"Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."
I certainly don't trust our own intelligence agencies to be straight with us about disseminating information to the public. The question is, what reason do I have to trust Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, or Edward Snowden with being the arbiters of what the public needs to know??
The difference is that you know one group is looking out for the interests of itself and the US government first, and the others are not.
Put another way, those who oppose power may be flawed in many ways, but if one also opposes power, they are still likely to be closer to your own positions.
That being said, I think Snowden has generally acquitted himself about as reasonably and thoughtfully as one could realistically expect such a significant whistleblower to do. This doesn't prevent US mainstream media from treating him like a dangerous madman/narcissist/traitor/terrorist all the time, of course.
Another source of guidance would be to look at what the lauded-and-vindicated-by-history whistleblowers think, like Daniel Ellsberg.
Assange has certainly revealed himself, at least in this election cycle, to be someone who was actively trying to defeat Hillary Clinton because of Clinton's policy stance on his leaking. Undoubtedly hard not to take it personally, but he was perfectly willing to deliver America over to a orange buffoon simply to save his own ass. He's not some paragon of the truth, he's just a weasel looking for the easiest way to climb out of his hole.
I doubt Julian Assange seriously thinks Trump is going to call off the hounds. Regardless of what happened in the election, it's near-inconceivable that a Trump administration is going to be much friendlier to those who leak classified information (or abet its dispersal) than Obama was. He was attacking Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in animus against them, not because he cared about Trump.
Beyond that, nothing Wikileaks released was false (despite Democrats immediately arguing that the Podesta emails were fake). And they've released a lot of things in the past that were well worth the world knowing. None of that is invalidated by his obvious bias against the Democrats in 2016 (particularly since they have done rather a lot to him personally, and want to do even worse).
Even if Assange is totally guilty of the rape charges against him (he probably is, imo), and even if he did throw the election to Trump (doubtful, there were too many factors involved to single out one), the history of Wikileaks is still one where massively more good than harm has been done.
It's not that many people thought the Podesta emails were fake, it's that there was nothing in them of any significance whatsoever. What people DID say is that they COULD have been manipulated. And if they were hacked in the first place, and those people were deliberately trying to hurt the Clinton campaign, why the hell wouldn't they, after stealing someone's private communications, go another step further and alter them to make them look worse than they were?? As if someone who is willing to commit cyber espionage wouldn't go the extra step and alter content if they thought it was beneficial to their cause.
Trump isn't going to do a thing to Assange. I swear to god people don't understand this guy at all. He's WELL AWARE, regardless of what he says, that both Russia and Assange were factors in putting him just barely over the top. He has been defending (and outright praising Putin) at every opportunity for months. He knows where his bread is buttered. Just today, he outright accused the intelligence community of delaying his briefing on the subjects til Friday so they could concoct evidence to fit their narrative. The truth?? The meeting was ALWAYS SCHEDULED for Friday!! He tells outright, pants on fire lies 2 to 3 times a day. And honestly, after a year of this BS, that isn't even what bothers me. What bothers me is a.) the people who continue to believe every word he says and b.) the people who constantly say that he can't be taken either literally or seriously. That what he says on Twitter is simply unworthy of criticism. If anyone has noticed, that is the PRIMARY way he intends to communicate for his Presidency. He hasn't held a single press conference in months, and I wouldn't be surprised if he never does one at all. What difference does it make?? The media is completely impotent when it comes to dealing with him, and his supporters will love it as well.
It's not that many people thought the Podesta emails were fake, it's that there was nothing in them of any significance whatsoever.
Yes there was. It wasn't as much as people wanted it to be, but there was clear evidence that the DNC favoured Clinton (even though that was utterly unsurprising). The Donna Brazile thing, and the leaks of Hillary's speeches, were particularly damaging.
And the Clinton campaign (along with several Democratic figures) did initially assert they were faked, this can be seen in much media at the time. Afterwards they shifted to "neither confirm nor deny".
What people DID say is that they COULD have been manipulated. And if they were hacked in the first place, and those people were deliberately trying to hurt the Clinton campaign, why the hell wouldn't they, after stealing someone's private communications, go another step further and alter them to make them look worse than they were?? As if someone who is willing to commit cyber espionage wouldn't go the extra step and alter content if they thought it was beneficial to their cause.
That line of thought runs up against the unfortunate reality that to the best of anyone's knowledge (including the Clinton campaign and Podesta, who would be in a position to know and had every reason to publicise fakes), there is not a single altered or faked email. They can't all be tested, but the ones that could be tested are all legit. Plus Wikileaks has no history of ever releasing false material.
