Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

@ whoever was taking jabs at Libertarians, what did we do?

I still truly wonder if Bernie could've won this election. The rust belt states that voted him hoping for their jobs back grew up in a red scare era and believed firmly in Bootstraps Capitalism so they will see Bernie as throwing out handouts. They'll harp on his 1972 article about a schoolgirl rape fantasy (fyi it was significantly more nuanced and has little to do with him being pro-rape) and they'll harp on him dumping toxic waste in Mexico for Vermont. I think it would've be better to let the primaries handle themselves than try to funnel more support towards Clinton, with the missing nuance being that Clinton had at most little to do with the DNC funneling support towards her, but I don't think Bernie Sanders would've done much else other than get more millennials to vote, but would keep certain other democrats from giving as much of a shit, because older white democrats and many older Asian minority groups are quite heavily in favor of Clinton over someone like Sanders.

What else do you think they should've done? Sanders running in general fractured the democratic establishment, and Trump's victory may have unified the Republican establishment despite their gunning for him to lose. Two years from now and 4 years from now will let us know if Bernie's running really made a difference. I think Sanders knew his job from the start was to move Clinton left but I don't think he expected a complete break. I'm really trying my best to not blame Sanders though, because ultimately this is karma on every political party (not just the democrats) for staying within their own party and giving too much of a shit about party lines.

The Democrats suffered from a very weak field of candidates, and historically the opposite party gains power after a two-term president leaves office. I think it's a wash as to whether Bernie would have won or not. He may not have won, but he couldn't have done much worse than Hillary, and the Democrats would have looked better by not rigging their own primary and still losing. I think Biden could have won, if he ran, but it's impossible to say for sure.

To go by history favoring the Republicans this election cycle, since the end of the World War 2 era, one party has held the presidency for more than 2 terms only once, with Reagan-Bush 41. The economy's better than it was, but not great, and there's no compelling "good vibes" to give the incumbent party the advantage. Considering even Trump (who I thought was the weakest candidate they fielded) won, the Republicans probably would have won regardless of who they ran, much like the Democrats would have won in 2008, regardless of who they ran, even before the recession really hit.

To alleged Russian hacking, I think what they exposed made the Democrats look bad, but don't think from what we've been told is really "hacking the election", just giving dirt on politicians that our journalists should have been doing, but since our journalists, like CNN, were actively colluding with her campaign. I've heard conflicting reports on whether the RNC was hacked or not. If they were, any info garnered would probably only have made Trump look better, since the RNC sure as heck didn't want him as their candidate, and he won anyway, so if it makes me think, they didn't either didn't hack the RNC or didn't find anything worth publishing, if helping Trump was their goal.

What worried me, if the Russians were behind the hacks, is what else did they do? Doing what investigative journalists should be doing is one thing, but did they do any real hacking of the elections? The recounts showed that hacking the actual voting machines would be nigh-impossible, but did they try anything like that? And what about non-election classified info? With Hillary's state secrets on her private server, was that hacked? It wasn't secure as it should have been. And what about the actual government servers with details of the US's state classified info?

For Obama's Russian sanctions, it's a bit too little, too late. Anything he does now is purely symbolic, as Trump can just overturn it in 3 weeks. I guess he's just making Trump have to counter it, which will either make people believe he's chummy with Putin, or keep them in place and further strain relations with Russia. I'm not a fan of Russia, but I'm not a fan of trying to publicly humiliate them either. I wish the ghost of JFK could possess the POTUS for a bit and show the tact that got us out of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton didn't rig the primaries, in the same way that Russia didn't hack our votes. The only thing I see that's "damning" against Russia is tampering, which is enough for sanctions. The narrative was moreso twisted towards the DNC and former DNC chairmen found their actions disturbing. But Hillary isn't shown to have been colluding unless I've been reading it wrong.

Sanders has his own baggage (though I still think Hillary has much worse considering her supposed experience) but her talk of America already being exceptional and incrementalism in a time when the public has a blatant disdain for the government and the countries state in general does not resonate. Bernie ran on a form of populism that eclipses Trump's faux brand and would likely be a more effective opponent against such in the general. It's a pity he was behind in the primary.

Yeah but I'm not sure if that populism was much more than a bunch of pissed off millennials. I mean the issue I take is more with is that Sanders would rally enough votes to propel the democrats over the edge - but that's assuming that older people are still not afraid of socialism.

Again, would that populism override a damned dirty socialist? The pissed off people who voted for Trump in the end are probably of the opinion still that hard work will guarantee success when they've worked hard, lost their jobs, and are pissed, and this socialist wants to undo all that and give handouts.

I'm on my phone and I'll see if I can pull statistics on my computer later but Bernie didn't poll well with a bunch of minority groups (certain discussions on my Facebook concluding that he is still racist) either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fully proven in the eyes of who? intellgence agencies believe it to be so. enough to declassify information, too, to convince everyone else.

intelligence agencies are notorious for lying over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton didn't rig the primaries, in the same way that Russia didn't hack our votes. The only thing I see that's "damning" against Russia is tampering, which is enough for sanctions. The narrative was moreso twisted towards the DNC and former DNC chairmen found their actions disturbing. But Hillary isn't shown to have been colluding unless I've been reading it wrong.

Perhaps not rigging per se, but debate questions were leaked to Hillary in the primary, which would definitely be giving an unfair advantage to Hillary over the rest of her primary opponents. She also got a whopping majority of the super-delegates before the race even started, which may not be rigging, either, but is shady practice, and makes it looks like the DNC decided who their nominee was before the primary was held, and the New York Times sent Hillary's campaign drafts of stories to get permission before they were published.

A lot of independents were rightly concerned by this behavior. If the Democrats had given us a candidate we could have supported, I would have been happy to vote for them against Trump, but sadly, it was pick your poison this election, so I voted third party as protest.

EDIT: Perhaps we've been throwing the term "rigging" out too haphazardly. I guess I'll use the word colluding for the DNC, since it's more accurate.

Edited by Rezzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust any intelligence agency, especially not the CIA; an agency with a history of arming insurgents and undermining foreign governments.

Forgive me if I don't take them, or any other intelligence agency at their word. I want actual evidence that Russia is behind the hacks.

Edited by CyborgZeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you propose that sort of evidence becomes public knowledge? the whole point of espionage is that you don't get to know.

i'm well aware of intelligence agency's aptitude for lying and secrecy. but that's essentially their job, for better or worse (mostly worse). even still, there exists enough evidence such that these agencies are releasing information so that the public can help out/be informed/whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but I'm not sure if that populism was much more than a bunch of pissed off millennials. I mean the issue I take is more with is that Sanders would rally enough votes to propel the democrats over the edge - but that's assuming that older people are still not afraid of socialism.

Again, would that populism override a damned dirty socialist? The pissed off people who voted for Trump in the end are probably of the opinion still that hard work will guarantee success when they've worked hard, lost their jobs, and are pissed, and this socialist wants to undo all that and give handouts.

I'm on my phone and I'll see if I can pull statistics on my computer later but Bernie didn't poll well with a bunch of minority groups (certain discussions on my Facebook concluding that he is still racist) either.

I'd say you'd need millennials. Or at least throw them a bone in your campaign, concede to some of Bernie's stances, or give them a more progressive-minded vice presidency pick than Tim Kaine. But she ran a pretty boneheaded campaign, and did not want to concede anything, assuming she would win against "easy opponent" Trump. The most people could say in that one on one, Bernie was destroying the polls against Trump by around three times the margin than Clinton for a majority of the time before the primaries. That could have always changed, of course, but that did seem strong and the way that Bernie goes firmly for Trump's policies (or what he says are his policies, at least) and dismantles them makes me think he would be a better choice. But there's no real use in crying over spilled milk, now you've got to just deal with Trump and friends.

I guess I was expecting America to be more clear-sighted and educated about what a democratic socialist actually is, before immediately discounting that notion and looking at who actually won the election. So yeah, I guess democratic socialism is incorrectly maligned in the US. The 'fuck you, got mine' feeling goes rather deep, unfortunately.

Maybe so, but Hillary did experience losses in minority demographics too from Obama, which may be unfair, but isn't exactly reassuring either. As for the racism conclusions, I haven't really heard about that, not sure where people are getting them from, but I have heard many sexism claims against so-called Bernie bros and that was disgusting and illogical enough so hopefully not like that to be honest.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you propose that sort of evidence becomes public knowledge? the whole point of espionage is that you don't get to know.

i'm well aware of intelligence agency's aptitude for lying and secrecy. but that's essentially their job, for better or worse (mostly worse). even still, there exists enough evidence such that these agencies are releasing information so that the public can help out/be informed/whatever.

Like these???

https://www.rt.com/news/372181-duterte-us-ambassador-spy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pathologically centrist both sides-ism is just as bad as partisan hackery tbh.

Yeah; I agree with this.

It's easy enough for someone like me to be friendly towards everyone; I have a lot of privileges and don't feel currently threatened. People aren't talking to their neighbors/friends/family because they are literally afraid for their health and safety in many cases.

There's the saying, 'I don't need to be tolerant of your intolerances'. No, not all opinions need to be respected or even heard. Some people's opinions are literally against other people's entire way of life.

I'm a little reluctant to post this after the shitshow that was the feminist thread, but it does speak to me and I am a little concerned about what the future holds (of course, other social groups have it far worse, I don't mean to be all woe-is-me). Ignoring the Hillary stuff, this is the relevant passage for me:

We’re going be blown backward so far that this irredeemably shitty year may someday look like a lost feminist golden age. The very idea that women are equal citizens, that barriers to their full human flourishing should be identified and removed, is now up for grabs. A pastor warming up the crowd at a post-election Trump rally in Louisiana promised that with Trump in office, the White House would be a place “where men know who men are, women know who women are.” The massive power of the American state is about to be marshaled to put women in their place.

It's hard not to be a little pessimistic. And this doesn't even begin to touch upon the other worrying things that are starting to emerge (a few of which were stated in the links on the last page).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say you'd need millennials. Or at least throw them a bone in your campaign, concede to some of Bernie's stances, or give them a more progressive-minded vice presidency pick than Tim Kaine. But she ran a pretty boneheaded campaign, and did not want to concede anything, assuming she would win against "easy opponent" Trump. The most people could say in that one on one, Bernie was destroying the polls against Trump by around three times the margin than Clinton for a majority of the time before the primaries. That could have always changed, of course, but that did seem strong and the way that Bernie goes firmly for Trump's policies (or what he says are his policies, at least) and dismantles them makes me think he would be a better choice. But there's no real use in crying over spilled milk, now you've got to just deal with Trump and friends.

thats also the same argument saying the popular vote matters. He didn't campaign against Sanders so we can't say this for a fact, and the republicans and Trump would spend time completely ripping into him.

I guess I was expecting America to be more clear-sighted and educated about what a democratic socialist actually is, before immediately discounting that notion and looking at who actually won the election. So yeah, I guess democratic socialism is incorrectly maligned in the US. The 'fuck you, got mine' feeling goes rather deep, unfortunately.

It's more "fuck you communism and socialism are evil" (see: Life Admiral, capitalism). The unfortunate potshot is that many older people believe that kind of thing, I kept saying bootstraps capitalism because the cure to everything is to tighten your bootstraps, pull your pants up (yeah I slipped some racism in here because it's relevant), and work harder at the mill, and their whole childhood was spent afraid of and fighting back against the commies. Rocky inspired a generation due to the propaganda.

I think Max Planck's quote about a new idea gaining traction begins with its opponents growing old and dying applies, and that's why I think the boomers and Gen X would've vastly outvoted the millennials and the millennials would be drowned out. It's not like all millennials cared about Sanders (for instance: the conservatives in this thread).

Maybe so, but Hillary did experience losses in minority demographics too from Obama, which may be unfair, but isn't exactly reassuring either. As for the racism conclusions, I haven't really heard about that, not sure where people are getting them from, but I have heard many sexism claims against so-called Bernie bros and that was disgusting and illogical enough so hopefully not like that to be honest.

Every white presidential candidate was going to lose minority support compared to Obama, if nothing else due to voter inaction. Obama definitely got a good chunk of minority support due to his skin color and middle name.

I'll verify the Sanders thing and look deeper into it if you ping me though (as a reminder though, I may edit this post). There's also the chance I'm thinking of specific people who believe that people in power are racist because of the connotations of oppression in racism.

EDIT: what I'm getting from all of this is that Sanders doesn't really know how to convey his stance on race issues, because his way of saying things on race issues is not too dissimilar to Trump. Also, Clinton seems to appeal to older minorities more.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this may just be the silliest post i've ever read from you, and that is tough.

edward snowden is an american. russia is russia. russia fucking with our elections, is, as others comically like to put it, AN ACT OF WAR. you don't seem to put much credence into democracy lol.

and before i have to respond to the stupid points: yes, the united states is equally responsible for these sorts of things. yes, i see it as an act of war as well. and no, i don't condone these actions.

Funny of a globalist to say that the perpetrator's nationality is what matters (Not that this makes your point weaker or stronger in any way). It happens to be, that the democratic process was not compromised. There was no machine hacking, people didn't get physically coerced into voting one way or the other, etc. It was all just propaganda. In which case, there is a point to be made that the MSM's demonizing of Trump should also be considered as interference with the elections.

Also, are you really going to want to start another big, messy war over memes of all things?

good, wouldn't want the pot to meet the kettle

but he didn't lose

Tolvir, get him

The last 3 elections - as well as 1992 and 2000 - have been very polarizing. The winning mentality only applies to sports and competition, and the American election is so fucked because it's so heavily geared towards partisan politics. The issue is that you pretty much think this is a winners-losers thing and the fact that Trump himself has turned it into a winners-losers thing, and you've bought into it hook line and sinker. "Vote me for and you'll win!" Yeah, whatever man.

They didn't expose any RNC corruption, but they actually kept it out in the open. Like trying to have Kasich win a contested convention instead of having Trump or Cruz elected, the issue being that they failed because Trump is basically a cocksucker that won a presidency.

The difference is that the RNC completely failed and the DNC succeeded, but both parties were guilty of underhanded tactics. There's also a difference in a lot of people's eyes is that Snowden did his job in order to expose corruption throughout the nation, and Russia only did their thing so that their guy could win and for their own personal gain. Granted, the only thing I'm looking forward to is not going to war with Russia as far as Trump's presidency is concerned.

Snowden had very little to gain but support from a handful of people when he did his leaks. Besides, excising diplomats is just as much of a provocation of war as potentially spreading propaganda and revealing private emails by the parties involved in the figureheads running for POTUS. Furthermore, the way it's working also is that "you fucked with our elections so why should we pretend that we're friends still?"

I also like how you think that Trump is a very very strong leader, yet when Obama gets some balls to send a middle finger to Russia (that he knows will be undone) he's just a "sore loser" even though he was on his way out anyway.

I've never had to buy into a winners-losers thing. It's how I think life works in general, as a nationalist meritocrat. I never needed to be convinced by Trump of something, he said things that I naturally agreed with already.

The reason why is that Trump (on being a very very strong leader) managed to send the biggest middle finger to the Establishment EVER, including ivory tower academics and the media to boot, got all of them to rally against him, and won by being mostly truthful to his message. Sure, Obama is doing something symbolic, but he has all of the old establishment behind him, both Reps and Dems that don't like Trump being chummy with Putin. Just because Trump won a major victory, it doesn't mean the establishment is suddenly gone and banished.

EDIT: And I can very well prove that communism is evil from a variety of standpoints if you require me to do so.

fully proven in the eyes of who? intellgence agencies believe it to be so. enough to declassify information, too, to convince everyone else.

russian apologists will go so far as to say russia gets to affect our democratically held elections? it doesn't matter how meager the tampering was. russia doesn't get to behave like an aggressor without diplomatic action being taken, plain and simple.

The same report that has a disclaimer that renders it unaccountable for further inquiry on its truth value?

EDIT: Also, @Res, that third-wave feminism has reached its death throes doesn't mean that we're suddenly going to go full patriarchal on this. Before third wave feminism even started, women already enjoyed full equality under the law (and even advantages over men in this aspect); and although society still viewed women differently than men (with both advantages and disadvantages), nothing short of full re-indoctrination and likely genetic engineering will change it. People treat others differently based on their sex and it's a perfectly natural thing to happen.

Edited by tuvarkz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little reluctant to post this after the shitshow that was the feminist thread, but it does speak to me and I am a little concerned about what the future holds (of course, other social groups have it far worse, I don't mean to be all woe-is-me). Ignoring the Hillary stuff, this is the relevant passage for me:

This article speaks of fear and speculation, neither of which is helpful. I like having information dissected, but I don't like the spin on it. For example:

Controlling the course of our own lives is going to get harder in many different ways. We can say goodbye to Department of Education pressure on colleges to address campus rape. We can expect the end of federal aid for Planned Parenthood and of federal government action to promote equal pay and fight sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. The Women’s Bureau, the one department in the federal government tasked with responding to the needs of women in the workforce, will now fall under the aegis of former Carl’s Jr. honcho Andrew Puzder, whose company is known for commercials featuring near-naked women in orgasmic communion with sandwiches. “I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis,” he said. “I think it’s very American.” Like top Trump adviser Steve Bannon, Puzder has also been accused of assaulting his now-ex wife.

First sentence: HAS NOT FUCKING HAPPENED, STOP TRYING TO ADVERTISE THE APOCALYPSE, SHEESH.

Last bit regarding Puzder: Fine, he's a cheesehead. However, he has enacted zero things so far.

The rest have links, except for the Planned Parenthood thing. Links are good. Fear-mongering is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny of a globalist to say that the perpetrator's nationality is what matters (Not that this makes your point weaker or stronger in any way). It happens to be, that the democratic process was not compromised. There was no machine hacking, people didn't get physically coerced into voting one way or the other, etc. It was all just propaganda. In which case, there is a point to be made that the MSM's demonizing of Trump should also be considered as interference with the elections.

Difference is that the MSM is once again US-based and their influence over an election is by US media corporations. Russian interference in another election via propaganda is still something that one can hold sanctions over. If there's a link to Russian propaganda seeping into our elections that aimed to put *their* guy in, then that sort of tampering is a good reason for sanctions.

I've never had to buy into a winners-losers thing. It's how I think life works in general, as a nationalist meritocrat. I never needed to be convinced by Trump of something, he said things that I naturally agreed with already.

Life working by winners-losers is a bad concept to go by. There will be people who miss out, but winners-losers doesn't equate to meritocracy, and there are many times where merit doesn't get you what you want either.

The reason why is that Trump (on being a very very strong leader)

What makes him a strong leader? The fact that he's so far going back on his campaign promises? Or the fact that he's thin skinned about the size of his hands (among a ton of other things - he's thin-skinned, his hands are just the easiest target)? You're going to have one hell of a time getting people in here to buy into the "strong leader" thing, since being loudmouthed != a strong leader.

Telling it like it is != spreading false facts, by the way.

managed to send the biggest middle finger to the Establishment EVER, including ivory tower academics and the media to boot, got all of them to rally against him, and won by being mostly truthful to his message.

This as a statement has been repeatedly massacred in this thread to little response from you. Care to go through the whole thread and show us where we are wrong? Or are you going to post like twice then walk away again?

EDIT: And I can very well prove that communism is evil from a variety of standpoints if you require me to do so.

The purpose was that people equate socialism to communism. I don't really care of your views towards communism since I'm not arguing Sanders is a communist nor am I arguing in favor of communism.

EDIT: Also, @Res, that third-wave feminism has reached its death throes doesn't mean that we're suddenly going to go full patriarchal on this. Before third wave feminism even started, women already enjoyed full equality under the law (and even advantages over men in this aspect); and although society still viewed women differently than men (with both advantages and disadvantages), nothing short of full re-indoctrination and likely genetic engineering will change it. People treat others differently based on their sex and it's a perfectly natural thing to happen.

So you're saying because it's a futile effort we shouldn't work to try to change attitudes? Obviously it won't work with people already ingrained in a sort of thought, but the idea behind movements like this is to spread the message of equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to Obama Russia is only a regional power, not a global one.

And yet that regional power is somehow able to "tamper with" the election of the most powerful country on earth.

A claim which has no basis and for which no evidence exists except that intelligence agencies "believe" it.

The same intelligence agencies that executed several coup d'etats and armed terrorists groups like the Mudschahedin?

And even if all of that somehow turned out to be actually true - how is that related specifically to those 35 [i think?] diplomats if "Russia" tampers with the US election? Who even is "Russia" in that case? Putin? Some hacker group? Where is the evidence and where are the connections?

It's fairly easy to see that this whole thing is just pure bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to Obama Russia is only a regional power, not a global one.

And yet that regional power is somehow able to "tamper with" the election of the most powerful country on earth.

A claim which has no basis and for which no evidence exists except that intelligence agencies "believe" it.

The same intelligence agencies that executed several coup d'etats and armed terrorists groups like the Mudschahedin?

And even if all of that somehow turned out to be actually true - how is that related specifically to those 35 [i think?] diplomats if "Russia" tampers with the US election? Who even is "Russia" in that case? Putin? Some hacker group? Where is the evidence and where are the connections?

It's fairly easy to see that this whole thing is just pure bullshit.

You don't need to be a world super power to tamper with things. I'm curious why you are so personally convinced it's complete hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.


So according to Obama Russia is only a regional power, not a global one.

And yet that regional power is somehow able to "tamper with" the election of the most powerful country on earth.

A claim which has no basis and for which no evidence exists except that intelligence agencies "believe" it.

The same intelligence agencies that executed several coup d'etats and armed terrorists groups like the Mudschahedin?

Why do you need to be a global power to tamper with the election?

What basis do you have that there was nothing? I am a innocent until proven guilty believer here, but do you actually know more than the intelligence agencies.

So because they made an alleged mistake that's evidence that they will always make mistakes?

No. It doesn't clear anything up.


And even if all of that somehow turned out to be actually true - how is that related specifically to those 35 [i think?] diplomats if "Russia" tampers with the US election? Who even is "Russia" in that case? Putin? Some hacker group? Where is the evidence and where are the connections?

The flip question could be asked: how is it not related? And perhaps the people that they wish to sanction hasn't been leaked to the public yet.

Like I said, you can't accuse someone of doing something when you haven't presented anything for why you feel that way.

Edited by Augestein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a innocent until proven guilty believer here [...]

Then what are we even discussing this for? "Russia", whoever that actually may be in this specific, is innocent until proven guilty. And in order to be proven guilty evidence needs to be provided. Since no evidence has been shown yet "Russia" has not been proven guilty and is therefore innocent, until proven otherwise. To somebody who's a "believer" in innocent until proven guilty that should be more than enough to convince you that the accusation is hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what are we even discussing this for? "Russia", whoever that actually may be in this specific, is innocent until proven guilty. And in order to be proven guilty evidence needs to be provided. Since no evidence has been shown yet "Russia" has not been proven guilty and is therefore innocent, until proven otherwise. To somebody who's a "believer" in innocent until proven guilty that should be more than enough to convince you that the accusation is hogwash.

You ignored everything else I just asked. What information do you know of that's hogwash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if all of that somehow turned out to be actually true - how is that related specifically to those 35 [i think?] diplomats if "Russia" tampers with the US election? Who even is "Russia" in that case? Putin? Some hacker group? Where is the evidence and where are the connections?

It's fairly easy to see that this whole thing is just pure bullshit.

The hacking group Threat Group-4127, also known as Fancy Bear or APT 28 is based in Russia, and has already hacked things such as the World anti-doping agency (after Russian athletes were barred) and destroying Ukraine military equipment and Howitzer artillery. Several security firms (Crowdstrike and Secureworks being some of them) have identified this hacking group as the culprit. This group is suspected to have ties to the Russian government, but nothing has been made concrete. More or less, this group is working in the interests of the Russian government, even if it is not a part of it.

CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”

lol yeah that's what i thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol yeah that's what i thought

It's why I take issue with these reports being thrown around as if they're definite. Actually, a friend of mine works in one of the security firms that released a report and that's why it's been a hot topic for some time now.

... darn it tryhard, you weren't supposed to just find it for them. Oh well. :)

of course

There were some translated quotes from that hacking group that sounded very suspicious and almost like a confession of ties to the Russian government that I saw before but now I can't find them, unfortunately.

The other concern is that supposedly they had access to RNC emails in addition, including Assange saying they weren't released because "they weren't that interesting". They could be used as blackmail material or simply undermine the Republicans after the inaugeration if there's anything particular egregious about them.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...