If You Are Not Nervous About The Upcoming Election...

If you are not nervous about the impending Presidential election I envy and applaud you.

But for the rest of us (the Trembling Majority?), David Sanger of the Times presents a new concern that should easily crack anyone's Top 100 list of potential electoral disasters. As a disclaimer, I should add that when the White House wants an authoritative, sympathetic source to present their spin on international events they seek out Mr. Sanger. So this article is a lightly-edited press release rather than hard-hitting investigative journalism, but still - it is interesting to know what the Administration wants us to believe. Here we go, on cyberwar and the many complexities of a US response:

U.S. Wrestles With How to Fight Back Against Cyberattacks

ASPEN, Colo. — It has been an open secret throughout the Obama presidency that world powers have escalated their use of cyberpower. But the recent revelations of hacking into Democratic campaign computer systems in an apparent attempt to manipulate the 2016 election is forcing the White House to confront a new question: whether, and if so how, to retaliate.

So far, the administration has stopped short of publicly accusing the Russian government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the theft of research and emails from the Democratic National Committee and hacking into other campaign computer systems. However, private investigators have identified the suspects, and American intelligence agencies have told the White House that they have “high confidence” that the Russian government was responsible.

Less certain is who is behind the selective leaks of the material, and whether they have a clear political objective. Suspecting such meddling is different from proving it with a certainty sufficient for any American president to order a response.

Because Obama is far too calm and reflective, don'cha know? I don't think game theorists recommend extreme predictability as a winning strategy, but I am not a genius like Obama either.

Oh, yeah, Obama is a visionary as well, as per this vignette from 2009:

While setting up his new administration, he was also learning the dark arts of cyberwar, descending into the Situation Room to oversee a complex American-Israeli offensive operation to disable Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. He expressed concern to his aides that the operation would help fuel the escalation of cyberattacks and counterattacks.

Right, because no one else anywhere realized that computer power was more widely available than nuclear power. Whatever. On to the new concern:

At the event in Aspen on Saturday afternoon, Lisa O. Monaco, Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, sidestepped specific discussion of the D.N.C. hacking but acknowledged that the administration might soon have to consider whether the United States’ electoral system constitutes “critical infrastructure,” like the power grid or the cellphone network.

“I think it’s a serious question,” she said, especially if there is “coercion, destruction, manipulation of data.” Ms. Monaco noted that whenever the United States thinks about retaliation, “the danger of escalation and misinterpretation is such that we have to be responsible about it.” But she also said that if an event were serious enough, “we have to be very clear we will respond.”

The cost of doing nothing could be high. As the United States and other nations move to more electronic voting systems, the opportunities for mischief rise. Imagine, for example, a vote as close as the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, but with accusations about impossible-to-trace foreign manipulation of the ballots or the vote count, leaving Americans wondering about the validity of the outcome.

Oh, brother. Florida 2000 becomes Florida/Ohio/Pennsylvania 2016? With a 4-4 Supreme Court unable to swing the result to Hillary? And who among us honestly believes that Obama, Lynch and the establishment Republicans running the FBI could investigate an election-tampering scheme and conclude that Hillary was the beneficiary and Trump won the election? Well, never ask a rhetorical question - I am confident that Democrats and establishment Republicans would insist that their investigation was fair and balanced, but in a close election, the half of the voters that went for Trump won't buy it.

Of course, if Russian manipulation secretly swings the election to Hillary this will get as much attention from the DoJ as Lois Lerner of the IRS. And whoever wins, the hint of Russian meddling makes it possible that the losers will not accept the legitimacy of the "winner", leaving our next leader in charge of an even-more divided country.

Our leaders and institutions have lost their credibility and the Russians may be inclined to exploit that. Yike.

MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER: Let me just snip a fair-use excerpt form the Foreign Policy link above:

Madman in the White House

Why looking crazy can be an asset when you’re staring down the Russians.

...

Nixon wanted to impress upon the Soviets that the president of the United States was, in a word, mad: unstable, erratic in his decision-making, and capable of anything. The American commander-in-chief wanted the Kremlin to know that he was willing to escalate even localized conventional military conflicts to the nuclear level. Kissinger understood: "I’ll tell [the Soviets] tomorrow night," he vowed. The national security advisor even rehearsed for the president specific lines from the good cop/bad cop routine he intended to put on. "The more we do now," he would tell his Soviet interlocutor, "the better." He was akin to saying: On the shoulders of reasonable men, like you and me, rests the responsibility of preventing a madman, like Nixon, from taking things too far.

It wasn’t the first time the national security advisor had been exposed to the strategic potential of madness. The concept had originated, amid the nuclear anxieties of the 1950s, in the academic circles Kissinger had formerly inhabited. It was a product of game theory, a mathematic discipline — often applied to national security policymaking — that can be used to assess competitive situations and predict actors’ choices, based on prior actions by their competitors. Kissinger himself had endorsed the concept in his writings, as a professor of international relations at Harvard, a full decade before he came to the White House. "The more reckless we appear [the better]," he told Nixon that afternoon, "because after all, Mr. President, what we’re trying to convince them of is that we are ready to go all the way."

In his post-Watergate memoir The Ends of Power, former White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman wrote that his boss’s use of the strategy was hardly unconscious. "I call it the Madman Theory," Haldeman recalled the president telling him. "I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button,’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

Comments

[cheerleader]

Peecee is the primary tool the Democrats use to control political debate.

Trump's not letting them control the debate because he doesn't play by their rules of what he can say, or should say or should not say.

[simply stupid]

Jane, Trump highlighted that in the Islamic religion that woman are second class citizens. Can not have Dem platform of first woman president and acceptance or tolerance of sharia Islamic being compatible. More exposure to Kahn and people will be turned off by him.

[rse]

I don't think kahn was there as a grieving father. He was there as a partisan who had a cloak of immunity against substantive criticism of what he said against trump because he had tragically lost his son in combat. He is using it though as an affirmative defense to go after trump as well as frame how islam and immigrants are to be perceived.

His loss and the fact that he is muslim cannot be a barrier to scrutiny. Especially with the MSM wanting to hype it so much.

Jane-not attacking you. Never have and never will but I truly would like to know why as carefully phrased as what was supposed to be a perfect attack was, we should just let the kahns politicize their sons death away.

Hogan & Hartson was a politico firm when I was still in law school. I can just imagine they are firmly on board for a regulated society. Not sour grapes. Turned down DC callbacks because I don't like regulatory law.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

I'd rather Trump respond to lies from anyone in Hillary's army with immediate tweets. Almost always his instincts are correct about the attacker/lies and the hidden motive behind the attack. Responding quickly prevents her attacks from attaching.

The DNC tried mightily to make the grieving Mr & Mrs Khan victims of Trump's lack of compassion for Muslims and his *meanness*. And now we're learning our instincts were correct and just what a MB tool Mr. Khan is proving to be.

[Art in Newport]

Summer in Newport, TK. Blue sky, high seventies.
Trying to think how to import some of that to this thread.

[Jane]

No one gave me an opinion Iggy, at least on the issue I raised. What they did is react that if I didn't treat trump as the second coming, I was a traitor - just like they always do.

My point was and is, that I don't think attacking Kahn gets Trump anything. I think it hurts him. NO one has provided one ounce of evidence of how it helps him. I want him to win, not do stuff that makes him lose.

Obviously this is no longer a place where we can have that discussion.

[Beasts of England]

Second coming - drink!!

[Miss Marple 2]

I will let Jane's comment stand.

I can't contribute anything to this discussion, so am off the the reddit site for a while.

[buccaneer morgan]

and they are big in islamic finance, specially where mssr. khan seems to have relocated himself to in the emirates,

[GUS]

And there it is. Don't go away mad!

[lyle]

Jane, please. Please stop making these sweeping pronouncements about the current state of discussion at JOM.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

The longer Hillary & Co victimize Khan & castigate Trump for his reaction to Khan, the more people will learn about who Khan really is.

Keep it up, Hillary!

(Trump wins again :)

[cheerleader]

LOL Beasts.

[lyle]

I'm drinking!

[still lurking]

>>>The rest of us see him as the second coming?

Hahaha!!

Posted by: Beasts of England | July 31, 2016 at 07:51 PM<<<

would the second horseman work?

[rse]

Jane-I am listening to you and am not aware of anyone who thinks trump is the second coming.

I find his buildings tacky and is rhetoric not what I would have said. I do believe he loves this country and hill loves what this country can do for her, bill, and chelsea whatever the costs.

I really don't get why you keep insisting there is an uncivil tone here. Honestly the most uncivil here are in your face about it.

Heck I still want to know how the aerial tickets turned out.

[still lurking]

lyle wins

[GUS]

Jane, we all seem to be having a discussion, then you disrespect us, and run away the victim.
Come back and discuss when you're ready.

[Beasts of England]

As long as the second horseman is cold beer! :)

[buccaneer morgan]

the other lizard perhaps, re douglas adams,

[Jane]

Trump highlighted that in the Islamic religion that woman are second class citizens. Can not have Dem platform of first woman president and acceptance or tolerance of sharia Islamic being compatible. More exposure to Kahn and people will be turned off by him.

SS

Now that I think is a great point. Where did he do that? But remember it's a tough issue to make points with to people who don't pay attention. Would it not be smarter to leave it alone.

[lyle]

The second horseman has been beaten to death. See you on the next thread.

[Jane]

Lyle,

What I was doing is mimicking what people do here to people they don't agree with (the Hillary comment). Obviously an epic fail.

[Jane]

Jane-not attacking you. Never have and never will but I truly would like to know why as carefully phrased as what was supposed to be a perfect attack was, we should just let the kahns politicize their sons death away.

As I said earlier, I think Trump could have simply said that he honored his son's service, and wished we could believe all the refugees would feel the same way about this country. But now that is no longer possible and it's his job to keep us safe, or something like that.

Attacking his wife was just dump and fed into all the anti-Trump stereotypes. Hell the last thing we want is for Kahn to win this election.

[rich]

Posted by: Beasts of England | July 31, 2016 at 08:06 PM

and it is me beasts.

my computer is ready for the knackers yard.

[Beasts of England]

As I mentioned earlier today: as the father of two strong and fiercely independent daughters, the spectacle of his wife standing quietly behind him with her head covered sickened me. All while the dems are going in about women's rights and equality - there's a Muzzie with his subjugated wife. That's about as un-American as anything I saw at their convention.

[Beasts of England]

I knew that, rich!! Howdy!

[Truthbetold5]

JIB

Who is Bechtel backing?

‘The Profiteers,’ by Sally Denton
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/books/review/the-profiteers-by-sally-denton.html?_r=1

[Beasts of England]

And Khan's tweet about Melania and modesty is soft Sharia. What a piece of work...

[Threadkiller]

How about you mimic whatever you think I said that made you attack me?

Or, like you advise Trump, you can do what is right and apologize. Like the good old days.

[Threadkiller]

Is the Kahn Twitter account BS?

It seems fake to me.

[GUS]

Which one is frick??

[anonamom]

Jane, I'll say it--you are completely and totally wrong.
NOBODY here thinks Trump is the second coming.
NOBODY.

But almost EVERYBODY thinks HRC needs to be beaten into a pulp.
Squished. Annihilated.

And he's the guy who did manage to get the R nomination, and it looks like all the crass, uncouth, and less than civil things he's done for the past year and a half just might be the way to win this election.

So noting that the dead guy's mom stood to the side with her head covered and didn't make a peep may not have been the courteous thing to do, and thus would likely not have been any one of our's advice to Mr. Trump, but you gotta admit he seems to be retaining his support, and recent numbers show he's gaining voters.

So, no, we're not going to question his behavior too much any more. Because it's not about him being president. It's about her NOT being president.

[Beasts of England]

I think it's been linked or retweeted by a few news types, TK, so it may be legit.

[lyle]

First thing, Jane. It's Khan, not Kahn. But next to that, I really don't see too many folks here that are in love with Teh Donald. I see plenty cheering him on as he attacks the dishonesty of the MFM and their bitch queen but there's few true believers AFAICT. Right now it's where we are: an imperfect R candidate vs an immoral, thoroughly corrupt, [redacted]. I don't know how things can be fine tuned from here.

[Threadkiller]

Thanks, BoE.

[Beasts of England]

I think it's lyle, GUS.

[buccaneer morgan]

ixnay on the ivisionday,

[DrJ]

I'm probably going to step into it, but here goes!

Jane, I do want you to feel welcomed here. I do value what you have to say, even when it goes against the group think. Please relax and enjoy the conversations.

To the rest, Jane is a good one. She has been kind to me personally, and her morals and actions are right on. Please treat her and her ideas kindly.

OK. I'll duck now.

[GUS]

Beasts, in Khan's world, BJ Billy Clinton only raped women, if there are 4 independent witnesses.
And the Libtardocrats say..."It's all good", we want more of same.

[lyle]

I'm frack. I think...

[Beasts of England]

Dang it, I guess I'm frick. :(

[lyle]

No, wait! Definitely frick. Wait, that can't be right...😬

[Threadkiller]

To the rest, Jane is a good one.

I have never thought otherwise. That is why I tried to fix her furnace years ago.

Having a Birther as the titular head of the GOP seems to have changed our blossoming relationship.

[JM Hanes]

Haven't caught up yet, so maybe it's been covered but:

squaredance:

"Except he was right about the judge, and not 3 weeks later a Supreme Court Justice just proved the point. "

Which basically only made the news in Trump supporters' circles. Even now it's one of the remarks that I end up having to laboriously explain and defend, over and over again, which is not a great way to have to start out a sales pitch.

[rse]

Dr J-I think you expressed my personal opinion well. I want to know why Jane says what she says.

[Threadkiller]

What is the other persons sales pitch for their candidate?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--No one gave me an opinion Iggy, at least on the issue I raised.--

Thinking Trump's kicking Khan back was not dumb is an opinion, but you treat it either as though it isn't one or is so illegitimate that anyone holding it has something wrong with them.

Likewise, pointing out that Khan's wife stood there submissively not uttering a peep is typical of the second class status of women in islam is not disrespecting his wife. It's correctly disrespecting the way islam treats women.
Good.
Bout time.

[GUS]

DrJ. Jane is lucky to have you as a friend.
That being said, Jane has made it a habit of late, to pick fights here and go away playing the victim. This is what Jane said TO ME this evening.
""Now you and many others think those attacks reflect great judgment on the part of Trump. That's fine. Just say so. But it truly makes me wonder who you want to win.""

UTTER BULLSHIT. I do not expect her to apologize, as I've seen her act for a while now.

[Jane]

Lyle,

Apparently they have been fine tuned to the point where there can. Be no discussion.

I recall when Romney was the nominee, and we all came around. That didn't mean we couldn't discuss mistakes he made. People were not attacked for having a different opinion.

Times have changed.

[lyle]

Times do that, Jane.

[Jane]

Thank you Dr J. You are sweet.

[Jane]

Iggy, no one except SS supported that opinion. Instead they changed the subject. And I thought and said I thought SS made a good point.

So tell me, how will Trumps attack attract undecided voters? And is that the best use of his time?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Just for the record, I happen to think Mrs DrJ looks way younger than 66 and is very svelte. :)

[GUS]

Jane can we "discuss" your "SECOND COMING" comment.
Jane can you show ONE SINGLE INSTANCE in which a JOM'er expressed anything close to resembling such an opinion.
Which person here on JOM has come within a thousand miles of any such opinion?
Let's discuss this Jane. Ok??

