How Many Abers Actually Like To Watch...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Didn't Someone Else Think Of That?
40 Answers
A powerful (not democratic) nation sees one of its political adversaries going to democratic elections, Powerful nation thinks candidate A in office rather than B would be better for powerful nation's interest. Powerful nation uses its "Intelligence Services" to find out what's going on. (I think their methods may be "overt" or "covert", whatever distinction that implies). Powerful nation devizes ways of "influencing" the electoral process of its adversary by producing negative news about B and none about A (oh, and "fake news" flattering the one at the expense of the other). All very naughty stuff given the universally accepted principle of C keeping his or her nose out of D's election.
Given the fact that Putin has got his puppet into power by subterfuge you have to ask how the combined weight Obama, Clinton, Soros, CNN, Hollywood, Merkel, BBC etc failed. Was there or was there not a campaign against Mr Nasty persistent and unrelenting? Didn't they try hard enough? Where did they go wrong?
Were they, perhaps, too nice,
Given the fact that Putin has got his puppet into power by subterfuge you have to ask how the combined weight Obama, Clinton, Soros, CNN, Hollywood, Merkel, BBC etc failed. Was there or was there not a campaign against Mr Nasty persistent and unrelenting? Didn't they try hard enough? Where did they go wrong?
Were they, perhaps, too nice,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vetuste_ennemi. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I understand who A and B are, but at the end of your first paragraph you introduce C and D.
Who are these factors?
Also, what has Merkel got to do with it?
And when you consider the combined weight, wouldn't you also have to consider the combined weight of the GOP machine, Breibart, Michele Bachmann, Trump himself, Palin, Limbaugh and the Tea Party?
These are pretty influential right wing supporters of Trump.
So...balance?
Who are these factors?
Also, what has Merkel got to do with it?
And when you consider the combined weight, wouldn't you also have to consider the combined weight of the GOP machine, Breibart, Michele Bachmann, Trump himself, Palin, Limbaugh and the Tea Party?
These are pretty influential right wing supporters of Trump.
So...balance?
//Was there or was there not a campaign against Mr Nasty persistent and unrelenting? //
Yes, there was.
//Where did they go wrong?//
They determinedly neglected to acknowledge the concerns of approximately 50% of the American electorate, which are not primarily about that other powerful nation.
For those who still don’t understand what happened – and what is happening across the whole of the western world - Sam Harris sums it up in 6.5 minutes. Do please take the time to listen to him.
Yes, there was.
//Where did they go wrong?//
They determinedly neglected to acknowledge the concerns of approximately 50% of the American electorate, which are not primarily about that other powerful nation.
For those who still don’t understand what happened – and what is happening across the whole of the western world - Sam Harris sums it up in 6.5 minutes. Do please take the time to listen to him.
The US intelligence agencies make these bizarre accusations without offering up one scrap of proof and inform The Washington Post (a rag shadow of its former self) and CNN (Clinton News Network) first, - which is how the President-Elect of the United States first heard about it.
John McAfee, Assange and many other internet experts have pointed out that though it is possible to know you have been hacked, it is not possible to know by whom.
Jack; It isn't magic mushrooms, more likely some rather dodgy Bulgarian vino :0)
John McAfee, Assange and many other internet experts have pointed out that though it is possible to know you have been hacked, it is not possible to know by whom.
Jack; It isn't magic mushrooms, more likely some rather dodgy Bulgarian vino :0)
naomi24
Was there also a campaign against Clinton that was persistent and unrelenting?
Doesn't absolutely every Presidential nominee go under the microscope?
Doesn't every potential PM?
Isn't that the function of opposition? To do their very best to discredit the opposition?
When the "You can grab them by the ***y" comment was aired, didn't Trump the convene a press conference with women that Bill Clinton allegedly raped, and then went on record saying that Hillary was partly responsible for enabling him?
Would it not be odd for Trump's opponents to remain silent when the weight of the U.S. conservative media were playing the same games?
Was there also a campaign against Clinton that was persistent and unrelenting?
Doesn't absolutely every Presidential nominee go under the microscope?
Doesn't every potential PM?
Isn't that the function of opposition? To do their very best to discredit the opposition?
When the "You can grab them by the ***y" comment was aired, didn't Trump the convene a press conference with women that Bill Clinton allegedly raped, and then went on record saying that Hillary was partly responsible for enabling him?
Would it not be odd for Trump's opponents to remain silent when the weight of the U.S. conservative media were playing the same games?
khandro
You wrote:
it is possible to know you have been hacked, it is not possible to know by whom.
That's not actually true.
When you hack into a system, unless you are very careful, you will leave digital footprints which can be traced back to originating IP addresses.
This is how Lauri Love and Gary Gary McKinnon were caught.
From an IP address, security services can monitor web traffic to and from those addresses, coupled with GPS signals to identify a) location and b) traffic to/from other IP addresses to get a view on associations.
The general public think that they can mask themselves by using VPN routers, but believe me - they are *not* foolproof.
You wrote:
it is possible to know you have been hacked, it is not possible to know by whom.
That's not actually true.
When you hack into a system, unless you are very careful, you will leave digital footprints which can be traced back to originating IP addresses.
This is how Lauri Love and Gary Gary McKinnon were caught.
From an IP address, security services can monitor web traffic to and from those addresses, coupled with GPS signals to identify a) location and b) traffic to/from other IP addresses to get a view on associations.
The general public think that they can mask themselves by using VPN routers, but believe me - they are *not* foolproof.
khandro
This is what the report from the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) states:
[i]This report is a downgraded version of a more sensitive assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the more sensitive assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.[i]
I suspect that the security services in the U.S. simply *can't* disclose details of the proof they have gathered, because this would be reveal the protocols they used to uncover the source of the hacks which would compromise future security initiatives.
This is what the report from the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) states:
[i]This report is a downgraded version of a more sensitive assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the more sensitive assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.[i]
I suspect that the security services in the U.S. simply *can't* disclose details of the proof they have gathered, because this would be reveal the protocols they used to uncover the source of the hacks which would compromise future security initiatives.
sp //When you hack into a system, unless you are very careful, you will leave digital footprints which can be traced back to originating IP addresses.//
If you're smart enough to get into US security, methinks you're smart enough not to leave 'footprints'.
If there was such evidence, we wouldn't have to put up with phrases like; "Intelligence sources believe ...." etc. it would be emblazoned across the media.
If you're smart enough to get into US security, methinks you're smart enough not to leave 'footprints'.
If there was such evidence, we wouldn't have to put up with phrases like; "Intelligence sources believe ...." etc. it would be emblazoned across the media.
naomi24
I read the report from the ODNI.
It's pretty serious stuff, and from what I've read, I think that the CIA, FBI and NSA have a pretty strong case.
Let's put it this way - if they really wanted to keep Trump out of the White House, and the report is fake - why not release it three months ago?
Why wait until now?
I read the report from the ODNI.
It's pretty serious stuff, and from what I've read, I think that the CIA, FBI and NSA have a pretty strong case.
Let's put it this way - if they really wanted to keep Trump out of the White House, and the report is fake - why not release it three months ago?
Why wait until now?
khandro
What do you mean by 'US Security'?
If you're talking about Gary McKinnon, he was certainly smart enough to hack into NASA and US military installations, but not smart enough to hide his digital footprint.
But if you're not talking about him, then the argument is moot, because the security services aren't claiming that the Russians hacked into US Security Services computers.
The hackers targeted the Democratic Party systems.
What do you mean by 'US Security'?
If you're talking about Gary McKinnon, he was certainly smart enough to hack into NASA and US military installations, but not smart enough to hide his digital footprint.
But if you're not talking about him, then the argument is moot, because the security services aren't claiming that the Russians hacked into US Security Services computers.
The hackers targeted the Democratic Party systems.
khandro
The best way to judge this story is to go to the source.
https:/
This sums up why papers are using the term 'allegedly':
The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
This is such an important story, that it's best to understand exactly what protocols are involved.
Of course, we cannot fully place our trust in what the ODNI tells us, any more than we can trust Russia's denials...but the fact that 35 Russian diplomats were expelled from the U.S. in December indicates that there is likely to be more than a grain of truth in the claims.
The best way to judge this story is to go to the source.
https:/
This sums up why papers are using the term 'allegedly':
The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
This is such an important story, that it's best to understand exactly what protocols are involved.
Of course, we cannot fully place our trust in what the ODNI tells us, any more than we can trust Russia's denials...but the fact that 35 Russian diplomats were expelled from the U.S. in December indicates that there is likely to be more than a grain of truth in the claims.
Interesting piece by Sam Harris Naomi which basically says Clinton lost the election by not addressing American's concerns about radical Islam as she feared being labelled 'racist'.
If the Intelligence behind the claims of Russian intelligence weren't accurate then I believe that our own intelligence services would be pretty miffed at being cited as the first party to spot it. I hear no protests from them that this isn't the case.
If the Intelligence behind the claims of Russian intelligence weren't accurate then I believe that our own intelligence services would be pretty miffed at being cited as the first party to spot it. I hear no protests from them that this isn't the case.
naomi24
Why did people ignore the accusations?
Possibly because the bigger story leading up to the elections was the content of the DNC leaks, rather than the source.
Remember, the story was being driven by the Washington Post, Wikileaks and Crowdstrike, and the news cycle at the time centred one what was in the emails.
And then to make matters even more confusing, two days after the initial reports, both the Washington Post and New York Times published reports saying there are conflicting points of view within the intelligence community on what Russia's intentions may have been, and whether or not Russia sought simply to undermine the election process, or more narrowly to get Trump elected.
All this time (in the period leading up to the election), there was no official statement made by the security services.
So with conflicting news agency reports, it's understandable why those who voted for Trump may have simply thought the whole story was hokum.
Why did people ignore the accusations?
Possibly because the bigger story leading up to the elections was the content of the DNC leaks, rather than the source.
Remember, the story was being driven by the Washington Post, Wikileaks and Crowdstrike, and the news cycle at the time centred one what was in the emails.
And then to make matters even more confusing, two days after the initial reports, both the Washington Post and New York Times published reports saying there are conflicting points of view within the intelligence community on what Russia's intentions may have been, and whether or not Russia sought simply to undermine the election process, or more narrowly to get Trump elected.
All this time (in the period leading up to the election), there was no official statement made by the security services.
So with conflicting news agency reports, it's understandable why those who voted for Trump may have simply thought the whole story was hokum.
