Discussion»Questions»Politics» Trump wonders WHY Obama didn't mention the Russian hacking BEFORE the election. Maybe if they HAD, he wouldn't BE president..
Seriously though. It's a valid question. Why didn't the government take steps to prevent the hacking in the first place or deal with it before the election? Why did they wait until after Hillary Clinton lost to mention it? If it was such a problem wouldn't they want to have it taken care of before Trump won? All they are doing is being crybabies because they lost and are grasping in desperation to explain why she lost. There are better explanations as to why she lost but that would require them to blame themselves and their own hero.
The two biggest mistakes they made were cheating Bernie Sanders of the nomination and Clinton's arrogance of thinking she deserved the presidency. If they would have fixed those two issues, we might be discussing President-elect Sanders/Clinton instead of Trump.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 15, 2016 7:21 PM MST
While I agree, I do think it is worth asking why this was done. I may be missing something but for me the answer is rather simple: under a potential Clinton presidency an awful lot of people in the Democratic party would move a rung or two up the Washington career ladder.
In any system I've encountered, self interest still reigns (almost) supreme.
The more interesting question is why did the CIA cancel the meeting to brief Congress and present the evidence to show Russia hacked the DNC? Seems the news media had the information but not the Congress. Congress is still waiting for the evidence to be presented.
I don't believe the hack changed the outcome. That psycho **** would have lost anyway whether the hack had happened or not and however the system had spun it.
Before the election it was a bit double edged. The leak was embarrassing. It showed just how badly they screwed over Sanders and threatened to divide the left if they overplayed their hand. After the election there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. It's just classic propaganda designed to cast doubt on Trump's legitimacy.
There is no real evidence that Russia was involved. It's just hearsay. It doesn't matter whether Russia hacked the DNC or not. Only lies can interfere in a election. Truth is truth. Whoever revealed that truth did a great service to the U.S. and the world. The current demonization of Russia doesn't serve western interests.
Will you ever give up your delusions of objectivity? You are partisan too. There is nothing neutral in the world. The political center is a myth. The CIA isn't a rock of political neutrality and integrity. Deception is one of its main functions.
I find the statements of Wikileaks far more trustworthy than those of an agency that has repeatedly engaged in domestic propaganda in the past. Ever heard of operation mockingbird?
http://www.infowars.com/cia-will-now-openly-propagandize-americans/
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 16, 2016 5:49 AM MST
The Democrats lost because we are sick of them lying and putting incompetent people in key positions, and overly liberal. they will be crying for the next eight years, when they lose again they will all need counseling as they do now instead of blaming some one else.
Re: The Democrats lost because we are sick of them....putting incompetent people in key positions.
Again, you must be SUPER pissed at Der Pumpkinfuhrer for putting a neurosurgeon (and self-admitted unqualied person to run a government department) in charge of Housing and Urban Development, an oil company engineer/executive as Secretary of State, a man who wants to replace human workers with robots in charge of the Department of Labor, a man who doesn't know what the Department of Energy does in charge of the Department of Energy, etc.
Oh, wait...you're not, are you? Of course not.
Because, as usual, your F***ING HYPOCRITICAL rationalization boils down to, "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!"
I really don't understand why you bother trying to fool other people when your F***ING HYPOCRISY is so obvious...;-D...
The only real function of a leader is to provide philosophical direction. Everything else can be delegated to people with the necessary hands on experience.
The only thing a person needs to run a department well is not being a closet communist POS.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 16, 2016 5:46 AM MST
@TrumpianDunningKruger -- Even if we accept the premise of your first sentence, your post above simply reinforces my point,
Many of Der PumpkinFuhrer's cabinet picks utterly LACK "the necessary hands-on experience", and yet you and your fellow F***ING HYPOCRITE RWAFs are OK with that.
And then you admit my central thesis in your final sentence, "The only thing a person needs to run a department well is to not be A STOOPID EBIL COMMIE LIBRUHL DEMOCRAP!!"
You admit this openly, so there is no further need to pretend you give a s**t about qualifications, experience, temperatment, etc. So long as the person isn't A STOOPID EBIL COMMIE LIBRUHL DEMOCRAP, all other considerations are secondary.
Thank you for openly admitting my analysis is utterly on point...;-D..
This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 16, 2016 6:49 AM MST
Cabinet heads can delegate too. They don't need hands on experience of a particular niche. Political leadership is about philosophical direction.
Yes, political philosophy does matter. The whole point of democracy is to decide on philosophical direction.
I don't think you are stupid or evil. I just think you have a pathological lack of wisdom. Repeating a straw man caricature of my argument is not a counter argument to anything I said.
"The only thing a person needs to run a department well is not being a closet communist POS."
YOUR words, not mine.
They don't need hands on experience of a particular niche. Political leadership is about philosophical direction.
Again, YOUR words, not mine.
I am not Straw Manning anything. You openly admit you dont' give a fig about experience or other qualifications, provided the people selected are ideologically correct (i.e. not a STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL COMMIE DEMOCRAP).
It is an testiment to your stupidity that you don't realize your attempts at refuting my characterization of your position simply reinforce my characterization of your position....;-D....
Your mind has no subtlety. "Closet communist POS" doesn't mean evil or stupid. This is typical of how you operate. You don't debate, you just repeat a caricature of my argument.
While I object to your characterization of my argument, I do assert that philosophical direction is paramount.
If you wish make the technocratic argument that expertise is paramount, make it. Show me examples in history of glorious technocracies.... (Sound of crickets chirping).
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 16, 2016 7:46 AM MST
You see a semantic difference between "closet communist POS" and STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL. I do not. They are both ideology-based ad hominem attacks.
And once again, you agree with my characterization of your argument that you don't give a f**k about skills, experience, etc. All you REALLY care about is the person isn't a STOOPID EBIL...er, "closest communist POS."
Meanwhile, unlike you, I think people who are managing government departments should at least understand what the department does and have some background in the area it covers. I don't think those are the ONLY qualifications they should have, because such people tend to produce "regulatory capture" where they end up advocating/promoting for the sectors they should be regulating, but I still think I'd like to have someone who knows something about housing policy running the Department of Housing and Urban Development, not a nuerosurgeon. You, as you've stated, don't give a s**t so long at the person isn't a STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL.
More lack of subtlety. Asserting that something is of lesser importance doesn't mean "not giving a f***" about it. Trump and his team all have achieved impressive things in life and surely have transferable skills.
Anyone of intelligence can learn all that is needed before they take office. Running a housing department is intellectually far less demanding than being a neurosurgeon.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 16, 2016 8:41 AM MST
Running a housing department is intellectually far less demanding than being a neurosurgeon. --------------
Nahhh... Being a neurosurgeon is a SKILL. Once you know HOW to do it, there's NOTHING intellectually demanding about it at all.
However, managing people effectively, IS as intellectually demanding as you get... Notice my use of the word, "effectively".. Of course, if you think managing is choosing the right people to do the heavy lifting while you play golf, then you'd be right..
I manage a business.. I know EVERYTHING about it. I can DO EVERY job. My people ARE effective, because I'M effective.. No, I don't play golf..
ex, do NOT call that guy the same name you call me. Call me S if you are calling that guy T. I don't want to be remotely affiliated with his ideologies ever.
"I manage a business.. I know EVERYTHING about it. I can DO EVERY job. My people ARE effective, because I'M effective.. No, I don't play golf.. "
That is your choice. You prefer to be hands on instead of just hiring a suitable manager to run it for you.
Perhaps you can't afford to delegate management, or perhaps you simple don't trust anyone else not to run your business into the ground.
There is no shortage of capable managers with suitable experience who are ambitious to get a job in the administration. What is in short supply is the right politics.
Delegating management allows leaders to focus on strategy.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 16, 2016 9:50 AM MST
Benedict Arnold 