[Threadkiller]

Trumpets

[Miss Marple 2]

Times do change.

Foe example, how much of the constant critiquing of Romney on this site, and the ewok, and Free Republic, etc. gave clues to weak spots in Romney's campaign, revealing wedge issues the dems could use?

I was as guilty as anyone at Ewok's place, but belatedly I realized how that type of stuff could be used to divide the GOP. We saw it with Bush, and why I didn't see it with Romney I will never understand.

My opinion on this election is this: whatever Trump says is ok with me, because any doubts I have will be expressed privately in emails or closed sites or to my sisters. I am not going to back down one inch in public. Not one inch.

The democrats have used a similar strategy for years. Republicans always virtue signal of how willing they are to criticize their own, while mocking the dems for not doing so.

However, in the real world, this translates to "Dems back their candidate while Republicans have doubts."

So, I am backing Trump and I am not going to dissect his statements in a public forum. I don't think it is helpful at all.

[Jane]

No thanks Gus. I've gotten your message loud and clear.

[lyle]

You're still thinking symmetrically, Jane, in what's clearly an asymmetric world...right down to this campaign.

[JM Hanes]

Jane:

"Obviously this is no longer a place where we can have that discussion."

I agree with you about leaving Khan alone. Others don't. What I don't understand is why, after loading your comments with ad hominems, you complain about the quality of disucssion. It's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Jane]

Actually I'm thinking rationally and that is very unwelcomed.

[Art in Newport]

Still Lurking, would not mind a little rain here if it meant cooling off at night. Too hot to sleep!

[DrJ]

Iggy,

Mrs DrJ looks way younger than 66 and is very svelte. :)

Always the diplomat! To me she always is MrsJ, and I don't care what the world thinks about it. She's mine, and I'm hers and the rest of you can go elsewhere!

[Threadkiller]

So tell me, how will Trumps attack attract undecided voters?

Are all undecided voters looking for a calm voice?

And is that the best use of his time?

As a business owner I did many things with my time. Do you believe this is the sole consumer of his time?

(Jane, my questions here are part of having a conversation. Surely you recognize that.)

[Beasts of England]

Apparently this isn't a place to have a discussion, GUS.

[boris]

"I end up having to laboriously explain and defend ..."

Okay but the argument that Trump's style makes it harder for you to recruit voters doesn't have anything to do with those of us discussing issues of the day here from a Trump voter's POV.

It's not as if we all work together we can change how Trump campaigns.

It's not as if the chit chat on sites like this is driving persuadable passers by away from Trump.

Nor do I believe #nevertrumper rants on this website gives dimorats new ideas.

[Beasts of England]

Rational thinking is 'very unwelcomed'!

[GUS]

I didn't think so Jane. You've become a big ugly.

[JM Hanes]

Jane:

""Actually I'm thinking rationally and that is very unwelcomed."

If you go back an look at the Gun Fun thread, you'll see that we managed to have a perfectly civil disagreement about this very topic.

[GUS]

Lyle, I have zero problem with Jane's opinions, I do think Jane has become a bloviating self-important blowhard. Her treatment of anyone who doesn't fall into her camp sucks. I watched for a long long time, and I watched several people stand up for her, after she has lashed out.
I'm seeing less and less of that. I'm scrolling on past Jane.
JMH, you are correct. Jane shits on people and then complains at how she is treated.
I'm scrolling past her from now on. I've NEVER seen her apologize for her ill behavior.

[rich]

Posted by: Beasts of England | July 31, 2016 at 08:16 PM

howdy back at ya.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

You're very lucky to have her Doc. :)

[lyle]

After your 8:56 I hope you don't mind if I excuse myself, Jane. Kthnxbye

[Threadkiller]

Looks like it is just me and you, Jane.

Let's discuss this.

[Janet the expert]

But he can't help himself - a lot like TK.

Or a lot like you. I don't get why it bothers you that some JOMers are Trump supporters.

