Senators Accuse Russia Of Disrupting US Election (washingtonpost.com) 199
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes The Washington Post:
Two senior Democratic lawmakers with access to classified intelligence on Thursday accused Russia of "making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election," a charge that appeared aimed at putting pressure on the Obama administration to confront Moscow... "At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes," the statement said. "We believe that orders for the Russian intelligence agencies to conduct such actions could come only from very senior levels of the Russian government..."
White House officials have repeatedly insisted that they are awaiting the outcome of a formal FBI investigation, even though U.S. intelligence are said to have concluded with "high confidence" that Russia was responsible for the DNC breach and other attacks. The White House hesitation has become a source of frustration to critics, including senior members of Congress.
Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
White House officials have repeatedly insisted that they are awaiting the outcome of a formal FBI investigation, even though U.S. intelligence are said to have concluded with "high confidence" that Russia was responsible for the DNC breach and other attacks. The White House hesitation has become a source of frustration to critics, including senior members of Congress.
Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
oh, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
As if the US never tries to influence elections in many many countries. Oh, wait .. they don't matter. They are not the US.
Re: oh, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but we KNOW - thanks to these hacks - that the DNC was attempting to (and arguably succeeded in) subverting the will of the people.
Basically, they're not mad that people can subvert US elections (if they were, they'd be supporting Voter ID laws), they're mad that THEY got caught subverting the democratic process, and are now trying to deflect attention to Russia to avoid having to answer to their own crimes.
If anything, Russia has provided a service to the US in strengthening our democratic process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oh, yes (Score:4, Informative)
Ssshhh... you aren't supposed to point out the hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oh, yes (Score:4, Informative)
Why does everyone keep saying Russia works with Trump? I have yet to see anything along those lines other than a couple of comments from Trump about Putin.
However...
Russia bribed [nytimes.com] Clinton while she was Secretary of State. I think there is more evidence of Russia supporting Clinton than Trump, in ways that should have her in jail.
Re:oh, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does everyone keep saying Russia works with Trump? I have yet to see anything along those lines other than a couple of comments from Trump about Putin.
I suspect the payment of 12.7M by Russia to Trumps Campaign Manager Paul Manaforte [theguardian.com] and the subsequent removal of the arming of the Ukraine from the RNC platform might have something to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Trump and his people.
Who'd he sell that Palm Beach estate to for a vastly over inflated price?
Who'd he claim he met and got to know while Ms. Universe was in Moscow, only to now deny saying that of?
Who'd his former campaign manager work for previously, prior to joining the Trump campaign (and who was later dismissed after even closer dealings were revealed by the media than had previously been awarded?)
Who was the one country the Trump campaign was allegedly focused on when discussing policy in the
Re: (Score:2)
The polls say otherwise...
Hillary is supposed to be running against the anti-Christ but she seems to be barely scraping by. Perhaps she shouldn't say Trump's name so much. That's a pretty rookie mistake for politics.
DNC arrogance and incompetence is far more of an influence on this election than Putin.
What's wrong with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
WTF? There's no reason for the 'intelligence officials' to get involved with this, it's perfectly legal behaviour for a candidate. That it is being sprayed about is a measure of desperation of some people to stop Trump. Whilst I have sympathy with their purpose, their behaviour is deeply wrong.
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:5, Informative)
If there is any, and I mean *any*, evidence that Trumps communications to said senior Russian officials came with a "wink and a nod", or indeed anything more specific, then there is every reason for the FBI to get involved....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So Obama should have been investigated by his own FBI over this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
They've already given Hillary & her crew a pass for multiple rather explicit criminal acts, why not investigate the otherside based on hearsay, who knows what you might find?
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
> So Obama should have been investigated by his own FBI over this?
A sitting president telling a foreign leader that he will have more political manuevering room after an election is not even remotely like a candidate for president negotiating with a foreign leader against american interests.
You want comparisons of people who got "a pass?"
Reagan trying to delay Iran's hostage release to deny Carter the credit. [nytimes.com]
Nixon trying to delay the end of the vietnam war to deny LBJ the credit. [politico.com]
It is completely within the realm of the possible that Trump is conspiring with Putin to fuck over american efforts to defeat ISIS in order to deny credit to the democrats. And if he is doing that, we all deserve to know.
Re: (Score:2)
fuck over american efforts to defeat ISIS
Obama is bombing SAA positions, and Hillary has promised to remove Assad if elected. I don't see any evidence the Democrats want to defeat ISIS.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just quote the Anonymous Coward that got scored to 0:
"a candidate for president negotiating with a foreign leader against american interests."
I think this would be bad if they made a deal, don't you ?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting how neither the AC nor you put 2+2 together.
Outrage over the allegation of a presidential candidate working with a foreign leader 'against american interests'... while giving a pass to a sitting President who has actively done that for... 8 years now?
No doubt ISIS has been grateful for a Obama Presidency (because power vacuums are such a good idea), and hopes for a Clinton (aka 'no boots on the ground') one to follow.
Russia too has benefited greatly from the opportunities given to them by this a
Re: (Score:3)
(I posted a comment but it seems it got lost, because it doesn't exist anymore. So this is actually a shorter version)
OK, so let me be clear I'm in Europe. So I might have it wrong, but I'll give my perspective.
I totally agree things like ISIS are a total fuck up. I'm just saying, you have a 2 party system and both parties and their candidates suck.
It's a history of fucks ups, something like 40 years of them, the parties don't seem to matter at all.
My perspective is: the system is currently fundamentally br
Re: What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Americans are super divided and some would rather have Putin pick Trump than risk a Hilary sadly for ideological reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The raw hate and fear of a clinton presidency is like the fever dream of someone who has been mainlining rush limbaugh and glen beck for a decade.
Totally agree. Even the Pope said journalism/media (if you can call it that) can be terrorism too. A word like that might already be overused and he might be stating the obvious. But very few people with his reach have done so. But he's right terrorism is about creating fear at a large scale and at least some media does that too.
Re: What's wrong with this? (Score:2, Troll)
What evidence of wrong doing?
Republicans have spent $500 million tax payer dollars investigating Hillary. If you think they had any actual eveidnece that could pass even a court of public opinion they would use it.
Hillary is a power hungry bitch, I use to think she was smart but I can't even think that anymore. But how stupid do you have to be to think that she can hide legal wrong doing with that kind of money against her?
Hillary is the single most vetted candidate ever troublicans have been examining ever
Re: (Score:2)
Other than being a bitch and unlikeable that haven't found any laws she broke.
She broke the laws about handling classified information. Comey then just declared they weren't going to recommend prosecution.
After the election (Score:4, Interesting)
If there is any, and I mean *any*, evidence that Trumps communications to said senior Russian officials came with a "wink and a nod", or indeed anything more specific, then there is every reason for the FBI to get involved....
And of course, selling a third of our Uranium reserves to Russia or selling dual-use technology to Russia doesn't count. It's not important, and was scrubbed from someone's Wikipedia entry.
Thinking through the outrage over Palmer Luckey (Oculus Rift founder) from his support of Trump, and all the crass, oafish things that have happened during this election, one thing seems clear.
The time to address these issues is after the election.
That's the only time where anyone can legitimately claim that their concern is real, and not partisan sniping.
The ends don't justify the means, and it's not worth tearing down the system "just this once". Getting your candidate elected is not worth sacrificing their legitimacy to do it.
If your candidate was worth his/her salt, then you wouldn't need any of these dirty tricks. Right now, the only limits we should have are legal ones.
I note that while Lyndon Johnson was negotiating the end of the Vietnam War, [candidate for president] Richard Nixon called up [Vietnam revolutionary leader] Pol Pot and said that if he delayed negotiations, Nixon would give him a better deal when elected. Negotiations failed, Nixon was elected and the Vietnam war was extended for 2 more years.
This was an American citizen interfering in the political process of the US, and promising aid to our enemy. It was clearly illegal, and the FBI of the time knew about it.
And did nothing. Illegal, and the FBI did nothing. Ring a bell?
Recently, Hillary literally(*) accused Trump of treason [foxnews.com]. That seems a bit over the line even for Democrats, and it seems illegal on it's face.
But now is not the time to complain, we've let these people have the run of our media, our internet, and our zeitgeist. Let's let it play out for another 6 weeks, then we can carefully examine these things with the benefit of hindsight.
(*) Using the correct definition of literally
Re: After the election (Score:2, Informative)
Pol Pot was Cambodian, doofus.
Re: (Score:2)
Pol Pot was Cambodian. Now go get Grandpa his bourbon, I'm a gettin' testy with you youg 'uns.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
one thing seems clear.
The time to address these issues is after the election.
That would be fine with any other candidates ay any other election, but one of these ones is actually threatening to shut this important pillar of democracy down. If you say anything bad he'll sue you.
Hate to pull Godwin, but Trump really is the most Hitler-like candidate since well, er Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to pull Godwin, but Trump really is the most Hitler-like candidate since well, er Hitler.
People like you are why Trump will win.
Re: (Score:2)
How many errors did you pack in there? >5 at least (stopped counting). So why should anyone trust anything you say/write when you can't even do a basic level of fact checking?
Re: After the election (Score:2)
You mean like when SITTING PRESIDENT Obama promised 'perks' to the Russian President (on a 'hot mic' back in 2012)? Funny that ACTUAL promise meant nothing, yet the POSSIBILITY that Trump MAY have promised something to the Russians is enough to disqualify Trump for President? Let's also remember how everyone on the left just LAUGHED when then candidate Rombey said that Russia was our biggest foreign policy threat looking forward? N
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI isn't going to do squat about Trump because much of the FBI thinks Hillary ought to be in jail and a lot of them are very frustrated that political realities made that impossible.
Re: What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:5, Informative)
So... because she's no longer SoS... the donations and apparent quid-pro-quos while she was in office don't matter any longer?
Sorry, plenty of foreign money came in WHILE she was SoS: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do what I say not what I do?
Re: (Score:2)
So... because she's no longer SoS... the donations and apparent quid-pro-quos while she was in office don't matter any longer?
They don't matter in this conversation which is about Trump. Why is it that every time Trump is questioned about anything, the response is always hey look over there at Hillary!
It's comical how much Hillary gets used to avoid a proper response.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
She took bribes [nytimes.com] from Russia for a uranium deal while Secretary of State. Her only response to it so far is the donations came in while she was not SOS, but a quick lookup shows that she lied and they did come in while she was in office.
If you are basing your argument on her claims, I'm sorry, but Clinton lies A LOT. In fact she lies just about every time she talks, and it has become a joke at this point.
Re: What's wrong with this? (Score:3)
Oh, because she was transparent in all her dealings as SoS, turning over her hand-picked emails while she was in office, and only deleting personal emails... Right.
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US really hates it when other countries do the exact same thing that the US does all over the world every day. I just wish more people in the US would tell their representatives to stop meddling with the rest of the world, whether it is carpet bombing Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan, coups in the Ukraine, aiding rebels in Syria, destroying Libya, helping the Saudis bomb Yemen, or any of the other non-productive, highly destructive regime-change activities we are involved in every day. It is all about defense contractor profits and keeping the Middle East destabilized. Just expect lots more blowback as this all continues without your input or consent.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is that it's been going on for well over 120 years
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq [amazon.com]
To be fair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our political system is, like most, set up to protect the rights of our ruling class. The working class, by and large, has little or no say in such matters .
In case someone is about to say they need a citation for your claim, here it is.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/... [princeton.edu]
People should stop showing their distaste for this rigged system by sitting out elections, and instead vote for the third party of their choice. Voting your conscience is a great way to voice your actual opinion, rather than going along with the two corporate owned parties. And if the other half of the country that don't vote each election actually voted, instead of giving up, it would change thi
Re: (Score:2)
A few stories down you can read about US efforts to meddle with North Korea. They seem to be addicted to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that NK has nukes they can threaten the US to start hosting torrent sites. Allowing that will draw a lot of bribes, I mean campaign money, away from any politician so they will do as NK says. Just not openly to save face.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
WTF? There's no reason for the 'intelligence officials' to get involved with this, it's perfectly legal behaviour for a candidate. That it is being sprayed about is a measure of desperation of some people to stop Trump. Whilst I have sympathy with their purpose, their behaviour is deeply wrong.
And if the talks included a quid pro quo about Russia disrupting the US election to help Trump win?
Hell, even if they didn't include include subtle mentions of Russia manipulating the elections what other reason would Trump's campaign have to secretly talk to Russia during the campaign? If Trump wins the election he's got 2 months to set up his transition, certainly that's more than enough time to have discussions with Russia as the President elect.
Secretly telling a rival power, who is already accused of d
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Since I am not going to vote for either one, I reserve the right to complain about the whole sordid affair. The Ds being wrong doesn't make the Rs right. It just makes them both unsuitable for office. Of course, nobody here likely voted for Ted Kennedy in a presidential election either, so I would suppose they have room to complain as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both sides?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, considering how sore you still seem to be w/ Kennedy, it reads a bit more like this time your side did it so it's A-OK with you.
At least the Ds weren't willing to actually elect their traitor to the presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not wrong that Israel meddles in damn near every one of the US' affairs
Who here said they were fine with that? But by your logic, if you're NOT fine with that, you shouldn't be fine with Trump either.
