Russians hacking

[vendic]

Interesting take: http://theantimedia.org/intel-vets-obam ... n-hacking/

Personally I don't doubt that the Russians hack the US. Nor do I doubt that the US hacks Russia along with a ton of other countries, as do the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the English, the Israeli's etc.

Remember the virus that hit Iran.

When a government hacks, it uses the top people in their fields. These are professionals who know security and know how to make it untraceable to them. They have the resources to do so that individuals don't.
As far as I can tell, this is smoke and mirrors stuff used to political advantage.

I can't also help but notice the irony in accusing Russia of interfering in elections, by releasing evidence of the US interfering in its own elections. Somehow it's all Russia's fault. No blame on the people who did the initial disservice to democracy. Beautifully executed spin on an ignorant public.

[Rommie]

The more I read about the new relationship with Russia the US is having, to the point of overlooking the hacking, the more I think about the serious irony of my mother supporting the man bringing this new wind about.

[vendic]

She actually supports him?
As opposed to choosing what many have called the lesser of two evils.

[Rommie]

She actually supports him?
As opposed to choosing what many have called the lesser of two evils.

Oh yeah, huge supporter since Day 1. My dad is a reluctant, tow the party line supporter, my mom thinks of Trump OTOH as some amazing genius and is really excited that he's going to be president.

We could go into the whys, but that really takes me to places I'm not super happy to contemplate.

[vendic]

Reminds me of the guy at our old marina that said he'd been a huge Trump fan for decades and that Trump always says the right things. My brain just ground to a halt and needed a restart.

[SciFiFisher]

I have been over this a bit on Facebook. Here is the bottom line. You and everyone else will never be presented with the kind of proof that you think you need to prove that Russia engaged in a massive campaign intended to widen the divisions in the U.S., undermine democracy, create uncertainty, and essentially assist some of our own homegrown assclowns in making the truth something that isn't relevant. Additionally, you will never see the kind of proof that you think you need to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia directly assisted Trump win the white house.

And none of you will ever trust the intelligence community enough to take their word for it. So the Russians and our own assclowns are already winning the war among a significant percentage of the population. At some point in my copious spare time I might get around to posting a couple of links to sources that explain this better than I just did. But that in essence is the executive summary.

[Tarragon]

Attribution is hard, but possible, especially if you're using different methods - such as human spies on site - to confirm the computer forensics. I have no idea how much they know or don't, but letting an opponent (e.g. Russia) think you know less than you know is as useful as making them think you know more than you do. What they release to congressional oversight committees is probably more than what the press knows.

A lot of this could be long-range political planning too. The Dems may want to leave this along as a timebomb for Trump and the GOP to try to disarm or let it blow up in their face. If the Dems tried to do anything during the Lame Duck period, it would look political. The GOP seem to believe the Russians did the hacking, which they may keep in their back-pocket to impeach Trump if he wanders too far from their platform.

It's also strategic. If the US hints at a method, the Russians might try to shut down whatever is vulnerable to that method, which lets the US know their intelligence and assessment was accurate. Of course, the replacement may have an even bigger hidden flaw, which was the point of tricking them into dumping their older system which might have actually been more secure.

It may not matter. Trump may not like it if Putin tries to blackmail him. He might nuke them on principle... or lack of it.

[vendic]

I have been over this a bit on Facebook. Here is the bottom line. You and everyone else will never be presented with the kind of proof that you think you need to prove that Russia engaged in a massive campaign intended to widen the divisions in the U.S., undermine democracy, create uncertainty, and essentially assist some of our own homegrown assclowns in making the truth something that isn't relevant. Additionally, you will never see the kind of proof that you think you need to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia directly assisted Trump win the white house.

And none of you will ever trust the intelligence community enough to take their word for it. So the Russians and our own assclowns are already winning the war among a significant percentage of the population. At some point in my copious spare time I might get around to posting a couple of links to sources that explain this better than I just did. But that in essence is the executive summary.

Here's the thing. The Russians didn't play with Democracy like it was a chess game. The DNC did. Even if the Russians released information that the DNC was rigging the election, doesn't the public have the right to know who they are voting for?
The Russian issue is a red herring. Someone informing on a criminal is not worse than the criminal act to begin with. If we want to blame someone for losing the election to Trump, start at the source that was behaving unethically to begin with.

What I see here is that everyone is distracted by who released evidence of the DNC in with their hands in the ballot box. They are ignoring what the evidence means. Then of course there is that little problem of truth. Do the public have the right to know they are being played and toyed with? I think they do and I don't care about the timing of it since it's directly related to the people involved. Let them learn that if they do something so bad the public will turn on them. Maybe it will help stop them doing it in future. pretending like it isn't their fault and it's really the Russians fault is hypocrisy.

Also, I find it pretty amusing that the US is all upset about Russians (allegedly, because there is no actual proof yet of) hacking considering the role the US has played in affecting other countries.

All I see is smoke and mirrors and I'm not falling for it. The intelligence community got it wrong in Iraq, we got involved there over lies. Same with Vietnam. If they want me and the American people to trust them, they have a long tough road to clear the miles of shit they covered it with.

This is from someone that hates communism, can't stand Putin but is tired of being lied to by fat cat politicians while they laugh at what they have done. Most of all, I want people to see the real issues or the public will put Trump back in in 2020. We screwed the pooch on 2016, the way I'm seeing things unfold, we'll just be doing it all again in four years.

No disrespect intended.

[vendic]

In case people missed the Vietnam incident that never happened that started the Vietnam War.

http://www.opsecnews.com/gulf-of-tonkin ... n-vietnam/

If you don't like the source, it's available elsewhere. Same conclusions. The USA attacked the Vietnamese first, then the second incident never happened and the US went to war anyway based on their false claim that they were attacked.

I can keep going, but this is what I meant by the shit they have piled up on the road that they need to clear before people will just accept their conclusions without actual proof. They need to build up trust. Telling us it is classified but trust us given past transgressions won't fly for many people.

[SciFi Chick]

IThey need to build up trust. Telling us it is classified but trust us given past transgressions won't fly for many people.

Especially when there are people confessing that they're responsible, not the Russians, and that doesn't even get airplay.

[vendic]

It's starting to but the general argument is based on an argument of patriotism, "You would trust Assange over our own intelligence sources?"

For me it's more a case of, I won't dismiss an argument based on it's source. It needs to be considered or what I am doing is cherry picking data and hearing what I want to hear.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Vendic, all the examples you've shown have one thing in common. The people on top WANTED that faulty intelligence to be true. From what little I know of it Intelligence work is always fuzzy and subject to interpretation. So, it's very hard not to fall on confirmation bias. In addition to the examples you provide I can give you one that while it was more innocuous it followed the same pattern, and right in the last part of the Vietnam war: The Son Tay Raid Here, despite faulty intelligence EVERYONE on the chain of command was keen to execute the Raid. Because everyone wanted to free US Prisoners Of War out of that camp. And the Raid went pretty well, EXCEPT that there were no POWs there.

In many ways I consider Intelligence work similar to IT. A hard messy job, and one where the people doing it usually take the blame from upper management when it fails. In the case of IT the "secrecy" is because few people (including most people in IT) bother to get their hands dirty. In intelligence work, there's not only that, it has the added complexity of an explicit need for secrecy.

[vendic]

I agree. It is a shitty job. It also has a lot of problems, even when the information is solid it can be rewritten to say what you want it to say by those higher up. We know it happens, usually well after the fact, but at the time no one challenged it, because, how does one expose such things?
Given the past examples where no one has spoken out and the grave consequences of them not speaking out leading to war, it tells me there is not an effective system in place for it. It also tells me to take caution with what is presented and not to accept it simply because of the source.

[Tarragon]

The site, LawFareBlog.com, is run by intelligence community people, supposedly in their off time. The articles are interesting. This one explains one guy's POV on who got it wrong on WMDs and why they should be trusted on the Russian Hacking. Basically, all intelligence work is smoke and mirrors, which is why they sometimes can't see what's really going on. In the end, what the political leaders choose to believe and act on is their own fault.

This isn't new tho, There have long been suspicions that the bombing of the USS Maine was an intelligence failure that politicos and fat cats used to talk the country into War. I recall hearing about intelligence failures and political intrigues as far back as ancient Rome. Humans, ya know.

[vendic]

I recall hearing about intelligence failures and political intrigues as far back as ancient Rome. Humans, ya know.

Totally agree. Intelligence networks are only a tool for those in power to use as they see fit. That's the bottom line. Those up top can dismiss it, ignore it or interpret it in what ever way they want to their political advantage. That's the way it has always been and probably will stay.

Bottom line here means that the intelligence services do the best that they can but what is done, what is released, how it is released, when it is released, if it is corrupted or not, resides with those in power.

So claims that we are questioning the intelligence reports is not technically true. We are questioning the politicians interpretations of those reports and since they can withhold what they want, they can make it appear any way that they want.

In this case, does the Democratic party have more to lose or gain if they claim that Russia did it or that we accept wikileaks version that it was a disgruntled DNC person. The answer is self evident. One puts question on their own party, the other questions the new president elect and his party and at the same time effectively stops discussion of what was leaked which is both self incriminating and damaging to the Democrats.

I keep going back to, why are we discussing who leaked the truth about an American organisation doing election fraud instead of dealing with the people who did the actual fraud.

The nut job in me asks, what is wrong with the world when telling the truth about our representatives is considered interfering in an election, while actually interfering in an election and lying is acceptable?

There is the mirror revealed.

[Tarragon]

I think it's the novelty. Politicians have been messing with US elections since the founding, probably before. It's even a joke in many places, about the Dead Chicago Vote or when people say "vote early, vote often." We have films, like Mississippi Burning that showcase the twisted history of voting rights in the US.

However, this appears to be the first time that Russia or any foreign entity has successfully interfered in a US election. And that's the thing, they believe the interference was successful, or else he wouldn't have been elected. If She had been elected, then people would merely point at Putin and laugh, saying he tried and failed, but the foundation of America is too strong for them to assail.

Some of this is due to conflating the hacking with the alleged financial connections between Trump et al. to the Russians. But to many observers, these confirm each other. When the prosecution can present both a motivation and a smoking gun, most people will convict.

When added together, this makes people doubt the very fabric of the society they live in. The same thing happened on September 11, 2001 when people who thought terrorists could never attack successfully on such a large scale discovered how vulnerable they really were. It also happened on December 7, 1941 when when people who were looked down at as cheap toy-makers became an overwhelming threat over the course of a few hours. The US response to that was terrifying.

The difference with November 8, 2016 is that many people feel this is a threat on two fronts, both foreign and domestic. Some will claim that rightists felt the same way under Obama. But their lack of action reveals they didn't see him as a serious threat, giving him not much more concern than any of the other conspiracy theories they occasionally entertain. The GOP majority in Congress in 2010 calmed those concerns even more. Their guns and militia gave them comfort, and their mantra of "I'll fight if they come for me," indicated a passive, defensive posture.

For those on the left, the story is the opposite, they truly fear Trump, the GOP, and Putin separately and together - perhaps a three-front war - plus traitors in their own party - a four-front war. And their fears aren't unfounded as actors on the Right have explicitly stated those goals. For some, it's not a matter of if, but of when. But instead of a defensive posture, they look to Nazi Germany and Chamberlain and say: "Not this time. We've been down this road before and we know where it leads." Ask any of them what is the first thing someone should do with a time machine, and you'll realize what their go-to response to this situation could easily be.

Not that I mean to disagree with you, Vendic. It is all smoke and mirrors. Mirrors often reveal the truth about someone when they look in it, but sometimes they embrace the ugliness they see because it sets them free of maintaining appearances. Sometimes smoke is smoke, and sometimes it's a smoke screen that hides an approaching assault.

[vendic]

I can't disagree with anything you wrote other than I'm not sure the Russians aren't a scapegoat. While many are happy to accept what they are told I tend to want to see evidence that is compelling before picking a fight with a super power.

I write that with the understanding that I don't care for Putin or his administration one bit nor do I trust them.

Still, I'd like to know what the American people's response will be to knowing that one party played games with their vote. Mainly because I believe the swing voters/independents will again make a difference in 2020 and if nothing is addressed on this front, why would they have the confidence to vote Democrat ever again. That might mean two terms of Trump.

I can imagine the 2020 debates, "Your party actively rigged the election and you did nothing about it. Why would anyone trust you now when you didn't care then and have done nothing but token gestures to correct it?"
That would be a hard thing to counter and win the independent vote which they sorely lost in 2016.
The Democrats have the opportunity to do something and win back trust. What we are getting instead is a distraction to the boogy man and I fear that will cost them yet again because they are refusing to listen to what is alienating the people that can put them in back in power.
Sometimes I hate being right and I hope I'm not here, but it's not looking good imho.

[SciFiFisher]

I think where i am stuck is on the insistence that the DNC rigged the election. The DNC chose a candidate that they felt represented the values and platform of the people who vote democrat. Bernie Sanders threw his hat in the ring and tried to run as a Democrat for the DNC nomination. But, at the end of the day he was not and is not a Democrat. He is an independent who openly claims to be a democratic socialist.

The DNC and the GOP have the right to “rig the system” just about any way they want to choose the candidate they want. If the people who align with those parties want to change the way candidates are chosen then they need to demand that the rules be changed.

Every single independent who screamed to high heaven about not getting to vote for Bernie Sanders had the opportunity to register as a Democrat before the primaries. They had the perfect opportunity to help pick the candidate they wanted. And a huge majority of them didn’t do it and then screamed and cried that the DNC rigged the nomination. No, they didn’t. They did what political parties do. They wheeled and sealed. They weighed the various candidates who threw their hat in the ring. And they chose someone who they felt could win and represent the Democratic party and the people of the U.S. the best.

There is an old saying. If you ever watched sausage being made you would not want to eat sausage ever again. The Russians hacked the DNC and show everyone how the sausage was made.

You don’t have to like it but the DNC did not break any laws. They did what political parties do. If you don’t want the parties to do it that way then get enough people to agree with you and change it. But, stop insisting that the Russians did us a favor or can’t be the bad because they showed us how evil the DNC is.

I will have to insist on the same level of proof and reliability that everyone has insisted I must have to prove that the Russians have committed an act of war against us. Show me real proof that the DNC, Hilary Clinton, or anyone associated with the DNC broke laws, tampered with elections, or did anything more than plan how to stop a democratic socialist from becoming the Democratic Party nominee.

Prove to me with the same level of proof that you insist that the intelligence communities must provide to convince you that the Russians committed an act of war.

In the meantime I offer you this as food for thought. The Russians Hacked The American Voter

[Tarragon]

It's still early in this thing, the truth may yet come out. I'd like to see the evidence too, but I doubt we'll get it for a while because it's tied up in domestic politics.

I'm not too worried about the democratic party. They lost the election, but they won the popular vote, so the majority of the American voters supported them and that may not chance much. It's not the principled progressives and independents they failed to court but the more pragmatic working class in rural and small town America (or so goes the current thinking). Most of them will forget about and forgive the party shenanigans in the 2016 Democratic Primary, if they ever cared. Many of them distrusted Clinton (or the establishment in general) before the primary, so it wasn't a betrayal but a confirmation. With a different candidate, the sins of 2016 will be so much water under the bridge.

That assumes things will be boring between now and 2020, which is highly improbable. The Midterm elections will almost certainly dramatically change the dynamic. There's also a good chance of at least one Constitutional crisis between now and 2018. I doubt Trump will last a year in office. This may drive Republicans to break into factions and act independently of their party. This dynamic may remind Democratic Party Primary voters that the underhanded actions in 2016 were the actions of individuals, who will probably no longer be there in those capacities. Then they can vote Democratic with a clean conscience. After all, "perfection is the enemy of the good." Some idealists won't be swayed, and maybe they'll stop eating sausage too.

This is a prediction, not a preference. If I had my way I'd make ensure the political dynamic changed enough for a valid third party.

[vendic]

But, stop insisting that the Russians did us a favor or can’t be the bad because they showed us how evil the DNC is.

First and foremost, I did not claim they did us a favor because I don't even know who leaked the information nor do I pretend to know. I do know that there are opposing views and no proof for either.
You're conflating me preferring to hear the truth regardless of source and me not being satisfied with the level of proof given, with alleged support of Russians.
[/quote]

I will have to insist on the same level of proof and reliability that everyone has insisted I must have to prove that the Russians have committed an act of war against us. Show me real proof that the DNC, Hilary Clinton, or anyone associated with the DNC broke laws, tampered with elections, or did anything more than plan how to stop a democratic socialist from becoming the Democratic Party nominee.

