jamiethekiller wrote:easily hand waved away with 'we do it, too"

But what’s important to me is, it’s less important that they had picked the winner and loser, which I thought all along they had done. What’s most important is that they did indeed meddle. I think the implications of that are just absolutely huge, and I think there are three of them:

The first is, we need to see this for what it is. It is an attack on our very democracy. It’s an attack on who we are as a people. A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama Administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.

The second is that I agree with a whole bunch of people on the Hill, Democrats and Republicans, Sen. John McCain, that we need a bi-partisan commission to look into exactly what the Russians did and what we can do here at home to make sure that no foreign government can ever do this again to us. That’s why that commission is so important. The commission shouldn’t look into what is an unknowable thing - which is: did they affect the outcome or not - we’ll never know that. We’ll never know what the Russians did, whether it affected a single vote or not. But what we can do is figure out exactly what they did and make changes here at home as to how information is handled, how we protect information, and make sure they never do this again.

The third implication is we need to respond to the Russian attack. We need to deter the Russians and anyone else who is watching this—and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians are all watching. We need to deter all of those folks from even thinking about doing something like this in the future.

I think that our response needs to have two key pieces to it. One is it’s got to be overt. It needs to be seen. A covert response would significantly limit the deterrence effect. If you can’t see it, its not going to deter the Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians and others, so it’s got to be seen.

The second, is that it’s got to be significant from Putin’s perspective. He has to feel some pain, he has to pay a price here or again, there will be no deterrence, and it has to be seen by the rest of the world as being significant to Mr. Putin so that it can be a deterrant.

pacino wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:easily hand waved away with 'we do it, too"

oh, so you've been reading glenn greenwald and the intercept

jamiethekiller wrote:

pacino wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:easily hand waved away with 'we do it, too"

oh, so you've been reading glenn greenwald and the intercept

nah. just a common thing i see/hear about.

philliesphhan wrote:Rather than just "making sure it doesn't happen again" I'd prefer they'd punish the people BLATANTLY ALIGNING THEMSELVES WITH THE RUSSIANS THIS ENTIRE TIME

Seriously, Fox News would just be one long uninterrupted scream right now if they had done something to WIN the election for Hillary

jerseyhoya wrote:If some bomb goes off and gets Trump, Pence, Ryan, and Hatch at the inaugural, and there isn't a new cabinet in place yet, and the old cabinet has resigned, who becomes president? Whoever is acting Sec State? I guess the House could elect a new speaker or the Senate could pick a new President Pro Tem.

Some afternoon thinking because I decided to see if I can get decent inauguration tickets today.

JUburton wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If some bomb goes off and gets Trump, Pence, Ryan, and Hatch at the inaugural, and there isn't a new cabinet in place yet, and the old cabinet has resigned, who becomes president? Whoever is acting Sec State? I guess the House could elect a new speaker or the Senate could pick a new President Pro Tem.

Some afternoon thinking because I decided to see if I can get decent inauguration tickets today.

well now you're on a list

Saturday was intended to be the kickoff of a parliamentary debate on a major constitutional reform that would formally legalize new powers that Erdoğan has to a large extent already seized by dint of personality. But the Istanbul bombing, occurring just four hours after his party introduced the bill, preempted discussion.

The objective is to create an “executive presidency,” modeled on the United States and France. But there would be no prime minister who names a cabinet as in France, nor the equivalent to the U.S. Congress, a co-equal branch of government. The result would be a top-down system without checks or balances, and where the parliament’s chief role will be to approve presidential decrees or, if it can muster a two-thirds majority, to call for new elections.

The government’s tough stance and its rhetoric of revenge could boost Erdoğan’s support ahead of a referendum on his call to enhance his powers, expected next spring.

A similar strategy after the PKK broke a two-year ceasefire in 2015 enabled Erdoğan to transform a big loss of parliamentary seats in elections into an absolute majority in a new ballot four months later.

One thing is certain: As the government pursues its no-holds-barred offensive against the PKK, there will be little political space for a national debate on the merits of the constitutional reform and every likelihood of greater repression of the news media.

Erdoğan’s moves to curb the news media after the July coup attempt provoked a powerful rebuke last Friday from the leading human rights watchdog in Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

jerseyhoya wrote:Some afternoon thinking because I decided to see if I can get decent inauguration tickets today.

drsmooth wrote:Apparently some signs of Lockheed stock dumping minutes BEFORE drumpf's recent tweetbashing ....