First off, I said “Democrats” not just news sources - news sources are usually quite careful to use exact language when making accusations. I probably can’t find any news source using the exact phrase you’re asking for, no. But I can easily find a slew of articles talking about Russia ‘hacking’ the election, with clear implications that you’ll simply deny exist. Non news sources I can dig up things like threads on this board, threads on other boards, and facebook posts that I’ve seen, but they aren’t news sources and probably won’t count as ‘citations’ for you.
This is one of those cases where it’s very obvious what people mean when they talk about Russia hacking the election, and how they want you to respond to it, but they don’t use the literal phrase that you’re demanding I cite for you.
Classic case of projection. Sorry, but proprietary software and programming aren’t very likely to be used by someone else when they don’t have them. Spare me how expert you are on info systems and security. I was doing it back when Saint Ronnie was in office.
So…let me get this straight. A hacker hacks another hacker’s attack in order to spoof them? Uh, yeahrite…and far more difficult than simply using already-existing and -available software than specific code used by very specific people.
The “literal phrase” is your own. I quoted it exactly from your earlier post, to which I was replying:
The position ‘criticism of Trump is illegitimate because those criticizing him make the unreasonable claim that Russia decided the election’ is fundamentally silly, given that very few of those who criticize Trump do so on the basis of claims that ‘Russia decided the election’.
Straw man arguments are rarely respectable. I’d recommend that you try to come up with some other style of argument.
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone with my response for those capable of reading from context. I put ‘fingerprints’ in quotes because it’s not absolute evidence, and because that’s one of the terms used to refer to it.
But saying…
[QUOTE=Evan Drake]
saying “Well, it seems like something they would do; and I’d say it was similar to other sort of stuff I think they may have done…” doesn’t really cut it.
[/QUOTE]
…clearly is misleading, attempting to put it down to an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, which I can only impute to a certain bias.
Of course, this scenario leaves out multiple other aspects:
Trump’s idol worship of Putin,
Trump’s immediate dismissal of the notion of Russian hacking before the evidence could be gathered and presented,
Multiple members of the Trump organization in contact with Russian agents (with possible, not proven, violations of the Logan act),
Trump’s speedy (not to say hasty) desire to remove sanctions against Russia,
Trump’s mind-boggling defense of Putin’s criminal behaviors against Putin’s opponents within Russia.
If the only connection between Russia and the election was the reputed hacking, you might have had a point. However, the overall behavior of Trump and his associates points toward a much closer connection, suggesting collusion, at the least.
I don’t think I understand the point you’re trying to make. Here is my point: attribution is difficult. Linking any particular attack or malicious code to a specific attacker or group is not at all simple. You seemed to suggest that it was realistic to conclusively determine the source of an attack. As someone who does this all day for a living, I’m telling you that is not the case.
And since I never claimed that ‘news sources use this exact phrase’, asking me for a cite of a news source using that exact phrase is absurd. Demanding ultra-specific cites for things a person did not specifically claim is not real debate.
I agree that straw man arguments are rarely respectable, and you provided a good example of a straw man argument with the statement starting with “criticism of Trump is illegitimate…” since I never made such an argument.
Or it points to Trump admiring Putin (the term “idol worship” is a gross exaggeration as far as I can tell) and liking the whole tough, autocratic ruler idea including Putin’s actions against his opponents. FDR liked to call Stalin “Uncle Joe,” it’s not like no President has ever admired a foreign ruler who does bad stuff. Trump is known for dismissing facts that he doesn’t like, it’s not just the possible ‘hacking’, and it’s not like countries spying on each other and using that information for their benefit is a shocking revelation. His lifting of sanctions makes perfect sense when combined with him dismissing the allegations, since if you dismiss the allegations there’s no reason for the sanctions in the first place.
And digging up the corpse of a law that has managed one indictment and zero convictions in two centuries that almost definitely would not survive first amendment scrutiny really weakens your case. Mentioning ‘possible violations of the Logan act’ implies that you don’t have any evidence of a real crime being committed, because you’re having to resort to that. Also, as was pointed out in another thread about the act, Clinton and Carter have both done things in violation of the Logan act (negotiating release of NK prisoners, for example), and Amnesty International is pretty much in constant violation of it. This also treads dangerously into guilt by association territory - and with all of the spying that our various three-letter agencies do, there should be something better than ‘Trump’s associates talked to Russians’ as an accusation.
The problem is that there’s a lot of smoke and no fire, and people have been blowing the smoke since news of the DNC emails first hit the news. There are plenty of explanations that fit the facts and Trump’s personality that don’t require any actual collusion with the Russians, acting like they don’t exist isn’t going to sway people who support Trump, but is going to get people more and more skeptical of any claims of Russian collusion because they’ve been seeing the smoke for so long.
True, I had forgotten that. However he’s still here yet, and his High Court appeal is expected in the summer. Although his Twitter’s just been suspended.
It must be pretty terrifying for him; and I wonder who’s paying for all this crap, such as transport across the ocean, food and stuff whilst in American custody, etc… Still, the case is slightly different.
Love is accused of causing harm
He is accused of altering the hacked systems by adding stuff
He is accused of hacking US government computers
Britain and the USA has an extradition treaty that offers up British citizens: Under the US-UK extradition treaty, the US can request the extradition of a UK citizen based on untested evidence. The UK has no equivalent right to extradite Americans for alleged crimes committed in breach of UK law.
Computer Weekly: Gary McKinnon: Why Lauri Love should be spared the nightmare of extradition *
One needs a grovellingly subservient Home Secretary or Interior Minister to hand people over to Moloch — Amber Rudd is such a Home Secretary.
Nothing suggests anything of the DNC hack compares — no matter who did it. But especially not had it turned out to be the Russian government. [ And remember, in a moment of pure imbecility worthy of Trump himself, Mr. Obama stated “Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin” — It’s quite a big place… ]
Of course American prosecutors can be over-enthusiastic… from that article:
We’ve seen it before. Mathew Bevan was called “the worst threat to national security since Hitler”, after hacking US computer systems from a Commodore Amiga computer. My own intrusions were labelled “the biggest military hack ever”.
I’m not expert, as you seem to be. However I don’t understand ‘proprietary software and programming aren’t very likely to be used by someone else when they don’t have them.’
Hackers take software they don’t have, one can get most tools online, especially through torrenting or from Hacker forums, and sometimes they even steal stuff. But I simply said ‘Or quite possibly hacker one incorporates evidences to incriminate hacker two.’ referring to no tools but deliberate imitation of other hackers/programmers to incriminate them.
And if you have evidence — even evidence the alleged security services allegedly sure of Trumpish guilt have, but dare not show to the profane — do tell.
No - it’s simply false to characterize Donald’s connections with Russia as all smoke. Trump and Russia have been involved for years. The Russians have been a major source of money to Donald. Many people close to Donald and involved with his campaign, including his sons, have direct involvement with Russian business. Donald has been making puppy eyes at Vlad for decades.
I did a thread last year that talks about how Donald and his family are connected to Russian businesses, with cites on stories going back decades.
This didn’t start with the emails. The connection between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks releasing info acquired from Russian hackers (a connection that Roger Stone just admitted to, no less) is only the tip of the iceberg.
Donald’s hiding something in his taxes (although it wouldn’t surprise me if his taxes are false from start to finish - but that’s a separate matter).
No one “worships” Putin. Please
Trump’s ‘amateur hour’ transition team seemingly groped around in the dark of international relations for a month or two.
Trump has “speedily” enaacted - or begun the process of enacting - pretty well all his election promises. EXCEPT the removal of sanctions.
I suspect you’re conveniently failing to recognise straight forward diplomacy.
It’s a really viable theory if folks can put prejudice to one side.
Last I checked, it wasn’t remotely illegal for Americans to do business in foreign countries. I don’t think anyone disputes that Trump has done business with Russia, and Trump being Trump I can’t imagine that nothing shady was going on. But it’s a big jump from that ‘Trump has shady business dealings with Russia’ to the various ‘Trump is colluding with Putin’ or ‘Trump is being controlled/blackmailed by Putin’ theories.
