Closed Thread
Page 1419 of 1501 FirstFirst ... 419 919 1319 1369 1409 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1429 1469 ... LastLast
Results 35,451 to 35,475 of 37508

Thread: Election 2016

  1. #35451

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ClownPickle View Post
    This is entirely a different argument. That's 'what information was leaked,' not 'how or who did it.'
    Of course it's not. If they're selectively leaking, it means they're trying to influence perception. So the who and how is connected to the what.

    I'd be a little sympathetic to the idea behind it if *all* info was provided but it wasn't because the intention wasn't to force transparency but to try to affect an outcome.

  2. #35452

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    Sure, I'm waiting for more answers too. But I'm not sure that proving Russia did it even matters, especially since I think we can all agree Russia is probably TRYING to do these shadowy things in some form or another.

    Congress should still oppose Russia generally regardless.

    We should increase our focus on cyber security regardless.

    We should distrust Trump's weird association with Putin regardless.

    So assume Russians are definitively shown to not be involved. How should our approach differ moving forward compared to if it were shown they were definitely involved?
    If it can be proven they were involved, you *hope* what it means is we now know how they did it, how we can prevent, and gain concessions from them on different items because they've been revealed to have engaged in the action and must now mea culpa (even if it's behind the scenes while proclaiming innocence publicly to save face).

  3. #35453

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    Of course it's not. If they're selectively leaking, it means they're trying to influence perception. So the who and how is connected to the what.

    I'd be a little sympathetic to the idea behind it if *all* info was provided but it wasn't because the intention wasn't to force transparency but to try to affect an outcome.
    That's going to be the case with virtually any government that gets its hands on that information, whether or not the information is leaked to the public (so that we know it was stolen in the first place).

    Anyone that exploits these vulnerabilities can use captured information differently and we may never know they even have it. So to me it's more important to seal the entry points more effectively. And I'm not talking DNC and RNC stuff, they're on their own. But taking federal rules regarding e-security more seriously.


  4. #35454
    NYYF Legend

    ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    I still don't see why it's that big of a deal. We know Russia ideologically opposes the U.S. and we know Putin is continuously trying to undermine our democracy and is probably spying on us right now. So they apparently tried to influence the election. Who here is surprised?

    I'm more astonished at the ease with which the hacking was accomplished than I would be if Russia involvement was confirmed. If you really think the election turned on hacked emails, the issue shouldn't be "OMG the Russians hacked us and ruined democracy" so much as "wow, we should be better at protecting sensitive information because this IS going to happen again, whether it be Russia, China, NK, or some random guy."

    Other governments gonna spy. No way around that realistically. People are crying over that fact instead of "putting on big boy pants" and figuring out how to not be such an easy target for this kind of stuff.
    Well said. It's rather shocking how easy it was.

  5. #35455
    NYYF Legend

    ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    Of course it's not. If they're selectively leaking, it means they're trying to influence perception. So the who and how is connected to the what.

    I'd be a little sympathetic to the idea behind it if *all* info was provided but it wasn't because the intention wasn't to force transparency but to try to affect an outcome.
    I'm not even sure what you are arguing. The Russians being behind the attack still doesn't delegitimize the election results or the information that was leaked. The GOP can be against a foreign government leaking information to influence an election AND still believe the election results were legitimate. If your argument is the Russians chose a side and leaked information accordingly, OK...

  6. #35456

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    If it can be proven they were involved, you *hope* what it means is we now know how they did it
    Don't we know that? Basic phishing attacks.

    how we can prevent,
    Don't fall for basic phishing attacks?

    and gain concessions from them on different items because they've been revealed to have engaged in the action and must now mea culpa (even if it's behind the scenes while proclaiming innocence publicly to save face).
    I don't see that happening at all. What, realistically, would Russia concede on if everyone knew they spied on us (which everyone pretty much already knows)?

    Anyway, this isn't about patching a particular death-star vulnerability the Russians exploited. In most recent incidents, we've just left the door wide open and they lol'd their way right in. I don't think our analysts need to focus too extensively on how the Russians managed to thwart our advanced security measures.


  7. #35457
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ClownPickle View Post
    I'm not even sure what you are arguing. The Russians being behind the attack still doesn't delegitimize the election results or the information that was leaked. The GOP can still be against a foreign government leaking information to influence an election and believe the election results were legitimate. If you argument is the Russians chose a side and leaked information accordingly, OK...
    I don't think anyone is arguing the hack directly effected the vote result. They didn't hack voting machines and change votes. They did strategically release information that was damaging to only one candidate even though it appears clear that they had info stolen from both sides.

    Now if you choose to believe that only Hillary and her side had "damning" information in their emails and Trump's side was the pinnacle of ethics then so be it, but I believe that the Russians and Putin saw what both sides had and only released information to make Hillary look bad, and it swayed enough people in enough states to stay home, vote for Trump instead, or vote for Johnson that it cost her the election. Nothing will change that now, but to just dismiss it is laughable.

    Now you have literally 99 senators (according to Lindsay Graham, who has said that 99 members of the Senate, everyone except for McConnell) calling for hearings about this. It's beyond partisan for everyone except the guy who benefited the most from all this (Trump), and the most partisan hack of the 21st century (McConnell....who's wife will be in Trump's cabinet).

  8. #35458

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ClownPickle View Post
    I'm not even sure what you are arguing. The Russians being behind the attack still doesn't delegitimize the election results or the information that was leaked. The GOP can be against a foreign government leaking information to influence an election and still believe the election results were legitimate. If you argument is the Russians chose a side and leaked information accordingly, OK...
    And that would be the case for any foreign entity that wanted to put its thumb on the scales. Every single country has a preference for presidential candidate of the U.S. because US foreign policy shapes the world. Some countries donate to a particular political candidate. Some influence Congress with lobbyists. And broke-ass countries like Russia steal a candidate's diary and post it to imgur.

    I have issues with all of that. But if you've got a hole in your wall and notice some cheese is missing, maybe plug the hole instead of trying to figure out which particular rat took it.


  9. #35459

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ClownPickle View Post
    I'm not even sure what you are arguing. The Russians being behind the attack still doesn't delegitimize the election results or the information that was leaked. The GOP can be against a foreign government leaking information to influence an election AND still believe the election results were legitimate. If your argument is the Russians chose a side and leaked information accordingly, OK...
    So if Russia chose to release damning information on one party, but had similar on the other and didn't release, that's doesn't delegitimize the results? That's called "influencing the outcome". I don't know how else you can portray that scenario, but there you are.

  10. #35460

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    Don't we know that? Basic phishing attacks.
    Wasn't that just the Podesta emails? TBH, it's all starting to blur together.

  11. #35461

    Re: Election 2016

    My thinking on this incident:
    • I do not believe this affected the election unless Russia had damning information on Trump and refused to release.
    • This issue bothers me because of the ramifications for future elections, which is why its important to verify and call out whomever is responsible.
    • Playing this off to political bias is silly. It's a real thing with real consequences that are more important than dislike for a single politican or organization.
    • All that said, I'd like more info to determine how serious a breach this was and who actually participated in it.

  12. #35462

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    And that would be the case for any foreign entity that wanted to put its thumb on the scales. Every single country has a preference for presidential candidate of the U.S. because US foreign policy shapes the world. Some countries donate to a particular political candidate. Some influence Congress with lobbyists. And broke-ass countries like Russia steal a candidate's diary and post it to imgur.

    I have issues with all of that. But if you've got a hole in your wall and notice some cheese is missing, maybe plug the hole instead of trying to figure out which particular rat took it.
    You've obviously never had rats. You need to plug the whole but also deal with the rats or they just find a new hole.

  13. #35463

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by RhodyYanksFan View Post
    I don't think anyone is arguing the hack directly effected the vote result. They didn't hack voting machines and change votes. They did strategically release information that was damaging to only one candidate even though it appears clear that they had info stolen from both sides.
    That would be huge and I'd like to see more focus on identifying/preventing machine hacking.

    Now if you choose to believe that only Hillary and her side had "damning" information in their emails and Trump's side was the pinnacle of ethics then so be it, but I believe that the Russians and Putin saw what both sides had and only released information to make Hillary look bad, and it swayed enough people in enough states to stay home, vote for Trump instead, or vote for Johnson that it cost her the election. Nothing will change that now, but to just dismiss it is laughable.
    I doubt anyone thinks that. I sure don't.

    I also don't believe it affected the outcome but I could be wrong. Because it was so close in some areas, I think you could point to a lot of things that contributed and, had they gone the other way, maybe so does the outcome.

    Look, you can also say that Romney's 47% comment cost him the election. And it was captured by someone with a preferred outcome and strategically released to sway voters.

    Now you have literally 99 senators (according to Lindsay Graham, who has said that 99 members of the Senate, everyone except for McConnell) calling for hearings about this. It's beyond partisan for everyone except the guy who benefited the most from all this (Trump), and the most partisan hack of the 21st century (McConnell....who's wife will be in Trump's cabinet).
    I think it's more a response to Trump's love affair with Russia. Congress is mostly on the same page with regards to not liking Russia I believe.


  14. #35464

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    You've obviously never had rats. You need to plug the whole but also deal with the rats or they just find a new hole.
    Well we can't nuke all countries that are ideologically opposed to our interests, which is essentially what you'd do with rats. How do you "deal" with Russia? And shouldn't you be dealing with all the rats? If there's a hole, they're all getting in.


  15. #35465
    NYYF Legend

    ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    So if Russia chose to release damning information on one party, but had similar on the other and didn't release, that's doesn't delegitimize the results?
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    That's called "influencing the outcome".
    That's also correct. However, they are still mutually exclusive.

  16. #35466

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    Wasn't that just the Podesta emails? TBH, it's all starting to blur together.
    I believe all the information was obtained through very basic "hacking" measures, not the exploitation of a unknown flaw. So failure to follow common security procedures by individuals.


  17. #35467

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by RhodyYanksFan View Post
    I don't think anyone is arguing the hack directly effected the vote result. They didn't hack voting machines and change votes. They did strategically release information that was damaging to only one candidate even though it appears clear that they had info stolen from both sides.
    It is?

    I never heard anything definitive on this, (truthfully hadn't looked either) so I just did a quick google and haven't found much. What are you basing this on?
    Hideki Matsui is capable of anything

  18. #35468
    Chapecó, que tristeza theDurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Basking Ridge, NJ

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    So if Russia chose to release damning information on one party, but had similar on the other and didn't release, that's doesn't delegitimize the results? That's called "influencing the outcome". I don't know how else you can portray that scenario, but there you are.
    I'd just like to point out that almost everyone I talk to in Latin America, while horrified by Trump, thinks it is absolutely perfect karma that some foreign actor did to the US what they did for decades throughout Latin America--some of it proven, and even more that is alleged. As the most powerful democracy in the world, and a leading practitioner of the black art of political meddling, it is incumbent on us to 1) expect that this kind of thing happens, and will continue to happen and 2) if some party's incompetent vulnerability leads in any small or great way to their prejudice, to realize that is on them, and not to whine that the great god of fairness should grant a do-over (or whatever the point of 'de-legitimizing' is) and 3) for all involved to do what they can to protect against this in the future--because it will happen, and Russia will not be the only player in the game.

    I tend to agree with my Latino friends: turnabout is fair play.
    "Deep to left! Yastrzemski will not get it! It's a home run! A three-run homer by Bucky Dent! And the Yankees now lead by a score of 3-2!" - New York Yankees announcer Bill White (October 2, 1978)

  19. #35469

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    I believe all the information was obtained through very basic "hacking" measures, not the exploitation of a unknown flaw. So failure to follow common security procedures by individuals.
    I thought the phishing was just Podesta too.....I'm getting confused now too.
    Hideki Matsui is capable of anything

  20. #35470

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    Well we can't nuke all countries that are ideologically opposed to our interests, which is essentially what you'd do with rats. How do you "deal" with Russia? And shouldn't you be dealing with all the rats? If there's a hole, they're all getting in.
    Of course you deal with them all. When you catch them, you do exactly what Obama did. And if Russia gets caught again, the severity of the sanctions should increase. That doesn't mean that you don't make efforts to strengthen security. This is not an either/or situation.

  21. #35471

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoodoo View Post
    I wasn't aware of that law. Interesting info. However, it seems to me to be just a nice excuse for those people who bring up the Hitler analogy whether directly or indirectly. Truthfully, they seem to exhibit some form of psychological disorder.
    Which one? I can't think of one. Certainly not the narcissistic personality disorder that Trump so clearly has.

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    Except he didn't tweet disapproval of gutting the Office of Congressional Ethics ("as unfair as it may be"). He tweeted disapproval of their prioritizing or their ability to multi-task.
    This. He thought they did it in the wrong order. Thankfully the backlash was intense enough that they didn't get away with it.

    We have to gear up for a long and intense fight. There's so much more of this to come.

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    "Bad Hitler analogies" don't reflect any psychological disorder that I know of. Do you have any ideas?
    Godwinitis?

    Quote Originally Posted by RhodyYanksFan View Post
    Can someone tell me one thing Republicans are for that benefit anyone who isn't a corporation or who makes under $250,000? I'll wait.

    https://www.wired.com/2017/01/year-d...social_twitter
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
    Guns and Jesus?
    The modern Republican party reflects nothing of what Jesus was about. Nothing. I'm not sure how modern evangelicals became so divorced from the actual teachings of Jesus, but they certainly have. I grew up with it and can attest that it is some seriously twisted thinking.

  22. #35472

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by theDurk View Post
    I'd just like to point out that almost everyone I talk to in Latin America, while horrified by Trump, thinks it is absolutely perfect karma that some foreign actor did to the US what they did for decades throughout Latin America--some of it proven, and even more that is alleged. As the most powerful democracy in the world, and a leading practitioner of the black art of political meddling, it is incumbent on us to 1) expect that this kind of thing happens, and will continue to happen and 2) if some party's incompetent vulnerability leads in any small or great way to their prejudice, to realize that is on them, and not to whine that the great god of fairness should grant a do-over (or whatever the point of 'de-legitimizing' is) and 3) for all involved to do what they can to protect against this in the future--because it will happen, and Russia will not be the only player in the game.

    I tend to agree with my Latino friends: turnabout is fair play.
    I'm happy you all agree. As an American citizen, I do not agree.

    Feel free to tell your Latino friends that Gregorius Chant of nyyfans said to stop whining about their history of being unable to patch incompetent vulnerabilities in their own elections, and stop praying to the Great God of Fairness to do likewise to us.

  23. #35473

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    So if Russia chose to release damning information on one party, but had similar on the other and didn't release, that's doesn't delegitimize the results? That's called "influencing the outcome". I don't know how else you can portray that scenario, but there you are.
    The DNC and RNC both "influenced the outcome" of the election. I assume you think it's different if a foreign government tried to do the same, but other governments do exactly that, just in different ways.

    Or do you think that every foreign leader who supported Clinton had no information on her that they chose not to divulge? Maybe some conversations meant to be private that would sway voters, warranted or not?


  24. #35474

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarey View Post
    The DNC and RNC both "influenced the outcome" of the election. I assume you think it's different if a foreign government tried to do the same, but other governments do exactly that, just in different ways.

    Or do you think that every foreign leader who supported Clinton had no information on her that they chose not to divulge? Maybe some conversations meant to be private that would sway voters, warranted or not?
    Yes. Yes I do.

  25. #35475
    Chapecó, que tristeza theDurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Basking Ridge, NJ

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    I'm happy you all agree. As an American citizen, I do not agree.

    Feel free to tell your Latino friends that Gregorius Chant of nyyfans said to stop whining about their history of being unable to patch incompetent vulnerabilities in their own elections, and stop praying to the Great God of Fairness to do likewise to us.
    They have moved on, and today's focus is on the corruption rampant in their own systems and their own actors. So you can disagree, but the country and your party would do better to follow that example.
    "Deep to left! Yastrzemski will not get it! It's a home run! A three-run homer by Bucky Dent! And the Yankees now lead by a score of 3-2!" - New York Yankees announcer Bill White (October 2, 1978)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts