Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

The extent of American domination in the world of high technology is pretty mind-boggling, if you think about it. No one else is even close.

Still, America wouldn't be making computer chips if not for Dutch ASML technology. We design the machines they use to design chips.

[misko27]

and my wanting terrible things to happen to America was less malice... and more "No one is going to learn anything unless things go particularly unwell" as well as "Wow, what terrible thing would it be if things did go extremely well... That might even be worse then nothing happening at all"

Haha. Do you look at WW1 and think "Well that was a learning experience, glad that didn't happen again."

Goodness... >_< I don't want another person like Trump ever running for office again

Of the unknowable future I can say nothing. In the near-term it doesn't look great, but it's been worse.  But surely there will be worse men than Trump in the future.

Someone told me that people don't really get shocked back into reality.

I'll tell you now: People don't. Individuals do, but peoples don't. Peoples are, at heart, too prone to their baser instincts and inherent natures. Individuals can, Cultures can, institutions can, traditions can, but *people* are unstoppable, for better and worse. The function of education, culture, tradition, and all those things constantly decried (rightly) as an endless stamping down of the human spirit are there precisely because humanity does not change otherwise. The basic nature is one of regression to the mean: do you think populations understand even one-tenth of what the generation before them learned? Of course not. They weren't there! It is a trusim that I could take your children, deposit them in some community cut-off from contact with the world, and you might come back to them in 20 years unable to distinguish them from their fellows. In fact, this was a point of interest under the Ottomans: The Janissaries were Christian children taken from their parents at a young age, converted to Islam, and made into a devastating and loyal elite corps, and it was only after membership was expanded to adults that the system broke down.

My points: people don't change and shock therapy is universally counter-productive. Many, many states have implemented shock therapy as a tool of state, such as various revolutionary regimes, Latin American dictatorships, as well as an economic version against former soviet states. Historically even Plato's Republic discusses a sort of advanced form of shock therapy as his ultimate solution. And with all that historical background, I can say quite safely that it does not work; I can also say that because it doesn't work, people still revert to the mean of thinking "hey maybe this isn't the worst idea in the universe."

[Radio Controlled]

Has this been posted in here yet? Didn't see it skimming the last 2 pages, but I could've missed it.

From the Washington post:
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.

In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.
[...]
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
[...]
On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.

Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
[...]
Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.
[...]
In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”
The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.
Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

There's other sources, but they mostly cite the Post themselves as far as I can see.

[Neonivek]

Trump will probably say the CIA is working for Crooken Hillary or the Russians trying to sow discord in America...

Because Russia is the boogeyman.

---

Also odd you mention WW1 because there is a LOT of fiction out there involving how bad the world becomes without WW2 (for example, Jews are still world reviled)

[PanH]

Trump will probably say the CIA is working for Crooken Hillary or the Russians trying to sow discord in America...

Because Russia is the boogeyman.

---

Also odd you mention WW1 because there is a LOT of fiction out there involving how bad the world becomes without WW2 (for example, Jews are still world reviled)

That's because fiction where there isn't anything bad happening would be uninteresting. The most interesting alt history I read was about Hitler being admitted to his school. And the book runs in parallel, one following the story of our Hitler, and one of the other Hitler, and while stuff isn't great in the other world, it's certainly better than here.
And there's also the whole justification of deaths : if we can think that the deaths of millions of people were worth it because otherwise it would be worse is a great way to remove that weight from your consciousness.

[Sergarr]

"No sane people would accept communism except by revolution."

Nepal.

OK, I'll amend that to "no sane people except for Nepalese".

When Sergarr was a Putinist it was at least a somewhat unique perspective. If I wanted irrational praise for the Democratic Party Establishment I could already go to Mainiac.

He's not here, so I'm taking over his position as this forum's uncompromising Democratic liberty ideologue. Besides, anything pro-Putinism would lend support to Trump and Republicans, which I don't want.

I'm not going to argue that, when (most) American policies are contrasted with European policies, the American policies are better (though the exceptions are big ass exceptions). However, the US has had a few advantages that basically came down to luck:

* No serfdom, no feudalism, no vast number of disenfranchised natives. Those things fucked over places like Mexico and Nicaragua since there's perpetual disputed land claims between landowners and their tenants. In the US, land more or less came as a "first come first serve" sort of deal since there weren't enough natives to justify that kind of system.

* Two World Wars without any continental fighting. This really can't be overstated. After WW2, basically every country that could compete with the US had either had its industry leveled or was run by Communists. The US won out by being the last great power standing more than anything else.

