Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama's Cyber Chief Comes Clean

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

  • American87
    started a topic Obama's Cyber Chief Comes Clean

    Obama's Cyber Chief Comes Clean

    It turns out Obama gave a "stand down" order that allowed the Russians to meddle in our election. Not that liberals care-they'll just find something else to complain about. But Russian interference is all on Obama.

    Michael Daniel, Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down” his efforts in the summer of 2016.

  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Percy Coburg View Post

    That's classified. We are no longer dealing with the Obama admin where classified info flows freely.
    Well that's a convenient excuse, despite the huge amount of leaks that there has been. But, how can he fix a problem when he doesn't even acknowledge that a problem exists? At best he doesn't care that Russia interfered, at worst he refuses to admit that Russia did it. Depending on what day he is asked about it and who is around. That's not indicative of someone trying to clean anything up. You have to fist acknowledge that there is a mess that needs to be cleaned. He hasn't done that.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post
    It turns out Obama gave a "stand down" order that allowed the Russians to meddle in our election. Not that liberals care-they'll just find something else to complain about. But Russian interference is all on Obama.
    Perhaps because the POTUS was engaging in questionable actions that might seem to parallel that Russian "meddling" ...

    Breaking: More Evidence Uncovered Shows Obama Spied On Trump Illegally As Early As 2015
    ...
    – More evidence uncovered that shows that Obama team illegally spied on the Trump team as early as 2015.

    As we reported previously, in early June the US Senate released over 500 pages of information related to the Spygate scandal. Hidden in the information were unredacted Strzok – Page texts that show the FBI initiated actions to insert multiple spies in the Trump campaign in December 2015.

    Also, according to far left LA Times, Comey stated in March of 2017 under oath that the FBI investigation into the Trump – Russia scandal started in July 2016. But Comey appears to have lied about this.
    ...
    https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-ev...y-2015-314906/

    But then hypocrisy is a common trait of Democrats;

    Obama Attacks Wealthy For Big Houses Before Returning To His $8 Million Mansion
    ...
    At a recent speech in South Africa, former President Barack Obama criticized wealth inequality, saying those who have more money should share their earnings with the less fortunate.

    “Right now, I’m actually surprised by how much money I got,” Obama said of the more than $20 million he earned between 2005 and 2016.

    Obama then chided wealthy individuals for excess, saying, “There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough.”
    ...
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/obama-house-rich/

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    So what aspects of reality can we agree on? I will start and in a couple of years we should be able to reach a useful consensus.

    We can start with basic necessities.

    Are political reality should be formulated around an understanding of how water, food, shelter, and defense of the first three will be secured along with the required infrastructure such as transportation and energy. The major requirement is that the system has as much redundancy and security as possible.

    Obviously in today's world the environmental question is going to be an almost insurmountable barrier to consensus. If we apply as a first principle the least amount of human suffering over the next decade does that help?

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    There were very few pro Trump people here before the election so I think it is safe to say that the constant use of that disapprobation gets annoying for good reason.

    I have never been pro any presidential candidate since Kennedy, when I was too young to know any better. I simply vote for the lesser evil.

    The failure to vote based on competency is symptomatic of the failure in the general population to comprehend the importance of hierarchy based on merit. The principles that apply to private relationships cannot be applied to public figures.

    The only principle worth standing on is the minimization of suffering but it is a nearly worthless guide because of complexity and the need to work within arbitrary time frames.

    The first order of business is to reestablish a shared narrative of what reality looks like. Reality is not a social construct but social constructs are a subset of reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    If the Russian threat meant that much to Democrats, then why did their standard-bearer run such a lame campaign? Clearly Hillary wasn't too bothered by Russian influence, was she.

    Make no mistake about it: 2016 was Hillary's election to lose. She lost it. Period. The Russians did not steal it.

    And if one is really that concerned about Trump's relationship with the Russians and its implications for national security, then the best thing to do -- the very highest priority -- is to replace Trump in the White House come 2020. Nominating another lame candidate running another lame game plan will NOT positively address that concern.

    Will it.....
    But on the other hand as this OP shows the Pro Trump side keeps trying to blame Obama for letting it happen.

    They for some odd reason cant see both sides of the coin on this one. Two bad choice for Obama especially with one canidate claiming a rigged election already.

    And odds are Clinton probally does loses but when your looking at 100k votes separating the canidates Well your level of certainity is not as good.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Percy Coburg View Post

    That's classified. We are no longer dealing with the Obama admin where classified info flows freely.
    If it is classified then how do you know that Trump is doing the clean-up as POTUS and not as Putin's maid?

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Certainly the current field looks that way... An Indian "princess," a crazy uncle, a has been Communist, and a few nobodies so far...
    We're still four months away from the midterms, so prognosticating 2020's presidential election is certainly premature. Nevertheless, by my way of thinking, the top fund-raisers in 2018 are likely thinking beyond 2018 -- well beyond. According to "Open Secrets.org," the top Democratic fund-raiser is a Congressional candidate from Georgia's 6th CD, Jon Ossoff, with over $30 million raised over the last two years. That's a House of Representatives candidate, mind you, not a senatorial candidate. The top Democratic senatorial candidates are Doug Jones from Alabama and Beto O'Rourke from Texas, sporting about $23 million apiece. The top Republican is Florida's Rick Scott at $22.5 million. As things stand now, those are the four most likely to make a splash in the 2020 presidential race.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topraise.php

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    If the Democrats truly believed that Russian activities cost Hillary the election then they'd make damned sure not to repeat Hillary's mistakes of 2016 and 2008 -- and they'd do so publicly. That the Democrats are almost monolithically silent about Hillary's manifest failure as a political strategist and campaigner and instead are putting all of their energies into pillorying Trump tells me that the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee may very well be as ****-poor a campaigner as Hilary was. Are they going to blame that on the Russians as well?
    Certainly the current field looks that way... An Indian "princess," a crazy uncle, a has been Communist, and a few nobodies so far...

    Leave a comment:


  • Percy Coburg
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    What is he doing to clean it up?
    That's classified. We are no longer dealing with the Obama admin where classified info flows freely.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Percy Coburg View Post

    Clinton is irrelevant but Obama is not. He allowed it to go on unchallenged during his time as POTUS.
    Trump is merely cleaning up Obama's mess.
    What is he doing to clean it up?

    Leave a comment:


  • Percy Coburg
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    Clinton is irrelevant as she is not the president. Obama is also irrelevant as he is no longer president. The issue is Trump and Putin and Russian interference in the US elections and their not-so-subtle attempts to subvert the NATO alliance which is one of Putin's goals.
    Clinton is irrelevant but Obama is not. He allowed it to go on unchallenged during his time as POTUS.
    Trump is merely cleaning up Obama's mess.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    Clinton is irrelevant as she is not the president. Obama is also irrelevant as he is no longer president. The issue is Trump and Putin and Russian interference in the US elections and their not-so-subtle attempts to subvert the NATO alliance which is one of Putin's goals.
    If the Russian threat meant that much to Democrats, then why did their standard-bearer run such a lame campaign? Clearly Hillary wasn't too bothered by Russian influence, was she.

    Make no mistake about it: 2016 was Hillary's election to lose. She lost it. Period. The Russians did not steal it.

    And if one is really that concerned about Trump's relationship with the Russians and its implications for national security, then the best thing to do -- the very highest priority -- is to replace Trump in the White House come 2020. Nominating another lame candidate running another lame game plan will NOT positively address that concern.

    Will it.....

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    If the Democrats truly believed that Russian activities cost Hillary the election then they'd make damned sure not to repeat Hillary's mistakes of 2016 and 2008 -- and they'd do so publicly. That the Democrats are almost monolithically silent about Hillary's manifest failure as a political strategist and campaigner and instead are putting all of their energies into pillorying Trump tells me that the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee may very well be as ****-poor a campaigner as Hilary was. Are they going to blame that on the Russians as well?
    You're talking about a separate issue. Trump not admitting to Russian interference even when an Obama adviser has come clean, has nothing to do with how well or poorly the democrats campaign.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Clinton is irrelevant as she is not the president. Obama is also irrelevant as he is no longer president. The issue is Trump and Putin and Russian interference in the US elections and their not-so-subtle attempts to subvert the NATO alliance which is one of Putin's goals.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X