This. These political threads are inherently abrasive. Stay on topic please! Like, what happened to Populist Trump? Millionaires know about the common man's needs? Wasn't that always a criticism of the "liberal elite"? http://theweek.com/speedreads/66479...hed-cabinet-already-wealthiest-modern-history
One of the many reasons that Trump was so wildly popular with people sick of the political status quo is his wealth. Basically, he's already so damn rich that he can't be bought by special interests. The people he's choosing for his cabinet have been very successful in business, much like he has. They are also, like Trump, wealthy enough to not be tempted by "donations" and "job offers." Hopefully.
So from one Secretary of State who MAY have accidentally given away secrets because of a private email server to a Secretary of State who KNOWINGLY and purposefully gave away secrets. But it was for some tail, so it's okay? :/ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-petraeus-secretary-state-232152 /he pleaded guilty and is still under probation. But that's okay because... reasons?
No, it's not okay, and I hope Trump will rethink this one. I understand why Trump would want him, though. If you look past the scandal, he's certainly qualified for the job. But I'd prefer someone who wouldn't have to call their parole officer if they got the appointment.
It wouldn't matter, since it seems they had religion lodged in their eye and couldn't see the reality for what it was. Maybe the problem was that I was lazy and thought it would save me time to reference something popular and widespread instead of making the effort to write out the words myself. Silly, agnostic me.
You responded to my glib toss at Assange? Did you even ready the article about his accused sexual assault crime? It was in Sweden. He should be tried in Swedish courts. I have no idea how the US has jurisdiction for a crime committed in Sweden. Anyways, that was just the third party of Trump's outburst, the details are inconsequential. This isn't just some random person casting doubt. It is the leader of our country telling the rest of the world that he considers our intelligence agencies weak. You don't think China or Russia will use his temperament against us when they deal with other countries? When diplomats sit down at the negotiating table and Trump starts acting like Trump, China and Russia are going to look like the sane adults in the room. THAT is my point, his false bravado will do no one in the USA any favors.
I disagree. The man has decades of experience negotiating multi-billion dollar deals. He wouldn't have gotten as far as he did in business if he didn't know how to use tact and diplomacy. Also, Russia likes us now. It's China that we're probably gonna have a bit of trouble with.
I've been familiar with these charges for a number of years. Assange can be extradited to the United States for his role in exposing various things done by the US government (leaking classified documents). This is the reason he sought asylum with Ecuador. Even this generic BBC article makes note of this. Furthermore, the UN has ruled that Assange has been "arbitrarily detained". It isn't some simple manner of hiding from Swedish law. Exposing a right-wing government that is only accountable to itself by leaking documents it doesn't want the public to see is going to effectively put a target on one's back, whether that person is Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, or Edward Snowden. Sweden also has a history of working with the US when it comes to things like extradition. Some basic background is also covered here. It's obvious why the US ruling class preferred Hillary Clinton over an unpredictable and thin-skinned guy like Trump. As for Trump being...Trump in some sort of hypothetical diplomatic spat, that's the ruling class's problem, not mine. I'm sure they could find some sort of scandal in which to embroil him and impeach him if he causes too many problems for them. I typically find "doom and gloom" reactions to Trump to be overblown.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7ebaf9474bfe48009a1a13e8d4418754 Trump is mentioning that taxpayers will pay for the wall, and Mexico will pay back later.
That's not new. Before the election, he announced his hundred day plan, which included preparing to build the wall. He specifically said that the plan was to build now, be reimbursed later. People are only freaking out about it now (on both sides) because nobody bothered to do the research. I'll be honest, I'm a little skeptical about that one. I like the idea of the wall, both a practical barrier and as a symbol, but I really can't think of any peaceful way to make Mexico reimburse us for it.
Also, read for yourself, although note this is the only the version allowed to the public. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...lligence-report-russian-hacking-2016-campaign
Okay, so what I'm getting out of this is that a Russian-owned media outlet used publicly available information to produce news stories that leaned in favor of the candidate who had stated an intent to work on friendly terms with Russia.
KEY FINDINGS Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign aimed at influencing the outcome of the 2016 election, with a preference for Donald Trump. Their main goals were to reduce faith in American democracy and harm the electability/potential presidency of Hillary Clinton. CIA, FBI, NSA express "high degree of confidence" in this fact. Putin and the Russian govt. aspired to help Trump when possible by discrediting Clinton and comparing her to him unfavorably. CIA and FBI have 'high' degree of confidence, NSA is moderately confident. The influence campaign evolved its tactics over time, such as changing the focus to undermining Hillary's future presidency when it was presumed she would win. The report is based on information gathered both before and after November 8th. The influence campaign followed a strategy that blended covert activities - such as cyber attacks - with more overt efforts by the Russian govt., state-run media, third parties, and paid trolls on social media. The influence campaign used cyber attacks against entities and individual members of BOTH political parties. CIA, FBI, NSA have a high degree of confidence that Russian military intelligence used the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona and DCLeaks website to release information illegally gained via these cyber attacks. Russian intelligence obtained and access to elements of multiple local and state electoral boards. DHS has confirmed that the systems compromised by the Russians WERE NOT involved in vote tallying. Russian state-run media contributed to the influence campaign by serving as their mouthpiece and disseminating propaganda from the Kremlin. The report goes on to detail Russia's motivations for the attacks: to undermine US democracy, to "advance its long-standing agenda against the US-led liberal democratic order" that they believe is a threat to the Russian regime, they believe Trump would be favorable to an international counterterrorism coalition against ISIS, and Putin wanted payback against Clinton because he believes her criticism of him incited the protests in 2011 and 2012. For the record, this report DOES NOT talk about the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian influence campaign.
I read the key findings, but I didn't see any mention of evidence to back it up. What I'm seeing here is the Obama administration risking an international incident over assumptions, guesses, and hurt feelings.
@Ridley Wolf That was the public version. They are not going to give away sources in that. Giving out active sources kinda gets people in trouble and or killed. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
Not good enough. I'm not saying that I need exact figures and names, but I would at least like some indication that there are facts to support these claims.
I found this rather interesting. John McAfee, founder of McAfee Antivirus and widely considered an expert in cyber-security, went on RT News to poke holes in the Russian hacker story. As RT (formerly Russia Today) is funded by the Russian government, this is, of course, propaganda meant to discredit the theory. That said, he makes a lot of interesting points, and just because it's propaganda, that doesn't make it untrue.