Those are the things to talk about.

Not a smart campaign strategy IMO.

Why not just post what YOU want. Say what YOU want to say & post links.

I just do not get what you are so mad about lately.

[lyle]

PS, I love you, Janet. 👊

[buccaneer morgan]

so a month ago, was the evidence of the first hack of the dnc's private servers, that's where the contributor's list came from, apparently that hack was months old, the emails came later, and only after the hack of the voicemail, did the fbi feel fit to make a statement,

[Janet the expert]

THe guy's name is Khizr Khan.

KNAN

[Janet the expert]

**KHAN**

[rich]

our good little Maoists marching along

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/31/all-lives-matter-gets-texas-student-suspended-sent-to-diversity-workshop/

The headline is a bit harsh ... the student was suspended from the student government, not school, and the maoist like self criticism is a nice touch. Classy the SG president had to get "extraordinary powers" to cook up his torments. Getting a good start on dictatorship 101

[clarice]

Khazir Khan is a plant and I've collected some evidence to that end.

[DrJ]

Iggy,

You're very lucky to have her Doc. :)

That I am. That I am.

[boris]

Jane has mentioned several times her objection to how the "Second Coming" crowd treated Trump-bashers here.

I infer this is in some sense "payback".

From my POV it was really more like ...

A: Trump is evil

B: Doubt it

A: Trump is spawn of Satan

B: Oh he is not

A: Trump followers are a bunch of zombies

B: Don't be ridiculous

Jane: Why is everybody picking on A?

[Beasts of England]

Khan loves him some Sharia. Charming guy. Trump should totally yield to his superiority, amirite?

And, as someone upthread mentioned, Khan's AstroTurf is being exposed by the minute. This seems like a repeat of 'This will sink Trump!!' v.53, yet, incredibly, he's still afloat.

[Jane]

I did Janet. Twice.

[rich]

narciso-

an inside job ...

[Threadkiller]

Why did you attack me?

[boris]

Jane did not "just post" what SHE wanted. Say what SHE wanted to say & post links.

She called Trumps response "stupid" called anyone who defended Trump "stupid" and said they were dimorats or Hillary supporters.

[rich]

lol beasts! hahahahaha ...

and got my new deftones album Gore! doomed user

///i won't pollute the thread with a link

[rich]

Posted by: clarice | July 31, 2016 at 09:26 PM

a plant in what way?

[Beasts of England]

Deftones - woot!!

[Miss Marple 2]

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

I would say that rather than neocons, we are looking at the foreign policy establishment exerting as much influence as they can muster against the rubes who ask why we are always getting into these Middle east wars.

Interesting comments from people in attendance, and worth a read.

[rich]

they are playing in Baltimore on the 3rd ...

[buccaneer morgan]

any particular favorites tunes,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPpDyIJdasg

[GUS]

Neo cons is not the proper terminology. These are HACKS who see any source of POWER and INCOME going BUH BYE when Trump gets elected. HIGH BROW INTELLECTUALS without a PLATFORM is their future.

[rich]

hearts/wires and doomed user

[Beasts of England]

Exactly, GUS! Did the 'V' arrive?

[BeenThereDoneThat]

MM, sounds like the neocons are reverting back to Dem uber hawks. I think they are misjudging Trump's admiration for the military and the need to have a strong defense for deterrence & more secretiveness about our overseas operations. IOW, not blabbing our intentions for the enemy's consumption.

I fail to see anything positive in the Hillary/Obama foreign affairs debacles - what in the world are the neocons crowing about...

[Miss Marple 2]

GUS,

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.

Part of my anger is about how I was duped by some of these people.

They don't care about the US, or Israel, or anything except their own money and power.

I am ashamed I listened to them for so long.

[buccaneer morgan]

kagan pere must feel a little like odin re loki, where did I go wrong, he wrote a wonderful study about what the nicaraguan resistance was all about
but in the last two decades his analysis has gone stale,