If we assume the Russians attacked our election?

[satimy]

1. Why didn’t we stop them
2. Why was the public not told until after Hilary lost
3. Wouldn’t President Obama know it was happening?

[Machismo]

1. Why didn’t we stop them
2. Why was the public not told until after Hilary lost
3. Wouldn’t President Obama know it was happening?

People were warning Americans for months... but ignorant voters cared more about "winning."

People were warned, don't blame others for your refusal to listen.

[Mad_Murdock]

By "attacked" to do you mean hacking the voting machines and changing votes or just the junk advertisements on facebook\social media.

If you mean attacking the voting machines, I guess it's a tough one. Once you confirm it's happening, what do you do? Stop the election process? Announce all votes are invalid and another election will have to be had once we can secure the voting machines in question? That would really sow the seeds of chaos on those that thought the Govt was monitoring the election and saw Hillary was losing and so they decided to stop the election.

If the Us Govt can show\prove voting machines were comprises then those states\cities should be held accountable, who should in turn hold any contracting company they used accountable. Fines\Penalties and the like should be handed out freely

If it's just the facebook junk, then who cares. I need more proof it made that much of a difference. People seemed pretty set in their choice for a while in my circle.

[TZucchini]

Why was the public not told until after Hilary lost

The public was informed on October 7th, 2016.

[Bullettime]

1. Why didn’t we stop them
2. Why was the public not told until after Hilary lost
3. Wouldn’t President Obama know it was happening?

Obama did know it was happening. It's why he ejected all those diplomats, closed all those compounds, and both Obama and Comey even went to Congress about it but McConnell threatened to turn it into a partisan shitstorm.

They chose to wait it out, expecting Clinton to win over Trump anyways, then deal with it then. Only Trump actually managed to win. It's also why Obama made those absolute last minute changes to what and how intelligence agencies were allowed to share information among each others that people were scratching their heads at when it was announced.

[Felya]

Why didn’t we stop them

Because of partisanship and large segment of public ignoring it.

Why was the public not told until after Hilary lost

What? Do you want an interview with Trump where he questions the meaning of “relationship” when questioned about it or his asking Russian hackers to do it during a Trump rally?

Wouldn’t President Obama know it was happening?

Yes, Russian spies were kicked out and we had a prisoner exchange with Russia, due to their attempt to influence American business man and politicians:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program

One of the kicked out spies, was also a Trump supporter during the election:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman

[Shadowmelded]

Like others have said; because McConnell threatened to accuse him of partisan election interference. There's only so much Obama could have done other than instruct the intelligence community that didn't require congressional approval although he did do this.

[Rukh]

Also it came out recently that nominee Trump was given the information by both the CIA and FBI that they had offical directions from Putin to hack dnc emails.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report...-2016-election

"they told him conclusively that they had “captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation” to hack the 2016 presidential election"

[TZucchini]

This was a weird thread. No one is assuming that Russians attacked our election.

We know it to be true.

[satimy]

Because of partisanship and large segment of public ignoring it.



What? Do you want an interview with Trump where he questions the meaning of “relationship” when questioned about it or his asking Russian hackers to do it during a Trump rally?



Yes, Russian spies were kicked out and we had a prisoner exchange with Russia, due to their attempt to influence American business man and politicians:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program

One of the kicked out spies, was also a Trump supporter during the election:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman

She was deported in 2010

- - - Updated - - -

This was a weird thread. No one is assuming that Russians attacked our election.

We know it to be true.

Where is the official declaration

[Bullettime]

She was deported in 2010

- - - Updated - - -



Where is the official declaration

Every federal intelligence agency and basically every member of Congress and even Trump's own cabinet members. Trump is literally the only person saying it didn't happen.

[satimy]

Every federal intelligence agency and basically every member of Congress and even Trump's own cabinet members. Trump is literally the only person saying it didn't happen.

But it all comes from the intelligence community assessment run by Clapper and Brennan who both lied under oath to congress about domestic spying. My guess is they are just using this to spin away even more civil liberties. Podesta was a moron, got hacked and exposed how crooked the dems are, if Trump was ordering that then he should be hung. However I trust clapper and Brennan even less than the Russians, those guys are scary as fuck

[Felya]

She was deported in 2010

No shit... I said she was kicked out... you are the one saying Obama did nothing. lol

- - - Updated - - -

But it all comes from the intelligence community assessment run by Clapper and Brennan who both lied under oath to congress about domestic spying. My guess is they are just using this to spin away even more civil liberties. Podesta was a moron, got hacked and exposed how crooked the dems are, if Trump was ordering that then he should be hung. However I trust clapper and Brennan even less than the Russians, those guys are scary as fuck

So far... the only person attacking civil liberties, is the one denying it happened. You just don’t have a problem giving up liberty, due to your fear needing safety from Muslims.

But... To be fair... I am scary as fuck...

[Skroe]

1. Why didn’t we stop them
2. Why was the public not told until after Hilary lost
3. Wouldn’t President Obama know it was happening?

The answer to 1,2 and 3 is that the Obama Administration didn't take the threat from Russia seriously enough.

For years.

This gets to the heart of Obama foreign policy. Quick review. He skewers Mitt Romney for Cold War fear mongering. He admonishes Vladmir Putin for "19th century geopolitics".

Barack Obama's first 4 years had a strong national security team, but his second four years were Joe Biden-sourced losers, from top to bottom for the most part. And the problem was Susan Rice, John Kerry and Ben Rhodes, if you want to put names on them.

Obama because enamored of their post-Iraq War, post-Modern foreign policy that, to put it plainly, was absolute nonsense to anyone paying attention to the moves North Korea China and Russia were making. Obama wanted the US's top security priorities to be Climate Change, Terrorism, and Cyberwarfare by cyber criminals. This contrasts to the rapidly shaping change in security affairs in North Korea, China and Russia that saw them build modernized weapons, new vehicles, new nuclear weapons and take new aggressiveness.

I mean, as Russia was invading Ukraine and China was claiming territory in the South China Sea, and as North Korea was getting closer to developing longer ranged ballistic missiles, Obama seriously considered, in late 2016, a historic unilateral 1/3rd to 1/2 cut to the nuclear arsenal, purely as a 'legacy item', with zero strategic rationale for it. He was talked out of it. But the fact it even entered his mind should say everything. And with Respect to China, the Navy wanted to do deterrence patrols in the South China Sea since 2011, but was PREVENTED by Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes, who issued a gag order to the Navy about saying mean things about Chinese actions.

It comes down to this. The Obama Administration since 2013 was faced with a global, evolving security situation that was entirely at odds with their world view. The security situation called for a larger military, more defense spending, more nuclear weapons, and confronting our adversaries. Obama and co were entirely about finding common ground to confront mutual threats.

The problem is, Vladmir Putin doesn't think Climate Change is worth giving up Ukraine for.

Fundamentally, Obama and his team could not see that Russia, China and North Korea do not want the things that they want, and Russia particularly, operates a zero-sum foreign policy that Obama's entire win-win approach simply has no answer to.

Obama and his team too America's power advantage over its adversaries for granted, and deeply harmed it. They made the biggest mistake people make with leads - they think that when you have one, you can stand still. You can't. You need to keep pace.

Russia should have been confronted in 2010 about it's INF treaty violations, which were discovered in 2006. It was not.

China should have been confronted in 2011 about it's SCS island building. It was not.

North Korea should have been actively engaged in 2010, not ignored until he was literally walking out the door.

Obama' Vision for US foreign policy saw fewer troops, more white-collar professionals and far lower defense spending. It was also more in line with his 'morality' by doing militarily pointless things like banning cluster munitions and freezing missile defense for five years. But the foreign policy of world, as we see it, needs a much larger force, a much better equipped force, much more missile defense, and deadlier, more advanced weapons.

The Russian hack is a subset of a enormous geopolitical failure on the part of President Obama since 2013 to react to a changing landscape. Russia did that, at the end point of a series of provocations that the US did not impose consequences on them for, intentionally. Against getting the almighty-Iran deal, which as Obama said constantly, he needed 'Russia's help on', or a Climate Change deal, he turned blind eye to nearly everything Russia and China did, everywhere.


So 1 2 and 3 happened, in summary, because the President of the World's only superpower, who knew the entire time, didn't act on it because he was personally much better disposed to be Prime Minister of Ireland or something. He was terrified of using the big stick when it was perfectly legitimate to do so, and that invited future aggression. And he did it because the world he was living in was not the world he wanted to operate a foreign policy in. So he played make-believe.

[satimy]

No shit... I said she was kicked out... you are the one saying Obama did nothing. lol

- - - Updated - - -



So far... the only person attacking civil liberties, is the one denying it happened. You just don’t have a problem giving up liberty, due to your fear needing safety from Muslims.

But... To be fair... I am scary as fuck...

So lying to Congress about mass surveillance is ok with you? k

- - - Updated - - -

The answer to 1,2 and 3 is that the Obama Administration didn't take the threat from Russia seriously enough.

For years.

This gets to the heart of Obama foreign policy. Quick review. He skewers Mitt Romney for Cold War fear mongering. He admonishes Vladmir Putin for "19th century geopolitics".

Barack Obama's first 4 years had a strong national security team, but his second four years were Joe Biden-sourced losers, from top to bottom for the most part. And the problem was Susan Rice, John Kerry and Ben Rhodes, if you want to put names on them.

Obama because enamored of their post-Iraq War, post-Modern foreign policy that, to put it plainly, was absolute nonsense to anyone paying attention to the moves North Korea China and Russia were making. Obama wanted the US's top security priorities to be Climate Change, Terrorism, and Cyberwarfare by cyber criminals. This contrasts to the rapidly shaping change in security affairs in North Korea, China and Russia that saw them build modernized weapons, new vehicles, new nuclear weapons and take new aggressiveness.

I mean, as Russia was invading Ukraine and China was claiming territory in the South China Sea, and as North Korea was getting closer to developing longer ranged ballistic missiles, Obama seriously considered, in late 2016, a historic unilateral 1/3rd to 1/2 cut to the nuclear arsenal, purely as a 'legacy item', with zero strategic rationale for it. He was talked out of it. But the fact it even entered his mind should say everything. And with Respect to China, the Navy wanted to do deterrence patrols in the South China Sea since 2011, but was PREVENTED by Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes, who issued a gag order to the Navy about saying mean things about Chinese actions.

It comes down to this. The Obama Administration since 2013 was faced with a global, evolving security situation that was entirely at odds with their world view. The security situation called for a larger military, more defense spending, more nuclear weapons, and confronting our adversaries. Obama and co were entirely about finding common ground to confront mutual threats.

The problem is, Vladmir Putin doesn't think Climate Change is worth giving up Ukraine for.

Fundamentally, Obama and his team could not see that Russia, China and North Korea do not want the things that they want, and Russia particularly, operates a zero-sum foreign policy that Obama's entire win-win approach simply has no answer to.

Obama and his team too America's power advantage over its adversaries for granted, and deeply harmed it. They made the biggest mistake people make with leads - they think that when you have one, you can stand still. You can't. You need to keep pace.

Russia should have been confronted in 2010 about it's INF treaty violations, which were discovered in 2006. It was not.

China should have been confronted in 2011 about it's SCS island building. It was not.

North Korea should have been actively engaged in 2010, not ignored until he was literally walking out the door.

Obama' Vision for US foreign policy saw fewer troops, more white-collar professionals and far lower defense spending. It was also more in line with his 'morality' by doing militarily pointless things like banning cluster munitions and freezing missile defense for five years. But the foreign policy of world, as we see it, needs a much larger force, a much better equipped force, much more missile defense, and deadlier, more advanced weapons.

The Russian hack is a subset of a enormous geopolitical failure on the part of President Obama since 2013 to react to a changing landscape. Russia did that, at the end point of a series of provocations that the US did not impose consequences on them for, intentionally. Against getting the almighty-Iran deal, which as Obama said constantly, he needed 'Russia's help on', or a Climate Change deal, he turned blind eye to nearly everything Russia and China did, everywhere.


So 1 2 and 3 happened, in summary, because the President of the World's only superpower, who knew the entire time, didn't act on it because he was personally much better disposed to be Prime Minister of Ireland or something. He was terrified of using the big stick when it was perfectly legitimate to do so, and that invited future aggression. And he did it because the world he was living in was not the world he wanted to operate a foreign policy in. So he played make-believe.

Do you view the annexation of Crimea differently than the situation that occurred in Georgia during the Bush admin? Doesn’t hacking of damn near everything happen daily coming from Russia, Eastern Europe and China and isn’t there only way to solve that is via cooperation?

[Skroe]

Do you view the annexation of Crimea differently than the situation that occurred in Georgia during the Bush admin?

No I do not. And I argued, vigorously (then on the official wow forums) for an energetic response by the Bush Administration back then too. I was outraged there wasn't one.

I have a view that the free peoples of the world should be also, the most dangerous. Authoritarian regimes should be terrified of what democracies like the US, like the UK, like Germany, like Japan, will do to them if they express aggression against us. The fight should not be remotely fair and the power gap between us and the like of Russia and China should be light years across. Representative democracy is the only moral and legitimate form of government, and authoritarian regimes are not our equals.

So the collary to this, is when they do something aggressive against one of those in our circle, we hit them, really, really hard. With Russia, it should have been depression-causing sanctions in 2008 and then giving Georgia's military weapons to kill Russian troops at range. That is and remains pretty much my response to Ukraine, which is even more egregious because Russia ANNEXED Crimea. We should have given Ukraine almost anything they wanted. Instead Obama sent MREs and pre-Iraq war unarmored Humvees (before they were armored up during the Iraq War).

This extends to the hack attacks too, which as you probably know, I regard as offensive as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. It was our digital Pearl Harbor. The United States, in retaliation, should have it's spies kill any Russian hackers involves or cooperating with the Russian government in their homes, in their beds. Every single one of them. You want to send a deterrent message? Once the US starts killing Russians who engage in Cyberwarfare where they live, you'll see two things happen (1) the cowards will stop cooperating with the Russian government and (2) they'll flee the country, leading to Russian brain drain.

The US doesn't do any of this though. Why? It is a status quo Superpower. That is to say, that the status quo, plus or minus 20 degrees lets say, is good enough and the US institutionally isn't willing to rock the boat to upset a status quo that largely works for it, and has made it rich and strong. There is some wisdom to that. it is the principle of "choosing their battles". My disagreement is that I think, institutionally, the US has come to GREATLY underestimate how much these "episodes" are eating away at the status quo, to the point that because the US won't risk one or two big disruptive actions, the cumulative effect of a lot of small "episodes" is destabilizing that status quo.

The US should choose its battles, but when it chooses a battle, it should be decisive and completely unfair. No half measures. This is also where Obama failed. Obama's incrementalist approach signaled very early on how far he was willing to go. Russia did Syria, after Ukraine, because Putin knew Obama would not respond, thanks to the Red Line episode in 2013 (in Syria). The US should have basically destroyed the Sryian state, and let Russian sort it out, in 2013. That would have greatly changed Russia's further geopolitical calculations.

So that's my position: we got the Russian hacks because in every opportunity since the early 2000s really, where the US refused to hit very-fucking-hard when it was entitled to against Russia (and China, because Russia watches that, as China watches Russia), invited an assault. Put yourself in Vladmir Putins shoes - why should he not attack when consequences have been managable so far?

This is why I keep saying things like "we need to move nuclear weapons into Europe and point them at Moscow and Kalingrad". Not because I want a war with Russia (I don't want to die). But because the US simply does not impose consequences on its adversaries misbehaviors in a decisive enough manner that encourages them to change their calculations.

An excellent calibrated epsiodes in this, in my view, was Operation Praying Matins in the 1980s. With respect to the Chinese SCS island building, the US should, upon Chinese provocation, destroy some of these islands they've built when they are uninhabited. Impose consequences.

We are so much more powerful than China and Russia is is mindboggling, but we do not act like it, because we're afraid of rocking the boat. We need to be less afraid.

Doesn’t hacking of damn near everything happen daily coming from Russia, Eastern Europe and China and isn’t there only way to solve that is via cooperation?

Not at this point. Why would they want to cooperate? China and Russia are almost certainly building databases of Americans they can exploit for intelligence purposes... likely a database of every living American. Why else would they hack, separately, credit reporting agencies, the social security administration, the GSA, credit card companies, banks and so forth? They are trying to map American's liabilities.

"independent" Chinese and Russian hackers offer their countries plausible deniability, but they are all on the Government payroll.


We have to start killing these hackers off to deter them, and we have to start launching enormous Cyber attacks of our own on Russia and China, to send a message. For example, we should shut down the St. Petersburg power grid on New Years Eve. Putin was Mayor there. He is running for re-election in 2018. It will send a message: none of you are safe.

Russia is our enemy, not a friend, and you need to stop pretending they will ever be anything other than that.

[satimy]

No I do not. And I argued, vigorously (then on the official wow forums) for an energetic response by the Bush Administration back then too. I was outraged there wasn't one.

I have a view that the free peoples of the world should be also, the most dangerous. Authoritarian regimes should be terrified of what democracies like the US, like the UK, like Germany, like Japan, will do to them if they express aggression against us. The fight should not be remotely fair and the power gap between us and the like of Russia and China should be light years across. Representative democracy is the only moral and legitimate form of government, and authoritarian regimes are not our equals.

So the collary to this, is when they do something aggressive against one of those in our circle, we hit them, really, really hard. With Russia, it should have been depression-causing sanctions in 2008 and then giving Georgia's military weapons to kill Russian troops at range. That is and remains pretty much my response to Ukraine, which is even more egregious because Russia ANNEXED Crimea. We should have given Ukraine almost anything they wanted. Instead Obama sent MREs and pre-Iraq war unarmored Humvees (before they were armored up during the Iraq War).

This extends to the hack attacks too, which as you probably know, I regard as offensive as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. It was our digital Pearl Harbor. The United States, in retaliation, should have it's spies kill any Russian hackers involves or cooperating with the Russian government in their homes, in their beds. Every single one of them. You want to send a deterrent message? Once the US starts killing Russians who engage in Cyberwarfare where they live, you'll see two things happen (1) the cowards will stop cooperating with the Russian government and (2) they'll flee the country, leading to Russian brain drain.

