hacking US Elections Decided by Russian Hackers?

[ARikozuM]

10 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Its a fine day out on the streets.

Can we say the same of our the contents of our sheets, master?

[Hunter259]

11 minutes ago, Railgun said:

TBH I bet that is complete BS. The losing side is mostly butthurt af even still and is desperate to try anything they can to make Trump look bad.

Considering that republicans have come and in support of finding out. Oh and the CIA mostly being republicans.

[Guest]

Just now, huilun02 said:

Its ok, we Americans got nothing to hide. I suppose the Canadians too. Terrorism is a serious problem over there.

Sorry Edward Snowden. Try again next time

[Delicieuxz]

The "CIA has concluded that Russia..." article is already debunked.

 

From the article:

 

"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter."

 

Wow, that's a strong and exact statement.

 

However, The New York Times, reporting on the exact same CIA assessment, writes that the assessment panel only has a “high confidence” that Russia was involved, while Reuters, reporting on the same CIA assessment, writes "Intelligence agencies did not have specific intelligence showing the Kremlin directed the individuals to pass the hacked emails to WikiLeaks," and also, “A senior U.S. official said there remained minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the assessment because some questions are unanswered.”

 

OK... so which is it? Well, anything less than True is False, and the NYT and Reuters reporting invalidates the “CIA has concluded” assertion, and renders it as False. So... is it then false propaganda to say that the CIA concluded that Russia intervened to help Trump win the 2016 USA federal election? Yes, it is.

 

 

Even though the CIA did not conclude as the "CIA concluded" report misreports, let's still also keep in mind what the word of the CIA is worth:

 

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/12/cialied.png

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/12/mcclatchylies.png

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/12/wiredlying.png

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/12/chicagotrib.png

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/12/slatelies.png

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/12/slamdunk.png

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/12/cnnnorthkorea.png

 

From the Glen Greenwald article: Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

 

 

 

The 'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting
The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda

The world's best cyber army doesn’t belong to Russia

 

Also, the USA House of Representatives just passed HR 6393, allowing funding to combat what it perceives to be Russian propaganda (though no examples of which information has been Russian propaganda have been given), and the EU parliament just passed a resolution to create "tools" to "counter Russian propaganda."

 

So, both the USA and the EU have publicly declared that they are engaged in anti-Russia propaganda, which naturally means that allegations that come from the West and that are aimed towards Russia are non-trustworthy, by default, because the West has, amazingly, openly announced that it is conducting a disinformation campaign against Russia. What does that disinformation look like? Well, it looks just like this article's claim that "The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election" - which people, if they did a little research, would discover to be a False statement.

 

 

 

[Alir]

1 hour ago, alextac98 said:

at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.31cbe65727c5

 

 

What do you all think? I feel like the next big war will be a cyber war...

 

The only nation as far as I am aware which undermines democratic elections, kills foreign leaders - especially democratically elected leaders and destroys movements for freedom of oppressed people around the globe is the American Empire. And the CIA is a prime culprit involved in such activities.

Their accusation that Russian hackers are responsible is hilariously hypocritical and speaks volumes to how in denial they are. Still grasping at straws wondering how they failed when they picked a shark to run against a clown, while trying to appeal to a population of ignorant fish.
 

Will the next major war be cyber? Well, NATO isn't jamming Russia's border with empty packets. They've got it covered with NATO tanks, troops, bombers and the like. It won't be nuclear, at least not at first. It will most likely be conventional and proxy as it has been since both nations started their nuclear weapons programs. Nukes act as a deterrent. Hacks, DDOS and the like will obviously play a role as they do in any war but you'd be a fool to think there won't be any killing going on.

 

Guns and nukes are always made to be used.

 

I'm not taking Russia's side. But nor am I taking America's side.

 

 ---- Is politics normal on the LTT forum? I've been seeing a lot of Trump related posts since the election here. I'm wondering whether I had just never seen any or if it's a new thing.

[Trik'Stari]

Nothing more than the Democrats trying to recover from a loss, and distract from their complete and total corruption. Also, a half assed attempt at invalidating the results of the election.

 

Anything that comes out of that party, and the current administration, is guaranteed 100% bullshit right now.

 

We'll be hearing about this for the next 10 to 20 years. Considering that you still occasionally hear on bitch about Gore losing to Bush in 2000.

 

Funny, how Democrats have zero respect for the democratic process when they lose. It's almost as if there's nothing even remotely democratic about them.

[ARikozuM]

16 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Funny, how Democrats have zero respect for the democratic process when they lose. It's almost as if there's nothing even remotely democratic about them.

That's because the sides that we have today switched their beliefs around the mid-1800's.

 

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

 

Thinking on the switch not happening, it would be the Republicans hating the fact that Hilary lost.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

That's because the sides that we have today switched their beliefs around the mid-1800's.

 

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

 

Thinking on the switch not happening, it would be the Republicans hating the fact that Hilary lost.

Indeed.

 

The point is, that right now the Democrats are the party united by hatred (as they were in the 1800's), the only thing that switched, is who they hate.

 

I'd almost go as far as to call them completely contrarian. They only do/support things that will piss off "the right".

 

This of course, is denying the basic truth which is that both sides are essentially the same in practice, and backed by the same people. Namely rich people and corporations. The idea that there is a difference is merely a smoke screen created by them, to keep the little people (all of us) divided so that we don't collectively see them for what they are.

 

A bunch of corrupt bastards, pocketing "donations" and doing anything that benefits their friends and themselves.

[Vanderburg]

I'm not saying that the hackings actually influenced the election (It's possible, but no one really knows anything, they just like to claim things), but who is more at fault? The person/group who hacked the emails, or the idiots who wrote them? There's a lot of hypocrisy in this. What if someone like a Snowden, or a Clinton staffer had released these? I'm not saying the ends justify the means, but I'm glad that the public was able to see what was in there.

[Furionjaxs]

Hello all, I didn't expect to find this discussion on Linustechtips forum lol. Liberal Democrats are great at finding an escape goats that fits their motives. Well to be fair that could be said for both sides of the US isles. I just think Liberal Democrats in Power tend to use it more than any other political power. Its a farce that Russia would hack US polls. Putin has more important things to be concerned with that Hillary Clinton Losing. No matter the opposition in the US or elsewhere, the people have to be vigilant to maintain their freedoms and values. When things get to good we revert and focus more on day to day than to voice the concerns that may be swept under the rug. 

 

Glad to be apart of Linustechtips community, I hope you all have a good night and enjoy the rest of the weekend

[Lethal Seraph]

Clinton and her pupper-master doesn't like losing so let's fabricate something.

[Delicieuxz]

Ever wonder how many of the people who try to label online posters who don't support obviously-false anti-Russia propaganda as being "paid Russian trolls" are actually CIA-paid propaganda trolls?

 

Commentary: The world's best cyber army doesn’t belong to Russia

 

 

In Canada, the Conservatives party also pays people to spout pro-Conservatives-ideology-propaganda online, and to attack non-Conservatives viewpoints.

 

[apm]

they are always gonna pull the russian or chinese card when anything happens.

 

fear mongering ftw.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Assessing what CIA or any other intelligence agency knows or doesn't know, what conclusions can be derived from their reports, etc, can become a very confusing subject. But do not worry, when in doubt just call Colin Powell and he'll explain.

[Prysin]

¨this article is mostly bullshit with no more solid evidence then the US had when they claimed saddam had chemical weapons.

[AlwaysFSX]

9 minutes ago, Prysin said:

¨this article is mostly bullshit with no more solid evidence then the US had when they claimed saddam had chemical weapons.

Fits in with military intelligence being an oxymoron.

