Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
(11-12-2016 09:10 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 09:05 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Well duh. That's exactly what the CIA reported the Russians were doing and that's what's the investigation is all about. Not sure where you got the idea this was about the integrity of the voting booths 'cause it's not. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that "they" believe the voting was rigged. The Obama administration has certainly not said anything like that. Neither has the Clinton campaign as far as I know. Not sure who the "they" is you're talking about. Maybe you're just projecting?

Trump is the "they" who said the voting was rigged.

I meant they as russians. And trump isn't the best on this situation either.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 10:02 AM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
I wrote this on the first page in this thread but maybe people didn't read it. Prior to the election Obama contacted bipartisan republicans and democrats to investigate the possible hacking of the Russians. Obama wanted to have this happen before the election otherwise if it was after the election it was going cause undue problems. Both republicans and democrats were ok with investigating this but Mitch McConnell nixed it. McConnell is an asshole. He should be booted out.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
11-12-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
Hard for me to understand someone content with whistling in the dark, Zeke. You don't like the investigation, don't follow it. Me, I'd prefer knowing more to knowing less, and I'm glad it'll happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
11-12-2016, 11:02 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2016 11:10 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
(11-12-2016 08:30 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  First, we ain't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.
That is "not even wrong". Democracy and constitutional republic arent part of the same category.

Democracy is a form of government, refering to the actual political system. It determines how the state is actually governed. Constitutional republic refers to the type or form of state, how its organised in general, according to its constitution. The USA is both, a state of the type of "constitutional republic" with the form of government "democracy".

Examples:
#1 UK:
form of state: (constitutional) monarchy
government: democratic

#2 USA (and Germany)
form of state: (federal) republic
government: democratic

3# Peoples republic of (choose your favourite oppressive regime, adding even the term "democratic", trying to fake some sort of legitimacy Big Grin )
form of state: (peoples) republic
government: well, certainly not democratic. In case of North Korea, id say its a dictatorship/despotism (single person). In case of China, dictatorship (group)

I brought #3 to the table to demonstrate that "republic" has nothing to say how a state is actually governed (as shown by #2 and #3). If i had an example of a monarchy, ruled by a king, unchallenged, then we had a comparison to #1, showing that "monarchy" doesnt actually determine either how a state is governed.

This also shows that the UK has more in common with USA/GER than with China, even if the form of state is actually more different than between USA/GER and China. This is because (of course) the way a state is actually governed (the "reality" so to speak) is more important than the form given by its constitution.

In Trumps case, the USA will still be a republic, even if, as so many people are afraid of, he is going to take control and be a kind of tyrant, aborting or rigging future elections, etc....that is unless, he is going to proclaim the "Kingdom of Donald" and make a monarchy out of the USA Smile

Mhm, hope that was somehow understandable. Still working on my english and rhetorics here. Blush

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Deesse23's post
11-12-2016, 02:21 PM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
(11-12-2016 11:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 08:30 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  First, we ain't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.
That is "not even wrong". Democracy and constitutional republic arent part of the same category.

Democracy is a form of government, refering to the actual political system. It determines how the state is actually governed. Constitutional republic refers to the type or form of state, how its organised in general, according to its constitution. The USA is both, a state of the type of "constitutional republic" with the form of government "democracy".

Examples:
#1 UK:
form of state: (constitutional) monarchy
government: democratic

#2 USA (and Germany)
form of state: (federal) republic
government: democratic

3# Peoples republic of (choose your favourite oppressive regime, adding even the term "democratic", trying to fake some sort of legitimacy Big Grin )
form of state: (peoples) republic
government: well, certainly not democratic. In case of North Korea, id say its a dictatorship/despotism (single person). In case of China, dictatorship (group)

I brought #3 to the table to demonstrate that "republic" has nothing to say how a state is actually governed (as shown by #2 and #3). If i had an example of a monarchy, ruled by a king, unchallenged, then we had a comparison to #1, showing that "monarchy" doesnt actually determine either how a state is governed.

This also shows that the UK has more in common with USA/GER than with China, even if the form of state is actually more different than between USA/GER and China. This is because (of course) the way a state is actually governed (the "reality" so to speak) is more important than the form given by its constitution.

In Trumps case, the USA will still be a republic, even if, as so many people are afraid of, he is going to take control and be a kind of tyrant, aborting or rigging future elections, etc....that is unless, he is going to proclaim the "Kingdom of Donald" and make a monarchy out of the USA Smile

Mhm, hope that was somehow understandable. Still working on my english and rhetorics here. Blush

You make valid points, but this is a country where you could win the popular vote and still lose the election after all. Wink

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
12-12-2016, 11:35 AM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
McConnell is starting to come around to the investigation. This should be beyond partisan politics. If trump doesn't back an investigation his presidency will always be tainted as possibly illegitimate, even beyond losing the popular vote.

Carl Bernstein has called trump an even bigger liar than Richard Nixon and that's saying a lot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carl...9c3dfd4c02

If I had the choice between voting for Richard Nixon or trump I'd choose Nixon every time.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
12-12-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
Interesting....A CNN article on October 18th said the following:

"Obama echoed those sentiments Tuesday, saying there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections.""

So, what changed from October 18 to the election?
1) Was he that misinformed and ignorant of the weaknesses of the voting infrastructure?
2) With all the fucking money the CIA / NSA and other unnamed "intelligence" agencies get, all of a sudden this is an issue, after the fact? Did they just learn something new?
3) This is a political false flag to discredit/undermine the incoming president-elect?

If it's #1, then shame on you BO for ignoring those weaknesses while you thought your side was winning
If it's #2, then I as a taxpayer want my money back. NOW.
If it's #3, time for the democrat's to stop blaming everyone else but their own party and machinations and start to overhaul what they are doing because you just lost to one of the all-time worst candidates for president.

A few years ago, Obama mocked and tried to belittle Romney regarding his stance on Russia (linky). Now his tune is quite different. This is a similar pattern to calling al quaeda the "JV squad" and then realizing he (and Hillary) grossly underestimated their impact. So forgive me if I take these CIA reports with a grain of salt.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
(12-12-2016 12:50 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Interesting....A CNN article on October 18th said the following:

"Obama echoed those sentiments Tuesday, saying there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections.""

So, what changed from October 18 to the election?
1) Was he that misinformed and ignorant of the weaknesses of the voting infrastructure?
2) With all the fucking money the CIA / NSA and other unnamed "intelligence" agencies get, all of a sudden this is an issue, after the fact? Did they just learn something new?
3) This is a political false flag to discredit/undermine the incoming president-elect?

If it's #1, then shame on you BO for ignoring those weaknesses while you thought your side was winning
If it's #2, then I as a taxpayer want my money back. NOW.
If it's #3, time for the democrat's to stop blaming everyone else but their own party and machinations and start to overhaul what they are doing because you just lost to one of the all-time worst candidates for president.

A few years ago, Obama mocked and tried to belittle Romney regarding his stance on Russia (linky). Now his tune is quite different. This is a similar pattern to calling al quaeda the "JV squad" and then realizing he (and Hillary) grossly underestimated their impact. So forgive me if I take these CIA reports with a grain of salt.

That remark was in reply to trump's assertion that the elections were rigged because millions of illegals were voting. That cannot happen.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
12-12-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
(12-12-2016 01:00 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(12-12-2016 12:50 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Interesting....A CNN article on October 18th said the following:

"Obama echoed those sentiments Tuesday, saying there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections.""

So, what changed from October 18 to the election?
1) Was he that misinformed and ignorant of the weaknesses of the voting infrastructure?
2) With all the fucking money the CIA / NSA and other unnamed "intelligence" agencies get, all of a sudden this is an issue, after the fact? Did they just learn something new?
3) This is a political false flag to discredit/undermine the incoming president-elect?

If it's #1, then shame on you BO for ignoring those weaknesses while you thought your side was winning
If it's #2, then I as a taxpayer want my money back. NOW.
If it's #3, time for the democrat's to stop blaming everyone else but their own party and machinations and start to overhaul what they are doing because you just lost to one of the all-time worst candidates for president.

A few years ago, Obama mocked and tried to belittle Romney regarding his stance on Russia (linky). Now his tune is quite different. This is a similar pattern to calling al quaeda the "JV squad" and then realizing he (and Hillary) grossly underestimated their impact. So forgive me if I take these CIA reports with a grain of salt.

That remark was in reply to trump's assertion that the elections were rigged because millions of illegals were voting. That cannot happen.

Soooooo, he was aware it was vulnerable to other types of rigging but chose not to talk about it?

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Obama orders 'full review' of election hacking reports
(12-12-2016 01:14 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  
(12-12-2016 01:00 PM)Dom Wrote:  That remark was in reply to trump's assertion that the elections were rigged because millions of illegals were voting. That cannot happen.

Soooooo, he was aware it was vulnerable to other types of rigging but chose not to talk about it?

We were all aware of it, the hacking of the dem emails and intermittent distribution of them during the election.

Presidents don't go around talking about secret investigations - well, trump might I guess.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: