The Russian Propaganda Campaign

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by HomerThompson, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    What word games? Your own source said what I said in no uncertain terms. I quoted directly from it FFS. If that statement is contradicted by the article itself that doesn't do much for its credibility either, does it?

    Turn that back on the government all you like. Press them to release more details if you please, but as it stands, the government is under no onus to produce the evidence upon which their conclusions are based, and further, from the article, Obama himself said, "“The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking,” the legacy-minded Obama said, “were not conclusive.”"

    The article is an exercise in speculation and I don't believe it purports to be otherwise. More than once they state they are mainly trying to provoke debate, not provide a decisive conclusion. How do you address the fact that VIPS itself is divided on the matter?

    Edit: Seriously, if this were many other posters on here I'd swear I was being trolled. What's your deal?
     
  2. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
    The intelligence report is an exercise in speculation. If that is what Obama has said, and is the official position of our government, then our media has done a piss poor job of explaining that to people.

    Yes, what you are quoting is from the article, but you are cherry picking your quotes. The article clearly is very concerned with offering a balanced picture, and here you come taking the back half of a quote, out of context, and pretending like you are being honest.

    Just like you tried to infer their is some definitive proof either way. It is all speculation. You can show the quotes all you want that draw vips conclusions into question. I just wish you would add the sentence that came before it, that said the same thing about the government's conclusions.
     
  3. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    I suggest you take a step back and have another look at the article and what I wrote. Sorry, but there's something wrong with you. The part I left out was parenthetical, i.e. "As part of the editing process, however," but here's the full first paragraph,
    "As editor of The Nation, my purpose in publishing Patrick Lawrence’s article was to make more widely known the VIPS critique of the January ICA assertions, the questions VIPS raised, and their counter-thesis that the disseminated DNC e-mails resulted from a leak, not a hack. Those questions remain vital.

    Subsequently, Nation editors themselves raised questions about the editorial process that preceded the publication of the article. The article was indeed fact-checked to ensure that Patrick Lawrence, a regular Nation contributor, accurately reported the VIPS analysis and conclusions, which he did. As part of the editing process, however,
    we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties. And given the technical complexity of the material, we would have benefited from bringing on an independent expert to conduct a rigorous review of the VIPS technical claims."
    The part in bold is totally irrelevant to what I am talking about so I left it out. But then, they go on to say,
    "We have obtained such a review in the last week from Nathan Freitas of the Guardian Project. He has evaluated both the VIPS memo and Lawrence’s article. Freitas lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak. Freitas concludes that all parties “must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses.” His findings are published here."

    This paragraph confirms what I said with no equivocation.

    The issue is that the government may not have tried very hard to make clear their claims were not proven, but that doesn't alter the fact that your own source says VIPS' conclusions aren't proven either. Read it again. You're off base.

    Edit: it's also significant the their independent expert provided the following disclaimer in the accompanying analysis:

    he work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate. There are no significant errors in the specific findings, relating to the analysis of time stamps and calculations related to digital-transfer speeds (also known as “throughput”) between storage drives or over a network connection. The Forensicator has worked carefully with the limited set of data available, providing the means necessary for anyone to reproduce the work and analysis.

    It is very important to note the set of evidence considered within the Forensicator’s analysis and the subsequent memo and articles based on his work. There are only documents and file archives that purport to have been extracted from DNC storage in 2016 along with the metadata contained within them. The metadata includes “Last Modified” timestamps at various levels of time resolutions (milliseconds, nanoseconds) that also include time-zone information.

    Otherwise, there are no logs available that would provide an audit trail of network or system activity. There is no public copy of malicious software found on a targeted system that can be decompiled, reverse engineered, and analyzed. There is no information about where or how the extracted files were stored, what the operating systems involved were, or what the local, co-located, or hosted network configuration and speed might have been."
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
    HomerThompson likes this.
  4. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
    Cool, now show me that the government and intelligence agencies have anything more then this.

    I never claimed we know for a fact it was a leak. Both Trotsky and homer inferred it was undisputed that the Russians hacked the DNC. I offered a counter narrative, supported by experts, that is independent.

    Are you willing to state that their is equal evidence it was a leak as there is that it was a hack?
     
    Anung Un Rama likes this.
  5. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    How is any of this on me? Homer asked for evidence. You posted this article in support. I showed your source wasn't evidence, but educated guessing. It seems like you're being obtuse rather than admit you've misstated your true concern, which is that the intelligence community is not backing up their claims with proof yet their claims are being treated as proved.

    To me, that's saying those agencies can't be trusted. I think that's a valid concern, but again, if asked to choose between a panel of experts, not all of whom agree, and the investigators who hold all the cards, whom do you think I should choose?
     
    HomerThompson likes this.
  6. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
    I don't think you should trust either of them. I think you should make informed decisions based on evidence.

    Unfortunately our intelligence agencies disagree, and think we should make ignorant decisions.
     
  7. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    Then you should have said so, because that's not what you've been saying till now. It's not up to me to validate your source and I resent the accusation that I was being disingenuous when this post suggests it is you who is being intellectually dishonest and/ or lazy.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you, is this a dick tuck, or deliberate misdirection?
     
    Fawlty, Gandhi and HomerThompson like this.
  8. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
    You seem defensive of the fact that the vast majority of people believe that it is a for gone conclusion that the Russians hacked the DNC, and I then point out their is no evidence of this.

    Not my fault you get triggered when someone challenges your indoctrination by demanding evidence for claims.

    Edit: I retract any claim I made to you being dishonest, and apologize for it. I should have said it appears to be selective which would be less than honest.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
  9. The Diplomat

    The Diplomat Peace Among Worlds

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    15,466
    Likes Received:
    9,463
    Location:
    Noth Cackalacky
    At this point, shouldn't the responsibility be on the users, and the greater populace, to know better? I mean, these fake FB news stories are one Google search away from being verified. I know it's mostly ignorant, non-savvy folks who will continuously re-share the stories, and then the cycle grows, but shouldn't that say more about us than Russia?
     
    PrinceOfPain and sniper like this.
  10. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
  11. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    So you are trolling. First, you shift the goal posts 90 degrees, and now you make a false statement, or rather, a claim that cannot be verified. The IC have not shared their evidence. In no way does that mean there isn't any and neither does that source you provided.

    Drunk? High? Whatever, smoke a joint with me, and find something else to derail the thread about because you're just on the wrong tack here.
     
    Quipling and HomerThompson like this.
  12. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    So, not dishonest, but less than honest? Are you for real?
     
    HomerThompson likes this.
  13. HomerThompson

    HomerThompson President of the War Room Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    39,447
    Likes Received:
    64,276
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    I don't understand this. Some of our citizens are morons, so we should be ok with Russia meddling? That makes no sense.
     
  14. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
    That is a pretty serious distinction. One infers intent to be dishonest, the other does not.
     
  15. The Diplomat

    The Diplomat Peace Among Worlds

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    15,466
    Likes Received:
    9,463
    Location:
    Noth Cackalacky
    No, that's not what I said or inferred at all. At this point, I'm still seeing it's mostly fake stories. And that's on us, because a 13 year old could make it, and then we have hundreds or thousands of grandmas sharing it.

    If we can prove that the Russian government, itself, actually handled this, then what is the solution? What do we do then?
     
    sniper and Sketch like this.
  16. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    It certainly shines a light upon how confirmation bias magnifies the influence of social media.
     
  17. The Diplomat

    The Diplomat Peace Among Worlds

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    15,466
    Likes Received:
    9,463
    Location:
    Noth Cackalacky
    It's a whole new world, and at 30 I feel too old to indulge.
     
    Fluffernutter and Sketch like this.
  18. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
    I'm trolling you now. That is usually my response to a post that contains a personal attack.
     
  19. Rebound59

    Rebound59 金繕い belt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,319
    Likes Received:
    8,431
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    You started it and you were wrong. Get back on the topic.
     
  20. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    18,583
    What was the topic again?

    Something about communists and artists?
     

Share This Page