It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:57 am

 141 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Author Message
Rory
 Post subject: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:57 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 "We didn't win... it must all be Putin's fault" Just how pathetic can the status quo partyheads get _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:05 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 Rory Paraphrased wrote:Haha... Idiots. They're only saying it was Putin because they lostLeaving aside for a moment whether or not the US election outcome was swayed toward Trump, it should bother everyone that Russia is actively and without retribution interfering with democratic elections in other sovereign nations and the evidence supporting this conclusion is overwhelming. Yes, people who don't want Trump to be their president are highlighting how he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, was too close to call in some swing states, and almost certainly benefited from Russian hackers. None of that negates the underlying truth that foreign nations, Russian or otherwise, are engaging in cyber warfare in a way that is harming us all and that the president-elect of the US doesn't even trust the judgement of 17 different intelligence agencies that have repeatedly confirmed this fact. None of that negates the fact that the feedback about this is bipartisan and even high ranking Republicans are calling for investigations and a rebuke of Putin, or the fact that it's been verified by independent and objective observers to be true. But yeah, go on acting like a child or feces throwing monkey and accuse the "other side" of wearing panties and whining inappropriately as if THAT'S addressing the underlying and unprecedented reality here. It's not like they're trying to distract us all from real issues and turn us against each other or anything.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.htmlQuote:The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, [not] just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral systemThe CIA is many things, but to suggest they're "pathetic" and "status quo partyheads" is rather daft. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:30 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/pr ... 6-electionQuote:Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Senate Democratic Leader-elect, and Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services released the following joint statement today in response to news reports on the CIA’s analysis of Russian interference with the 2016 election:“For years, foreign adversaries have directed cyberattacks at America’s physical, economic, and military infrastructure, while stealing our intellectual property. Now our democratic institutions have been targeted. Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American.“Congress’s national security committees have worked diligently to address the complex challenge of cybersecurity, but recent events show that more must be done. While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society. Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks.“This cannot become a partisan issue. The stakes are too high for our country. We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security.”Haha. Stupid whiny crybaby liberals.... Oh, wait. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:25 am

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4848
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 did we not discuss the unsavoury role WikiLeaks was playing even before the votes were cast ?and how they appeared to be hand in glove with Putin ?if there was already concern about interference BEFORE the election how can it be reduced to crybabies who complain about losing AFTER the election ? _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:42 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 There you go again, marnix. Thinking with your brain using facts and reality instead of with your gut using emotion and preconceived conclusions. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:43 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4848
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:35 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 I am intending to reply to this with rationality iNow but, frankly, I've stood you up for an evening with Paul Nurse. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Pong
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:31 pm
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 232

 Few comments to depolarize this issue:1) Cyberattacks always flow through unsecure computers/networks. Because hackers need the anonymity, and a bunch of "zombie" slave computers work better than a single private (& identifiable) laptop or basement rig. For that reason a, say new virus, will appear to "originate from China". Because frankly half the software running on Chinese computers is cracked/pirate software... it's the hacker's path of least resistance. That doesn't mean the mastermind is based in China, or an agent of the Chinese government. No more than if Viagra emails spamming from your infected computer originate from you.Which countries have the most cracked software and therefore virus-compromised computers?2) In the world of espionage, gathering information and testing other country's defenses is business as usual. Of course Russia actively spies on the USA. Of course the USA spies also. It's what those agencies are for, duh. But for sake of diplomacy we mutually pretend this doesn't happen... it rarely makes the news.3) Where we suspect a leak and want to pin it down. Traditionally that would be a "mole" but today as often a compromised computer or network. We employ the "barium meal test". In this exercise some information that is easy to spot and follow (like the barium-laced food in your X-ray film of mastication & swallowing) is deliberately offered as bait to potential leakers. We must allow the spy to successfully leak the information for this to work.The recent news item looks like barium meal test to me. And if it were, how could US intelligence expose that to the public? It can't - that'd be like reassuring your public the guy selling drugs is actually a narc.
PhDemon
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:06 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 499
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

 As an open question: why is Rory's fact free nonsense tolerated? On most other science based forums it would be trashed (at least).IMO you would get more serious posters (I'd certainly be more likely to recommend the site to others) if the wingnut(s) were dealt with appropriately... _________________"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:56 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 The tolerance you cite is subforum specific. Politics deserves a lot of leeway, IMO _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
PhDemon
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:47 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 499
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

 Fair enough, maybe I should just stop reading the politics threads _________________"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:58 am

