Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
    I think we get it:

    You're the only one on IE who has done the research and can understand the science and logic behind Climate Change, and anyone who questions any part of it just is too dumb to accept your obviously superior opinion on the subject. I'll see myself out, thanks.
    Because this is exactly what I meant. Lol. Geez.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
      I'm a pretty solid republican, but am disappointed that science became politicized. It's not all oil and gas, I've met many in that industry, some in high positions, who acknowledge climate change as a man-made reality or at least enhanced by man. Science isn't really a debate, as it is supported by evidence and facts.

      Nuclear science, atmospheric makeup, and oceanography aren't really opinion based things.

      Taking care of our environment should be a common goal. I understand people will disagree as to how much we should sacrifice to get there, and that is fair.

      But the whole is climate change real thing to me is silly. Of course, it is. Am I willing to give fracking for it? No. Am I willing to move past unregulated dirt burning for it? Absolutely.

      I think it started when Al Gore's face was next to it and the presenter so it had a partisan birth and never outgrew it.
      Good post.

      Unless I've missed something though, fracking is responsible for a reduction in GHG emissions during the Obama administration. The rise of natural gas has made the US a cleaner energy producer because it is decimating the abhorrent use of coal. Contrary to what Trump ran on, coal is dying mostly because fracked natural gas is putting it out of business.

      The problem with the Trump administration, and the Republican establishment in general, is that they will likely dismantle the gentle push from the federal government to facilitate solar and electric vehicles. It's not they have carbon taxes to undo, the measures they could gut could, and I emphasis could, surrender our global lead in 21st century energy technology and game-changers like the batteries and cars at Tesla.

      I would hope that all Americans want us to sprint to the finish line of being 1) energy independent (Canada and maybe Mexico not included), 2) solar being cost competitive in energy production, 3) American electric cars dominating new car sales around the globe, etc.

      Does an EPA director who defies accepted science, and a Secretary of State being Exxon-Mobile's CEO say loud and clear that this administration is serious about closing the book on 20th century energy and winning the race to dominate 21st energy? I guess we'll see.

      On Rex Tillerson, Trump's rumored Sec of State pick....does this sound like a guy who is on the same page as Trump?

      "In this global market, the nationality of the resource is of little relevance. Energy made in America is not as important as energy simply made wherever it is most economic."

      "This has important implications for policymaking. Trade barriers, punitive taxes, artificial subsidies and other market manipulations may appear to some to be in the interest of U.S. energy security. But to the extent they inhibit development and diversification of global economic energy supply, they clearly are not. A more effective means of strengthening U.S. energy security is by facilitating free trade and investment, promoting stable fiscal, tax and regulatory systems, strengthening partnerships between producing and consuming countries and taking other steps that expand and fortify a global free market for energy."

      "Today a similar debate is taking place regarding energy security: Should the United States seek so-called energy independence in an elusive effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the economy, or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement, seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy? Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagement."

      In this talk in 2007 he repeatedly refers to exciting Exxon projects in, you guessed it, Russia.

      A Conversation on Energy Security - Council on Foreign Relations

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
        Because this is exactly what I meant. Lol. Geez.
        kmoose has this defense mechanism in which he flips a troll switch. It's weird coming from someone who is clearly intelligent.

        Comment


        • <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kyT1tJ929Mg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

          Comment


          • Climate has been changing on earth for millions of years...why are we assuming we have something to do with it in the patch of like 150 years? Just sayin'...or askin'.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Booslum31 View Post
              Climate has been changing on earth for millions of years...why are we assuming we have something to do with it in the patch of like 150 years? Just sayin'...or askin'.
              Basically because we can observe the cause and understand the mechanism. Nobody is arguing that there's a static climate that would never change but for anthropogenic reasons. The argument is that human actions are contributing to and exacerbating the change to a dangerous degree.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                Good post.

                Unless I've missed something though, fracking is responsible for a reduction in GHG emissions during the Obama administration. The rise of natural gas has made the US a cleaner energy producer because it is decimating the abhorrent use of coal. Contrary to what Trump ran on, coal is dying mostly because fracked natural gas is putting it out of business.

                The problem with the Trump administration, and the Republican establishment in general, is that they will likely dismantle the gentle push from the federal government to facilitate solar and electric vehicles. It's not they have carbon taxes to undo, the measures they could gut could, and I emphasis could, surrender our global lead in 21st century energy technology and game-changers like the batteries and cars at Tesla.

                I would hope that all Americans want us to sprint to the finish line of being 1) energy independent (Canada and maybe Mexico not included), 2) solar being cost competitive in energy production, 3) American electric cars dominating new car sales around the globe, etc.

                Does an EPA director who defies accepted science, and a Secretary of State being Exxon-Mobile's CEO say loud and clear that this administration is serious about closing the book on 20th century energy and winning the race to dominate 21st energy? I guess we'll see.

                On Rex Tillerson, Trump's rumored Sec of State pick....does this sound like a guy who is on the same page as Trump?

                "In this global market, the nationality of the resource is of little relevance. Energy made in America is not as important as energy simply made wherever it is most economic."

                "This has important implications for policymaking. Trade barriers, punitive taxes, artificial subsidies and other market manipulations may appear to some to be in the interest of U.S. energy security. But to the extent they inhibit development and diversification of global economic energy supply, they clearly are not. A more effective means of strengthening U.S. energy security is by facilitating free trade and investment, promoting stable fiscal, tax and regulatory systems, strengthening partnerships between producing and consuming countries and taking other steps that expand and fortify a global free market for energy."

                "Today a similar debate is taking place regarding energy security: Should the United States seek so-called energy independence in an elusive effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the economy, or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement, seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy? Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagement."

                In this talk in 2007 he repeatedly refers to exciting Exxon projects in, you guessed it, Russia.

                A Conversation on Energy Security - Council on Foreign Relations
                1) Coal. Coal is on it's death bed and isn't coming back. Cheap gas hurt it. Subsidized wind hurt it a whole lot (Production Tax Credit made wind generators able to sell power at $0/MW, which has been a knife in the side of nuclear and coal). EPA requirements have hurt coal. Individual State RPS goals have hurt coal. Most utilities are planning a phase-out of coal. Trump may open the floodgates on one or two of those knives, but the rest have stuck and it will still bleed to death. The caveat is coal liquefaction and the ability to export coal to energy-poor nations. That could help.

                2) Energy Independence is oceanside property in Western Nebraska. If you believe in it, Omaha Investors New Capital will happily sell it to you!
                It's been a sham goal of every politician since the embargo and it isn't a realistic or possible thing in a world where oil prices are linked to Saudi impulses, rock throwing in sand countries, and rig counts and West Texas. North America itself, is effectively independent anyways based on supply or capable of it. Price wise, good luck achieving this goal and for whatever reason, we are always going to support the Saudi's, even if they try to kill American frackers.

                3) Rex has said a lot of things. He even referenced (correctly) that carbon taxes are effective! However, getting cheap energy anywhere is an OK goal because it brings lights and widgets to energy poor areas and American gas pumps without draining the Permian Basin. I think the prevailing goal of the administration is going to be delivering American gas to Europe. The exporting of oil and gas is about to get a green light, it's just a matter of how economical it is going to be. I haven't made up my mind about Rex yet.

                4) Teslas, Panels, and Wind Turbines. I think that consumer demand will keep Tesla's and electrics moving. I think gas prices have more impact on their demand than the administration. Getting infrastructure for charging them would have been better with a democrat pushing it, but Hillary would have been more gridlock and no promise anything would have happened year 1, 2,3, or certainly 4. PTC expiring will likely slow the wind industry, but solar is effectively profitable now without a subsidy. Energy is shifting into a service industry and DER oriented in a lot of areas. I think that keeps renewables moving. The market will likely keep everything moving as it has been. Electricity markets have the most to move with PTC's expiring, Nuclear and Coal coming off the grid- unless subsidized, and a rapid shift in the merchant power plant business model with low prices.

                We shall see!
                Running the damn ball since 2017.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                  I think this terribly unfair. If people would listen and respond rather than just dismissing out of hand we might all learn something we didnt before. Yet it seems we all just crave confirmation bias because it makes our world view palatable.
                  Agreed. I would think we all bring different experiences and knowledge based on our education and careers. For instance, if I wanted more info on the country's most advanced highway/ transportation infrastructure system, the first guy I'd want to talk with is Buster.

                  The issue, IMO, is that in one hour on here the conversation could go anywhere from the best turf system for football to economic policies to healthcare and here's how it goes:

                  1) state opinion/ argument
                  2) define why
                  3) dismiss/ laugh at anyone who disagrees
                  4) anyone who disagrees is intellectually inferior to Buster

                  No matter who's in the discussion or what the topic is, Buster is always the smartest guy in the room.
                  The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                  Comment


                  • Lovely Fox News interview today. Can't make this stuff up.

                    Mr Trump also said in the interview he did not need daily intelligence briefings.
                    "I'm a smart person, I don't need to be told the same thing in the same way for eight years."

                    Elsewhere in the interview, he said:
                    "no one really knows" if climate change is real and a decision on the Paris treaty will come quickly

                    TRUMP: I'm a 'smart person,' don't need intelligence briefings every day.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Shamrock Theories View Post
                      Lovely Fox News interview today. Can't make this stuff up.

                      Mr Trump also said in the interview he did not need daily intelligence briefings.
                      "I'm a smart person, I don't need to be told the same thing in the same way for eight years."

                      Elsewhere in the interview, he said:
                      "no one really knows" if climate change is real and a decision on the Paris treaty will come quickly

                      TRUMP: I'm a 'smart person,' don't need intelligence briefings every day.
                      That's flat out scary. Unless the president is Nostradamus, he/ she needs to start every morning with a cup of coffee and the PDB. No questions asked.
                      The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                        That's flat out scary. Unless the president is Nostradamus, he/ she needs to start every morning with a cup of coffee and the PDB. No questions asked.
                        agree...but did the last guy get the PDB every day? Seemed to me he was not a very voracious consumer of intel. Many think he was GREAT...yea I meant to use GREAT.
                        One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • Intel is critical obviously, but are there significant changes and/or updates everyday? I mean if it's a water is wet kinda day, or the average temp this month is 77 and it's 76, is 1 degree enough to warrant a meeting or conference call. Could he be saying he just needs to know what's new or what's changed, not the same song and dance daily?
                          The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
                          Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by phgreek View Post
                            agree...but did the last guy get the PDB every day? Seemed to me he was not a very voracious consumer of intel. Many think he was GREAT...yea I meant to use GREAT.
                            Both President Obama and Bush took a briefing pretty much every day post election. And I don't know what would make you say that he wasn't a voracious consumer of intel- I've spoken with a guy who did PDBs for both Bush and Obama and he said both took it very seriously. Bush liked to be briefed while Obama liked to be given the brief and then have the guy answer questions after he'd read through it but both took it seriously.

                            The critique of Bush not taking OBL seriously is unfair- people involved in the process said there were warnings but none particularized enough to act on. Any critique of Obama not taking intel or national security seriously is equally misplaced.
                            Last edited by IrishinSyria; 12-11-2016, 07:59 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Gap on Russia hacking conclusions between intelligence, FBI - CNNPolitics.com
                              The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
                              Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
                                Intel is critical obviously, but are there significant changes and/or updates everyday? I mean if it's a water is wet kinda day, or the average temp this month is 77 and it's 76, is 1 degree enough to warrant a meeting or conference call. Could he be saying he just needs to know what's new or what's changed, not the same song and dance daily?
                                That's would be excusable if Trump started with a great deal of knowledge and/or experience. If McCain had won in 2008, he could probably put it in neutral in that department while he focused on the economic calamity taking place.

                                Given that the economy isn't falling off a cliff and Trump has a serious lack of knowledge on foreign policy (spoken of again and again and again by Republicans and Democrats alike all campaign season...), you'd think he'd want to be in these meetings so when he's in the situation room he'll have a strong sense of going on.

                                What is happening is pretty clear IMO: Mike Pence is President. The same deal offered to John Kasich was offered to Pence, that he'd run the show while Trump "made America great again," and Pence took it because he was a political dead-ender. So he's attending the meetings in Trump's place because Trump apparently has been things to do, like twitter.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                  That's would be excusable if Trump started with a great deal of knowledge and/or experience. If McCain had won in 2008, he could probably put it in neutral in that department while he focused on the economic calamity taking place.

                                  Given that the economy isn't falling off a cliff and Trump has a serious lack of knowledge on foreign policy (spoken of again and again and again by Republicans and Democrats alike all campaign season...), you'd think he'd want to be in these meetings so when he's in the situation room he'll have a strong sense of going on.

                                  What is happening is pretty clear IMO: Mike Pence is President. The same deal offered to John Kasich was offered to Pence, that he'd run the show while Trump "made America great again," and Pence took it because he was a political dead-ender. So he's attending the meetings in Trump's place because Trump apparently has been things to do, like twitter.
                                  If you are not a fan of Trump's knowledge of foreign policy, wouldn't you be happy that it's getting delegated in part to Pence? After all, Pence is not a fan of Putin, and supported most of the free trade agreements.

                                  And dead ender? I mean after stretches in the House and as Governor, not much left other then various jobs surrounding the POTUS and the POTUS itself. Did pretty well as a dead ender to grab VP. Not supportive of his LGBT stances, but I'd love to see Pence push some of his tax cut and spending limit policy if he is running the country.....
                                  The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
                                  Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post

                                    What is happening is pretty clear IMO: Mike Pence is President. The same deal offered to John Kasich was offered to Pence, that he'd run the show while Trump "made America great again," and Pence took it because he was a political dead-ender. So he's attending the meetings in Trump's place because Trump apparently has been things to do, like twitter.
                                    No!

                                    But....

                                    He doesn't even tweet about....

                                    You're wrong, because Trump....

                                    Perhaps it's better this way?
                                    Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                      Thanks for playing. I apologize but i am not discussing this with you if this is what you really think. I posted a link earlier today where you can go sentence by sentence of your last two posts and everyone of your points is discussed thoroughly and completely debunked. But i doubt you will check it out.
                                      I put two sources in the mainstream media that confirmed the story.

                                      NY Times and the Telegraph

                                      How about you read those instead of being close-minded?

                                      Comment


                                      • I think it's very interesting that people can actually deny man made climate change. How about we look at this problem from a VERY basic level.

                                        Let me ask you this. Can we all agree that "man" has pumped more CO2 and other greenhouse gas into the atmosphere more then would normally be produced with out man? I would hope the answer is yes.


                                        Can we also agree that "man" has causes massive deforestation? More then would normally would have happened without man? I hope the answer is yes.

                                        Can we also agree that the earth has cycles of warming and cooling that can NOT be influenced by "man"? I hope the answer is yes.


                                        With the fact that we are losing our our forests an an incredible level due to deforestation the earth is not able to absorb the CO2 that is produce tthrough photosynthesis thus making CO2 levels rise to an all time record high.

                                        Now just in case you don't know what and increase in greenhouses gas into the atmosphere can do here is a very basic video to watch.

                                        https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=my...=yfp-hrtab-900

                                        Again this is very basic. Most of the warming generated by global warming is stored in the oceans and that is why you are seeing ocean temp rise faster then air temp. The north pole is melting at an alarming rate to a point that it is now navigable by ship. Most people who have a basic understanding of this with say " but the ice in the south pole is increasing" that is true but that increase is still only about 30% of what we are losing in the North which is why sea levels have begun to rise.


                                        There are many factors that have contributed to golobal warming but if we look at it at its most basic level is not very complicated.

                                        Increased CO2 level by man
                                        Deforestation by man have caused CO2 levels and other green house gas to increase
                                        Thus leading to an increase in the earth's temperatures.

                                        The discussion is not is the earth warming, we all know it is the discussion is how much has man contributed to the warming? Based on basic science and common sense I hope we can all say man HAS contributed to the rapid increase in earth temperatures never seen before at this level regardless of the earth's warming and cooling cycles,






                                        Originally posted by wyvrn View Post
                                        I put two sources in the mainstream media that confirmed the story.

                                        NY Times and the Telegraph

                                        How about you read those instead of being close-minded?

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
                                          If you are not a fan of Trump's knowledge of foreign policy, wouldn't you be happy that it's getting delegated in part to Pence? After all, Pence is not a fan of Putin, and supported most of the free trade agreements.

                                          And dead ender? I mean after stretches in the House and as Governor, not much left other then various jobs surrounding the POTUS and the POTUS itself. Did pretty well as a dead ender to grab VP. Not supportive of his LGBT stances, but I'd love to see Pence push some of his tax cut and spending limit policy if he is running the country.....
                                          I'm not happy about it because Trump should be doing his damn job. He will ultimately be making decisions and we now know for a fact that he isn't being informed. That's just inexcusable and the exact sort of demeanor people were talking about when they said he wasn't fit for the job.

                                          George Bush's presidency was a rough go for the country because he surrounded himself with neoconservatives who had way too much leverage in the Oval Office. Reagan delegated, but he generally stayed on top of things. Bush delegated, and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney fucked it all up because Bush simply wasn't being informed of important opinions contrary to his team's.

                                          I see more Bush than Reagan. Mattis is a good pick (but his hard line on Iran is worrisome), but the rumor of John Bolton as Deputy Sec of State should freak everyone out. That guy still defends the Iraq War and proposes that we bomb Iran whenever he can. Now picture that sorta guy in the situation room when Trump feels slighted and had Central Command at his disposal instead of twitter...

                                          And yeah Mike Pence was a dead-ender. The same with Giuliani and plenty of the guys who took the risk of signing up for Trump. It paid off wonderfully for them, no doubt.

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                            I'm not happy about it because Trump should be doing his damn job. He will ultimately be making decisions and we now know for a fact that he isn't being informed. That's just inexcusable and the exact sort of demeanor people were talking about when they said he wasn't fit for the job.

                                            George Bush's presidency was a rough go for the country because he surrounded himself with neoconservatives who had way too much leverage in the Oval Office. Reagan delegated, but he generally stayed on top of things. Bush delegated, and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney fucked it all up because Bush simply wasn't being informed of important opinions contrary to his team's.

                                            I see more Bush than Reagan. Mattis is a good pick (but his hard line on Iran is worrisome), but the rumor of John Bolton as Deputy Sec of State should freak everyone out. That guy still defends the Iraq War and proposes that we bomb Iran whenever he can. Now picture that sorta guy in the situation room when Trump feels slighted and had Central Command at his disposal instead of twitter...

                                            And yeah Mike Pence was a dead-ender. The same with Giuliani and plenty of the guys who took the risk of signing up for Trump. It paid off wonderfully for them, no doubt.
                                            I understand why Bolton freaks out libs, but he's not freaking out most GOPers unless your Rand Paul. He's not liked by everyone, but not freaking them out either. George Menbiot doesn't care for him much either lol.. Meh. He's conservative, pushy, loud, and has tossed stones at Obama and the Clintons. I don't think Iran should be bombed right now, but a harder line is needed (simply my opinion). Same with N Korea. Powell didn't care for him, and neither do I really, but I'm not going to chicken little his nomination. He's an opionated blowhard like a lot of folks in government and on IE. He does have a lot of experience however.
                                            The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
                                            Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                              He will ultimately be making decisions and we now know for a fact that he isn't being informed.
                                              No, we don't. You're using hyperbole to suggest that he isn't. If you look at what he said, he said that he doesn't need to be told the same thing, the same way, for 8 years. He's CLEARLY referencing redundancy. Maybe his recall is better than most, and he really does only need to be told once. That's not uninformed. As the survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury (Basilar artery aneurysm that produced a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage), I am a big believer in repetition as a form of learning and also an aid to recall. But before my aneurysm, I was the kind of guy who could hear you give your wife your credit card number over the phone(not by actively listening, but because the phone was only a couple feet away from my workspace), and could recite your credit card number back to you, weeks later. I know, because that's a true story.

                                              Comment


                                              • Congressman begs Electoral College voters to block Trump | New York Post

                                                Continuing to see things like this where people are calling for the electors of the electoral college are being called on to not vote for DJT as their states did. While it is not illegal for some of them to do this (it is for others as their state law is supposed to bind them), is this truly the precedent that the Ds want to set moving forward? This and these massive temper tantrums aka protests are things they want visited on their next president? Think about it, Harry Reid chose the nuclear option and as Trump gets ready to step into office many Ds are really starting to regret that.
                                                Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                  No, we don't. You're using hyperbole to suggest that he isn't. If you look at what he said, he said that he doesn't need to be told the same thing, the same way, for 8 years. He's CLEARLY referencing redundancy. Maybe his recall is better than most, and he really does only need to be told once. That's not uninformed. As the survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury (Basilar artery aneurysm that produced a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage), I am a big believer in repetition as a form of learning and also an aid to recall. But before my aneurysm, I was the kind of guy who could hear you give your wife your credit card number over the phone(not by actively listening, but because the phone was only a couple feet away from my workspace), and could recite your credit card number back to you, weeks later. I know, because that's a true story.
                                                  Lol jesus

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by Shamrock Theories View Post
                                                    Lol jesus
                                                    More thoughtful input from you. Imagine that.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                      No, we don't. You're using hyperbole to suggest that he isn't. If you look at what he said, he said that he doesn't need to be told the same thing, the same way, for 8 years. He's CLEARLY referencing redundancy. Maybe his recall is better than most, and he really does only need to be told once. That's not uninformed. As the survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury (Basilar artery aneurysm that produced a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage), I am a big believer in repetition as a form of learning and also an aid to recall. But before my aneurysm, I was the kind of guy who could hear you give your wife your credit card number over the phone(not by actively listening, but because the phone was only a couple feet away from my workspace), and could recite your credit card number back to you, weeks later. I know, because that's a true story.
                                                      I'll elaborate on lol jesus..

                                                      Trump isn't attending his meetings and given what we know about his past, it falls right in line with his nature. This is Donald "I know more about ISIS than the generals do" Trump who said on MSNBC, when asked who he consults on foreign policy matters:

                                                      “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."

                                                      "I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are," Trump said. “But my primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff."
                                                      And yet we also know that foreign policy advisors who left his campaign said he had trouble paying attention to their study sessions and would zone out to turn on cable news so often that they had trouble getting points across. And we know that when he started his campaign he didn't know who the Kurds were, to give you a baseline level of knowledge in Trump's brain.

                                                      Add all that up with the offered deal to Kasich and what do you get? An empty suit who cares more about Twitter than governing.
                                                      Last edited by Buster Bluth; 12-12-2016, 01:10 PM.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Lockheed Martin shares drop after Trump says F-35 program too expensive

                                                        President-elect Donald Trump took a swipe at Lockheed Martin's F-35 program Monday morning, saying the cost was "out of control."

                                                        Shares of the aerospace company dropped more than 4 percent in early trade. The company's market value dropped $4 billion after the tweet. The impact of Trump's tweet, per character, was more than $28 million.

                                                        Trump tweeted that "billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases" once he takes office in January.
                                                        Iran seals $17 billion Boeing deal, close to Airbus order

                                                        Iran signed a $16.6 billion deal for 80 Boeing passenger jets on Sunday and was said to be close to another for dozens of Airbus planes to complete what would be the biggest package of firm contracts with Western companies since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.
                                                        Boeing's deal with Iran may run into the Republican Congress's intent to kill the Iran nuclear sanctions deal. Boeing also sells one fifth of its sales to China, which Trump intends to take a hard line against. Boeing is arranging financing to complete the deal with Iran. Financing will not go through U.S. banks.
                                                        Last edited by Legacy; 12-12-2016, 12:28 PM.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                          No, we don't. You're using hyperbole to suggest that he isn't. If you look at what he said, he said that he doesn't need to be told the same thing, the same way, for 8 years. He's CLEARLY referencing redundancy. Maybe his recall is better than most, and he really does only need to be told once. That's not uninformed. As the survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury (Basilar artery aneurysm that produced a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage), I am a big believer in repetition as a form of learning and also an aid to recall. But before my aneurysm, I was the kind of guy who could hear you give your wife your credit card number over the phone(not by actively listening, but because the phone was only a couple feet away from my workspace), and could recite your credit card number back to you, weeks later. I know, because that's a true story.
                                                          I mean the issue is that

                                                          1)the PDB doesn't cover the same things every day

                                                          and

                                                          2) his suggested solution (call me if anything changes) is absurd.

                                                          The devil is in the details- for better or worse, Trump's not going to be able to outsource the entire job of the Presidency to Pence and the generals, and eventually the buck stops with him. In many ways, the PDB is the entire purpose of the intelligence apparatus. Even if it's a little boring now and then, Trump can suck it up a little bit and pretend to care about getting his hour long briefing every day.

                                                          This isnt a partisan line of attack. This is a basic responsibility of the presidency. Be informed.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
                                                            I understand why Bolton freaks out libs, but he's not freaking out most GOPers unless your Rand Paul. He's not liked by everyone, but not freaking them out either. George Menbiot doesn't care for him much either lol.. Meh. He's conservative, pushy, loud, and has tossed stones at Obama and the Clintons. I don't think Iran should be bombed right now, but a harder line is needed (simply my opinion). Same with N Korea. Powell didn't care for him, and neither do I really, but I'm not going to chicken little his nomination. He's an opionated blowhard like a lot of folks in government and on IE. He does have a lot of experience however.

                                                            Honestly curious what you honk a harder line on Iran would look like.

                                                            E. or North Korea.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Met Office Data Confirms Record Drop Of Global Temperatures

                                                              https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...-temperatures/

                                                              Temperatures have fallen faster recently, given NASA satellite measurements, than have been experienced "at any time than in the recent past".

                                                              The change in temperatures seem to coincide more with El Nino weather patterns than emissions of so-called greenhouse gases, though this has not been proven statistically in a more expansive data set. However, the measurements tend to contradict the current theories around global warning and climate change.

                                                              Graphs included in the article. Researchers emphasize that temperature changes are best viewed longer term, however the rate of change shown in these measurements seem to be statistically important.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by Goldedommer44 View Post
                                                                I think it's very interesting that people can actually deny man made climate change. How about we look at this problem from a VERY basic level.
                                                                If you must, go ahead. I prefer to look at the preponderance of the data and examine the relationships.

                                                                Let me ask you this. Can we all agree that "man" has pumped more CO2 and other greenhouse gas into the atmosphere more then would normally be produced with out man? I would hope the answer is yes.
                                                                Yes, but what can you prove by this?


                                                                Can we also agree that "man" has causes massive deforestation? More then would normally would have happened without man? I hope the answer is yes.
                                                                Two problems with this argument. One, linking deforestation to CO2 production which are separate events, WITHOUT providing causal evidence linking the two (E.g. correlation, which you have not shown, is still not causation). Second, man has also reforested much of the areas he has cut down in the United States. In fact, we have more robust forest lands than at any time in our history.

                                                                Can we also agree that the earth has cycles of warming and cooling that can NOT be influenced by "man"? I hope the answer is yes.
                                                                'We' believe so based upon data that is available.


                                                                With the fact that we are losing our our forests an an incredible level due to deforestation the earth is not able to absorb the CO2 that is produce tthrough photosynthesis thus making CO2 levels rise to an all time record high.
                                                                Show data and link the two (CO2 production and deforestation affect on CO2 levels), otherwise this is a straw man argument.

                                                                Now just in case you don't know what and increase in greenhouses gas into the atmosphere can do here is a very basic video to watch.

                                                                https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=my...=yfp-hrtab-900
                                                                At the moment I don't have time to watch the specific video; however, I have done quite a bit of research into CO2 (which is one of four major components of our atmosphere and always has been) and there has not been a single *conclusive* study that shows CO2 production, at levels man produces (which is a very small percentage of the whole), will affect climate. Most of the purported studies cannot be conclusive and are often quite debated.

                                                                Again this is very basic. Most of the warming generated by global warming is stored in the oceans and that is why you are seeing ocean temp rise faster then air temp. The north pole is melting at an alarming rate to a point that it is now navigable by ship. Most people who have a basic understanding of this with say " but the ice in the south pole is increasing" that is true but that increase is still only about 30% of what we are losing in the North which is why sea levels have begun to rise.
                                                                Some of these points are simply not true. a) I have posted two links showing that climatologists funded by government have willingly manipulated their data, lied about it and tried to cover it up, and tried to take over periodical research to drown out opposing opinion. b) I just posted a link above which shows that the earth is cooling at the fastest in recent memory, albeit this is a relatively small sample size since the 1970s.

                                                                The rest of your conclusions are based upon assumptions, some proven manipulations and cover-ups, and highly debated science that has not been proven to scientist's satisfactions.

                                                                I won't debate you that we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere, though the amount is very little compared to the existing levels which are completely natural and part of the life-cycle of nature.

                                                                I also won't debate that we were in a modest (by earth's standards) warming trend until the last decade or so, at which point the data seems to have reversed and we are in a bit of a small cooling trend.

                                                                I will debate that you can prove CO2 causes earth warming, that man can contribute enough to cause substantial problems, and that the ice melting is as bad as reported (again evidence exists this has been severely overstated, particularly at the poles), and that we are in anything other than a normal earth warming/cooling cycle.
                                                                Last edited by wyvrn; 12-12-2016, 02:09 PM.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by wyvrn View Post
                                                                  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...-temperatures/

                                                                  Temperatures have fallen faster recently, given NASA satellite measurements, than have been experienced "at any time than in the recent past".

                                                                  The change in temperatures seem to coincide more with El Nino weather patterns than emissions of so-called greenhouse gases, though this has not been proven statistically in a more expansive data set. However, the measurements tend to contradict the current theories around global warning and climate change.

                                                                  Graphs included in the article. Researchers emphasize that temperature changes are best viewed longer term, however the rate of change shown in these measurements seem to be statistically important.
                                                                  I believe this was the hacked e-mail scandal you were referencing in a post yesterday.

                                                                  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Someone started dumping Lockheed Martin stock just before Trump&#39;s tweet. Can someone else please verify my findings. <a href="https://t.co/5J7p7SwwcD">pic.twitter.com/5J7p7SwwcD</a></p>&mdash; Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) <a href="https://twitter.com/cbouzy/status/808354101272645633">December 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                                    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                                    This is interesting.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                      <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Someone started dumping Lockheed Martin stock just before Trump's tweet. Can someone else please verify my findings. <a href="https://t.co/5J7p7SwwcD">pic.twitter.com/5J7p7SwwcD</a></p>&mdash; Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) <a href="https://twitter.com/cbouzy/status/808354101272645633">December 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                                      <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                                      This is interesting.
                                                                      Not really.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • interesting =/= undeniable proof of insider trading.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                          interesting =/= undeniable proof of insider trading.
                                                                          That's why it's not interesting to me. First of all, I can't tell volume from that chart... in fact, with absolutely zero context it looks like a typical early morning price volatility sans volume. Second of all, I'm pretty sure he was complaining about the F-35 on TV before he ever tweeted that.

                                                                          So I not only don't see proof of an insider trading, I see some Twitter guy with less followers than a third rate Notre Dame blog using smoke and mirrors to make it seem like something is there that probably isn't there. He says there's a "dump" of stock... well then why not show me the volume shares traded in that window of time? Because he chooses not to have that information or doesn't understand how stocks work or is trying to traffic in fake news or...?

                                                                          Either way, not very interesting to me. I'm guessing you saw it on Shaun King's twitter?

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                            <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Someone started dumping Lockheed Martin stock just before Trump's tweet. Can someone else please verify my findings. <a href="https://t.co/5J7p7SwwcD">pic.twitter.com/5J7p7SwwcD</a></p>&mdash; Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) <a href="https://twitter.com/cbouzy/status/808354101272645633">December 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                                            <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                                            This is interesting.
                                                                            Wouldn't it be great if it was?

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by Bluto View Post
                                                                              Look at the bright side. When the crap hits the fan it's going to be a planning, design, engineering and reconstruction bonanza (at least that's what I keep telling myself lol).
                                                                              Just stumbled upon this in r/economics.

                                                                              Federal report forecasts hundreds of billions of dollars in climate change costs | Investigate Midwest

                                                                              The report — jointly published by the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers — used different global change models to forecast the fiscal consequences of climate change. While the report acknowledged there are still too many unknowns to fully understand climate change’s impact, it predicted that crop insurance, healthcare, wildfire suppression and disaster relief programs will likely see sharp spending increases.

                                                                              Federal spending in those four areas could increase by as much as $112 billion per year toward the later part of this century, the report found.
                                                                              Climate Change creates jobs. Climate Change is good!

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Yeah, I'll take the L on this one. I learned something about how we make line charts so I still think interesting is the right word but the point about volume is a good one.

                                                                                Good example of how confirmation bias and (semi) complicated facts can make someone vulnerable to fake news.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                                                  More thoughtful input from you. Imagine that.
                                                                                  You somehow turned "I don't need to listen to daily Intel briefs because I'm smart "(?????????????????????) into a story about how you remember things.

                                                                                  You think that these briefs are about...repetition? This is a guy who has never held public office of any kind, ever, has never been part of the military in any capacity whatsoever.

                                                                                  He needs to gain actual knowledge, for the first time, ASAP about the numerous foreign policy decisions he will have to make.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Trump Wins Wisconsin ... Again!

                                                                                    Final Wisconsin recount tally strengthens Trump&apos;s victory - LA Times
                                                                                    Michael Finnegan
                                                                                    DEC. 12, 2016, 3:47 P.M.

                                                                                    Donald Trump slightly widened his lead over Hillary Clinton in a recount of Wisconsin’s presidential contest, leaving him more than 22,000 votes ahead in the final tally.

                                                                                    The results effectively ended the recount efforts of Green Party presidential hopeful Jill Stein in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, the crucial Rust Belt states that Trump won by narrow margins.

                                                                                    Courts blocked the recounts that Stein had sought in Pennsylvania, which certified its results on Monday, and Michigan.

                                                                                    The Wisconsin recount that was completed Monday increased Trump’s victory margin there by 131 votes. He won 1,405,284 votes -- 22,748 more than Clinton.

                                                                                    "The biggest reason for these small differences between the unofficial results on election night, the counties' original canvasses and the recount results is human error,” said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

                                                                                    “Some voters do not follow the instructions and mark their ballots correctly for the machines can count them. In the tight deadlines to report the results, election officials make math mistakes, we forget things, we accidentally transpose numbers.”

                                                                                    Stein had argued that voting machines in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan were susceptible to hacking, but produced no evidence of wrongdoing.

                                                                                    “This recount was never about changing the outcome; it was about validating the vote and restoring confidence in our voting system to Americans across the country who have doubts,” Stein said in a written statement.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Trump Wins Again in Pennslyvania

                                                                                      Recount Efforts End: Trump Wins in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania - ABC News
                                                                                      By MARC LEVY AND SCOTT BAUER, ASSOCIATED PRESS
                                                                                      PHILADELPHIA — Dec 12, 2016, 11:50 PM ET

                                                                                      Presidential election recount efforts came to an end Monday in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, with both states certifying Republican Donald Trump as the winner in contests that helped put him over the top in the Electoral College stakes.

                                                                                      Trump's victory in Wisconsin was reaffirmed following a statewide vote recount that showed him defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton by nearly 23,000 votes. Meanwhile, a federal judge issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request for a presidential recount in Pennsylvania that complained the state's reliance on aging electronic voting machines made it highly vulnerable to hacking.

                                                                                      Green Party candidate Jill Stein successfully requested and paid for the Wisconsin recount while her attempts for similar statewide recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan were blocked by the courts.

                                                                                      Stein got only about 1 percent of the vote in each of the three states, which Trump narrowly won over Clinton. Stein argued, without evidence, that voting machines in all three states were susceptible to hacking. All three states were crucial to Trump's victory, having last voted for a Republican for president in the 1980s.

                                                                                      The numbers barely budged in Wisconsin after nearly 3 million votes were recounted. Trump, a billionaire New York real estate mogul, picked up 131 votes and won by 22,748 votes. The final results changed just 0.06 percent.

                                                                                      Trump took to Twitter to celebrate the recount result.

                                                                                      "The final Wisconsin vote is in and guess what - we just picked up an additional 131 votes," he tweeted. "The Dems and Green Party can now rest. Scam!"

                                                                                      Stein said she was disappointed not all Wisconsin counties did hand recounts, although most did. She said the goal of the recount was never to change the outcome but to validate the vote and restore confidence in the system.

                                                                                      "The recount in Wisconsin raised a number of important election integrity issues that bear further assessment and serious action to ensure we have integrity and confidence in our electoral system," she said, without naming what they were.

                                                                                      Wisconsin Elections Commission Chairman Mark Thomsen said before certifying the recount results there was no evidence of a hack.

                                                                                      In Pennsylvania, state officials certified the results of the election in the hours following the decision by U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond.

                                                                                      Trump beat Clinton in the state by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast, or less than 1 percent, according to the final tally after weeks of counting provisional and overseas ballots. Green Party voters had petitioned some counties to do partial recounts, affecting few votes, county officials said.

                                                                                      Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general's office.

                                                                                      Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election "borders on the irrational" while granting the Green Party's recount bid could "ensure that no Pennsylvania vote counts" given Tuesday's federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College, wrote Diamond, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush.

                                                                                      "Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any 'hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised," Diamond wrote.

                                                                                      He said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an "unexplained, highly prejudicial" wait before filing last week's lawsuit, four weeks after the Nov. 8 election.

                                                                                      The decision was the Green Party's latest roadblock in Pennsylvania after hitting numerous walls in county and state courts. Green Party-backed lawyers argue it was possible that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that Pennsylvania's heavy use of paperless machines makes it a prime target. Stein also contended Pennsylvania has erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount.

                                                                                      A lawyer for the Green Party members said Monday they were disappointed and unable to immediately say whether they would appeal.

                                                                                      "But one thing is clear," said the lawyer, Ilann Maazel. "The Pennsylvania election system is not fair to voters and voters don't know if their votes counted, and that's a very large problem."

                                                                                      A federal judge halted Michigan's recount last week after three days. Trump won Michigan by fewer than 11,000 votes out of nearly 4.8 million votes cast.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • So much money wasted that could have gone to good use.
                                                                                        The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
                                                                                        Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/trump...y-morning.html
                                                                                          CNBC.com staff | @CNBC
                                                                                          6 Hours Ago

                                                                                          Exxon Mobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson has been picked as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for the post of secretary of state, NBC News reported Monday, capping weeks of speculation that included a close political ally and a sharp critic.

                                                                                          Trump took again to Twitter to state he would announce the choice on Tuesday.

                                                                                          But two sources familiar with the process told NBC News that Trump has already picked Tillerson. The 64-year old Tillerson has negotiated business deals in Russia that led to a working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has spent his entire career at the company now known as Exxon Mobil.

                                                                                          ...

                                                                                          The U.S. Senate must confirm the cabinet-level position, with rumblings that some members of Trump's Republican party are uneasy about the business leader as the nation's top diplomat. Upon taking office, Trump would formally nominate Tillerson for confirmation by the Senate. If confirmed, Tillerson would be fourth in line to the presidency.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/trump...month-nbc.html
                                                                                            Peter Alexander and Daniella Silva
                                                                                            2 Hours Ago

                                                                                            President-elect Donald Trump has canceled his planned Dec. 15 address set to explain how he would address his business conflicts of interest prior to assuming the White House, a senior transition source told NBC News. Instead, the announcement is delayed until January.

                                                                                            The news of the cancellation was first reported by Bloomberg Monday evening, with Trump transition officials telling the publication that there is no date for the announcement, but it will be prior to his inauguration on Jan. 20.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by Irish YJ View Post
                                                                                              So much money wasted that could have gone to good use.
                                                                                              Most of it went from liberals and Jill stein to state governments and election officials. Not sure why you wouldn't see that as net positive unless this post is kayfabe in which case carry on.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                                                Most of it went from liberals and Jill stein to state governments and election officials. Not sure why you wouldn't see that as net positive unless this post is kayfabe in which case carry on.

                                                                                                A word of McMahonion proportions frequently used in connection with passage of the ACA and Obama's use of EOs.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Trump picks ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as choice for secretary of state - CNNPolitics.com

                                                                                                  (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump has chosen ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to serve as secretary of state, the transition team announced Tuesday, setting up a heated Senate confirmation battle and signaling a desire to ease Washington's estrangement with Russia.

                                                                                                  Like Trump, Tillerson, 64, has no formal foreign policy experience, but has built close relationships with many world leaders by closing massive deals across Eurasia and the Middle East on behalf of the world's largest energy company.
                                                                                                  "His tenacity, broad experience and deep understanding of geopolitics make him an excellent choice for Secretary of State," Trump said in the statement.
                                                                                                  Tillerson was originally a dark horse for the secretary of state nomination, but emerged from a lengthy public interview and vetting process that included better-known quantities like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
                                                                                                  Last edited by BGIF; 12-13-2016, 07:41 AM.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • ODNI and FBI don't agree with CIA conclusion

                                                                                                    Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources | Reuters
                                                                                                    By Mark Hosenball and Jonathan Landay | WASHINGTON
                                                                                                    Dec 13, 2016 | 8:14am EST

                                                                                                    By Mark Hosenball and Jonathan Landay | WASHINGTON

                                                                                                    The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

                                                                                                    While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

                                                                                                    The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

                                                                                                    Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

                                                                                                    An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

                                                                                                    "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

                                                                                                    The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.


                                                                                                    The ODNI, headed by James Clapper, was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks. The commission, which identified major intelligence failures, recommended the office's creation to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies.

                                                                                                    In October, the U.S. government formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against American political organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Democratic President Barack Obama has said he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about consequences for the attacks.

                                                                                                    Reports of the assessment by the CIA, which has not publicly disclosed its findings, have prompted congressional leaders to call for an investigation.

                                                                                                    Obama last week ordered intelligence agencies to review the cyber attacks and foreign intervention in the presidential election and to deliver a report before he turns power over to Trump on Jan. 20.

                                                                                                    The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

                                                                                                    Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.

                                                                                                    "THIN REED"

                                                                                                    The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

                                                                                                    "(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.


                                                                                                    Republican Senator John McCain said on Monday there was "no information" that Russian hacking of American political organizations was aimed at swaying the outcome of the election.

                                                                                                    "It's obvious that the Russians hacked into our campaigns," McCain said. "But there is no information that they were intending to affect the outcome of our election and that's why we need a congressional investigation," he told Reuters.

                                                                                                    McCain questioned an assertion made on Sunday by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, tapped by Trump to be his White House chief of staff, that there were no hacks of computers belonging to Republican organizations.

                                                                                                    "Actually, because Mr. Priebus said that doesn't mean it's true," said McCain. "We need a thorough investigation of it, whether both (Democratic and Republican organizations) were hacked into, what the Russian intentions were. We cannot draw a conclusion yet. That's why we need a thorough investigation."

                                                                                                    In an angry letter sent to ODNI chief Clapper on Monday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he was “dismayed” that the top U.S. intelligence official had not informed the panel of the CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment.

                                                                                                    Noting that Clapper in November testified that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, Nunes asked that Clapper, together with CIA and FBI counterparts, brief the panel by Friday on the latest intelligence assessment of Russian hacking during the election campaign.
                                                                                                    Last edited by BGIF; 12-13-2016, 08:33 AM.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • So the assessment ODNI is endorsing is that the Russians were behind it but we don't know why and the CIA is saying that Russians did it with a goal of helping trump?

                                                                                                      Seems like a pretty simple application of inductive reasoning to get from one to the other. Pretty common in analysis.

                                                                                                      (Me in Afghanistan in a world without analysis: "sir, the Taliban keeps putting IEDs in our path."
                                                                                                      Captain P: "sure, but do you know why?"
                                                                                                      Me: "uhhh... because they want to kill us."
                                                                                                      Captain P: "yeah but do you KNOW that or are you just guessing SGT?")

                                                                                                      More importantly, do Russian motives matter? Is it materially different if they launched cyberattacks on the US with the intent of getting Trump elected or if they just did it with the intent of ducking with us?

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X