RP still not getting it

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

BTW, they finally released the evidence that the DNC hack was a Russian intelligence operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=1

Guccifer 2.0 borrowed the moniker of an earlier hacker, a Romanian who called himself Guccifer and was jailed for breaking into the personal computers of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other notables. This new attacker seemed intent on showing that the D.N.C.'s cyberexperts at CrowdStrike were wrong to blame Russia. Guccifer 2.0 called himself a "lone hacker" and mocked CrowdStrike for calling the attackers "sophisticated."

But online investigators quickly undercut his story. On a whim, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, a writer for Motherboard, the tech and culture site of Vice, tried to contact Guccifer 2.0 by direct message on Twitter.

"Surprisingly, he answered right away," Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai said. But whoever was on the other end seemed to be mocking him. "I asked him why he did it, and he said he wanted to expose the Illuminati. He called himself a Gucci lover. And he said he was Romanian."

That gave Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai an idea. Using Google Translate, he sent the purported hacker some questions in Romanian. The answers came back in Romanian. But when he was offline, Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai checked with a couple of native speakers, who told him Guccifer 2.0 had apparently been using Google Translate as well — and was clearly not the Romanian he claimed to be.

Cyberresearchers found other clues pointing to Russia. Microsoft Word documents posted by Guccifer 2.0 had been edited by someone calling himself, in Russian, Felix Edmundovich — an obvious nom de guerre honoring the founder of the Soviet secret police, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky. Bad links in the texts were marked by warnings in Russian, generated by what was clearly a Russian-language version of Word.

When Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai managed to engage Guccifer 2.0 over a period of weeks, he found that his interlocutor's tone and manner changed. "At first he was careless and colloquial. Weeks later, he was curt and more calculating," he said. "It seemed like a group of people, and a very sloppy attempt to cover up."

Computer experts drew the same conclusion about DCLeaks.com, a site that sprang up in June, claiming to be the work of "hacktivists" but posting more stolen documents. It, too, seemed to be a clumsy front for the same Russians who had stolen the documents. Notably, the website was registered in April, suggesting that the Russian hacking team planned well in advance to make public what it stole.

Thats it. Someone who knew Russian and had a Russian version of Word edited some documents Guccifer 2 posted. Case closed.

[Junkenstein]

So what evidence would you prefer? A confession directly from Putin perhaps?

It seems you've missed the importance of the CIA making the statement in general. In diplomatic terms it's the equivalent of "hey. Hey fuckers. Do you really want to play?".

I'd talk about the effects this has in other areas but you don't seem to care.

[Ben Shapiro]

<3 Ron

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

BTW, they finally released the evidence that the DNC hack was a Russian intelligence operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=1

Guccifer 2.0 borrowed the moniker of an earlier hacker, a Romanian who called himself Guccifer and was jailed for breaking into the personal computers of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other notables. This new attacker seemed intent on showing that the D.N.C.'s cyberexperts at CrowdStrike were wrong to blame Russia. Guccifer 2.0 called himself a "lone hacker" and mocked CrowdStrike for calling the attackers "sophisticated."

But online investigators quickly undercut his story. On a whim, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, a writer for Motherboard, the tech and culture site of Vice, tried to contact Guccifer 2.0 by direct message on Twitter.

"Surprisingly, he answered right away," Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai said. But whoever was on the other end seemed to be mocking him. "I asked him why he did it, and he said he wanted to expose the Illuminati. He called himself a Gucci lover. And he said he was Romanian."

That gave Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai an idea. Using Google Translate, he sent the purported hacker some questions in Romanian. The answers came back in Romanian. But when he was offline, Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai checked with a couple of native speakers, who told him Guccifer 2.0 had apparently been using Google Translate as well — and was clearly not the Romanian he claimed to be.

Cyberresearchers found other clues pointing to Russia. Microsoft Word documents posted by Guccifer 2.0 had been edited by someone calling himself, in Russian, Felix Edmundovich — an obvious nom de guerre honoring the founder of the Soviet secret police, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky. Bad links in the texts were marked by warnings in Russian, generated by what was clearly a Russian-language version of Word.

When Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai managed to engage Guccifer 2.0 over a period of weeks, he found that his interlocutor's tone and manner changed. "At first he was careless and colloquial. Weeks later, he was curt and more calculating," he said. "It seemed like a group of people, and a very sloppy attempt to cover up."

Computer experts drew the same conclusion about DCLeaks.com, a site that sprang up in June, claiming to be the work of "hacktivists" but posting more stolen documents. It, too, seemed to be a clumsy front for the same Russians who had stolen the documents. Notably, the website was registered in April, suggesting that the Russian hacking team planned well in advance to make public what it stole.

Thats it. Someone who knew Russian and had a Russian version of Word edited some documents Guccifer 2 posted. Case closed.

Also the fact that Russia does this kind of thing constantly, and the fact that Putin was also openly trying to influence the election through intimidation (IIRC he threatened to start a war if Hillary was elected)

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

Also the fact that Russia does this kind of thing constantly,

So no evidence.

and the fact that Putin was also openly trying to influence the election through intimidation (IIRC he threatened to start a war if Hillary was elected)

This was after SHE threatened a war with Russia. He didnt say he was going to nuke us for not voting Trump, he told his aides to prepare for a potential war if the person who said she was ok with starting a war was elected and it made its way to the press.

