Russian election hack: Obama calls for retaliation

President Barack Obama on Thursday called for retaliation against Russia for the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that federal authorities believe was meant to sway the presidential election in President-elect Donald Trump’s favor.

“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action,” Obama said in an interview with NPR, to be broadcast Friday. “And we will, at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.”

Obama last met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in September to discuss the cyberattacks.

“He is well aware of my feelings, because I spoke to him directly about it,” he said.

U.S. intelligence officials believe that Putin may have directly ordered the hack, according to NBC. On Thursday, NBC reported that government sources said that the Obama administration decided against responding to Russia before the election for fear of a cyber-war. The White House also did not want to appear to be intervening in the election and believed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would win.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-russian-hacking_us_58535002e4b08debb7885ab6

HAHAHAHA!

President "Lead From Behind" Obama isn't going to do a thing. He never does.

Remember his "red line" in Syria? He tried poking his chest out and tried to act like he had a pair. Guess what? His "red line" was crossed, and his threats proved as innocuous as a growling chihuahua.

The issue was Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” in Syria, an ultimatum that led Obama to threaten the use of force against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad before ultimately accepting a peaceful resolution. Although Obama defends the outcome, critics in both parties — including three former Obama defense secretaries — accuse him of dangerous indecision and lack of resolve. Trump has called the episode a national “humiliation.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/obama-clinton-syria-red-line-228585

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:HAHAHAHA!

President "Lead From Behind" Obama isn't going to do a thing.  He never does.

Remember his "red line" in Syria?  He tried poking his chest out and tried to act like he had a pair.  Guess what?  His "red line" was crossed, and his threats proved as innocuous as a growling chihuahua.

The issue was Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” in Syria, an ultimatum that led Obama to threaten the use of force against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad before ultimately accepting a peaceful resolution. Although Obama defends the outcome, critics in both parties — including three former Obama defense secretaries — accuse him of dangerous indecision and lack of resolve. Trump has called the episode a national “humiliation.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/obama-clinton-syria-red-line-228585

HA!  Faux News goes and interviews a janitor in the basement of the Capital and then calls it 'bipartisan'.  

It is a shame though that Republican sedition and inaction in the Congress did not permit a fully effective US response.  That will forever be the shame of the McConnell-Boehner doctrine.  

ftnote 1:

Since only the Congress can declare a war under Art. I of the Constitution, President Obama has had a proposed war bill regarding Syria on the desk of the Republican Congress since 2013. Alas, the vindictive and treasonous Republicans have refused to sign it into law. A legislature that cowers in the face of threats is a pathetic lot.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:HAHAHAHA!

President "Lead From Behind" Obama isn't going to do a thing.  He never does.

Remember his "red line" in Syria?  He tried poking his chest out and tried to act like he had a pair.  Guess what?  His "red line" was crossed, and his threats proved as innocuous as a growling chihuahua.

The issue was Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” in Syria, an ultimatum that led Obama to threaten the use of force against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad before ultimately accepting a peaceful resolution. Although Obama defends the outcome, critics in both parties — including three former Obama defense secretaries — accuse him of dangerous indecision and lack of resolve. Trump has called the episode a national “humiliation.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/obama-clinton-syria-red-line-228585

Once again,  Independent Troll Ivanka deliberately misleads and obfuscates...

Knowing perfectly well that it is the Republican controlled Congress,  and not President Obama, who has been dragging the chain, over interventions in Syria..

And now we have Trump threatening to hop into bed with Putin and Iran next year, in supporting rather than removing the Assad regime !

Way to go, boyz 'n gals..        

It is clear that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians to fix the elections...he even admitted the elections were fixed. How would he know, had he not had word from Putin?

I've wondered what might best display the Putin/Trump sedition. We obviously don't have a photo of Trump kissing the Russian ass. Perhaps there is an intercepted message between Trump and Putin that could be made public. I think that Dr. Obama has something like that in mind.

"The most curious aspect of Obama’s narrative, however, is that he claims the hacking attacks stopped entirely in early September after a single direct warning to Putin. Obama claimed to have spoken directly to Putin in early September, when both were in China, and told him to “cut it out.”

Obama insisted after this single warning “we did not see further tampering of the election process” by anyone afterwards. This doesn’t at all fit into the previously provided storyline, which claimed repeated and serious efforts to hack the election."

Thing is crooked Hilary cheated to remove Bernie Sanders, much like the PLP are trying to remove Jeremy Corbyn.

Democrats can't see that their own conduct has cost them this election, and there's really no use crying over spilt milk!

Quill stated > Since only the Congress can declare a war under Art. I of the Constitution, President Obama has had a proposed war bill regarding Syria on the desk of the Republican Congress since 2013. Alas, the vindictive and treasonous Republicans have refused to sign it into law. A legislature that cowers in the face of threats is a pathetic lot.

INDEED ...and the 'bobble heads' like pseudo Indep.Thought just regurgitates the talking heads rants from our local lesser thinking repugs that have zero clue about constitutional methods and how long and vile the 'JUST VOTE NO' to anything and everything that POTUS Obama supported! 
Just a total waste of bandwidth and time to try to keep explaining the due process that our government system has in place ...ignorance has zero memory and no time for FACT CHECKING!   

And nothing denotes the class/professional decorum and educational standing of our POTUS then his last press conference > > > http://www.usatoday.com/media/cinematic/video/95536212/obama-defends-response-to-russian-hacking/  

Back when Obama won his first election, and he was asked about any contact that he'd had with any foreign countries; "there is only one POTUS, and I've not been sworn in yet, you'd have to ask our President about that!" ...that's a classy/educated man --- so unlike the entertainer/blow hard/twitter buffoon behaving like a raving idiot that the right leaning angry American's voted into office!

scrat wrote:"The most curious aspect of Obama’s narrative, however, is that he claims the hacking attacks stopped entirely in early September after a single direct warning to Putin. Obama claimed to have spoken directly to Putin in early September, when both were in China, and told him to “cut it out.”

Obama insisted after this single warning “we did not see further tampering of the election process” by anyone afterwards. This doesn’t at all fit into the previously provided storyline, which claimed repeated and serious efforts to hack the election."

Thing is crooked Hilary cheated to remove Bernie Sanders, much like the PLP are trying to remove Jeremy Corbyn.

Democrats can't see that their own conduct has cost them this election, and there's really no use crying over spilt milk!

Obama also said, there are things you (the press and public) will never know.  I think that cryptic message hid the rest of the story...ie, from September onwards.

As one cryptographer has said, "...the more complicated the pattern, the simpler the underlying reality..."  In particular, of who's doing it.  Someone had to know which three states were most vulnerable, which had completely electronic recording devices, which districts would check and checkmate the general vote, such that Trump could end up with a popular loss, but the electoral collegiate triumph, and finally, which could be accessed.  That's a pretty complicated pattern, eh?  With few or maybe only one candidate with the capability.

It addition, the coding was in Cyrillic Russian, the bug that was planted was one known to have been developed by the Russians, it signaled back to Eastern Europe, to a IP address known to be Russian government, and it followed a pattern of shutting down on Russian government holidays.  Shut down on Red October Tuesday...now that's a pretty simply reality, eh?

In the meantime, Trump was openly admitting that a hack was in play. Most people thought he meant the other way, but now a fair interpretation is that he knew something, and was so tickled he couldn't keep his mouth shut. And his vociferous deflection on Russia, amid the obvious clues, is a little tooooooo....well, ya know.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:"The most curious aspect of Obama’s narrative, however, is that he claims the hacking attacks stopped entirely in early September after a single direct warning to Putin. Obama claimed to have spoken directly to Putin in early September, when both were in China, and told him to “cut it out.”

Obama insisted after this single warning “we did not see further tampering of the election process” by anyone afterwards. This doesn’t at all fit into the previously provided storyline, which claimed repeated and serious efforts to hack the election."

Thing is crooked Hilary cheated to remove Bernie Sanders, much like the PLP are trying to remove Jeremy Corbyn.

Democrats can't see that their own conduct has cost them this election, and there's really no use crying over spilt milk!

Obama also said, there are things you (the press and public) will never know.  I think that cryptic message hid the rest of the story...ie, from September onwards.

As one cryptographer has said, "...the more complicated the pattern, the simpler the underlying reality..."  In particular, of who's doing it.  Someone had to know which three states were most vulnerable, which had completely electronic recording devices, which districts would check and checkmate the general vote, such that Trump could end up with a popular loss, but the electoral collegiate triumph, and finally, which could be accessed.  That's a pretty complicated pattern, eh?  With few or maybe only one candidate with the capability.

It addition, the coding was in Cyrillic Russian, the bug that was planted was one known to have been developed by the Russians, it signaled back to Eastern Europe, to a IP address known to be Russian government, and it followed a pattern of shutting down on Russian government holidays.  Shut down on Red October Tuesday...now that's a pretty simply reality, eh?

In the meantime, Trump was openly admitting that a hack was in play.  Most people thought he meant the other way, but now a fair interpretation is that he knew something, and was so tickled he couldn't keep his mouth shut.  And his vociferous deflection on Russia, amid the obvious clues, is a little tooooooo....well, ya know.  

You are chasing your own tail in defence of the indefensible, crooked Hilary was up to no good long before she broke your laws and deleted some 33,000 emails, emails that might have given some insight into what happened to Seth Rich (murdered) and Vince Foster (suicide?), and the cheating, the lying, the conniving and the fact that the DNC were complicit in the targeted removal of Bernie Sanders obviously stick in some craw, you dance around the periphery of these issues but you've yet to confront them, head on, in the cold light of day.

As an outsider I can only give you my opinion from across the pond, that it soon became apparent that Clinton was probably a greater threat to democracy than a bigoted idiot like Trump!

As for your continual whine about espionage, it's the second oldest profession, it's something us Brits excel at, and the KGB have also excelled at this for some considerable time too, it's hardly surprising that such events occur, but to now make them out to have some bearing on the outcome of US elections is IMO risible!

Got to agree Scat.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Obama also said, there are things you (the press and public) will never know.  I think that cryptic message hid the rest of the story...ie, from September onwards.

As one cryptographer has said, "...the more complicated the pattern, the simpler the underlying reality..."  In particular, of who's doing it.  Someone had to know which three states were most vulnerable, which had completely electronic recording devices, which districts would check and checkmate the general vote, such that Trump could end up with a popular loss, but the electoral collegiate triumph, and finally, which could be accessed.  That's a pretty complicated pattern, eh?  With few or maybe only one candidate with the capability.

It addition, the coding was in Cyrillic Russian, the bug that was planted was one known to have been developed by the Russians, it signaled back to Eastern Europe, to a IP address known to be Russian government, and it followed a pattern of shutting down on Russian government holidays.  Shut down on Red October Tuesday...now that's a pretty simply reality, eh?

In the meantime, Trump was openly admitting that a hack was in play.  Most people thought he meant the other way, but now a fair interpretation is that he knew something, and was so tickled he couldn't keep his mouth shut.  And his vociferous deflection on Russia, amid the obvious clues, is a little tooooooo....well, ya know.  

You are chasing your own tail in defence of the indefensible, crooked Hilary was up to no good long before she broke your laws and deleted some 33,000 emails, emails that might have given some insight into what happened to Seth Rich (murdered) and Vince Foster (suicide?), and the cheating, the lying, the conniving and the fact that the DNC were complicit in the targeted removal of Bernie Sanders obviously stick in some craw, you dance around the periphery of these issues but you've yet to confront them, head on, in the cold light of day.

As an outsider I can only give you my opinion from across the pond, that it soon became apparent that Clinton was probably a greater threat to democracy than a bigoted idiot like Trump!

As for your continual whine about espionage, it's the second oldest profession, it's something us Brits excel at, and the KGB have also excelled at this for some considerable time too, it's hardly surprising that such events occur, but to now make them out to have some bearing on the outcome of US elections is IMO risible!

First, Hillary broke no laws, has never been charged, nor least of all convicted. We need to forget all that nonsense and move on.

Hillary is not the point, nor is espionage.  The point is we know that the Russians rigged this election, and we have the proof in hand.  Ergo: Donald 'pussy-grabber' Trump is not the legitimate president of the US.  Anything that he does by E.O., or signs into law, is ipso facto a nullity and can be ignored by anyone, domestic or foreign.  Any police or military action is lawlessness, by common thugs and brown shirts.

Whether someone wants to challenge his occupation of the White House is another matter.  In the meantime, we are without a president for the next four years.

the problem is Russia Rigged the election....
by publishing Evidence of Hillary's wrong doing.
 
hate to say it but the Democrats are coming off smelling worse out of this and the bigger Corruption seems to be on Hillary's side even more so because of Obamas statements
 
I also Concur with Scrat
Hillary seem the Bigger threat to Democracy and to have more actively tried to manipulate the system.
 
Trump will be bad for the USA, but Hillary was going to be bad for the world

veya_victaous wrote:the problem is Russia Rigged the election....
by publishing Evidence of Hillary's wrong doing.
 
hate to say it but the Democrats are coming off smelling worse out of this and the bigger Corruption seems to be on Hillary's side even more so because of Obamas statements
 
I also Concur with Scrat
Hillary seem the Bigger threat to Democracy and to have more actively tried to manipulate the system.
 
Trump will be bad for the USA, but Hillary was going to be bad for the world

Hillary's gone.  She is history.  No one cares about the lies promulgated by Trump about her. No one cares about Wikileaks. That part is history.

The Russians rigged the election by hacking into those voting machines that are reachable through the Internet.  To hide their shenanigans, they selected those districts that would give pussy-grabber an advantage in the ec vote, but not the popular vote (which Hillary obviously won by a landslide).

The Russians needed surgery to pull this off.  To wit: they gerrymandered the ec district votes on the spot.  That's how Hillary came to win the popular vote by some 3-million votes, yet ended up losing the ec count.

No they DID NOT there is No mention of voting machines being hacked at all!!!
 

“There’s no doubt that it contributed to an atmosphere in which the only focus for weeks at a time, months at a time were Hillary’s emails, the Clinton Foundation, political gossip surrounding the DNC,” he said.

the Hacks are not even Hacks they Are Criminal Incompetence. HILLARY LEFT THE EMAIL UNSECURED Illegally and Russia found it downloaded them, Since she left them out unlocked.
She should be in Jail for that fuck up alone
But for Some reason she was still getting pushed on the public for president.

All Russia Supposably did was show that Hillary Has Massively fucked up. that's Not hacking and that is what the USA own investigator are supposed to do.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said at a news conference in July, referring to Clinton’s emails from her private server.

Hillary as an individual is over but the Evil that Put her up is still there. We have reached the point of even Pretending She is not completely corrupt is ridiculous.
Again She lost because Russia Reveal TRUTHFUL information about her. the fact that they got it via espionage doesn't change that it is TRUTHFUL.
Obama is clearly trying to hide that the democrats Where running a KNOWN Criminal as President.

They'll whip themselves up into a civil war if they're not careful!

veya_victaous wrote:No they DID NOT there is No mention of voting machines being hacked at all!!!
 

“There’s no doubt that it contributed to an atmosphere in which the only focus for weeks at a time, months at a time were Hillary’s emails, the Clinton Foundation, political gossip surrounding the DNC,” he said.

the Hacks are not even Hacks they Are Criminal Incompetence. HILLARY LEFT THE EMAIL UNSECURED Illegally and Russia found it downloaded them, Since she left them out unlocked.
She should be in Jail for that fuck up alone
But for Some reason she was still getting pushed on the public for president.

All Russia Supposably did was show that Hillary Has Massively fucked up. that's Not hacking and that is what the USA own investigator are supposed to do.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said at a news conference in July, referring to Clinton’s emails from her private server.

Hillary as an individual is over but the Evil that Put her up is still there. We have reached the point of even Pretending She is not completely corrupt is ridiculous.
Again She lost because Russia Reveal TRUTHFUL information about her. the fact that they got it via espionage doesn't change that it is TRUTHFUL.
Obama is clearly trying to hide that the democrats Where running a KNOWN Criminal as President.

Nup...Russia rigged this election.  Remember, the more complicated the pattern, the simpler the underlying reality. There's no way someone could lose by 3-million votes, yet win the ec. I don't believe in the old man in the sky, either. And there's no such thing as coincidence.

Right now, the US has no president elect.

@quill
there is ZERO suggestion that they in anyway tampered with voting machines.
that is not even what the Hacking is Suggested to be.

You are literally diving in to a conspiracy so light on reality that even eddie is questioning your sanity
Cause I am gonna Stright up Say
YOU, Quill are the origin of this Conspiracy that russia hacked voting booths.

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
there is ZERO suggestion that they in anyway tampered with voting machines.
that is not even what the Hacking is Suggested to be.

You are literally diving in to a conspiracy so light on reality that even eddie is questioning your sanity
Cause I am gonna Stright up Say
YOU, Quill are the origin of this Conspiracy that russia hacked voting booths.

Nope, the evidence is in. 19 US intelligence agencies agree. Russia hacked this election.

YES By Releasing the Emails that Hillary had on an unsecure server. NOT anything to do with voting booths

If yoyu have an article that says otherwise please post it

If you're looking for a conspiracy,,,, ,


"Social media sleuths are pointing to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s suggestion that Rich gave Wikileaks the DNC documents, and to Assange’s suggestions that Hillary Clinton herself may have somehow been involved in Rich’s death.

But it doesn’t appear that Assange is privy to any proof of his claim, as he’s offered no concrete evidence. And Wikileaks is supposed to be a double-blind publishing system — so that its editors don’t know the source of their information and therefore aren’t liable for what gets leaked.

Conspiracy theories aside, Rich’s death remains a lingering, unsolved mystery. Rich, 27, was killed in the early morning hours of July 8, around the corner from his apartment in the city’s up-and-coming Bloomingdale neighborhood. He was returning from a neighborhood bar, talking on the phone with his girlfriend, when he was accosted and shot twice with what police now say was a revolver, since no bullet casings were left at the scene.

Early theories pointed to a random crime, likely a robbery. But Rich’s watch, wallet and cell phone were still on his body when he was found."

https://heatst.com/politics/amid-russia-row-new-conspiracy-theories-swirl-over-murder-of-dncs-seth-rich/

Using the ruskies as a smokescreen!

veya_victaous wrote:YES By Releasing the Emails that Hillary had on an unsecure server. NOT anything to do with voting booths

That ^ would simply be bad news, akin to James Comey declaring the investigation into Hillary's emails anew because they were found on Huma's home computer.  If that were all that this was about, it would be classified as 'bad luck', not an international incident.

There will be no article about the Russian altering of vote tallies for the simple reason that that is classified.  You are talking about interference with a governmental function, not just bad news.  Agents sign a non-disclosure agreement when they enter the covert services, and violation of that oath is a violation of the Espionage Act.  About the most that the intelligence agencies can disclose is an affirmation...and that only if the president authorizes it.  Surely you listened to Obama's press conference on December 16th about the matter...that was what he meant when he said: "You'll never hear about it."

But it happened. How else do you think Trump lost by nearly 3-million popular votes, yet managed to manipulate the electoral college to win? Coincidence is a term used by those who still believe in metaphysics. Do you think it was Adam Smith's guiding hand? There were 'hands' involved, but they were Russian, not Smithsonian.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:"The most curious aspect of Obama’s narrative, however, is that he claims the hacking attacks stopped entirely in early September after a single direct warning to Putin. Obama claimed to have spoken directly to Putin in early September, when both were in China, and told him to “cut it out.”

Obama insisted after this single warning “we did not see further tampering of the election process” by anyone afterwards. This doesn’t at all fit into the previously provided storyline, which claimed repeated and serious efforts to hack the election."

Thing is crooked Hilary cheated to remove Bernie Sanders, much like the PLP are trying to remove Jeremy Corbyn.

Democrats can't see that their own conduct has cost them this election, and there's really no use crying over spilt milk!

Obama also said, there are things you (the press and public) will never know.  I think that cryptic message hid the rest of the story...ie, from September onwards.

As one cryptographer has said, "...the more complicated the pattern, the simpler the underlying reality..."  In particular, of who's doing it.  Someone had to know which three states were most vulnerable, which had completely electronic recording devices, which districts would check and checkmate the general vote, such that Trump could end up with a popular loss, but the electoral collegiate triumph, and finally, which could be accessed.  That's a pretty complicated pattern, eh?  With few or maybe only one candidate with the capability.

It addition, the coding was in Cyrillic Russian, the bug that was planted was one known to have been developed by the Russians, it signaled back to Eastern Europe, to a IP address known to be Russian government, and it followed a pattern of shutting down on Russian government holidays.  Shut down on Red October Tuesday...now that's a pretty simply reality, eh?

In the meantime, Trump was openly admitting that a hack was in play.  Most people thought he meant the other way, but now a fair interpretation is that he knew something, and was so tickled he couldn't keep his mouth shut.  And his vociferous deflection on Russia, amid the obvious clues, is a little tooooooo....well, ya know.  

You are chasing your own tail in defence of the indefensible, crooked Hilary was up to no good long before she broke your laws and deleted some 33,000 emails, emails that might have given some insight into what happened to Seth Rich (murdered) and Vince Foster (suicide?), and the cheating, the lying, the conniving and the fact that the DNC were complicit in the targeted removal of Bernie Sanders obviously stick in some craw, you dance around the periphery of these issues but you've yet to confront them, head on, in the cold light of day.

As an outsider I can only give you my opinion from across the pond, that it soon became apparent that Clinton was probably a greater threat to democracy than a bigoted idiot like Trump!

As for your continual whine about espionage, it's the second oldest profession, it's something us Brits excel at, and the KGB have also excelled at this for some considerable time too, it's hardly surprising that such events occur, but to now make them out to have some bearing on the outcome of US elections is IMO risible!

There's no greater threat to democracy than having a president inaugurated who lost by more than 2.8 million votes.

Our "remainers" lost by nearly 2 million votes and the poor snowflakes still can't accept it !

nicko wrote:Our "remainers" lost by nearly 2 million votes and the poor snowflakes still can't accept it !

At least they're in the minority and thus don't get their way. Pro-Clinton Americans are in the clear majority and will not get our way. It would be like Labour getting the government when most people voted for Tories.

There are 538 electors in all, one for each member of Congress. A candidate needs to take at least 270 electoral votes - half of the total plus one - to win the White House. Mr Trump won 306 electors from 30 states.

It is highly unlikely the electoral college will take the unprecedented step of changing the election's outcome.
Only one Republican elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, has come forward to say he will not cast his electoral vote for Mr Trump. But 38 Republican electors would have to defect to deny Mr Trump.
Even that would probably only delay the inevitable.
If no candidate reaches 270 in the electoral college, the House of Representatives must vote on the next president, and the Republican-controlled chamber would most likely choose Mr Trump anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38364137

Perhaps you can dig a ditch around California and call it an island!

scrat wrote:There are 538 electors in all, one for each member of Congress. A candidate needs to take at least 270 electoral votes - half of the total plus one - to win the White House. Mr Trump won 306 electors from 30 states.

It is highly unlikely the electoral college will take the unprecedented step of changing the election's outcome.
Only one Republican elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, has come forward to say he will not cast his electoral vote for Mr Trump. But 38 Republican electors would have to defect to deny Mr Trump.
Even that would probably only delay the inevitable.
If no candidate reaches 270 in the electoral college, the House of Representatives must vote on the next president, and the Republican-controlled chamber would most likely choose Mr Trump anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38364137

Perhaps you can dig a ditch around California and call it an island!

Why not dig a ditch around Texas and give the election to Clinton? Or are blue states less American than red states?

Ben Reilly wrote:

scrat wrote:There are 538 electors in all, one for each member of Congress. A candidate needs to take at least 270 electoral votes - half of the total plus one - to win the White House. Mr Trump won 306 electors from 30 states.

It is highly unlikely the electoral college will take the unprecedented step of changing the election's outcome.
Only one Republican elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, has come forward to say he will not cast his electoral vote for Mr Trump. But 38 Republican electors would have to defect to deny Mr Trump.
Even that would probably only delay the inevitable.
If no candidate reaches 270 in the electoral college, the House of Representatives must vote on the next president, and the Republican-controlled chamber would most likely choose Mr Trump anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38364137

Perhaps you can dig a ditch around California and call it an island!

Why not dig a ditch around Texas and give the election to Clinton? Or are blue states less American than red states?

You do realise that Trump won Texas!

"Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections."


http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

Take Califonia out of the equation and Trump won the popular vote!

Clinton isn't from California, but Californians are just as American as the rest of the country.

Ben Reilly wrote:Clinton isn't from California, but Californians are just as American as the rest of the country.

Yeah, but she ran for president and lost by your own rules, California voted heavily for Clinton but nowhere else did, like I said,,,dig a ditch around it or you could try for a crown dependency and fly our "Jack"

scrat wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Clinton isn't from California, but Californians are just as American as the rest of the country.

Yeah, but she ran for president and lost by your own rules, California voted heavily for Clinton but nowhere else did, like I said,,,dig a ditch around it or you could try for a crown dependency and fly our "Jack"

Actually, several other states voted for Hillary Clinton very heavily, including another major population center in New York State.

Unless you think around 77,000 people should be allowed to determine the fate of well over 300 million, you can't think this election outcome was in any way fair. http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-107330-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan/article/2005323

Just a few more facts:

According to the final tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes).

Those three state's tiny margins of victory are why we are set to deal with Trump as president for at least four years.

So somebody explain to me how winning three states by razor-thin margins should mean so much more than winning the most populous state by a landslide. Anybody?

scrat wrote:But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections."

No, unfortunately the electoral college is a holdover from slavery.  In 1789 the south was much less enthusiastic than the north to vote in the Constitution.  They knew that population-wise, the north could outvote them.  The large cities were in the north, and only Virginia had a substantial population; the rest were rural, agrarian states, dependent upon slavery to make things work.

Anti-slavery sentiment was already alive in 1789, and the south thought that the north would readily vote out slavery with their numbers (which they probably would...and eventually did).  All of our population is tied up in slaves,southerners protested, whereas you northerners are white industrialists.  As a compromise, the north let the south deviate from a purely popular vote, and allow the count of slaves at 2/3 of a white man.  Of course, they didn't let the slaves actually vote.

They created the electoral college as a clearing house for the count.  Both sides entered into the arrangement as a compromise to induce the south to enter the union.  Now, you might say an agreement is an agreement, but slavery is long gone and there is no 2/3's-a-man slave vote.  Hence, there is no need for the electoral college.

So the electoral college is a vestige of slavery, not exactly a measure to prevent regions from dominating...unless you want to say that poor slave-owners still need protection.  In the modern day, how can a state with a greater population dominate?  They are entitled to a plurality under one man, one vote.  That slavery needs protection is long past reason.  We are all one-man-one-vote, and that has taken on a life and a value of its own.  It's called democracy.

I keep hearing these arguments that the country shouldn't be dominated by the liberal major population centers -- what? About 63 percent of the country lives in its major cities; why shouldn't the cities dominate?

Better yet, why should 37 percent of the country rule the rest? Because they like guns, hate women, minorities and gays and are easily manipulated by corrupt corporations, making them fit better into some bullshit right-wing narrative about who the real Americans are?

Oh, and so much for the so-called city elitists -- only in the South is poverty markedly higher in rural than in urban areas: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections."

No, unfortunately the electoral college is a holdover from slavery.  In 1789 the south was much less enthusiastic than the north to vote in the Constitution.  They knew that population-wise, the north could outvote them.  The large cities were in the north, and only Virginia had a substantial population; the rest were rural, agrarian states, dependent upon slavery to make things work.

Anti-slavery sentiment was already alive in 1789, and the south thought that the north would readily vote out slavery with their numbers (which they probably would...and eventually did).  All of our population is tied up in slaves,southerners protested, whereas you northerners are white industrialists.  As a compromise, the north let the south deviate from a purely popular vote, and allow the count of slaves at 2/3 of a white man.  Of course, they didn't let the slaves actually vote.

They created the electoral college as a clearing house for the count.  Both sides entered into the arrangement as a compromise to induce the south to enter the union.  Now, you might say an agreement is an agreement, but slavery is long gone and there is no 2/3's-a-man slave vote.  Hence, there is no need for the electoral college.

So the electoral college is a vestige of slavery, not exactly a measure to prevent regions from dominating...unless you want to say that poor slave-owners still need protection.  In the modern day, how can a state with a greater population dominate?  They are entitled to a plurality under one man, one vote.  That slavery needs protection is long past reason.  We are all one-man-one-vote, and that has taken on a life and a value of its own.  It's called democracy.

No you're not one man one vote, you do not have proportional representation you have an electoral college, whether thats 200 years old or 2 years old, it makes no difference those are the rules and that is your system and crooked Hilary wouldn't have whined about it if she'd won, but she didn't, although she did win California by 4 million votes, which then puts her 2.8 million votes into true perspective.

I do believe that the only way to overturn this result is to get 38 republicans to vote against Trump and the wishes of the electorate, good luck with that.

Of course California is not America, it is part of America, then again you could claim that California is British, don't you have some obscure commonwealth act, that could bring you back into the arms of mother Britain.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, unfortunately the electoral college is a holdover from slavery.  In 1789 the south was much less enthusiastic than the north to vote in the Constitution.  They knew that population-wise, the north could outvote them.  The large cities were in the north, and only Virginia had a substantial population; the rest were rural, agrarian states, dependent upon slavery to make things work.

Anti-slavery sentiment was already alive in 1789, and the south thought that the north would readily vote out slavery with their numbers (which they probably would...and eventually did).  All of our population is tied up in slaves,southerners protested, whereas you northerners are white industrialists.  As a compromise, the north let the south deviate from a purely popular vote, and allow the count of slaves at 2/3 of a white man.  Of course, they didn't let the slaves actually vote.

They created the electoral college as a clearing house for the count.  Both sides entered into the arrangement as a compromise to induce the south to enter the union.  Now, you might say an agreement is an agreement, but slavery is long gone and there is no 2/3's-a-man slave vote.  Hence, there is no need for the electoral college.

So the electoral college is a vestige of slavery, not exactly a measure to prevent regions from dominating...unless you want to say that poor slave-owners still need protection.  In the modern day, how can a state with a greater population dominate?  They are entitled to a plurality under one man, one vote.  That slavery needs protection is long past reason.  We are all one-man-one-vote, and that has taken on a life and a value of its own.  It's called democracy.

No you're not one man one vote, you do not have proportional representation you have an electoral college, whether thats 200 years old or 2 years old, it makes no difference those are the rules and that is your system and crooked Hilary wouldn't have whined about it if she'd won, but she didn't, although she did win California by 4 million votes, which then puts her 2.8 million votes into true perspective.

Is there an echo in the room?  I believe I just said that.

scrat wrote:I do believe that the only way to overturn this result is to get 38 republicans to vote against Trump and the wishes of the electorate, good luck with that.

That ain't gonna happen...ever.  I said a month and a half ago that the electoral collage will never be gone...the winner inevitably wants to keep it, and the loser never has the votes to change it.  That's why they lost...it's Darwinian.

scrat wrote:Of course California is not America, it is part of America, then again you could claim that California is British, don't you have some obscure commonwealth act, that could bring you back into the arms of mother Britain.

California is not the issue.  The electoral college came into being when California didn't even exist.  Moreover, just because California is the largest popular state doesn't mean it is opposed to the electoral college.  California is also quite Republican, having produced not only Hoover, but both Nixon and Reagan...and nominated the neighboring Barry Goldwater, father of modern conservatism.  California is the site of Orange County, don't forget, spawning grounds for the Orange County (western) Republicans.

California has only recently become liberal, with the growth of the Hispanic vote.  If you don't like Hispanics, stand over there with Major and tommy.  They have the same idea.  All conservatives would like to see the Hispanics leave as they are overwhelming the Republicans with their growth...and liberal votes.  What do you think is behind Trump's kick out the Mexicans drive?  You don't really believe they are rapists and criminals, do you?

Quill wrote:The Russians rigged the election by hacking into those voting machines that are reachable through the Internet.

Oh, boy... someone hand that guy his tinfoil hat.

Original Quill wrote:
California is not the issue.  The electoral college came into being when California didn't even exist.  Moreover, just because California is the largest popular state doesn't mean it is opposed to the electoral college.  California is also quite Republican, having produced not only Hoover, but both Nixon and Reagan...and nominated the neighboring Barry Goldwater, father of modern conservatism.  California is the site of Orange County, don't forget, spawning grounds for the Orange County (western) Republicans.

California has only recently become liberal, with the growth of the Hispanic vote.  If you don't like Hispanics, stand over there with Major and tommy.  They have the same idea.  All conservatives would like to see the Hispanics leave as they are overwhelming the Republicans with their growth...and liberal votes.  What do you think is behind Trump's kick out the Mexicans drive?  You don't really believe they are rapists and criminals, do you?

The question to me' is NOT that whether or not the Russians were tampering around with our political system but just how deeply and thoroughly are they into our computer systems?  Take a look back over the past 5 years; IRS - and several other Federal agencies have been hacked ...the testing has been going on for some time!  
How long has Edward Snowdon been ensconced in Russia seeking safe harbour for all of those secret files he stole from the subcontractor he was working for?  Just say'n ...it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that some information wasn't gleaned from those million of secret files Edward lift and hauled to Russia with him!

Take California out of the equation and Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

We've had a month of wailing, whinging and whining about how crooked Hilary won the popular vote, how the ruskies leaked the truth, and now how their agents tampered with the voting machines and if you don't believe in any of these deranged conspiracies you're a racist.

Man up, get over it and move on!

Shit scat, i'm agreeing with you again.

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
California is not the issue.  The electoral college came into being when California didn't even exist.  Moreover, just because California is the largest popular state doesn't mean it is opposed to the electoral college.  California is also quite Republican, having produced not only Hoover, but both Nixon and Reagan...and nominated the neighboring Barry Goldwater, father of modern conservatism.  California is the site of Orange County, don't forget, spawning grounds for the Orange County (western) Republicans.

California has only recently become liberal, with the growth of the Hispanic vote.  If you don't like Hispanics, stand over there with Major and tommy.  They have the same idea.  All conservatives would like to see the Hispanics leave as they are overwhelming the Republicans with their growth...and liberal votes.  What do you think is behind Trump's kick out the Mexicans drive?  You don't really believe they are rapists and criminals, do you?

The question to me' is NOT that whether or not the Russians were tampering around with our political system but just how deeply and thoroughly are they into our computer systems?  Take a look back over the past 5 years; IRS - and several other Federal agencies have been hacked ...the testing has been going on for some time!  

How long has Edward Snowdon been ensconced in Russia seeking safe harbour for all of those secret files he stole from the subcontractor he was working for?  Just say'n ...it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that some information wasn't gleaned from those million of secret files Edward lift and hauled to Russia with him!

Nail on the head, 4eva.  That the Russians were able to tap into US voting machines is attention-getting, but there are even more dangerous invasions on the horizons.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the world's power structure is shifting.  The worry is not guns and tanks, but who can shut down New York's power grid, Chicago's O'Hare field, clean-water plants in Los Angeles County, or create 67-car accidents on I-95 controlling a few Smart-Cars.

Best wake up folks.  I thought of these examples all on my own.  Imagine what the experts might come up with.

scrat wrote:Take California out of the equation and Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

We've had a month of wailing, whinging and whining about how crooked Hilary won the popular vote, how the ruskies leaked the truth, and now how their agents tampered with the voting machines and if you don't believe in any of these deranged conspiracies you're a racist.

Man up, get over it and move on!

While you may be speaking factually, your logic is failing you.  When I say you are forgetting California's history, I am not suggesting you then forget California's present.  This conversation started with you claiming that California was responsible for the electoral college.  I then pointed out that California didn't exist in 1789, which leads you to claim that therefore California doesn't exist today!??

You are awash in illogic, with Trumpsters cheering you on--which should tell you something about incorrect reasoning as well as motives.  Yes...a substantial number of us believe that Russia went right into the horse's vagina.  

Forget Hillary and bad gossip.  Why would they bother with that?  If they can hack one source, what makes you think they have not tried the real gold.  You are asleep if you believe that.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:Take California out of the equation and Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

We've had a month of wailing, whinging and whining about how crooked Hilary won the popular vote, how the ruskies leaked the truth, and now how their agents tampered with the voting machines and if you don't believe in any of these deranged conspiracies you're a racist.

Man up, get over it and move on!

While you may be speaking factually, your logic is failing you.  When I say you are forgetting California's history, I am not suggesting you then forget California's present.  This conversation started with you claiming that California was responsible for the electoral college.  I then pointed out that California didn't exist in 1789, which leads you to claim that therefore California doesn't exist today!??

You are awash in illogic, with Trumpsters cheering you on--which should tell you something about incorrect reasoning as well as motives.  Yes...a substantial number of us believe that Russia went right into the horse's vagina.  

Forget Hillary and bad gossip.  Why would they bother with that?  If they can hack one source, what makes you think they have not tried the real gold.  You are asleep if you believe that.

The electoral college is your voting system, you brought it up and claimed it was antiquated, you've then proceeded to whine about the popular vote.

I simply pointed to the fact that crooked Hilary gained 4 million votes in California, now you have your popular vote, but only because of California.

That's not illogical thats the reality, and until you wake up to this reality and smell the coffee you'll be blinkered by the dumbfuck conspiracy theories you're clinging too.

The Russians are up to no good

The Chinese are up to no good

The North Koreans are up to no good

And crooked Hilary was up to no good, which is why she deleted her emails and now this shit has come back to haunt her.

No one wants to see the worlds greatest superpower meltdown into a prolonged civil war, but that's the path you're setting out on.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:Take California out of the equation and Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

We've had a month of wailing, whinging and whining about how crooked Hilary won the popular vote, how the ruskies leaked the truth, and now how their agents tampered with the voting machines and if you don't believe in any of these deranged conspiracies you're a racist.

Man up, get over it and move on!

While you may be speaking factually, your logic is failing you.  When I say you are forgetting California's history, I am not suggesting you then forget California's present.  This conversation started with you claiming that California was responsible for the electoral college.  I then pointed out that California didn't exist in 1789, which leads you to claim that therefore California doesn't exist today!??

You are awash in illogic, with Trumpsters cheering you on--which should tell you something about incorrect reasoning as well as motives.  Yes...a substantial number of us believe that Russia went right into the horse's vagina.  

Forget Hillary and bad gossip.  Why would they bother with that?  If they can hack one source, what makes you think they have not tried the real gold.  You are asleep if you believe that.

The electoral college is your voting system, you brought it up and claimed it was antiquated, you've then proceeded to whine about the popular vote.

I simply pointed to the fact that crooked Hilary gained 4 million votes in California, now you have your popular vote, but only because of California.

That's not illogical thats the reality, and until you wake up to this reality and smell the coffee you'll be blinkered by the dumbfuck conspiracy theories you're clinging too.

The Russians are up to no good

The Chinese are up to no good

The North Koreans are up to no good

And crooked Hilary was up to no good, which is why she deleted her emails and now this shit has come back to haunt her.

No one wants to see the worlds greatest superpower meltdown into a prolonged civil war, but that's the path you're setting out on.

"Crooked Hillary" -- why have you decided to talk like President-elect Orange Hitler? And what proof do you have that she's "crooked"?

Sorry, all due respect, but you're not coming off as very well informed about this issue. It sounds as though you have not looked at the issue objectively.

Ben wrote:Sorry, all due respect, but you're not coming off as very well informed about this issue. It sounds as though you have not looked at the issue objectively.

Further on this point, scrat: The electoral college is a fact, not a value; California is a fact not a value; and that Californians are liberal voters and voted Democrat in the last election is a fact, not a value.

Where you turn it all into a value is: 1) your hatred for Hillary, the Democratic candidate; and 2) your dislike for California because it gave your hated Hillary the popular vote by an astounding margin.

I've already corrected you on the history of the electoral college.  I've also corrected you on the voting history of California.  Yet you persist in your 'crossed-wire' thinking over the issue of California vis the electoral collage; and California vis the liberal vote.

You have allowed your hatred for Hillary to affect you to the extent that you wrap all of your factual arguments into a highly confused value expression: California is somehow to blame for the electoral college because Hillary won the popular vote??  It's almost as if you want to reprimand California for creating this anomaly of Hillary winning the popular vote.  The electoral collage did that, not California.

Better to put on your thinking cap.  Someone or something intervened, because the popular vote was there in overwhelming numbers yet the pussy-grabber got the electoral vote.  Someone got into the control box with some wire-cutters and crossed the wires.  That's a hell of a lot simpler than your confused understanding.

"Crooked Hillary" -- why have you decided to talk like President-elect Orange Hitler? And what proof do you have that she's "crooked"?

Sorry, all due respect, but you're not coming off as very well informed about this issue. It sounds as though you have not looked at the issue objectively.

she's a politician...

Hillary is Crooked that's just reality

Trump is no better,  probably very few of them are.


I think scrat is right in that these conspiracies are all being put up because the Left in the USA are not accepting the obvious fact that their side is Corrupted too.

No Democratic system is actually fair. And Traditionally rural areas get equal representation even with lower population is the fact they supply the food that keeps the city alive.

I have always seen Obama as the genial sort. Strange seeing 'obama' and 'retaliation' in the same sentence. Trump's won. Nowt will change that. Let it go.

veya_victaous wrote:

"Crooked Hillary" -- why have you decided to talk like President-elect Orange Hitler? And what proof do you have that she's "crooked"?

Sorry, all due respect, but you're not coming off as very well informed about this issue. It sounds as though you have not looked at the issue objectively.

she's a politician...  

Hillary is Crooked that's just reality

Trump is no better,  probably very few of them are.

Well, so you don't like her either.  Got anything to back that up?

veya wrote: I think scrat is right in that these conspiracies are all being put up because the Left in the USA are not accepting the obvious fact that their side is Corrupted too.

And that's your conspiracy, right?

veya wrote:No Democratic system is actually fair. And Traditionally rural areas get equal representation even with lower population is the fact they supply the food that keeps the city alive.

Ah, but who provides the medicines?

Yeah the fact you suggest that it is even a conspiracy that both sides are corrupt basically says it all, you are a brainwashed, non-thinking, team cheering as the trumpettes. THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS

and Outrageous ‘speaking fee' for events at corporation that received gains from the Clinton Ammonisation. You seem to think JUST because she abused a loop hole it makes it ok. It's worse she is OPENLY corrupt and abusing loop holes instead of closing them. SHE is the poster child of the current corrupted corruption that infests the US political system

Ben Reilly wrote:

scrat wrote:
The electoral college is your voting system, you brought it up and claimed it was antiquated, you've then proceeded to whine about the popular vote.

I simply pointed to the fact that crooked Hilary gained 4 million votes in California, now you have your popular vote, but only because of California.

That's not illogical thats the reality, and until you wake up to this reality and smell the coffee you'll be blinkered by the dumbfuck conspiracy theories you're clinging too.

The Russians are up to no good

The Chinese are up to no good

The North Koreans are up to no good

And crooked Hilary was up to no good, which is why she deleted her emails and now this shit has come back to haunt her.

No one wants to see the worlds greatest superpower meltdown into a prolonged civil war, but that's the path you're setting out on.

"Crooked Hillary" -- why have you decided to talk like President-elect Orange Hitler? And what proof do you have that she's "crooked"?

Sorry, all due respect, but you're not coming off as very well informed about this issue. It sounds as though you have not looked at the issue objectively.

With all due respect you're also trying to defend the indefensible, crooked Hilary tried her best to cover up her criminality, the emails, surely you must ask yourself what were the contents that caused her to lie to the FBI, the Clinton foundation smothered in corruption from arms deals and just about every other deal all stained with blood money, the cheating and manipulation of Bernie Sanders, the derogatory dismissal of his supporters, the defence of rapists and the denial and obfuscation at every turn, all displayed for public view and you just know that more will crawl out of the woodwork if an investigation were to ever take place.

She's as bent as a nine bob note, and the fact that your electorate voted for a bigoted idiot like Trump in place of her, shows the depth of contempt your electorate hold her in.

Trump could turn out to be a nightmare, but IMO Clinton was seen as someone who hid in the shadows, far too Machiavellian for a modern democracy with enough nukes to destroy the planet, over and over again.

veya_victaous wrote:Yeah the fact you suggest that it is even a conspiracy that both sides are corrupt basically says it all, you are a brainwashed, non-thinking, team cheering as the trumpettes. THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS

Well then, I win. Cause it's not about me.

veya wrote:and Outrageous ‘speaking fee' for events at corporation that received gains from the Clinton Ammonisation. You seem to think JUST because she abused a loop hole it makes it ok. It's worse she is OPENLY corrupt and abusing loop holes instead of closing them. SHE is the poster child of the current corrupted corruption that infests the US political system

So...she is guilty because she commands a lot of money for what she does? Is that your theory? Man, you oughta see what Julia Roberts gets per picture. I dislike capitalism as much as you, but until we can have a socialist revolution this is the way it's done.

I don't know what loop hole you are talking about, but if it's important enough you should write your Congressman, not curse the one who used it. Often a loop hole is there for a reason...either its a cog in another machine's wheel, or someone doesn't want it closed, in which case it's a political matter on which someone disagrees with you.

In any case, Hillary has done nothing wrong. People don't like her because she doesn't have a cute body and walk like a runway model. What can I say? The popular attitude is old women should stay at home and mind the grand kids.