Antonio Coceri
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2017
- Messages
- 76
This is not what was written in the page I quoted
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged All things Trump + Russia
- Thread starter varwoche
- Start date
- Status
This is not what was written in the page I quoted
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe we should move the discussion about polls and their accuracy to another thread and keep focused on the Trump/Russia issue?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I don't know though. Do you believe Trump is a willing partner, or is he just a tool? Okay, yes, we know he's a tool, I mean is he a tool that Russia is using, without actually being an active participant.
Consider a scenario: Let's say that Russia wants to destabilize the US. They believe that one of the most powerful ways to do that is to weaken the trust of US citizens in the efficacy of the federal government. They wish to sow discord, increase schisms between parties, and focus the government on never ending distractions.
Given two candidates, Clinton and Trump, which of those is most likely to create the maximum amount of discord? I think you'd have to argue that Trump wins that one. Even if Clinton was pretty strongly disliked by a large portion of the voters (which she was), that doesn't mean that she'd be ineffective. Not being well liked doesn't mean she's all that interesting.
So... let's apply some game-theory-ishness. Let's assume that Russia has already hacked several various servers, and has all sorts of information. Let's construct some scenarios and consider our options.
Scenario 1: Russia supports Clinton. In this case, Russia would make efforts to keep all of Clinton's emails, as well as the DNC emails, under wraps. They'd release any information they have that disparages Trump. They would attempt to influence the outcome of the election so that Clinton wins.
In this case, disruption is minimal. A pretty solid portion of citizens already support Clinton. She has a background in politics and know how to play the game. The release of unfavorable information about Trump doesn't really come as a surprise to anyone. This isn't going to destabilize US democracy.
Scenario 2: Russia supports Trump and engages Trump and his administration to act on their behalf. They release anything they have that casts Clinton in a poor light, and withhold any information about Trump. They have planned and purposeful meetings with Trump associates to make plans. They influence the population so that Trump wins.
This is going to cause a fair bit of disruption. Clinton's lead makes Trump's win seem unrealistic. The release of information about Clinton seems biased and raises questions, especially when everyone is already pretty damned sure that Trump has some massive skeletons in his closet. Clinton's lead in the popular vote casts doubt on the electoral process as a whole. This might destabilize US democracy... but it comes with a big risk: Trump. Russia is not dependent on Trump keeping his mouth shut about the whole things and continuing to play their game. He might change his mind, and then things are going to get ugly for Russia. Additionally, having Russian operatives meet with Trump associates is likely to be uncovered by the intelligence community, and prompt investigations that Trump and his associates will seek to impede.
Scenario 3: Russia supports Trump and does not engage Trump or his administration to act on their behalf. They release anything they have that casts Clinton in a poor light, and release select information about Trump that casts him as untrustworthy (the pee tapes). They arrange for Russian operatives to meet with Trump associates who are not aware that they are Russian operatives. Trump and his associates believe that they have done nothing wrong. They influence the population so that Trump wins.
In this case, the disruption is pretty big. You get all of the same outcomes as in Scenario 2... but you get the additional benefit of Trump vehemently denying the entire thing. Trump will fight to the death on this, because he's pretty much being gaslighted. Add to that, the release of at least some unfavorable information about Trump makes him a bit paranoid. There's enough intelligence to support allegations of collusion, but not enough to prove it... so there's unceasing media attention on the whole thing. Pl;us, as an added bonus, Trump develops a persecution complex and steadily goes more and more insane, plunging the entire country into chaos!
As far as conspiracy theories go, I think this one is a win!
Also, hyperbole aside, I think it's plausible, which makes me sad.Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Yes, moving to your side, now it has gotten beyond related discussion.
I don't know though. Do you believe Trump is a willing partner, or is he just a tool? Okay, yes, we know he's a tool, I mean is he a tool that Russia is using, without actually being an active participant.
Consider a scenario: Let's say that Russia wants to destabilize the US. They believe that one of the most powerful ways to do that is to weaken the trust of US citizens in the efficacy of the federal government. They wish to sow discord, increase schisms between parties, and focus the government on never ending distractions.
Given two candidates, Clinton and Trump, which of those is most likely to create the maximum amount of discord? I think you'd have to argue that Trump wins that one. Even if Clinton was pretty strongly disliked by a large portion of the voters (which she was), that doesn't mean that she'd be ineffective. Not being well liked doesn't mean she's all that interesting.
So... let's apply some game-theory-ishness. Let's assume that Russia has already hacked several various servers, and has all sorts of information. Let's construct some scenarios and consider our options.
Scenario 1: Russia supports Clinton. In this case, Russia would make efforts to keep all of Clinton's emails, as well as the DNC emails, under wraps. They'd release any information they have that disparages Trump. They would attempt to influence the outcome of the election so that Clinton wins.
In this case, disruption is minimal. A pretty solid portion of citizens already support Clinton. She has a background in politics and know how to play the game. The release of unfavorable information about Trump doesn't really come as a surprise to anyone. This isn't going to destabilize US democracy.
