That’ll do nicely.
Has anyone on this board in these Russia discussions mentioned The Foundations Of Geopolitics by Aleksandr Dugin? Putin must sleep with this under his pillow. I’ll just quote from the Wiki page.
Oh, we should trust the rapist who thinks he going to be assasinated by the US while in downtown London. That makes much more sense!
Personally, my negative energy would remain reserved for the Americans who were dumb enough to vote for Trump, regardless of various influences.
not a great come back …
Yes, it does. This entire “Russian hackers” accusation relies upon it, in fact, because if these documents didn’t come from the DNC, then Russia did not steal them. You can’t have it both ways - you can’t both accuse Wikileaks of distributing real DNC documents and distributing fake DNC documents when you’re talking about the same documents without some justification for such a claim.
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about now.
The idea that Wikileaks had a person inside doesn’t hold up without further evidence, which I discussed in another thread. The Russian hacking version of events is very plausible. Your ad hominem to the effect that the US Government should be trusted less than a Juilan Assange is not persuasive except to an narrow band of ideologues.
This. If the DNC is a private club and gets to select whoever they want to run for president, then why bother with the primaries at all? Is it just a facade to placate the plebes making them think they have a meaningful say?
What we have here is a foreign government supposedly influencing an election by exposing the truth about how candidates are actually chosen by internal political parties. Yes, lets blame the foreign government. We all know the old saying, “Dig out the splinter from your brother’s eye and lo, he will thank you for it!”:rolleyes:
The Wikileaks insider, Craig Murray, is an Alex Jones nutter. While he was at the embassy he was released of his duties for granting British visas to Uzbek women in exchange for sex. He’s a real scumbag.
And yes, the FBI does believe we were hacked by the Russians.
It’s a private club that has a bunch of members, and they want to hear what their members think, but they also have some protections in place to keep an outsider from being able to easily win their party’s nomination.
The Republicans had never been forced to have a safety release of the “super delegates” before this year. When everyone was expecting Trump to lose, I would have predicted that the R’s would have that for the next election cycle. Now I’m not so sure it’s their priority.
Every organization has internal emails that would be embarrassing if they came to light. If a foreign country has access to both sets of emails, but only releases the ones that will help the one that they have a bias for, then that country is having a major influence on our elections, and that’s not OK.
I agree with all of the above.
I’m less-and-less convinced that there’s any truth at all to this claim that the RNC was hacked with every passing day.
The outsiders would get in by beating all other contenders even the ‘chosen’ ones. I don’t think the emails would have been so embarrassing if most people didn’t think that every person who ran had the same chance and the party itself was more neutral on the selection.
Never put in an email what you don’t want passed along to the world. I imagine most follow this practice, so it leads me to believe that much more would have been discussed on how to sabotage Bernie’s bid that isn’t documented.
I’m not sure that hackers have any moral obligation to play fair in what they do. Don’t think I’m condoning hacking, btw. The person stealing the $100 you have taped to your front door is still a thief. But any embarrassment suffered by the Democrats is fully in their court as they were the ones who generated the emails…
I suppose it has been mentioned, but FWIW Assange says that the Wikileaks did not come from the Russians. Cite. Of course, he could be lying.
Regards,
Shodan
A couple of points:
-
I tend not to see outrage as useful save for perhaps moral outrage. But that probably isn’t related to your point that much.
-
Anyone claiming that the election itself was hacked are just being silly. I’m an Officer of Election, so unless others’ voting technologies are different than ours, it would take someone physically injecting faulty votes into the voting machine from a peripheral device of some kind. Yet even then, off the top of my head, I don’t think our voting machines have a port that could be used to do such a thing, so they would have to physically open the voting machine and the internal memory card somehow (ie. replacing it with a fraudulent one). Then other failsafes would have to fail during the counting process for this not to be picked up.
-
But the majority of people I hear saying “the election was hijacked by Russia” are saying that Russian hacking and strategic information leaks, namely how slowly the information trickled out over the course of the election, influenced how people voted. If I was going to be outraged by something, it would be potentially playing into Putin’s hands. That said, if I let the leaks change my final decision, then I’d be an idiot. So it ultimately falls onto the people to better themselves to the point that their final decisions aren’t affected by such matters.
To add to your third point, there is absolutely no proof that Russia succeeded in changing the results even with the indirect influence. That’s not even the point. Russia meddling with USA elections should be frowned upon by all USA politicians and it should be investigated even if Russia didn’t provably have any impact on the results.
He might not be lying; he may have been simply fooled. Like, maybe they never considered that the woods where this handoff allegedly occurred is halfway between American University and the Russian Embassy.
The main two reasons I find this claim unconvincing is that: (1) the alleged insider would have had to been copying email traffic at the same time that the DNC called in security consultants to secure their systems, yet there are no reports of any insider threats at the DNC that were discovered; (2) how a DNC employee would have had access to John Podesta’s personal email is unexplained and totally baffling.
John Podesta, in keeping with the apparent Clinton and Co. security standards, had his aide email him his password in clear text, used an insecure password, (apparently) used the password for multiple accounts and did not have two factor auth enabled on his GMail account. Linky.
Given the above, I doubt it would be all that hard to get the password since other people, like his aide, knew it. Oh, and his password was Runner4567.
Security consultants can help but if you are giving other people your password there isn’t a security consultant in the world who can make you secure.
Slee
I agree. Any meddling in another country’s sovereign elections should be frowned upon and investigated.
Right, he did a stupid thing by emailing his password to one of his employees on the Clinton campaign. The DNC is NOT the Clinton campaign, to state the obvious. I can sort of see the poor thinking that would cause someone to email one’s password to one’s IT guy – not excusing the poor judgment there, but I can see the logic. Simply assuming that he must have emailed his password to people who don’t work for him in a entirely different organization? No, I can’t simply assume that took place. That’s a huge leap with no basis whatsoever to assume it occurred.
And even it if had occurred, all of Podesta’s emails and a massive amount of DNC information has been purloined: where’s the evidence that it happened?
This assertion that a DNC insider had access to Podesta’s email at the same time the Russians did is not credible.