Putin Personally Involved in Hack

[WilliamSeger]

Because they aren't valid?

See: Monty Python Argument Clinic

 

[tyr_13]

Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?

For the same reason my love of fire safety doesn't translate to me supporting a deadbolt on my doors.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've seen you make this kind of pedantic argument before, but an EPA that doesn't do anything isn't any better than an abolished EPA.

And he isn't going to make the EPA do nothing. He can't. He can scale it back, but not by all that much. So yes, your fear mongering really is irrational.

You want knee-jerk?

No, I don't. But that's all you give.

That would be your constant deflection and hand-waving from all criticisms of Trump.

You're projecting. Your own defense of Obama is knee-jerk. My criticism of Trump is just different than yours. When I indicate that he's cynical and self-serving, that's not enough: I have to say that he's stupid too. I have to agree to the narrative. The narrative is everything.

You think Trump's appointments will 'balance' the EPA?

Nope. I didn't say that. Rather, I think the issue of what to properly do with the EPA is one of balance. But you can't see it that way. For you, it's either full-steam ahead with what the EPA has been doing, or the EPA does nothing at all. There's no consideration of anything in between.

That you keep asserting that Obama has been disastrous has more to do with your agenda and beliefs than with reality.

Funny that you should make this argument, considering that I can point to actual bad outcomes (like the rise of ISIS) while you're basically throwing chicken bones to divine the future.

Oh, thank you for saying I'm more polite than Tony Stark, but your assessment of such things has long since ceased being something I put weight in.

Of course.

Because I offended your god king.

It actually upsets me a great deal that I have to admit that Tony and Travis have been more right about so many on the right than I have been. I still hold out hope for the independents though.

You're now sorry that you haven't been more of a partisan hack. That's... well, not surprising any more.

You've given up your science and critical thinking advocacy to make room for political tribalism on climate and pollution issues.

I haven't given up anything about science.

You've given up on making good faith arguments on politics because gloating and lecturing about lying in threads you lied to everyone in.

I've never lied to you. You have lied to me, though. And I warned you about the tone of this message board. But instead of listening, you decided to be part of the very problem I complained about. And now you want to complain about me, because I'm not willing to play by one-sided rules anymore.

Tough ****. I'm not playing nice anymore, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. You burned that bridge, tyr, not me.

And Hillary Clinton will never be president.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?

Because VoterID laws are the anti-thesis to voter integrity.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?

Because you're a right wing hack?

Many of us on the left support National ID which could be used as Voter ID. What we don't support is cherry-picked regulations set-up by states like North Carolina, who actually go to the trouble to find out which ID is most problematic for the political opposition to obtain. Gee, what a surprise.... voting was down in states with oppressive Voter ID programs.

Give us a national photo ID and I'm happy with it. I think many on the left agree. The point being that it would have the same rules for everyone to obtain and it would include a roll-out period and financing to assure that it was non-partisan and user-friendly to the least accessable of our rural districts and the poorest and most congested inner city districts.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because you're a right wing hack?

Many of us on the left support National ID which could be used as Voter ID. What we don't support is cherry-picked regulations set-up by states like North Carolina, who actually go to the trouble to find out which ID is most problematic for the political opposition to obtain. Gee, what a surprise.... voting was down in states with oppressive Voter ID programs.

Give us a national photo ID and I'm happy with it. I think many on the left agree. The point being that it would have the same rules for everyone to obtain and it would include a roll-out period and financing to assure that it was non-partisan and user-friendly to the least accessable of our rural districts and the poorest and most congested inner city districts.

Yes, I agree. If Republicans really were worried about voter integrity, they would push a reasonable, national ID program that could be phased in over a generation or two. Instead, they use these "Voter ID" laws to surgically pick their voters.

 

[shuize]

Because you're a right wing hack? Many of us on the left support National ID which could be used as Voter ID ...

Ha. In my previous job I worked in a government office which offered services to indigent clients.* Take a guess how many (citizen) clients I met who could not come up with at least one form of state identification when they needed it to get something they wanted?

The idea that people are unable to obtain valid identification is almost always soft racism through low expectations.

* So before you start with the insults, you should probably know that unlike most on the left who just spout the words, I actually did time in the trenches.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ha. In my previous job I worked in a government office which offered services to indigent clients.* Take a guess how many (citizen) clients I met who could not come up with at least one form of state identification when they needed it to get something they wanted?

The idea that people are unable to obtain valid identification is almost always soft racism through low expectations.

* So before you start with the insults, you should probably know that unlike most on the left who just spout the words, I actually did time in the trenches.

You believe your anecdote has more value than scientific studies on this?

 

[Mycroft]

Because they aren't valid?
No one on the right thinks leftist voters are too dumb to get an ID, especially when they already have ID's.

Take your red herring to your own thread, please.

 

[NoahFence]

Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?

Voter ID laws are a solution without a problem.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Ha. In my previous job I worked in a government office which offered services to indigent clients.* Take a guess how many (citizen) clients I met who could not come up with at least one form of state identification when they needed it to get something they wanted?

The idea that people are unable to obtain valid identification is almost always soft racism through low expectations.

* So before you start with the insults, you should probably know that unlike most on the left who just spout the words, I actually did time in the trenches.

Thank you for your service.

Alas, it does nothing to disprove my statements. A) It is very possible to be a right wing hack and hold a job in a government office or a pizzeria or as a gravedigger. B) Your anecdotes do nothing to disprove the testimony of two "lefties" in this thread who've said they'd be fine with a uniform and fairly applied National ID and/or Voter ID.

Your claim was easily disproven. Your claim was purely partisan and you questioned the integrity of those on the left. You have been proven wrong. But thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you; tell him about 'em, Don Pardo!

 

[logger]

Take your red herring to your own thread, please.

I didn't bring it up genius! Go back through the thread.

 

[tyr_13]

And he isn't going to make the EPA do nothing. He can't. He can scale it back, but not by all that much. So yes, your fear mongering really is irrational.

You assume they'll follow the rules? Right. You will get many special 'I told you so' reminders.

No, I don't. But that's all you give.

You're projecting. Your own defense of Obama is knee-jerk. My criticism of Trump is just different than yours. When I indicate that he's cynical and self-serving, that's not enough: I have to say that he's stupid too. I have to agree to the narrative. The narrative is everything.

Don't make up positions for me. Your defenses of Trump's anti-science and pro-Russian stances is more than enough. It's ridiculous to pretend you've been critical of Trump as you couldn't even bring yourself to criticize his supporters on the wall. All you can do is complain that I was overly broad in my criticism of it. Party before country, and reason, and everything.

Nope. I didn't say that. Rather, I think the issue of what to properly do with the EPA is one of balance. But you can't see it that way. For you, it's either full-steam ahead with what the EPA has been doing, or the EPA does nothing at all. There's no consideration of anything in between.

Don't make up positions for me, and don't keep those goalposts moving. Trump's appointments aren't going to 'bring balance', which you now agree with (next you'll tell me you don't, because you keep refusing to actually take a position if it will happen to conflict with Republicans), so even that's a red-herring. And what does this have to do with Putin's interference with our elections to get Trump in?

Funny that you should make this argument, considering that I can point to actual bad outcomes (like the rise of ISIS) while you're basically throwing chicken bones to divine the future.



Of course.

Because I offended your god king.

These two go together well actually. Obama is not to blame for the rise of ISIS. He's simply not. There were no good options and he's consistently taken the least bad ones (with some quibbling from me). For him to have changed this meaningfully, he would have to have been a god king. Republicans want a strong dictator, so they behave as if that's what the liberals are going for, but we know the president isn't all powerful. What did Congress do to stop the raise of ISIS? Besides that, the US isn't the only factor. Other people and places have agency. The US isn't that powerful.

Now, what is Trump going to do about Putin's attacks helping Trump?

You're now sorry that you haven't been more of a partisan hack. That's... well, not surprising any more.

That's not what I said. Read for comprehension, not just to respond.

