Obama "vows retaliation" against Russia

[manarak]

aaaaahh...

 

when done to the USA, it is an act of war - when the USA do it to others, it's... ahem... "promoting Democracy and Murrican Values" !

[PremiumLane]

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What Russia did in this U.S. election was an act of war. The USA and Russia are in conflict. trump will get that before too long even though arguably he will be president because of Putin. I don't see trump as a Russian agent. I see him as a naive MORON (with show business talent) way out of his league now.

 

 

and it is what the US has been doing in countless countries around the world for decades - so why are you not calling for an act of war against the US? 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, PremiumLane said:

and it is what the US has been doing in countless countries around the world for decades - so why are you not calling for an act of war against the US? 

We're talking about the recent U.S. election. Don't bother with your baiting attempts to hijack the thread off topic. 

[Dagnabbit]

We're talking about the recent U.S. election. Don't bother with your baiting attempts to hijack the thread off topic. 

American interference in other countries elections is very much on topic.

The world is laughing at the self-righteous indignation on display.

Especially Britain whose voters were told to choose Obama's path or go to the back of the queue.

And liberals wail 'but that's different'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maximillian]

Retaliate ? 

Can do it with Afghanistan, Irak, Lybia, Iran, Mr. President Obama.

Russia's playing in a different league.

Don't provoke them too much, they also have means to retaliate.

Or is that what you want ?  

Well, when I look at your military spendings which is 6 times higher than

the Russian"s then I can imagine what your "Military Industrial Complex" is after.

Billions of $ to be made at the expense of millions and millions of lives.

Well done, US tax payer open your wallets.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, captspectre said:

OH MY! what's he going to do? hit them with his purse? and with less than two months to do he might even throw ice cream at the bad, bad, russians!

what a wuss!

 

The threats made by Obama are silly, if perhaps sort of customary under such circumstances. A wuss? Would you be happier with him starting a real confrontation with Russia?

[Linzz]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The threats made by Obama are silly, if perhaps sort of customary under such circumstances. A wuss? Would you be happier with him starting a real confrontation with Russia?

 

No but that begs the question on what is he going to do. In the light of his interference with the Israeli elections he hasn't got a leg to stand on so it's really just hot air and the hope that the Electoral College will change it's mind.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Linzz

[Linzz]

22 minutes ago, maximillian said:

 

Her sponsores want to see their money well spent.

 

Actually they are in shell shock that more than $1 billion got pissed up the wall

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/16/hillary-clinton-donors-still-in-shock-at-trump-win/

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Linzz said:

 

No but that begs the question on what is he going to do. In the light of his interference with the Israeli elections he hasn't got a leg to stand on

 

People calling Obama a "wuss" on this ought to get their argument in order. Sounds like they expect a concrete, harsher response (which no doubt will be trashed on another pretext). If he was to say nothing, then it would have been something like "he knows he can't do squat about it, ha ha". Casting vague meaningless threats is pretty much standard. All politicians do it from time to time.

 

The US involvement in such practices over the years is not a secret. Can't see how it robs the country from protecting itself against such interventions. The expectation that politics and international relations follow ethical standard is an ideal, probably not a realistic aim, though. Even more dubious when concepts relating to personal ethics are applied to state level policy.

 

I don't think Obama's going to do anything much. Nor that he can. It was said that the investigation underway will be concluded in the following weeks. Even if findings will give a a straightforward indication of Russian intervention, and a good insight into both its scope  and its effectiveness, it would still place Obama in an impossible situation with regard to taking action.

 

IMO, much of the rhetoric employed is intended as a buffer for expected moves by the Trump administration to stifle discussion and investigations.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Obama is just one part of the equation.  Many leading these investigations will still be around, in positions of power.  And politicians on both sides of the isle are upset about this.   Democrats included:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/lindsey-graham-democrats-investigations-russia-hacking/index.html

 

 

For now, but some will retire, some will be replaced and some will cave in to expected pressure by the White House.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

The threats made by Obama are silly, if perhaps sort of customary under such circumstances. A wuss? Would you be happier with him starting a real confrontation with Russia?

 

Id say we are well on our way with that with Obama and previous DNC bullshiznizzle. 

 

I don't want it at all, and thank god we got Trump rather than HRC & Co. Otherwise we would likely be well on our way. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

If the DNC is considered a private organization with its own prerogatives to act as it chooses, whether ethically or not, with no ramifications and not seen as an integral part of the "election process"; how does what Russia did to them differ from what the North Koreans did to Sony US?

It doesn't!  Hacking is hacking and it's illegal.  Not to mention unethical.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

No but that begs the question on what is he going to do. In the light of his interference with the Israeli elections he hasn't got a leg to stand on so it's really just hot air and the hope that the Electoral College will change it's mind.

 

He's going to do nothing, just like he has been doing for 8 years. 

 

EC won't change its mind, all he's doing is cage rattling & kicking the hornets nest right before he hits the golf course & Trump takes over. Pandering to his base.

 

Putin don't care, he's over there in the Kremlin giggling like a school girl over trolling the US so hard. 

[lannarebirth]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

It doesn't!  Hacking is hacking and it's illegal.  Not to mention unethical.

 

I agree with you but I'm flummoxed how any of it is part of the "election process". That process deals with the casting and counting of votes on election day. Illegal sure. Stop it and punish it, but they should cut out all this "electoral process" nonsense. Either a group is private acting in its own behalf or it is subject to US Election Law. If they were merely exercising the prerogatives of a private organization and not bound by law, it can hardly be considered a usurption of the electoral process. Illegal yes. Constitutional crisis, no.

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

What has Donald Trump said?

 

 

The US president-elect is angry.

 

He says he won the November the 8th election fairly.

 

He is getting a bit repetitious with this statement. Yes Donald we know you won the election. You can quit telling us. Like all his other blanket statements this one is wearing a bit thin. Fairly? in this electronic age of wizardry who can say. To try and stay impartial Mr. Obama is a bit vague about retaliation. Lobbing a nuke is out of the question. In this age of internet gadgetry it does seem like the US is lagging. Budget cuts I guess. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by elgordo38

[Yann55]

2 hours ago, Opl said:

It's disturbing to notice that Trump supporters would rather back Putin than Obama in this case. 

D. Trump will not be only POTUS, as Commander in chief you would expect him to raise his concern at the appropriate level, it's not just about himself and his ego, it's about America.

But as many of his supporters constantly reply : he won and that's all.

 

    

I agree 100%.

 

You rightly point out that it's not just about his ego, it's about America, but the point is Trump could very well  paraphrase Louis the 14th's famous statement and turn it into  "l' Amérique, c'est moi" ... because that's exactly what he thinks, in case anybody wondered.

[canuckamuck]

All because Hilary set the password at the state department as 1234.

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I agree with you but I'm flummoxed how any of it is part of the "election process". That process deals with the casting and counting of votes on election day. Illegal sure. Stop it and punish it, but they should cut out all this "electoral process" nonsense. Either a group is private acting in its own behalf or it is subject to US Election Law. If they were merely exercising the prerogatives of a private organization and not bound by law, it can hardly be considered a usurption of the electoral process. Illegal yes. Constitutional crisis, no.

From what I've read, there are concerns some voters may have changed their minds due to the release of emails.  Lots of fake news was put out by many websites, including statements made by Trump.  The DNC is a private organization, not part of the government.  And not part of the election process (voting, counting, ballots, etc).

 

For many, hearing this from Trump might have made them change their mind.  Voters are easily swayed! But it's not a stretch to imagine Russia wanting to influence US elections.  They have done it in other countries in the past.  Just like the US has. 

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/15/donald-trump/pants-fire-trump-tweet-about-russian-hacking-probe/
 

Quote

 

"If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?" Trump tweeted early Dec. 15.

 

Only that’s not true. The administration announced its findings a month before Election Day, and the White House’s announcement prompted a memorable exchange at the final presidential debate.

 

 

[elgordo38]

3 minutes ago, Yann55 said:

But as many of his supporters constantly reply : he won and that's all.

Reminds me of the end of that famous cartoon. 

[craigt3365]

Interesting this seems to be not the first time a foreign country has tried to influence US elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Quote

The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

 

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

From what I've read, there are concerns some voters may have changed their minds due to the release of emails.  Lots of fake news was put out by many websites, including statements made by Trump.  The DNC is a private organization, not part of the government.  And not part of the election process (voting, counting, ballots, etc).

 

For many, hearing this from Trump might have made them change their mind.  Voters are easily swayed! But it's not a stretch to imagine Russia wanting to influence US elections.  They have done it in other countries in the past.  Just like the US has. 

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/15/donald-trump/pants-fire-trump-tweet-about-russian-hacking-probe/
 

 

 

What if a muckraking investigative reporter had a source inside the DNC, who because of reasons of conscience, shared evidence of corruption in the DNC. That's what whistleblowers and investigative reporters do. What if upon publishing these revelations, some readers change their mind about who they may cast their vote for, or maybe not vote at all. Would that be considered interfering in the electoral process? Is it only because the intent is believed to purposely hurt a candidate that it is considered interference? Does the motivation matter?

 

[landofun]

LOL.....the hypocrisy is astounding.

 

The USA has been interfering in russian elections for decades now.

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, landofun said:

LOL.....the hypocrisy is astounding.

 

The USA has been interfering in russian elections for decades now.

Nobody argues that.  But say Russia did the hack in the US and many here say it's a lie.  Interesting...

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Nobody argues that.  But say Russia did the hack in the US and many here say it's a lie.  Interesting...

Russia doesn't have real elections. It's Putin's dictatorship and he will be their "great" leader for life. 

There is no hope for Russian dissidents until he's no more.

Americans don't want the same deal but trump is a big step in that direction. Not necessarily about trump himself but the possibly permanent damage he is about to do to liberal American democracy, and Putin helped him get there!

Edited December 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

4 hours ago, lucky11 said:

 

 Maybe, but he won't be victorious in this one.

 

 What is all the fuss about - Obama said that he wanted his government to be more transparent than any before. Surely, releasing information that should be out there in the public domain is a good thing regards this. If Clinton had nothing to hide she needn't worry. If what was revealed caused her to lose the election when she was absolutely nailed on to win it, then what was revealed in those emails must have been more than a tad dodgy!! Everything about her was dodgy anyway (especially her scam foundation) and I am glad that Trump won and seems to hold little regard for all of the 'president speak' nonsense. 

 Let us have a conviction President that is not subservient to big pharma, big food and corporate interests.

 

 

Transparency is one thing, a foreign power with vested interests exposing information is another. More so when information is released in a way calculated to further certain goals. A pro-transparency organization or power would not be partisan in his revelations.

 

Trump not subservient to corporate interests? May want to have another look at his appointments, not to mention his own business. May not be subservient as such, more like cutting the middleman.

[A1Str8]

Why? Obamacare and other scams didn't work over there? Lol. This guy should focus on his own backyard. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, maximillian said:

Boy, boy, too many lies from CIA, NSA, Obama, Bush, B.&H.Clinton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, C.Rice, Powell etc.

Why believe any of them ?  Do they really want to risk a war with Russia ?

Putin is not that stupid to interfere in their crooked elections anyway.

 

Do you know any country or any intelligence organization that throughout its history was always truthful and ethical? Thought so.

 

You guys may want to make up your minds, either whining about Obama being a wuss for not starting a war, or warning that the sky is falling. If Russian intervention is real - should the US simply ignore it?

 

The last line doesn't provide any reasoning whatsoever, not that any was expected. Putin, by the way, has some history with his own country's intelligence service - would such an association make him trustworthy? Rhetorical question. Also, a while back, the Russian deputy foreign minister was quoted to the effect that Russian officials were in contact with people in Trump's campaign and further hinted (vaguely) at assistance provided.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Morch

[Usernames]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

No government is transparent with regards to security.  There's lots of information that will never be released.  And should never be in the public domain.  Same with private messages of the DNC.  It's not up to some hacker to determine what should be public and what shouldn't.  Especially with regards to a private organization. 

 

You think Trump is not subservient to corporate interests?  Seriously?  He is a corporate interest! LOL

 

The NY Times got hold of Trump's tax records that were illegally obtained, and nobody bothered about the question of right to privacy and secrecy. But Hillary and Podesta leave their own data out in the open almost and everybody wants to start world war III with the Russians. Again, I haven't heard anyone refute wikileaks' content regarding Clinton and the DNC. Just like the Pentagon Papers, the info is out there and it doesn't matter how it was acquired. If it's the truth, the public has a right to know.

[Usernames]

3 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Idiots always blame the messenger instead of the people who did wrong

 

The messenger was wikileaks. The people who did wrong were Hillary and Podesta.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What Russia did in this U.S. election was an act of war. The USA and Russia are in conflict. trump will get that before too long even though arguably he will be president because of Putin. I don't see trump as a Russian agent. I see him as a naive MORON (with show business talent) way out of his league now.

 

 

 

There aren't any concrete details on what the alleged Russian intervention included, so doubt you could call it an "act of war". I'm not even sure that the worst case scenario (with regard to details) is defined as an "act of war". But if it was, indeed, an "act of war" - Obama's lame response is rather disappointing. Can't have it both ways.