Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Threatens Retaliatory Actions Against Russia Over Hacks (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
[President Obama] said he was weighing a mix of public and covert actions against the Russians in his last 34 days in office, actions that would increase "the costs for them." Mr. Obama said he was committed to sending the Kremlin a message that "we can do stuff to you," but without setting off an escalating cyberconflict... "Some of it we will do in a way that they will know, but not everybody will," he said...
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
"Airing our party's dirty laundry crosses a red line, and there will be consequen -- nah, nevermind"
Can someone explain what exactly was hacked (voting machines?) and what is the evidence that the Russians are responsible?
Why are you wasting time asking silly questions!? Angry you should be, yes! Russians! Hacking!! Russians hacking! US election!! Hacking! Pay no attention to the corruption behind the curtain! Russians! Hacking! Election!
SQUIRREL!!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
There are not even the barest shreds of any proofs about russian influence or wrongdoing. However the allegations all come from proven professional liars and torturers who then steal and kill to hide their wrongdoings. All of the infamous 17 agencies lie pretty much everytime they go public with anything political.
How many russian speakers work at the CIA who can write russian comments? "Rasputin" is now considererd a proof? How many attack servers of the NSA and CIA are located in former soviet republics? Weren't stuxnet servers there too? The CIA/NSA has a lot more reason to do some hacking their own election than Russia: there simply is no reason for Russia to hack cause the conflicts they are in, they are actually winning, unlike the US no matter who wins the election. Also no mather who wins it, the war in the middle east will go on, maybe a little less bloody since the US won't send weapons to Al-Qaeda aka al-Nusra via Saudi Arabia. Russia has realistic goals, and goes rationally to achieve them. The US does not but finances and supports with weapons instead the people they are claiming to fight for the last 15 years.
So if any country wishes to meddle in any election by telling the truth about any sides corruption, I say: more power to them. Even if it is some CIA guy who publicized the campaign emails. I'd be happy if they did the same for the republicans and their campaings, but I guess that hacker there already did a lot for the american public so we can't demand more from him.
The US has meddled in other countries' elections especially their allies, since at least WW2 (Greece, Italy for example), toppled by now probably dozens of governments in clandestine operations and in bloody coups on in middle and southern america alone. So how are they to accuse anyone of doing it? And doing it with the truth instead of bullets like the US customarily does?
The only reason the emails were newsworthy at all was that the documents revealed information that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were trying to keep secret from the American voters. If the Russians were involved in the leak (and that seems like a pretty big "if" since there doesn't seem to be much evidence), they would only have been giving to the voters information that Clinton should have released on her own. In other words, these disclosures are clearly not “fake news”.
I'll say this one more time: information that the CIA has accused Russia of sharing with the American people is “real news” about newsworthy topics, and given how pathetic the "security" was on the servers it came from, it seems unbelievable that this wouldn't have made the news sooner or later.
Tell me again how they "hacked the election"?
It's not his fault, because the media is purposely confusing things. Notice how they always talk about Russia "hacking the election" even though that's not at all what happened. And then when they do talk about what Russia is actually accused of doing, they always just say "emails" to try and conflate Hillary's email server with the Wikileaks dump. It's classic disinformation and if you talk about politics with regular people, it's working: people have just kind of mentally merged Hillary's private email server with the Wikileaks email dump with Russians "hacking the vote" despite the fact that none of them are related and the third never happened.
It's a technique that the Democrats are using to distance themselves from Hillary's historic failure as a candidate, and that the Republicans are more than happy to let them get away with because refusing to acknowledge the truth is only going to lead to a GOP supermajority in 2018 and likely a GOP-controlled Constitutional Convention within the next decade.
But it's not surprising that people are confused about what "Russian hacking" is - the media and the lame duck administration are purposely trying to confuse people.
1) it doesn't matter who's the hacker, if our infrastructure is vulnerable, its vulnerable to anyone. lets worry about fixing that first.
2) fine, retaliate. why is this news? hacking happens every day. remember stuxnet? solution to hacking is better technology NOT better lawyering.
3) nice job wagging-the-dog your way out of actually dealing with the contents of hillary emails. real threat is what happened with Sanders (i'm not his supporter _at all_). it was a scandalous perversion of democracy. Putin (if it was him) did us a great service. i mean us the people, not necessarily certain people in power.
Well, I'm not bloody confused, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that Russia wanted to do what it could to prevent Clinton from winning the election, and at least initially has got what it wants; a president who is Russia-friendly and a Secretary of State with pretty deep ties to Russia. We can debate how much influence the Russians really did have, but I'd say the Wikileaks emails did Clinton tangible harm.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As well public opinion should have been swayed. If you don't want to piss people off about your "public policy for the masses" and "private policy for wall street and the banks", don't give speeches about how you do that sh*t. Problem solved.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.