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, technically it is illegal for a private citizen to tamper with US foreign relations, and about the only way to do that effectively is to be a presidential candidate and open side negotiations with a foreign power in anticipation of your possible election (e.g. to continue doing something or taking a position against American interests until you are in power and will give them a better deal).
In that case this is both an issue for the FBI (for the criminal aspect) and the CIA (for the working against US interests aspect).
Over the years there have been charges of presidential candidates tampering with US foreign policy: Nixon in Vietnam; Reagan with Iran. In both cases the candidate succeeded. The evidence for Reagan's involvement with Iraq is circumstantial at best, which is what you'd expect because if Reagan had violated the Logan Act it would have been William Casey who orchestrated it. But there IS solid evidence that Nixon did try to ensure that the North Vietnamese didn't agree to any ceasefires with Johnson -- not only a violation of the Logan Act, but since we were at war with the North Vietnamese quite possibly a rare actual case of treason.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's been said over and over, but apparently some people still don't understand.
Crimea has been an integral part of Russia since before the USA existed as a nation. On at least two occasions, Russians and Soviets sacrificed literally hundreds of thousands of lives to protect Crimea and to win it back after it was conquered by an enemy. More Russian blood has been spilled for Crimea than American blood in the Civil War - and by that, I mean more than 700,000 dead plus many more injured.
Crimea was generously
Re: (Score:3)
Crimea was generously "given" to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev - who, oddly enough, was himself from Ukraine - in an impulsive act which was probably illegal under Soviet law.
Lots of things were probably illegal under Soviet law, like forced mass starvation and mass deportations of Tartars from Crimea.
Ukraine proclaimed itself an independent nation in 1991.
And Crimea promptly decided they wanted to be Ukrainian.
Please understand clearly that this was the very first time in the whole of history that a Ukrainian nation had existed. The name "Ukraine", itself, means "borderland" - that is, the borderland of Russia. For many centuries, long before the USA existed, Russians spoke about "Great Russia" (which became modern Russia, based on Moscow), "White Russia" (which is still known as Belarus today), and "Little Russia" (the Eastern part of Ukraine).
I wonder how my ancestors emigrated Ukraine ~120 years ago? Were they time travellers or does the question of what an independent nation is get very confusing once you start going back through history?
After the violent, illegal coup d'etat which overthrew the legally elected Ukrainian government in 2014
If you don't want a forced resignation don't open fire on protesters.
- of which George Friedman, founder and CEO of Stratfor (https://www.stratfor.com/), said: “It really was the most blatant coup in history"
A coup followed by an open election which the coup leaders
People SUCK! (Score:3)
Hypocrisy, much? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US, of course, has never tried to interfere with, or influence, a foreign election.
Anyway, I actually doubt that Russia in interfering at all, in 2016. The political elite in the US have produced the current situation all by itself: people are fed up with being presented with a non-choice (it was supposed to be Jeb vs. Hillary), so they did their damnedest to make it Bernie vs. Trump. Half succeeded, too, and Trump's chances are looking pretty good.
Pisses of the political elite no end, and since nothing could possibly be their fault, it must be the Ruskies. Or maybe aliens.
I for one thank them (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are behind the leaks of the DNC emails that showed Sanders was never going to be allowed to run that's something every registered Democrat had a right to know.
If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.
Then there is the price list for all the government posts that were handed out.
At the very least they have done us one hell of a favor.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are behind the leaks of the DNC emails that showed Sanders was never going to be allowed to run that's something every registered Democrat had a right to know.
Are you thinking of a different batch of emails?
I saw some emails suggesting that the DNC really preferred Clinton (duh) but didn't really do anything pro-Clinton other than try to influence some reporters on stories that also involved the DNC.
If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.
This I have not heard of.
Then there is the price list for all the government posts that were handed out.
Yeah... I follow this stuff pretty closely and I don't even know what fact you're trying to twist.
Re:I for one thank them (Score:4, Informative)
It was part of a Friday document dump... you weren't supposed to hear about it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
It was part of a Friday document dump... you weren't supposed to hear about it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
The POTUS using a pseudonym to communicate via email is hardly a scandal, more of an extra layer of security in case someone does get their hands on classified emails (and possibly a way to make finding records more difficult).
And without knowing his email setup it doesn't prove that he knew her actual email address, only that someone in the White House IT Dept knew it and configured his client to handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most transparent administration evah!
The actual 'scandal', is that it seems Obama lied when he said he only found out about her email system through media reports (a way he has learned about many things).
Why would the President be emailing classified information on an unclassified system?
Let me google that for you (Score:2)
Cost to get a government appointment
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Obama Emailing Hillary
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Obama+use... [lmgtfy.com]
Sanders never considered as nominee
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=DNC+Email... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Cost to get a government appointment
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Cushy ambassadorships go to prominent donors (or their kids). Fishy though far from a "price list", and it's also a standard practice for every administration. It's unfortunate but hardly a revelation, especially since I remember this stuff from 2009.
Re: (Score:3)
FCC positions and U.S attorney's spots are hardly minor issues.
Re: (Score:2)
That was an insider walking out like with the Pentagon papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Another nations ability to get in, stay in and move vast amounts of data undetected is really a bit too much of a cyber fantasy. The ability to find evidence and then tell the waiting media of another nations methods, ip range, code fragment
Re: (Score:2)
If they are behind the leaks of the DNC emails that showed Sanders was never going to be allowed to run that's something every registered Democrat had a right to know.
People don't need to be told the bleeding obvious. The only thing that's surprising is that Sanders is a democrat at all instead of an independent given his views.
Hey Washington... (Score:3, Insightful)
The modern "Terror" period (Score:2)
To be fair to the Russians (Score:2)
It appears as though the USA is doing a well enough job on it's own at disrupting elections. The Russians probably thought this all a joke.
Senator. Singular. (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam B. Schiff"
Schiff is in the House, not the Senate. Furthermore, where did they get this rock solid information from?
Clapper, the guy that lied to congress about intelligence activities. [youtu.be]
I think that says it all.
you shot yourself in the back (Score:2)
"At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes,"
The only thing I've seen is the truth be exposed. If you didn't make underhanded deals that needed to be exposed, there wouldn't be a problem. As for security, it's shit, it's absolute shit and the people who created this mess need to have spotlights shone on them until their fraud is exposed and they are jailed.
Really? (Score:2)
So the US are openly picking battles with Russia AND North Korea now?
Guys, seriously, has the terrorist thing worn thin or something? Or have you realised that piling into other people's countries and "fixing" them achieves fuck-all that people in that country consider "fixing"?
If you want another hundred billion for the military just say so, stop picking fights with people who either do - or may soon - have the capability to fight back once and for all.
And if the Russians are manipulating your election an
Democrats Desperate to Hide Clinton-Putin Ties (Score:4, Informative)
One of which is the fact that Tony Podesta, a big Hillary bundler and brother of John Podesta, her campaign manager, is registered lobbyist for Putin's bank [battleswarmblog.com]:
Snip.
And this is just one of many Clinton ties to Putin...
Romney (Score:2)
Anyone remember when Mitt Romney called out Obama for not paying enough attention to Russia, and Obama laughed it off with "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back becausethe Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
Good times!
let's rewrite that to reflect reality... (Score:2)
Two senior Democratic lawmakers with access to classified intelligence on Thursday accused Russia of "making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election,"
>>>>
Two senior Democratic lawmakers (because all the Republican ones were "out to lunch") with access to classified intelligence (which they shouldn't have revealed even the existence of, if they're really and truly classified) on Thursday (the best day for reporting viral news) said that the people (who were actually aliens w
What "influence" can they really have though? (Score:2)
But any non-US entity really has always had that power,
You're either with us or you're a Russian! (Score:2)
Maybe one of the reasons Clinton is about tied with Donald Trump is because the Clinton camp sounds like a bunch of lunatics ranting and raving about Russia. Trump works for Russia, Jill Stein works for Russia, the Intercept works for Russia...
David Brock seriously seems to have lifted his whole election strategy for Clinton from a crazy guy walking around Downtown Chicago wearing a sandwich board.
What if instead of making up conspiracy theories about Trump, they made valid critiques of Trump? Is it reall
Re: (Score:2)
The Clinton campaign /is/ criticizing Trump on the racism thing.
There are a few problems with that:
1. The people who are voting for him don't care. "He's racist? Yes? And? I'm racist too. Why *wouldn't* I want to vote for him?"
2. People with memories longer than a gnat's remember the whole "superpredators" bullshit. Calling Trump a racist is a bit kettle/pot.
3. The Clintons haven't been exactly minority friendly except when it's politically expedient. LGBTQI rights? Only in the past few years.
"You
Is this worse... (Score:3)
...than the ACTUAL sitting US president bargaining away missile defense?
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the other is an American with a history of fucking over other Americans at every opportunity, and has suspected connections to an enemy state that could be cleared up with some simple transparency but refuses to do so, and evidence that he cares more about his own financial position
Re: (Score:2)
We elected one person to manage foreign policy. Whereas the other guy is just some rich dude. So regardless of the actual outcome of any discussion it is far worse that a member of the rich elite get to do something that should be rightfully the reserved job of the elected government. Yes it is much worse.
Jack D. Ripper quote (Score:2)
And now it is rigging elections like Florida in the year 2000.
Pft. Earlier... (Score:3)
Reagan got the Teheran hostages free by promising to unfreeze some shah-assets.
They were actually released on election day - and that's just a very public example.
Also, it's pretty clear that Russia has sent a little warning in the form of the Shadow Broker files.
That's why the Obama-Administration is so tight-arsed about calling out Putin. The Russians probably know a lot more about a couple of very shady intelligence operations than they could ever have gained from Ed Snowden - and they made it clear that they can leak it anytime.
The Russians basically said:
"We can play this game, too, you know? Don't rock the boat, be happy with your book-contracts, the Nobel-prize and your cushy 50000 USD/gig speaking engagements".
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - I was too lazy to look it up.
and this is bad how? (Score:2)
Doing a great job there Russia!
"The Eighties are calling..." (Score:2)
"...they want their Foreign Policy Back" [youtube.com]
Those Russians... (Score:2)
White House hesitation (Score:2)
The White House is hesitating over making any accusations along these lines because they know full well that if you make those accusations you'd better be able to back them up and the evidence to back them up is almost impossible to get. We may know that the Russians are behind it, but I doubt we've got the evidence to actually prove it to any acceptable standard and if we go off making official accusations without being able to prove them we're going to look like fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as bad (Score:2)
Consider it partisan politics as usual.
Why put the country ahead of a political party? That's commie talk to people in politics.
Possible excuse for martial law if Trump wins? (Score:2)
The Dems have seen Hillary's huge lead vanish, and the election is a real horse race. If current trends continue, Trump could win. Obama doesn't want that. The alleged interference is just setting up an excuse for ignoring the election results if Trump wins.
Open and Transparent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever watch 'Amerika' (the 1987 abc miniseries)? The backstory is a russian 'bloodless' takeover in an alternate 1997 because americans turned inward rather than stand up for their country's values. Meanwhile, the soviets established dominance in the rest of the world. This takeover was prefixed by a massive manipulation of the last presidential election. It had three candidates, two of which were russian patsies meant to divide the country over petty concerns. When the time came, they both were used to d
Re:Looking bad for Hillary now. (Score:5, Informative)
Er, "Americans turning inward..."? According to The Washington Post two weeks ago, “While Americans savored the last moments of summer this Labor Day weekend, the U.S. military was busy overseas as warplanes conducted strikes in six countries in a flurry of attacks". https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Many people around the world devoutly wish that Americans would "turn inward" and occupy themselves with their own business, instead of killing foreigners for their own good.
Re:Looking bad for Hillary now. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not nearly as simple as that. True, people can always be found to "demand" that the USA "do something". But then, people can always be found to demand that any government "do something". Often that "something" turns out to be profitable for the people who do the demanding. But whether the loud demands are at all representative of what people in general want... that's a different question.
The USA is supposed to fund UN peacekeeping missions - actually, a very inexpensive commitment compared to fighting wars - because all the 193 member nations do so. Likewise with other routine UN functions. Please note that the US government was instrumental and took a leadership role in setting up the UN, which is why its headquarters is in New York. Many of us would prefer it to be in a different, preferably small and non-aligned nation.
The anti-pirate patrols are much appreciated and have done a lot of good. However, there is a strong argument that local nations should indeed perform that role instead; that way they would be more inclined to address the root causes of piracy.
I don't believe anyone ever demanded that the USA become the "World Police", and your rude comment about Europeans is wholly unjustified. Indeed, a study of history suggests that it was far more the choice of Americans and their government to occupy Europe (and Japan) than that of the locals. Of course, as of 1945 the USA was the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation, having remained neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2 in Europe. Thus, when WW2 ended, the USA was the only major nation whose own territory had not been invaded or bombed. Germany was shattered and decimated. Italy was little better. The USSR had lost one in seven of all its people - soldiers and civilians - over 25 million dead. Britain had not suffered so many deaths, but was utterly bankrupt due to the cost of fighting both world wars. (The UK finished repaying its war debts to the USA in 2006).
Under the circumstances, I find the expression "lazy f'kers in Europe" extremely offensive and unfair.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:tRump is so weak... (Score:4, Informative)