rehmwa 2 #101 December 13, 2016 DJLThe effect they were going for was to create another headline that had the words "Hillary" and "Email" in them. In that regard they were very effective. The target audience is known to not look further into the issue than what they're fed over headlines. exactly, the 'target audience' already made up their minds. Nor the other audiences either being 'fed' what they wanted to hear. I don't think any votes were 'influenced'. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #102 December 13, 2016 rehmwaexactly, the 'target audience' already made up their minds. Nor the other audiences either being 'fed' what they wanted to hear. I don't think any votes were 'influenced'. There was, until quite late in the game, a significant number of "undecided" voters. I believe THAT was the intended audience. Not the far right nor far left, but the "undecideds." I believe the Comey announcements had quite a bit to do with swaying their votes. I believe that was fueled by the hacks and "fake news" resulting from them (i.e. Pizza gate). It didn't have to be much either. All we're really talking about is a couple of percentage points in some key swing states. Just nudge those a little and the election turns. Trump likes to say he won in a landslide. He didn't. He didn't win the popular vote at all and his electoral vote percentage is among the lowest in history.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #103 December 13, 2016 QuoteThe nuances of double speak, spin and lying. Have become one and the same for me. I wasn't speaking to the Trump administration as a whole, simply the response to the supposed RNC hack. Compare the RNC answer to the legal, political, double speak given by the Hillary Clinton camp in many of her issues over the years. The differences are stark. Nice rant though. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faicon9493 114 #104 December 13, 2016 On CNN this morning, there is much discussion about DJT's choice for Secretary of State and I hear John McCain say that if we are going to be a friend of Putin, we have to disregard that he is a murderer, thug, and (former) KGB agent. This made me wonder why shouldn't DJT expect that we do just that? After all, look at all of the things we disregarded to put him in the White House. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 911 #105 December 13, 2016 skycopQuoteThe nuances of double speak, spin and lying. Have become one and the same for me. I wasn't speaking to the Trump administration as a whole, simply the response to the supposed RNC hack. Compare the RNC answer to the legal, political, double speak given by the Hillary Clinton camp in many of her issues over the years. The differences are stark. Nice rant though. What makes the Clintons despicable is their skilled use of lying, coverup, slick methods of self enrichment, entitlement, etc. etc. I think we both agree on that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #106 December 13, 2016 >exactly, the 'target audience' already made up their minds. People claim that every election. It's not true. People do change their minds, and most voters hold far less polarized views than you imagine. It's easy to think that everyone is like people on here. But these are people who actively seek out the political forum on a skydiving website. They're not your average voter; they are people who come pre-loaded with strong political opinions. Most people care far less. Yes, votes are influenced by what people hear. They were influenced by the investigations into Clinton a year ago. They were influenced by the false claim of the investigation a week before the election. They were influenced by Trump's announcement that he could get away with assaulting women. They were influenced by Russia's meddling. They were influenced by what they read in the paper, what they saw on TV and what they read on the net. All those influences add up to create the public's opinions on the candidates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #107 December 13, 2016 Exactly correct. My point is, there has been very little if any ambiguity in the RNC response. I'd feel safe in assuming the RNC has many more "sources" in the CIA than the NYT. ANY Clinton response was deflection, deceit, and nothing but spin. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #108 December 13, 2016 Hillary's e-mails & Benghazi: FULL-FORCE INQUIRY, NO HOLDS BARRED, LOCK HER UP Russian election hacking: Let's show restraint, guys... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #109 December 13, 2016 skycopQuoteThe nuances of double speak, spin and lying. Have become one and the same for me. I wasn't speaking to the Trump administration as a whole, simply the response to the supposed RNC hack. Compare the RNC answer to the legal, political, double speak given by the RNC in many of their issues over the years. The differences are stark. The above works just as well as the original.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #110 December 13, 2016 >My point is, there has been very little if any ambiguity in the RNC response. Agreed there. They are much better liars; they have it down to a science. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #111 December 13, 2016 Are you and Kallend conspiring on answers? You're answers are normally well thought out, now you are just regurgitating talking points. I expected more nuance. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #112 December 13, 2016 skycop Are you and Kallend conspiring on answers? You're answers are normally well thought out, now you are just regurgitating talking points. I expected more nuance. Nuance in response to: "it doesn't sound like spin, so it must be true"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #113 December 13, 2016 >You're answers are normally well thought out, now you are just regurgitating talking points. . . . I >expected more nuance. You say that pretty regularly. You can just consider my answers not well thought out and ignore them from this point forward. (Since they will rarely agree with the new party line, you can just do that as a rule; that way there will be less cognitive dissonance overall.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #114 December 13, 2016 QuoteNuance in response to: "it doesn't sound like spin, so it must be true"? In the real world, when someone answers a question so directly, fully knowing the implications of a wrong, incorrect or untruthful answer. It generally means the person is not being deceptive. That is the nuance of reading people. I make a living reading people, often people being defensive and deceptive. I don't get that from the RNC on this issue, and it really surprised me. Usually politicians hedge their answers, in this case they certainly aren't sure of a potential outcome. That would lead me to believe there really is nothing to this. I certainly don't believe the NYT and "unnamed sources". In recent history of proven journalistic bias, that is not an unreasonable position. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #115 December 13, 2016 skycopQuoteNuance in response to: "it doesn't sound like spin, so it must be true"? In the real world, when someone answers a question so directly, fully knowing the implications of a wrong, incorrect or untruthful answer. It generally means the person is not being deceptive. Except they've just spent the entire summer learning from Trump - who's taught them that just flat out lying will get you anything you want.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #116 December 13, 2016 I make my living by being deep in cybersecurity. I am aware of multiple times that government, ngo, enterprises and others are unaware of a breach of their environment and need to be notified of the event via a third party. In fact in most data breaches the impacted party is unaware of an incident and denies a issue until they are later proven incorrect. Target, TJMaxx, Wendy's, Adobe, PlayStation, Department of Homeland Security, and Verizon all initially denied an issue but after a while all the details eventually spilled and the full extent of the data was published and they all ended up retracting their denials. This is about as frequent as the "That is not mine" or "I don't know anything about that", everyone that is unaware is truthful at first but eventually they end up breeched.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #117 December 13, 2016 Again, I've never said there shouldn't be an investigation. But don't confuse an incident, with the political implementation of an incident. This is looking more and more like the end of a Scooby Doo episode. The cops take off the mask of the bad guy, and it's actually Hillary Clinton. "I would have been President, if it wasn't for you meddling Russkies"............ "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #118 December 14, 2016 This isn't about factual information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #119 December 14, 2016 Long and detailed article about Russian cyberattacks: www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #120 December 14, 2016 QuoteMany of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides believe that the Russian assault had a profound impact on the election, while conceding that other factors — Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate; her private email server; the public statements of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, about her handling of classified information — were also important. This sums up the entire article. This comment is also relevant. QuoteIt should be noted that nothing released was not legitimate. It should also be noted that nothing released was criminal or of criminal intent. Most of it was sniping, back stabbing, and collusion against another candidate. Mostly just the normal creepy political stuff that you would find among professional political types. If what was released swayed people to vote for Donald Trump, then the problem is with the media and the education system. Trump has a stack of creepiness that goes back 50 yrs and its available for anyone to see. I'd say that doesn't come from a Trump supporter. If anything, this whole fiasco highlights the need for enhanced cyber-security, across the board. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #121 December 14, 2016 QuoteIn the real world, when someone answers a question so directly, fully knowing the implications of a wrong, incorrect or untruthful answer. It generally means the person is not being deceptive. Trump got himself elected by telling lie after lie after lie. His supporters would simply not believe he was lying when so told. They would even show up and start shooting in a pizza restaurant, because they flat out believe that Clinton is running a child slavery ring out of the basement. Flat out lying doesn't have negative consequences, as long as your story is ripe for the masses, it will have wonderful consequences, the best consequences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #122 December 14, 2016 PhreeZoneKnowing and working with a lot of the team over at CrowdStrike I have a lot of faith in their work. They really are among the best in the world at threat attribution due to their ability to take a long view of the recompiled code and looking for trace elements that while are hard to hide are impossible to cover completely. Looking at disasslembed code in tools like IDApro takes a really unique skill set and while I have started to learn the markers that are left most of them are too deep for me to identify at my current knowledge level. I know some of the team over there are former Agency and they all comment that the knowledge level internally at the three agencies doing this type of work are all decent but the knowledge level is different between all three. They each have their own specialities and each use a different level of evidence to make their case. FBI needs to have enough evidence that it could hold up in court to make its case, CIA takes data and tries to read between the lines to get a deeper story, NSA does the deepest analysis but also keeps the data to weaponize it if possible. It appears you have more technical knowledge than many here involved in this discussions. Would it be that none of us will know the answer to the questions as to who did it. I'm thinking if and when this is all sorted out...to reveal to the public WHO and HOW would expose methods that otherwise should remain secret. Therefore is it possible we will only know what our Government wants us to think we know? But in regards to our Media, they have chosen a side, and the end game is not about the truth as it is more about degrading Trump's Presidency, my .02 cents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #123 December 14, 2016 QuoteBut in regards to our Media, they have chosen a side, and the end game is not about the truth as it is more about degrading Trump's Presidency, my .02 cents. You know, it's possible that they are both telling the truth and making Trump look bad. These two things are not mutually exclusive. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 911 #124 December 14, 2016 skycopQuoteMany of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides believe that the Russian assault had a profound impact on the election, while conceding that other factors — Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate; her private email server; the public statements of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, about her handling of classified information — were also important. This sums up the entire article. This comment is also relevant. ***It should be noted that nothing released was not legitimate. It should also be noted that nothing released was criminal or of criminal intent. Most of it was sniping, back stabbing, and collusion against another candidate. Mostly just the normal creepy political stuff that you would find among professional political types. If what was released swayed people to vote for Donald Trump, then the problem is with the media and the education system. Trump has a stack of creepiness that goes back 50 yrs and its available for anyone to see. I'd say that doesn't come from a Trump supporter. If anything, this whole fiasco highlights the need for enhanced cyber-security, across the board. YES In the absence of the discovery of Russian meddling with voting machines. Which i think is almost impossible. The summations here are spot on. Subsequent to the bipartisan congressional/house investigations. Which will get to the bottom of this. There needs to be some sort of sanctions by the NSA-CIA in a covert or overt way. To teach Mr. Putin that this type of conduct is not in the best interests of him and his inner circle of kleptomaniacs. That killing journalists, stealing state assets and cyber attacks against Russian satellite puppet states like Belarus, Georgia, etc. is one thing. But meddling in US sovereign interests will have different, serious, personal consequences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #125 December 14, 2016 rehmwa***The effect they were going for was to create another headline that had the words "Hillary" and "Email" in them. In that regard they were very effective. The target audience is known to not look further into the issue than what they're fed over headlines. exactly, the 'target audience' already made up their minds. Nor the other audiences either being 'fed' what they wanted to hear. I don't think any votes were 'influenced'. At that point it was a matter of motivation. There were many people who were really grappling with the decision considering how much negativity was cast towards each contestant. "Do I vote for one person and be labelled a supporter of Sexism and Racism or do I vote for the other and be accused of hating soldiers who died at Benghazi and something about emails?" I had a friend who called me because she's also a disillusioned former conservative and she finally decided not to vote. There were many people teetering and there were obviously many people in the "locker her up" mob. When it comes time to burn the witch you just need a little push and you're out the door. Edit: The opinion that she would've lost anyway isn't to be dismissed, she did a better job pandering to coastal idealism than middle America while Trump flat out lied."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites