0
billvon

Russia swayed US election

Recommended Posts

DJL

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'.

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

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'.



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The 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!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skycop

Quote

The 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skycop

Quote

The 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nuance 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!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skycop

Quote

Nuance 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Many 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.

Quote

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.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PhreeZone

Knowing 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skycop

Quote

Many 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0