People working under the DNC have been filmed admitting how they did election fraud. The DNC claimed they were fair and unbiased but the leaks showed that they were supporting Hillary over Sanders. I'm not talking the Superdelegates or election registrations here, I'm talking about the DNC going against their charter of being unbiased which they claimed over and over but was shown to be lies: link

When you claim fair and impartial electoral process and break your own charter to support one candidate over another then you are committing electoral fraud as viewed by the public. You claiming Sanders wasn't a "real" Democrat makes no difference. They shouldn't have let him in the party if that was the case. Problem solved. No, they took him in, told everyone that they were neutral and proceeded to actively work against is campaign. The leaks show it. Not sure how much more proof you want than supposedly neutral party representatives plotting to make sure one person doesn't win.

DNC lawyers claim that Sanders supporters knew that the DNC was biased so they weren't duped.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/dnc-fil ... hrown-out/

If you want to see people that worked for the campaign telling undercover reporters how they committed electoral fraud, see link.
Yes the site is conservative. No that doesn't make a difference when you hear people flat out tell the reporters what they did.

[Rommie]

I think the point though, and one I agree with, is no matter what they claim the Democratic Party is a private club, so to speak (as are the Republicans). They really are not under obligation to not prefer one candidate over another, and can run elections in their party as they want, and in fact they do if you look at how much voting laws can vary in party primaries by state. You can argue about whether this was a good idea or not- I'd say the way things went shows there were quite a few things wrong with this idea- but illegal? As in, against the law? No, that didn't happen.

Also, frankly, I genuinely don't know if Sanders would have won even if this bias hadn't happened. Two big reasons:

1) He never seriously motivated the minority base, which is a huge reason he didn't even come close to winning in places like the Deep South. Obviously Trump was in the same vein, and if he won because of these white people who would've voted for Sanders instead voted for him, who's to say the turnout among minorities would've been the same. We really can't know how all that would've played out.

2) Perhaps even bigger, few people remember that Michael Bloomberg was seriously considering running as a third party candidate, but opted not to do so unless it was Trump vs Sanders, because he felt in that case he'd have an opportunity to win as a centrist candidate. I feel like having three names in the mix like that would've changed things so much it's impossible to say who would have won.

[vendic]

It's all speculation on who would have won if there was a Sanders vs Trump election.
What is certain however, is that when people feel that their votes were messed with in the primaries, the party will lose support from many of them, and, that did happen.

[SciFiFisher]

It's all speculation on who would have won if there was a Sanders vs Trump election.
What is certain however, is that when people feel that their votes were messed with in the primaries, the party will lose support from many of them, and, that did happen.

I cannot disagree with that assessment.

I think they also lost support in areas where they thought they would prevail. I think that might have happened no matter what. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were pivotal. But, in many places with similar demographics Trump won. He won because he appealed to the angry, disenfranchised, insecure part of our population who did not recover from the Great Recession. I don't know if Bernie Sanders could have appealed to them the same way. I know he was polling well in that area vs Trump. But, I am not sure if he would have had enough of an attraction for that group of voters and the people influencing them.

[vendic]

Most of the people I knew who were Republicans would vote for Sanders over Trump, but Trump over Clinton. Like it or not. Some were also hard core republicans who had ties to the Bush administration and the Reagan administration. That's when I first started to realize that Trump may have a chance against Hillary. I dug deeper and there was a lot of people that felt the same. Even some Democrats. That's just not a good thing. To me at least, history repeated because I saw the same thing happen in Oz decades ago.

[geonuc]

I think the point though, and one I agree with, is no matter what they claim the Democratic Party is a private club, so to speak (as are the Republicans). They really are not under obligation to not prefer one candidate over another, and can run elections in their party as they want, and in fact they do if you look at how much voting laws can vary in party primaries by state. You can argue about whether this was a good idea or not- I'd say the way things went shows there were quite a few things wrong with this idea- but illegal? As in, against the law? No, that didn't happen.

Quite right.