Hillary Clinton: “You’ve seen the reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things, China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee. Maybe even some state election systems? So we gotta step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and make sure we are able to take the fight to those who go after us. As president I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.

Again. No evidence.

So what evidence would you prefer? A confession directly from Putin perhaps?

Any evidence at all.

It seems you've missed the importance of the CIA making the statement in general. In diplomatic terms it's the equivalent of "hey. Hey fuckers. Do you really want to play?".

What CIA statement? It was a single unnamed source. In diplomatic terms, its nothing but an attempt to try and invalidate the presidency of Trump before hes even sworn in, while washing the DNCs hands of a massive infosec fuckup.

[MithridatesXXIII]

Why does anyone feel the need to defend either position? Assume both cases. Come up with contingencies for both. Conduct an investigation into what happened.

Why wouldn't Russia want Trump to win?

What is the CIA's motive for publicly naming Russia?

I think these questions need to be answered before meaningful discussion can take place.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

MMIX, please come share your wisdom on the Russian hacking. Im sure it doesnt come close to your standard of evidence.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Why does anyone feel the need to defend either position? Assume both cases. Come up with contingencies for both. Conduct an investigation into what happened.

Why wouldn't Russia want Trump to win?

What is the CIA's motive for publicly naming Russia?

I think these questions need to be answered before meaningful discussion can take place.

Nothing happening at the "political" level is a means to understand what has happened.

To understand you must entertain the notion that the forces of Cramulus have in fact managed to regain their hold on the space-time continuum.

Remember that "life" arises from Cramulus interacting with matter, and that the idea of spontaneous generation without Cramulus is a fallacy intended to keep you asleep.

He's kind of a shit.
There's memetic evidence of this.

[Doktor Howl]

"The end justifies the means."

Heard that joke before.

And yall seem to have no problem telling that joke yourselves. Apparently multiplying foreign wars with massive civilian casualties and economic devastation from free trade are just the price we have to pay for gay marriage. Dont dare vote against those things or youre a bigot! And anyone who claims to care about those things is just a bigot in disguise!

I know engaging with you is a mistake, but I am really sick of this one. This argument implies belief that Trump is not going to increase foreign wars and civilian casualties, as well as not tanking our economy. Dude is already failing at international politics and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. His plans for the economy will tank what's left of the middle class, line the pockets of the super rich, and make poverty a death sentence. Hillary was not good, but there is not one position where Trump was actually better. Not. One. ON TOP of being an absolutely unprepared buffoon with bad policy ideas where he had policy ideas at all, and ON TOP of being so dangerously unstable that we have to worry about him starting wars at 3am because someone hurt his feelings, he ALSO promotes an agenda of gay bashing, racism, xenophobia, and anti-semitism.

It's not like he's some isolationist anti-war messiah come to save us from Neo-Liberalism. He's a shit sandwich and bigotry is just the chunky bits mixed in.



AND BEFORE YOU HOLLER TPP ONE MORE FUCKING TIME: Hillary backpedaled on it before she was running against Trump, and I was out hollering about it before this election ever happened. Trump didn't kill it, it was already dead. I sincerely hope you and everyone you agree with get AIDS and die.

Trump is better on at least two positions.  He's opposed to NAFTA and he's for leaving weed up to the states.  I voted for Clinton and I recognize that Trump is really awful, but claiming that he is not better than her in any way is false, and leaves your arguements open to attack.

So, 3 years later, how did that work out?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Oh shit I had the holies.

[Pergamos]

"The end justifies the means."

Heard that joke before.

And yall seem to have no problem telling that joke yourselves. Apparently multiplying foreign wars with massive civilian casualties and economic devastation from free trade are just the price we have to pay for gay marriage. Dont dare vote against those things or youre a bigot! And anyone who claims to care about those things is just a bigot in disguise!

I know engaging with you is a mistake, but I am really sick of this one. This argument implies belief that Trump is not going to increase foreign wars and civilian casualties, as well as not tanking our economy. Dude is already failing at international politics and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. His plans for the economy will tank what's left of the middle class, line the pockets of the super rich, and make poverty a death sentence. Hillary was not good, but there is not one position where Trump was actually better. Not. One. ON TOP of being an absolutely unprepared buffoon with bad policy ideas where he had policy ideas at all, and ON TOP of being so dangerously unstable that we have to worry about him starting wars at 3am because someone hurt his feelings, he ALSO promotes an agenda of gay bashing, racism, xenophobia, and anti-semitism.

It's not like he's some isolationist anti-war messiah come to save us from Neo-Liberalism. He's a shit sandwich and bigotry is just the chunky bits mixed in.



AND BEFORE YOU HOLLER TPP ONE MORE FUCKING TIME: Hillary backpedaled on it before she was running against Trump, and I was out hollering about it before this election ever happened. Trump didn't kill it, it was already dead. I sincerely hope you and everyone you agree with get AIDS and die.

Trump is better on at least two positions.  He's opposed to NAFTA and he's for leaving weed up to the states.  I voted for Clinton and I recognize that Trump is really awful, but claiming that he is not better than her in any way is false, and leaves your arguements open to attack.

So, 3 years later, how did that work out?

Voting for Clinton?  I don't regret it, shame that she lost.