Russian hacking?

Please put all polls here.

Did Russia directly &/or indirectly hack the 2016 election process?

Yes
16
33%
No
33
67%
 
Total votes: 49

User avatar
dru708
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013
Location: Athens of Indiana

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby dru708 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

tractorman wrote:
silverpv wrote:
tractorman wrote:Thanks guys, I got it. Nobody knows. Influenced the election ... until we find out exactly what that means, its all just noise.


Sort of. 100% the election was influenced because of those e-mails and leaks. The 'who' is noise. The 'what' is the content that is reality, which affected the outcome our political process since the content was used heavily.

Whether its Russia or someone else is the only question.

Maybe it was the mexicans!


Is that all there is to this newest "Russian hacking" media blast? We all know that the emails being exposed influenced the election. The rebuttal is to attack the messenger? I'm going to need more than that.


This latest one is whether Russia tried to help get Trump elected. The emails would be part of that, but not all.

Yes the attack would be directed toward Russia.
Rich man's war. Poor man's fight.

User avatar
joefro
Site Tech
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby joefro » Tue Dec 13, 2016

dru708 wrote:
joefro wrote:

dru708 wrote:
As far as those emails I put them in with gossip & rumor. And give the same amount of credibility.



Again, the fact that democrats have been silent about the content of what was exposed, but very vocal about the source of the leaks speaks volumes to the credibility of the content, IMO. Podesta has all but said everything released from his e-mails is legit.


Yea that would be me.

I simply don't care about Clinton or her email. Either charge her with a crime or let's move on.

Has no one else been on an Internet message board that was hacked???

Consider a theoretical for a moment. Person X joins BS. Hacks into Person Y's private messages and posts them in public. Either here or RC or Doc Silvers or ?. The pm's are quite harsh on a personal level.

While I might be disappointed by Person Y's conversation, I'd be livid at Person X cause that would threaten us all.

Am I disappointed by Clintons emails? Good Lord no. Only a political noob would be surprised. Whoever hacked in is a threat.


In this whole post you are basically saying you dont care about the content of Clinton's email. I agree, I am not surprised about it. But that is very different from saying you dont think the content of the leaks was credible, which was your original statement.

User avatar
dru708
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013
Location: Athens of Indiana

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby dru708 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

joefro wrote:
dru708 wrote:
joefro wrote:

dru708 wrote:
As far as those emails I put them in with gossip & rumor. And give the same amount of credibility.



Again, the fact that democrats have been silent about the content of what was exposed, but very vocal about the source of the leaks speaks volumes to the credibility of the content, IMO. Podesta has all but said everything released from his e-mails is legit.


Yea that would be me.

I simply don't care about Clinton or her email. Either charge her with a crime or let's move on.

Has no one else been on an Internet message board that was hacked???

Consider a theoretical for a moment. Person X joins BS. Hacks into Person Y's private messages and posts them in public. Either here or RC or Doc Silvers or ?. The pm's are quite harsh on a personal level.

While I might be disappointed by Person Y's conversation, I'd be livid at Person X cause that would threaten us all.

Am I disappointed by Clintons emails? Good Lord no. Only a political noob would be surprised. Whoever hacked in is a threat.


In this whole post you are basically saying you dont care about the content of Clinton's email. I agree, I am not surprised about it. But that is very different from saying you dont think the content of the leaks was credible, which was your original statement.


I have doubts about what a gossip tells me. If they will tell me about you, they'll also tell you about me. aka never trust a gossip.
Rich man's war. Poor man's fight.

silverpv
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby silverpv » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Engineer wrote:
tractorman wrote:
silverpv wrote:
tractorman wrote:Thanks guys, I got it. Nobody knows. Influenced the election ... until we find out exactly what that means, its all just noise.


Sort of. 100% the election was influenced because of those e-mails and leaks. The 'who' is noise. The 'what' is the content that is reality, which affected the outcome our political process since the content was used heavily.

Whether its Russia or someone else is the only question.

Maybe it was the mexicans!


Is that all there is to this newest "Russian hacking" media blast? We all know that the emails being exposed influenced the election. The rebuttal is to attack the messenger? I'm going to need more than that.


Other foreign governments (Saudi Arabia, etc) and a convicted felon (Soros) influenced the election by supporting Clinton...yet there's no outrage about that.

The only thing we know for sure is the media blast is biased...and the reporter who got suspended for fake news is ranting about fake news.


Tractorman: the messenger is Assange, they are not attacking him. They are looking for the intruder, the people who actually broke into these accounts with the intent to sway the election. Personally, I think it IS the Russian gov't because of all the sanctions placed on them as a result of the Ukraine invasion and annexation of crimea in 2014. The US is interfering with their business, economy, sovereignty, and currency causing the ruble to devalue earlier in the year. There's plenty of reasons why Putin would want some payback.

Engineer: Sure there is outrage. The pro-trump media blasts it continuously about Saudi and Soros backing Clinton. If you google 'soros support clinton', 467,000 results. 53,000 news articles. I think that's quite a lot of articles in 18 months. It was heavily campaigned on. BUT Trump is celebrating $45 billion from Saudi Arabia "investment" in the US. Where's your outrage there? Where is your outrage of Linda McMahon who donated $5 million to Trump foundation and another $6 mil for his super pac and was appointed to his cabinet as secretary of small business? Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon mobil, as Secretary of state? Does it depend on the party line or is being "American" paramount over 'party'? You really have to ask is replacing politicians with Billionaire CEO's really going to look out for the avg. person? Gary Cohn as Economic advisor, CEO of Goldman Sachs. Steven Mnuchin Goldman alum as Treasury Secretary? We don't need lobbyists when they are in the cabinet.

Also if you talk about 'influencing' via campaign. That's completely different than breaking the law to do so. That's a very dangerous precedent. That is like saying a burglar can submit evidence against you if find "evidence", while stealing your other stuff and maybe breaking into your house too. You would basically be justifying Nixon's watergate. No one knows who stole the info. That is what is pertinent information. You know soros and saudi. You don't know who Assange, a foreign national is working for. If it was leaked by an insider, that's ok. There are protection laws for that. It makes a huge difference if it is a foreign country or an insider. The content is known, now we must know the motive. If you are ok with the result just because you won. That seems a little bias doesn't it? Wouldn't you want to know if someone cheated for you to win? or is the win more important?

2017-2020 is going to be an interesting 4 years!

silverpv
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby silverpv » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Engineer wrote:Silverpv,

I'm wondering if any of the Trump cabinet members you mentioned are felons with active warrants like Soros. If not, it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

Regarding breaking the law for foreign nationals to influence campaigns, Obama seemed to be a master of the art. Liberals were more than happy to overlook the facts, yet somehow you expect conservatives to behave differently? It seems like a double standard.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/08/exposing_barack_obamas_illegal_foreign_campaign_money_loophole

Regarding Assange, it's pretty clear that he works for himself, and has established an impeccable reputation of releasing only verified material. The motives of those who leaked to him may be questionable, but the attacks on Assange are baseless.

PS - Assange hasn't been seen in person since his internet was cut (at the request of the US gov) prior to the election. There's a good chance he's dead.


The cabinet members have obviously screwed the environment and the economy but they are too large of an organization. Besides now you are splitting. There are plenty of questionable people that support Trump. Like the white supremacist groups. That was a good deflection though from the Saudis though.

Soros has an active warrant in Russia, not the US. From what I checked out for manipulating currency. The irony again is that Assange has an active warrant too but his involvement is kosher.

Yes Assange works for himself. Like I said, he's a content distributor. The question is who leaked. As far as masters of the law, I think Trump touted himself on being a master of the law because he has the best lawyers, who do a great job determining the law. I don't question that. It's the thought that some people think Trump is different but does the same stuff just like you said. He is no different, the only difference is bringing the money directly to the table. Trump is also not a conservative.

The question for me is 'The Who' and why they want him there. What do they expect to gain, what is the master plan? Chess, not checkers

User avatar
agnostic
BS Supporter
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014
Location: PNW

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby agnostic » Tue Dec 13, 2016

IMG_1102.PNG
IMG_1102.PNG (77.5 KiB) Viewed 1309 times
"Back in '82 I used to be able to throw a pigskin a quarter mile" --Uncle Rico

User avatar
Double3
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011
Location: Ohio

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby Double3 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

MasterBlaster wrote:Surprised the USA doesn't do this kind of interference in other Countries elections :lol: :lol: :lol:

This is kids play compared to the amount of interference that the US has done.

User avatar
Double3
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011
Location: Ohio

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby Double3 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

silverpv wrote:John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan all back the investigation (i don't even like these guys). Those guys aren't liberals, democrats, or lefties.

But they are part of the machine.

These people and the people like them are scared of their way of life changing. They are the problem.

All this crap including the recount are ways they are trying to delegitimize Trump as president elect.

User avatar
BigBamboula
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby BigBamboula » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Godwin's law will have to wait. The fair play rule means that Trump gets to scream "racist" as a defence for the next eight years and anything bad that happens to the economy for the next six and a half years is Obama's fault.

Oh yeah, what's the hold up with Trump's Peace Prize?
"As sure as God made black and white,
what's done in the dark will be brought to the light."

User avatar
wjruth
Turtle Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012
Location: Northeast

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby wjruth » Tue Dec 13, 2016

BigBamboula wrote:Oh yeah, what's the hold up with Trump's Peace Prize?


When he can get more than 50% of the popular vote and more than 8% of the black vote, we can start to talk about it.

User avatar
Long John
Turtle Supporter
Posts: 3733
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016
Location: Northeast

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby Long John » Tue Dec 13, 2016

I no longer care about the content of the hacked emails. She lost, was sent forcibly into retirement, mission accomplished. Even Trump ceased to care about it, once he won. Maybe somebody smart close to him was blunt: "Listen, the Russians or a NSA geek or somebody in the world has your emails and texts for the past 2 years, and can put them on WikiLeaks at any time it suits their purpose. Might want to change the subject."

But consider the way we have manipulated elections in other countries ... The thought of it being done to us might be poetic justice to some people, but it is still disturbing. HRC won the popular vote by more than 2.5 million, and they weren't all illegal Mexicans and dead people. She lost the key Electoral College states by less than 1 percent. If that 1 percent in that handful of states had voted the other way, due to the winner-take-all system, we would be having a very different conversation now. Suppose Putin had directed his hackers to find and leak dirt on Trump instead, or make the fake internet stories about him. Would that have swayed 1 percent in 3 or 4 key states? I don't like that scenario, either.

Praising Putin's leadership and promising to lift U.S. sanctions was a smart strategic move. That was all that was necessary. There didn't need to be any more than that, and I would be surprised if there was any evidence that there was.

User avatar
Double3
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011
Location: Ohio

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby Double3 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Image

User avatar
Long John
Turtle Supporter
Posts: 3733
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016
Location: Northeast

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby Long John » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Double3 wrote:Image


You do realize that image and text came from the Russians, right? :lol:

User avatar
jcz1
Posts: 4696
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011
Location: USA

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby jcz1 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

tractorman wrote: I still haven't found a reliable news source that doesn't have an agenda.


So you come here for your news? If you haven't found one, why would you think anyone here has?
Dissenting voices have been silenced. BS is now a safe space.
Democracy Dies in Darkness

silverpv
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby silverpv » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Engineer wrote:
There are plenty of questionable people that support Trump. Like the white supremacist groups. That was a good deflection though from the Saudis though.


After all the BS allegations of racism in the last year, using it in an argument is the new measure of Godwin's Law. :pop:

So your problem with Trumps cabinet members is being too large to prosecute. How the hell is that different than Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Ryan, McConnel, or any of the other Democrat leaders? They all seem to be made of teflon.

At least with Trump, they're people who have made money rather than taken money through graft.

Regarding Assange's warrant, it has been traced back to the Clinton Foundation via Claire and Todd...unsurprisingly, sex allegations just as Hillary made against Trump.

As for why Trump is in office, your guess is as good as mine...possibly better since I enticed people to vote against Trump by betting for him to win.

If I had to guess, he's there solely to disrupt the globalist agenda. I'm ok with that.


What you call BS racism. I've experienced first hand. Also, I just used it as an example of questionable support. It happens on both sides but pretend everyone who supports trump is somehow "better" is wrong. We made a choice, that is all it boils down to.

Assange warrant is from Sweden. A warrant from Russia called by Putin who actively goes after opponents. Once again no different but actually Sweden hardly prosecutes anyone.

My problem with the cabinet picks. "Hillary is friendly to wall st" puts Goldman Sachs CEO as economic advisor. What I and a lot of others see that for some odd reason many don't is that Trump is doing the exact opposite of what he said. He Used 'marketing' tactics to get your vote and then praise him for the same crap or even less severe than what a Hillary would do. Can you just imagine what you would be saying if Hillary appointed Jamie Dimone as Economoic advisor? It would validate all your arguments but for some reason it's Goldman Sachs and it is great! She talked to bankers and Trump voters had a hissy fit.

My problem is that you have the people that PAID the lobbyists now sitting at the table directly affecting and leading govt policy. These policies can easily influence and increase their bottom line and his too. Do they know how to manage money? Yep. Have they used their wealth and power to benefit people or themselves? Anyways, we've digressed. I don't have as much faith that they will give up their conflicts to help the American people out of the goodness of their hearts, they would've done it already. I don't mind being wrong, I'm skeptical. I question who's in power, not which party is in power. Do you mind being wrong about Trump?

The real crux of this topic is The Who behind it which you keep changing or avoiding but I don't mind the discussion. That is important because it will give us clues as to the motive and if there might be more attacks. If it was a Bernie supporter, it's way different thank Russian backed. We need to know to make informed decisions. All we can do is discuss/debate.

I'm not "against" trump, I just didn't vote for him. I've followed him for years through his real estate, wrestling years, apprentice, Miss Universe, etc. highly respect what he's been able to do. He's an OG "shark". What we do with the info after we find out will be interesting. Unless something absolutely more strange happens Trump will be President. He's known to have more than one interest in mind so I will watch and hope he does well but don't give him a free pass just because he's who you voted for. I would've voted for him if it weren't for a few things. Plenty of my friends did and guess what, were still friends.

User avatar
dru708
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013
Location: Athens of Indiana

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby dru708 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

So that was a fun little topic.

Thanks to all who participated!
Rich man's war. Poor man's fight.

User avatar
BigBamboula
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby BigBamboula » Tue Dec 13, 2016

wjruth wrote:
BigBamboula wrote:Oh yeah, what's the hold up with Trump's Peace Prize?


When he can get more than 50% of the popular vote and more than 8% of the black vote, we can start to talk about it.


That sounds a bit racist, but I don't hold it against you, probably Obama's fault.

Man, that does make debate easier, maybe those Democrats are on to something after all!
"As sure as God made black and white,
what's done in the dark will be brought to the light."

User avatar
CaptainW
Platinum Supporter
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby CaptainW » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Here's an article by Simon Black on how the hacking occurred in terms that I could understand:

"If there’s one thing that’s certain in the intelligence business, it’s that there’s rarely any certainty.

That’s pretty much the first thing they teach you at spy school.

Back in the early days of my intelligence career, I had one instructor who explained it in a way that I’ll never forget.

“If you present your analysis as if it’s fact, instead of conjecture, the person who’s relying on your intelligence could end up making a bad decision that gets people killed.”

Intelligence is not about definitive conclusions. It’s about gathering data and coming up with plausible theories that connect the dots.

Sadly, sometimes those theories are influenced by personal or political agendas.

Back in 2002-2003, the Bush White House had a pretty clear predisposition that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

Miraculously, the intelligence reports conformed to that narrative.

And America went to war based on an “unassailable conclusion” from the intelligence community that Iraq had WMDs.

The facts were largely bogus, circumstantial at best. But this became the rallying cry behind every politician and media outlet’s patriotic bloodlust.

How quickly they all forget.

Here we are today with a new assertion: those dastardly Russians hacked Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

I read it in the New York Times, so it must be true.

Once again there is a chorus of condemnation from the intelligence community and political establishment based on supposed rock-solid conclusions.

Yet once again the assertions are nothing more than theories that connect some very circumstantial dots.

Here’s the actual evidence:

The hacks were executed using two types of malware known as Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.

(Yes that’s what they’re actually called.)

Fancy Bear is malware that takes a conventional “phishing” approach.

A phishing attack is when a hacker creates a web page that’s almost an exact copy of one that you’re used to.

For example, they’ll create a website that looks like your bank’s login page.

So if you click on a malicious link in your email that takes you to the fake page, you’ll inadvertently supply a hacker with your bank username and password.

They’ll then use that information to compromise your bank account.

Fancy Bear allowed hackers to gain access to private emails… primarily because the users at the DNC got duped into providing their login credentials.

Cozy Bear is the second piece of malware that installs itself on a computer, typically after a user clicks on a malicious web link.