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4848
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 PhDemon wrote:As an open question: why is Rory's fact free nonsense tolerated? On most other science based forums it would be trashed (at least).IMO you would get more serious posters (I'd certainly be more likely to recommend the site to others) if the wingnut(s) were dealt with appropriately...maybe it's wrong of me to be so tolerant, but given that the traffic on this site has not amounted to much over the last few years, I'm loath to come down too hard on people unless they're really totally nutty - maybe doing so would attract more members, but equally it could kill whatever signs of life the forum currently showsbesides, if we were all in agreement all of the time, there wouldn't be much to discuss, would there ?as for a further aside, I don't feel that Rory falls in the nut category, and I don't object to her presence here, even if on many occasions I disagree with her opinions- but that's just my personal opinion, and maybe I'm just a softy under the grumpy exterior _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
PhDemon
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:38 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 499
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

 I don't mind disagreement and discussion when it's rational and based on facts/evidence. It's the emotional fact free rants and whining I object to... _________________"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
M_Gabriela
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:06 pm

Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 2:25 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Bs As, Argentina

 Rory is a woman? Ok so with babe and myself, we're 3! Yeah!
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:50 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 Rory wrote:"We didn't win... it must all be Putin's fault" Just how pathetic can the status quo partyheads getThe Office of the Director of National Intelligence , which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, does not entirely agree with the CIA assessment, of Russian hacking in the recent US elections.It looks like Hillary Clinton will have to find something else to whine about.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN14204E
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:06 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 You clearly misrepresent the article you yourself cited. James Clapper, Director of National intelligence, doesn't disagree or dispute the CIA conclusion, but he's not yet ready to confirm it as being conclusive. That's something quite different, sir.Basically, he's one guy at the top saying "I'd like to see more information before weighing in with the authority of my title and office saying they intentionally tried to help Trump" while everyone below him (who actually did all of the work on this and performed all of the analysis) each say, "it's extremely clear what's happening here." It's sad that you read this to mean "the Director of National Intelligence does not entirely agree." Seriously... That's quite some spin you put on that. Do you also throw a similarly amazing curve ball in baseball with all that spin? From your link:Quote:While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.(...)"It's obvious that the Russians hacked into our campaigns," McCain said. Let me give another example to make clear the point here.We've got a fresh baked blueberry pie on the countertop. Still steaming and smelling great. We leave the room for a moment and return to find that it's been torn apart and pawed and half eaten. We look down and see the dog in the dining room. He has a blue face and sticky fur and is licking his paws. There are blue paw prints across the kitchen floor, and so I tell you "looks like the dog ate the pie." However, in response you explain that you didn't see it yourself, that it's clear the pie was eaten but it's stupid to suggest the dog did it since there's a lack of conclusive evidence. Sad. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:04 am

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 I fail to see your objections. The ODNI does not entirely agree with the CIA because " While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Clinton "
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:57 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:22 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 wireless wrote:I fail to see your objections. The ODNI does not entirely agree with the CIA because " While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Clinton "Does not entirely agree $\displaystyle \ne$ does not dispute / chooses not endorse _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:41 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:45 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 iNow wrote:wireless wrote:I fail to see your objections. The ODNI does not entirely agree with the CIA because " While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Clinton "Does not entirely agree $\displaystyle \ne$ does not dispute / chooses not endorseBecause of a lack of conclusive evidence, that is it.
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:02 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 Your suggestion is that we shouldn't believe the dog ate the blueberry pie. I find that conclusion to be willfully ignorant, but you're free to conclude whatever you want. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Falconer360
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:01 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1015
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

 wireless wrote:iNow wrote:wireless wrote:I fail to see your objections. The ODNI does not entirely agree with the CIA because " While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Clinton "Does not entirely agree $\displaystyle \ne$ does not dispute / chooses not endorseBecause of a lack of conclusive evidence, that is it."While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Clinton" = Does not question the validity of the CIA analysis, so there was for sure Russian hacking operations, just not enough evidence to cast away all doubt over the motives. You do realize that choosing not to endorse the assessment is pretty much just a political ass covering right? _________________"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:43 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 There are two questions here: Did Russia do it? Why did Russia do it?Answer to the first is an easy yes. Answer to the second is inconclusive. This is not higher level math, folks. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:33 am

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 Вы люди, порой, кажется, бредовые. MODNOTE: This is apparently Russian for: "You people, at times, it seems delusional"
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:58 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 iNow, you haven't personally seen any evidence implicating Russia in hacking the election, and you have none to show us. You are taking the CIA's word for it, which is basically an appeal to authority. That's your choice but I don't think you should denigrate those of us who refrain from agreeing with the conclusion being force-fed to us on the basis of zero evidence. Clearly you place a lot of trust in the CIA but I will never be able to reach a conclusion as swiftly as you have done, because I do not trust the CIA. As an organisation they are not independent or impartial and they cannot be relied upon to be moral. Of course there will be moral individuals within the CIA but they are not free to speak or act with impunity. Just look at what happened to Snowden as an example of the extent to which whistleblowers are not tolerated. You keep on accusing me of engaging with conspiracy theory, and you're spot on, since I do believe that the political elite conspire against their opposition - and sometimes that means conspiring against democracy and freedom. However, you are also now engaging in conspiracy theory, in suggesting that Russian officials have conspired to hack the US election. Lesson: labelling a claim "conspiracy theory" does not mean to say that that claim is invalid. A third question you missed: why would the political elite want to fabricate Russian hacking? Why would they take a blueberry pie, cut out the middle, shove Russia's paws into the sauce and smear sauce on Russia's cheeks? _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Lynx_Fox
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:25 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

 Rory wrote: You keep on accusing me of engaging with conspiracy theory, and you're spot on, since I do believe that the political elite conspire against their opposition - and sometimes that means conspiring against democracy and freedom. However, you are also now engaging in conspiracy theory, in suggesting that Russian officials have conspired to hack the US election. Lesson: labelling a claim "conspiracy theory" does not mean to say that that claim is invalid.And you good sir are practising the logical fallacy of false equivocation. Furthermore, tending to believe the CIA's conclusion is not an appeal to authority because there's other agencies as well as media research (e.g., http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rus ... ls-n639551) all pointing the same thing. The logical and reasonable conclusion is they are likely correct and there was election tampering attempted by Russia.
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:10 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 False equivocation would require that "conspiracy" have more than one meaning. What is the other meaning? You are engaging in the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. I am upholding the Royal Society's philosophy, nullius in verba. Each to their own. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
paleoichneum
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:22 pm

Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 507

 Rory wrote:False equivocation would require that "conspiracy" have more than one meaning. What is the other meaning? You are engaging in the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. I am upholding the Royal Society's philosophy, nullius in verba. Each to their own.Each to their own, facts come first, conspiracy mongering has NO PLACE here. Put up the evidence or shut up with the waffling about conspiracy. _________________The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
Falconer360
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:25 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1015
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

 wireless wrote:Вы люди, порой, кажется, бредовые. Right we're the dellusional ones... At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you and Rory refused to accept that Russia attempted election tampering through hacking if Putin came out and publicly admitted it. "Oh it's clearly a ploy," "He's being coerced by western governments to admit to it falsely," etc _________________"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:38 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 I find it ironic that WE'RE being called nutty for not believing something in the ABSENCE of evidence. Meanwhile you think Putin has nothing better to do than to expose Hillary's emails. Here's an idea: if she didn't commit an offence in public office then she wouldn't need to worry about exposure. Seriously, I doubt Putin's team would leave fingerprints, they could probably beat the US at its own game. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Lynx_Fox
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:43 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

 Rory wrote: Here's an idea: if she didn't commit an offence in public office then she wouldn't need to worry about exposure.Not true. In the court of public opinion against a population receptive to any meme that supports their preconceptions without evidence and suspect of any official sources, it absolutely doesn't matter what the emails contained, or even if there really were emails. It's like saying I think Charles is a child molester and has pedo pictures on his home computer. It's repeated through gossip and written on bathroom walls and no one accepts the unliked Sherriff's explanation that there's no proof though he's the best actual source of past behaviours. It's purely an emotional mob immune to logic or reasoning. Even if Charles willingly shared his computer with the Sherriff-- they wouldn't believe the official conclusion, even if the public had the computer, they'd claim Charles remove the files. As the linch mob forms it doesn't really matter if Charles even has a computer at all-- Besides the Russian involvement is across multiple fronts.... the DNC and Clinton "leaks" and interference with several States. It should concern all of us.
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:52 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 Any meme that supports preconceptions without evidence. You're quite right, that is what is happening with Putin. The difference between the two cases is that Hillary has been PROVEN guilty, there is EVIDENCE. Whereas there is no evidence of Russian hacking. The political elite are just trying to cast doubt in the psyche of the populace in order to undermine Trump's earned mandate. It's so obvious, a three year old could see it. We lost We lost the re-count Left wing is PATHETIC _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:08 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 Rory wrote:Hillary has been PROVEN guilty, there is EVIDENCE. No, she hasn't. What are you even talking about? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems to be another one of those narratives you accept despite it being disconnected from reality. Help me understand what specific guilt you're saying has been proven. Rory wrote:Whereas there is no evidence of Russian hacking.Correction: You dismiss the conclusions of countless others with the security clearance required to see that evidence today. You'd rather believe in conspiracy fantasies since you lack the security clearance to view the evidence with your own eyes. That's not the same as there being no evidence. Tell us, Rory: Where precisely is the goalpost? What evidence would change your mind? We have agreement from everyone who's seen it, including Republicans and conservatives who have a vested interest in the conclusions being false. It's unanimous amongst everyone except those directly benefiting from a denial of it. So, what would it take for you to acquiesce to that conclusion given you're not able to get the clearance required to see the evidence for yourself? You sound strangely similar to a creationist asking us to show you a monkey giving birth to a human. Rory wrote: The political elite are just trying to cast doubt in the psyche of the populace in order to undermine Trump's earned mandate. It's so obvious, a three year old could see it.Three year olds see and believe lots of things that aren't there or which are untrue. You shouldn't be bragging that this is the level of thought you're applying to this situation here. Rory wrote: We lost We lost the re-count Left wing is PATHETICYep. There it is, folks. THAT'S the argument you've been itching to make since the beginning, be damned with truth. All of this hand waving about the CIA is just a smokescreen.I'm sorry you're so full of hate and rage and disgust for your fellow humans, Rory. It's not healthy and I wish you well. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:37 am

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 Heard a great quote on one of my podcasts this evening:"Votes weren't hacked. The voters were." _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:50 am

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 Falconer360 wrote:wireless wrote:Вы люди, порой, кажется, бредовые. Right we're the dellusional ones... At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you and Rory refused to accept that Russia attempted election tampering through hacking if Putin came out and publicly admitted it. "Oh it's clearly a ploy," "He's being coerced by western governments to admit to it falsely," etcDo you remember the elections in the year 2000 ? Do you remember the " hanging chad " fiasco ? The accusations of Russian hacking in the recent US elections is just an updated version of the " hanging chad " stuff, The Democrats lost, so someone must have cheated.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_(paper)My link does not work, but I am sure that know what I am saying.
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:18 am

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 White House spokesman Josh Earnest was asked asked if the White House believes Russia successfully rigged the election, however, he told reporters that there were a "variety of potential explanations, and that's more of a question for analysts of politics than it is for analysts of intelligence."He seems to be saying that the Russians were not responsible for the demise of Hillary Clinton.http://www.france24.com/en/20161216-whi ... mp-clinton
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:51 am

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 I should have added in my last post, that the views of the White House spokesman, are different to what Obama is saying in the above link.
Northerner
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:29 pm

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:50 am
Posts: 31

 I don't know how much evidence (if any) the CIA has released.However, I am aware of the fact the Russians were constantly lying during the communist period and given Putin's past history I don't believe he, or his close associates, would be strangers to being "economical with the truth."According to Wiki Putin rose to become a Colonel in the KGB - the security apparatus, or secret police, set up to protect the internal methods of control, and reinforce the foreign policies, practised by a totalitarian state
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:47 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 wireless wrote:White House spokesman Josh Earnest (...) told reporters that there were a "variety of potential explanations, and that's more of a question for analysts of politics than it is for analysts of intelligence."He seems to be saying that the Russians were not responsible for the demise of Hillary Clinton.No, he doesn't seem to be saying that at all. How you come to the conclusion in your second sentence based on the content of your first sentence is beyond me.Here also from your own linked article:Quote:Barack Obama on Thursday said the United States would retaliate against Russian hacking after the White House accused Vladimir Putin of direct involvement in cyberattacks designed to influence the US election.(...)Pointing the finger at the Russian president over meddling in the election also puts the White House on a collision course with Trump, who has become increasingly isolated in questioning Russian involvement in hacks of Democratic Party emails that appeared to have slowed the momentum of Clinton's campaign.(...)White House spokesman Josh Earnest echoed his comments, saying the decision by US intelligence agencies in October to blame "Russia's senior-most officials" was not meant to be "particularly subtle."(...)"I don't think anybody at the White House thinks it's funny that an adversary of the United States engaged in malicious cyber activity to destabilize our democracy. That's not a joke," Earnest said on Thursday.(...)"Mr Trump obviously knew that Russia was engaged in malicious cyber activity that was helping him and hurting Secretary Clinton's campaign," he added.(...)The assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Russia was involved has been accepted throughout government and by top Republican Senators.(...)Former CIA director Michael Hayden called Trump "the only prominent American that has not yet conceded that the Russians conducted a massive covert influence campaign against the United States."Or, as you so eloquently summarized, the White House seems to be saying Russians aren't responsible. Orwell would be proud of the doublethink we're here now seeing today. If you have to lie in order to support your position, it's probably time to change your position. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:18 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 Remember that even members of the Republican Party don't want to see Trump as president. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:20 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 By the way, I've got absolute proof that I'm the Queen of England. I have the evidence at home but you're not allowed to see it. You'll just have to believe me. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
paleoichneum
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:29 pm

Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 507

 Rory wrote:By the way, I've got absolute proof that I'm the Queen of England. I have the evidence at home but you're not allowed to see it. You'll just have to believe me.Stop with the BS conspiracy ranting. YOU have absolutely no footing to judge and your paranoia is adding nothing to the tread. _________________The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:51 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 Rory wrote:Remember that even members of the Republican Party don't want to see Trump as president.Rory wrote:By the way, I've got absolute proof that I'm the Queen of England. I have the evidence at home but you're not allowed to see it. You'll just have to believe me.Let me ask my question again:Quote:Tell us, Rory: Where precisely is the goalpost? What evidence would change your mind? We have agreement from everyone who's seen it, including Republicans and conservatives who have a vested interest in the conclusions being false. It's unanimous amongst everyone except those directly benefiting from a denial of it. So, what would it take for you to acquiesce to that conclusion given you're not able to get the clearance required to see the evidence for yourself? _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:12 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 iNow wrote:wireless wrote:White House spokesman Josh Earnest (...) told reporters that there were a "variety of potential explanations, and that's more of a question for analysts of politics than it is for analysts of intelligence."He seems to be saying that the Russians were not responsible for the demise of Hillary Clinton.No, he doesn't seem to be saying that at all. How you come to the conclusion in your second sentence based on the content of your first sentence is beyond me.Here also from your own linked article:Quote:Barack Obama on Thursday said the United States would retaliate against Russian hacking after the White House accused Vladimir Putin of direct involvement in cyberattacks designed to influence the US election.(...)Pointing the finger at the Russian president over meddling in the election also puts the White House on a collision course with Trump, who has become increasingly isolated in questioning Russian involvement in hacks of Democratic Party emails that appeared to have slowed the momentum of Clinton's campaign.(...)White House spokesman Josh Earnest echoed his comments, saying the decision by US intelligence agencies in October to blame "Russia's senior-most officials" was not meant to be "particularly subtle."(...)"I don't think anybody at the White House thinks it's funny that an adversary of the United States engaged in malicious cyber activity to destabilize our democracy. That's not a joke," Earnest said on Thursday.(...)"Mr Trump obviously knew that Russia was engaged in malicious cyber activity that was helping him and hurting Secretary Clinton's campaign," he added.(...)The assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Russia was involved has been accepted throughout government and by top Republican Senators.(...)Former CIA director Michael Hayden called Trump "the only prominent American that has not yet conceded that the Russians conducted a massive covert influence campaign against the United States."Or, as you so eloquently summarized, the White House seems to be saying Russians aren't responsible. Orwell would be proud of the doublethink we're here now seeing today. If you have to lie in order to support your position, it's probably time to change your position.The White House spokesman said that there were a variety of potential explanations. My comprehension of this is just a point of view and hardly a lie.
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:39 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 One more for the "reality is stranger than fiction" files:https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/15/the-g ... lf-hacked/The government body that oversees the security of voting systems was itself hacked _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:07 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 I have read your link. Donald Trump is the President Elect and not Hillary Clinton.Somehow Moscow is to blame. I have no idea how you voted on election day, but if you believe that Moscow is putting Trump in the White House, well........
iNow
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:58 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

 Why must everything be so black and white for you? Is it not possible to acknowledge that multiple circumstances led to this outcome, that one of those circumstances was Russian involvement, and that we ALL have a vested interest in preventing such things from recurring in the future regardless of who's running or who wins? _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Rory
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:37 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 What did Russia, supposedly, do? Help to leak Hillary's emails? They were there for the leaking, she's a dodgy character who deserved to lose, and she lost. Honestly, I'm beginning to feel sorry for Putin. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
wireless
 Post subject: Re: It's Putin, stupid!  |  Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:38 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

 iNow wrote:Why must everything be so black and white for you? Is it not possible to acknowledge that multiple circumstances led to this outcome, that one of those circumstances was Russian involvement, and that we ALL have a vested interest in preventing such things from recurring in the future regardless of who's running or who wins?You sound very much like a man on the back foot.
 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 141 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3

Who is online
 Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum