• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Funally caught! Putin himself caught directing the election hacks

apdst said:
Post one link where a named intel officer confirms (not thinks, believes, suggests, etc.) that the Russian government hacked anything
Click to expand...

Comey: There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government.

There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened.
Click to expand...

Any other questions?
 
This story is exactly the same thing we have been being told by the intelligence community since all of this began. I'm not sure why it should be shocking all of the sudden. We also don't know what actions Obama took. He didn't make a big deal about it publicly, but that's all we really know.
 
faithful_servant said:
The implications are "TRUMP!!!!" This story should be about the gross incompetence of the Obama admin. and an investigation into why this wasn't handled when it should have been. But instead the press and all our resident TDS suffering liberals will do everything they can to spin this into being Pres. Trump's fault. We could get audio tapes of Pres. Obama telling the people who should have been dealing with this to ignore it so that it can be used against Trump and there are people here who still spin it to make it sound like it's all Pres. Trump's fault.
Click to expand...

Trump is just a manifestation of a deeper problem: MASSIVE amounts of ignorance, paranoia, misunderstanding, and bigotry in a large segment of our population. This makes them fertile ground for exploitation and manipulation by anyone who can tap into all this- from the Koch brothers to Vladimir Putin. The likes of Fox News and Breitbart keep fanning the flames, these other guys can then use it to cook their dinner.
 
MrPeanut said:
This story is exactly the same thing we have been being told by the intelligence community since all of this began. I'm not sure why it should be shocking all of the sudden. We also don't know what actions Obama took. He didn't make a big deal about it publicly, but that's all we really know.
Click to expand...

True. The only thing that's a little new about it is that it has now definitively been linked all the way up to Putin himself. So not only do we know it happened, but we know Putin himself was behind it. So hopefully, Trump can't keep questioning it. But then again, it's hard to put anything past him at this point.

He spent years looking for Obama's real birth certificate in Hawaii, but now seems shockingly cool and indifferent to such a serious national security threat. Maybe that will change now. We will see.
 
ataraxia said:
True. The only thing that's a little new about it is that it has now definitively been linked all the way up to Putin himself. So not only do we know it happened, but we know Putin himself was behind it. So hopefully, Trump can't keep questioning it. But then again, it's hard to put anything past him at this point.

He spent years looking for Obama's real birth certificate in Hawaii, but now seems shockingly cool and indifferent to such a serious national security threat. Maybe that will change now. We will see.
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Russian involvement in the past election is being investigated in numerous places. Not sure what exactly you would like the president to do about a foreign power hacking the emails of private citizens and private organizations like the DNC. But go ahead, bring forth one person--just one--who will declare that they changed their vote because of leaks form Podestas emails.
 
Fletch said:
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Russian involvement in the past election is being investigated in numerous places. Not sure what exactly you would like the president to do about a foreign power hacking the emails of private citizens and private organizations like the DNC.
Click to expand...

Acknowledging that they happened would be a good first step. Reassuring the public that serious measures were being taken to prevent future such incidents would be another.

Remember, the DNC was hacked for this election. If the RNC annoys him in the future, they will be next. Trump needs to put partisanship behind and take this issue seriously as a national security problem. Otherwise, all of DC will just basically be serving as the Russian embassy here.
 
apdst said:
Obama did nothing
Click to expand...

This is absolutely false. Again, "not doing enough" in your opinion is not the same as "doing nothing". Those things have distinctly different meanings. And saying that "not doing enough can be malfesience" is a pointless and irrelevant statement to that point, since your argument was that he did nothing.

