Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#1577 Jul 20 2018 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Given that Obama was president when Russian was "trying to interfere with our election(s)" (present tense) and did do exactly that, I'm not sure what the issue is here

I, uh.... don't even know how to respond to that. Have you been asleep for the last 18 months?
Quote:
The Russian's didn't do anything more in 2016 than in previous election cycles.

I, uh.... don't even know how to respond to that. Have you been asleep for the last 36 months?
Quote:
The same exact source that determined there was Russian meddling in the election also determined that it wasn't sufficient to have influenced the outcome of the election.

This isn't true. I quoted directly from the intelligence assessment clearly stating that they were making no determination on the effect it had since they're intelligence analysts and not political scientists.

Maybe come back when you know something.

Edited, Jul 20th 2018 9:17am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1578 Jul 20 2018 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ignore this, i read a word that wasn't there which made my response beyond irrelevant

Was the word "would" or "wouldn't"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1579 Jul 20 2018 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Quote:
This whole sidetrack started because you seemingly took umbrage at the fact that history will remember Trump as someone who gained the presidency with Russian assistance and that this fact is the major catalyst in Trump refusing to admit what everyone else already knows.
Well sure I still do. Smiley: tongue

Partly because overplaying Russian influence is a bit too politically convenient of a possibly, and should be viewed skeptically. Also, I don't like how we're putting Russia as the focus, instead of the groups here. Someone had to take that Russian money, why not focus on the NRA who seem to have willingly played along? At some point blaming Russia is missing the point that people here were cooperating with them.

Jophiel wrote:
I don't give a shit if you don't think it's worth waving a pitchfork over but arguments like "but they didn't spend much money" are terribly flawed and non-serious.
How so? People complain constantly about money in politics, about people "buying" elections, money coming in from "outside the state", and bemoan the importance of lobbying, etc etc. Why is money a factor all those other times but not here?

Edited, Jul 20th 2018 7:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1580 Jul 20 2018 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Partly because overplaying Russian influence is a bit too politically convenient of a possibly, and should be viewed skeptically. Also, I don't like how we're putting Russia as the focus, instead of the groups here. Someone had to take that Russian money, why not focus on the NRA who seem to have willingly played along? At some point blaming Russia is missing the point that people here were cooperating with them.


"So, I've got this house, and it has been on fire for a very long time, but it also has termites, but since the termites didn't start the fire, the fire isn't important. The termites are what we need to pay attention to, because there is no cause and effect, so forget about the fire."

I mean, we should try to fix both the fire and the termites, whether they are connected or not, right?

Edited, Jul 20th 2018 7:50am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1581 Jul 20 2018 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I mean, we should try to fix both the fire and the termites, whether they are connected or not, right?
Sure.

But if you try to burn down your neighbors house, you probably shouldn't be too surprised when they try to pull the same thing on you. And yes, you can still get mad at your cousin for loaning them the gasoline they used to start the blaze.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1582 Jul 20 2018 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Someone had to take that Russian money, why not focus on the NRA who seem to have willingly played along? At some point blaming Russia is missing the point that people here were cooperating with them.

Because the topic here was foreign interference in elections. Domestic influence is a valid topic and gets discussed all the time (Citizens United, anyone?) but doesn't have much to do with the Helsinki summit.

Quote:
Jophiel wrote:
I don't give a shit if you don't think it's worth waving a pitchfork over but arguments like "but they didn't spend much money" are terribly flawed and non-serious.
How so?

Because we're talking about hacking systems and disseminating information. Money spending can be a very effective tool without being the sole possible effective tool. I mean, someone could go shoot a candidate and end their campaign for under $500 but the other campaign spent a billion-kajillion dollars so that shooting must have been an irrelevant event since it cost so little. C'mon, you know better than that.

Edited, Jul 20th 2018 10:32am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1583 Jul 20 2018 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I mean, we should try to fix both the fire and the termites, whether they are connected or not, right?
Wouldn't the fire take care of the termites?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1584 Jul 20 2018 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Because we're talking about hacking systems and disseminating information. Money spending can be a very effective tool without being the sole possible effective tool. I mean, someone could go shoot a candidate and end their campaign for under $500 but the other campaign spent a billion-kajillion dollars so that shooting must have been an irrelevant event since it cost so little. C'mon, you know better than that.
It still seems overemphasized from my point of view. I mean, we just agreed yesterday that we couldn't even be sure if the hacking had an effect. If it did, it was likely minor.

Given that no one was shooting bullets at each other, at least over here, the rest of their efforts were basically disguising themselves as domestic propaganda either by directly posting information, or by funding domestic sources. If they're funding domestic sources it stands to reason their money should be just as effective as American money at doing so. The effectiveness of their own home-grown propaganda being the only other card, and I already stated by reasons for doubting its effectiveness. It was more akin to watching a poorly translated foreign film.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1585 Jul 20 2018 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It still seems overemphasized from my point of view. I mean, we just agreed yesterday that we couldn't even be sure if the hacking had an effect. If it did, it was likely minor.

"While the deceased died of poisoning, we also see that his throat was sliced. However, since he didn't die of blood loss, but died of poisoning BEFORE that could happen, the throat slicing need not be investigated, because the person that did it didn't accomplish their desired goal directly"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1586 Jul 20 2018 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
It still seems overemphasized from my point of view. I mean, we just agreed yesterday that we couldn't even be sure if the hacking had an effect. If it did, it was likely minor.

"While the deceased died of poisoning, we also see that his throat was sliced. However, since he didn't die of blood loss, but died of poisoning BEFORE that could happen, the throat slicing need not be investigated, because the person that did it didn't accomplish their desired goal directly"
That's... some pretty fast acting poison. Smiley: eek

But one last aside about foreign powers and propaganda... Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jul 20th 2018 9:03am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1587 Jul 20 2018 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean, we just agreed yesterday that we couldn't even be sure if the hacking had an effect. If it did, it was likely minor.

Eh, no. I agreed that we couldn't isolate and quantify the effect. I never said we weren't sure if it had any effect nor agreed that it was minor.
someproteinguy wrote:
That's... some pretty fast acting poison. Smiley: eek

Probably the Russians since they seem pretty good at poisoning people they don't like. Unless Putin says he didn't do it, then it definitely wasn't him and it makes no difference anyway because poison doesn't cost enough.

When Trump isn't getting bent over by Putin, he's cheating on his wife by bending over porn stars and Playboy models and Micheal Cohen was there to secretly record Trump discussing it (and fortunately not for the event itself).
NYT wrote:
President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments to a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with the recording.

The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid on Mr. Cohen’s office. The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Mr. Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them.


Edited, Jul 20th 2018 11:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1588 Jul 20 2018 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean, we just agreed yesterday that we couldn't even be sure if the hacking had an effect. If it did, it was likely minor.

Eh, no. I agreed that we couldn't isolate and quantify the effect. I never said we weren't sure if it had any effect nor agreed that it was minor.
Ahh right, we didn't really agree on what we'd consider minor. So I guess, just for the sake of conversation, do you think the outcome of the election would have changed if the hack didn't happen?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1589 Jul 20 2018 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
That's... some pretty fast acting poison. Smiley: eek


I never said that the poison and the cut happened at the same time. One was already present in the system. The other was trying to take advantage of the weakness from the poison, but was a little to late.

Head-Canon!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1590 Jul 20 2018 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Ahh right, we didn't really agree on what we'd consider minor. So I guess, just for the sake of conversation, do you think the outcome of the election would have changed if the hack didn't happen?

I think it's within the realm of possibility. Three traditionally Democratic-voting states flipped (WI, MI by less than 0.5%, PA by 1.2%) which swung the election. Was the cumulative effect of Russian interference (the hacks, social media campaigns, drag of media stories about it all, etc) enough to have tipped the scales? It's impossible to know for sure but I certainly wouldn't find it surprising or shocking.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1591 Jul 20 2018 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Ahh, okay, that's cool. A sufficient effect to flip an election wouldn't be minor in my eyes either. I may doubt that they had that much of an influence, but at least that helps me understand our disconnect is a bit better.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1592 Jul 20 2018 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
That's... some pretty fast acting poison. Smiley: eek


I never said that the poison and the cut happened at the same time. One was already present in the system. The other was trying to take advantage of the weakness from the poison, but was a little to late.

Head-Canon!
What about necro stuff? Could that be ok too?

Asking for a friend.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1593 Jul 20 2018 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
I will not yuck your yum.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1594 Jul 20 2018 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Just as an aside, I wanted to respond to this:

Quote:
At some point blaming Russia is missing the point that people here were cooperating with them.


"Assessing the influence Russia exerted on the election" (and beyond, since much of the disinformation they've spread continues and is amplified daily even now) is not the same as blaming them.

The indictments that have been handed down against Russian agents and operatives? Sure, you can categorize that as blaming. But the assessment still needs to be done until we understand the full effect and have some kind of plan in place to prevent it in future.

At the same time, yes, we need to go after people here who cooperated and/or were duped by Russia. That's... kind of what the Mueller probe is all about.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1595 Jul 20 2018 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So either there was nothing terribly damaging in what they got, or (insert conspiratorial tone) they chose not to release it so as to help the GOP. Which seems odd. Why bother in the first place?
To give the appearance of an "equal" attack on both sides?


That... makes no sense. Ignoring the silliness of you contriving an impossible to disprove condition, but it would also depend on the hackers assuming they were going to get caught, assuming a political narrative associated to their actions which would have been impossible to predict, and then proactively taking action to tie into that narrative. Sorry. I'm going to go with the far more simple explanation that they're going to attempt to hack pretty much anyone and everyone, and then take action based on what they get. Cause that makes far more sense, and doesn't require a monocle and a Persian cat level of insanity.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
They were doing what they did, not to try to help Trump win the election, but to damage Clinton's presidency.
From the very link you posted:

gbaji's CNN link wrote:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate committee, examining the cyber breaches, that the intelligence community concluded with "high confidence" that Russia hacked the election to "denigrate" Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and contrast her unfavorably to Republican Donald Trump.


PRIOR to the election. If you want to wish away that this was in NO WAY designed to push the vote toward Trump, you are welcome to do so.


It was not designed to push the vote toward Trump (certainly not enough to affect the outcome anyway), but to weaken the assumed future Clinton presidency. I'll also point out that the only quoted terms are "high confidence" and "denigrate", the term "hacked the election" is nonsensical and I'm going to assume that Clapper didn't actually say anything of the sort (so a bit of rhetoric from the author of the piece presumably). It also doesn't restrict things to the actual hacking (which is what I was responding to). The leaks of data from the hacking of the DNC servers primarily served to propagate the idea that Clinton and the DNC colluded to prevent Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. That's it.

Which ties pretty directly into correlating to the idea of Clinton "cheating" in some way to win the presidential election as well, and is precisely how the Russians were planning on using that narrative. Which directly supports my assertion that the Russians weren't actually trying to help Trump win, but to weaken Clinton as president.

Quote:
No different than a million other things this administration has done that you're just fine with (like jailing 3 year olds).


Funny how you fall right into my predicted rhetoric. So if they don't hold the kids in the same detention facilities where they are holding the parents, they are "separating children from their parents", and it must be stopped. And if the do, then they are "jailing 3 year olds". Seriously? That's what passes for logical discourse now? The people responsible for any 3 year old children being "jailed" are the same folks who were screaming about them being separated from their parents.

Heck. I seem to recall making the exact point that we don't normally put children in jails with their parents, but put them into some kind of CPS custody instead. Which no one seems to cry about, except, I guess, in this one case. Funny that! You get points for being predictable though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1596 Jul 20 2018 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
They were doing what they did, not to try to help Trump win the election, but to damage Clinton's presidency.
From the very link you posted:

gbaji's CNN link wrote:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate committee, examining the cyber breaches, that the intelligence community concluded with "high confidence" that Russia hacked the election to "denigrate" Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and contrast her unfavorably to Republican Donald Trump.


PRIOR to the election. If you want to wish away that this was in NO WAY designed to push the vote toward Trump, you are welcome to do so.


It was not designed to push the vote toward Trump (certainly not enough to affect the outcome anyway), but to weaken the assumed future Clinton presidency.


Uhm, they had two choices, and they chose Trump. Right? Am I missing something here? They chose to back a particular horse, because they didn't like the other horse. (Yes, I just called Trump and Hillary horses.)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1597 Jul 20 2018 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Heck. I seem to recall making the exact point that we don't normally put children in jails with their parents, but put them into some kind of CPS custody instead.
Normally, yes. Not in this case, though. Does CPS-San Diego normally place their kids in military bases?

Wave that hand faster, lil' buddy!


Edited, Jul 20th 2018 11:43pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1598 Jul 20 2018 at 11:46 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
PRIOR to the election. If you want to wish away that this was in NO WAY designed to push the vote toward Trump, you are welcome to do so.


It was not designed to push the vote toward Trump (certainly not enough to affect the outcome anyway),


You DO realize you just said "no, but kind of poorly, maybe", right?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1599 Jul 21 2018 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It was not designed to push the vote toward Trump (certainly not enough to affect the outcome anyway), but to weaken the assumed future Clinton presidency.

Seriously, you should just shut up while big people are talking if you're not going to bother learning anything.
Director of National Intelligence Report wrote:
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 have high confidence in these judgments.

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. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

(Bolding in originals because even they wanted to make sure you didn't miss those parts)

And, in regards to "But this is nothing new!"...
DNI Report wrote:
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

No, this was unprecedented. You're wrong. You won't admit you're wrong because you're nearly as scared as Trump to admit that Russia helped lift him into office and that he was Putin's easily favored candidate AND that the Russian campaign was designed around both helping Trump get elected and hurting Clinton. Per the report, Putin and the Russian government aspired to help Trump even more except that they feared it would backfire if it was obvious that Moscow was bolstering his campaign. They also, yes, wanted to weaken what they assumed was an increasingly probable Clinton presidency. The percentages changed as it looked as though Clinton would win but that doesn't mean that they weren't working on getting Trump into office. Your "not enough to affect the outcome" is just equivocation and guessing because, again, you won't just admit that Russia was actively helping Trump.

Edited, Jul 21st 2018 9:57am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1600 Jul 21 2018 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I mean, there was that one Russian guy who said there would definitely be a war between Russia and America if Hillary won. But he didn't count, I reckon.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1601 Jul 21 2018 at 10:51 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I don't see how releasing information damaging to Clinton, and holding onto information damaging to trump, doesn't drive the same goal.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 319 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (319)