I haven't given up anything about science.

It's well behind party.

I've never lied to you. You have lied to me, though. And I warned you about the tone of this message board. But instead of listening, you decided to be part of the very problem I complained about. And now you want to complain about me, because I'm not willing to play by one-sided rules anymore.

Tough ****. I'm not playing nice anymore, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. You burned that bridge, tyr, not me.

And Hillary Clinton will never be president.

You lied to everyone. Your tone-policing and persecution complex is getting you nowhere. This is all off-topic nonsense.

Trump leads your movement now. Good luck with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

You assume they'll follow the rules? Right. You will get many special 'I told you so' reminders.

I assume he will be constrained by how much he can violate the rules. The EPA gets sued by environmental groups, and the courts impose rulings on the EPA to make them do things. That happened before Trump, that will happen after Trump, and Trump can't stop it.

Don't make up positions for me. Your defenses of Trump's anti-science and pro-Russian stances is more than enough.

You complain that I'm making up positions for you, and then turn around and make up positions for me.

Don't make up positions for me, and don't keep those goalposts moving. Trump's appointments aren't going to 'bring balance',

Again, your hypocrisy is blinding. I never said Trump's appointments are going to bring balance. That's a lie. Stop lying, liar.

And what does this have to do with Putin's interference with our elections to get Trump in?

You tell me. You're the one who started bitching about all the environmental damage Trump was supposedly going to do.

These two go together well actually. Obama is not to blame for the rise of ISIS. He's simply not. There were no good options and he's consistently taken the least bad ones

Bull ****. There were plenty of ways to negotiate keeping troops in Iraq. There were plenty of other ways we could have handled Syria and Libya.

Now, what is Trump going to do about Putin's attacks helping Trump?

Probably not much. After all, what exactly did Putin's attack consist of? Did he alter voter registration databases? Did he interfere with anyone's ability to vote? Did he distort the vote counting process in any way?

No. He leaked some emails that revealed true information about the Democrats. And admit it: if a Republican party insider had done the same thing to the Republicans, you wouldn't have been at all upset. You're just using Putin as an excuse to cover for how badly the Dems ********** up.

I'm not particularly outraged that Putin hacked the Dems emails, because 1) of course he did, he's a bad actor, that's what he does, 2) there was nothing in those emails that was classified, and 3) if the Dems had behaved decently there wouldn't be much in those emails to get people upset.

It's well behind party.

Your entire world view in Manichean, and getting more so every day.

You lied to everyone.

No, I didn't. But you lied to me, and about me. And I'm not going to forget that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

To get back to the OP:
For the reaction of the US government, it's irrelevant whether they trust the CIA/FBI assessment of the source of the hack: it's the best Intel we have, and not to act on it would send the (continued) signal that it is ok to mess with America in cyberspace.

 

[tyr_13]

I assume he will be constrained by how much he can violate the rules. The EPA gets sued by environmental groups, and the courts impose rulings on the EPA to make them do things. That happened before Trump, that will happen after Trump, and Trump can't stop it.

He can let a LOT of damage happen while he's trying. Those things take time. Court remedies aren't fast.

You complain that I'm making up positions for you, and then turn around and make up positions for me.

I observed them.

Again, your hypocrisy is blinding. I never said Trump's appointments are going to bring balance. That's a lie. Stop lying, liar.

I didn't say you said that. In the part of that exact same sentence you snipped, I even said you agreed that they wouldn't bring balance.

You tell me. You're the one who started bitching about all the environmental damage Trump was supposedly going to do.

I complained about Trump's appointments and policies resulting in things like Putin getting an easier time of it, and attacks on science and the EPA, being things that Putin will benefit from by prolonging the dependence of fossil fuels, keeping his economy propped up longer.

Bull ****. There were plenty of ways to negotiate keeping troops in Iraq. There were plenty of other ways we could have handled Syria and Libya.

Who's divining now?

Probably not much. After all, what exactly did Putin's attack consist of? Did he alter voter registration databases? Did he interfere with anyone's ability to vote? Did he distort the vote counting process in any way?

Good questions. How are we going to find out? Trump denies any type of attack from Russia happened. We'll have to rely on Congress and hope Trump can't block them too much. Thankfully people like McCain are still around and giving me some hope for Republicans who aren't going to give Trump cover. Hopefully he can overcome the Republican leadership on this issue.

No. He leaked some emails that revealed true information about the Democrats. And admit it: if a Republican party insider had done the same thing to the Republicans, you wouldn't have been at all upset. You're just using Putin as an excuse to cover for how badly the Dems ********** up.

A party insider? What a weird choice of scenario.

I'm not particularly outraged that Putin hacked the Dems emails, because 1) of course he did, he's a bad actor, that's what he does, 2) there was nothing in those emails that was classified, and 3) if the Dems had behaved decently there wouldn't be much in those emails to get people upset.

Yeah, they, talked about pizza and favored a long time party member over an independent that caucused with them. I wish Bernie had gotten the nom, but all the emails showed was people can make scandal literally out of pizza parties.

Your entire world view in Manichean, and getting more so every day.



No, I didn't. But you lied to me, and about me. And I'm not going to forget that.

It doesn't bother me anymore that you're upset. It does bother me that it's interfering with your ability to make cogent arguments and stop from personalizing the discussion. I haven't lied about you. Stop.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think Putin was trying to get Trump elected. I think that Putin, like pretty much everyone else, was looking at the polling analysis and figuring Hillary was likely to win. I think the hack, and the leak, was calculated to undermine and de-legitimize a Hillary administration. If she spoke about Russian political corruption, it would ring hollow in the face of the publicized shenanigans that attended her own accession to the Presidency.

I think Russia did not leak GOP shenanigans because their hacking did not yield anything juicier than the party's known shenanigans already. And also because undermining Trump's legitimacy would be (will be) done by other methods than leaking GOP campaign plans.

Leaking the DNC emails, etc. was Putin's hedge against what everyone saw as the most likely risk: A Clinton presidency. His hedge against a Trump presidency will take a different form.

 

[shuize]

Let me see if I've got this right.

As part of their newfound love for cybersecurity, in the left's new narrative the alleged Russian hacks which revealed the truth about team Clinton's collusion with the media against Sanders cost her the election.

In other words, if only American voters didn't know the truth about Clinton, she would have won.

 

[theprestige]

Let me see if I've got this right.

As part of their newfound love for cybersecurity, in the left's new narrative the alleged Russian hacks which revealed the truth about team Clinton's collusion with the media against Sanders cost her the election.

In other words, if only American voters didn't know the truth about Clinton, she would have won.

Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If Putin thought it was in his national interest to try and hack our elections, and he thought that he could, why does anyone think he would not do so?

Justified how?

Because he thought it was in Russian national interest to do so. In Real Life, politics isn't fettered with a lot of moralism. It is played to win. End of.

Yeah, in the 80s we were super-concerned about Russian hacking.

Actually, Cain, our Navy was concerned about back doors hacked into our missile guidance systems by anti establishment hackers in the tech dense hot bed of anti establishment sorts in California. Read a few interesting articles on that in Naval Institute's proceedings. Late 80's and early 90's. It was a topic of serious discussion still in the mid 90's when I was at staff college.

The desperate morons running these stories sure want their late-90s Russia back. Which Putin broke. Meanie.

That feeling when your mad world-domination plans get thwarted in last second. Not nice.

Moscow troll 101. Not even creative.

I'm anti-Empire (except my own).

Indeed, the new Russian empire being restored is a Moscow troll talking point. I wish Vlad and friends luck, empires can be tough to run and maintain. check Human history, if you doubt me. Be careful what you wish for, as you are sure to get it.

Why is Putin driving a taxi? I would think he could get by on salary and graft??!!

In Russia, taxi drives you. (Google so copied Yakov Smirnoff! )

For the same reason my love of fire safety doesn't translate to me supporting a deadbolt on my doors.

I like fire safety and dead bolts.
Where does that leave me?