From the article, actions he did as it relates to Russia:

- Political Action: Public statement regarding their involvement in the undermining efforts according to US intelligence
- Diplomatic Action: Verbal Warning presented to Putin from Obama
- Diplomatic Action: Verbal Threat presented via press conference by Obama
- Diplomatic Action: Written measage presented to Putin bia his Ambassador from Rice
- Diplomatic Action: Warning message presented via secure channel to Russia
- Diplomatic Action: Expulsion of 35 Russians suspected to be agents
- Diplomatic Action: Siezing of two Russian compounds thought to be used for Russian intelligence
- Sanction Action: Financial sanctions imposed on Russians foreign intelligence organization the GRU
- Sanction Action: Financial sanctions imposed on Russian military intelligence organization the FSB
- Sanction Action: financial sanctions imposed on individuals suspected to be involved in the hacks
- Cyberwarefare Action: Action ordered to implement a potential dorement cyber security threat into integral Russian systems with the potential to be activated in response to future action

These are all provable, verifiable, sourced actions found within the story you yourself referenced. The claim that "nothing' was done is categorically false. If you want to debate if enough was done, or if the right action was done, or if it was done in a timely fashion then that's feasible; but before any of that is possible you must first acknowledge your error in claiming, repeatedly, the incorrect assertion that nothing was done.
 
Zyphlin said:
Then would that not be more accurately and honestly described as hacking the "Campaign" or hacking the "Election process" than "hacking the election"? Would you acknowledge that the buzzword headline that is continually and nauseatingly repeated of "hacking the election" has a clear and reasonable implication that the "formal and organized process of electing" the president, i.e. the voting, was what was being "hacked"?

I swear, a large amount of the consternation over this seems to be people irked and/or confused over what is being argued seemingly due to this seeming compulsory NEED to use the phrase "hacked the election". Such is the sound bite world we live in where propaganda that can be made normalized is political gold.
Click to expand...

I typically refer to it as election interference or hacking the election process myself. Sometimes I will say hacking the election when I don't feel like being formal, but it's others who throw in the straw man about hacking the election machines under the cynical idea that anything else isn't meaningful.

Zyphlin said:
I believe it was a catch-22. However, the sources within the story and the quotes within it does the Obama Administration no favors, as it gives the CLEAR impression that the choice to not take significant action BEFORE the election had less to do with any honest concern with the integrity of the electoral process, but more to do with the potential harm it would do to Hillary Clinton's legitimacy or damage it would do to her victory that they viewed as a near certainty. Indeed, the article that spurred this conversation even seemed to suggest that the reason for their holding off until after the election was in large part based on the assumption that Clinton would win and thus they could just deal with it then without having to navigate any of the political issues.
Click to expand...

If the idea that Obama was in a catch 22 seems fair to you, then it's not difficult to see that holding off until after the election seemed to be the least bad idea at the time. If Obama had involved the full institutions of the government to warn the population about Putin's efforts to get Trump elected, the narrative that a Clinton Presidency was illegitimate would have never died. The illegitimacy that has begun to shape Trump's Presidency would have permanently tainted Clinton's.
 
Cardinal said:
If the idea that Obama was in a catch 22 seems fair to you, then it's not difficult to see that holding off until after the election seemed to be the least bad idea at the time. If Obama had involved the full institutions of the government to warn the population about Putin's efforts to get Trump elected, the narrative that a Clinton Presidency was illegitimate would have never died. The illegitimacy that has begun to shape Trump's Presidency would have permanently tainted Clinton's.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem Cardinal

If you don't act before the election, making it abundantly clear all you know about the Russian interference, the potential motivations for it, and the actions you're taking to stop it then you make sure that if Hillary Clinton wins that there's no big question of the legitimacy of her Presidency. However, of TRUMP wins and you don't act before the election, you actually cause there to be a big question about the legitimacy of his Presidency.

On the flip side...

If you act before the election, you help make sure that if Trump wins the Russian matter is already dealt with or at least largely and transparently in the open and being dealt with, assuring that there is legitimacy in his presidency. However, if Hillary was to win, it would cause a question of legitimacy to be cast over her Presidency.

Yes, it was a catch-22. Either way he acted, he ran the risk of it potentially making one of the potential winners look arguably less legitimate in the eyes of some American voters. My point, as evidenced by various quote she in his article, was simply that It appeared that Obama made his decision on which way to go on that catch-22 based on which side decision would be least likely to cause illegitimacy to be cast upon his side, and damage to be cast upon his side, based on his actions.

Now, let me be clear...I'm not surprised or horribly bothered by that. It's what I expect from politicians, and with how abundantly clear it SEEMED Clinton was going to win (which is key to why I do not buy the ridiculous narrative that Russia's goal/purpose/motive in this was the election of Trump as President) it makes some logical sense to hedge your bets that way in terms of which sides legitimacy to protect more. But I simply dismiss the notion another poster tried to make that Obama was simply acting in the interest of "Americans", or the notion that he was just in a bad situation and helpless and had no choice. He did have a choice, as either action ran the risk of illegitimazing one of the candidates potential victory...he chose the one that was going to help his parties nominee. If the two "bad choices", that was definitely the easier of the two for him.
 
ataraxia said:
You are absolutely correct. I was just trying to figure out what could have kept Obama from responding to this more aggressively. I think if he had brought up this issue, the Trump supporters would have been so crazed that they would literally be out and looking at some "Second Amendment remedies". They may not have been the majority of the electorate, but their passion was literally boiling over. I think it was the same kind of passion that scared Comey into leaking the Email investigation days before the election. The fierce passion of the Trump supporters had obviously really scared and intimidated everyone from Obama to Comey, and made them do things that may not have been well thought through. I think Obama decided to play it cool, thinking there is no way Americans as a whole were crazy enough to vote for Trump, and then Hillary could address the issue after she was president. He may have miscalculated.
Click to expand...

Obama covered it up because it might have tainted Hillary's victory if she won.

Pure political, and nothing to do with playing it cool.
 
Probably true. And also, if Trump supporters have found out that Putin had been involved in the election, it would have enthused them further. If they thought Assange was great, they would have adored Putin. Like I said, these people were absolutely crazed and ready to cut their own nose off to spite their face. They are still at it. I think they just have to get it out of their system for a while. Here is a gun, there is their foot. They want to keep shooting at that foot and will not let anyone dissuade them. I am hoping eventually they are going to start feeling the sting and stop. Maybe then we can talk with them rationally.
 
ataraxia said:
Probably true. And also, if Trump supporters have found out that Putin had been involved in the election, it would have enthused them further. If they thought Assange was great, they would have adored Putin. Like I said, these people were absolutely crazed and ready to cut their own nose off to spite their face. They are still at it. I think they just have to get it out of their system for a while. Here is a gun, there is their foot. They want to keep shooting at that foot and will not let anyone dissuade them. I am hoping eventually they are going to start feeling the sting and stop. Maybe then we can talk with them rationally.
Click to expand...

There is nothing true about your post. Perhaps you should stop analyzing the motives of people you don't know or understand.
 
Zyphlin said:
This is absolutely false. Again, "not doing enough" in your opinion is not the same as "doing nothing". Those things have distinctly different meanings. And saying that "not doing enough can be malfesience" is a pointless and irrelevant statement to that point, since your argument was that he did nothing.

From the article, actions he did as it relates to Russia:

- Political Action: Public statement regarding their involvement in the undermining efforts according to US intelligence
- Diplomatic Action: Verbal Warning presented to Putin from Obama
- Diplomatic Action: Verbal Threat presented via press conference by Obama
- Diplomatic Action: Written measage presented to Putin bia his Ambassador from Rice
- Diplomatic Action: Warning message presented via secure channel to Russia
- Diplomatic Action: Expulsion of 35 Russians suspected to be agents
- Diplomatic Action: Siezing of two Russian compounds thought to be used for Russian intelligence
- Sanction Action: Financial sanctions imposed on Russians foreign intelligence organization the GRU
- Sanction Action: Financial sanctions imposed on Russian military intelligence organization the FSB
- Sanction Action: financial sanctions imposed on individuals suspected to be involved in the hacks
- Cyberwarefare Action: Action ordered to implement a potential dorement cyber security threat into integral Russian systems with the potential to be activated in response to future action

These are all provable, verifiable, sourced actions found within the story you yourself referenced. The claim that "nothing' was done is categorically false. If you want to debate if enough was done, or if the right action was done, or if it was done in a timely fashion then that's feasible; but before any of that is possible you must first acknowledge your error in claiming, repeatedly, the incorrect assertion that nothing was done.
Click to expand...

None of which had any effect; he didn't meet the minimum standard. It could be considered malfesience.
 
Zyphlin said:
Here's the problem Cardinal

If you don't act before the election, making it abundantly clear all you know about the Russian interference, the potential motivations for it, and the actions you're taking to stop it then you make sure that if Hillary Clinton wins that there's no big question of the legitimacy of her Presidency. However, of TRUMP wins and you don't act before the election, you actually cause there to be a big question about the legitimacy of his Presidency.

On the flip side...

If you act before the election, you help make sure that if Trump wins the Russian matter is already dealt with or at least largely and transparently in the open and being dealt with, assuring that there is legitimacy in his presidency. However, if Hillary was to win, it would cause a question of legitimacy to be cast over her Presidency.

Yes, it was a catch-22. Either way he acted, he ran the risk of it potentially making one of the potential winners look arguably less legitimate in the eyes of some American voters. My point, as evidenced by various quote she in his article, was simply that It appeared that Obama made his decision on which way to go on that catch-22 based on which side decision would be least likely to cause illegitimacy to be cast upon his side, and damage to be cast upon his side, based on his actions.

Now, let me be clear...I'm not surprised or horribly bothered by that. It's what I expect from politicians, and with how abundantly clear it SEEMED Clinton was going to win (which is key to why I do not buy the ridiculous narrative that Russia's goal/purpose/motive in this was the election of Trump as President) it makes some logical sense to hedge your bets that way in terms of which sides legitimacy to protect more. But I simply dismiss the notion another poster tried to make that Obama was simply acting in the interest of "Americans", or the notion that he was just in a bad situation and helpless and had no choice. He did have a choice, as either action ran the risk of illegitimazing one of the candidates potential victory...he chose the one that was going to help his parties nominee. If the two "bad choices", that was definitely the easier of the two for him.
Click to expand...

What is the central theme you'd like me to consider in your post? You delivered a lot there.
 
ataraxia said:
Trump is just a manifestation of a deeper problem: MASSIVE amounts of ignorance, paranoia, misunderstanding, and bigotry in a large segment of our population. This makes them fertile ground for exploitation and manipulation by anyone who can tap into all this- from the Koch brothers to Vladimir Putin. The likes of Fox News and Breitbart keep fanning the flames, these other guys can then use it to cook their dinner.
Click to expand...

MASSIVE amounts of bigotry there....
 
apdst said:
None of which had any effect; he didn't meet the minimum standard. It could be considered malfesience.
Click to expand...

Right, which is irrelevant or what I was debating. What I was debating was your statement that "Obama did nothing". Whether or not what he did was "malfeasance" is an entirely separate issue to whether or not he did "nothing".
 
Paperview said:
Have you been living under a rock? Seriously. How could you not know what the FBI has said, what all the IC community agrees on, what just about all members of congress agree on -- that the Russians interfered with out elections.

Really...how could you possibly not know this?
Click to expand...

That's not evidence, those are just claims.
Claims made on faulty evidence, Crowdstrike's faulty evidence.

I don't uncritically believe things just because the IC says so.
 
ataraxia said:
I don't have to run for office, so I don't have to try to flatter and lie. I can call it like I see it. These people voted for someone who told them he was going to get rid of their health insurance, without saying anything about a replacement plan. Now they are down like a pushed-over cow and can't get back up. That deserves nothing less than sneering contempt, if not mitigated with outright pity. But this is a democracy, not daycare. They are grownups, and deserve to face the consequences of their thinking and actions unmitigated.
Click to expand...



Yet you believed you could keep your health care plan, you believed your premiums would go down. You believed this, not questioning the logic how this would be possible while covering more people. Do you hold the same "sneering contempt" for yourself and your ilk? if not, please explain your hypocrisy or tell me how that cognitive dissonance is working out for you.
 
calamity said:
I'd say it's just confirming what we all knew...well, all but the idiots who have their heads up their ass.
Click to expand...

under Obama's nose and he did nothing, so how was this Trump the citizen fault?
 
volsrock said:
under Obama's nose and he did nothing, so how was this Trump the citizen fault?
Click to expand...

It's not his fault. But if he or his team conspired with them, he certainly will be guilty of a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom