Obama "vows retaliation" against Russia

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

What's disturbing is that not one shred of evidence to prove Obama's claims has been shown and verified.

 

If the US government systems are being hacked by anyone then that should be a matter of urgent attention for any government. Why hasn't the Obama regime noticed this before?

 

If a political party or any other private organization is hacked they should be addressing it with their IT experts or providers. 

 

This looks like a crude attempt to stir the pot with Russia before the hand over; turn people against Trump - are they really stupid enough to try and "give" the result to Hilary on Monday and see if they can get away with it; provide convenient scapegoats for Hilary's abysmal actual performance.

 

In all of this, the actual information leaked as never been denied or explained. So Hilary did conspire unfairly with the DNC to ensure she won over Bernie; she did get prior knowledge of debate questions denied to others; her foundation did receive a large "donation" from the German government; she has been accepting money off the Saudis  etc etc etc 

 

Let's focus on the hacking, those nasty Russian bogeymen, and try and smear Trump - seems that is the plan. Anything but admit reality.

 

Why hasn't the Obama regime noticed this before?

 

Eh? Not as if this is the first instance these issues came up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Re. the first para. - agree entirely, but would add media to the list.

 

They all have their own vested interest, which is why I prefer the actual facts presented by 'whistle blowers'.

[khunken]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And you trust Assange's word because...? Look at it this way, if his motivation is anti-Clinton as you assert, and the information was supplied by Russia - it casts the whole thing in a different light and way less damaging to HRC. Assange's motivation to come clean on this would be minimal. Further - neither Assange nor his "source" would necessarily be aware if information was supplied by Russia.

You are putting words in my mouth again. I wrote what Assange said - I didn't say I trusted or believed it. Your posit is possible but somewhat farfetched. I'd rather stick with what I know without conspiracy theories.

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, CGW said:

Lots of words here but nothing stating just what Russia has "supposedly" done? until hard facts are given I reserve the right to judge, how will we get to see any facts about this? Not in the USA mainstream media thats a fact, what a deplorable bunch they have proven themselves to be & off course they are the ones driving this agenda - sore losers?

I've little doubt that Russia has hacked into US agencies and important 'users' - in the same way that I've little doubt that the US has done the same.

 

But I do get bad-tempered with the US govt. and media pretending that this is something new/Russia's influence was the reason for Trump being elected etc. etc.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the first para. - agree entirely, but would add media to the list.

 

They all have their own vested interest, which is why I prefer the actual facts presented by 'whistle blowers'.

 

Because "whistle blowers" are always genuine and bereft of agenda?

It is enough for a "whistle blower" to provide correct, but partial, information in order for interpretation to be off.

[Nasrullah]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Why hasn't the Obama regime noticed this before?

 

Eh? Not as if this is the first instance these issues came up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just answered baerboxer's question 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Err, no?

Check out these forums, plenty of Westerners spewing bile on anything to do with the West. And wouldn't someone upholding Western ideals, like freedom of information, would wish to make it a global thing?

 

Its one of those things that are extremely divisive.

 

Some hate Assange for releasing 'whistle blower' information as they believe any secret govt./politician information should never be released - whilst other appreciate the public being made aware when they behave appallingly.

 

But back on topic, Obama's vow for retaliation was beyond stupid, bearing in mind he's being replaced in the near future.

Edited December 17, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[dunroaming]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its one of those things that are extremely divisive.

 

Some hate Assange for releasing 'whistle blower' information as they believe any secret govt./politician information should never be released - whilst other appreciate the public being made aware when they behave appallingly.

 

But back on topic, Obama's vow for retaliation was beyond stupid, bearing in mind he's being replaced in the near future.

 

The hacking took place on Obama's watch so of course he has to respond.  Or maybe you think he should have said noting?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its one of those things that are extremely divisive.

 

Some hate Assange for releasing 'whistle blower' information as they believe any secret govt./politician information should never be released - whilst other appreciate the public being made aware when they behave appallingly.

 

That's a bogus and loaded division. Many of those not sympathetic to Wikileaks point out it's contrived scope of "coverage" or it's less then stellar care when it comes to releasing private data pertaining to private people and putting them at risk.

 

Apart from this, sure - not all secret information should be released. Certainly not in a partial and biased manner.

 

But hey, whatever makes you feel morally superior.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Nasrullah said:

You just answered baerboxer's question 

 

Nope. I pointed out that this specific instance was brought up during the election campaign, and that similar instances were discussed before that. Had this been Obama's response while election campaigns were on, it would have been seen as an attempt to influence the outcome. If there was indeed a Russian intervention, it was brilliantly timed. If there wasn't, they got something for nothing.

[dick dasterdly]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Because "whistle blowers" are always genuine and bereft of agenda?

It is enough for a "whistle blower" to provide correct, but partial, information in order for interpretation to be off.