The US doesn't do any of this though. Why? It is a status quo Superpower. That is to say, that the status quo, plus or minus 20 degrees lets say, is good enough and the US institutionally isn't willing to rock the boat to upset a status quo that largely works for it, and has made it rich and strong. There is some wisdom to that. it is the principle of "choosing their battles". My disagreement is that I think, institutionally, the US has come to GREATLY underestimate how much these "episodes" are eating away at the status quo, to the point that because the US won't risk one or two big disruptive actions, the cumulative effect of a lot of small "episodes" is destabilizing that status quo.

The US should choose its battles, but when it chooses a battle, it should be decisive and completely unfair. No half measures. This is also where Obama failed. Obama's incrementalist approach signaled very early on how far he was willing to go. Russia did Syria, after Ukraine, because Putin knew Obama would not respond, thanks to the Red Line episode in 2013 (in Syria). The US should have basically destroyed the Sryian state, and let Russian sort it out, in 2013. That would have greatly changed Russia's further geopolitical calculations.

So that's my position: we got the Russian hacks because in every opportunity since the early 2000s really, where the US refused to hit very-fucking-hard when it was entitled to against Russia (and China, because Russia watches that, as China watches Russia), invited an assault. Put yourself in Vladmir Putins shoes - why should he not attack when consequences have been managable so far?

This is why I keep saying things like "we need to move nuclear weapons into Europe and point them at Moscow and Kalingrad". Not because I want a war with Russia (I don't want to die). But because the US simply does not impose consequences on its adversaries misbehaviors in a decisive enough manner that encourages them to change their calculations.

An excellent calibrated epsiodes in this, in my view, was Operation Praying Matins in the 1980s. With respect to the Chinese SCS island building, the US should, upon Chinese provocation, destroy some of these islands they've built when they are uninhabited. Impose consequences.

We are so much more powerful than China and Russia is is mindboggling, but we do not act like it, because we're afraid of rocking the boat. We need to be less afraid.





Not at this point. Why would they want to cooperate? China and Russia are almost certainly building databases of Americans they can exploit for intelligence purposes... likely a database of every living American. Why else would they hack, separately, credit reporting agencies, the social security administration, the GSA, credit card companies, banks and so forth? They are trying to map American's liabilities.

"independent" Chinese and Russian hackers offer their countries plausible deniability, but they are all on the Government payroll.


We have to start killing these hackers off to deter them, and we have to start launching enormous Cyber attacks of our own on Russia and China, to send a message. For example, we should shut down the St. Petersburg power grid on New Years Eve. Putin was Mayor there. He is running for re-election in 2018. It will send a message: none of you are safe.

Russia is our enemy, not a friend, and you need to stop pretending they will ever be anything other than that.

I think you put the home front at tremendous risk if you do that. Realistically what do you think would happen if we drone striked a Russian hacker or shut down the power grid? I know its not that simple, but when was the last time we assassinated people like that in a foreign country? I think our best avenue to float building a gas pipeline over to Europe, that would potentially cripple Russia's economy to unsustainable levels.


I would also add that we need to reconsider how many Chinese and Russian students we admit for student visas.

[Felya]

So lying to Congress about mass surveillance is ok with you? k

No, I’m not the one starting a thread excusing Trump. Trump lying about him being wiretapped, should have been a bigger deal, but your ilk just keeps excusing him. It’s not okey with me... I’m not starting threads defending a president lying about it.

- - - Updated - - -

I would also add that we need to reconsider how many Chinese and Russian students we admit for student visas.

Can we have an exception for Trump University? That way, we can send them back, dumber than they started.

[Dextroden]

I think you put the home front at tremendous risk if you do that. Realistically what do you think would happen if we drone striked a Russian hacker or shut down the power grid? I know its not that simple, but when was the last time we assassinated people like that in a foreign country? I think our best avenue to float building a gas pipeline over to Europe, that would potentially cripple Russia's economy to unsustainable levels.


I would also add that we need to reconsider how many Chinese and Russian students we admit for student visas.

Pick a country in the Middle East. It's not been too long since we tried it.

Also, be cautious of Skroe. His nationalism, which he unironically bashes Trump for, is a facade to try and get a war going in Russia.

[Felya]

I sincerely do hope you don't think drone strikes are the only way to assassinate people.

I’m partial to the ol’ axe to the head... Trotsky sitting there in a villa, enjoying a nice coffee... *BAM* axe to the back of the head... #owned...