1) They did try to amend that, with mass slave importation. Which was actually the cause of the American Civil War.
2) USA only had that advantage because it has been a single state. And maintaining unity of a country of such size, given the usual speed of communications in 19th century, is not very easy.

Nearly every bad thing in the long run that has happened in the Middle East since 1952 or so has been pretty much entirely due to American intervention. We can give the Israel-Palestine conflict a pass, but problems with Iran, the rise of radical Islamists, etc can be pretty easily traced back to short sighted decisions made by the US government to tamper with Middle Eastern countries for shady reasons. Most (albeit not all) conflicts south of Mexico can be put on American interventions as well.

Peace in Europe and East Asia isn't caused by fear of the US Navy, it's because international trade has been going well recently. China may hate Japan, but they aren't going to get into a war that could destroy their economic growth unless something incredible happens. Whatever the British may think of the EU, the odds of them deciding to reclaim Calais even if the US allowed it are basically zero.

Just compare with the 19th century. No overwhelming superpower like the US, but if you write off wars of imperialism in the colonies (which we basically are doing anyway if we ignore non-developed countries today) then wars were very, very rare and quite limited in scope. After Napoleon you basically have a few revolutions, the German wars of reunification, the American Civil War, the Crimean War (which was the biggest one and was still very limited) and the Franco-Prussian war. WW1 alone blows all of those out of the water.

The main reason why USA tampered with all those countries (mostly with poor results, yes) was to stop the rise of evil, namely, communism. One can excuse overreaction when facing an authoritarian enemy of such world-destroying magnitude.

I seem to recall that people were naming "international trade" as the main reason why wars in Europe would no longer happen, in about 1910. And that obviously didn't work out.

But in 19th century, there was a dominant superpower - British Empire. Also, that's still quite a few wars you've listed there. Doesn't compare favorably with modern era.

So a government with more responsible spending, less political deadlock, and flows more easily then the USA?

Hmmm... interesting...

As opposed to periodically slipping into tyranny and mass murder of its own citizens? American government was a thing since 1783 IIRC, and it didn't do that once, as opposed to... every other government on Earth, basically.

Has this been posted in here yet? Didn't see it skimming the last 2 pages, but I could've missed it.

From the Washington post:
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.

In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.
[...]
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
[...]
On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.

Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
[...]
Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.
[...]
In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”
The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.
Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

There's other sources, but they mostly cite the Post themselves as far as I can see.

I fucking called it. Trump is a Russian shill, and so are his Republican supporters. Hopefully this report will result in Trump & the Republicans, that fully endorsed that Russian puppet, being put into jail for treason against the United States. There should be no traitors in the Congress and the White House.

[Wolfhunter107]

And you have proof of this where?

[Neonivek]

And there's also the whole justification of deaths : if we can think that the deaths of millions of people were worth it because otherwise it would be worse is a great way to remove that weight from your consciousness.

I think you missed a note. I think it is more finding a way to find meaning in millions of deaths.

[smjjames]

Has this been posted in here yet? Didn't see it skimming the last 2 pages, but I could've missed it.

From the Washington post:
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.

In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.
[...]
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
[...]
On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.

Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
[...]
Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.
[...]
In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”
The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.
Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

There's other sources, but they mostly cite the Post themselves as far as I can see.

I fucking called it. Trump is a Russian shill, and so are his Republican supporters. Hopefully this report will result in Trump & the Republicans, that fully endorsed that Russian puppet, being put into jail for treason against the United States. There should be no traitors in the Congress and the White House.

To be fair, we all did, starting with wikileaks, reinforced by the fact that Putin's made no secret of his dislike for Clinton. What was unknown is the Trump campaigns complicity in the whole thing and just how far the Russians were actually going.

Pence might be implicated in this as well, though more of a what did he know and when for him.

[Sergarr]

Trump is now complaining about being named Time's "Person of the Year": "Who would rather have it be the Man of the Year?"

"but Trump isn't sexist" (c) any idiot.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

"No sane people would accept communism except by revolution."

Nepal.

OK, I'll amend that to "no sane people except for Nepalese".

But why not others? What makes Nepal special?

I'm not going to argue that, when (most) American policies are contrasted with European policies, the American policies are better (though the exceptions are big ass exceptions). However, the US has had a few advantages that basically came down to luck:

* No serfdom, no feudalism, no vast number of disenfranchised natives. Those things fucked over places like Mexico and Nicaragua since there's perpetual disputed land claims between landowners and their tenants. In the US, land more or less came as a "first come first serve" sort of deal since there weren't enough natives to justify that kind of system.

* Two World Wars without any continental fighting. This really can't be overstated. After WW2, basically every country that could compete with the US had either had its industry leveled or was run by Communists. The US won out by being the last great power standing more than anything else.

1) They did try to amend that, with mass slave importation. Which was actually the cause of the American Civil War.

Yes, but that doesn't change that America didn't have the history that Europe did.

2) USA only had that advantage because it has been a single state. And maintaining unity of a country of such size, given the usual speed of communications in 19th century, is not very easy.

How so?

Nearly every bad thing in the long run that has happened in the Middle East since 1952 or so has been pretty much entirely due to American intervention. We can give the Israel-Palestine conflict a pass, but problems with Iran, the rise of radical Islamists, etc can be pretty easily traced back to short sighted decisions made by the US government to tamper with Middle Eastern countries for shady reasons. Most (albeit not all) conflicts south of Mexico can be put on American interventions as well.

Peace in Europe and East Asia isn't caused by fear of the US Navy, it's because international trade has been going well recently. China may hate Japan, but they aren't going to get into a war that could destroy their economic growth unless something incredible happens. Whatever the British may think of the EU, the odds of them deciding to reclaim Calais even if the US allowed it are basically zero.

Just compare with the 19th century. No overwhelming superpower like the US, but if you write off wars of imperialism in the colonies (which we basically are doing anyway if we ignore non-developed countries today) then wars were very, very rare and quite limited in scope. After Napoleon you basically have a few revolutions, the German wars of reunification, the American Civil War, the Crimean War (which was the biggest one and was still very limited) and the Franco-Prussian war. WW1 alone blows all of those out of the water.

The main reason why USA tampered with all those countries (mostly with poor results, yes) was to stop the rise of evil, namely, communism. One can excuse overreaction when facing an authoritarian enemy of such world-destroying magnitude.

Noooo.... oil and profit.

I seem to recall that people were naming "international trade" as the main reason why wars in Europe would no longer happen, in about 1910. And that obviously didn't work out.

International trade helps stabilize things, but there can be other factors, such as lining up every single European country in one of two alliances, then a single spark at the tip of the string...

But in 19th century, there was a dominant superpower - British Empire. Also, that's still quite a few wars you've listed there. Doesn't compare favorably with modern era.

A few wars, but none so large or devastating.

So a government with more responsible spending, less political deadlock, and flows more easily then the USA?

Hmmm... interesting...

As opposed to periodically slipping into tyranny and mass murder of its own citizens?

Trail of Tears, "internment" camps, Tuskegee experiment, Project MKULTRA, electroconvulsive therapy, literally giving guns away to known criminals so that they could be tracked (wait a sec, now they're shooting people with the guns!), injecting people with plutonium, exposing people to large amounts of radiation, testing mustard gas on sailors, adding poison to alcohol during Prohibition, land grabs...

Yeah, we have some periodic human rights violations. Just a few. (And that's off the top of my head / a quick Google search, and that's just its own citizens...)

American government was a thing since 1783 IIRC, and it didn't do that once, as opposed to... every other government on Earth, basically.

1. It hasn't been around as long.
    a. Therefore, it is easier to not have a bloody history.
    b. Old times are bad times, and many countries have bloody histories from before 1783.
    c. And while we didn't collapse ourselves, we sure helped other countries go through revolution... only to end with dictatorship. But since it's for CAPITALISM, it's fine, right?
2. Oh yes it has. See above.

Has this been posted in here yet? Didn't see it skimming the last 2 pages, but I could've missed it.

From the Washington post:
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.

In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.
[...]
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
[...]
On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.

Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
[...]
Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.
[...]
In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”
The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.
Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

There's other sources, but they mostly cite the Post themselves as far as I can see.

I fucking called it. Trump is a Russian shill, and so are his Republican supporters. Hopefully this report will result in Trump & the Republicans, that fully endorsed that Russian puppet, being put into jail for treason against the United States. There should be no traitors in the Congress and the White House.

AAAAAAAAAA

No witch hunts, no witch hunts, REGRESSIVE LEFT, no witch hunts

Trump is now complaining about being named Time's "Person of the Year": "Who would rather have it be the Man of the Year?"

"but Trump isn't sexist" (c) any idiot.

that's not sexist, it's just being self-centered

[smjjames]

Has this been posted in here yet? Didn't see it skimming the last 2 pages, but I could've missed it.

From the Washington post:
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.

In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.
[...]
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
[...]
On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.

Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
[...]
Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.
[...]
In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”
The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.
Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

There's other sources, but they mostly cite the Post themselves as far as I can see.

I fucking called it. Trump is a Russian shill, and so are his Republican supporters. Hopefully this report will result in Trump & the Republicans, that fully endorsed that Russian puppet, being put into jail for treason against the United States. There should be no traitors in the Congress and the White House.

AAAAAAAAAA

No witch hunts, no witch hunts, REGRESSIVE LEFT, no witch hunts
[/quote]

You have a point on witch hunts, but we do need to know how much involvement Russia actually had

[Sergarr]

"No sane people would accept communism except by revolution."

Nepal.

OK, I'll amend that to "no sane people except for Nepalese".

But why not others? What makes Nepal special?

I dunno. Honestly, it doesn't seem like their communists are any different from the usual kind, given that I saw words "decade-long communist Maoist insurgency" on Wikipedia's page on Nepal.

Yes, but that doesn't change that America didn't have the history that Europe did.

Where does Europe enter in a comparison between USA and Latin America?

How so?

Well, lack of speedy, open and comprehensive two-way communications usually results in regions eventually rebelling against the center. That's what happen with colonial empires, and with USSR and its puppet Warsaw Pact. USA itself is a result of such rebellion, you know.

Noooo.... oil and profit.

That's what communists have said, yes. It's also a very popular world-view in modern Russia - that USA only wages war for "oil and profit". Of course, such conspiracy theories should not be indulged by civilized people, would you agree with me on that?

International trade helps stabilize things, but there can be other factors, such as lining up every single European country in one of two alliances, then a single spark at the tip of the string...

For the Cold War time period, most of Europe was literally divided between NATO and Warsaw Pact. Yet, no big wars happened, because of USA's peaceful influences, backed up with a mighty nuclear fist, of course. Same thing is currently happening in the world, too, with various anti-NATO countries coming together and forging an unholy alliance - Shanghai Pact. Still no wars, though, because USA is the world's guarantee of peace and the strongest country on Earth.

Trail of Tears, "internment" camps, Tuskegee experiment, Project MKULTRA, electroconvulsive therapy, literally giving guns away to known criminals so that they could be tracked (wait a sec, now they're shooting people with the guns!), injecting people with plutonium, exposing people to large amounts of radiation, testing mustard gas on sailors, adding poison to alcohol during Prohibition, land grabs...

Yeah, we have some periodic human rights violations. Just a few. (And that's off the top of my head / a quick Google search, and that's just its own citizens...)

Meanwhile, Europe in the same time period has killed off millions of Jews and other "undesirables" for the crime of existing, and has engaged in mass extermination of their colonies, enslaving the entire African continent.

The difference in scale is pretty obvious. I don't say that USA's government is perfect - nothing is; but it's better than European ones, and consistently so.

1. It hasn't been around as long.
    a. Therefore, it is easier to not have a bloody history.
    b. Old times are bad times, and many countries have bloody histories from before 1783.
    c. And while we didn't collapse ourselves, we sure helped other countries go through revolution... only to end with dictatorship. But since it's for CAPITALISM, it's fine, right?
2. Oh yes it has. See above.

Even if you only count things that happened in other countries after 1783, USA still wins handily.

AAAAAAAAAA

No witch hunts, no witch hunts, REGRESSIVE LEFT, no witch hunts

We have evidence of Republicans knowingly stalling investigation into Trump's Russian ties. This is not a "witch hunt", it's enforcement of liberal justice, the only real kind of justice, in order to prevent the evil from taking over the strongest bastion of liberalism and freedom. This is pretty serious, if we let them take power, they will try to do anything in order to keep it. You can expect mass surveillance and blacklisting of liberals, police given extra-constitutional rights to detain people without due process, and many other bad things, if we don't start acting against evil, and fast.

that's not sexist, it's just being self-centered

It's very sexist. Extremely sexist. You've watched the video I linked, right? He's being super-sexist there. He scoffed at the idea of it being a "Woman of the Year", because he can't conceive a woman being actually important.

[Vilanat]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-to-romney-the-1980s-called-they-want-their-foreign-policy-back-video

[Sergarr]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-to-romney-the-1980s-called-they-want-their-foreign-policy-back-video

That was back when it looked like Russia was on a course of becoming a proper democracy and ally of the West. You know, 2011-2012 protests on the streets, Putin's approval rating dropping down to 50%, all good stuff like that.

Situation has obviously changed since then.