I’m not interested in digging up additional sources for you to ignore. You asked “In what way are democrats doing this?” where “this” refers to " trying to use [the DNC & Podesta hacks] to discredit the election." I provided an example from the NYT, from yesterday, that starts out with this quote:
If that’s not enough to convince you that Dems are ‘trying to use this to discredit the election’, I can’t imagine what would be.
I’m not making claims about most of these things that you seem to think I am.
“in the whole universe of political figures in the United States” there are probably lots of people that have been hacked, some D’s and some R’s. What I actually said was “I don’t believe there’s evidence that anyone of a comparable rank to Podesta on the Republican side had their emails stolen.” Here is a list of both campaign staffs: HRC and DJT. Do we have any evidence that anyone in the “management and strategy” positions of Trump’s campaign fell for a phishing scam had their emails stolen? I’m not aware of any.
“the only instance of foreign governments getting access …” is another claim I never made. It’s certainly possible that many foreign governments hacked thoroughly into both campaigns and read all their emails and knew their every move, but we don’t have any evidence of that.
That’s certainly one possible explanation. Another possible explanation is that they didn’t manage to steal a trove of emails from high-level campaign operatives on the Republican side like they did on the Democrat side.
You falling for your own “hive mind” mythology. They aren’t that organized. Many would be unwilling to fall in step behind a narcissistic child, for instance. Many Republicans were as well, until they carefully examined the topography of their bread for their butter.
Sowing dissension amongst one’s political enemies goes way, way back. The DNC hacks fostered just that dissension, big league and downtown, setting Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters at each others throats. And that affected the election, as many Bernie supporters were so outraged that they refused to support Hillary, and vote for her, even though the Orange Plague was looming.
Did it sway the election? Dunno, there’s no good way to quantify the effect. On the other hand, its perfectly absurd to claim it had not effect at all, we just don’t know how much. Given that the advantage for Trump was so narrow in the crucial EC states, my personal opinion is that this is plausible, but unprovable. I also think that the Comey Debacle had more effect, but that is also not provable.
Even if it were provable and proven false, it would not change the fact that the attempt was made. And this is not “small potatoes”.
And another is that they simply didn’t want to.
You think if Xi Jinping reads Kelleyanne Conway’s emails, the first thing he does is call a press conference?
You somehow seem to think that cybersecurity is pretty good, and only people who are careless idiots get hacked.
The reason you think that is that in the vast majority of cases where a hacker gets your email nothing seems to happen. That’s because almost all such email is of no interest to anyone. And in the small number of cases where it’s of interest to someone, it’s because they’re trying to commit credit card fraud and don’t want you to know. And in the much smaller number of cases where they’re interested in the particular information in the emails, exposing the fact that they’ve been reading your email is counterproductive.
Hacking someone’s email is much, much, much easier than you seem to believe.
Of course there’s no public evidence of it, because hacking someone’s account in secret is a lot more valuable than hacking someone’s account and publicizing that information. Both the hacker and the victim have an incentive to keep the hack from becoming public.
The only really unprecedented part of this is that the Russkis sent the documents to Wikileaks, who published the documents, which were then broadcast to every corner of the media ecosystem.
I don’t know why you think this. I actually said “there are probably lots of people that have been hacked, some D’s and some R’s.” I don’t think they’re all careless idiots.
Why don’t you enlighten me. If I were to give you my gmail address, could you hack it?
That’s not really all that unprecedented. When Sony got hacked, their emails were publicized. When celebrities’ iCloud accounts were hacked, their contents got publicized. When Ashley Madison was hacked, the contents were publicized.
Comey said there was no sign “that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked.”
I’m curious to find out just how resistant to information your beliefs are.
You’ve only provided one cite in this thread and it’s to an article that doesn’t get into any detail. You’ve asserted that only two attacks were successful and they were to John Podesta and Rinehart’s Gmail accounts. I’d like to know how Russia used those two gmail accounts to also hack the DNC and DCCC, I’m especially curious how they hacked Podesta’s gmail in 2016 and used that to hack the DNC in 2015.
Saying “read the cites I provided” doesn’t count when you don’t provide any cites.
My understanding was that there were two unconnected operations against the Dems. One was the hacking of Podesta’s e-mail, and the other a hacking of the DNC’s inner workings. It has even been suggested, IIRC, that each was conducted by a different branch of Russian intelligence, and they might even have been unaware of each other’s activities.
Of course, the easiest way to correct a misunderstanding is to post it and endure the snotty tone of your correction. But its quick enough, and easy, if that shit don’t bother you any.
Actually, there are 2, one each linked to the words “few” and “facts”. Do they go in to the level of detail that your insisting on for exactly how it was done? No, because it would be stupid to broadcast that kind of info. Between the 2, the cites do address your other points though.
I always forget why I don’t generally post to these type threads. Spreading facts in political threads just ain’t worth the effort.
Comey said the RNC was hacked. You’re moving the goalposts and hopes nobody notices. Nothing in that article contradicts his beliefs at all.
Carry on carrying water though.
I didn’t notice one link because the space had an underline character and it looked like one link instead of two and they were both the same color because I’ve visited them before.
But still, neither one backs up your assertion. Now you don’t want to broadcast the info that would? Ha! If that is “spreading facts” I see why you don’t do it often.
Found in your posts: opinion and strawmen. Conspicuously missing: cites. I’m out.
Um, you’re the one who refused to produce cites to back up your claim.
In post 180, Lemur 866 concluded with some intuitively obvious statements about how things related U.S. involvement with NATO, China, etc. are “in Russia’s interest.” It’s good know people the world over are doing things in their own best interests. Yet apparently we as Americans, either cannot or will not for whatever reason. Are we as a nation, really that stupid? If so, we fully deserve to reap the consequences of every painful miscue and costly blunder we make. As a member of the minority on this issue, I’m not too worried about it. I find solace in the fact that I must be at least as stupid as about half the country.
Absolutes are just so darn, oh… absolute. What people “know” about cyber-security is obviously variable. I’d be willing to bet maybe a handful people on this board know anything more than how to spell it. But what those few DO know is that stupid people are the ones who get hacked “the most.” It is simply the old low-hanging fruit concept. No way around it, and it will always be true as long as stupid people maintain valuable resources and information in insecure ways.
It’s kinds like talking to a wall - that talks back. You should try drawing a line somewhere between rationality and stupidity in the region of cognitive dissonance to target your inputs . After that fails, just go do something else for awhile.
It is, but that’s not really relevant here. Nothing you’ve said refutes Lemur866’s point. “Stupid people get hacked, therefore anyone hacked must be a stupid person” is poor logic, and it’s the argument you appear to be continuing to make.
Doesn’t follow fallacy. No argument there.
What I said was stupid people get hacked the most. I didn’t say they must be stupid to be hacked. A little reading comprehension would be helpful.
And the next step in establishing the Great Russian Empire on U.S. soil comes into focus: In less than three days into the Trump presidency, it’s announced we may join forces with Russia to combat ISIS.
It must be like Christmas morning in the Putin house everyday these days.
Odd how everyone who underestimated Trump still believe that they know what he will do and how effective he will be.
Reminds me of a saying ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.’
I don’t like Trump but it is clear that he can be effective.
Slee