Obama to sanction Russia for hacking

[Grand Vol]

Why? You'll have to ask them. Whether the Russians did or didn't or whether there was proof has never been my point. To be clear, the revelations of the Russians involvement arose LONG before Trump won. In fact, the allegations came out while Hillary was ahead.

What I can't figure out is why folks are so quick to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt... IMO, It comes down to throwing shade on the legitimacy of Trumps win and American exceptionalism where folks don't want to accept the possibility they were in any way manipulated.

There obviously were grumblings during the election about why Wikileaks went after Hillary so hard and the alleged connection with the Russian government over the whole deal. But it still was mainly rumors and little more. However, if the USG had ironclad proof of the Russian government meddling in the democratic process of this nation, you don't think they would have been screaming to the highest levels about it? Wars have been started for less in the past and such things would toss this nation into turmoil with calls for a re-vote, possibly on both sides of the political equation.

Nobody is giving the Russians a pass on it, but many of us would like to see more than "trust us" from the crowd that's continually lied to us for the past, well, since the Republic was formed almost. You of all people should know such information will be entirely suspect when it's done behind closed doors.

 

[1972 Grad]

But septic, I'll ask again to keep it simple...

How did Russia tamper with our elections, and what proof is there that they did so?

I was personally visited by a Russian agent, and he took my family hostage and forced me to vote for Trump. They held my family hostage until I returned from the polls. I was threatened with "if you ever want to see your family alive "........

 

[hog88]

Middle ground - we don't need all the details but surely the administration should lay out a declassified version of just what they believe Russia did.

Oh no, we're just supposed to trust them.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why? You'll have to ask them. Whether the Russians did or didn't or whether there was proof has never been my point. To be clear, the revelations of the Russians involvement arose LONG before Trump won. In fact, the allegations came out while Hillary was ahead.

What I can't figure out is why folks are so quick to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt... IMO, It comes down to throwing shade on the legitimacy of Trumps win and American exceptionalism where folks don't want to accept the possibility they were in any way manipulated.

For my part, as answer to that question, I'll answer again.

Because foreign relations with our biggest rival and superpower is a big deal and needs to be done on much more than "overwhelmingly circumstantial evidence" (as your article said) which "others feel does not support firm judgments" (again, from your article).

One could just as likely ask, "Why jumpt to the conclusion of judgment with circumstantial and questionable foundations of eviedence, and why should we as Americans jump there when they won't even show us the questionable "evidence"?

 

[Septic]

A real source would be an official statement from one of our MANY intelligence agencies or the FBI.

You srs?

...or the FBI?

Does the FBI carry more weight than everyone else? Is there a hog approved sliding scale of truth?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I was personally visited by a Russian agent, and he took my family hostage and forced me to vote for Trump. They held my family hostage until I returned from the polls. I was threatened with "if you ever want to see your family alive "........

Personally, I suspect they are trying to pin the wikileaks on Russia, which basically boils down to blaming Russia that America had an informed electorate--a REALLY bad look for the Dems, if so.

 

[Septic]

There obviously were grumblings during the election about why Wikileaks went after Hillary so hard and the alleged connection with the Russian government over the whole deal. But it still was mainly rumors and little more. However, if the USG had ironclad proof of the Russian government meddling in the democratic process of this nation, you don't think they would have been screaming to the highest levels about it? Wars have been started for less in the past and such things would toss this nation into turmoil with calls for a re-vote, possibly on both sides of the political equation.

Nobody is giving the Russians a pass on it, but many of us would like to see more than "trust us" from the crowd that's continually lied to us for the past, well, since the Republic was formed almost. You of all people should know such information will be entirely suspect when it's done behind closed doors.

I hear and agree with you, except that many people are absolutely giving the Russians a pass... In fact someone in this thread alluded to it somehow being the fault of the DNC for being bad a security.

I don't trust the government - Again though, I do find it ironic that people who don't trust the government just elected the top position to a guy who ran on a platform of "trust me."

 

[hog88]

This is toddler easy to understand, I am speechless you can't wrap your head around this. You are arguing against a point that I never made.

Chap.

Again, slower this time.

1. OP stated "no evidence from governmental agencies"
2. I post link that states CIA (a governmental agency) presented swell of evidence to lawmakers.
3. Point out that OP's statement was not congruent with reality based on the fact that a governmental agency did exactly what he said didn't happen.
4. ?
5. You get speechless.
6. I laugh at your inability to connect the dots.

You posted a link with anonymous sources and quotes from the pres and president. Nothing from any of the intelligence agencies.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is toddler easy to understand, I am speechless you can't wrap your head around this. You are arguing against a point that I never made.

Chap.

Again, slower this time.

1. OP stated "no evidence from governmental agencies"
2. I post link that states CIA (a governmental agency) presented swell of evidence to lawmakers.
3. Point out that OP's statement was not congruent with reality based on the fact that a governmental agency did exactly what he said didn't happen.
4. ?
5. You get speechless.
6. I laugh at your inability to connect the dots.

So, proof wasn't the point, but it was the point?

And the "evidence" you reference was circumstantial and in question, even as stated in your article linked for proof?

 

[hog88]

You srs?

...or the FBI?

Does the FBI carry more weight than everyone else? Is there a hog approved sliding scale of truth?

Are you stupid or just lack any comprehension skills?

 

[1972 Grad]

I hear and agree with you, except that many people are absolutely giving the Russians a pass... In fact someone in this thread alluded to it somehow being the fault of the DNC for being bad a security.

I don't trust the government - Again though, I do find it ironic that people who don't trust the government just elected the top position to a guy who ran on a platform of "trust me."

That is exactly why I voted for Trump. He said "trust me." Man, that did it for me. I was voting Hillary until I heard that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You posted a link with anonymous sources and quotes from the pres and president. Nothing from any of the intelligence agencies.

And, the article said that the "evience" is extremely circumstantial and has been called into question by some who have seen it. And, the point was never about proof, except that it's apparently about proof.

Septic has stepped all over himself in this one, and in trying to dig out of it.

 

[hog88]

I hear and agree with you, except that many people are absolutely giving the Russians a pass... In fact someone in this thread alluded to it somehow being the fault of the DNC for being bad a security.

I don't trust the government - Again though, I do find it ironic that people who don't trust the government just elected the top position to a guy who ran on a platform of "trust me."

Only 2 posters are giving Russia a pass. The rest of us would just like some confirmation other than Obama and anonymous sources before we escalate tensions with another world power.

 

[Septic]

I was personally visited by a Russian agent, and he took my family hostage and forced me to vote for Trump. They held my family hostage until I returned from the polls. I was threatened with "if you ever want to see your family alive "........

Guns weren't put to heads, kids weren't kidnapped. The inference was that the thumb was on the scale...

The trickle of damaging information about may not have explicitly caused her to lose, but any fool should understand that having those distractions was a net gain for her opponents campaign.

 

[Pacer92]

Sorry chap, proof of the hack was not the point. Only that the OP's statement was not congruent with reality, in that he stated:



The link I posted headlines C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence


Clearly the OP didn't do his homework, or like you doesn't want to accept it.

Your mistake is that you assumed I was referring to proof of hacks and interference. I wasn't, only that the OP's statements weren't congruent with fact.

Surely you aren't trying to pass this off as proof or truth?!

 

[Burger]

So there must be WMDs in Iraq?

 

[volinbham]

Guns weren't put to heads, kids weren't kidnapped. The inference was that the thumb was on the scale...

The trickle of damaging information about may not have explicitly caused her to lose, but any fool should understand that having those distractions was a net gain for her opponents campaign.

It should would help all us fools to know exactly what Russia did - we don't need sources/methods; we don't need to read the intelligence briefings - we just need some thorough statement of exactly what we are accusing Russia of doing so we can be prepared in the future and understand/evaluate the sanctions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Guns weren't put to heads, kids weren't kidnapped. The inference was that the thumb was on the scale...

The trickle of damaging information about may not have explicitly caused her to lose, but any fool should understand that having those distractions was a net gain for her opponents campaign.

So, the problem was that America had an informed electorate.

Bad look, sep. Bad look.

 

[Septic]

And, the article said that the "evience" is extremely circumstantial and has been called into question by some who have seen it. And, the point was never about proof, except that it's apparently about proof.

Septic has stepped all over himself in this one, and in trying to dig out of it.

LOL, nice dodge but you made an assumption with out grasping a simple point. A third grader could have discerned that the OP's statement and reality of the article I provided aren't congruent - much like your ability to admit when you made a ill advised argument against something that wasn't being argued for.

You can play to the peanut gallery, but you and I both know you whiffed. :yes:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Surely you aren't trying to pass this off as proof or truth?!

If you're reading this, you've obviously read the thread.

It was never about proof.

Except when it was.

Clear now?

 

[volprof]

It's a bizzaro world that some of you are living in to ignore reality because it might throw shade on Donny.

When the typical VolNation reject crowd gets scared, they start to do nothing but joke and mock constantly.

Well, on this matter, they're nothing but a bunch of mocking jokers.

What are they scared of?

 

[Septic]

So, the problem was that America had an informed electorate.

Bad look, sep. Bad look.

I never stated it was "a problem." You asserted that; again you're making arguments against points you want me to be making. I merely pointed out how the trickle damaged her campaign. I certainly didn't argue against an informed electorate.

I get you missed badly at your previous attempt but I'm starting to feel bad for you. PM for suggestions on how to be both right and condescending. Maybe stick to the religious threads?

 

[1972 Grad]

Guns weren't put to heads, kids weren't kidnapped. The inference was that the thumb was on the scale...

The trickle of damaging information about may not have explicitly caused her to lose, but any fool should understand that having those distractions was a net gain for her opponents campaign.

I realize that my story is anecdotal. Your mileage may vary.

 

[volprof]

You're damn right I want details, **** the CIA, their integrity has been compromised.

And in the absence of reason always go with the "yeah but Trump".

Another silly, most unexcellent post from you.

You're really on a roll here lately.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Personally, I suspect they are trying to pin the wikileaks on Russia, which basically boils down to blaming Russia that America had an informed electorate--a REALLY bad look for the Dems, if so.

So, the problem was that America had an informed electorate.

Bad look, sep. Bad look.

I never stated it was "a problem." You asserted that; again you're making arguments against points you want me to be making. I merely pointed out how the trickle damaged her campaign. I certainly didn't argue against an informed electorate.

I get you missed badly at your previous attempt but I'm starting to feel bad for you. PM for suggestions on how to be both right and condescending. Maybe stick to the religious threads?

You're doing what you're accusing me of doing. I never said you said it was a problem. I said the administration is calling it a problem, and it's a bad look for them.