid reasons for avoiding a cyber war and instead push the "he's weak" narrative. That's not an honest argument.

No, it's being realistic. First of all, you have to remember the context in which we are discussing, which was why Obama didn't do more publicly before the election. Second of all, as I said before, this isn't junior high. The chest thumping has to take a seat behind grown up understanding of realities.

You have absolutely no idea what actions our government has or has not taken. All you know is there haven't been anything of note publicly. But you don't know what's been done privately. Maybe it's been nothing...maybe it's been a whole lot more than nothing.

As I said to you earlier, we simply do not have the knowledge to say one way or another.

Not at all. I've been interested in a full and honest discussion about the topic. There's a big difference between that and taking an offhand comment about a situation most people on a forum would have knowledge.

I appreciate that. Truly, I do. It's not often people will acknowledge their mistake.

How is directly addressing the topic of the conversation a dodge?

I said we have evidence Russia meddled in the election. I provided you with video proof of Fox News, who is not the ally of the Democratic party, confirming Russian influence in the election. How is that a dodge? Are you unaware of the post to which you replied?

I work in technology. I'm well aware of the difference. And I asked you to provide evidence it was a leak and not a hack and you've not done so. However, it's irrelevant to my comment to which you originally replied, which was regarding Russia's meddling in the election. You seem to be suggesting Russia WASN'T involved in our election and that the information was leaked. But, even though we have lots of evidence of a hack and you haven't provided evidence of a leak, it is STILL irrelevant to the point that Russia has been confirmed to try and influence the election.

So, basically, you've pretty much been wrong in every way. I've provided evidence Russia meddled in our election as I originally said and you disputed. Now I'm asking YOU for evidence the e-mails were leaked, despite numerous reports of them being hacked. I've proven my statement and now I'm asking for evidence of yours.

Can you do that?

I didn't "omit" anything. You're saying I purposely left it out. I didn't.

And no, in my assessment, it isn't a good enough reason to roll over in the face of Russian cyber-aggression. We've faced more dire Russian threats before, with threats of destruction on an imaginable scale, and we didn't roll over then. It isn't "chest-thumping," it's how hostility has to be faced. Thousands of years of history bear this out. Heck, simply the history of the Cold War bears this out. You'd treat international relations, especially those with an aggressive, hostile power, as though it's a chess club meeting conducted by gentlemen's rules. It isn't. It's the state of nature.

joG · Dec 16, 2016

Harshaw said:
Why Didn'''t Obama Do More About Russian Election Hack? - NBC News

(Note: STILL calling it an "election hack." Oy.)

Story:

So, confident in a Hillary win, and apparently not thinking it was "worth it," Obama purposely let it slide. This was after:

He made an entirely empty threat.

Which drew criticism from both sides, which was drowned out by the Billy Bush recording:

You think? You think passivity in the face of such blatant Russian mischief might have consequences? Especially when part of it was that he didn't want to provoke the Russians? I.E., he was successfully intimidated by their aggression?

At what point did they seem to care? When people starting looking at the damning content of the leaked materials, of course:

Note: the Chinese hack of the OPM was far worse than the Russian hack, actually breaching real government security and obtaining lots of personal information on lots of government employees, and nothing's been done in response to that.

Note, too, that very few people around the country cared much about the revelation of the Russian hacks until the Jill Stein recount effort failed.

I don't known that nobody noticed or cared. And from what I have read, Obama did react. He is said to have told Putin personally to desist or else. He told the Chinese the same. But they did not take him enough seriously to do so.

Harshaw · Dec 16, 2016

joG said:
I don't known that nobody noticed or cared. And from what I have read, Obama did react. He is said to have told Putin personally to desist or else. He told the Chinese the same. But they did not take him enough seriously to do so.

Well, that's what happens when you don't follow through on your warnings.

vesper · Dec 16, 2016

It is being reported today that now the CIA and FBI are in agreement that Russia was responsible for the hacks that produced the leaked emails from WikiLeaks.
And they are saying the purpose was to influence the election for Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.e7f5baf04b5d

Now this is serious and there should have been retribution. So why wasn't it dealt with before the election?

But can you think of a time when Obama and his administration tried to influence the outcome of an election in a foreign country?

I do. It was just over a year ago. Remember Netanyahu's re-election in Israel? Do you recall the name OncChoice a U.S.-U.K. nonprofit, for its get-out-the-vote-organizing drive aimed at replacing Netanyahu’s government with a center-left coalition? A group the State Department funded $350,000 of our taxpayer dollars? They partnered with a group calling themselves V-15(Victory 2015)whose senior leadership were comprised mostly of former top staffers for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Was there any outrage over the incident? Why yes there was in the Senate and both sides signed on to do a probe and investigate.