So, why indeed? It would suggest to me that there is a flaw in your premises, since the conclusion they lead to didn't occur.
I also wonder: would you be this outraged about someone "stealing private communications" if they were Trump's private communications that were stolen, even if they had been stolen with the intent of influencing the election? Were you outraged when somebody stole and released one of his tax returns?
Trump isn't going to do a thing to Assange. I swear to god people don't understand this guy at all. He's WELL AWARE, regardless of what he says, that both Russia and Assange were factors in putting him just barely over the top. He has been defending (and outright praising Putin) at every opportunity for months.
I also am bothered by people who "believe every word Trump says". After all, he "tells outright, pants on fire lies 2 to 3 times a day". He also loves trolling people with "forbidden" opinions, and praising Putin at a point where both Democrats and Republicans were virtually united against him is and was that.
A Donald Trump administration isn't going to warmly embrace whistleblowers and leakers. I would unhesitatingly bet real money on this. And if they did... good, I will happily praise Trump for doing the morally right thing regardless of what motivation he might have for it. But it won't happen. Trump is not known for his love of transparency and laughing off of people leaking stuff he wants to keep secret.
I could say something about this, but you know what?? Screw it, what's the point?? Trump supporters will say they never ACTUALLY believed Mexico was going to pay for the wall (despite chanting it when prompted at rallies for almost a year). The response to this post on this forum will be that Trump is simply trolling people with forbidden opinions, which is apparently Newspeak for "lying your ass off".
@jjstraka34: Trump supporters have actually said that well before the election. Many said they did not believe Trump would build the wall at all; they just believed he would basically try to promote their policies--in this case, enforcing border security through other, unspecified means. "He might not build the wall, but he'll do something I like."
I do find it incredibly strange that so many of Trump's supporters have little interest in holding him to his word. How can we have government accountability if we don't hold officials accountable? If a politician says something, we should hold them to it.
If Trump doesn't build the wall, he broke the single biggest promise he made during the campaign. It's not okay to just lie about your policies.
@jjstraka34: Trump supporters have actually said that well before the election. Many said they did not believe Trump would build the wall at all; they just believed he would basically try to promote their policies--in this case, enforcing border security through other, unspecified means. "He might not build the wall, but he'll do something I like."
I do find it incredibly strange that so many of Trump's supporters have little interest in holding him to his word. How can we have government accountability if we don't hold officials accountable? If a politician says something, we should hold them to it.
If Trump doesn't build the wall, he broke the single biggest promise he made during the campaign. It's not okay to just lie about your policies.
I think anyone who says that is being given FAR too much credit, or simply using that line of thought to exempt themselves from any personal responsibility of his policies. It's a hell of a way to make yourself believe you weren't duped. These people weren't cheering for a metaphorical wall. I'd be interested, if polled, what percentage of them would be able to define what that word means. And a wall against what, exactly?? There IS NO illegal immigration currently coming into the United States. It's been at a net negative for the past few years at a minimum.
In more Trump Twitter news, the next President cannot seem to differentiate between a noun and a verb, or doesn't know how the word "led" is spelled, or doesn't understand the difference between one "being in the lead" as opposed to someone "who led his followers". Or maybe all 3. Sad.
As for me, what truly bothers me is not that the DNC's internal messages were leaked. It's that the hackers also hacked the RNC, but only leaked information on the DNC.
"Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.
But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said."
@SharGuidesMyHand: The source does say the attack was less persistent and aggressive--so the hackers still treated the Democratic and Republican parties differently--but thank you for pointing this out. These are the details we need to know.
Well, this is one way to make sure no information gets out about what's about to take place......
House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.
The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program.
The use of the rule would not be simple; a majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment. At the same time, opponents and supporters agree that the work of 2.1 million civil servants, designed to be insulated from politics, is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.
@jjstraka34: Trump supporters have actually said that well before the election. Many said they did not believe Trump would build the wall at all; they just believed he would basically try to promote their policies--in this case, enforcing border security through other, unspecified means. "He might not build the wall, but he'll do something I like."
I do find it incredibly strange that so many of Trump's supporters have little interest in holding him to his word. How can we have government accountability if we don't hold officials accountable? If a politician says something, we should hold them to it.
If Trump doesn't build the wall, he broke the single biggest promise he made during the campaign. It's not okay to just lie about your policies.
What are you going to do if a politician broke his promise? Vote him out of office in 4 years?
There is no way to hold a politician accountable for breaking election promises.
Aaaaand, while everyone was screaming at the Republicans for trying to gut the Independent Ethics Office, this little gem slipped through.
"I can’t tell you it won’t happen. The power is there. But isn’t that appropriate? Who runs this country, the people of the United States or the people on the people’s payroll?"
-Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.)
The people on the people's payroll are also people of the United States, you ass.
(...Hey, maybe Congress and House can get their own salaries slashed to one dollar? You know. Because they're federal employees? No? Why am I not surprised. -_-)
Study finds that repealing Obamacare could cost up to 3 million jobs. Or, if you are prone to fall for Trump's antics, it's 4285 times as many jobs as were supposedly saved at the Indiana Carrier plant.
I do find it incredibly strange that so many of Trump's supporters have little interest in holding him to his word. How can we have government accountability if we don't hold officials accountable? If a politician says something, we should hold them to it.
*laugh* We have never held our politicians accountable for the things they say, especially during campaigns or when promoting some policy or bill they want passed.
"If you like your plan you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
"Mission Accomplished."
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"Read my lips--no new taxes."
Plausible deniability.
*************
The ACA as it currently exists definitely needs to be changed or repealed. Major employers like Wal-Mart have been cutting people's hours to under the required minimum so they don't have to offer health insurance; meanwhile, States and providers have been exiting the Exchanges because so many rates increased to the point where people actually cannot afford insurance under the ACA. This is the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do but, ironically, the program is working as it was designed. When someone is telling you that you need to pass the bill in order to find out what is in the bill that should be a red flag that something is amiss.
These people were immediately found, arrested and will likely spend decades if not their entire lives behind bars. I fail to see what your point is. That systematic racism doesn't exist because of a single incident?? The question is, would justice be as swift if it had been yet another video of a cop murdering an unarmed black man. What happened here was the legal system working. When the racial roles are reversed, the system often stops working completely. There has also been an effort to tie this to Black Lives Matter which has absolutely no factual basis. What MTV's recent video has to do with this is beyond me.
I do find it incredibly strange that so many of Trump's supporters have little interest in holding him to his word. How can we have government accountability if we don't hold officials accountable? If a politician says something, we should hold them to it.
*laugh* We have never held our politicians accountable for the things they say, especially during campaigns or when promoting some policy or bill they want passed.
"If you like your plan you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
"Mission Accomplished."
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"Read my lips--no new taxes."
Plausible deniability.
*************
The ACA as it currently exists definitely needs to be changed or repealed. Major employers like Wal-Mart have been cutting people's hours to under the required minimum so they don't have to offer health insurance; meanwhile, States and providers have been exiting the Exchanges because so many rates increased to the point where people actually cannot afford insurance under the ACA. This is the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do but, ironically, the program is working as it was designed. When someone is telling you that you need to pass the bill in order to find out what is in the bill that should be a red flag that something is amiss.
Wal-Mart has been doing that since LONG before the ACA. They have purposefully kept employees under 32 hours a week to avoid offering insurance for over 15 years. It isn't a byproduct of the ACA, it's basically been company policy for decades. This is a company that has taken out life insurance policies on it's own employees. Purposefully avoiding paying benefits and then taking out insurance policies they financially benefit from if their employees die. You hear that?? It's the world's smallest violin playing for Wal-Mart. You won't find a better example of a soul-less, bloodsucking corporation.
The key provision in the ACA remains the elimination of pre-existing conditions. And since Americans have seemingly choosen to let amoral private insurance companies profit off life and death, the mandate was the only way to implement it. We could run our health care like EVERY other Western country, but we can't, because "American Exceptionalism".
These people were immediately found, arrested and will likely spend decades if not their entire lives behind bars. I fail to see what your point is. That systematic racism doesn't exist because of a single incident?? The question is, would justice be as swift if it had been yet another video of a cop murdering an unarmed black man. What happened here was the legal system working. When the racial roles are reversed, the system often stops working completely. There has also been an effort to tie this to Black Lives Matter which has absolutely no factual basis. What MTV's recent video has to do with this is beyond me.
Whatever floats your boat.
Hope you had a Happy New Year and best wishes to you and your girlfriend. Hope she's feeling better.
These people were immediately found, arrested and will likely spend decades if not their entire lives behind bars. I fail to see what your point is. That systematic racism doesn't exist because of a single incident?? The question is, would justice be as swift if it had been yet another video of a cop murdering an unarmed black man. What happened here was the legal system working. When the racial roles are reversed, the system often stops working completely. There has also been an effort to tie this to Black Lives Matter which has absolutely no factual basis. What MTV's recent video has to do with this is beyond me.
Whatever floats your boat.
Hope you had a Happy New Year and best wishes to you and your girlfriend. Hope she's feeling better.
Thank you. I don't really have any good or bad news to report on that front, but that's the way things go I guess.....
As promised, the intelligence community released a report with more information about the Russian hacking allegations (original declassified document here). Unfortunately, the methodology remains classified; only the report's findings are declassified.
Apparently the intelligence community has reached a stronger consensus on the issue. The FBI, CIA, and NSA agree that the Russian government tried to improve Trump's chances and weaken Clinton's legitimacy were she to win the election. The FBI and CIA both have "high confidence" that this is the case; the NSA merely has "moderate confidence."
The IC believes that Putin's interference was partly a response to the Panama Papers, a suite of leaked documents which exposed corruption in various world leaders. Putin believes that the U.S. was behind the leak; he thought the U.S. was attempting to undermine his government (there has never been any evidence for this--the reason the leaks did not expose many American figures is because Americans weren't common customers for the company whose documents were leaked). Putin also believes Hillary Clinton instigated protests in Russia and that the U.S. government was responsible for exposing Russian doping in the Olympics (no evidence for these, either--I believe they're just the paranoid fantasies that many non-democratic leaders share).
In addition to this, Putin's reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton were (1) he did not use the same "aggressive rhetoric" that Clinton did, (2) it would help Russia establish an anti-terrorist coalition against ISIS, (3) it would weaken the American democratic world order that Russia views as a threat, and (4) because "Putin has had many positive experiences with Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia, such as former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder."
The report reiterates the IC's existing position that Russian hacking did not involve tampering with vote counts.
The report does NOT claim that Russian interference was responsible for Trump's election. It does not address whether Clinton would have won without Russian interference.
The report stresses that although Russia had never acted this aggressively in the cyber domain before, it is part of a broader pattern of Russian interference, using propaganda and cyber attacks to influence elections and public opinion in Europe as well as the United States.
The IC also believes that Russia will keep doing this in the future.
Truthfully, it was only a matter of time. We have been interfering with the internal politics of other nations for a long time, at least since World War II. This is just a little payback for all the times we stuck our nose into places where we had no business interfering in the first place. We should be thankful no one has managed to destabilize us the way we have destabilized other countries over the last 70+ years.
Sounds to me that the entire Russian intelligence report (which, again, bears out nearly everything liberals have been saying and being ridiculed about for the last month) is that Putin recognized one thing: a thuggish buffoon full of bluster, a knack for manipulating easy marks, and someone who is just as receptive to an oligarchy in the US as Putin is in Russia. Has everyone forgotten Rex Tillerson is going to be Secretary of State?? The frickin' CEO of Exxon, who is probably closer to Putin than anyone in America.
As Trump's Administration raids this country from the inside for the next 4 years, it is going to be very interesting to see how many people deny ever having said this wasn't going to be as bad as it surely is. The fact is, nothing means anything anymore. There is no way to hold someone to account when they can lie with impunity on a daily basis and have no fear of suffering any consequences for it. We've created this ourselves. A country arrogant in the extreme, a population isolated and protected from the world's worst problems by two oceans and a military juggernaut, now ruled by an idiot king. We've seen plenty of Trump's over the course of history. Americans are in for a wake-up call, and it serves us right. In the end, our vast financial and military power won't protect us from our worst enemy. Like Rome, who was far greater than us, we will destroy ourselves from within.
As an addendum to the story about the 4 black teenagers involved in the torture video tape earlier, I offer this as the point I was trying to illustrate:
The point of BLM has never been that all black people are innocent, that all white people are guilty, or that black people who do commit crimes against whites don't deserve punishment. It's that the law is simply not applied equally. I'd bet every cent to my name the 4 charged over the last few days will spend a MINIMUM of 30 years behind bars for what they did, if not more. Meanwhile, the white teen who sodomized a special needs black child with a coat hanger is basically going to be home in time for supper, not only avoiding jail time, but even classification as a sex offender. The APPLICATION of the law is the problem. As is the media attention. You'd find it impossible NOT to hear about the story of the last few days even if you were trying to avoid it. There was no such coverage of this story in Idaho.
Though the severity of the crimes is clearly more stark than night and day, this is very similar to the (until recently) totally racist sentencing guidelines for crack and powder cocaine. The same drug, one used primarily by the urban poor, the other by wealthy white people. The data shows that, prior to 2010, gram for gram, the sentence for possessing crack was a HUNDRED TIMES greater than that of powder cocaine possession. Even after these guidelines were attempted to be corrected by the Obama administration, the disparity is STILL 18:1.
So it seems the GOP is going to ramrod 6 cabinet nominees, who have not been vetted by the ethics committee apparently, on the same day. The rogues gallery includes Jeff sessions, Betsy Devos and the Exxon guy. The GOP who took six weeks before scheduling for an African American woman's confirmation took 6 minutes for Jeff Sessions, doing it prior to his filing any paperwork. His paperwork is apparently incomplete glossing over things like his association with altright and Breitbart.
This will also be the day that Mitch McConnell will push several pieces of legislation to repeal Obamacare and probably planned Parenthood.
Oh and in order to distract and create more of a circus for the citizens on that day Trump might have his first press conference.
So it seems the GOP is going to ramrod 6 cabinet nominees, who have not been vetted by the ethics committee apparently, on the same day. The rogues gallery includes Jeff sessions, Betsy Devos and the Exxon guy. The GOP who took six weeks before scheduling for an African American woman's confirmation took 6 minutes for Jeff Sessions, doing it prior to his filing any paperwork. His paperwork is apparently incomplete glossing over things like his association with altright and Breitbart.
This will also be the day that Mitch McConnell will push several pieces of legislation to repeal Obamacare and probably planned Parenthood.
Oh and in order to distract and create more of a circus for the citizens on that day Trump might have his first press conference.
So they are counting on overwhelming us. Swell.
This is absolutely the strategy and I was going to write a post saying the exact same thing. I'll say this for Trump, he knows every weak point of the media, and they are well aware that they are simply incapable of covering more than two of these stories at once. A intentional system overload. The next few days will be a perfect example of the absolutely fatal weaknesses of the American media.
It was fine at first, but after the second rate hike, its was infeasibly expensive, and apparently with my income, I fell between two ranges to be eligible for assistance.
It was fine at first, but after the second rate hike, its was infeasibly expensive, and apparently with my income, I fell between two ranges to be eligible for assistance.
There is a gap between certain incomes for the subsidies, which manages to hit people who are above the poverty line, but also likely not to be getting it from their employer. However, there are two very important points: The rate hikes were happening before Obamacare ever took effect, to the tune of over 40% annually in some cases. This is a matter of our morally bankrupt insurance companies. None of these rates are going up because it's a business necessity, it is pure greed. However, because of how the ACA is put together, you are either forced to buy insurance (this is what allows the pre-conditions portion of the law) or pay a pretty substantial penalty. The thing is, insurance, if you are relatively young, and don't get in an accident or get a serious illness, is almost always money down the tube, because most people will never meet their deductible during the year. The system of private insurance itself is the problem, and there was simply no way to get rid of it. The ACA was working within the confines of a broken system to try help as many people as possible. Obamacare has serious problems, but all those problems arise because of how we have decided to handle our healthcare as a country.
Secondly, no matter what your particular situation with your insurance is, I can GUARANTEE that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump have NO intention of fixing it for you. Because, as much as they talk about repealing and replacing it, they have no plan for the second part. They have been voting to gut the ACA for 6 years and haven't ONCE came out with a policy to replace it. It doesn't exist. They don't have one.
Now, if you'd simply prefer to be done with the mandate so you can save yourself some money by not having to pay the fine, that's certainly a personal choice I can hardly fault you for. However, if the ACA is repealed, and the health insurance industry loses over 20 million customers they have that they didn't have before the bill, the idea that they are going to LOWER costs on everyone else is simply not realistic. They are going to lose money, and you will see rates go even higher. You fall in a unfortunate gap that should have been addressed. For you, the ACA does nothing because you fall outside the subsidies. And with the mandate, you are between a rock and a hard place. But the rate hikes are a byproduct of a morally bankrupt system, not the bill itself. The way America has tackled healthcare since the 1970s is the crux of the problem. As long as private insurance companies are involved, everyone will continue to get screwed with their pants on. The issue now is if we simply kick 20+ million people off their insurance with absolutely nothing to fall back on, when it will do nothing to curb the costs of premiums, and in fact will only cause them to go even higher, unless you think American health insurance companies are going to take the loss of 20 million customers lying down.
