U.S. report on Russian hacking released.

[Teppodama]

Both are fucked up and wrong, but one is legal and the other is espionage under even the loosest definition of that term.

So the action and outcome are irrelevant. Only the method counts huh?

 

[Blackened]

I'm wrong to think Assange hates my country?
Evidence?

 

[Grenz]

Where in the report does it say Russians did that?

Numerous places. Here's an example:

Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties. We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

the Russian influence is obvious even if you disregard the DNC mails.

How is it obvious?

 

[Grenz]

So the action and outcome are irrelevant. Only the method counts huh?

That's not what I said. I only explained what the two things are seeing how there was apparently some confusion around that.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

The fallacy you refer to is when someone words your argument in such a way as to make it easy to poke holes through.
So what the FUCK are you babbling about?

 

[Blackened]

Numerous places. Here's an example:

Fair enough, assuming this is true.

But why the double standard?

NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

 

[Blackened]

The fallacy you refer to is when someone words your argument in such a way as to make it easy to poke holes through.
So what the FUCK are you babbling about?

Go back and reread the conversation, it'll become obvious.

Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Remember?

I'm wrong to think Assange hates my country?
Evidence?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Go back and reread the conversation, it'll become obvious.

Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

I have the opinion that Assange hates America. Nowhere did I reword an argument you made.

 

[Blackened]

I have the opinion that Assange hates America. Nowhere did I reword an argument you made.

That wasn't my argument at all. Your opinion on Assange is irrelevant.

Are you admitting to a red herring at least?

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

That wasn't my argument at all. Your opinion on Assange is irrelevant.

Are you admitting to a red herring at least?

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.

Nope.
But you shouldn't go fishing today; you won't catch anything.

 

[TheStruggle]

RT is state sponsored media and acts at the behest of Putin, why are some insinuating that connection is a weak link?

How you feel about al jazeera, BBC, Telmundo, and CBC?

 

[TheStruggle]

So let me get this straight, the stone cold lead pipe evidence of Russia Hacking was RT???? The Russia TV organization with minimal presence in the United States.

 

[Grenz]

Fair enough, assuming this is true.

But why the double standard?

Where did I say that what the CIA does isn't as bad? I didn't and I don't hold that view.

 

[Grenz]

So let me get this straight, the stone cold lead pipe evidence of Russia Hacking was RT???? The Russia TV organization with minimal presence in the United States.

No, it wasn't. Read the report.

 

[Blackened]

Where did I say that what the CIA does isn't as bad? I didn't and I don't hold that view.

Well, perhaps that's why nothing should be done about it. How can the U.S. point the finger at Russians when they do the same thing?

 

[Teppodama]

Hmm. So

That's not what I said. I only explained what the two things are seeing how there was apparently some confusion around that.

So if influence derived through espionage and influence through campaign financing are both equally undesirable in an election the major issue is a breach of sovereign security more so than impact on the outcome of the election.

I would agree with that and support reprisals strictly on a security basis. The Russians played the game, got caught and can pay the penalty.

As it regards the validity of the election, I have a problem with utilizing it to potentially invalidate a presidential outcome as there was not actual tampering of votes and the fact that if Hillary had won a portion of her victory would have been the result of foreign government and foreign national financing. Both are non-citizen interference with an election regardless of the spurious legality that allows foreign campaign financing.

One could certainly say that Trump got an assist from Russian efforts on his behalf.

We could also use the same logic to say that in part Hillary was bought and paid for with foreign monies. Unless you believe the money was provided for purely philanthropic reasons?

 

[ncordless]

That's probably too much censorship of the press to pass either Constitutional muster or my own sense of ethics. Are you being ironic?

I think suppressing antagonistic foreign propaganda designed to undermine our democracy probably doesn't get a whole lot of protection as "freedom of press"

 

[Anung Un Rama]

.

So let me get this straight, the stone cold lead pipe evidence of Russia Hacking was RT???? The Russia TV organization with minimal presence in the United States.

& @Blackened

Let me be clear, because I think my posts have confused some people.
The report doesn't say that RT hacked the DNC or Podesta, etc.
The report regurgitates what has already been released: that they think Russia hacked these orgs via secondary sources (ie Guccifer 2.0).
They don't provide any more details on this than have already been released.

What the report does do is focus the bulk of its findings on RT and how Russia has used their YouTube channel to brainwash American's into finding Clinton unfavorable.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I think suppressing antagonistic foreign propaganda designed to undermine our democracy probably doesn't get a whole lot of protection as "freedom of press"

We like our propaganda home grown.