Aside from the fact that narcissists are attracted to money and power, and hey, I’d venture a guess that those two abound in Washington, there’s lots to be found in a search of narcissism in politics.
I suppose there’s some debate as to whether they were narcissistic to begin with, or the circle they entered made them so - discussed a bit here. Otherwise I found the book “This Town” by Mark Leibovich to be quite depressing about a lot of people I used to have more respect for.
Please remember that I do not consider all politicians to have NPD. I just think it’s harder and harder to be successful in politics without an inflated level of egotism these days.
lol, I guess you could call it that. If you look into NPD that’s really all they are - an act. They engage in behaviors to elicit a response in others that give them their identity - waxing and waning between love and fear, adoration and power. It’s sad really. There’s not much of a person there. Again, this is not what all politicians are, but NPDers are attracted to positions of power so…
Incidentally there are loads of books out there that generally focus on dealing with NPDers, but if you’d rather just learn about personality disorders Personality Disorders in Modern Life by Theodore Millon is a good place to start.
You mean the “weakened” NATO that’s been aggressively provoking Russia in recent years by inviting the Ukraine to join NATO in 2008 and 2013? The same actions in which George Kennan and other respected experts warned us all that would very likely lead us into a new Cold War, but NATO did it anyway?
Obama just expelled 35 Russian diplomats from our country. That may have been “very mild” during the Cold War, but not today. Or, are you suggesting we should be comfortable with the new normal of ramping up hostile relations that leads us towards a new Cold War?
It’s not going to be any one action that leads us into nuclear war, it’ll be a culmination of threatening behaviors and defensive actions that will do so.
Experts are already saying it’s a miracle that we haven’t had an accident that’s led to a nuclear exchange by now. The more we increase tensions and trigger-readiness, the more likely an accident will happen.
To hell with that.
It’s yet to be shown as reality and I think it’s dangerous, irresponsible and resembling neocon behavior, or at least neoliberal, to claim otherwise at this juncture.
It’s accusations based upon a lack of solid evidence. You say there’s a copious amount of evidence. The problem is it’s a pile of weak evidence that even Script Kiddies can and do emulate.
Piling more shit on top of shit, is still shit.
The Institute of Critical Infrastructure Technology has closely looked at the evidence and deemed it, "a flimsy, unreliable and easily spoofed body of evidence.”
Attribution would be more reliable, they said, if the DNC were better protected, but it fell foul of a relatively trivial problem: a badly secured mail server. On top of that, the malware used could have been quite easily bought in a darkweb marketplace.
You’re comparing Trump and Putin’s relationship to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact? You don’t think you’re perhaps overreacting a little bit?
I’ll take better relations with Russia over a nuclear exchange prompted from a Cold War any day, thank you very much.
From past history and solid evidence, I have little doubt Russia hacks the United States and vice versa in various ways. I just don’t feel it’s prudent to say with certainty that Russia has circumvented our election system until there is solid proof made available.
You haven’t provided that proof. The United States government hasn’t provided that proof.
Wishful thinking.
I just can’t help noticing how much all this Cold War reactivation bullshit does wonders for defense industry stocks. Did we learn a damn thing from the Iraq War? Let’s be critical thinkers here.
No one said all forms of Russian hacking is fake. You’re not being honest. There’s many threats including the NSA hacking threat on the American people.
You sound like Trump there.
That sounds like Pence.
You are diminishing gay rights by conflating those who state facts about whether or not Russia hacked a power grid with support or complacency of Putin’s homophobia. You sound like the Hillary people who attack progressives and call them sexist for merely pointing out policy concerns against her. Incredibly counter-productive.
I’m against a new Cold War and I want solid evidence that shows Russia attacked our election system or Vermont’s power grid for that matter before we provoke another nuclear power. Does that make me a gay basher?
No, but they are both interchangeable in that regard.
Hilary people calling Bernie supporters sexist? It happened repeatedly.
It sort of destroys the image of the “hard nosed journalist”. I watched “All the President’s Men” the other day, and I suspect that the attitude portrayed on the screen there cannot be found easily in those same professions today. maybe that is why Ben Rhodes, the "person who represents the President’s view on (mideast) issues said- "“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
No, I meant what I said. Your fantasies of a new Cold War under a Trump presidency because people with no political power are criticizing Trump’s relationship to Russia are very confused. You might want to pay more attention to Trump and his admin pick’s relationships with Putin, Russian oligarchs, and note Trump’s account of Russia’s hacking of US political targets to manipulate the elections and aid the GOP, since that’s what’s germane now.
Not to mention that “inviting the Ukraine to join NATO in 2008” appears to have been when NATO very expressly didn’t invite them to join.
In summary: in 2008 the Ukrainian government asked to be considered for NATO’s Membership Action Plan [MAP], a precursor to membership. While its request had the backing of some member states — most notably the US — it did not have the backing of all of them, and changes to NATO’s membership can only be made via the unanimous consent of current members. As such, Ukraine’s request was rejected at the NATO summit early that year.
(In the spirit of full coverage: after the summit, NATO’s secretary general did say that Ukraine — and Georgia, whose MAP request was also rejected at the same time — would likely become members at some point in the future. That’s not the same as inviting them to join, however.)
That said, the “and 2013” part is a bit confusing to me. Ukraine’s official relationship with regards to NATO membership was unchanged during that period: no requests to join, no invitations to commence a MAP. In fact, the Ukrainian government had passed a law in 2010 that expressly forbade the country from joining any military alliance. (That law has since been repealed and the Ukrainian government has restated their interest in joining NATO. However neither of those things happened until 2014, and were a response to Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine.)
The only thing I can come up with that did happen in 2013 was the Priority Measures for European Integration, a precursor to the country’s Association Agreement with the European Union. If that’s what’s referred to, then I don’t feel that any conversation on the subject is worth continuing with them.
While this is in the territory of beating dead horses, I made no claims that Russia has circumvented our election system. I did make some claims about Russian involvement to some hacking cases which have every appearance of being related to attempts to manipulate the election (and have posted long explanations of why this is the case) and pointed (obliquely) to various bits of evidence and various resources that could help understand those claims. I’d really recommend you get familiar not only with the body of available evidence and the relevant research on APT28 that’s been ongoing for years to understand the basis of the claims before you reject them without a thorough understanding of what you’re rejecting.
The Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology (ICIT) is a 501c3, next-generation cybersecurity think tank cultivating a cybersecurity renaissance for our Nation’s critical infrastructure community.
(Their site tries to block copy/paste in the browser, lol, wankers!)
They do have a spanking new 501C3 IRS listing, so no Form 990s yet.
Their domain is behind Domains By Proxy.
shrug A brand new company that doesn’t show registered under that very self-important name. What’s their opinion worth?
From what I can see it’s two former consultants and a Twitter account. Maybe they picked the name so that they might be confused with/for the Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection. Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection - Wikipedia
