|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The 2016 United States Presidential Election | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Just realized this is the thread about the election, where off topic posts have been seriously denounced, so I'm removing my post. If LamarkNewAge wants to post his somewhere else I'll answer it there.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Assange said it wasn't Russia. Now there is a conflict between two sources. Which one has the truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
At the moment Assange is in favor with the Right, and it was in an interview by Sean Hannity that he said the Russians weren't involved. I'm waiting to see, myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
David Knight of Infowars did a report on the report -- I think his segment will be repeated again later -- probably between 4 and 6 or 7 PST if anyone is interested. He's not the only one who pointed out that there is no evidence in the report, just a lot of assertions. The report refers to sources that are years old, two years, four years, eight years. It's unevidenced, it's bogus, it's just part of the anti-Trump program. And according to Knight it's about THEM controlling the voting systems.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
John McAfee, known for his work in cybersecurity, says the supposed evidence given in the CIA report for Russian hacking shows such a low level of intelligence competence that alone proves it false: that is, the evidence they give is that a Russian Cyrillic keyboard was used, the time/date stamp indicated an origin in Moscow, the IP number was from Russia, and something else I can't remember. There were four pieces of evidence, which McAfee says would show such incompetence no intelligence agency could operate that way. They would dissemble everything, use a foreign keyboard, a foreign language, a computer that couldn't be traced to them, etc. etc. etc.
ABE: Here's a video of McAfee talking about this: /abe There's another category of proof that the report is bogus that I can't find now. The gist as I recall is that half the report is based on articles in the Russian media that go back many years and have nothing at all to do with this election. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems like good evidence to me too. Wish I could find the stuff about how so much of the report was from RT and years old. If so, what on earth are they trying to do? What misinformation are they determined to get us to believe and why?
I don't know if it's clear (and I have to admit not a whole lot is clear to me about this either), but the CIA report was not claiming that Russia hacked the election itself, as in, hacked the voting machines, but the public has been under that impression for some time and there doesn't seem to be much effort to correct it, as if that's what they want people to think. The true claim is that Russia was responsible for exposing Clinton's emails (and other similar things I can never keep in mind) and in that way influenced the election by turning people against her. Even that is seriously in doubt, however. I'm still waiting to see if Assange has anything to say about it since he SEEMED to promise to reveal the actual source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And here we have the time-honored EvC-tested ad hominem argument. McAfee is nuts. That's all. McAfee is nuts. Terrific.
No matter that his statements made perfect sense and related to the actual evidence offered in the report. No matter at all. We can dismiss his perfectly reasonable statements because McAfee is nuts. I'm inclined to give weight to his points that it would take an incredibly stu/pid intelligence operation to leave such obvious clues to its identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was responding only to Riggamortis' agreement that it would be sttupid for a hacking operation to leave such blatant clues to its identify, that's all.
Assange said it in the Hannity interview, mentioned earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was responding only to Riggamortis' agreement that it would be sttupid for a hacking operation to leave such blatant clues to its identify, that's all.
That's right. Except that you referred to his agreement as evidence. No I did not. All I said was that we agree that what McAfee said about how hackers wouldn't give away their identity like that is good evidence that the report is phony.
I think pointing out that it was no such thing was appropriate. Do you have a rebuttal? Yeah, you missed the whole simple point. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The real question is why you are putting so much effort into exonerating Russia. Why is that? Why are Republicans flocking to Russia's aid? Don't you find that troubling? It's the sort of thing that could start a war and I'd rather not start a war, especially over something that isn't even true; if it's false, which it looks like to me, then somebody may have invented it in order to start a war. Like the entire intelligence community invented WMDs in Iraq to start another war once. I'd rather not. Or maybe there is some other hidden purpose. For instance it insinuates that it was done in favor of Trump. If it's not true, which it appears to me to be the case, who has a motive to insinuate that? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No I did not. All I said was that we agree that what McAfee said about how hackers wouldn't give away their identity like that is good evidence that the report is phony. Again, what McAfee said is not evidence. What he gave and what Riggy stated are opinions about the evidence. Evidence consists of facts and not opinions about facts. I note that you are changing what you said, which perhaps wasn't what you meant but still it was what you said; but now you are hairsplitting and to what purpose? It's a fantastically good inference that such weirdly obvious evidence that points straight at Russia when even a tenth-rate hacker would make some effort to cover his tracks, is as good as evidence against the report. In other words the evidence in the report is good evidence in itself that the report is bogus. At the very least it's extremely strange that a hacker would be so naive. If you have another explanation, please float it. If you just want to suggest a more accurate word, go ahead, what does it serve to make a big deal out of something so obvious? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Rread what you wrote. You said I treated RM's comment as evidence. I DID NOT. And I'm not addressing anything else you say until you straighten this out.
\
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I suppose you must be reading the declassified report. He's commenting on the actual report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The subject is not what Russia may be doing to provoke war. THAT'S ANOTHER SUBJECT. I'm talking about the validity of the intelligence report on Russian hacking of the election. Period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Like the entire intelligence community invented WMDs in Iraq to start another war once. I'd rather not. Or maybe there is some other hidden purpose. I'm pretty sure that's false. It was Bush and Cheney who invented WMDs. I'm pretty sure that the intelligence community was giving Bush accurate information in private, while giving him that "slam dunk" in public. Sounds like all they had was INaccurate information, according to Colin Powell, information that everybody nevertheless took to be true. Here he is talking about how he regrets the case he made for WMD in 2003, and it sounds to me like he's saying it originated with intelligence..And here is where he mentions that 16 agencies agreed that Iraq had WMD, although he doesn't exactly say they invented the idea, as I put it.
...I made the case with the director of central intelligence sitting behind me. He and his team had vouched for everything in it. We didn’t make up anything. We threw out a lot of stuff that was not double- and triple-sourced, because I knew the importance of this. When I was through, I felt pretty good about it. I thought we had made the case, and there was pretty good reaction to it for a few weeks. And then suddenly, the CIA started to let us know that the case was falling apart parts of the case were falling apart. It was deeply disturbing to me and to the president, to all of us, and to the Congress, because they had voted on the basis of that information. And 16 intelligence agencies had agreed to it, with footnotes. None of the footnotes took away their agreement. So it was deeply troubling, and I think that it was a great intelligence failure on our part, because the problems that existed in that NIE should have been recognized and caught earlier by the intelligence community. (my emphasis) Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024