Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I have my own set of issues with the alphabet soup, but the last time a president refused to listen to them he started a war in Iraq which destabilised the whole region in order to get control of the oil routes. Secret services are like the Bild (German newspaper): I might not like their style or methods, but one shouldn't dismiss them either, because they are usually right.
I mean, you can't very well talk about how you appreciate info from the Russians or Assange despite not liking them, and then dismiss info from intelligence agencies because they've done shady things in the past. Surely the same principle applies to both.
![]()
The 'paying attention' part is a pretty high ask. What the average person sees isn't what a person who's paying attention sees. Heck, even if there are paying attention, the question becomes 'what are they paying attention to'? And, well, 'Something something EMAILS something something HRC' got a lot more attention from the media than the comment from Trump you're referring to.
edited 31st Dec '16 1:06:39 AM by Gilphon
As do I. I just see that as a separate issue from whether or not the leak was a good thing. I believe that whether or not a set of circumstances is good needs to be judged on its own merits and not whether the person who brought those circumstances about is a good person or what their motives were for doing it.
Allow me to clarify. The only reason I trust Russia in this case is because the Democrats - the very same people who look bad because of the leaks - are admitting that the e-mails are real. They're not happy the e-mails were leaked, but they acknowledge that these are their actual e-mails. If any of the stuff in those documents that makes them look bad weren't true, presumably they'd say so.
I don't have a similar citation of embarrassment reason to trust American intelligence agencies in this case, so I didn't until you made a convincing argument. I still usually view anything Russia or the American intelligence committee says with suspicion unless I have a good reason not to.
edited 31st Dec '16 1:13:30 AM by SeriesOfNumbers
Perhaps. But I think there's a very good chance that it only made things worse.
Oh God! Natural light!This was a real tweet from Trump in 2013.
It's still on his twitter.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/347191326112112640?lang=en
Leaked Snowden Document Hints At Why Feds Are So Sure Russia Hacked Election
Russian hacking also occurred in the case of Russian journalist and American citizen Anna Politkovskaya, who was gunned down in 2006 in her Moscow apartment after writing articles critical of the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Five men were convicted of her murder, but it’s still a mystery who ordered the killing.
A year before she was murdered, Politkovskaya’s email was hacked by Russian intelligence using malicious software not publicly available, according to an NSA document leaked by Snowden to The Intercept. Not only does the document reveal that U.S. intelligence knew about the hacking of Politkovskaya’s email, it also shows that the NSA is adept at tracking cyberattacks by Russian intelligence.
The classified internal NSA entry indicates that the NSA was able to use “intercept signals” to pinpoint the source of the attack. The attacks on Politkovskaya’s email account resemble the hacks of Democratic National Committee emails during the campaign that were damaging to Hillary Clinton, and the NSA could have used the same tactics to track the source as it did in Politkovskaya’s case.
Edward Snowden ✔ @Snowden Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA, but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.
10:03 PM - 25 Jul 2016
757 757 Retweets 743 743 likes Snowden tweeted earlier this year that NSA has the capability to track the source of such a hack. He cited Xkeyscore, a pre-Snowden secret computer system used by the NSA for searching and analyzing global internet data, that “makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.”
Edward Snowden ✔ @Snowden
Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.
9:58 PM - 25 Jul 2016
687 687 Retweets 898 898 likes
U.S. intelligence certainty about the hacks and the credibility of its analysis will be critical in the coming weeks as President-elect Donald Trump seeks to downplay any Russian interference in the U.S. presidential campaign. He has cast doubt on the intelligence community’s statement before the election that Russia was responsible for hacking and releasing the DNC communications. Officials have since said that they believe the attacks were ordered by Putin in a deliberate effort to sway the vote for Trump, who has frequently praised the Russian leader.
Trump said Wednesday that it was time to “move on” and that it was impossible to know who was responsible for the leaks. On Thursday, Trump said he would meet with intelligence officials next week to discuss the issue but said again that “it’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.”
President Barack Obama has struck back at Russia with a series of sanctions for the hacking and has called for Congress to be presented with intelligence reports on the cyberattacks.
The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on Thursday released a 13-page joint report providing some details of what the agencies know about the Russian attack.
edited 31st Dec '16 2:22:45 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotQuoth Series Of Numbers:
Exactly. The Issue was not that those information got released, but how they got released, in well-timed portions set to do the most possible damage. That the content was mostly a storm in the water glass which was taken way more serious than it actually was. There are still people screaming that Hillary should be in prison even though she did nothing which would actually warrant such a sentences.
<finally woke up> Any notable news over the past 12 hours?
edited 31st Dec '16 3:18:37 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.And really, the bigger issue here is that even if the information in the emails was all true and unedited, relevant, important, damning, and grounds for indictment (all things which either I don't believe or those in charge of prosecuting HRC apparently don't believe), it wasn't just released in a manner geared to harm her as much as possible. It was released to people already predisposed to hate HRC, to people who had for years been fed lies by the Republicans, who had been convinced by the Republicans to vote for them even though it was not in their best interests to do so, and who had for the last year or even longer been bombarded by propaganda and fake news. (Even if you deny that this was done or contributed to by Russian agents, we know it's actually been happening, and a lot of alt-righters and other Trumpists have been doing so for sure.) All of this created an environment in which such information would be bound to paint HRC in the worst possible light, and in which anything bad about Trump would be ignored or dismissed so that the voters in question didn't fairly weigh and consider all information before making their decision. With the end result that he will now be our President, and between him and Putin, both American democracy and democracy worldwide is poised to be badly damaged if not utterly destroyed, no exaggeration.
So to sum up, even if the release of the emails (regardless how, why, when, or by whom) was a democratic act and supported democratic principles, the end result is an administration and situation in which there will very likely no longer be any real democracy in any sense. A case of one last gasp of democracy before democracy is gone. A textbook example of Doomed Moral Victor if you ask me. Sometimes, for the greater good, a principle must be briefly sacrificed in order to ensure there will actually be any principles in the future. A little less transparency now to ensure there will be more...as well as democracy, civilization, peace and stability...later.
![]()
- A North Carolina Judge temporarily halted the GOP attempt to strip the inbound governor of all his powers
- North Carolina government officials are trying to stop special elections to be held in 2017, claiming that their legislative maps are not unconstitutionally gerrymandered
. I didn't know that you could get caught for gerrymandering that badly.
- Code associated with a Russian hacking operation was discovered in the systems of a Vermont power utility
The rest is one-sided bad faith arguing and goalpost moving. Well, the mods are probably getting ready for the countdown and I'm not...
edited 31st Dec '16 3:27:17 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotI'd really like to get the full methodology of the study, how is "conservative/liberal" defined here?, what was asked? (I know there's something about tattoos and lgbt rights, but what, specifically, were the questions?) Is it possible they go more "moderate" because their overton window is further to the left? (like, maybe they see legal gay marriage as the standard position and would consider repealing it to be a far-right position).
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
Man, I hope the North Carolina thing works out. It would be satisfying to see the GOP raging at such a crucial failure on their part.
This is exactly how Wikileaks behaved during the whole email fake scandal:
We're going to released more information showing the wrongdoing of Hillary and the DNC
They release and the emails have nothing relevant and a day later:
This time we have incriminating stuff, it is going to be big
Again, nothing relevant or criminal on the emails a another day closing to the end of the election cycle:
We're going to release information that totally has evidence of criminal activity this is going to be huge
Once more nothing relevant on the emails but meanwhile the public only read the headlines with Wikileaks: Emails show evidence of wrongdoing, FBI investigating, which tarnished HRC image and made people think she is the Crooked Hillary and just as bad as Trump.
It wasn't the Russians and Wikileaks being transparent, they were actively releasing statements about the emails in a timely manner made to sway the public away from Hillary and the Democrats and towards Trump. The content of the emails didn't matter, the headlines about them did, exactly because they knew people wouldn't look up for besides the headlines and maybe the fist few lines of any article about HRC and the emails.
Everybody started to think that where there is smoke there is fire regarding to the DNC and HRC emails but this time it was only a bunch of assholes with smoke machines fogging up everything.
Inter arma enim silent legesBasically what everyone else said. This wasn't an unbiased leak, it was specifically designed to damage Clinton unduly and to keep the audience who only reads headlines skeptical of her. You're assuming some kind of perfectly aware and rational voting public capable of weighing every piece of information and adjusting their opinions accordingly, which has never been the case. You have to account for confirmation bias, biased reporting and political presentation of the Information itself, and other context that make the leak political.
It's been fun.So, am I the only one worried about the Russian hack into an American power utility? That's not just emails, that's infrastructure.
And now there is a whole slew of biased sources claiming that this is "fake news" (despite being reported by the BBC and the Washington Post): see here
and here
.
So this is what they do now? Everytime there is news they dont like, they find some detail in it that's off and claim it's "fake news"?
edited 31st Dec '16 7:12:19 AM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Yeah, that is really worrying.
One thing about the Russia situation. Russia is currently in the middle of a territory dispute with Canada, America's largest trading partner. If the US just wholeheartedly throws their lot in with Russia, Canada probably won't go along with it, because we actually can't, because that would equal capitulating. And while Canada's had several territorial disputes, we've never capitulated on them.
x3 That's the problem in a nutshell, really. Right now there is a deadly double whammy in the media: TRUE fake news stories from hoax sites and hacks are permeating the web, tricking gullible people into believing the worst things (look at this election!), while real news stories from reputable sources are being derided as FAKE NEWS by the same segment of the population that believed the actual fake stories.
I've since lost the article but we found similar code in Ukrainian systems around the time of Donbass. It led to some 80% losses among their artillery corp after the Russians could quietly intercept and view all their internal communications.
We were talking about it in the military thread a while back. The Russians have been hacking a lot it seems.
edited 31st Dec '16 8:24:12 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?
They penetrated the Ukrainian power grid as well
. Unlike in Ukraine, they didn't try starting anything, though.
The artillery app hack mentioned
.

I didn't realize there was disagreement between the FBI and CIA about why Russia leaked the info. Having looked it up, though, I can see that you're right. Okay, I haven't changed my mind that the leaks themselves were a good thing, but I concede that Russia was behind it.
I just don't trust my government's intelligence agencies in general. Some of them have a very shady history.
@164,814: I see your point, and I wasn't claiming that Russia's motives were good, just that people having more relevant info to vote on is good.
I guess in the situation you described, if Jack and Karen were the only people likely to become manager regardless of how much was exposed about either of them, I'd be glad that at least one of them was exposed for stealing lunches, even if I'd be disappointed about the other one not being exposed and even if the one who wasn't exposed was the one I thought would be a worse manager.
Besides, no one who was honest and paying attention thought Trump was clean. He was pretty public about wanting to kill civilians on purpose and torture "even if it doesn't work".
edited 31st Dec '16 1:00:50 AM by SeriesOfNumbers