You may be right about partial information, but I doubt it.

 

Whistle blowers (IMO) do so because they have had enough of the lies being told about genuinely important issues - and there is no reason to be selective about the memos/emails etc., because they're in-between people with the same mind-set.

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its one of those things that are extremely divisive.

 

Some hate Assange for releasing 'whistle blower' information as they believe any secret govt./politician information should never be released - whilst other appreciate the public being made aware when they behave appallingly.

 

But back on topic, Obama's vow for retaliation was beyond stupid, bearing in mind he's being replaced in the near future.

 

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a bogus and loaded division. Many of those not sympathetic to Wikileaks point out it's contrived scope of "coverage" or it's less then stellar care when it comes to releasing private data pertaining to private people and putting them at risk.

 

Apart from this, sure - not all secret information should be released. Certainly not in a partial and biased manner.

 

But hey, whatever makes you feel morally superior.

I've no idea how you came to the conclusion that I feel "morally superior" because I dared to agree with 'whistle blowers'!

[melvinmelvin]

28 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its one of those things that are extremely divisive.

 

Some hate Assange for releasing 'whistle blower' information as they believe any secret govt./politician information should never be released - whilst other appreciate the public being made aware when they behave appallingly.

 

But back on topic, Obama's vow for retaliation was beyond stupid, bearing in mind he's being replaced in the near future.

 

He has got plenty of time. He can strike back on Boxing day or on 1st. of January.

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

wow, act of war? thats true?

 

Obama should hurry up retaliating then, he doesn't have much time left to make himself a complete a-hole

 

was it last week when FBI stated that there is no evidence of Russian interference in the US election?

 

what a farce

 

POTUS after POTUS work very hard to prevent the rest of the world taking them seriously

 

 

The FBI position is not what you state.

 

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

You may be right about partial information, but I doubt it.

 

Whistle blowers (IMO) do so because they have had enough of the lies being told about genuinely important issues - and there is no reason to be selective about the memos/emails etc., because they're in-between people with the same mind-set.

 

It's fine that you have a template for whistle blower motivations, I somehow doubt that it applies to all cases. People aren't that easily definable.

 

 

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I've no idea how you came to the conclusion that I feel "morally superior" because I dared to agree with 'whistle blowers'!

 

It has nothing to do with "agreeing" with whistle blowers, but rather to attaching morally negative labels to those seeing it otherwise as opposed to the morally positive label assigned to those with views similar to yours.

[dick dasterdly]

27 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

You may be right about partial information, but I doubt it.

 

Whistle blowers (IMO) do so because they have had enough of the lies being told about genuinely important issues - and there is no reason to be selective about the memos/emails etc., because they're in-between people with the same mind-set.

 

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

It's fine that you have a template for whistle blower motivations, I somehow doubt that it applies to all cases. People aren't that easily definable.

 

 

There may well be a few who release the facts for political reasons - but I'm pretty sure its very few as they know they will lose their jobs if caught.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

There may well be a few who release the facts for political reasons - but I'm pretty sure its very few as they know they will lose their jobs if caught.

 

Doubt you could quantify or substantiate it. Seems like another moral judgement.

[dick dasterdly]

45 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its one of those things that are extremely divisive.

 

Some hate Assange for releasing 'whistle blower' information as they believe any secret govt./politician information should never be released - whilst other appreciate the public being made aware when they behave appallingly.

 

But back on topic, Obama's vow for retaliation was beyond stupid, bearing in mind he's being replaced in the near future.

 

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a bogus and loaded division. Many of those not sympathetic to Wikileaks point out it's contrived scope of "coverage" or it's less then stellar care when it comes to releasing private data pertaining to private people and putting them at risk.

 

Apart from this, sure - not all secret information should be released. Certainly not in a partial and biased manner.

 

But hey, whatever makes you feel morally superior.

 

25 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I've no idea how you came to the conclusion that I feel "morally superior" because I dared to agree with 'whistle blowers'!

 

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

It has nothing to do with "agreeing" with whistle blowers, but rather to attaching morally negative labels to those seeing it otherwise as opposed to the morally positive label assigned to those with views similar to yours.

If you came to that conclusion from my original post (first in the posts quoted), then I can only assume that you are looking for reasons to put down other posters with a different opinion from your own. 

[dick dasterdly]

39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

You may be right about partial information, but I doubt it.

 

Whistle blowers (IMO) do so because they have had enough of the lies being told about genuinely important issues - and there is no reason to be selective about the memos/emails etc., because they're in-between people with the same mind-set.

 

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's fine that you have a template for whistle blower motivations, I somehow doubt that it applies to all cases. People aren't that easily definable.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

There may well be a few who release the facts for political reasons - but I'm pretty sure its very few as they know they will lose their jobs if caught.

 

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt you could quantify or substantiate it. Seems like another moral judgement.

Another post to argue that my point of view has no value and is nothing but a "moral judgement!"  Really??!

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

 

If you came to that conclusion from my original post (first in the posts quoted), then I can only assume that you are looking for reasons to put down other posters with a different opinion from your own. 

 

The sentiment is shared, that's pretty much how I read your posts.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

 

Another post to argue that my point of view has no value and is nothing but a "moral judgement!"  Really??!

 

I didn't argue that it has "no value". A moral judgment got a value, just not a very convincing one. You basically say that you believe them because you believe they are good people. Apologies if I don't find the reasoning particularly compelling.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its one of those things that are extremely divisive.

 

Some hate Assange for releasing 'whistle blower' information as they believe any secret govt./politician information should never be released - whilst other appreciate the public being made aware when they behave appallingly.

 

But back on topic, Obama's vow for retaliation was beyond stupid, bearing in mind he's being replaced in the near future.

 

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a bogus and loaded division. Many of those not sympathetic to Wikileaks point out it's contrived scope of "coverage" or it's less then stellar care when it comes to releasing private data pertaining to private people and putting them at risk.

 

Apart from this, sure - not all secret information should be released. Certainly not in a partial and biased manner.

 

But hey, whatever makes you feel morally superior.

 

43 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I've no idea how you came to the conclusion that I feel "morally superior" because I dared to agree with 'whistle blowers'!

 

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

 

If you came to that conclusion from my original post (first in the posts quoted), then I can only assume that you are looking for reasons to put down other posters with a different opinion from your own. 

 

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The sentiment is shared, that's pretty much how I read your posts.

OK (roll eyes).

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, Rob13 said:

 

 

That's been the theme through the  whole election and post election. No credible evidence. Both sides calling foul and not putting up any real evidence. Makes both sides come off looking like clowns.

This article lays out some evidence.  Let me know if this is good enough for you:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

 

[Nasrullah]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I didn't argue that it has "no value". A moral judgment got a value, just not a very convincing one. You basically say that you believe them because you believe they are good people. Apologies if I don't find the reasoning particularly compelling.

What are you on about morch?......where does moral judgement come into it!...he is stating an opinion!

 

He explained himself in that whistle blowers are mostly in-betweens.

[lannarebirth]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Would it be a constitutional crisis if the president was to suppress an investigation into such alleged intervention, which possibly worked out to his benefit?

 

First of all the president shouldn't be interfering one way or the other. Yes, all presidents do to one extent or the other. From observing Trump I imagine he could find a way to let his meddling develop into a constitutional crisis. You'd have to be a Clinton armed with a credulous press to pull that off.

[nonghan]

Can someone remind Obama that Russia is a long time friend of the European population. The US financial threats against its European allies, if they don't toe the master dictator line, will never erase the historic links between European people and Russia.

Mike Lewis

[onthesoi]

14 minutes ago, nonghan said:

Can someone remind Obama that Russia is a long time friend of the European population. The US financial threats against its European allies, if they don't toe the master dictator line, will never erase the historic links between European people and Russia.

Mike Lewis

 

Exactly right, the US likes to take all the credit for rescuing Europe from Hitler but Russia did just as much and sacrificed much more than the US ever did in the process of defeating Hitler.

 

No matter what the incoming revisionists might say...

[Jingthing]

Obama reacting appropriately for a U.S. president.

President elect trump reacting BIZARRELY. 

Quote

 

But if standing up to Russian attempts to interfere with American democracy isn’t a foundational principle of an “America first” policy, what is? Trump’s response has suggested a different focus and different philosophy, one that might be described as “Trump first,” rather than “America first.” His instincts appear to be aimed at shielding himself.

[Intelligence agencies agree that Russians aimed to help Trump]

The hacking has become the elephant in the room since the election. It is a significant national security threat that Trump will have to deal with and also a roiling political debate that has threatened to complicate the transfer of power.

Trump’s posture toward Putin and to the hacking long has puzzled and alarmed current and former government officials who have experience in these areas. His friendly attitude toward Putin is contrary to the views of officials in both parties about the man behind Russian aggression in various parts of the world.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-a-president-elect-that-touts-america-first-russian-hacking-poses-a-problem/2016/12/17/d18bedd4-c46f-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html

 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

Exactly right, the US likes to take all the credit for rescuing Europe from Hitler but Russia did just as much and sacrificed much more than the US ever did in the process of defeating Hitler.

 

No matter what the incoming revisionists might say...

What are you on about?

Obama knows history.

trump knows branding trump. 

This isn't about that.

History doesn't excuse Russian authoritarian Putin's aggressive attempt to interfere with the liberal democracy of the U.S.A. which tragically he has succeeded in weakening. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Jingthing