You tell me? Is there an election imminent over there we could have an effect on? Would a cyber attack on their election apparatus even have an effect anyway.
US elections might not be the only ones the Russians have been interfering with. And while that's a recent story, it's not a new claim by British politicians.
I'm not even sure that had much impact. If it did, wouldn't Trump's sexual assault "investigation" (which very quietly went away I'll note) have had as much or more of an impact? I've still yet to see anything that convinced me that anything the Russians did had any kind of an actual impact, aside from showing how corrupt the DNC is. I'll also note that no one has really refuted the information that has come to light, rather they seem to be focused on rattling the saber at Russia.
how did you arrive at that conclusion? I distrust Trump less than I distrust Putin by a large measure, however, many of the points on which I distrust Trump are a more immediate and direct threat to our society. That said, I also question Trump competence in all matters except scamming more $$$ into his many accounts so I hold out hope he'll be inefficient in the things which I find threatening.
It's going to be a long, hard four (maybe eight!) years for you. The stress will age you (and many libs) faster than it does any president.
who was investigating sexual assault by Trump? You mean the 13 year old victim lawsuit? Apparently dropped before the election out of fear. (so she says) Given that even a high profile person like Megyn Kelly felt obliged to hire security because her fears from threats by unhinged Trump supporters, it's a credible claim.
That is precisely what I've been saying. The difference in you and I is this: I'm aware of it, I see it coming. You continue to delude yourself with the illusion that any of the things you are concerned about will actually get better, and that none of the ills we've discussed will actually happen. I mean, I dunno, maybe you are perfectly cool with the Trump Administration being the most profitable branch of the Trump Organization, maybe you are fine with a president with no government experience at all packing his cabinet with people with no government experience at all. Maybe you bought the Carrier shuck&jive completely and think that factories with thousands of jobs will pop up in every county because he waved his magic wand. Maybe you long for a job as a bus driver in the convoy hauling 11 million people to Juarez. I dunno. What exactly do you think Trump is going to actually successfully do in the next four years that earns your endorsement?
Wouldn't be a bad job. Reliable, simple employment for years to come. I have a CDL with passenger endorsement with six years of bus driving experience. And thanks to my wife, I've learned to enjoy Tex Mex. If this teaching thing doesn't work out, sign me up.
It matters that our electoral process is so easily toyed with. It matters that there is little we can do about it given we will not censor the internet (this is something Tump might do, hail Trump!). It matters to the current administration enough that retaliation of a like kind is pretty much guaranteed. President Obama said the U.S. must retaliate against Russia for the election-season hack into Democrats’ emails and that his administration will do so on its own time frame -- perhaps in secret. “Some of it may be explicit and publicized, some of it may not be,” Obama said during an interview that aired on National Public Radio on Friday morning. “I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action,” Obama told NPR host Steve Inskeep. “And we will, at a time and place of our own choosing.”
What exactly did Russia allegedly do? I'm curious. What exactly are Democrats rattling the saber at Russia about?
Well, Obama you ARE the President so are you going to bark all day little doggy or are you going to bite?
So the great evil they did was to reveal corruption within the DNC, as in, actual information that the American people probably should have known anyway, and which didn't actually make much difference in terms of who voted for Clinton? So probably nothing worth going to war with Russia and risking a nuclear WWIII over?
Obama and a number of other Democrats certainly seem to be. And this is in addition to how hawkish Clinton has been toward Russia prior to the election. Actually with what Obama has been saying, I'm a little afraid he may start a war in his last month of being in office.
Where has Obama said he's going to start a war? I've only seem him say that the US will respond....and the US should respond. That's not to say that the response would or should be to nuke Moscow.
Yeah, they're talking about "responding" to Russia's alleged interference. Just what do you think that's going to entail? Any military action taken against Russia could be seen as an act of war. And any war with Russia is going to be risking a nuclear exchange. It's been that way since Russia got the bomb. Are you being purposely dense or something? Serious question.
The emails the Russians hacked are not particularly damning. Can you point to one that speaks to corruption? Serious question. They did add to the disfavorable noise surrounding the election even if they didn't reveal any smoking guns or smoke. The most damning of them indicated they favored Hillary over Bernie (edited). The DNC chairwoman resigned over it. I wonder what the GOP's email looked like on the topic of Trump at about that time?
No. I have seen a series of attempts to publish emails with content ranging from the completely harmless to the everyday politically nasty but legal, desperately trying to act as if they're smoking guns. One staffer thinks the Clintons' daughter is a brat. Another person working for Clinton's campaign in the primaries outlines ways to beat Sanders. Yet another chooses Clinton over Biden, and predicts that Biden's crowd won't like that. Another person asks what the candidate's position on a controversial topic is. And apparently most damning of all, they like to eat pizza, which their detractors take as evidence of child pornography. None of that is corruption. The accusation of corruption that I have seen -- that the DNC was in favour of Clinton against Sanders -- doesn't hail from any leaked emails, nor is it proved in them. Plus there's the whole private server thing itself, which again, wasn't proved from anything within the emails. But who knows, I might be completely missing something, so enlighten me.
Also that whole thing with the DNC colluding with the media to give Clinton debate questions ahead of time. And yes, the DNC screwing Sanders out of the nominations came from leaked emails.
Some in the DNC did favor Clinton over Sanders. It was a pretty big shitstorm, but not systemic corruption. Wasserman-Schultz took the fall. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was forced aside by the release of thousands of embarrassing emails among party officials that appeared to show coordinated efforts to help Clinton at the expense of her rivals in the Democratic primaries. That contradicted claims by the party and the Clinton campaign that the process was open and fair for her leading challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. More.
Again, "response" doesn't necessarily mean "military action". We responded to Russia's annexation of Crimea, and hurt their economy badly while doing so, without firing a shot.
