The only thing unprecedented about this administration is the willingness of his opposition to abandon entirely the notion of the burden of proof for all of their central narratives in favor of throwing as many accusations as they can to the wall and seeing what sticks.
- Where is the evidence for this Russian conspiracy? Circumstantial cases and conspiracy mongering aren't evidence. Assuming motives also without evidence and working backward from that assumption isn't evidence. The amount spoken on this Russia collusion conspiracy could fill pages of this thread by itself, and not once to my knowledge has any person presented anything that could be interpreted as a bona fide objective piece of evidence that Russia had any involvement in any collusion or any interference or any meddling and especially and most importantly that Trump or his administration has now or has had at any time any sort of involvement. I challenge you to present me with one piece of such evidence.
- Where is the evidence that Steve Bannon is a white nationalist?
- What fundamental aspect of the Presidency has Trump violated that has been unprecedented?
If you can say honestly that you have withheld opinion on all Democratic scandals "pending the completion of an investigation" for each, I'll gladly withdraw the point. And when the FBI weighed the evidence and exonerated HRC's use of a private server as irresponsible but fully legal, I'm sure you accepted that determination as well.
17 intelligence agencies (I'm talking about the USIC joint statement) have confirmed that Russian state actors sought to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. You can draw false equivalencies to foreign money if you like, but I do believe hacking one of the two major political committees as well as a campaign manager, flooding social media en masse with bots programmed to disseminate false information, and leaking private emails from one candidate to the public during an election year is a first. There are prominent Republicans who acknowledge and are concerned about this.
As for Steve Bannon, I suppose it's a hard thing to thoroughly "prove" definitively what anyone'sbelief system is, which is why we go with what people *do* and *say.*
Maintaining a "black crime" section on a website you operate - whether you created it or not - is evidence of racist views or willingness to cater to a racist audience (it's not just an SEO tag). As for skepticism of immigration, positively citing the novel "Le Camp des Saints" specifically is like positively citing "Birth of a Nation" specifically when talking about race, except the former is more obscure. Julius Evola is also an interesting choice to idolize, which you didn't seem to want to address.
Finally, fundamental aspects of the Presidency that Trump has violated that have been unprecedented: I've provided my argument in other recent posts in this thread.
First, I was referring to the USIC analysis provided by Clapper. 16 agencies plus the office of the Director of National Intelligency.
Second, from your link: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him [...] CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment, NSA has moderate confidence."
I don't have time to review the whole document atm, but a quick skimming supports my contention: Russia attempted to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. Looking forward to hearing you explain how up is actually down and black is actually white in my reading thus far.
Second, from your link: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him [...] CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment, NSA has moderate confidence."
I don't have time to review the whole document atm, but a quick skimming supports my contention: Russia attempted to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. Looking forward to hearing you explain how up is actually down and black is actually white in my reading thus far.
Sure,
If you read the report, the 'influence campaign' that they refer too is Russian TV coverage of Trump and Clinton, Putin contrasting Clinton against Trump is exactly as it is, Putin saying thing's favorable about Trump (working with Russia) to Clinton (Attack Russia).
"Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States. Nonetheless, Putin publicly indicated a preference for President-elect Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia, and pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what they saw as his Russia-friendly positions on Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the President-elect’s approach to Russia with Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.”"
ROFL.
hardly the 'scary' and hyped up Russia conspiracy that it was made out to be.
do you understand that virtually every country is guilty of the same thing, including the U.S. ?
Here is a bit of a thought experiment.
Did Obama say preferential things to Clinton against Trump?
It's been another 50 pages since I last discussed this, so I'll revisit the Russian issue. But first, I should make one thing clear. The Russia issue is not about Trump.
It is about Russia.
The problem is not that Trump had a pro-Russian stance. The problem is not that Trump complimented Putin. The problem is not that Trump liked Putin. The problem is that a hostile foreign government actively interfered in an American election.
There is nothing--nothing--more important in this country than the safety of our elections. Nothing is more fundamental to our security and our democracy. The fact that Russia attempted to directly intervene in the 2016 election represents a genuine national security threat that is not going to go away.
It's not about Trump being bad. It's about Putin being dangerous.
I say this both as an outspoken liberal and as one of Trump's earliest defenders in this thread.
Whatever our feelings about Trump or Clinton or any other candidate in the 2016 election, the fact of the matter is that the only people who are allowed to have a say in our elections are American citizens.
Back in January, I summarized the intelligence community's findings. It actually addresses all of the points that posters on both sides of the argument have brought up.
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.
I've heard complaints that the report doesn't cite any evidence. This is not true. The report lists the evidence in very clear bullet point format. Start at page 11 if you don't want to read the whole thing.
And as I have said more than once before, the intelligence community failed to release this report until after the election was over, demonstrating that they did not produce it for political purposes. If they did, they would have released it during the election. This report was not politically motivated.
And as I have said since the beginning, while the intelligence community HAS found that Russia attempted to influence the election, they have found NO evidence that Trump himself was complicit in the process.
This is because the Russia issue is about Russia, not Trump. They are the threat.
Second, from your link: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him [...] CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment, NSA has moderate confidence."
I don't have time to review the whole document atm, but a quick skimming supports my contention: Russia attempted to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. Looking forward to hearing you explain how up is actually down and black is actually white in my reading thus far.
Sure,
If you read the report, the 'influence campaign' that they refer too is Russian TV coverage of Trump and Clinton, Putin contrasting Clinton against Trump is exactly as it is, Putin saying thing's favorable about Trump (working with Russia) to Clinton (Attack Russia).
"Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States. Nonetheless, Putin publicly indicated a preference for President-elect Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia, and pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what they saw as his Russia-friendly positions on Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the President-elect’s approach to Russia with Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.”"
ROFL.
hardly the 'scary' and hyped up Russia conspiracy that it was made out to be.
do you understand that virtually every country is guilty of the same thing, including the U.S. ?
Here is a bit of a thought experiment.
Did Obama say preferential things to Clinton against Trump?
@vanatos You're cherry-picking again - claiming that this report refers only to RT coverage and public statements is intellectually dishonest and you know it.
There's an entire section on cyber espionage.
"We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups [...] In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016."
"We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal email accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC."
"We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks." "Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign." They also cover cyber intrusions into state and local electoral boards.
"Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US"
"Russia's effort to influence the 2016 US presidential election represented a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations aimed at US elections."
Why would you link to a copy of a report and then try to minimize what's in it? I've read the entire thing and it looks *exactly* as bad as it's been made out to be. Either you're viewing this through some extremely selective lenses or you're messing with me; not sure sure which.
And as the report explained, all of this is historically standard behavior for Putin's Russia. They've been doing this sort of thing years before Trump ran for president. I personally had heard about Russia's behavior long before the 2016 election; it wasn't all that surprising when I thought about it.
The intelligence community wasn't saying "Trump met this bank robber once; therefore Trump robbed a bank." They're saying "this notorious long-time bank robber just robbed yet another bank."
You'll notice the report never accused Trump of anything.
And as the report explained, all of this is historically standard behavior for Putin's Russia. They've been doing this sort of thing years before Trump ran for president. I personally had heard about Russia's behavior long before the 2016 election; it wasn't all that surprising when I thought about it.
The intelligence community wasn't saying "Trump met this bank robber once; therefore Trump robbed a bank." They're saying "this notorious long-time bank robber just robbed yet another bank."
You'll notice the report never accused Trump of anything.
Agreed. People tend to conflate the argument "Russia interfered in the US election in support of Trump" with "Trump colluded with Russia" and think that because there isn't definitive proof of the latter then there isn't definitive proof of the former. The two are not mutually exclusive.
It's actually by International law that Trump is supposed to impose a tariff or something in similar affect Lol.
Countervailing duties (CVDs), also known as anti-subsidy duties, are trade import duties imposed under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules to neutralize the negative effects of subsidies. They are imposed after an investigation finds that a foreign country subsidizes its exports, injuring domestic producers in the importing country. According to World Trade Organization rules, a country can launch its own investigation and decide to charge extra duties, provided such additional duties are in accordance with the GATT Article VI and the GATT Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties
So hardly the big news story it was made out to be.
Yes, but the catch is that Canada isn't subsidizing the industry as the Americans claim, as it was ruled in Canada's favour the last 4 times.
IMO, what the United States is attempting to do, is the same thing they did during the III Trade Disagreement. Quoted:
Following the termination of the MOU, Commerce initiated, of its own accord, a new CVD investigation and imposed a temporary security bonding requirement on softwood imports. A panel under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT – since superseded by the WTO) concluded that this bond requirement was a contravention of GATT obligations. Commerce determined that British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec conferred countervailable subsidies on softwood lumber exports, and the ITC found resulting injury. CVDs of 6.51% were imposed on lumber imports from all provinces except the Maritimes. Canada appealed both the determination of subsidy and the finding of injury to panels of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In both cases, the panels found in favour of Canada repeatedly. Particularly significant was the decision that use of the U.S. lumber benchmark to determine the value of standing timber in a foreign setting was in contravention of U.S. law. The United States requested an Extraordinary Challenge Committee (ECC) under the FTA. This committee also found in favour of Canada. It should be noted, though, that the various NAFTA decisions have often been majority decisions split along national lines. With the United States delaying the refunding of the past duties and the threat of a fourth round of CVD investigation pending, Canada signed a second five-year MOU, the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA), in 1996. With the signing of the SLA, the United States refunded duties collected in Lumber III and the CFLI dropped its constitutional challenge of the NAFTA arbitration process.
The last 2 times, the Americans knew they wouldn't win the court cases. They just wanted to drag it out the process to put the squeeze on Canadian companies while still collecting the Tariffs and then holding the money hostage to sign a more favourable deal for themselves.
This tactic won't work as well this time around since other markets for the Lumber are flourishing and even if they do hold the money hostage after an unfavourable ruling, it won't be as dire as it was in the late 90s early '00s.
Sure lets address the details. At the center of the claims of cyber-espionage, is actually a private cybersecurity firm Hired by the Clinton campaign Crowdstrike.
Hmmmm.
What was Crowdstrikes findings? very simple, they allege that the same 'code' that was used against Hillary, was used against a Ukrainian military installation and stated that prior incident (2014) being Russian, must prove it was Russia against Hillary, But many Experts disagree with them.
However more damning is this, the IISS (Whom Crowdstrike used the data from) refuted Crowdstrikes findings to the point Crowdstrike had to retract their own findings.
Hmmm, So the Clinton campaign hires a private firm and they come with a finding that is disputed by the very organization that gave them the data, and they...Don't allow the FBI to examine their servers?
