Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Short term or long term?

Would it matter?

[olegru]

I agree that evidence should drive beliefs, and so far the evidence is that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have stated that Russia was responsible for the hacking...

It is claim, it is not evidence.

Evidence is a data to prove the fact they stated.

As for me, I have tendency to believe anything negative about today's politics of Russia, but to make such a global claim at least some facts needed.

[Winstonm]

It is claim, it is not evidence.

Evidence is a data to prove the fact they stated.

As for me, I have tendency to believe anything negative about today's politics of Russia, but to make such a global claim at least some facts needed.

 

 

Without trying to get into a semantic debate - evidence comes in many forms. Objective facts are one type of evidence (the strongest, IMO). When we do not have that, we have to rely on other types of evidence to reach a conclusion (i.e., belief). When I am not entitled to see the objective data, such as in national security data, I have to rely on other means to determine whom to believe.

 

My bet is that the U.S. intelligence agents are a more reliable source than Julian Assange or Vladimir Putin when it comes to Russian hacking.

[olegru]

Sure. You have all rights in the world to believe in whatever you think is correct. I would prefer to wait for evidences.

We had way too many made up stories from sources that got used to be trustworthy.

[Winstonm]

Sure. You have all rights in the world to believe in whatever you think is correct. I would prefer to wait for evidences.

We had way too many made up stories from sources that got used to be trustworthy.

 

But it seems you prefer to accept one person's version (a person known to get his facts wrong, i.e., Trump) over the intelligence services.

 

Why would accept his version?

Fact Checkers Prove That 91% of the Things Donald Trump Says Are False

By Sarah Jones on Thu, Mar 31st, 2016 at 12:05 pm

[kenberg]

Putin: Directed a serious effort to at least cause trouble in the US election. I gather that even Trump accepts this after the briefing.

 

Assange: Leaked information hacked from the DNC. As I understand it, he himself says so.

 

Co-ordination between Putin and Assange: I don't expect to see the details of the investigation. . To me it seems likely.

 

I don't see the proof of co-ordination as the critical issue. I gather that the intelligence agencies have concluded that they both did plenty, coordinated or not. Trump did the country a great deal of harm with his general denials. I felt from the beginning that whatever political views one holds, left, right, center or somewhere else, Trump is totally unsuited for the job of president. Since his election my certainty of this has grown.

 

We have to confront the problem of cybersecurity. Putin and Assange are both out to harm us, whether or not they coordinate their efforts. Focusing on whether the intelligence agencies have or have not proved coordination to the man in the street is a mistake. We need leadership that will treat cybersecurity seriously. We are about to place into office a person whose main issue with the Russian/Assange mischief is that nobody has (or for that matter could) prove that it influenced the election. This is most unfortunate, but hopefully someone whose interests at least occasionally extend beyond his own ego will make his presence felt.

[MrAce]

However, in yesterday's testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a couple things clear. There is no evidence that the Russians hacked or otherwise interfered with the mechanisms of the election. (So, the implication is that the vote was a true reflection of the people's will.) Also, the intelligence community can't define what effect, if any, the Russian attempts to affect the election had on the final result.

 

Those comments differ from the slant of stories from unattributed intelligence sources that attempt to insinuate that Russian interference turned the election for Trump. As far as I'm concerned, any such unattributed stories amount to fake news or political hyperbole until they are confirmed by public on-the-record declarations by intelligence agencies. So far, that hasn't happened.

 

I am not claiming that they did but if they did ... do you expect Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to tell the truth to public? Do you really expect him to say anything different than what he actually said, regardless of what they found?

I am not producing conspiracy theories. We all know that sometimes telling the truth can cause much more harm (or they believe that it will).

A smart person can understand that, even if Hillary Clinton found a concrete evidence that shows D.T or Russians hacking and winning the election by cheating, she would not dare to or would not be allowed to publish this at this point. That means civil war. You have all these people who voted for this guy despite the things he said. Regardless of how concrete your evidence is, they will believe what they want to believe as they did when voting.

Advantage of growing up in middle east is that...you wake up early from the dream that you are living in a world that has rules and that you have rights and that you are protected or you are free. That does not mean everyone is against you and conspiring against you either. It is just the way how things work and the idea that we have rules, laws, freedom, rights, is a drug that keeps everyone from panic. We will always be fed only by information in the name of truth that will not interfere with their ability to control the public. Do not get me wrong, I am not criticizing what they do. As much as it sounds awful, what they do is probably what stops all of us from shooting each other.

[Al_U_Card]

I am not claiming that they did but if they did ... do you expect Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to tell the truth to public? Do you really expect him to say anything different than what he actually said, regardless of what they found?

I am not producing conspiracy theories. We all know that sometimes telling the truth can cause much more harm (or they believe that it will).

A smart person can understand that, even if Hillary Clinton found a concrete evidence that shows D.T or Russians hacking and winning the election by cheating, she would not dare to or would not be allowed to publish this at this point. That means civil war. You have all these people who voted for this guy despite the things he said. Regardless of how concrete your evidence is, they will believe what they want to believe as they did when voting.

Advantage of growing up in middle east is that...you wake up early from the dream that you are living in a world that has rules and that you have rights and that you are protected or you are free. That does not mean everyone is against you and conspiring against you either. It is just the way how things work and the idea that we have rules, laws, freedom, rights, is a drug that keeps everyone from panic. We will always be fed only by information in the name of truth that will not interfere with their ability to control the public. Do not get me wrong, I am not criticizing what they do. As much as it sounds awful, what they do is probably what stops all of us from shooting each other.

They do count on the sensible folk NOT to shoot each other. Anyone convinced that killing people is the way to do anything is by definition a psychopath and they are the ruthless ego-maniacs that are leading us to ruin, NOT the people trying to expose their misdeeds.

[kenberg]

The reflections above on growing up in the Middle East got me to making historical comparisons here in the US. As a 13 year old I followed the Eisenhower/Stevenson campaigns of 1952. I came home from a Boy Scout meeting to see Joe McCarthy on television explaining that Stevenson was a Commie. Uh huh. But never did Adlai Stevenson talk about what a great guy Josef Stalin was. Twenty years later we had Watergate. Whatever Nixon's role was, I am pretty sure he never said that breaking into the DNC headquarters was really a good thing and that he hoped that there would be more of it.

 

We are making a real break with history here. You can say that I am living in the past, but I still regard breaking into offices. physical or cyber, as a bad thing. And I liked hearing a Republican (I forget which one) say "I am not from the branch of the party that regards Vladimir Putin as our friend".

 

Along these lines, I thought the column below nicely captured some of the current thinking (thinking?)

https://www.washingt...m=.14a74a35fd95

[StevenG]

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.

[helene_t]

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.

Probably very little. OTOH "very little" could well be significant. A fraction of a percentage point could have been enough to alter the EC majority.

 

It's like a bridge tournament where you end 2nd with 0.05% matchpoints behind the winner. Avoiding one or two of the many stupid mistakes you made would have been enough. Here, if just Sanders had been a bit less negative in his primary campaign, if just Hillary had devoted some attention to evangelical communities or fly-over states. If just Hillary hadn't caught pneumonia. If just Comey had waited until after the election. If just .....

[kenberg]

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.

 

First my simple, probably overly simple, view. We are responsible for the choices that we make.

 

I think this over-simplified view is useful. Obviously politicians lie, we have always had to deal with that. Modern technology complicates matters a good deal. We have to address the possibilities for covert foreign intervention.. This goes far beyond Putin/Assange. We have to think through the dangers and how to deal with them. Hacking is one issue, obviously. Fake news is another. We cannot have a government agency that says "this news is fake" or "this news is real". A certain level of intelligence is required of the voters. I recently got a phone call from "my grandson". I thought that scam died off a few years back. We never got to the part where I was supposed to send money. And when the "IRS" called to tell me about the urgent need to contact them we sent the phone number to the real IRS. But scams get more sophisticated. And, of course, to sway an election it might suffice to convince the truly gullible that one of the candidates is running a child sex ring. I suppose, back in the 1952 race that I mentioned, there were some who thought Stevenson was a communist.

 

It's a problem.

 

Part, although just part, of the solution goes like this: I can recognize the IRS scam because I pay my taxes, no gimmicks. The only time there was an issue was when I made an error, and after the error was corrected they owed me money. With the Comey thing, I gave my thoughts earlier. When the FBI first wanted the HC emails, she needed to put out the word: We will give them everything. If it is a cookie recipe I sent to Chelsea, they are ro get it. Everything. They are to get everything. This approach will not always work, but it's a good start. What is needed is for a scam to be easily identifiable as a scam by reasonable people.

 

But I think it is a real problem. "Nobody has proved that it affected the election" is a pitifully weak response.

[Al_U_Card]

The reflections above on growing up in the Middle East got me to making historical comparisons here in the US. As a 13 year old I followed the Eisenhower/Stevenson campaigns of 1952. I came home from a Boy Scout meeting to see Joe McCarthy on television explaining that Stevenson was a Commie. Uh huh. But never did Adlai Stevenson talk about what a great guy Josef Stalin was. Twenty years later we had Watergate. Whatever Nixon's role was, I am pretty sure he never said that breaking into the DNC headquarters was really a good thing and that he hoped that there would be more of it.

 

We are making a real break with history here. You can say that I am living in the past, but I still regard breaking into offices. physical or cyber, as a bad thing. And I liked hearing a Republican (I forget which one) say "I am not from the branch of the party that regards Vladimir Putin as our friend".

 

Along these lines, I thought the column below nicely captured some of the current thinking (thinking?)

https://www.washingt...m=.14a74a35fd95

Learning from experience is all about pattern recognition. Trump wants to take on China. Would Russia as an adversary aid this? Is the Intelligence establishment more comfortable with Russia or China as main opponent? Trump failing in one of the main legs of his platform must certainly entice his political foes to try and ensure that Russia remains on the enemy list.

[Winstonm]

 

I suppose, back in the 1952 race that I mentioned, there were some who thought Stevenson was a communist.

 

 

We have a substantial amount of people who still believe that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is the communist. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Vampyr]

Do you know, it is easy to forget now many Americans are one-issue voters (no points for guessing what that issue is.) I am sure that some not-insignificant number of these voters find Trump otherwise abhorrent. I recently read or heard a quote from a Trump voter whose husband needs an organ transplant. She hopes that Trump will not do away with Obamacare.

[kenberg]

Do you know, it is easy to forget now many Americans are one-issue voters (no points for guessing what that issue is.) I am sure that some not-insignificant number of these voters find Trump otherwise abhorrent. I recently read or heard a quote from a Trump voter whose husband needs an organ transplant. She hopes that Trump will not do away with Obamacare.

 

Yes, I saw, perhaps, the same story. A liver transplant I think. And yes, some are just on one issue. Although Trump is sort of an odd choice to trust on that.

 

Some zillion years or so ago there was this movie, Network, where everyone opens a window and shouts "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". That seems to me to be a lot what's going on. I was being tested the other day for Lyme disease (precautionary, we have a lot of it around here), and the nurse was saying "When we were young we played in the grass all the time. We didn't get Lyme disease." She probably voted for Trump. He will build a wall and keep out the ticks. It will be really terrific, I promise you.

Everyone liked that scene from the movie. I found it a bit ominous.

[hrothgar]

If I had to place bets, I'd say that

 

1. The Russian government attempted to influence the US presidential elections by hacking US politicians and political parites and selectively leaking information

 

2. This activity probably did not have a decisive impact on the election. (I think that the Comey leak was far more significant)

 

3. The US government has done equivalent stuff in the Ukraine

 

From my perspective, the fact this this happened is far less troublesome that Trump's reaction

[jogs]

The elitist progressive left has imposed its views onto the masses. While all other views are subjected to PC censorship. Well, there's a new sheriff in town. All views will be heard. Free speech for all.

[jogs]

The progressive Hollywood left is demanding Trump governs from the left.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/standupforus-congress-obstruct-trump-960340

 

They lost. Traditionally the party in power loses seats during the mid-term elections. I predict that republicans will win seats in 2018 and Trump will be reelected in 2020. Trump will have the backs of the US middle class, not the elitist progressive left.

[Zelandakh]

First, to what "misinformation from the state" do you refer?

You must surely be aware of many times the government has lied for one reason or another. I trust you to be sensible enough not to believe that this only happens in wild conspiracy theories.

 

Second, are you now arguing that personal lack of specific knowledge makes all likelihoods equivalent (because that's what it sounds like)?

Perhaps you can point out where I spoke about equally likelihood because I do not recall doing so. I did talk about making some decisions based on balance of probabilities, which is quite the opposite. In areas where no evidence has been provided it would be strange for anyone familiar with the scientific method to rule out reasonable possibilities. That is not the same as saying that every possibility is equally likely. if you want me to argue against you that the Russians are not responsible then you have chosen the wrong poster! But if you want to try to prove to me the secret motivations of specific figures that neither of us know personally, which is where we started, well that is something I take a little issue with.

 

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.

According to the polls, the effect of Comey was around 4 percentage points, more than enough to have made a significant impact on the result. The effect of the hacking, leaks and fake news is much more difficult to pin down because it is diffused. I would agree with hrothgar that it was probably a lesser effect than that of Comey though.

[Winstonm]

The elitist progressive left bourgeoisie has imposed its views onto the masses proletariat. While all other views are subjected to PC censorship. Well, there's a new sheriff in town, who wants to deputize Vladimir Putin. The Party's views All views will be heard. Free speech for all who join the Party.

 

FYP

[Winstonm]

You must surely be aware of many times the government has lied for one reason or another. I trust you to be sensible enough not to believe that this only happens in wild conspiracy theories.

Do you really think that Nixon denying going into Cambodia is the same as having numerous intelligent agencies announce Russia was responsible for the hacking?

 

 

Perhaps you can point out where I spoke about equally likelihood because I do not recall doing so. I did talk about making some decisions based on balance of probabilities, which is quite the opposite. In areas where no evidence has been provided it would be strange for anyone familiar with the scientific method to rule out reasonable possibilities. That is not the same as saying that every possibility is equally likely. if you want me to argue against you that the Russians are not responsible then you have chosen the wrong poster! But if you want to try to prove to me the secret motivations of specific figures that neither of us know personally, which is where we started, well that is something I take a little issue with.

 

That's why I asked. You seemed to be implying that due to the fact we cannot know Assange's intentions that we must give equal weight to his views as well as our own intelligence experts. I think that is a ridiculous position and wanted to give you a chance to clarify if I misunderstood.

 

 

According to the polls, the effect of Comey was around 4 percentage points, more than enough to have made a significant impact on the result. The effect of the hacking, leaks and fake news is much more difficult to pin down because it is diffused. I would agree with hrothgar that it was probably a lesser effect than that of Comey though.

 

The main reason for Clinton's loss is that she could not get people out to the polls to vote for her - it would make more sense to poll Democratic voters who stayed home for their reasons for not voting to find out if there was sufficient influence from outside sources.

[kenberg]

 

According to the polls, the effect of Comey was around 4 percentage points, more than enough to have made a significant impact on the result. The effect of the hacking, leaks and fake news is much more difficult to pin down because it is diffused. I would agree with hrothgar that it was probably a lesser effect than that of Comey though.

 

It would be interesting to have a deeper understanding here.

 

Smoe possible reasons for the drop in support after the Comey letter

 

1. Voters believed this showed, to a greater extent than before, that Clinton had been careless with classified material.

 

2. Voters thought that Clinton was about to be indicted.

 

3. Voters viewed Clinton as incapable of dealing with the email issue and, on that basis, lost trust in her ability to deal with issues in general.

 

 

I suppose some would go with each of these reasons, and for that matter some would have other reasons. But 3. seems to me to be a big one. People want a president who can solve a problem so that it stays solved.

 

Decisions are always partly based on logic, partly on intuition, or empathy, or emotion, whatever you want to call it. Certainly that is true of me, and I think anyone who thinks that they decide solely on logic is fooling himself. Sixty years ago a friend summarized this as "I sometimes believe things because I can prove them, I sometimes can prove things because I believe them". I suspect voters made an intuitive judgment of how well she handled the email problem rather than a logical judgment of her legal culpability.

 

But applying the intuitive/logical distinction to myself, it would be interesting to have some concrete evidence.

[Winstonm]

It would be interesting to have a deeper understanding here.

 

Smoe possible reasons for the drop in support after the Comey letter

 

1. Voters believed this showed, to a greater extent than before, that Clinton had been careless with classified material.

 

2. Voters thought that Clinton was about to be indicted.

 

3. Voters viewed Clinton as incapable of dealing with the email issue and, on that basis, lost trust in her ability to deal with issues in general.

 

 

I suppose some would go with each of these reasons, and for that matter some would have other reasons. But 3. seems to me to be a big one. People want a president who can solve a problem so that it stays solved.

 

Decisions are always partly based on logic, partly on intuition, or empathy, or emotion, whatever you want to call it. Certainly that is true of me, and I think anyone who thinks that they decide solely on logic is fooling himself. Sixty years ago a friend summarized this as "I sometimes believe things because I can prove them, I sometimes can prove things because I believe them". I suspect voters made an intuitive judgment of how well she handled the email problem rather than a logical judgment of her legal culpability.

 

But applying the intuitive/logical distinction to myself, it would be interesting to have some concrete evidence.

 

How could we ever know what is in the minds of the citizens of a state who have now both elected Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump? B-)

[kenberg]

How could we ever know what is in the minds of the citizens of a state who have now both elected Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump? B-)

 

Minnesota did not go for Trump! Ventura might be a little difficult to explain. For a while at least, there were a fair number of people who supported him.

 

As I mentioned earlier, people responded enthusiastically to the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" scene from Network. But I think that the attitude expressed there leads to, well, is part of the explanation for, Trump.

Someone who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore may be ripe for the picking.

 

There are many reasons. And any joking aside, it's important to understand these reasons.