US Politics 2016: Delay the Electoral College Vote?

[Larry of the Lawn]

40 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

So, what everyone is "making noise about" is the fact that there are hackers, and Trump asked Russian on TV to hack some more?  Regardless of what Trump wants or says, intel services, of every nation in the world that has them, constantly try to breach security of rival nations, including getting information that can effect elections.  So, you're complaint is that this happens?  It's always happened, and always will.  The difference is the public got a look at the goods this time, that's it.

There are a lot more ways intel is gathered than hacking email accounts, including tech methods the public doesn't know about, as well as a lot of organic/human assets.  There is all this outrage from Democrats that as Fez said "that it happened to us".  It always happens, in every sector of government and politics. There has always constantly been and always constantly will be espionage.  Again, the only difference is that the public was given access to the take in the case of a few DNC member's emails. 

The content doesn't matter.  I bet the percentage of voters who read the emails is maybe one in fifty at best, and how many do you think changed their vote?  What matters is that people heard "Hillary Clinton Email Scandal FBI" long after this was all put to bed.  

Then Comey comes out with his last minute bullshit.

The uproar over the alleged Russian hacking is that it's someone meddling in our election.  And just because the US has a shitty record doing the same thing around the globe, usually in more violent fashion, doesn't mean we have to be okay with it. 

It's not surprising that Russia would do this. It is surprising that the POTUS elect doesn't seem to give a flying fuck about it, all while appointing an oil baron to SoS.  This is all going on in the process of extending the swamp.  

 

 

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

So, what everyone is "making noise about" is the fact that there are hackers, and Trump asked Russian on TV to hack some more?  Regardless of what Trump wants or says, intel services, of every nation in the world that has them, constantly try to breach security of rival nations, including getting information that can effect elections.  So, you're complaint is that this happens?  It's always happened, and always will.  The difference is the public got a look at the goods this time, that's it.

There are a lot more ways intel is gathered than hacking email accounts, including tech methods the public doesn't know about, as well as a lot of organic/human assets.  There is all this outrage from Democrats that as Fez said "that it happened to us".  It always happens, in every sector of government and politics. There has always constantly been and always constantly will be espionage.  Again, the only difference is that the public was given access to the take in the case of a few DNC member's emails. 

Breaches of data do happen all the time. The government is especially bad about it - the FBI, the IRS, the DoJ all have had serious hacks of personal data that we know about, and probably a lot more that we don't. 

What doesn't happen is for it to be leaked by a government organization to media with the direct attempt to influence the election. That is very, very unusual. In fact, it has happened precisely once in US history. That is a very special kind of action. Gathering intel is different than using said intel directly in order to influence an election. 

Furthermore, everyone has information in their personal emails that would be problematic if it got out. Whether it be data and passwords, SSNs, correspondence with someone that slags someone else - this all exists. What you're saying is that you are personally fine with every single bit of information in email being public, and as long as you aren't saying anything 'bad' it doesn't matter. So, @SerHaHa, when are you going to let us have access to your email? 

Furthermore, the idea that these should have been covered by FOIA rules is patently false. Podesta was not a member of government for these purposes, and neither was the DNC.

Furthermore, the idea that email should be perfectly releasable is also patently false - because you also have a problem with the possibility of Clinton's emails being hacked, right? And why would you have a problem with that if there is nothing to hide?

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So, @SerHaHa, when are you going to let us have access to your email? 

Hacking is, apparently, not the issue. No need to ask, just spill the deets. /s

[OldGimletEye]

You know I find it a bit odd that some conservatives want to shrug their shoulders and say, "well golly the United States interferes in other people's business, so what's then problem?", but then they have nothin to say about that fuckin chicken hawk John Bolton getting a position in the Trump's government.

People like Bolton have no respect for international norms or laws and just think the United States can do whatever in the hell it pleases. People like Bolton are the reason why the US does some questionable stuff.

Not only do I think that view is unethical but I think it is highly dangerous for the US in the long run as likely the relative military power of the United States will decline. I think it would be a very dangerous world if the only international order was that big and powerful nations do what in the hell they please without the restraint of international laws and norms.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Relatively being the key word.

As long as the US have their stockpile on nukes it's a fairly safe assumption that China won't come around to knock the US down a peg or two. If you refer to the leadership role of the US, well, Dubya pretty much decided to forfeit that leadership role with Iraq. Obama tried to regain some moral highground (whether the US ever had that highground to begin with is another discussion (cue the US/CIA meddling with other states like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile to name a few). And that's not even talking about military budets.

By electing Trump the US pretty much said, we don't give a fuck, leave us alone. 

I said it a few times in different topics, but international law has become a bit of bad joke. Which is only cited when the other side is in violation of it. 

The US point to it, when the Russians decide that the Ukraine (at least in parts) is actually Russian territory by right. The Russian point at it, when they refer to the US war in Iraq or Guatanamo. The US refer to it when they talk about it Syria. And that's not even talking about the US not being particularly keen on the prospect, that their soldiers might end up in international courts. And thus blocking any efforts to create such a court system.

So it's not like the US not given two fucks about international law is like a novelty. Or to put it a bit nicer, the US commitment to international law has never been that high anyway.

[snake]

What puzzles me is why the Obama administration is only now talking about doing anything when all this information with regards to Russia and the hacked DNC emails has been widely reported since June/July.  Hell it was in July that Trumped asked the Russians to find the missing emails. 

If it is as serious as many here believe then the Obama administration is looking very weak and ineffectual right now.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Notone said:

Relatively being the key word.

Well, of course it is. Why would a different concept be used?

Just now, Notone said:

As long as the US have their stockpile on nukes it's a fairly safe assumption that China won't come around to knock the US down a peg or two.

Depends on whether the United States threat to use nukes can be seen as credible. There maybe military situations where it is simply not the case. But, the real thing here is:  Let's avoid even getting to that point.

Just now, Notone said:

If you refer to the leadership role of the US, well, Dubya pretty much decided to forfeit that leadership role with Iraq.

Well, yes, Dubya and his crewed bungled Iraq. It is why I still can't believe somebody like Bolton would ever be considered for anything. Him and his ilk should be horse laughed right out of the room.

As to to US leadership, my real point is that the US won't likely be as dominate in the 21st Century as it was in the 20th Century. And I think it needs to adjust to that. People like Bolton can't seem to acknowledge that.

Just now, Notone said:

(whether the US ever had that highground to begin with is another discussion (cue the US/CIA meddling with other states like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile to name a few). And that's not even talking about military budets.

Well certainly, I'm of the view that those kind of interventions were often the result of very short term thinking.

Just now, Notone said:

By electing Trump the US pretty much said, we don't give a fuck, leave us alone. 

Yep. And I think that kind of super nationalism and autarky isn't a good thing in the long run. Not for other countries and not for the US.

Just now, Notone said:

So it's not like the US not given two fucks about international law is like a novelty. Or to put it a bit nicer, the US commitment to international law has never been that high anyway.

Well, it certainly isn't helpful when people like Bolton, who think it's a joke, get into positions of power.

Also, then why did FDR push so hard for the UN?

But, yeah, the US has been pretty inconsistent at times. But, just because there has been inconsistency there doesn't mean you should just throw your hands up and say "oh well, it doesn't matter."

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, snake said:

What puzzles me is why the Obama administration is only now talking about doing anything when all this information with regards to Russia and the hacked DNC emails has been widely reported since June/July.  Hell it was in July that Trumped asked the Russians to find the missing emails. 

If it is as serious as many here believe then the Obama administration is looking very weak and ineffectual right now.

Yep. It's not clear that something else has been done either - it's possible. But Obama not looking into it or calling for investigations or doing much of anything seems extraordinarily short-sighted. My only guess is that he didn't want to put Clinton on the wrong foot with her presidency by making Russia pissed - but Russia has a vendetta against Clinton anyway, there's little chance that she's going to make them more angry.

[Suttree]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

The content doesn't matter. 

Speak for yourself. There was a damn good risotto recipe in there.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

 My only guess is that he didn't want to put Clinton on the wrong foot with her presidency by making Russia pissed - but Russia has a vendetta against Clinton anyway, there's little chance that she's going to make them more angry.

Breaking Fake News

It turns out that Russia was made over Benghazi and Clinton's emails too. So that's why it hacked the Democrats' email accounts and leaked the material.

So no problems here.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

FDR? You need to go back over half a century to find a US president committed to international law?

I mean when you look at Eisenhower and Kennedy and the Pig Bay invasion (Eisenhowers plan, Kennedy's execution), you kinda are already are on course to see international law as kinda open for interpretation.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Notone said:

FDR? You need to go back over half a century to find a US president committed to international law?

I mean when you look at Eisenhower and Kennedy and the Pig Bay invasion (Eisenhowers plan, Kennedy's execution), you kinda are already are on course to see international law as kinda open for interpretation.

 

And so your point here is what exactly?

Is it:

1. Bolton's world view is in fact correct. And that is how we should organize our thoughts about future foreign policy decisions?

2. Or you just wanted to make the rather obvious statement that US commitments to international law have often been spotty over the 20th Century.

Point 2, I'm already aware of. Thanks for the history lesson. But it seems to me, that some of the stuff we did in the past, isn't what we want to do going forward into the future.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

More like frustrated/resignative pointing out that international law is really little more than a paper shield.

And that I find that argument that Trump's horror show of cabinet will now be the one that puts US foreign policy at odds with international law somewhat unconvincing. GIven the track record of previous administrations. Of which you are aware.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Notone said:

More like frustrated/resignative pointing out that international law is really little more than a paper shield.

And that I find that argument that Trump's horror show of cabinet will now be the one that puts US foreign policy at odds with international law somewhat unconvincing. GIven the track record of previous administrations. Of which you are aware.

I think that it's more problematic that it puts US foreign policy at odds with its longtime allies and in favor with humanitarian crisis regimes. I have no blinders on with respect to the US international law, and little for their humanitarian efforts, but at the same time making that actively worse is not good. 

It's the argument about not voting for the lesser evil, basically. Yes, it's evil, but it is less evil. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Notone said:

More like frustrated/resignative pointing out that international law is really little more than a paper shield.

So then you think Bolton's world view is in fact correct? And if not, your alternative would be what?

Just now, Notone said:

And that I find that argument that Trump's horror show of cabinet will now be the one that puts US foreign policy at odds with international law somewhat unconvincing. 

Cause all presidents have been the same? So like you're arguing that there is no difference between Bush's and Obama's policies?

You don't think that Trump doing stuff like endorsing torture are not troubling cause all presidents are the same, right?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

So then you think Bolton's world view is in fact correct? And if not, your alternative would be what?

Ahum, let me put that question to you. Given how International law is handled by the powerful (let's sitck with Russia and the US) do you think he is entirely wrong? And to answer your second question, I am very much in favour of binding international laws. But is there anybody to enforce it? 

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Cause all presidents have been the same? So like you're arguing that there is no difference between Bush's and Obama's policies?

Obama has been an improvement, nobody doubts that, but was he 100% commited to international law? Drone strikes are at the very least questionable, and Gizmo is still open. And he was also not onboard with subjecting US soldiers to international courts (one of the true red lines in US foreign policy). Granted Obama did not start an illegal war like Bush did, but that's a very low bar you are setting there. 

And let me ask you similar question then. Do you think Trump - Bolton, will be that much worse with regards to international law than Bush - Cheney?

[Kalbear]

Quote

Granted Obama did not start an illegal war like Bush did, but that's a very low bar you are setting there. 

Even that's in dispute, given Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and Syria. 

Quote

And let me ask you similar question then. Do you think Trump - Bolton, will be that much worse with regards to international law than Bush - Cheney?

Yes, I do. Absolutely. Bush has never openly questioned whether or not the use of nuclear weapons was on the table. Bush never requested bombing civilian centers. Bush never openly called for executing the families of suspected terrorists. Bush and Cheney never said that Islam was a cancer. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that it's more problematic that it puts US foreign policy at odds with its longtime allies and in favor with humanitarian crisis regimes. I have no blinders on with respect to the US international law, and little for their humanitarian efforts, but at the same time making that actively worse is not good. 

It's the argument about not voting for the lesser evil, basically. Yes, it's evil, but it is less evil. 

Now that's a bit tricky. And I am inclined to agree with that point. But it's not like the US (well more like the west in general) has no allies that are problematic with regards to human rights. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not actually the shining light of human rights. Turkey isn't unproblematic either. But let's start with Saudi Arabia, I mean even Boris fucking Johnson called them out on pulling strings in Yemen. And whether and how much Saudi Arabia is acutally worse than let's say Iran, well, let's say I wouldn't really be confident to call one wrose than the other.

[Fragile Bird]

Lol, now Trump is tweeting attacks against Vanity Fair, just another failing magazine and the editor will be fired any day now.

Imagine the nerve, they published a bad review of Trump Grill, calling it perhaps the worst restaurant in America.

Soooooo presidential.

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, Notone said:

Now that's a bit tricky. And I am inclined to agree with that point. But it's not like the US (well more like the west in general) has no allies that are problematic with regards to human rights. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not actually the shining light of human rights. Turkey isn't unproblematic either. But let's start with Saudi Arabia, I mean even Boris fucking Johnson called them out on pulling strings in Yemen. And whether and how much Saudi Arabia is acutally worse than let's say Iran, well, let's say I wouldn't really be confident to call one wrose than the other.

Saudi Arabia is bad, though not nearly as bad as Russia or North Korea. on the flip side, China is arguably worse than either and Trump is apparently wanting to go to war with them. That being said, it's still the forsaking of allies like Germany or France that is worse.