So what do we have here? the FBI could not examine the DNC servers themselves because the DNC didn't allow them (bit sketchy), and all the FBI could rely on is a private cybersecurity firm hired by the Clinton campaign and their findings are questionable by the organizations that gave them the data?
Basically its summed up like this.
Isn't this a little odd? If the FBI could not independently verify any claims, thats a pretty damn important detail to include, But hardly reported on.
Yes, but the catch is that Canada isn't subsidizing the industry as the Americans claim, as it was ruled in Canada's favour the last 4 times.
IMO, what the United States is attempting to do, is the same thing they did during the III Trade Disagreement. Quoted:
Following the termination of the MOU, Commerce initiated, of its own accord, a new CVD investigation and imposed a temporary security bonding requirement on softwood imports. A panel under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT – since superseded by the WTO) concluded that this bond requirement was a contravention of GATT obligations. Commerce determined that British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec conferred countervailable subsidies on softwood lumber exports, and the ITC found resulting injury. CVDs of 6.51% were imposed on lumber imports from all provinces except the Maritimes. Canada appealed both the determination of subsidy and the finding of injury to panels of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In both cases, the panels found in favour of Canada repeatedly. Particularly significant was the decision that use of the U.S. lumber benchmark to determine the value of standing timber in a foreign setting was in contravention of U.S. law. The United States requested an Extraordinary Challenge Committee (ECC) under the FTA. This committee also found in favour of Canada. It should be noted, though, that the various NAFTA decisions have often been majority decisions split along national lines. With the United States delaying the refunding of the past duties and the threat of a fourth round of CVD investigation pending, Canada signed a second five-year MOU, the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA), in 1996. With the signing of the SLA, the United States refunded duties collected in Lumber III and the CFLI dropped its constitutional challenge of the NAFTA arbitration process.
The last 2 times, the Americans knew they wouldn't win the court cases. They just wanted to drag it out the process to put the squeeze on Canadian companies while still collecting the Tariffs and then holding the money hostage to sign a more favourable deal for themselves.
This tactic won't work as well this time around since other markets for the Lumber are flourishing and even if they do hold the money hostage after an unfavourable ruling, it won't be as dire as it was in the late 90s early '00s.
The WTO has ruled that Canada does subsidize their lumber industry.
The legal arguments back and forth amount to what number to set, and it is always a back and forth and has been going on for a very long time.
Regardless, I don't really have a position as to whether this is beneficial or not as i am not an international trade expert, So your statements on its feasibility could very well be correct.
I was simply pointing out that this issue isn't really a specific 'Trump administration' issue, its been around for every administration since Bush Snr.
I was simply pointing out that this issue isn't really a specific 'Trump administration' issue, its been around for every administration since Bush Snr.
True (dairy as well). However, it was Trump opening his mouth that has sabotaged what was considered substantial development on a new agreement thrusting it into the spotlight.
It is also worth noting that Canada isn't going to dispute the tariffs until next year. This does make me think they are/were close to another agreement before Trump started taking aim and can still hammer one out negating the collected tariffs.
As I said, it could be Trump posturing to take credit for any deal that is struck, or to show he is being tough on trade and buy American stance since he can't play it against China until North Korea cools down. Give it a couple of weeks.
@Mathsorcerer: If the thread isn't what you want it to be, why not start posting again? You could fill in any gaps in the discussion the rest of us have been overlooking.
*gasp* Are you seriously suggesting that I should contribute if I don't like the tone or direction a discussion is taking? Get involved? Participate? But...but that would require *effort* and *thought* on my part. I might actually have to, you know, read news articles or research a topic or some such nonsense. Why can't I just sit back in my armchair and harrumph at people who don't think exactly like I do and tell them how they are wrong?
No, I have just been a little busy as of late. I have a couple of pages though which I need to sort before I can catch up to where the discussion is currently.
This really strikes me as something a rookie politician might do. Trump probably just found out about this Canada lumber issue from Fox News or something and thought, 'Here's something I can jump on to get a quick victory'.
Trump's impulsiveness is really in stark contrast to Obama's slow-paced, look at every angle before saying anything style. It's kind of refreshing in a way, since you know what Trump is thinking all the time. Unfortunately, I don't always like what's going on in his head...
The problem is not that Trump had a pro-Russian stance. The problem is not that Trump complimented Putin. The problem is not that Trump liked Putin. The problem is that a hostile foreign government actively interfered in an American election.
There is nothing--nothing--more important in this country than the safety of our elections. Nothing is more fundamental to our security and our democracy. The fact that Russia attempted to directly intervene in the 2016 election represents a genuine national security threat that is not going to go away.
We have had this particular payback coming for a long time now. Over the years, in how many other nations have we influenced elections, provided we didn't engage in outright regime change via military action? If we didn't want someone else meddling in our affairs then perhaps we shouldn't have been meddling in the affairs of others. In other words, if self-determination was good enough for us when we were founded then self-determination is good enough for everyone else, even if they choose a course of action with which we may disagree.
*************
Another Federal judge recently issued a stay on one of Trump's executive orders regarding transferring Federal money to "sanctuary" cities (cities who do not cooperate with Federal immigration officials). This immediately led me to the following thought: what is going to happen when a President decides to ignore a Federal judge's ruling on an executive order and proceed as if the judge's ruling did not happen? It may not be during a Trump Administration but at some point a President is going to realize that Federal judges actually have *zero* enforcement authority--they may rule that an agency can or can not do something but the judge can't *make* the agency comply--and then...what? That will set the precedent that the Executive can do pretty much whatever it pleases and may ignore the Judiciary. At that point we risk real and significant danger.
Hypothetically speaking, a judge cannot issue a ruling on an executive order, anyway, because an executive order is not a law but a directive to an agency as to which procedures it will implement. I am not a fan of executive orders in any event--the Legislature drafts laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary weighs the laws against the Constitution, but executive orders--which most people follow as if they have the weight of law--break this balance. No, when we have a *real* Constitutional crisis it will be over an executive order, especially if the situation plays out like I describe--EO issued, judge subsequently issues a stay on the EO, but the Executive ignores the stay.
This really strikes me as something a rookie politician might do. Trump probably just found out about this Canada lumber issue from Fox News or something and thought, 'Here's something I can jump on to get a quick victory'.
Trump's impulsiveness is really in stark contrast to Obama's slow-paced, look at every angle before saying anything style. It's kind of refreshing in a way, since you know what Trump is thinking all the time. Unfortunately, I don't always like what's going on in his head...
If you follow Trump on a daily basis, you will find he is basically making policy pronouncements based on how he is being portrayed on cable news, and stories being run on FOX, Breitbart, and right-wing radio. That is where he got the "Obama wire-tapped me" nonsense.
He still views himself first and foremost as an entertainer trying to get ratings and make money. It will not end well.
This really strikes me as something a rookie politician might do. Trump probably just found out about this Canada lumber issue from Fox News or something and thought, 'Here's something I can jump on to get a quick victory'.
Trump's impulsiveness is really in stark contrast to Obama's slow-paced, look at every angle before saying anything style. It's kind of refreshing in a way, since you know what Trump is thinking all the time. Unfortunately, I don't always like what's going on in his head...
He still views himself first and foremost as an entertainer trying to get ratings and make money. It will not end well.
I'm not sure many, if not most, politicians don't see things this way as well. If you insert 'polls' for 'ratings', there isn't a whole lot of difference. They will just say what they think their constituents want to hear in order to get votes, especially during election years.
The ruling from the judge against the sanctuary city executive order made a few points. The judge pointed to statements from Trump and Spicer as to the intent and purpose.
A major point is that the legislative branch controls the purse strings, not the executive. So it's not up to Trump to withhold or grant federal money, that's a Congressional power. Another point is that cities and states are not responsible for enforcing FEDERAL immigration law. That power is granted to the federal government and is their responsibility.
To me, this Executive order was obvious overreach and displayed a basic failure to understand how the government works. He thinks he can dictate by Executive order. In some ways he can, but he's not yet a dictator where he can totally trample over the Constitution, he just thinks he is.
We have had this particular payback coming for a long time now. Over the years, in how many other nations have we influenced elections, provided we didn't engage in outright regime change via military action? If we didn't want someone else meddling in our affairs then perhaps we shouldn't have been meddling in the affairs of others. In other words, if self-determination was good enough for us when we were founded then self-determination is good enough for everyone else, even if they choose a course of action with which we may disagree.
Its actually ironic since the Clintons directly intervened in Russia election and got Yeltsin into power. And not in any particularly subtle way, back in the 90's they publicly provided funding, logistics and basically half-ran his campaign.
This is not even 'hidden' fact, Times magazine used to run covers celebrating American intervention to get Yeltsin to win.
Clinton advisors Morris:
Can you imagine a President using their resources to literally run some foreign countries candidate campaign? But then the CIA basically props up and topples dictators so nothing is unimaginable anymore.
It's WAY past time the right had their "state's rights" argument turned and aimed back at them. Blue states are where the most important bulwarks against Trump are going to be originating from.
And once again, you have the party of "personal responsibility" trying to pass off the cost and burden of enforcing federal law on the States. They aren't obligated to help.
thats not correct, the DOJ can direct Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities, and It isn't a State issue since Federal Funding comes from...The Federal Government.
The reason why the DOJ can get involved is because 'Sanctuary cities' in America (as opposed to Europe) are policies to prevent the alert of non-citizen immigrants to local or Government authorities.
Where the controversy almost always comes from is this is used mainly for non-citizen criminals released back into the populace.
Politically this is an advantage for Trump, as Americans by vast majority despise Sanctuary cities.
Sure lets address the details. At the center of the claims of cyber-espionage, is actually a private cybersecurity firm Hired by the Clinton campaign Crowdstrike.
Hmmmm.
What was Crowdstrikes findings? very simple, they allege that the same 'code' that was used against Hillary, was used against a Ukrainian military installation and stated that prior incident (2014) being Russian, must prove it was Russia against Hillary, But many Experts disagree with them.
However more damning is this, the IISS (Whom Crowdstrike used the data from) refuted Crowdstrikes findings to the point Crowdstrike had to retract their own findings.
Hmmm, So the Clinton campaign hires a private firm and they come with a finding that is disputed by the very organization that gave them the data, and they...Don't allow the FBI to examine their servers?
So what do we have here? the FBI could not examine the DNC servers themselves because the DNC didn't allow them (bit sketchy), and all the FBI could rely on is a private cybersecurity firm hired by the Clinton campaign and their findings are questionable by the organizations that gave them the data?
Basically its summed up like this.
Isn't this a little odd? If the FBI could not independently verify any claims, thats a pretty damn important detail to include, But hardly reported on.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
You're trying to obfuscate the conclusion of the report. Regardless of whether or not *you* think it passes the smell test, the FBI, CIA, and NSA have high confidence that it does (I happen to trust their evaluation of the data more than yours).
The CIA, NSA, and FBI have jointly concluded that Russia used a multifaceted campaign of influence and espionage to interfere in the election in favor of Donald Trump. As for your Clinton conspiracy theory (you guys always seem to have a brand new one ready to go), trust me: you don't know anything that they don't know. They still came to this determination with "high confidence" even with the above-mentioned taken into account.
I mean, what is the logical extension of your argument? That the intelligence agencies lied in their report, or that you know more than they do? Are you saying that they would have confidently determined that this was an unprecedented interference effort without having facts sufficient to make such a determination? The report is conclusive. It's very clear about what happened. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the mental gymnastics are getting a little absurd at this point.
You're trying to obfuscate the conclusion of the report. Regardless of whether or not *you* think it passes the smell test, the FBI, CIA, and NSA have high confidence that it does (I happen to trust their evaluation of the data more than yours).
Thats rather interesting, I don't trust the CIA or NSA. Perhaps when they stop rampant spying on their own citizenry or toppling foreign Governments they could be trusted.
I mean, what is the logical extension of your argument? That the intelligence agencies lied in their report, or that you know more than they do? Are you saying that they would have confidently determined that this was an unprecedented interference effort without having facts sufficient to make such a determination? The report is conclusive. It's very clear about what happened. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the mental gymnastics are getting a little absurd at this point.
Do Intelligence Agencies lie? Are you asking that knowing their history? Because James Clapper has lied under oath demonstratively to Congress.
Its not me that ignores the evidence, Here i'll repeat.
At no point in your post did you address that, which is remarkably pertinent.
So no, the FBI did not even independently manage to investigate the DNC servers because the DNC didn't allow them. All they could rely on is a private firm hired by the DNC themselves, which various cybersecurity experts dispute their data and their findings.
I actually am a developer by trade btw and know a little bit about cybersecurity since i have to daily work with cybersecurity firms.
So if you wish to ignore the finer evidence and rely on 'authority', Well that doesn't inspire confidence because the very 'authority' your relying on aren't trustworthy.
It's embarrassing that we're even still talking about this, yet of all the hysterical anti trump conspiracy theories this one is a bit better than average.
You can't just say "the FBI CIA and NSA have all agreed" as though it ends the argument without expanding upon what they are all in agreement on. That Russia helped republicans and sabotaged democrats...by giving info to Wikileaks. And that Putin said he'd rather Trump than Clinton win.
Now let's assume for a moment that is 100% fact. It is not unprecedented, it is not unethical, and it is 100% the fault of the Democrats.
If Democrats weren't running a behind the scenes authoritarian and elitist enterprise masquerading as a neutral facilitator of primary elections, such revelations wouldn't have been there in the first place. And, above all, the public has a right to know that Democrats serve their own agenda.
So "Russian interference" can really be interpreted as "highlighting the corrupt practices of Democrats".
It's embarrassing that we're even still talking about this, yet of all the hysterical anti trump conspiracy theories this one is a bit better than average.
You can't just say "the FBI CIA and NSA have all agreed" as though it ends the argument without expanding upon what they are all in agreement on. That Russia helped republicans and sabotaged democrats...by giving info to Wikileaks. And that Putin said he'd rather Trump than Clinton win.
Now let's assume for a moment that is 100% fact. It is not unprecedented, it is not unethical, and it is 100% the fault of the Democrats.
If Democrats weren't running a behind the scenes authoritarian and elitist enterprise masquerading as a neutral facilitator of primary elections, such revelations wouldn't have been there in the first place. And, above all, the public has a right to know that Democrats serve their own agenda.
So "Russian interference" can really be interpreted as "highlighting the corrupt practices of Democrats".
Except the report says that it *was* unprecedented and it says exactly what the agencies are in agreement on – I don't have to draw that conclusion because it's there in black ink.
And whether or not you think Democrats are corrupt is irrelevant to the main point of argument: did Russia engage in a multifaceted campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump? Yes, they did.
Except the report says that it *was* unprecedented and it says exactly what the agencies are in agreement on – I don't have to draw that conclusion because it's there in black ink.
And whether or not you think Democrats are corrupt is irrelevant to the main point of argument: did Russia engage in a multifaceted campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump? Yes, they did.
Russia influenced the U.S. election as much as the American Government did, Saudi Arabia did and European foreign countries did.
However lets be frank, you don't really want to discuss the actual details because you can see how shaky it is.
European countries and even their world leaders spoke against Trump and in favor of Hillary, Which is what the report considers as the same as Russian 'influence'.
Right, the report says it was unprecedented, but reality says otherwise. Obama supported Macron, Merkel supported Macron, the U.S spies upon and hacks every foreign government, as well as changes regimes through force. Which aspect, specifically, is unprecedented because I think i've covered all the ground there.
So, basically, there is no basis for the hysteria or criticism in reality other than hyper partisanship and a desire to mask the real facts of the "Russian interference" which was that Russia is not the real threat to democracy. And this is all assuming Russia really was the source of the leak, which as a computer science major in college I find a claim to be extremely hard to prove. But admittedly i'm no expert. Yet
You're trying to obfuscate the conclusion of the report. Regardless of whether or not *you* think it passes the smell test, the FBI, CIA, and NSA have high confidence that it does (I happen to trust their evaluation of the data more than yours).
Thats rather interesting, I don't trust the CIA or NSA. Perhaps when they stop rampant spying on their own citizenry or toppling foreign Governments they could be trusted.
I mean, what is the logical extension of your argument? That the intelligence agencies lied in their report, or that you know more than they do? Are you saying that they would have confidently determined that this was an unprecedented interference effort without having facts sufficient to make such a determination? The report is conclusive. It's very clear about what happened. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the mental gymnastics are getting a little absurd at this point.
Do Intelligence Agencies lie? Are you asking that knowing their history? Because James Clapper has lied under oath demonstratively to Congress.
Its not me that ignores the evidence, Here i'll repeat.
At no point in your post did you address that, which is remarkably pertinent.
So no, the FBI did not even independently manage to investigate the DNC servers because the DNC didn't allow them. All they could rely on is a private firm hired by the DNC themselves, which various cybersecurity experts dispute their data and their findings.
I actually am a developer by trade btw and know a little bit about cybersecurity since i have to daily work with cybersecurity firms.
So if you wish to ignore the finer evidence and rely on 'authority', Well that doesn't inspire confidence because the very 'authority' your relying on aren't trustworthy.
So first the report was conclusive that nothing major happened and now it's a lie? Which is it? Lol, you're the one who cited the report in the first place.
And yes, when it comes to questions of expertise, I tend to trust the opinions of experts. If your argument is basically that no one can be trusted to tell the truth on this issue, then I have no more reason to believe your sources than you have to believe mine and further conversation is pointless. Usually when you see someone with the mindset that "all the experts and authorities have it wrong and only I and a select few have it right," you're seeing someone who's struggling with confirmation bias.
I think we've spun our wheels on this as far as they're going to spin, yeah?
Comments
17 intelligence agencies (I'm talking about the USIC joint statement) have confirmed that Russian state actors sought to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. You can draw false equivalencies to foreign money if you like, but I do believe hacking one of the two major political committees as well as a campaign manager, flooding social media en masse with bots programmed to disseminate false information, and leaking private emails from one candidate to the public during an election year is a first. There are prominent Republicans who acknowledge and are concerned about this.
As for Steve Bannon, I suppose it's a hard thing to thoroughly "prove" definitively what anyone'sbelief system is, which is why we go with what people *do* and *say.*
Maintaining a "black crime" section on a website you operate - whether you created it or not - is evidence of racist views or willingness to cater to a racist audience (it's not just an SEO tag). As for skepticism of immigration, positively citing the novel "Le Camp des Saints" specifically is like positively citing "Birth of a Nation" specifically when talking about race, except the former is more obscure. Julius Evola is also an interesting choice to idolize, which you didn't seem to want to address.
Finally, fundamental aspects of the Presidency that Trump has violated that have been unprecedented: I've provided my argument in other recent posts in this thread.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
First, I was referring to the USIC analysis provided by Clapper. 16 agencies plus the office of the Director of National Intelligency.
Second, from your link: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him [...] CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment, NSA has moderate confidence."
I don't have time to review the whole document atm, but a quick skimming supports my contention: Russia attempted to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. Looking forward to hearing you explain how up is actually down and black is actually white in my reading thus far.
Do you know it is impossible for this? '16' agencies don't all deal with the same area.
Sure,
If you read the report, the 'influence campaign' that they refer too is Russian TV coverage of Trump and Clinton,
Putin contrasting Clinton against Trump is exactly as it is, Putin saying thing's favorable about Trump (working with Russia) to Clinton (Attack Russia).
"Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments
about the US presidential race avoided directly
praising President-elect Trump, probably
because Kremlin officials thought that any
praise from Putin personally would backfire in
the United States. Nonetheless, Putin publicly
indicated a preference for President-elect
Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia, and
pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what
they saw as his Russia-friendly positions on
Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the
President-elect’s approach to Russia with
Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.”"
ROFL.
hardly the 'scary' and hyped up Russia conspiracy that it was made out to be.
do you understand that virtually every country is guilty of the same thing, including the U.S. ?
Here is a bit of a thought experiment.
Did Obama say preferential things to Clinton against Trump?
It is about Russia.
The problem is not that Trump had a pro-Russian stance. The problem is not that Trump complimented Putin. The problem is not that Trump liked Putin. The problem is that a hostile foreign government actively interfered in an American election.
There is nothing--nothing--more important in this country than the safety of our elections. Nothing is more fundamental to our security and our democracy. The fact that Russia attempted to directly intervene in the 2016 election represents a genuine national security threat that is not going to go away.
It's not about Trump being bad. It's about Putin being dangerous.
I say this both as an outspoken liberal and as one of Trump's earliest defenders in this thread.
Whatever our feelings about Trump or Clinton or any other candidate in the 2016 election, the fact of the matter is that the only people who are allowed to have a say in our elections are American citizens.
And as I have said more than once before, the intelligence community failed to release this report until after the election was over, demonstrating that they did not produce it for political purposes. If they did, they would have released it during the election. This report was not politically motivated.
And as I have said since the beginning, while the intelligence community HAS found that Russia attempted to influence the election, they have found NO evidence that Trump himself was complicit in the process.
This is because the Russia issue is about Russia, not Trump. They are the threat.
There's an entire section on cyber espionage.
"We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups [...] In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016."
"We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal email accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC."
"We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks." "Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign." They also cover cyber intrusions into state and local electoral boards.
"Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US"
"Russia's effort to influence the 2016 US presidential election represented a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations aimed at US elections."
Why would you link to a copy of a report and then try to minimize what's in it? I've read the entire thing and it looks *exactly* as bad as it's been made out to be. Either you're viewing this through some extremely selective lenses or you're messing with me; not sure sure which.
The intelligence community wasn't saying "Trump met this bank robber once; therefore Trump robbed a bank." They're saying "this notorious long-time bank robber just robbed yet another bank."
You'll notice the report never accused Trump of anything.
IMO, what the United States is attempting to do, is the same thing they did during the III Trade Disagreement. Quoted:
Following the termination of the MOU, Commerce initiated, of its own accord, a new CVD investigation and imposed a temporary security bonding requirement on softwood imports. A panel under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT – since superseded by the WTO) concluded that this bond requirement was a contravention of GATT obligations. Commerce determined that British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec conferred countervailable subsidies on softwood lumber exports, and the ITC found resulting injury. CVDs of 6.51% were imposed on lumber imports from all provinces except the Maritimes.
Canada appealed both the determination of subsidy and the finding of injury to panels of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In both cases, the panels found in favour of Canada repeatedly. Particularly significant was the decision that use of the U.S. lumber benchmark to determine the value of standing timber in a foreign setting was in contravention of U.S. law. The United States requested an Extraordinary Challenge Committee (ECC) under the FTA. This committee also found in favour of Canada. It should be noted, though, that the various NAFTA decisions have often been majority decisions split along national lines.
With the United States delaying the refunding of the past duties and the threat of a fourth round of CVD investigation pending, Canada signed a second five-year MOU, the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA), in 1996. With the signing of the SLA, the United States refunded duties collected in Lumber III and the CFLI dropped its constitutional challenge of the NAFTA arbitration process.
The last 2 times, the Americans knew they wouldn't win the court cases. They just wanted to drag it out the process to put the squeeze on Canadian companies while still collecting the Tariffs and then holding the money hostage to sign a more favourable deal for themselves.
This tactic won't work as well this time around since other markets for the Lumber are flourishing and even if they do hold the money hostage after an unfavourable ruling, it won't be as dire as it was in the late 90s early '00s.
At the center of the claims of cyber-espionage, is actually a private cybersecurity firm Hired by the Clinton campaign Crowdstrike.
Hmmmm.
What was Crowdstrikes findings? very simple, they allege that the same 'code' that was used against Hillary, was used against a Ukrainian military installation and stated that prior incident (2014) being Russian, must prove it was Russia against Hillary, But many Experts disagree with them.
Cybersecurity Carr:Crowdstrike hasn’t provided any evidence that the malware-infected Android app was used by even a single Ukrainian soldier
http://opensources.info/questions-raised-over-ukraine-artillery-hacking/
However more damning is this, the IISS (Whom Crowdstrike used the data from) refuted Crowdstrikes findings to the point Crowdstrike had to retract their own findings.
Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking Report
http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html
But perhaps most damning of all.
The FBI was not allowed to examine the DNC Servers
The Democratic National Committee "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/
Hmmm, So the Clinton campaign hires a private firm and they come with a finding that is disputed by the very organization that gave them the data, and they...Don't allow the FBI to examine their servers?
So what do we have here? the FBI could not examine the DNC servers themselves because the DNC didn't allow them (bit sketchy), and all the FBI could rely on is a private cybersecurity firm hired by the Clinton campaign and their findings are questionable by the organizations that gave them the data?
Basically its summed up like this.
Isn't this a little odd? If the FBI could not independently verify any claims, thats a pretty damn important detail to include, But hardly reported on.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
The legal arguments back and forth amount to what number to set, and it is always a back and forth and has been going on for a very long time.
Regardless, I don't really have a position as to whether this is beneficial or not as i am not an international trade expert, So your statements on its feasibility could very well be correct.
I was simply pointing out that this issue isn't really a specific 'Trump administration' issue, its been around for every administration since Bush Snr.
However, it was Trump opening his mouth that has sabotaged what was considered substantial development on a new agreement thrusting it into the spotlight.
It is also worth noting that Canada isn't going to dispute the tariffs until next year. This does make me think they are/were close to another agreement before Trump started taking aim and can still hammer one out negating the collected tariffs.
As I said, it could be Trump posturing to take credit for any deal that is struck, or to show he is being tough on trade and buy American stance since he can't play it against China until North Korea cools down. Give it a couple of weeks.
As you said before, It'll probably be so drowned out that information might be hard to come by.
No, I have just been a little busy as of late. I have a couple of pages though which I need to sort before I can catch up to where the discussion is currently.
Trump's impulsiveness is really in stark contrast to Obama's slow-paced, look at every angle before saying anything style. It's kind of refreshing in a way, since you know what Trump is thinking all the time. Unfortunately, I don't always like what's going on in his head...
*************
Another Federal judge recently issued a stay on one of Trump's executive orders regarding transferring Federal money to "sanctuary" cities (cities who do not cooperate with Federal immigration officials). This immediately led me to the following thought: what is going to happen when a President decides to ignore a Federal judge's ruling on an executive order and proceed as if the judge's ruling did not happen? It may not be during a Trump Administration but at some point a President is going to realize that Federal judges actually have *zero* enforcement authority--they may rule that an agency can or can not do something but the judge can't *make* the agency comply--and then...what? That will set the precedent that the Executive can do pretty much whatever it pleases and may ignore the Judiciary. At that point we risk real and significant danger.
Hypothetically speaking, a judge cannot issue a ruling on an executive order, anyway, because an executive order is not a law but a directive to an agency as to which procedures it will implement. I am not a fan of executive orders in any event--the Legislature drafts laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary weighs the laws against the Constitution, but executive orders--which most people follow as if they have the weight of law--break this balance. No, when we have a *real* Constitutional crisis it will be over an executive order, especially if the situation plays out like I describe--EO issued, judge subsequently issues a stay on the EO, but the Executive ignores the stay.
He still views himself first and foremost as an entertainer trying to get ratings and make money. It will not end well.
A major point is that the legislative branch controls the purse strings, not the executive. So it's not up to Trump to withhold or grant federal money, that's a Congressional power. Another point is that cities and states are not responsible for enforcing FEDERAL immigration law. That power is granted to the federal government and is their responsibility.
To me, this Executive order was obvious overreach and displayed a basic failure to understand how the government works. He thinks he can dictate by Executive order. In some ways he can, but he's not yet a dictator where he can totally trample over the Constitution, he just thinks he is.
And not in any particularly subtle way, back in the 90's they publicly provided funding, logistics and basically half-ran his campaign.
This is not even 'hidden' fact, Times magazine used to run covers celebrating American intervention to get Yeltsin to win.
Clinton advisors Morris:
Can you imagine a President using their resources to literally run some foreign countries candidate campaign?
But then the CIA basically props up and topples dictators so nothing is unimaginable anymore.
And once again, you have the party of "personal responsibility" trying to pass off the cost and burden of enforcing federal law on the States. They aren't obligated to help.
The reason why the DOJ can get involved is because 'Sanctuary cities' in America (as opposed to Europe) are policies to prevent the alert of non-citizen immigrants to local or Government authorities.
Where the controversy almost always comes from is this is used mainly for non-citizen criminals released back into the populace.
Politically this is an advantage for Trump, as Americans by vast majority despise Sanctuary cities.
The CIA, NSA, and FBI have jointly concluded that Russia used a multifaceted campaign of influence and espionage to interfere in the election in favor of Donald Trump. As for your Clinton conspiracy theory (you guys always seem to have a brand new one ready to go), trust me: you don't know anything that they don't know. They still came to this determination with "high confidence" even with the above-mentioned taken into account.
I mean, what is the logical extension of your argument? That the intelligence agencies lied in their report, or that you know more than they do? Are you saying that they would have confidently determined that this was an unprecedented interference effort without having facts sufficient to make such a determination? The report is conclusive. It's very clear about what happened. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the mental gymnastics are getting a little absurd at this point.
Perhaps when they stop rampant spying on their own citizenry or toppling foreign Governments they could be trusted. Do Intelligence Agencies lie? Are you asking that knowing their history?
Because James Clapper has lied under oath demonstratively to Congress.
Its not me that ignores the evidence, Here i'll repeat.
The Democratic National Committee "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/
At no point in your post did you address that, which is remarkably pertinent.
So no, the FBI did not even independently manage to investigate the DNC servers because the DNC didn't allow them.
All they could rely on is a private firm hired by the DNC themselves, which various cybersecurity experts dispute their data and their findings.
I actually am a developer by trade btw and know a little bit about cybersecurity since i have to daily work with cybersecurity firms.
So if you wish to ignore the finer evidence and rely on 'authority', Well that doesn't inspire confidence because the very 'authority' your relying on aren't trustworthy.
You can't just say "the FBI CIA and NSA have all agreed" as though it ends the argument without expanding upon what they are all in agreement on. That Russia helped republicans and sabotaged democrats...by giving info to Wikileaks. And that Putin said he'd rather Trump than Clinton win.
Now let's assume for a moment that is 100% fact. It is not unprecedented, it is not unethical, and it is 100% the fault of the Democrats.
If Democrats weren't running a behind the scenes authoritarian and elitist enterprise masquerading as a neutral facilitator of primary elections, such revelations wouldn't have been there in the first place. And, above all, the public has a right to know that Democrats serve their own agenda.
So "Russian interference" can really be interpreted as "highlighting the corrupt practices of Democrats".
And whether or not you think Democrats are corrupt is irrelevant to the main point of argument: did Russia engage in a multifaceted campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump? Yes, they did.
However lets be frank, you don't really want to discuss the actual details because you can see how shaky it is.
European countries and even their world leaders spoke against Trump and in favor of Hillary, Which is what the report considers as the same as Russian 'influence'.
So, basically, there is no basis for the hysteria or criticism in reality other than hyper partisanship and a desire to mask the real facts of the "Russian interference" which was that Russia is not the real threat to democracy. And this is all assuming Russia really was the source of the leak, which as a computer science major in college I find a claim to be extremely hard to prove. But admittedly i'm no expert. Yet
And yes, when it comes to questions of expertise, I tend to trust the opinions of experts. If your argument is basically that no one can be trusted to tell the truth on this issue, then I have no more reason to believe your sources than you have to believe mine and further conversation is pointless. Usually when you see someone with the mindset that "all the experts and authorities have it wrong and only I and a select few have it right," you're seeing someone who's struggling with confirmation bias.
I think we've spun our wheels on this as far as they're going to spin, yeah?