[BuckGup]

10 hours ago, InitializingDev said:

Well this just makes everything a bit creepy then

 

If you think America isn't corrupt learn about a fellow named Jack Abramoff. What he did was legal until he scammed casinos and tax evasion. But other then that he was making millions off a corrupt government lobbying.

[MageTank]

7 hours ago, Vanderburg said:

I'm not saying that the hackings actually influenced the election (It's possible, but no one really knows anything, they just like to claim things), but who is more at fault? The person/group who hacked the emails, or the idiots who wrote them? There's a lot of hypocrisy in this. What if someone like a Snowden, or a Clinton staffer had released these? I'm not saying the ends justify the means, but I'm glad that the public was able to see what was in there.

I am curious to see if it even had an impact. Most (if not all) of the people I know, knew about the leaks, but didn't bother to read them. Some were even saying it was illegal to do so, because the media reported that it was. If this did have any impact, I do not believe it was large enough to sway the election either way. The biggest issue with both sides was the name calling, but only one side completely labeled an entire portion of this country with labels such as "deplorable, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, etc". Now, I am no political expert, but something tells me this is akin to shooting ones self in the foot. 

 

I still say we were doomed either way, regardless of who won. Just sit back and enjoy the ride people, we'll fix this in the future with sentient robot overlords to keep us in line. 

[VerticalDiscussions]

So what happened to the "most proficient army cyberdivision team deployed to safeguard the elections" .-.?

[Prysin]

10 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I am curious to see if it even had an impact. Most (if not all) of the people I know, knew about the leaks, but didn't bother to read them. Some were even saying it was illegal to do so, because the media reported that it was. If this did have any impact, I do not believe it was large enough to sway the election either way. The biggest issue with both sides was the name calling, but only one side completely labeled an entire portion of this country with labels such as "deplorable, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, etc". Now, I am no political expert, but something tells me this is akin to shooting ones self in the foot. 

 

I still say we were doomed either way, regardless of who won. Just sit back and enjoy the ride people, we'll fix this in the future with sentient robot overlords to keep us in line. 

until the russians (allegedly) hacked the robots and made them attack the population. Ofc, it was Snowden who told them how to, so must be them.

[Sauron]

No, the elections were decided by a democratical vote. Sure, releasing those emails in the wild probably hurt Clinton - but I'd argue that having more information on the candidates can only be a good thing (as long as it's true), even though I do not condone the methods used to obtain it. When I saw the title on the news I assumed they meant the voting machines had been hacked or something, but it turned out to be the usual sensationalist title that draws all the wrong conclusions.

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Trump won, though...

In a way having a president Russia likes is a war deterrent.

[Unimportant]

So, if i understand correctly, the fact that the dems and Clintons are involved in all kinds of shady business is not the problem. The problem is that Russian hackers exposed a bunch of emails that prove that the dems and Clintons are involved in all kinds of shady business?

 

In that case, Kudos to the Russian hackers for bringing out the truth.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, Unimportant said:

So, if i understand correctly, the fact that the dems and Clintons are involved in all kinds of shady business is not the problem. The problem is that Russian hackers exposed a bunch of emails that prove that the dems and Clintons are involved in all kinds of shady business?

 

In that case, Kudos to the Russian hackers for bringing out the truth.

I agree, but the problem is that they didn't do the same for Trump. Maybe he has nothing to hide, but it's more likely whoever did this had an interest in Trump winning.

[AresKrieger]

9 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

That's because the sides that we have today switched their beliefs around the mid-1800's.

 

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

 

Thinking on the switch not happening, it would be the Republicans hating the fact that Hilary lost.

Actually Republicans have for the most part always be pro business the only exception was during the massive monopoly era (but your talking about the racial divide)

 

As I've said elsewhere it would be one thing if Russia fabricated information that decided the election but the info leaked via the email hacks was truthful, secondly the CIA is an extension of the executive branch and has a history of lying.