Again, it’s just smoke. You take something that’s as legal and aboveboard as anything Trump does, like doing business with Russia, then use words like ‘involved’ to imply that there’s more going on, then insist that there’s some real scandal in there. But if there is, you’re not actually making a case for it, you’re just putting together a Pizzagate style conspiracy theory.
Another straw man from you, since I never said “find me a news source using this exact phrase” (or anything that could be interpreted as meaning such).
What I actually asked for was some backing for this claim of yours:
What I asked you for (in the post quoted just below) was some support for your claim that “Democrats” have been “talking it up as Russia deciding the election.”
What you may not realize is that “news sources” deliver more than just the opinions of employees of those sources. News sources such as newspapers and cable and broadcast television and public radio contain elements such as:
[ul]
[li]Interviews with a wide variety of categories of persons, such as government figures, professionals in relevant fields, and even ordinary citizens;[/li]
[li]Results of scientific study, such as polls and other statistical reports;[/li]
[li]Historical analysis of events that are related to or similar to current events;[/li]
[li]And more.[/li][/ul]
This may all be novel information for you, and I’m happy to provide it.
Obviously when I said “…on news sources, I’m not seeing anyone saying what you claim “Democrats” are saying: “Russia deciding the election””—the in-quotations bits being taken directly, word-for-word, from your own post–obviously I was asking you to support your claim that this is what Democrats are saying. I was not asking you to provide an example of a news anchor speaking that phrase. I was looking for some examples of anyone quoted in a print story or interviewed on audio or video, saying that as a Democrat, of course we take the position that Russia decided the election. The exact words aren’t important–what’s important is a statement of belief that Russia decided or determined or settled or decreed the result of the election—since that was your claim (that “Democrats” maintain such).
I was asking you to back up your allegation that Democrats (in general, since you did NOT qualify “Democrats” with “some” or “a few” or “selected” or any other term that would indicate you didn’t mean ‘most Democrats’) state or say or believe or advance the theory that “Russia decid[ed] the election.”
So far you have failed to do so.
The post from which I’ve been quoting:
The post in which you declined to support your claim, instead going off on a tangent about “new sources” being “quite careful” and the straw man of my supposedly having asked for an example of a “news source” using a particular phrase–and of course I never did ask for an example of a “news source” using a particular phrase:
And back to your latest post to me:
So when you posted all the “Democrats have blown the Russian connection by trying to oversell it” argument, you were NOT trying to convey the idea that criticism of Trump is in some way illegitimate?
You were arguing that criticism of Trump is legitimate?
Right, getting him to trial will be difficult which I never denied. I think I have still I’ve refuted your point that an alien committing a hack on an American based computer isn’t considered illegal. You can bet that if the FBI knew a specific Russian committed the DNC hack and he was foolish enough to vacation in Florida, he would be arrested. His lawyer ain’t getting the case thrown out because he’s a foreign national who hacked in from another country.
You claimed that I was arguing “criticism of Trump is illegitimate because…” which in normal English usage refers to all criticism of Trump, and the same thing is true of sweeping statements like “the idea that criticism of Trump is in some way illegitimate” or asking if I’m arguing “that criticism of trump is legitimate”. I was discussing a specific line of criticism of Trump, I was neither asserting that “[all] criticism of Trump is illegitimate”, nor trying to claim that “[all] criticism of trump is legitimate.”
But I swore off endless semantics arguments years ago, and it appears you’re not interested in substantive arguments, so have fun on your own. It’s actually possible to both think that there is a lot of legitimate criticism of Trump, but that one oft-repeated field of criticism is invalid, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.
Made by whom? You claimed “Democrats” were making that specific line of criticism–but have so far failed to substantiate your claim.
That’s interesting, but of course this isn’t a semantics argument. You made a claim and have failed to back it up. It’s not surprising that you’d like to change the subject.
Ooo! Again with your attempt to change the subject. You made a claim you can’t back up–maybe an insult will be a good cover-up of that embarrassing fact?.. Alas, no.
By whom?
So: the doubling-down on the unsupported claim. Donald, is that you?
