Obama "vows retaliation" against Russia

[CharlieK]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

I did watch the video....

then you weren't listening!

[dick dasterdly]

This thread is about Obama vowing retaliation against Russia for interfering in the US election.

 

So far there has been no evidence offered that Russia did anything other than 'hack in' to US 'secret web pages' etc. (which I don't doubt for a second) in the same way that I have no doubt the US has 'hacked in' to Russian 'secret web pages' etc.

 

The issue is Obama vowing retaliation - when he's losing office very shortly and so is unable to "retaliate".  Pure and obvious media speak - which is very annoying to some people.

Edited December 19, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[uptheos]

I hear Putin is flattered that America thinks they have the ability to hack into USA's Obama's very secure email system and can influence the outcome of the election. He said America can keep flattering him, it just makes Obama look stupid and incompetent.

[craigt3365]

41 minutes ago, uptheos said:

I hear Putin is flattered that America thinks they have the ability to hack into USA's Obama's very secure email system and can influence the outcome of the election. He said America can keep flattering him, it just makes Obama look stupid and incompetent.

I don't see anywhere that's said.  The hack was into the DNC's servers.  Not Obama's.

 

It's yet to be seen whether they did influence the election.  Possible.  Obama is far from stupid.  Not the greatest leader maybe, but far from stupid.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

I don't see anywhere that's said.  The hack was into the DNC's servers.  Not Obama's.

 

It's yet to be seen whether they did influence the election.  Possible.  Obama is far from stupid.  Not the greatest leader maybe, but far from stupid.

Which is why some of us get annoyed by the stupid statements that 1) Putin influenced the US election and 2) Obama saying that he is going to retaliate......

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Which is why some of us get annoyed by the stupid statements that 1) Putin influenced the US election and 2) Obama saying that he is going to retaliate......

Or why some of us get annoyed when we bring this up and it gets dismissed outright.  It's worth a discussion and an investigation.  Best of luck to Obama and the many good people who back him up.

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Or why some of us get annoyed when we bring this up and it gets dismissed outright.  It's worth a discussion and an investigation.  Best of luck to Obama and the many good people who back him up.

It wouldn't be "dismissed outright' if there was any evidence backing up the claim that Putin influenced the election results (as opposed to hacking - something of which the US is equally guilty) or an indication as to how Obama is going to retaliate against this !

 

As I said before, pure media speak - which some of us seriously dislike.

[Opl]

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

It wouldn't be "dismissed outright' if there was any evidence backing up the claim that Putin influenced the election results (as opposed to hacking - something of which the US is equally guilty) or an indication as to how Obama is going to retaliate against this !

 

As I said before, pure media speak - which some of us seriously dislike.

 

Of course there are évidences - but showing them would be stupid - I am confident America already has taken measures and will use this russian hacking event. Telling how would be stupid also.

I said America - not Trump - whose denials and statements about CIA and US agencies, have the effect of incentives for hackers and nerds of all origins 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Opl

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

It wouldn't be "dismissed outright' if there was any evidence backing up the claim that Putin influenced the election results (as opposed to hacking - something of which the US is equally guilty) or an indication as to how Obama is going to retaliate against this !

 

As I said before, pure media speak - which some of us seriously dislike.

At least you understand Russia did the hacking.  I agree, the intent has yet to be proven.  But, if you stand back a bit, it is easy to surmise.  No media speak.

[CharlieK]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

At least you understand Russia did the hacking.  I agree, the intent has yet to be proven.  But, if you stand back a bit, it is easy to surmise.  No media speak.

 

There is no proof of that. besides not "dismissing outright" is not saying that Russia hacked the election or emails.   

[Opl]

Just now, CharlieK said:

 

There is no proof of that. besides not "dismissing outright" is not saying that Russia hacked the election or emails.   

 

So what ?

Take advantage of the situation, do not let the world think D. Trump is backing Putin ( " “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” )  , as well as the members he picked up for his Cabinet that have ties with Russia, 

  

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

There is no proof of that. besides not "dismissing outright" is not saying that Russia hacked the election or emails.   

There is proof positive.  Russia hacked the DNC server.  But potentially not the election.  Just emails.

[CharlieK]

25 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

So what ?

Take advantage of the situation, do not let the world think D. Trump is backing Putin ( " “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” )  , as well as the members he picked up for his Cabinet that have ties with Russia, 

  

 

pathetic.

[Opl]

18 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

pathetic.

 

You are right, Trump's words and attitude  as would be Commander in chief are pathetic . Even for a campaign speech.

Even more pathetic, he is now in position to play Russian roulette with America's  national security.

(Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”)

Edited December 19, 2016 by Opl

[Andaman Al]

19 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

pathetic.

Can you explain what is pathetic? Facts are listed and you say 'pathetic'. I don't follow please explain why facts are pathetic?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

There is proof positive.  Russia hacked the DNC server.  But potentially not the election.  Just emails.

 

So there is proof that Putin, Russia, etc. themselves are directly responsible for the DNC hack & releasing the emails via Wikileaks? 

 

Not denying involvement in some form or another, but directly responsible? Orchestrated it all? 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, captspectre said:

as I am not the president I do not have to have a "response" that is up to the elected officials who have the responsibility. 

 

And yet you feel qualified enough to assert that there are other ways to deal with the situation...

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Agreed. However, I just do not see why the Russians would prefer Trump to Hillary. He is bound to take a harder line than someone running as the "third term of Obama."

 

Interesting. For most of the election campaign it was often touted that HRC is too much of a hawk when it comes to Russia, and that it could lead to a confrontation. Trump's views were presented as more collaborative and open to dialogue. The latter was not something made up by the media, but supported by Trump's public statements. If anything, Trump's appointments and post-elections statements point out that this is where things are heading. Trump might be more aggressive with regard to the PRC, but when it comes to Russia, all indications are, currently, that he will adopt a much softer tone than either Obama or HRC.

[Ulysses G.]

It might have been touted by some, but not by me. I remain convinced that Trump is the tougher leader and being open to a closer relationship with Russia does not change that. IMO, he will be "friends" as long as Putin tows the line, but will quickly turn his back on him if crossed.

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

It might have been touted by some, but not by me. I remain convinced that Trump is the tougher leader and being open to a closer relationship with Russia does not change that. IMO, he will be "friends" as long as Putin tows the line, but will quickly turn his back on him if crossed.

 

Is that what it comes down to? Which leader is "tougher"?

 

What about wisdom?

 

Statesmanship?

 

No sign of either to date.....

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

It might have been touted by some, but not by me. I remain convinced that Trump is the tougher leader and being open to a closer relationship with Russia does not change that. IMO, he will be "friends" as long as Putin tows the line, but will quickly turn his back on him if crossed.

 

What...like he'll post an angry tweet about it? The intended Secretary of State will return his Russian medal?

Nothing that Trump said or did, up to now, lends any support to your opinion. Quite the opposite.

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

53 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Is that what it comes down to? Which leader is "tougher"?

 

What about wisdom?

 

Statesmanship?

 

No sign of either to date.....

 

Compared to the current holder of the office, Trump wins on all three.

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What...like he'll post an angry tweet about it? The intended Secretary of State will return his Russian medal?

Nothing that Trump said or did, up to now, lends any support to your opinion. Quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

He is not even in office yet. We shall see when he is. No sense in creating imaginary scenarios.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He is not even in office yet. We shall see when he is. No sense in creating imaginary scenarios.

 

But as usual, no issues with creating pro-Trump imaginary scenarios. And as usually, ignoring all related statements and actions, as if they are somehow irrelevant.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Compared to the current holder of the office, Trump wins on all three.

 

How is Trump tougher toward Russia? How is his approach wiser? What statesmanship did he present? To refer your previous post - he's not even in office yet, right? Can't have it both ways.

[Ulysses G.]

He does not have to be in office to be tougher or wiser. He has to be in office to actually DO something. Wait and see.

[Chicog]

20 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

He does not have to be in office to be tougher or wiser. He has to be in office to actually DO something. Wait and see.

 

His juvenile tweets about China keeping the stolen drone are indicative of his complete lack of understanding of international relations (not to mention his inability to spell).

As they have with previous Presidents, China has tested the water (excuse the pun) and they are laughing their tits off at his response.

Expect more from them come January, and we'll see if he has an equally asinine response.

 

 

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

He does not have to be in office to be tougher or wiser. He has to be in office to actually DO something. Wait and see.

 

How is he tougher or wiser, with respect to Russia, then?

What you're asking for is faith. Not overly convincing.

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, Chicog said:

His juvenile tweets about China keeping the stolen drone are indicative of his complete lack of understanding of international relations (not to mention his inability to spell).

As they have with previous Presidents, China has tested the water (excuse the pun) and they are laughing their tits off at his response.

Expect more from them come January, and we'll see if he has an equally asinine response.

 

So basically Trump isn't playing by the same rulebook as past presidents & you don't like it. 

 

So basically Trump isn't understanding your idea of international relations & you don't like it. 

 

Tough titty. 

 

[Chicog]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

So basically Trump isn't playing by the same rulebook as past presidents & you don't like it. 

 

So basically Trump isn't understanding your idea of international relations & you don't like it. 

 

Tough titty. 

 

 

Er... it's isn't my rulebook and they aren't my ideas.

 

It's what nations have evolved to use as a means of dealing with each other.

Is there something wrong with you?