One installed, the Cozy Bear malware deploys Remote Access Tools (known as RATs), providing a remote hacker access to the machine and its files.

If, however, Cozy Bear finds that the machine has advanced security software that could detect the malware and cause problems for the RATs, Cozy Bear will self-terminate.

So the first thing to point out here is that the DNC (and potentially the people who were administering Hillary’s private email server) weren’t maintaining the latest security patches and updates on their systems.

Someone at the DNC clicked on a malicious web link that installed the malware, and it didn’t self-terminate because they weren’t bothering to use advanced security software.

Duh.

This is a simple competence issue, and I’m surprised it never came up in the news.

More importantly, Cozy Bear was used against the DNC as far back as summer 2015... as in just before, or right after, Donald Trump entered the race.

So it’s hard for me to believe that Vladimir Putin was actively hacking the DNC to support a candidate that had barely (or not even yet) materialized.

Most importantly, just because cybersecurity experts detected Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear doesn’t mean that the Russians were behind the attacks.

These assertions aren’t based on concrete facts; they’re just speculating that Colonel Mustard did it in the library with the candlestick.

(Apologies to our readers who are too young to have played Clue.)

But facts (or lack of facts) don’t matter.

Whenever something bad happens, the US government blames Russia… and everyone believes it without taking any time to question the evidence.

It’s as if we’re living in some lame espionage movie from the 1980s where the Russians are always the bad guys.

Look, I have absolutely zero regard for the Russian government (as is the case with just about every country’s government).

But I find it almost hilariously short-sighted how quickly everyone rushes to judgment against the Russians. Or the Chinese. Or the North Koreans.

Sure, maybe the Russians did it. And I’m happy to believe that’s the case once clear evidence is presented.

But it’s worth acknowledging right now that their assertions are nowhere near conclusive.

It’s not like this is the first time in US history that the federal government or one of its intelligence agencies could be wrong… or… <shudder> have a reason to lie.

It’s notable that last week President Obama ordered the entire intelligence community to investigate the Russian hacks.

Given the Obama administration’s numerous statements about the Russians’ complicity, and the nonstop media coverage about the “conclusive” evidence, it’s pretty clear that the outcome of the report is already pre-determined.

Just like the Iraq/WMD analysis back in 2002-2003, this investigation is biased by the boss’s predisposition that the Russians are guilty.

What I find most disturbing, though, is how they can’t let it go that the Russians influenced the election and manipulated voter sentiment.

I’m sure we can all appreciate that the hacks, no matter who perpetrated them, constitute criminal activity.

But the information that was released as a result of the hacks shined a painful and embarrassing spotlight on the inner workings of the corrupt political establishment.

So when the papers and politicians complain that the hacks influenced the election (as if the US government has never tried to influence a foreign election), they’re really just whining that voters found out the truth.

They have that little respect for your dignity."

User avatar
Double3
Gold Supporter
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011
Location: Ohio

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby Double3 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

BigBamboula wrote:
wjruth wrote:
BigBamboula wrote:Oh yeah, what's the hold up with Trump's Peace Prize?


When he can get more than 50% of the popular vote and more than 8% of the black vote, we can start to talk about it.


That sounds a bit racist, but I don't hold it against you, probably Obama's fault.

Man, that does make debate easier, maybe those Democrats are on to something after all!

Image

User avatar
jcz1
Posts: 4696
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011
Location: USA

Re: Russian hacking?

Postby jcz1 » Tue Dec 13, 2016

Sure, maybe the Russians did it. And I’m happy to believe that’s the case once clear evidence is presented.


Sometimes the public doesn't get to know every single thing due to classification issues. As I stated earlier. those in Congress who have seen the classified details have stated that the hack came from Russia. This comes FROM BOTH SIDES.

Again, as I stated earlier, the dispute is the reason. Some have said that the intent was to weaken Clinton, as the assumed winner, to make it somehow easier to deal with her or something like that.

Someone at the DNC clicked on a malicious web link that installed the malware, and it didn’t self-terminate because they weren’t bothering to use advanced security software.

Duh.

This is a simple competence issue, and I’m surprised it never came up in the news.


Once again, as I stated earlier, this was covered by ABC, among others. The hack was attempted against the RNC and similar targets but was unsuccessful.
Dissenting voices have been silenced. BS is now a safe space.
Democracy Dies in Darkness


Return to “Polling Place”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests