• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Russian Election Interference Thread

sailordeac said:
I am not appealing to anything. I am suspending judgment until further evidence. The Russians certainly try to hack us, as we try to hack them. Did their hacking influence or sway our election? That is the question.
Click to expand...

That's a fairly easy question to answer but isn't what you were disputing earlier.

1. You are "withholding judgment" on something that we know to be true: Russia hacked US citizens and organizations with the intent of using that info to influence the American election. In doing so you are appealinnto an unsupported belief that the US intelligence community is not a trusted authority on the matter.
 
RChildress107 said:
That's a fairly easy question to answer but isn't what you were disputing earlier.

1. You are "withholding judgment" on something that we know to be true: Russia hacked US citizens and organizations with the intent of using that info to influence the American election. In doing so you are appealinnto an unsupported belief that the US intelligence community is not a trusted authority on the matter.
Click to expand...

happy to see that you believe yourself to be such an expert on Russian intent, but i will still reserve exact judgment for the time being

US intelligence may have its reasons for blaming the Russians

for those with an interest in history, this issue is somewhat similar to the famous Dreyfus affair in France during the 1890s; the similarity is that people are arguing passionately in a secret intelligence matter without sufficient evidence for clear judgment
 
sailordeac said:
I am not appealing to anything. I am suspending judgment until further evidence. The Russians certainly try to hack us, as we try to hack them. Did their hacking influence or sway our election? That is the question.
Click to expand...

So what evidence are you waiting for? What would actually convince you?
 
sailordeac said:
Yes, Russian, or anybody else's, interference in US domestic politics is unwelcome and needs to be prevented. A serious investigation is in order and the results should be properly evaluated. On the other hand, the following are unwelcome from anyone: seeing Russia primarily from the perspective of US domestic politics, hyperventilating for dubious short-term domestic political gain over an intelligence question where the facts remain unknown, likely to be less than conclusive, and unknowable for the time being, failing to recognize that Russia may be adversarial in some areas but not in others and that good long term relations are in the interest of both Russia and the US, as well as Europe.

In what ways is Russia adversarial to the US?

I don't know how it will go but we all need better cyber protection, not only from Russia but also the US government, China, France, Germany, UK, Persia, Israel, ISIS and anyone else who is into cyber spying and mischief.
Click to expand...

Persia, eh?

Did you figure out what a socialist is yet?

I'd say the unholy military alliance between Russia-Syria-Iran is potentially going to affect the US down the road.
 
simosfrostyone said:
It is downright perplexing that the board lefties are now so hawkish on Russia. Didn't hear much of this over the past 8 years. Can't be the hacking issue, since we know the Russians/Soviets always have done that. What's changed?
Click to expand...

Anyone following the crisis in Syria (which should be everyone, but whatever) should be worried about Russia's latest foray into international diplomacy. Very different situation than what went down in Ukraine.
 
Strickland33 said:
Persia, eh?

Did you figure out what a socialist is yet?

I'd say the unholy military alliance between Russia-Syria-Iran is potentially going to affect the US down the road.
Click to expand...


Iran for you neophytes.

State ownership of the means of production

Obama and Hillary should have thought of that when they closed off all possibilities of a deal with Assad. But perhaps in ME foreign policy they were not sufficiently far sighted.
 
sailordeac said:
Iran for you neophytes.

State ownership of the means of production

Obama and Hillary should have thought of that when they closed off all possibilities of a deal with Assad. But perhaps in ME foreign policy they were not sufficiently far sighted.
Click to expand...

lol

come on, man
 
sailordeac said:
happy to see that you believe yourself to be such an expert on Russian intent, but i will still reserve exact judgment for the time being

US intelligence may have its reasons for blaming the Russians
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand what an appeal to authority is.

Do you have any reason to question the CIA's expertise in this matter? If so please share.
 
RChildress107 said:
You clearly don't understand what an appeal to authority is.

Do you have any reason to question the CIA's expertise in this matter? If so please share.
Click to expand...

He is not questioning their expertise now, he is questioning their motives. As in, maybe they are making it all up to restart the Cold War so that they will get more funding or something.
 
sailordeac said:
Obama and Hillary should have thought of that when they closed off all possibilities of a deal with Assad. But perhaps in ME foreign policy they were not sufficiently far sighted.
Click to expand...

This is a sad politics, sailor.
 
RChildress107 said:
You clearly don't understand what an appeal to authority is.

Do you have any reason to question the CIA's expertise in this matter? If so please share.
Click to expand...


of course I understand what appeal to authority is.

intelligence agencies can be quite deceptive, especially about themselves and what they do

we should all also be aware that intelligence agencies tend to massage, spin, or package information to please the boss

if intelligence agencies themselves leaked the information, perhaps due to disgust with the Clintons - if anybody had a right to be disgusted and worried about the Clintons returning to power, it would certainly be our intelligence agencies and people in them - then they would have every reason to deflect public attention to the Russians

the Russkies and many others are always trying to hack into our government and military, they can accurately be accused of doing so everyday, morning noon and night; our job is to prevent that, and Hillary Clinton is hardly the right person to protect our secrets

anyone who believes straight up information that an intelligence agency makes public, especially on a sensitive political matter, is being more than a little naive

let's just wait this out - there is a more thorough investigation going on right now - and not arrive at any premature conclusions


then of course you might consider reading this about the uncertainties of making any hard determinations just yet:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E


please also note that the so-called 17 intelligence agencies assertion the Russians were behind it in order to influence the US elections was issued on October 7, at that time Obama was still president and Hillary was heavily favored to win, talk about spinning the information to please the boss and the next boss, indeed to help her win the election, there is every reason to suspect that this is a textbook case of massaging ambiguous information, at least for the public, to please the boss

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
 
Strickland33 said:
This is a sad politics, sailor.
Click to expand...

If you mean that Obama and Hillary's lack of foresight in ME politics is sad, then I agree. It's certainly sad.

If you mean that we sometimes have to accept terrible people as leaders of other countries, then you can also say that it is sad. But it is realistic, and we are not always able to make reality conform to our wishes. Live and learn, as I am most hopeful that the US state department will learn from our flawed ME policies. If you try to be too big of a goody two-shoes, you can end up making a bigger mess.
 
Sailor appears to be in denial about what happened in November, which is weird because he's been gloating like his candidate won for weeks.
 
sailordeac said:
of course I understand what appeal to authority is.

intelligence agencies can be quite deceptive, especially about themselves and what they do

we should all also be aware that intelligence agencies tend to massage, spin, or package information to please the boss

if intelligence agencies themselves leaked the information, perhaps due to disgust with the Clintons - if anybody had a right to be disgusted and worried about the Clintons returning to power, it would certainly be our intelligence agencies and people in them - then they would have every reason to deflect public attention to the Russians

the Russkies and many others are always trying to hack into our government and military, they can accurately be accused of doing so everyday, morning noon and night; our job is to prevent that, and Hillary Clinton is hardly the right person to protect our secrets

anyone who believes straight up information that an intelligence agency makes public, especially on a sensitive political matter, is being more than a little naive

let's just wait this out - there is a more thorough investigation going on right now - and not arrive at any premature conclusions


then of course you might consider reading this about the uncertainties of making any hard determinations just yet:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E


please also note that the so-called 17 intelligence agencies assertion the Russians were behind it in order to influence the US elections was issued on October 7, at that time Obama was still president and Hillary was heavily favored to win, talk about spinning the information to please the boss and the next boss, indeed to help her win the election, there is every reason to suspect that this is a textbook case of massaging ambiguous information, at least for the public, to please the boss

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
Click to expand...

This is bordering on incoherence.

So the CIA manipulated the intel in such a way as to please the boss (Obama, or potentially Clinton for intel reported before Election Day) and piss off a potential future boss (Trump).

They also hacked the DNC and leaked the information to Wikileaks who they hate (but whom they are trying to please, see above) and blamed it on Russia to throw us off the scent.

Russia has been trying to hack us for years but in this instance it wasn't them it was the CIA who were intentionally leaking information to prevent Hillary from being president because she might accidentally leak information.

Or it was just Russia trying to swing the election in their best interests.

Two equally plausible common sense scenarios, I guess we'll just have to wait for all the facts.
 
We also don't need the CIA to tell us what Russia's intent was. Once we agree that Russia was indeed trying to meddle with the election (which we do need US intelligence to tell us) then it's not exactly a leap of logic that Putin was trying to get Trump elected. What happened to the party of "common sense"?

The only questions we need to "wait on the facts" for are:

1. What did Trump and his team know and when did they know about it?
2. Were there any communications between Trumps team and Russia specifically regarding Russia's attempts to influence the election?
3. What specific actions, other than hacking the DNC, did Russia take to influence the election?
 
Wikileaks founder Assange on hacked Podesta, DNC emails: 'Our source is not the Russian government'
In addition to the hacked emails from the DNC and Podesta, Assange admitted that Wikileaks received "received about three pages of information to do with the [Republican National Committee] and Trump [during the campaign], but it was already public somewhere else."

Late Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Russian hackers had tried and failed to access the RNC using the same methods as the DNC hackers.
Click to expand...
"We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all," Assange told Hannity. "We have ... a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out.

"And so here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say ‘no, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication.’"
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/16/wikileaks-founder-assange-on-hacked-podesta-dnc-emails-our-source-is-not-russian-government.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top