Obama should have never taken the Public Option off the table. His fundamental flaw and weakness, and flaw of Democrats in general, is starting negotiations from the Republican's chosen starting point. This was a result of conservative Democrats in the Senate like Max Baucus running the show in that branch of government, and Obama having a shitbag like Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Believe me, most of us on the far-left were dejected as hell as to what we ended up getting, but in the instance of pragmatism, it was accepted because, in the end, pre-existing conditions were eliminated and 20+ million more people had insurance after that didn't before. It was a baby-step, or, more accurately, a band-aid on a gaping wound. For the people who fell through the cracks if left behind, it's not good. I'm actually very sorry you are one of those people. Our health care system shouldn't be like it is. NO other country does things this way, and there is a reason for that. Because they place their citizen's lives above the profit of corporations. The United States, in no way, shape or from, feels the same way. We will let as many people die as we have to line the bottom line of the insurance industry. The ACA WAS a giveaway to the insurance industry, that was done simply because millions of people were uninsured. In a very real way, it was pre-determined blackmail. I WISH Obama had fought harder for something more substantial and better, but I have serious doubts it could have ever been passed.
Comments
In other news, The Washington Post has once again been caught perpetuating the very sort of "fake news" that it claims to be crusading against:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.902223c78af1
"Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."
Put another way, those who oppose power may be flawed in many ways, but if one also opposes power, they are still likely to be closer to your own positions.
That being said, I think Snowden has generally acquitted himself about as reasonably and thoughtfully as one could realistically expect such a significant whistleblower to do. This doesn't prevent US mainstream media from treating him like a dangerous madman/narcissist/traitor/terrorist all the time, of course.
Another source of guidance would be to look at what the lauded-and-vindicated-by-history whistleblowers think, like Daniel Ellsberg. I doubt Julian Assange seriously thinks Trump is going to call off the hounds. Regardless of what happened in the election, it's near-inconceivable that a Trump administration is going to be much friendlier to those who leak classified information (or abet its dispersal) than Obama was. He was attacking Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in animus against them, not because he cared about Trump.
Beyond that, nothing Wikileaks released was false (despite Democrats immediately arguing that the Podesta emails were fake). And they've released a lot of things in the past that were well worth the world knowing. None of that is invalidated by his obvious bias against the Democrats in 2016 (particularly since they have done rather a lot to him personally, and want to do even worse).
Even if Assange is totally guilty of the rape charges against him (he probably is, imo), and even if he did throw the election to Trump (doubtful, there were too many factors involved to single out one), the history of Wikileaks is still one where massively more good than harm has been done.
Trump isn't going to do a thing to Assange. I swear to god people don't understand this guy at all. He's WELL AWARE, regardless of what he says, that both Russia and Assange were factors in putting him just barely over the top. He has been defending (and outright praising Putin) at every opportunity for months. He knows where his bread is buttered. Just today, he outright accused the intelligence community of delaying his briefing on the subjects til Friday so they could concoct evidence to fit their narrative. The truth?? The meeting was ALWAYS SCHEDULED for Friday!! He tells outright, pants on fire lies 2 to 3 times a day. And honestly, after a year of this BS, that isn't even what bothers me. What bothers me is a.) the people who continue to believe every word he says and b.) the people who constantly say that he can't be taken either literally or seriously. That what he says on Twitter is simply unworthy of criticism. If anyone has noticed, that is the PRIMARY way he intends to communicate for his Presidency. He hasn't held a single press conference in months, and I wouldn't be surprised if he never does one at all. What difference does it make?? The media is completely impotent when it comes to dealing with him, and his supporters will love it as well.
And the Clinton campaign (along with several Democratic figures) did initially assert they were faked, this can be seen in much media at the time. Afterwards they shifted to "neither confirm nor deny". That line of thought runs up against the unfortunate reality that to the best of anyone's knowledge (including the Clinton campaign and Podesta, who would be in a position to know and had every reason to publicise fakes), there is not a single altered or faked email. They can't all be tested, but the ones that could be tested are all legit. Plus Wikileaks has no history of ever releasing false material.
So, why indeed? It would suggest to me that there is a flaw in your premises, since the conclusion they lead to didn't occur.
I also wonder: would you be this outraged about someone "stealing private communications" if they were Trump's private communications that were stolen, even if they had been stolen with the intent of influencing the election? Were you outraged when somebody stole and released one of his tax returns? I also am bothered by people who "believe every word Trump says". After all, he "tells outright, pants on fire lies 2 to 3 times a day". He also loves trolling people with "forbidden" opinions, and praising Putin at a point where both Democrats and Republicans were virtually united against him is and was that.
A Donald Trump administration isn't going to warmly embrace whistleblowers and leakers. I would unhesitatingly bet real money on this. And if they did... good, I will happily praise Trump for doing the morally right thing regardless of what motivation he might have for it. But it won't happen. Trump is not known for his love of transparency and laughing off of people leaking stuff he wants to keep secret.
I could say something about this, but you know what?? Screw it, what's the point?? Trump supporters will say they never ACTUALLY believed Mexico was going to pay for the wall (despite chanting it when prompted at rallies for almost a year). The response to this post on this forum will be that Trump is simply trolling people with forbidden opinions, which is apparently Newspeak for "lying your ass off".
I do find it incredibly strange that so many of Trump's supporters have little interest in holding him to his word. How can we have government accountability if we don't hold officials accountable? If a politician says something, we should hold them to it.
If Trump doesn't build the wall, he broke the single biggest promise he made during the campaign. It's not okay to just lie about your policies.
In more Trump Twitter news, the next President cannot seem to differentiate between a noun and a verb, or doesn't know how the word "led" is spelled, or doesn't understand the difference between one "being in the lead" as opposed to someone "who led his followers". Or maybe all 3. Sad.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-national-committee-security-foiled-russian-hackers-1481850043
"Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.
But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said."
House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.
The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program.
The use of the rule would not be simple; a majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment. At the same time, opponents and supporters agree that the work of 2.1 million civil servants, designed to be insulated from politics, is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.
There is no way to hold a politician accountable for breaking election promises.
"I can’t tell you it won’t happen. The power is there. But isn’t that appropriate? Who runs this country, the people of the United States or the people on the people’s payroll?"
-Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.)
The people on the people's payroll are also people of the United States, you ass.
(...Hey, maybe Congress and House can get their own salaries slashed to one dollar? You know. Because they're federal employees? No? Why am I not surprised. -_-)
Study finds that repealing Obamacare could cost up to 3 million jobs. Or, if you are prone to fall for Trump's antics, it's 4285 times as many jobs as were supposedly saved at the Indiana Carrier plant.
I think MTV should make a video clip about how this white man could have done better in 2017.
"If you like your plan you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
"Mission Accomplished."
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"Read my lips--no new taxes."
Plausible deniability.
*************
The ACA as it currently exists definitely needs to be changed or repealed. Major employers like Wal-Mart have been cutting people's hours to under the required minimum so they don't have to offer health insurance; meanwhile, States and providers have been exiting the Exchanges because so many rates increased to the point where people actually cannot afford insurance under the ACA. This is the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do but, ironically, the program is working as it was designed. When someone is telling you that you need to pass the bill in order to find out what is in the bill that should be a red flag that something is amiss.
The key provision in the ACA remains the elimination of pre-existing conditions. And since Americans have seemingly choosen to let amoral private insurance companies profit off life and death, the mandate was the only way to implement it. We could run our health care like EVERY other Western country, but we can't, because "American Exceptionalism".
Hope you had a Happy New Year and best wishes to you and your girlfriend. Hope she's feeling better.
Apparently the intelligence community has reached a stronger consensus on the issue. The FBI, CIA, and NSA agree that the Russian government tried to improve Trump's chances and weaken Clinton's legitimacy were she to win the election. The FBI and CIA both have "high confidence" that this is the case; the NSA merely has "moderate confidence."
The IC believes that Putin's interference was partly a response to the Panama Papers, a suite of leaked documents which exposed corruption in various world leaders. Putin believes that the U.S. was behind the leak; he thought the U.S. was attempting to undermine his government (there has never been any evidence for this--the reason the leaks did not expose many American figures is because Americans weren't common customers for the company whose documents were leaked). Putin also believes Hillary Clinton instigated protests in Russia and that the U.S. government was responsible for exposing Russian doping in the Olympics (no evidence for these, either--I believe they're just the paranoid fantasies that many non-democratic leaders share).
In addition to this, Putin's reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton were (1) he did not use the same "aggressive rhetoric" that Clinton did, (2) it would help Russia establish an anti-terrorist coalition against ISIS, (3) it would weaken the American democratic world order that Russia views as a threat, and (4) because "Putin has had many positive experiences with Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia, such as former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder."
The report reiterates the IC's existing position that Russian hacking did not involve tampering with vote counts.
The report does NOT claim that Russian interference was responsible for Trump's election. It does not address whether Clinton would have won without Russian interference.
The report stresses that although Russia had never acted this aggressively in the cyber domain before, it is part of a broader pattern of Russian interference, using propaganda and cyber attacks to influence elections and public opinion in Europe as well as the United States.
The IC also believes that Russia will keep doing this in the future.
As Trump's Administration raids this country from the inside for the next 4 years, it is going to be very interesting to see how many people deny ever having said this wasn't going to be as bad as it surely is. The fact is, nothing means anything anymore. There is no way to hold someone to account when they can lie with impunity on a daily basis and have no fear of suffering any consequences for it. We've created this ourselves. A country arrogant in the extreme, a population isolated and protected from the world's worst problems by two oceans and a military juggernaut, now ruled by an idiot king. We've seen plenty of Trump's over the course of history. Americans are in for a wake-up call, and it serves us right. In the end, our vast financial and military power won't protect us from our worst enemy. Like Rome, who was far greater than us, we will destroy ourselves from within.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/20/idaho-football-coat-hanger-rape-teammate-john-rk-howard
The point of BLM has never been that all black people are innocent, that all white people are guilty, or that black people who do commit crimes against whites don't deserve punishment. It's that the law is simply not applied equally. I'd bet every cent to my name the 4 charged over the last few days will spend a MINIMUM of 30 years behind bars for what they did, if not more. Meanwhile, the white teen who sodomized a special needs black child with a coat hanger is basically going to be home in time for supper, not only avoiding jail time, but even classification as a sex offender. The APPLICATION of the law is the problem. As is the media attention. You'd find it impossible NOT to hear about the story of the last few days even if you were trying to avoid it. There was no such coverage of this story in Idaho.
Though the severity of the crimes is clearly more stark than night and day, this is very similar to the (until recently) totally racist sentencing guidelines for crack and powder cocaine. The same drug, one used primarily by the urban poor, the other by wealthy white people. The data shows that, prior to 2010, gram for gram, the sentence for possessing crack was a HUNDRED TIMES greater than that of powder cocaine possession. Even after these guidelines were attempted to be corrected by the Obama administration, the disparity is STILL 18:1.
This will also be the day that Mitch McConnell will push several pieces of legislation to repeal Obamacare and probably planned Parenthood.
Oh and in order to distract and create more of a circus for the citizens on that day Trump might have his first press conference.
So they are counting on overwhelming us. Swell.
I don't see a problem here. I lost all health insurance because of Obamacare.
Secondly, no matter what your particular situation with your insurance is, I can GUARANTEE that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump have NO intention of fixing it for you. Because, as much as they talk about repealing and replacing it, they have no plan for the second part. They have been voting to gut the ACA for 6 years and haven't ONCE came out with a policy to replace it. It doesn't exist. They don't have one.
Now, if you'd simply prefer to be done with the mandate so you can save yourself some money by not having to pay the fine, that's certainly a personal choice I can hardly fault you for. However, if the ACA is repealed, and the health insurance industry loses over 20 million customers they have that they didn't have before the bill, the idea that they are going to LOWER costs on everyone else is simply not realistic. They are going to lose money, and you will see rates go even higher. You fall in a unfortunate gap that should have been addressed. For you, the ACA does nothing because you fall outside the subsidies. And with the mandate, you are between a rock and a hard place. But the rate hikes are a byproduct of a morally bankrupt system, not the bill itself. The way America has tackled healthcare since the 1970s is the crux of the problem. As long as private insurance companies are involved, everyone will continue to get screwed with their pants on. The issue now is if we simply kick 20+ million people off their insurance with absolutely nothing to fall back on, when it will do nothing to curb the costs of premiums, and in fact will only cause them to go even higher, unless you think American health insurance companies are going to take the loss of 20 million customers lying down.
Obama should have never taken the Public Option off the table. His fundamental flaw and weakness, and flaw of Democrats in general, is starting negotiations from the Republican's chosen starting point. This was a result of conservative Democrats in the Senate like Max Baucus running the show in that branch of government, and Obama having a shitbag like Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Believe me, most of us on the far-left were dejected as hell as to what we ended up getting, but in the instance of pragmatism, it was accepted because, in the end, pre-existing conditions were eliminated and 20+ million more people had insurance after that didn't before. It was a baby-step, or, more accurately, a band-aid on a gaping wound. For the people who fell through the cracks if left behind, it's not good. I'm actually very sorry you are one of those people. Our health care system shouldn't be like it is. NO other country does things this way, and there is a reason for that. Because they place their citizen's lives above the profit of corporations. The United States, in no way, shape or from, feels the same way. We will let as many people die as we have to line the bottom line of the insurance industry. The ACA WAS a giveaway to the insurance industry, that was done simply because millions of people were uninsured. In a very real way, it was pre-determined blackmail. I WISH Obama had fought harder for something more substantial and better, but I have serious doubts it could have ever been passed.