I think it is very likely Putin had something to do with the hacking of the DNC and Podesta's emails. But having said that, is there any difference in what the Russians engaged in verses what the Obama administration engaged in trying to influence the outcome of the Israeli elections?

joG · Dec 16, 2016

Harshaw said:
Well, that's what happens when you don't follow through on your warnings.

Too many red lines backed up by all those options on the table. It was predictable and horrible to watch happen.

polgara · Dec 16, 2016

vesper said:
It is being reported today that now the CIA and FBI are in agreement that Russia was responsible for the hacks that produced the leaked emails from WikiLeaks.
And they are saying the purpose was to influence the election for Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.e7f5baf04b5d

Now this is serious and there should have been retribution. So why wasn't it dealt with before the election?

But can you think of a time when Obama and his administration tried to influence the outcome of an election in a foreign country?

I do. It was just over a year ago. Remember Netanyahu's re-election in Israel? Do you recall the name OncChoice a U.S.-U.K. nonprofit, for its get-out-the-vote-organizing drive aimed at replacing Netanyahu’s government with a center-left coalition? A group Hillary Clinton's State Department funded $350,000 of our taxpayer dollars? They partnered with a group calling themselves V-15(Victory 2015)whose senior leadership were comprised mostly of former top staffers for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Was there any outrage over the incident? Why yes there was in the Senate and both sides signed on to do a probe and investigate.

I think it is very likely Putin had something to do with the hacking of the DNC and Podesta's emails. But having said that, is there any difference in what the Russians engaged in verses what the Obama administration engaged in trying to influence the outcome of the Israeli elections?

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Do you also recall when Merkel from Germany was made aware by her people that the Obama administration had hacked her records, and how upset she was about it because we were supposedly an ally? Maybe hacking is becoming the "risk du jour" for everyone on this planet, including us, so we really have no reason to complain when we're a target! :shock:

jmotivator · Dec 16, 2016

Hey Obama, the 1980s called with some policy advice. :lol:

vesper · Dec 16, 2016

polgara said:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Do you also recall when Merkel from Germany was made aware by her people that the Obama administration had hacked her records, and how upset she was about it because we were supposedly an ally? Maybe hacking is becoming the "risk du jour" for everyone on this planet! :shock:

Yes, I recall the spying our country was doing on several "allies".
But since you brought up Merkel. Well there was Obama on his final EU tour a couple of weeks ago campaigning for Merkel. Isn't that considered influencing an election in a foreign country? And what about all his many public comments against Brexit? Wasn't he trying to influence that election also?

polgara · Dec 16, 2016

vesper said:
Yes, I recall the spying our country was doing on several "allies".
But since you brought up Merkel. Well there was Obama on his final EU tour a couple of weeks ago campaigning for Merkel. Isn't that considered influencing an election in a foreign country? And what about all his many public comments against Brexit? Wasn't he trying to influence that election also?

From what I've read, Merkel isn't too popular with her people these days because of her decision to allow unlimited immigration from the ME countries, which is causing lots of problems for her people because of the immigrant's refusal to follow EU laws! And the UK said YES to Brexit, too, in spite of Obama's comments to the contrary. Interesting...

Bucky · Dec 16, 2016

Harshaw said:
Well, that's what happens when you don't follow through on your warnings.

Obama isn't a serious President. When will people realize he's full of empty platitudes and hot air. Hope, Change, all this nonsense without stating anything in particular.

The one thing we know about Obama is that he loves the limelight. He's a realty TV star disguised as a politician.

Harshaw · Dec 16, 2016

Bucky said:
Obama isn't a serious President. When will people realize he's full of empty platitudes and hot air. Hope, Change, all this nonsense without stating anything in particular.

The one thing we know about Obama is that he loves the limelight. He's a realty TV star disguised as a politician.

Then there will be seamless continuity with the next administration, won't there?

Bucky · Dec 16, 2016

Harshaw said:
Then there will be seamless continuity with the next administration, won't there?

The difference is that Trump has a resume to back up his speech.

Obama had a paper-thin resume. Let's not ignore the giant elephant in the room as well. Obama became president due to his race. Democrats played the race card and told their constituency - "Vote for Obama because his father is Kenyan!"

Why Didn't Obama Do More About Russian Election Hack?

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Tanngrisnir

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

haymarket

haymarket

fmw

chuckiechan

Thoreau72

Slyfox696

Slyfox696

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

joG

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

vesper

joG

polgara

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

vesper

polgara

Bucky

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Bucky