US Presidential Candidates

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:So when the intel community says they intercepted congratulatory statements between Russian officials concerning Trump winning the election, yes that's evidence.

Intercepted... Yeah, because the Russians are completely unaware of USA being the biggest user of spying on electronic communications. The supposed bosses of highend hackers. Right, that makes SO much sense for them to use unsecured communications.

I keep wanting to think people can't be this dense... but the evidence to the contrary crushes my optimism.

The entire freaking point of the NSA and CIA is to do things like penetrate secure communications!!!!

gcomeau wrote:The analysts do. You know, the ones who have read those classified intercepts and who specialize in this stuff...

Having done a bit of temp work as such an analyst, yes, yes i know exactly.
That´s part of why i call BULLSHIT.

Really... you did "a bit of temp work" as a classified intelligence analyst?

Yeah, that statement fills me with confidence in your expertise.

And THEN we have the little fact that CIA and NSA have a known level of reliability for these kind of thing, that is so bad that saying it´s in the gutters would be far too nice.

As opposed to Russian government protestations that their activities are as pure as the driven snow... which are *incredibly* reliable and above board...

gcomeau wrote:The Iraq situation involved an administration that ordered the CIA to go find evidence of something that would serve their existing agenda of wanting to invade Iraq... CIA analysts coming back with their assessments that contained all kinds of skepticism and qualifiers... and then all the qualifiers and skepticism being dropped before the administration publicly reported the findings.

Yes? Your point being? USA started moving tanks to eastern Europe months before the supposed hacking took place.

Just a strange coincedence right?

There's this place called Ukraine... perhaps you've heard things have been less than stable in that area. No it wasn't a "coincidence". But trying to make this implication that it's part of some plan involving faking Russian intervention in the election is so stupid it defies description. Trump isn't going to war with Russia, he can't leap to their defense fast enough. So what... you think Obama is planning on starting a 2 week long war with the Russians or something before Trump gets sworn in? NOBODY is stupid enough to actually think that so what the hell are you trying to say here?

gcomeau wrote:And we're *really* sure about this. Maybe someone should pay attention!"

You mean like when FBI did their investigation, twice? Because obviously the first one wasn´t enough to affect the election...

Oh, you mean the Russians control the FBI now? Oh right, THEN your claimed line of events might even make a little sense. Except, you know, NOT.

What.... the fuck... are you talking about????

gcomeau wrote:People on *both* sides of the aisle looking at the intel and saying "crap, this is serious". And a few GOP and Trump partisans refusing to accept it because it casts doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's upcoming presidency.

I couldn´t care less about THAT, in fact i rather welcome Trump, an idiot is better than someone who WANTS to start a war.

Have you HEARD Trump talk? Like... EVER? He's the most recklessly belligerent idiot to ever occupy the White House I can think of. Within the last month he made a public declaration we should kick off a new nuclear arms race for fuck's sake!!!!

He doesn't want to start a war *with Russia*. But NOBODY freaking wants to start a war with Russia... least of all the guy who practically worships at Putin's feet.

gcomeau wrote:WTF are you even talking about? you mean the "rest of reality" as told by various blogs you read? What???

Considering i don´t read ANY blogs, that´s just insulting. Oh and it´s a logical fallacy.

I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is... because a question isn't one.

gcomeau wrote:and has now fallen back to denying it changed the election outcome (an absurd statement if there ever was one considering the margins involved and the widespread impact of the leaked material)

And HOW did that impact happen? Oh right, Murdoch media, FBI and a rather large chunk of US politicians and officials.

So, again, are you saying that Russia controls those enough to choose when they do something?

FFS, they don't have to control them, they just had to play them. And that's easy, the media will broadcast *anything* they think is controversial and thus ratings grabbing. And the GOP would support, or at the very least try hard not to defuse, *any* story that helped their election chances.

And as for "the FBI" you are talking like it was the organization as a whole. Comey stepped way out of line, and it *should* frankly end his career.

Really... you did "a bit of temp work" as a classified intelligence analyst?

First time wasn´t classified. Just a 5 year NDA that has long since expired now. And noone would ever hire temps for highly classified stuff.

You DO realise i hope that the vast majority of what ends up as "classified" at intelligence agencies is stuff you read in the newspaper a day or two, maybe a month or two later if it´s good?

As opposed to Russian government protestations that their activities are as pure as the driven snow... which are *incredibly* reliable and above board...

Oh we know perfectly well that the Russians had thorough espionage covering the election.
Getting that information is easy, yet there´s absolutely nothing out there about any sort of hacking from their side. Unless you start reading the mass media campaign, all of whom gets it from sources that have zero historical reliability.

There's this place called Ukraine... perhaps you've heard things have been less than stable in that area.

Yeah, surprising thing that. Did you ever bother to google "fuck the EU"?(which has been mentioned before on this forum) If not, well in short, USA has been busy overthrowing governments while working with the local nazi wannabe´s for a LONG time in the Ukraine.

Kinda hard to blame Russia too much for acting, when Ukraine outlaws the Russian language, then has the police stand aside and watch as Right Sector people murders people for "breaking the law" and speaking Russian in Crimea, which just happens to have over 80% Russian speaking population.

The Ukraine mess is mostly a creation of USA and to some extent select parts of the EU(the idiots!).


Oh and how about i point out something more about "longterm" here?

Remember the former Georgian president? You know the one who started the war with Russia in 2008? Guess where he went after Georgian police started looking too closely at him?

Ukraine. Where he instantly, *somehow*, became a bigwig and oh dear, is involved in starting, a war.

But trying to make this implication that it's part of some plan involving faking Russian intervention in the election is so stupid it defies description.

Really? Ever since Yeltsin got kicked out of Russian office, USA has worked at "containment".

As a former US official wrote about it, to keep Russia surrounded by "percolating violence", so that it can never threaten the US hegemony.

Taken directly from teachings of Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under Carter and still influential.

So what... you think Obama is planning on starting a 2 week long war with the Russians or something before Trump gets sworn in? NOBODY is stupid enough to actually think that so what the hell are you trying to say here?

Try looking around a bit. Noone is expecting a war before Obama is gone. But there´s plenty to expect one, or whatever is needed to take advantage of the situation.

It´s the greater part of a year since my friend predicted that if Clinton won, there would be some sort of conflict in 2017.

Now that´s obviously gone in pieces, so what does the "establishment" do then? Oh yeah they hate Trump(justifiably), so they let the current campaign keep going, perfect way of shredding any chance Trump has of a successful presidency, regardless what it ends up causing.

What.... the fuck... are you talking about????

The timeline of events? FBI taking up their investigation during the election was the second time they were at it. Or have you conveniently forgotten that?

Have you HEARD Trump talk? Like... EVER? He's the most recklessly belligerent idiot to ever occupy the White House I can think of. Within the last month he made a public declaration we should kick off a new nuclear arms race for fuck's sake!!!!

Yup. But considering Clinton was pushing for actions that could lead to USING those nukes rather than a nuclear arms RACE, hell yeah.

He doesn't want to start a war *with Russia*. But NOBODY freaking wants to start a war with Russia... least of all the guy who practically worships at Putin's feet.

Right, how many days ago was it that high level US politicians and military started talking big about how USA must deal with the "imminent" Russian threat?

I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is... because a question isn't one.

You nudged on several ones, appeal to authority most of all, non sequiteur and a red herring. If you don´t understand that you did so, great, but trying to refute someone by ridicule and "by association" while ignoring what was actually said, while having zero actual reason for that refutation, is dishonest and dishonorable.

If you don´t even know that a question can be a fallacy, then boy are you lacking in rethorics.

FFS, they don't have to control them, they just had to play them. And that's easy, the media will broadcast *anything* they think is controversial and thus ratings grabbing. And the GOP would support, or at the very least try hard not to defuse, *any* story that helped their election chances.

*facepalm*

Right, so tell us then, exactly HOW they managed the chain of events as it happened?

You realise that noone in the media have ANY implications about that happening?
In some cases, that would be outright amazing.

The entire freaking point of the NSA and CIA is to do things like penetrate secure communications!!!!

*facepalm*

And >99% of useful intercepts come from when information goes between places that does NOT have secure communications pre-established.

What you are effectively claiming is the equal of Russia bugging meetings inside the directors office at CIA headquarters. Not going to happen.

If you have an EXTREMELY sensitive operation, you do not run around talking about it in public or over unsecured communications.

Seriously, Putin is an ex-KGB FFS! Anyone doing that kind of kindergarten mistake under him is going to get kicked out before they even know what happened.

Tenshinai wrote:

Really... you did "a bit of temp work" as a classified intelligence analyst?

First time wasn´t classified. Just a 5 year NDA that has long since expired now. And noone would ever hire temps for highly classified stuff.

Yeah, I was aware. Perhaps my response was a little too subtle for the tone to come through in text.

Oh we know perfectly well that the Russians had thorough espionage covering the election.
Getting that information is easy, yet there´s absolutely nothing out there about any sort of hacking from their side.

We know the hack happened.

We know it targeted both parties but only damaging DNC info was leaked in a clear bid to sway the election in a specific direction.

The entire US intelligence community has identified the Russians as initiating the hack.

They have identified the go between which delivered the info from the Russians to WikiLeaks for dissemination.

We know the Russians had a clear preference for Trump winning...


Means motive and opportunity as well as the cyber forensic and additional intelligence evidence to back it up which has already been presented to BOTH parties and accepted by pretty much everyone, including *finally* Trump himself despite his efforts to avoid doing so, forcing him to fall back on "oh but it made no difference I would have won anyway" (an absurd claim).


Yeah... there's *nothing* out there.

You do realize that just dismissing all the evidence because you want to believe something else isn't the same thing as there not being evidence right?

Yeah, surprising thing that. Did you ever bother to google "fuck the EU"?(which has been mentioned before on this forum) If not, well in short, USA has been busy overthrowing governments while working with the local nazi wannabe´s for a LONG time in the Ukraine.

Oh FFS. Some official uses intemperate language while discussing how to get a peace settlement in place.... you conclude sinister government conspiracy.


A consensus intelligence finding sufficiently strong to unite both Democrats and Republicans in acceptance of it even though it calls into question the legitimacy of the next Republican President... you declare there's nothing to see here and it's all made up.

Kinda hard to blame Russia too much for acting, when Ukraine outlaws the Russian language,

Yeeeeeah... never happened. Russian is and always has been a constitutionally protected language in the Ukraine. They made Ukrainian the official state language but that no more outlawed Russian than the Canadians making English and French the official state languages outlawed Chinese or Spanish. Despite this however people lied their asses off about it being a ban in order to whip people up.

then has the police stand aside and watch as Right Sector people murders people for "breaking the law" and speaking Russian in Crimea, which just happens to have over 80% Russian speaking population.

Yeeeeeah... also never happened.

So no, not hard to blame Russia. They invaded another nation as a land and power grab and then threw out all kinds of bullshit excuses to try to confuse the issue. There, blamed. See how not hard that is?


You know... the NSA and CIA have seriously checkered pasts to be sure, but it is fucking *astonishing* how you can be so overboard paranoid about anything that involves them while simultaneously being so gullible about any propaganda coming out of the freaking Kremlin.

Oh and how about i point out something more about "longterm" here?

Remember the former Georgian president? You know the one who started the war with Russia in 2008?

The generally accepted criteria for determining who started a war is the side that *attacked*.

Which wasn't Georgia.

Guess where he went after Georgian police started looking too closely at him?

Ukraine. Where he instantly, *somehow*, became a bigwig and oh dear, is involved in starting, a war.

Again, your definition of "starting" a war appears to be highly suspect.

Seriously, what is it with you and Russia?

So what... you think Obama is planning on starting a 2 week long war with the Russians or something before Trump gets sworn in? NOBODY is stupid enough to actually think that so what the hell are you trying to say here?

Try looking around a bit. Noone is expecting a war before Obama is gone. But there´s plenty to expect one, or whatever is needed to take advantage of the situation.

It´s the greater part of a year since my friend predicted that if Clinton won, there would be some sort of conflict in 2017.

Now that´s obviously gone in pieces, so what does the "establishment" do then? Oh yeah they hate Trump(justifiably), so they let the current campaign keep going, perfect way of shredding any chance Trump has of a successful presidency, regardless what it ends up causing.

What did you just say? Seriously, I cannot make sense of that paragraph. The first 2 sentences in isolation makes sense but then it just kind of implodes.


And who the hell cares what your friend said a year ago about a situation that isn't going to come to pass? Why is that even there? Are you just typing things to type things?

And what freaking "campaign"? So far your basis for claiming one appears to be a bunch of claims about Georgia and the Ukraine that fly in the face of reality, the total rejection of all available indications of what actually happened with the DNC hack, and quoting a National Security Adviser from the 1970s.

What.... the fuck... are you talking about????

The timeline of events? FBI taking up their investigation during the election was the second time they were at it. Or have you conveniently forgotten that?

No, I have not forgotten it. I just cannot for the freaking life of me understand why the hell you keep talking about it in the context of the Russian hack.

Have you HEARD Trump talk? Like... EVER? He's the most recklessly belligerent idiot to ever occupy the White House I can think of. Within the last month he made a public declaration we should kick off a new nuclear arms race for fuck's sake!!!!

Yup. But considering Clinton was pushing for actions that could lead to USING those nukes rather than a nuclear arms RACE, hell yeah.

Just.... no. I can't stand Clinton but no she wasn't. Not even Remotely. Once again, WTF are you talking about???

He doesn't want to start a war *with Russia*. But NOBODY freaking wants to start a war with Russia... least of all the guy who practically worships at Putin's feet.

Right, how many days ago was it that high level US politicians and military started talking big about how USA must deal with the "imminent" Russian threat?

No days ago, because nobody used those terms.

I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is... because a question isn't one.

You nudged on several ones, appeal to authority most of all,

An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if you are citing an innapropriate subject matter expert or other authority figure.

Appealing to the "authority" of a Nobel Prize winner in Physics to settle a physics dispute? Not a logical fallacy. appealing to the "authority" of a nobel Laureate in physics to settle an economics argument? Logical Fallacy. See how that works?


Appealing to the authority of the entire professional US intelligence community on a dispute over an intelligence matter is not a logical fallacy. It's expert testimony.

So, strike one on understanding what logical fallacies are.

non sequiteur and a red herring.

You mean like talking about an FBI investigation into the handling of classified materials at the state Department as if it had a freaking thing to do with the subject of the hacking of DNC servers?

You mean like that?

Strike Two...

Care to take a third swing?

FFS, they don't have to control them, they just had to play them. And that's easy, the media will broadcast *anything* they think is controversial and thus ratings grabbing. And the GOP would support, or at the very least try hard not to defuse, *any* story that helped their election chances.

*facepalm*

Right, so tell us then, exactly HOW they managed the chain of events as it happened?

.


Ok, hold on this gets REALLY complicated!

1. Hack DNC.
2. Selectively choose information that could damage Clinton.
3. Leak it.

FUCKING DONE. How hard is this to grasp? What the hell do you think required some kind of Machiavellian "managing"?

The entire freaking point of the NSA and CIA is to do things like penetrate secure communications!!!!

*facepalm*

And >99% of useful intercepts come from when information goes between places that does NOT have secure communications pre-established.

And some doesn't. Guess where the important stuff tends to come from? It's not about quantity, it's about quality. I couldn't give less of a crap about your made up 99% number.

What you are effectively claiming is the equal of Russia bugging meetings inside the directors office at CIA headquarters. Not going to happen.

And now you're just making shit up. You have no idea where the communications were intercepted or who sent what through what channels.

If you have an EXTREMELY sensitive operation, you do not run around talking about it in public or over unsecured communications.

*facepalm*

The. NSA. Exists. To. Penetrate. Secure. Communications.

When we were planning our supporting role in a trip to the sand pit, my office and adjoining small conference room were shielded in all possible ways, despite being in the middle of a military base. All good, then I overheard a couple of my Colonels openly discussing our deliberations in the officer's mess, with contract staff around.
No system is perfect.

Did you get into much trouble for smacking them in the back of the head with a cricket bat?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I had backup. They chose to be dickheads on the day that our Major General was visiting. Didn't get demoted but it didn't do their future careers any good either. I should have been more precise, one was a Wing Commander and the other a Lieutenant Colonel.

Annachie wrote:Did you get into much trouble for smacking them in the back of the head with a cricket bat?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

gcomeau wrote:
The. NSA. Exists. To. Penetrate. Secure. Communications.

And amazing surprise, most nations spend more or less on making sure that CANNOT HAPPEN.
Exactly because it is well known what the NSA and Echelon etc does. Are you so stupid that you think Russians just ignore it?

Don´t you have even the slightest understanding of there being various security levels for communication?

And how, shockingly, noone handles any kind of secure covert ops over anything but the ridiculously secure lines, IF they´re talked about at all over ANY kind of communications.

Why do you think USA has repeatedly been totally blindsided by Russia and USSR before it? Oh right, because these kind of ops are not discussed over anything that can be intercepted.

The KGB wrote most of the manual on this kind of crap, and you expect their replacement agency makes this kind of amateur mistake?

This kind of amazingly "convenient evidence" is in fact one of the reasons suggesting it´s utterly fake.

gcomeau wrote:And now you're just making shit up. You have no idea where the communications were intercepted or who sent what through what channels.

I know what kind of security would be considered minimal for this type of operation, if it was done by my own nation, and i KNOW that Russia is even more extreme about it. It wouldn´t even be mentioned in any kind of regular communication.

gcomeau wrote:And some doesn't. Guess where the important stuff tends to come from? It's not about quantity, it's about quality. I couldn't give less of a crap about your made up 99% number.

It´s not made up so much as it´s a simplification, because the real number is somewhere between 99 and 100%.

In comparison, Swedish signal intelligence during the cold war against USSR consisted of over 99.99% low security/unprepared communications. That level was normal.
It´s gone down a bit since then because of changes in communication and electronics overall, but it´s still definitely not below 99%.

gcomeau wrote:Ok, hold on this gets REALLY complicated!

1. Hack DNC.
2. Selectively choose information that could damage Clinton.
3. Leak it.

FUCKING DONE. How hard is this to grasp? What the hell do you think required some kind of Machiavellian "managing"?

Right, you don´t even understand the question then.

Dont take a job as an analyst.

Not even your dumbed down "timeline" actually works.

gcomeau wrote:No days ago, because nobody used those terms.

"The Russian threat" was the EXACT term used repeatedly.

gcomeau wrote:Just.... no. I can't stand Clinton but no she wasn't. Not even Remotely. Once again, WTF are you talking about???

Right now, i´m talking about the US troop build up in Eastern Europe. A BIG bunch of troops that are supposedly there to "conduct a 9 month exercise". Yeah, because 9 month exercises happens SO often with divisions worth of troops.
The largest deployment of troops since the cold war, yeah absolutely nothing to worry about, i´m sure.

The supposedly called operation Atlantic Resolve which started one way and is now looking very different.

gcomeau wrote:The generally accepted criteria for determining who started a war is the side that *attacked*.

Which wasn't Georgia.

Really? Try asking the EU about that.

They actually made an official report that oh yes it was indeed Georgia that started the war(which was fuckin obvious even after just 2 days!!!). Of course, THAT report barely made the news at all, and noone said even as much as "oops sorry" about blaming Russia for it for years first.

Let´s see, what was the chain of events?

US/Georgian exercise, Russia holding an exercise of its own meanwhile.

Various back and forth skirmishing that was sadly nothing new. The Russian peacekeeper unit in Tskhinvali doing at least a halfdecent job at keeping the near area a bit calmer.

US/Georgian exercise ends.
Russian exercise ends, troops begin returning home, aircraft are sent to homebases and stands down for maintenance.
Georgian troops does not stand down and go to their home bases, instead they marsch towards South Ossetia region.

Then comes the real wonder of the whole deal, Georgian troops initiate the attack on the night of the 8th August, by massed MRLS fire against Tskhinvali.

If not for the majority of people already having fled, that would have resulted in a massacre. It still caused 162 confirmed civillian casualties and 10 of the Russian peacekeepers there.
(interestingly, the Georgian peacekeeper units in the region DID NOT participate in the attack and stuck to trying to do their job up until at least the next day)

The Russian response was to to rush the unit that was originally supposed to replace the peacekeeper unit in the city shortly anyway, Georgian bombardment against the Roki tunnel inflicted uncertain casualties on these troops, but most of all just slowed them down.

Meanwhile, the Georgian ASSAULT against the Russian peacekeeper force in Tskhinvali, a force that had NOT MOVED OUTSIDE THE CITY AT ALL, failed despite a HUGE numbers advantage.

Russian troops in the region when Georgia attacked: 496
South Ossetian militia: 2500
North Ossetian volunteers: 488

Georgian troops actively involved in the attack: around 12000

So, are you so thoroughly bedazzled by propaganda that you actually beleive that Russia would start a war when it is at a 24 to 1 numerical disadvantage? Huh?

Then, why don´t you look at what Russia did next, because that´s real interesting you know.
Did they suddenly throw a crapload of nearby troops into Georgia? Well no, because much of the troops from the just finished exercise in the area were on trains heading for home.
No, one of their first responses was to rush an airborne unit from Northwestern Russia(Pskov,Novorossiysk) to there.

And in case you missed it, the tiny Georgian airforce outnumbered Russian planes in the skies for the first 36 hours of the conflict.

Oh yeah, Russia attacked, but they just forgot to bring their airforce, yeah that sounds reasonable.

Oh and then there´s the fact that "The Georgian air-defence early-warning and command-control tactical system was connected via Turkey to a NATO Air Situation Data Exchange (ASDE), which provided Georgia with intelligence during the conflict."(from wiki)
For some "strange" reason, this was set up before Georgia did not, according to you, start the war.

And then there´s the Georgian propaganda central set up in the Netherlands, at least 2 weeks before Georgia did not, according to you, start the war.

Yes, because everyone sets up propaganda centrals elsewhere in preparation for defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#2008_war
Georgia launched a large-scale military operation against South Ossetia during the night of 7–8 August 2008.[63] According to the EU fact-finding mission, 10,000–11,000 soldiers took part in the general Georgian offensive in South Ossetia.[64] The investigators found that "None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack" were valid, and that "it is not possible to accept that the shelling of Tskhinvali with Grad multiple rocket launchers and heavy artillery would satisfy the requirements of having been necessary and proportionate".[65][66] The official reason given by Tbilisi for this was to "restore constitutional order" in the region.[67]


Screw this, if you´re too blinded to even notice who actually MANEUVERED TO ATTACK, then it doesn´t matter what facts i show.

This Trump derangement syndrome is nuts!! It's even worse than Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome.

biochem wrote:This Trump derangement syndrome is nuts!! It's even worse than Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome.

For it to be "derangement syndrome" the criticisms and anxieties have to be... you know... deranged. Rather than based in solidly established facts.

gcomeau wrote:

biochem wrote:This Trump derangement syndrome is nuts!! It's even worse than Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome.

For it to be "derangement syndrome" the criticisms and anxieties have to be... you know... deranged. Rather than based in solidly established facts.

I thought it went the other way: No matter how accuate the criticism the dreangement syndrome is levelled against the criticizers to discredit them. The more accurate the ctiticism the harder the dreangement syndrome is asserted by the loyalists.

... But what do I know?