Russia didn't do it

see4

Well-Known Member
I'll hedge my bets that the Russians didn't do it until I see a conclusive ODNI report.
If you word your bet better, I may consider it.

You won't ever be able to see an ODNI classified report, which will have the details you need.

Basically what you're saying is, you don't trust the DNI report and you don't trust your government. Which is entirely your prerogative, however, not a basis for a bet.

Your leader has even finally admitted to Russian hacking, he said so on his Twitter feed. Aren't you following your leader's Twitter feed?
 

see4

Well-Known Member
What exactly are you accusing Russia of doing? Because that is the part that is muddied.

Based on the fact that the FBI did not actually get to examine the servers that were supposedly hacked, I dont believe them.... Mcaffee has a good line of questioning about why they thought it was the Russians in the first place. If it is based on the evidence then it was certainly a 3rd string outfit based in Russia that did it... I think it was the Phising scam that Podesta got into that caused both his leak and the DNC leak but our protection systems are pathetic so it could have been anyone.

But to quote Hillary Clinton, what difference does any of this make?

I dont care if Russia is responsible or not. It is no secret that they try to spy on us, why the sudden outrage right now? Trump is trying to improve relations with the superpower and I would rather see that than proxy wars or WWIII.

In the meantime, I would like to hold my own government accountable for it's lapses... 8 years of Obama and a 14 year old can hack most of the systems. We got nuclear systems run by floppy disk... Time to look at the pathetic state of our technology and do something about it. I bet Trump will step up.
Oh, so when hillary uses a home based email server she should be sent to prison for the rest of her life, but no big deal that Russia hacked our political process and there are possible ties back to the Trump campaign.

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously?
 

HAF2

Well-Known Member
Can we bet on impeachment/assassination, instead?
Tried that one, no takers. First it was "she's going to jail" and then it was "it's not trumps Job to put her in jail and I don't care anyway".
Like talking to a fucking brick.

Oh I thought you meant the Hilary going to jail thing. My mistake.
I don't know if we are lucky enough for him to get assassinated. Usually the right wing nuts are the assassins; And they love him.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Authored by David Battistella,

Excuse me for wanting to point out the obvious, but sometimes the obvious gets very lost in the web of narratives spun by the master narrator inside the White House. Forgive me, but are we not losing the idea that the only narrative that really matters is that all of the information “LEAKED” was obtained through a simple fishing e-mail sent to John Podesta. See their own words here:



Somehow this has been converted into words like “HACKING” (ps it is not hacking when it involves your own ineptitude or stupidity) into "Russian actors", "digital fingerprints" or any other slew of gobbledyspeak they can come up with for wanting desperately to hide a simple fact: the truth is in the e-mails.

Notice nobody is disputing the contents of the email leaks, they just want to complain about the fact that it was stolen by Russians, though if the passwords were freely given away it’s hard to call it hacking.

Just to be clear a hack is defined this way.



"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as 'hackers'."

That is completely different from entering an account to which a party freely gave away the password and downloading the data for say an “inbox”. So don’t confuse hacking with the granting of access through being ill informed.

The reason all of this becomes important is simple, it’s leading the world into potentially very dangerous conflict. This isn’t something that should be taken lightly and you have to go to the WHY? Why is it so important to divert people from the contents of the e-mails and point them instead to the way they were obtained. It’s for war mongering purposes.

The MSM is going right along with it too. Have we heard nearly as much about the theft and publication of Donald Trumps tax returns as published by the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Who is investigating the "hostile actors" from within the IRS who might have illegally stolen, copied and provided documents to the New York Times who then did barley more that what Wikileaks did with the Podesta e-mails.

At least Wikileaks published a pristine, searchable archive, the kind you could search in your local public library. In a crowdsourcing age, it is incredible what can be uncovered in a shot amount of time.

But it is different now. Wikileaks expects “professional” journalists to do their jobs, pour through the information and uncover everything from the salacious, the banal and the illegal. Why did this not happen with the wikileaks, but it was all hands on deck to pour over illegally obtained tax returns of a private citizen. Perhaps MSM credibility is at the heart of the issue? Not sure.

People consume information differently now and have many outlets to weigh before forming an opinion and that is a narrative busting option.

There remains only one defense, attack the messenger, lie and divert attention. So you can’t dismiss the contents of the wikileaks, you can only call Assange a pedophile, place him under house arrest, tell the world that Russia did the following (and I am following your logic here “intelligence” community/narrative spinners)

  1. The Russians sent a phishing e-mail to John Podesta and he responded with his password.
  2. The Russians downloaded all the information in his inbox.
  3. The Russians found a third party who new Jullian Assange and arranged for that third party to deliver the contents of that archive to wikileaks.
  4. Wikileaks released the information day after day and about 120 million and Americans followed that story closely enough that based on that leak (and maybe the DNC one as well) decided that they could not vote democrat in the election.
  5. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college by losing key “shoe in” democratic stronghold manufacturing states where jobs have been lost, people are hurting and decided voted for change, not because of those reasons but because somehow Russia managed to release true information to the American public.
While all this was happening President Obama knew about it and told Putin to “cut it out” or you he would be in trouble after the election, after we try some recounts and after we try to intimate the electoral college, but before I leave office. Maybe I will throw in a fake story from the Washington post that Russia tried to hack the power grid on Christmas day in Vermont as well, just to get folks really fired up.

This entire transition process demonstrates a complete lack of class and childish behaviour by the outgoing administration. That is the only way to describe it. Sore losers who demostrate abolutely no class, no respect for process or really for the American people who democratically elected Donal Trump in a fair process.

Folks don’t get bamboozled, remember, your President told you this when the narrative suited him.


Transcript from TIME

President Obama,



“One of the great things about America’s democracy is we have a vigorous, sometimes bitter political contest and when it’s done, historically, regardless of party, the person who loses the election congratulates the winner, who reaffirms our democracy and we move forward.



That’s how democracy survives because we recognize that there’s something more important than any individual campaign. And that is making sure that the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself.



Because democracy, by definition, works by consent, not by force. I have never seen, in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.



It’s unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found, that — keep in mind, elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like Florida, for example, where you’ve got a Republican governor, whose Republican appointees are going to running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites.”

That was on October 19th of 2016.

all that copying and pasting and the fact still remains: the trump campaign coordinated directly with vladimir putin to leak stolen information from the DNC in an attempt to influence the election.

that is worse than what happened with watergate.

trump himself asked russia to hack hillary clinton's campaign. he boasted of the stolen information, which he knew was stolen and being leaked by vladimir putin himself as of august, a whopping 164 times in the last month of his campaign.

all the copying and pasting in the world will not change these basic facts.
 

Milliardo Peacecraft

Well-Known Member
all that copying and pasting and the fact still remains: the trump campaign coordinated directly with vladimir putin to leak stolen information from the DNC in an attempt to influence the election.
No finding whatsoever to that claim. The CIA's report of Russian involvement determined that hacking had no effect on the election, and there has been no proof or investigation of the DNC's servers by the FBI to even substantiate a claim that it was a state sponsored actor. John Podesta's password was "password", you don't need nuclear capabilities to hack a moron.

The extent of Russian involvement in the election was determined in the report to be: Moscow preferred Trump to Clinton. Note the legalese and eggshells Obama and the intelligence agencies utilized whenever discussing the issue. Never did they say that Russia was directly culpable for hacking and releasing information from the DNC, instead they used rhetorical tricks like saying "Russia interfered with the election".

This is important. What does "interfere" mean, that term was always left undefined. Every bug that hit the windshield of Hillary Clinton's jet on the campaign trail technically "interfered" with the election. You could just as easily have said that the UK and EU interfered by having an obvious bias against Trump in their state media outlets and MPs.

This is a pitiful attempt to somehow delegitimize the election results. There was no "direct coordination" between the Trump campaign and Putin, and you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Give it up already, you LOST BOOOOOOOOOOM. I was right all along.

Oh yeah, and long time no see Buck.

all the copying and pasting in the world will not change these basic facts, you piece of shit racist loser.
A fine argument.
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
No finding whatsoever to that claim. The CIA's report of Russian involvement determined that hacking had no effect on the election, and there has been no proof or investigation of the DNC's servers by the FBI to even substantiate a claim that it was a state sponsored actor. John Podesta's password was "password", you don't need nuclear capabilities to hack a moron.

The extent of Russian involvement in the election was determined in the report to be: Moscow preferred Trump to Clinton. Note the legalese and eggshells Obama and the intelligence agencies utilized whenever discussing the issue. Never did they say that Russia was directly culpable for hacking and releasing information from the DNC, instead they used rhetorical tricks like saying "Russia interfered with the election".

This is important. What does "interfere" mean, that term was always left undefined. Every bug that hit the windshield of Hillary Clinton's jet on the campaign trail technically "interfered" with the election. You could just as easily have said that the UK and EU interfered by having an obvious bias against Trump in their state media outlets and MPs.

This is a pitiful attempt to somehow delegitimize the election results. There was no "direct coordination" between the Trump campaign and Putin, and you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Give it up already, you LOST BOOOOOOOOOOM. I was right all along.

Oh yeah, and long time no see Buck.



A fine argument.
Espionage by any other (stupid fucking right wing spin) name is still espionage.

I fucking love how the former anti-Soviet right is suddenly in love with the Soviet trained Putin.
You're as intelligent as dry wall.
 

Milliardo Peacecraft

Well-Known Member
Espionage by any other (stupid fucking right wing spin) name is still espionage.

I fucking love how the former anti-Soviet right is suddenly in love with the Soviet trained Putin.
You're as intelligent as dry wall.
Yeaaaaah, alright. There is still no finding to the claim of "espionage" on the part of Russia. You can't provide anything other than WaPo headlines as evidence thereof. And funny how the former left leaning democrats are now licking the boots of the CIA's nonexistent case.

The irony of the CIA asserting that a foreign actor is trying to install a far-right government and manipulate an election is pretty staggering.
 

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
Yeaaaaah, alright. There is still no finding to the claim of "espionage" on the part of Russia. You can't provide anything other than WaPo headlines as evidence thereof. And funny how the former left leaning democrats are now licking the boots of the CIA's nonexistent case.

The irony of the CIA asserting that a foreign actor is trying to install a far-right government and manipulate an election is pretty staggering.
A real student of history, eh?

You seem especially clueless and angry, even for a white, dickless, 'bro culture' Drumpf drone. Dad wasn't really there for you and mom's boyfriend(s) were all assholes, eh? Poor kid.....
 
Top