Scenario 2: Russia supports Trump and engages Trump and his administration to act on their behalf. They release anything they have that casts Clinton in a poor light, and withhold any information about Trump. They have planned and purposeful meetings with Trump associates to make plans. They influence the population so that Trump wins.
This is going to cause a fair bit of disruption. Clinton's lead makes Trump's win seem unrealistic. The release of information about Clinton seems biased and raises questions, especially when everyone is already pretty damned sure that Trump has some massive skeletons in his closet. Clinton's lead in the popular vote casts doubt on the electoral process as a whole. This might destabilize US democracy... but it comes with a big risk: Trump. Russia is not dependent on Trump keeping his mouth shut about the whole things and continuing to play their game. He might change his mind, and then things are going to get ugly for Russia. Additionally, having Russian operatives meet with Trump associates is likely to be uncovered by the intelligence community, and prompt investigations that Trump and his associates will seek to impede.
Scenario 3: Russia supports Trump and does not engage Trump or his administration to act on their behalf. They release anything they have that casts Clinton in a poor light, and release select information about Trump that casts him as untrustworthy (the pee tapes). They arrange for Russian operatives to meet with Trump associates who are not aware that they are Russian operatives. Trump and his associates believe that they have done nothing wrong. They influence the population so that Trump wins.
In this case, the disruption is pretty big. You get all of the same outcomes as in Scenario 2... but you get the additional benefit of Trump vehemently denying the entire thing. Trump will fight to the death on this, because he's pretty much being gaslighted. Add to that, the release of at least some unfavorable information about Trump makes him a bit paranoid. There's enough intelligence to support allegations of collusion, but not enough to prove it... so there's unceasing media attention on the whole thing. Pl;us, as an added bonus, Trump develops a persecution complex and steadily goes more and more insane, plunging the entire country into chaos!
There is a problem with the highlighted bit.
The many documented links between Russia and the Trump campaign (I am willing to entertain the idea that Trump did nothing beyond publicly asking the Russians to hack Clinton's emails). I don't think that is particularly likely though.
Despite being a compulsive liar, Trump often does say exactly what he's like, because he also doesn't understand what social norms are.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Contacts aren't the same as "working for". Not sure if you missed it, but part of my grand hypothetical was:
They could easily make it so that the intelligence community raises all sorts of red flags... without actually having engaged Trump/associates to act on behalf of Russia. "Unwitting tools" would be the term I was after, I think.
Then you get the double whammy disruption of intelligence investigating a bunch of people who vehemently deny that they've done anything wrong, claims of fake news, claims of lies and deceit coming from all sides, and so on. It's the biggest possible win for Russia!
Anyway... You are aware that these are hypothetical situations, right?
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
By refusing to give a real answer to pretty much all the important questions?
No. We found out that your method of trying to evaluate them was horribly wrong, not that they cannot be wrong. If they're trying to take the average chance that an American will eat a ham sandwich tomorrow as a way to predict the chances of whether a rocket will be launched on that day, for example, the pollster can safely be considered wrong. There can certainly be errors in the methodology employed, in other words, but if the only bit in question is that the most likely possibility didn't happen and a less likely available option happened, that's not going to be reason to conclude that the pollsters were wrong about the chances, beforehand.
It certainly is plausible, which is part of the reason why Trump's not already been ousted in shame. "Innocent until proven guilty" is still relevant to this, after all.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Sorry. It looked to me like that was exactly what you said.
My mistake.
Stop picking on me!
It wasn't my intention to do anything of the sort.
I'm sorry you took it that way.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
That did appear to be the AG's go to approach. When it comes to not testifying under oath, he seems to think he can have his cake and eat it too.
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
As Putin seeks to expand his influence, expect no response from Trump because he will be too busy tweeting lies in order to confront Putin. Besides, Trump and the Russians are old friends as recent photos have shown taken from inside the White House. I wouldn't' be surprised to learn that Trump vodka began flowing after Trump passed on classified information to the Russians.
I don't know though. Do you believe Trump is a willing partner, or is he just a tool? Okay, yes, we know he's a tool, I mean is he a tool that Russia is using, without actually being an active participant.
Consider a scenario: Let's say that Russia wants to destabilize the US. They believe that one of the most powerful ways to do that is to weaken the trust of US citizens in the efficacy of the federal government. They wish to sow discord, increase schisms between parties, and focus the government on never ending distractions.
Given two candidates, Clinton and Trump, which of those is most likely to create the maximum amount of discord? I think you'd have to argue that Trump wins that one. Even if Clinton was pretty strongly disliked by a large portion of the voters (which she was), that doesn't mean that she'd be ineffective. Not being well liked doesn't mean she's all that interesting.
So... let's apply some game-theory-ishness. Let's assume that Russia has already hacked several various servers, and has all sorts of information. Let's construct some scenarios and consider our options.
Scenario 1: Russia supports Clinton. In this case, Russia would make efforts to keep all of Clinton's emails, as well as the DNC emails, under wraps. They'd release any information they have that disparages Trump. They would attempt to influence the outcome of the election so that Clinton wins.
In this case, disruption is minimal. A pretty solid portion of citizens already support Clinton. She has a background in politics and know how to play the game. The release of unfavorable information about Trump doesn't really come as a surprise to anyone. This isn't going to destabilize US democracy.
Scenario 2: Russia supports Trump and engages Trump and his administration to act on their behalf. They release anything they have that casts Clinton in a poor light, and withhold any information about Trump. They have planned and purposeful meetings with Trump associates to make plans. They influence the population so that Trump wins.
This is going to cause a fair bit of disruption. Clinton's lead makes Trump's win seem unrealistic. The release of information about Clinton seems biased and raises questions, especially when everyone is already pretty damned sure that Trump has some massive skeletons in his closet. Clinton's lead in the popular vote casts doubt on the electoral process as a whole. This might destabilize US democracy... but it comes with a big risk: Trump. Russia is not dependent on Trump keeping his mouth shut about the whole things and continuing to play their game. He might change his mind, and then things are going to get ugly for Russia. Additionally, having Russian operatives meet with Trump associates is likely to be uncovered by the intelligence community, and prompt investigations that Trump and his associates will seek to impede.
Scenario 3: Russia supports Trump and does not engage Trump or his administration to act on their behalf. They release anything they have that casts Clinton in a poor light, and release select information about Trump that casts him as untrustworthy (the pee tapes). They arrange for Russian operatives to meet with Trump associates who are not aware that they are Russian operatives. Trump and his associates believe that they have done nothing wrong. They influence the population so that Trump wins.
In this case, the disruption is pretty big. You get all of the same outcomes as in Scenario 2... but you get the additional benefit of Trump vehemently denying the entire thing. Trump will fight to the death on this, because he's pretty much being gaslighted. Add to that, the release of at least some unfavorable information about Trump makes him a bit paranoid. There's enough intelligence to support allegations of collusion, but not enough to prove it... so there's unceasing media attention on the whole thing. Pl;us, as an added bonus, Trump develops a persecution complex and steadily goes more and more insane, plunging the entire country into chaos!
The problem with (3) is:
Sept. 21, 2015: On Hugh Hewitt’s radio program, Trump says, “The oligarchs are under [Putin’s] control, to a large extent. I mean, he can destroy them, and he has destroyed some of them… Two years ago, I was in Moscow… I was with the top-level people, both oligarchs and generals, and top-of-the-government people. I can’t go further than that, but I will tell you that I met the top people, and the relationship was extraordinary.”
and:
March 17, 2016:Jeff Sessions discusses Trump’s foreign policy positions, saying, “I think an argument can be made there is no reason for the US and Russia to be at this loggerheads. Somehow, someway we ought to be able to break that logjam. Strategically it’s not justified for either country.”
and:
Aug. 6, 2016: NPR confirms the Trump campaign’s involvement in the Republican platform change on Ukraine.
To mention only a few...
http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trump-resistance-plan-a-timeline-russia-and-president-trump/
Compared with H. Clinton:
http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-clinton-and-trump-stand-russia-487777
"Clinton in 2008 repeatedly warned Republican President George W. Bush that he should be wary of basing foreign policy on his personal relationship with Putin, and in 2014 she compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. During her current campaign, she took a long pause when asked about her relationship with Putin, before calling it “interesting” and branding him “a bully.” She is keen to maintain U.S. sanctions on his inner circle and to persuade the EU to do so as well.
In return, Putin has taken jabs at Clinton, saying she often engages in confrontational rhetoric at a distance but in diplomatic surroundings engages with him in a much friendlier fashion: “When people cross the boundary of good manners, this attests to their weakness not their strength. But for a woman weakness is not the worst quality.” "
The Russians knew already long before November 2016 who they would prefer, and knew what gains in international finance, business, and politics they might expect with a Trump administration.
By the last six months of the campaign all that was needed for Trump staff to "collude" was a wink and a nod, very difficult if not impossible to prove.
If things went bad with Trump, still the Russians gain by undermining US faith in their own elections, media, and government.
Its a win-win!
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Senate passes the bill limiting what Trump can do with the Russia Sanctions by an overwhelming majority. Now the fun begins.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
No worries, I was frustrated that a simple example I used had become the source of all sorts of sidetrack attacks.
All is well, and I appreciate you speaking up.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
The sad thing is... executive privilege wasn't even invoked. He was pointedly claiming that he was refusing to answer just in case the President wanted to invoke it later. That just gets a WTF? from me and I would quite go for charges of Contempt of Congress for that kind of shenanigan. Had it already been invoked, that would be at least understandable and there would have been plenty of opportunity to have it invoked, even in the hours leading up to the hearing. It's not like it was even remotely surprising that those questions were going to be asked and refusing to answer based on a policy that's not even been put into effect even under those circumstances should be counted as nothing more than a baseless refusal to answer.
Nice to see Senate republicans willing to stand up to Trump when they actually disagree with him on something. I didn't think they had it in them.
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
He is a lawyer, after all.
And not one weighed down by foibles like honesty and self-respect.
LOL! The US spends (squanders?) more on its military than next 8 nations combined.
Meanwhile:
Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations, 2016 Election, Snowden, NATO & Nuclear Arms
- Status