0
billvon

Russia swayed US election

Recommended Posts

I have no idea who you are so I have to assume that you're a Bangladeshi being payed by a Russian source to get on skydiving websites and propagate opinions that are counter to the findingsZazdarovje of all US intelligence groups plus the consensus of private firms. Zazdarovje, Comrade!
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Let's compare them to the RNC leaks (the ones that Russia obtained but haven't released) and see which organization is more corrupt.



So more arguments about two despicable groups fighting for who's slight less nasty when they think no one is listening?.....yay!!!!

I'd assume a photo finish - and Yes, I'd love to see those if they exist.

(and No, that's not me asking my friend Putin to hack the RNC, it's just a comment that I'd sure like to see the crap they say behind closed doors.)

...
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
Royreader8812

But what you have admitted is that many can be verified. And these show that the Clinton foundation was being paid by foreign entities for access to the state department,


Do they?

Do they really?

Like, really really?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

"It would be nice if you gave some indication that you had read or understood a word I just said. They had already held the primary and they already knew what the voters wanted, because they'd aleady voted. "

You just don't get it. I give up.



You never tried:S
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do however believe the outcome of the election is a slap in the face to everyone and a huge win for democracy.



How is it a huge win for democracy? Like, apart from the fact that every free election which doesn't involve stuffed ballot boxes or other forms of outright fraud is a huge win for democracy, what is special about this one? Democratically speaking.

Quote

Hillary was a disaster as secretary of state


Why?

Quote

and was going to be an even bigger disaster as president.


How?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>and No, that's not me asking my friend Putin to hack the RNC

I think you have to tweet it for it to be an official request, so no worries.



Or in a publicly televised speech. That works, too.
See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Me? I will wait for the proof...

I know you don't really care about proof, but for anyone else following - the CIA, FBI and Director of National Intelligence now all agree. From WaPo:

==============
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.
==============

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Me? I will wait for the proof...



In a way, Rush's statement points out a problem that goes far beyond this specific discussion; distrust of proof in general.

Now, I'm not going to blame Rush himself for this, the far right AND far left have at various times had reasons to mistrust the government going at least as far back Nixon and for some other people going back to the Eisenhower speech about mistrust of the military industrial complex. And not without good reason, I'll grant you that.

This affects virtually everything from mistrust of global warming data, to things like this current issue.

All of the above said, at some point, we, the general public not able to view classified intel, have to take at face value certain technical bits as filtered through government agencies. We don't have to trust them 100% and I'm sure some people never will, but the fact is there is no way possible to conclusively prove to some people certain things have happened.

What "proof" would convince a person such as Rush and how, even it it were declassified, could Rush himself ever hope to really understand it without analysis provided by others, which he'd also have to trust?

For this reason alone, I don't think there is anything that could ever be shown to some people which would convince them. Rush is saying he, "will wait for the proof" but (and this is in no way a slam against him) I don't think he'd technically be able to recognize it as such if it was right in front of him.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are Republicans that do care and will take action. They should not be confused with trump reality deniers.

For those who suggest that all of this arises from an indifference to cyber security. It takes an attack to sharpen the focus on cyber defense. Hopefully some with real intellect will balance the need to build a 350 ship navy. With that of secure networks for important institutions. Together with the development of offense cyber-weapons for future actions.

Sooner or later even those who denied that the earth was round had to face facts. I doubt that trump will recognize it but he does have some advisors and there is the House plus the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So show me proof. The NSA is not in agreement as of right now. In any event public opinions by investgative and security agencies are questionable to begin with. So I am still waiting for proof. Not statements that suggest.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

So show me proof. The NSA is not in agreement as of right now. In any event public opinions by investgative and security agencies are questionable to begin with. So I am still waiting for proof. Not statements that suggest.



My point is, what would you, could you, ever accept as proof?

You're not a coder. You're not a cyber-security guy. Even though I posted it just a little while ago, I doubt you could explain to somebody else in your own words and without referencing other materials what DKIM is.

How would you even know what proof looks like?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So show me proof. The NSA is not in agreement as of right now.

NSA Chief Admiral Michael Rogers on the hacking: "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state [Russia] to attempt to achieve a specific effect. This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily.”

But what do the NSA, FBI and CIA know? Breitbart disagrees!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

***So show me proof. The NSA is not in agreement as of right now. In any event public opinions by investgative and security agencies are questionable to begin with. So I am still waiting for proof. Not statements that suggest.



My point is, what would you, could you, ever accept as proof?

You're not a coder. You're not a cyber-security guy. Even though I posted it just a little while ago, I doubt you could explain to somebody else in your own words and without referencing other materials what DKIM is.

How would you even know what proof looks like?

I would strongly lean toward believing the NSA at this point because the do not seem to be politicized yet. FBI?No way. CIA. Maybe but I cannot see them posting anything for public review. It doesn't make sense. But I suppose in the end the NSA would be considered the same by me. So Paul tell me, what would be proof to you. Because in all honesty I'm not sure what proof would be to me coming from agencies such as these. They should not be agencies that come out and speak publicly on any matters that involve National Security. That goes against National Security from the get-go.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

I would strongly lean toward believing the NSA at this point because the do not seem to be politicized yet. FBI?No way. CIA. Maybe but I cannot see them posting anything for public review. It doesn't make sense. But I suppose in the end the NSA would be considered the same by me. So Paul tell me, what would be proof to you. Because in all honesty I'm not sure what proof would be to me coming from agencies such as these. They should not be agencies that come out and speak publicly on any matters that involve National Security. That goes against National Security from the get-go.



And there is the problem, because I'm reasonably certain you, Rush, would also never accept a blanket statement about it from the current President of the US. You'd want, and maybe even deserve, corroboration from others in government. You'd want, and maybe even deserve, statements from members of the Senate from your own party.

Fortunately, we have that.

We have statements from not just these government agencies, but also statements from high-ranking members of the GOP who sit on intelligence committees and whose job is it to oversee and recognize petty bullshit from stuff that we should take seriously.

All we, both you and I, are ever going to get that we personally can understand, are statements from people we can either trust or not trust. We can weigh that trust against the totality of our experience in what we've observed from those people in the past.

We, both you and I, are NEVER going to fully understand this the raw data level. We, both you and I, simply do not have those skills.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

Quote

>Me? I will wait for the proof...



In a way, Rush's statement points out a problem that goes far beyond this specific discussion; distrust of proof in general.

Now, I'm not going to blame Rush himself for this, the far right AND far left have at various times had reasons to mistrust the government going at least as far back Nixon and for some other people going back to the Eisenhower speech about mistrust of the military industrial complex. And not without good reason, I'll grant you that.

This affects virtually everything from mistrust of global warming data, to things like this current issue.

All of the above said, at some point, we, the general public not able to view classified intel, have to take at face value certain technical bits as filtered through government agencies. We don't have to trust them 100% and I'm sure some people never will, but the fact is there is no way possible to conclusively prove to some people certain things have happened.

What "proof" would convince a person such as Rush and how, even it it were declassified, could Rush himself ever hope to really understand it without analysis provided by others, which he'd also have to trust?

For this reason alone, I don't think there is anything that could ever be shown to some people which would convince them. Rush is saying he, "will wait for the proof" but (and this is in no way a slam against him) I don't think he'd technically be able to recognize it as such if it was right in front of him.



Has there ever been any announcements/corrections from the Whitehouse or government agencies when history HAS proven them wrong? Take "Bush lied, people died." we've all heard. Maybe I just need to refresh my memory, but the WMDs the CIA and others said Sadam Hussein had were never found, Iraq was invaded, still not found, etc....has there ever been an announcement saying "We were wrong and we shouldn't have invaded" or "The prior administration was wrong and we shouldn't have invaded"? And rhetoric leading up to elections doesn't count. I'm talking about formal announcements/apologies. ITSM that our government just doesn't do them. It's just "Trust us; we know and we know what's best for you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elisha

Has there ever been any announcements/corrections from the Whitehouse or government agencies when history HAS proven them wrong? Take "Bush lied, people died." we've all heard. Maybe I just need to refresh my memory, but the WMDs the CIA and others said Sadam Hussein had were never found, Iraq was invaded, still not found, etc....has there ever been an announcement saying "We were wrong and we shouldn't have invaded" or "The prior administration was wrong and we shouldn't have invaded"? And rhetoric leading up to elections doesn't count. I'm talking about formal announcements/apologies. ITSM that our government just doesn't do them. It's just "Trust us; we know and we know what's best for you."



The fault in Iraq was not the fault of the intelligence agencies. The fault was in the cherry picking of data by certain members of the Bush Administration. It's a discussion for another time and place.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

***Has there ever been any announcements/corrections from the Whitehouse or government agencies when history HAS proven them wrong? Take "Bush lied, people died." we've all heard. Maybe I just need to refresh my memory, but the WMDs the CIA and others said Sadam Hussein had were never found, Iraq was invaded, still not found, etc....has there ever been an announcement saying "We were wrong and we shouldn't have invaded" or "The prior administration was wrong and we shouldn't have invaded"? And rhetoric leading up to elections doesn't count. I'm talking about formal announcements/apologies. ITSM that our government just doesn't do them. It's just "Trust us; we know and we know what's best for you."



The fault in Iraq was not the fault of the intelligence agencies. The fault was in the cherry picking of data by certain members of the Bush Administration. It's a discussion for another time and place.

Your responce here is fake news bull shit...
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

***Has there ever been any announcements/corrections from the Whitehouse or government agencies when history HAS proven them wrong? Take "Bush lied, people died." we've all heard. Maybe I just need to refresh my memory, but the WMDs the CIA and others said Sadam Hussein had were never found, Iraq was invaded, still not found, etc....has there ever been an announcement saying "We were wrong and we shouldn't have invaded" or "The prior administration was wrong and we shouldn't have invaded"? And rhetoric leading up to elections doesn't count. I'm talking about formal announcements/apologies. ITSM that our government just doesn't do them. It's just "Trust us; we know and we know what's best for you."



The fault in Iraq was not the fault of the intelligence agencies. The fault was in the cherry picking of data by certain members of the Bush Administration. It's a discussion for another time and place.

If so, then how can we know the current situation isn't similar? Especially since no evidence or reasoning is provided in these "The Russians did it!" responses.

Just like with past times being wrong, I very well think it's possible that this situation could be similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your responce here is fake news bull shit...



Unfortunately, it's not.

Quote

Phase II of the report was publicly released on Thursday June 5, 2008 whether statements by US Government officials were substantiated by intelligence reports.

This was a bi-partisan majority report (10-5) and "details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department." It concludes that the US Administration "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” These included President Bush's statements of a partnership between Iraq and Al Qa'ida, that Saddam Hussein was preparing to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, and Iraq's capability to produce chemical weapons.

The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen.Jay Rockefeller, stated in press release of report's publication“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses. While the report highlights many of the problems with the intelligence and criticizes the Bush Administration for its handling of the lead up to the war and its reasons for doing so, the report also supports in many cases that claims made by the Bush Administration about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were "generally substantiated by the intelligence".

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."


Emphasis mine.

Source and more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elisha

If so, then how can we know the current situation isn't similar? Especially since no evidence or reasoning is provided in these "The Russians did it!" responses.

Just like with past times being wrong, I very well think it's possible that this situation could be similar.



Chiefly by recognizing the claim isn't just being made for US domestic and left vs right purposes since, as previously stated, there are high-ranking members of both the House and Senate from both parties who have sat in the same briefs by intelligence agencies and come to the same conclusion.

If this was ONLY a Democrat vs Republican issue, that would not be the case.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

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