Trump - Clown Genius

[Chad]

how can you criticize Trump for not doing more, when he isn't even in power? For lack of an executive response, I would have to say you should be blaming Obama. You know, the President, who is in power now, and back when this came to light?

I know Trump can't do much of anything right now. It's his complete lack of concern and how he has responded to the suggestion and to the agencies, which is the problem.

His actual words: Mr. Trump casts the issue as an unknowable mystery. “It could be Russia,” he recently told Time magazine. “And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

If it was that open ended the DNI would not have had an official press conference to talk about it. This was not a obscure "leak." Even the FBI agrees, but they don't provide the potential "whys" like the CIA does. The FBI is more conservative with stuff like that, as they should be.

If Trump would have just said something like, "This is potentially a serious problem and I will be following up with the appropriate agencies", I wouldn't be nearly as worked up. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm sure I could find fault somewhere. I'm not unaware of my bias. I just wouldn't be this animated.

I'm 44. I prefer a stronger overall response. A little less than "out for blood" and a little more than it's just IT security (A defined response back at Russia by Trump is not necessary at this time). This is a bigger issue, as it weakens America's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. In turn, it weakens our soft power*, which is always a hobby horse of mine.

I do not believe Trump is Russia's Manchurian candidate. I do believe he is way in over his head on foreign policy, doesn't seem to want to listen to people that could help him, and may have strong financial ties** to assets in Russia that may influence his view, as they would anyone.

*Of course, we have caused a lot of the weakness ourselves over the last decade.

**The financial issue has been moved to January, as his team says they may need more time. They may and I don't really have a problem with that if they get it right. Of course, I'm dubious. It's not like he/his team have given me any reason not to be.

[Riggerjack]

Chad, let me make a suggestion. Trump is exceptionally full of shit. Not exceptionally on a scale of people we meet each day, but exceptionally on the scale of politicians and reality TV stars. Think sun faded, brown sausage with a cheez whiz topping.

If you take ANYTHING he says literally, you are in for a rough four years.

I would recommend you think of him as an Alzheimer's patient that you don't really like. His statements will have about that level of accuracy and effect on your life. More importantly, your stress will have about the same effect on him.

In 4 years, this is a self correcting problem.

Unless, of course, the DNC decides to run a child molester with Tourette's syndrome. In which case, we can look forward to an election cycle almost as bad as 2016. The blues are not my team, but I am depending on those who are outraged today, to derail the Anthony Wiener 2020 campaign, before it gets rolling.

[George the original one]

>In 4 years, this is a self correcting problem.

Trump has said 8 years. Should we doubt his word? After all, he's the one who said he would be victorious this time

[BRUTE]

If you take ANYTHING [..Trump..] says literally, you are in for a rough four years.

Trump has said 8 years. Should we doubt his word? After all, he's the one who said he would be victorious this time

[Campitor]

how can you criticize Trump for not doing more, when he isn't even in power? For lack of an executive response, I would have to say you should be blaming Obama. You know, the President, who is in power now, and back when this came to light?

I know Trump can't do much of anything right now. It's his complete lack of concern and how he has responded to the suggestion and to the agencies, which is the problem.

Perhaps he doesn't want to make himself susceptible to confirmation bias or limit his options until the Obama administration's FBI has finished it's full investigation. Isn't this was a prudent leader would/should do?

I am concerned that Russia meddled in our politics - I don't condone it. However, I must concede, via the knowledge obtained via the hacks, that maybe Russia preferred the candidate to be someone who doesn't want to reignite the cold war or destabilize the Asian continent military status-quo? The hacks did reveal that Hillary Clinton was talking about military interference against Russian assets in Syria and putting a missile defense system around China if they failed to contain North Korea.

I'm also concerned that the DNC rigged the primary in Hillary's favor and it took a foreign government to make the US populace aware of it. And the funny thing, per Obama's recent interviews, the current administration was aware that Russia had meddled in US Politics since 2008. Why didn't they do more to safeguard DNC servers and why didn't Hillary warn the DNC about this since not only was she a former Secretary of State but also a former Senator who served on the Armed Service Committee and its sub-committee of emerging threats? This is what you should be disturbed about since it was our own government agents (Executive branch) who failed to protect and warn us.

[Chad]

@Riggerjack
You are correct. I probably would be better off not paying attention. I actually ignored the entire first half of the election, so maybe I should just go back to that. But, there are so many bad decisions. Rick Perry leading a scientific department? Ugghhh

By the way, thanks for pointing out that I was a little off with my previous comment. The current ridiculousness drives me a little insane. Which is just another reason to not pay attention.


@Campitor
Yes, a good leader would gather more information, but that is not what Trump did. Not even close.

How are Russia's concerns valid reasons for interfering in the election? If we followed that logic, then every country would have a valid reason for interfering, as decisions in the US impact everyone.

Also, the missile defense system is basically a done already and Trump is unlikely to have a problem with it.

It's not that I'm not concerned with the DNC issues, it's just a different problem. Solving the DNC issue is completely different than solving a foreign power meddling in the election. The solutions for the DNC will come by changing the DNC leadership.

Why didn't the federal gov't do more to protect DNC servers? This isn't really a valid question if you understand the technical side of it. The federal gov't doesn't control the DNC network or any non-federal network, and the US internet is open. Where they supposed to hack the DNC and secretly monitor the systems 24/7? Put up a US version of the Great Firewall of China and severely restrict our personal freedoms? Physically take over the DNC network and put in the proper physical and electronic measures? Are they supposed to do this for every non-federal network? It's just not possible.

Also, we have been warned plenty. People are just dumb. Especially, older people about tech. It's why I would love it if the next presidential candidates weren't part of the Boomer generation. Doesn't guarantee they know about tech, just makes it more likely.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Chad: Thanks for the link to the CIA's Iraq WMD assessment. Interesting to revisit the backstory there. I think the fact that the original report contained qualifiers that were dropped and "the conclusions were treated increasingly definitively" as it went up the chain supports my skepticism toward the Russian interference theory. The original WMD report was more cautious, but the redacted report the public saw and what we heard in the media and from the politicians was quite definite. It's like a game of telephone.

Is there even an official report of any kind on the Russia thing yet? Literally all I've seen was the Washington Post article from the weekend referencing "anonymous officials in the CIA". This being the same Washington Post that ran 16 negative articles on Sanders in as many hours during the primary, I will never take them seriously as an unbiased source. Gotta watch that fake news, lives are at stake.

What did the Russians actually do to interfere? Are there even allegations beyond their alleged hacking and releasing of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, or is that the "interference"?

[jennypenny]

Also, we have been warned plenty. People are just dumb. Especially, older people about tech. It's why I would love it if the next presidential candidates weren't part of the Boomer generation. Doesn't guarantee they know about tech, just makes it more likely.

^^This! For me, the scariest part of the latest round of Russian hacking isn't the effect it had on the election (internally considered minimal), but how it has exposed the continued ignorance in Congress and elsewhere of the potential hazards of cyber-warfare. I don't even think it's a question of age. Ted Koppel managed to educate himself on the dangers of cybercrime when writing Lights Out and he's older than most of them. It's a question of ignorance which I think shows how even people who claim to live by fact and not belief (as described in the other thread) can still willingly mislead themselves and put others at risk. China is allegedly the one who stole all of OPM's data on over 20 million current and former Fed employees and contractors. Think of all the ways that information could be used to inflict damage on the US directly or indirectly. Where is the outrage over that? I think there isn't much because they really don't understand the kind of leverage it gives a potential enemy. There's only outrage this time because it's more political in nature (we love to hate the Russians) and it affected us in a way that's easier for technodolts to understand.

I'm not crazy about how over-represented the military is in Trump's new administration, but at least military personnel tend to be much more informed about cyber risks than many civilian appointees. Military personnel are also proactive regarding climate change because they see it as a potential source or accelerant of instability, conflict, and vulnerability. Trump's rhetoric aside, I don't expect those two issues to be ignored.

[Chad]

@SW
No problem. Shit like this gets convoluted and it's hard to keep track of. At one time I really knew the whole Iraq WMD intel story and could have written a paper debunking any theory that suggested Iraq had WMD's and pointing out that the administration, not the intel agencies, were the ones really making the WMD claim.

Here is another story about it:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick ... 33097.html

There is no declassified report, yet. However, this article highlights what a private cyber security firm hired by the DNC found and suggests a declassified report is coming out next month. Of course, the declassified report will be scrubbed heavily to not give away any intel capabilities or assets, so it probably won't be especially detailed in most areas.
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-r ... ald-trump/

The emails seem to be the bulk of the interference concerning the hacking. Then there are the fake news stories, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the hacking. Though, that would still be influencing.

If the Russians had just hacked the DNC and RNC, highly likely they were hacked too, and just kept the information we could just consider this normal espionage that always goes on. But, they didn't.

[Chad]

...the scariest part of the latest round of Russian hacking isn't the effect it had on the election (internally considered minimal), but how it has exposed the continued ignorance in Congress and elsewhere of the potential hazards of cyber-warfare. I don't even think it's a question of age. Ted Koppel managed to educate himself on the dangers of cybercrime when writing Lights Out and he's older than most of them. It's a question of ignorance which I think shows how even people who claim to live by fact and not belief (as described in the other thread) can still willingly mislead themselves and put others at risk. China is allegedly the one who stole all of OPM's data on over 20 million current and former Fed employees and contractors. Think of all the ways that information could be used to inflict damage on the US directly or indirectly. Where is the outrage over that? I think there isn't much because they really don't understand the kind of leverage it gives a potential enemy. There's only outrage this time because it's more political in nature (we love to hate the Russians) and it affected us in a way that's easier for technodolts to understand.

I do agree. It's not just an age thing. It's just every time I imagine older people thinking about tech I see those clueless geriatric 60 Minutes reporters do some tech story they obviously don't understand. Plus, Clinton, Colin Powell, etc. obviously didn't understand with their private mail servers.

OPM's data breach is huge and should definitely be a very high priority for the gov't to correct. The one difference, as I mentioned in my reply to SW, is that it was normal espionage so far. It hasn't been used offensively, yet. Doesn't mean it should be overlooked.

Though, I'm not sure most people understand the amount of resources necessary to correct IT issues within organizations the size of those inside the gov't. This is not cheap and basically every agency is operating networks built in the 80's/90's and modified over the years, with decision makers who are clueless about tech (one of the reasons I have my age bias).

I'm not crazy about how over-represented the military is in Trump's new administration, but at least military personnel tend to be much more informed about cyber risks than many civilian appointees. Military personnel are also proactive regarding climate change because they see it as a potential source or accelerant of instability, conflict, and vulnerability. Trump's rhetoric aside, I don't expect those two issues to be ignored.

Agreed. I actually like Mattis, even if I'm not super thrilled on the idea of civilian control kind of being bypassed. Though, Flynn's gaffe with that obviously fake news story and the article describing how he worked during the wars makes me wonder about his analytic ability as National Security Advisor. Overall, the general's thing isn't terrible.

[BRUTE]

there are 3 great reasons Rick Perry should lead the Department of Energy:
1)he has glasses
2)he was an experienced governor in an energy producing state
3).. uhh...... ummmmm.... oops?

[jennypenny]

3) Because Perry is a favorite of Kristol et al, and since Trump didn't name Romney as Sec of State, Perry is their consolation prize and an olive branch of sorts to that wing of the republican party.

I'm not arguing Perry's credentials, only explaining why he was chosen.

[Campitor]

@Campitor
Yes, a good leader would gather more information, but that is not what Trump did. Not even close.

How are Russia's concerns valid reasons for interfering in the election? If we followed that logic, then every country would have a valid reason for interfering, as decisions in the US impact everyone.

The US openly interferes all over the world in locations they feel are of national interest which makes foreign interference "fair game" by other countries. To deny this is to engage in selective logic.

And since we do interfere (economically, socially, politically) in other countries, it leaves zero incentive for target countries not to do the same. Wouldn't you want to influence the people who are trying to influence your people? Therefore the only thing we can do is warn american citizens to the threat and vigorously protect institutions of importance such as our RNC/DNC servers and slap down hard any government employees who break any security rules.

Also, the missile defense system is basically a done already and Trump is unlikely to have a problem with it.

Russia has stated that it wants to collaborate with China to find a way to counter american missile defense systems - both countries feel, per press statements, that our missile defense system makes their nuclear deterrent useless. Perhaps Trump may or may not have an issue surrounding China with a missile defense system but I don't blame Russia for not wanting the openly hostile Hillary Clinton to be the person in charge when they try to negotiate this very sensitive and potentially escalating issue.

Why didn't the federal gov't do more to protect DNC servers? This isn't really a valid question if you understand the technical side of it. The federal gov't doesn't control the DNC network or any non-federal network, and the US internet is open. Where they supposed to hack the DNC and secretly monitor the systems 24/7? Put up a US version of the Great Firewall of China and severely restrict our personal freedoms? Physically take over the DNC network and put in the proper physical and electronic measures? Are they supposed to do this for every non-federal network? It's just not possible.

I don't expect them to safeguard every non-federal server, but since they knew foreign hacking was an active issue, shouldn't they have warned the DNC/RNC and showed them how to make their servers safer? Couldn't the NSA have used that humungous snooping apparatus, that is currently aimed at capturing every US resident's email/phone/browser activity, and repurposed it to protect DNC/RNC servers during presidential election cycles?

If there is nothing the US government can do to prevent the hacking of our election system, then why are you so flabbergasted/gobsmacked that Trump didn't utter any words about it? Are you saying Trump uttering words is more important than active counter-surveillance that safeguards our political parties during critical election cycles? It seems so intellectually dishonest to be mad at Trump but not mad at the administration that knew this was happening and did nothing to stop it.

Also, we have been warned plenty. People are just dumb. Especially, older people about tech. It's why I would love it if the next presidential candidates weren't part of the Boomer generation. Doesn't guarantee they know about tech, just makes it more likely.

So if we've been warned plenty, then the DNC knew this could be a problem and kept putting politically damaging information on their servers. Well I hope this is a wake-up call and they do a better job hiding their dirty laundry when suppressing candidates within their own party.

[Tyler9000]

Also, we have been warned plenty. People are just dumb. Especially, older people about tech. It's why I would love it if the next presidential candidates weren't part of the Boomer generation. Doesn't guarantee they know about tech, just makes it more likely.

No kidding. It bears mentioning that Podesta was easily hacked because 1) he was conducting business on an unsecure Gmail account, and 2) he fell for a truly lame phishing scheme.

Blaming the Russians when the campaign was blatantly ignoring both established rules and common sense that protect against this kinda thing seems kinda lame and out of touch. A creative teen could have just as easily gotten access to Podesta's emails.

[Riggerjack]

Why didn't the federal gov't do more to protect DNC servers? This isn't really a valid question if you understand the technical side of it. The federal gov't doesn't control the DNC network or any non-federal network, and the US internet is open. Where they supposed to hack the DNC and secretly monitor the systems 24/7? Put up a US version of the Great Firewall of China and severely restrict our personal freedoms? Physically take over the DNC network and put in the proper physical and electronic measures? Are they supposed to do this for every non-federal network? It's just not possible.

As such a big fan of "soft power" I am surprised you thought this was a rational argument. Let's listen in on a hypothetical solution:

Obama: get DWS on the line.
DWS: yes Mr President?
Obama: I just passed 2 staffers laughing about how bad security is on your servers, why don't you get with a few congressmen, and get some interns with some IT experience to go over your system?
DWS: I'll get right on it.

And... Done. No fed dollars spent. As a party member, abd leader of the party, Obama can call DWS and expect compliance, with no charges of inappropriate Federal interference. Of course, if he then left the RNC out to dry, that is just good strategy.

Honestly, I don't have your faith in soft power. In my looking at history, maintaining soft power is used as justification for doing things that can't be justified on their face value. IE WWI. European countries rushed into a war with no real gain in sight, to "keep up appearances". Gotta maintain our influence. No sane person would pit the British empire and France against the newly unified Germans over the assassination of an Austrian Duke. That took the will of diplomats concerned about maintaining the order of precedence for who gets the best seats at the table.

[Tyler9000]

I don't expect them to safeguard every non-federal server, but since they knew foreign hacking was an active issue, shouldn't they have warned the DNC/RNC and showed them how to make their servers safer?

Accoring to the NY Times, the FBI warned the DNC multiple times that they were being hacked. The DNC assumed they were all prank calls and never called them back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/po ... .html?_r=0

You can't make this stuff up.

[Riggerjack]

But, there are so many bad decisions. Rick Perry leading a scientific department? Ugghhh

Dept of energy is not a scientific Dept it is a regulatory Dept. Earlier there was a complaint about the Dept of education, and the new head. I'm not going to dig it up.

Now, I would prefer that Rick Perry, from what little I know of him, be leader of his Bridge Club. But, administration is administration. Once you are a few levels above the trenches, your knowledge of what happens in the trenches is useless. I work in telecom engineering. My boss' boss has sometimes had an engineering background, and sometimes a construction background. His boss rarely had either. His boss has usually been an MBA or accounting background. My point is the head of an organization the size of a Federal agency isn't making decisions that have anything to do with technical knowledge of the mission.

In other words, while I may not like a person being appointed to lead an agency, because of his politics, the mission of that agency hardly matters.

I bring this up, because this seems to be a reoccurring knee jerk reaction for all of Trump's appointments. I can't tell you how many times I have seen the rant against a non teacher leading the Dept of education. (My wife is far more progressive than I, and facebook knows it.) Uh, I believe it was Reagan that pointed out that the Dept of education had 4000 employees, none of whom were teachers. Mainly, they oversee dispersion of Pell grants and federal funding to public schools. This is an administration position.

So is the head of DOE. Rick Perry will do less damage there than in TX.

[Ego]

@Rigger, do you really believe that the head of a particular federal agency has no influence over the direction, effectiveness and public impression of that agency. You seem to be trying to convince yourself. And you seem to be failing.

Might it be possible that Trump is picking people who are unfit to lead their Bridge Clubs as heads of federal agencies precisely because he wants to kill any lingering hope that the federal government can actually accomplish something, anything, good? Might this be Trump's "crash the bus" strategy come to fruition?

And if this is the beginning of the bus crash, do we want Rick Perry at the wheel of a bus full of nukes? WrestleMania XIV at the SBA?

[bryan]

Might it be possible that Trump is picking people who are unfit to lead their Bridge Clubs as heads of federal agencies precisely because he wants to kill any lingering hope that the federal government can actually accomplish something, anything, good? Might this be Trump's "crash the bus" strategy come to fruition?

If he had campaigned with that, I would have probably voted for him! Genius indeed.

Though I have a feeling he is not some small government saviour..

The media is certainly making it easy for him to exceed expectations!

[Chad]

@Riggerjack
Your scenario is deeply flawed. It's not that easy to determine if the DNC's computer systems and procedures are sound. It would require a decent amount of time to appropriately define the system, associated procedures/use, and identify issues. A decent amount of dollars and way more than just walking by some random people in a hallway.

Then, obviously, DNC isn't going to let the gov't do this even if the president is a Democrat. And, even if the DNC would allow it they would have to offer those services to the RNC. Their response would be probably be, "Hell, no." Now there is a political incident for an issue the gov't isn't even responsible for in the first place.

Not to mention the fallout that would happen if they did look at both DNC and RNC, and either one was then broken into. This would be an especially big issue if it were the opposite party of the sitting president. There is by no means any guarantee the measures would be put in place or, even if they were, there is no guarantee it prevents all hacking events. There is no 100% success rate in this kind of thing. Especially, with all the people in these organizations who are obviously tech illiterate.

Plus, any time a strategy was used successfully by the president's party to counter a move by the other party they would be accused of stealing secrets during the system audit.

This is lose-lose for so many reasons.

How does your WWI example meet the definition of soft power? The whole point is to not use hard power at all.

Soft Power: Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than by coercion (hard power), using force or giving money as a means of persuasion. Soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. A defining feature of soft power is that it is noncoercive; the currency of soft power is culture, political values, and foreign policies.