The Next President is...

[nsplayr]

55 minutes ago, 1111 said:

Honest question, looking to see your thought process, how do you prove or disprove Russia hack the election?

To be specific I am asking how can you prove Russia did or did not hack the electorate by their info Ops plans/war/whatever you want to call it?

Can this be truthfully be answered with facts or is this all everyone's opinions?

Not that you asked me, but this is how: USG intelligence agencies examine the digital forensic evidence, looking for markers commonly used by known Russian state actors, while also making analytic assessments of intent based on open-source and classified communications.

In fact, this very thing you're asking about was in the news yesterday. On 6 January 17, the intelligence community, via the DNI, released a report titled Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution. It's an unclassified version of a classified assessment that obviously isn't fully releasable to the public. To be exact, the report itself says, "This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign."

The report presents the publically releasable evidence leading the IC to jointly conclude, "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

The reason this was in the news yesterday once again was because the following Trump Administration officials testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Director of National Intelligence, former Republican Senator Dan Coats, Director of Central Intelligence, former Republican Representative Mike Pompeo, acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and Director of the NSA Adm. Mike Rogers. These officials were nominated and appointed by President Trump, minus McCabe who just got in the seat two days ago and Rogers who remained in place from the last admin.

The IC leaders were asked by Senator Mark Warner if they accepted the conclusions of the 6 Jan 17 report, and all answered yes.

So this conclusion, that it was indeed the Russian government that directed and carried out an influence and hacking campaign against the US during the 2016 election, was unanimously agreed upon by officials at all 17 intel agencies during the final days Obama admin IC officials, and yesterday was once again affirmed by the four top IC agency leaders of the Trump admin.

Edited May 13, 2017 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

36 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

There is nothing to prosecute, no laws broken.

With the FBI and 2x Congressional investigations still ongoing, this is a bold statement to make. Saved for posterity; I hope you're right. 

[matmacwc]

The head of the DNI said there was nothing going on vis-a-vis TRUMP, admit to the whole story there Mr. Player.  And again, the election wasn't hacked, the DNC was by whoever.  Someone tried to influence it?  Sure, we do the same as we ought to, except when Obama did it in Israel, that was BS.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Well you have to ask the opposite, prove it.  No doubt they want to influence it and they probably tried, we do the same thing.  The proof is in the pudding as they say, would a foreign power want a unpredictable republican in office or a jellied spine democrat who already sold them uranium.  Russia does not win with the Republican, they win with a democrat or does the whole site need a history lesson?

You are going to hear "Special" or "Independent" or "Bi-partisan" PROSECUTOR all weekend.  There is nothing to prosecute, no laws broken.  There is no proof, Clapper said it and Comes said it.  This is all political.

Not sure if I see the proof in the pudding, but I can see your angle.

 

My question what if Russia info Ops hurt Hilla more than the Russians expected and left Donnie in a position to win. How do our agencies disprove/prove that? I think this is going to be one of those situations where each side is going to hold onto to their version. 

Are the Russians not in a better position with this "unpredictable" republican? They do not seem to be fairing any worse under  a Donnie administration.

[matmacwc]

Lets see another reset button or a missile strike on Syria to see.  Oh wait.....

The info is all there.

Edited May 13, 2017 by matmacwc

[Ram]

You guys forget that the overall goal of any Russian influence is just to cast doubt upon the validity of our democratic process.

To them, ultimately it doesn't matter who won the election. They have ways to make both of our main candidates look bad. They also know that our political process is so polarized that the "losing" party will happily dance to the tune of electoral illegitimacy.

As long as the US electoral process is damaged, Russia meets its goal.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about this, but here we are bickering about foreign electoral influence like it's some sort of surprise. YGBSM.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[TreeA10]

It had to be the Russians!!  It could not have been 30 years of shady dealings and "mis-speaking" (i.e. lying).  Failing to campaign in critical swing states?  The Russians caused that!  Set up a home brew server in your bathroom?  Russians!  Have your housekeeper access and print your classified?  Was she Russian?  Probably.  It's the only thing Democrats and liberals can hang their hat on beside putting that hat on the head of their extremely poor choice of candidate and admitting their error.

[brickhistory]

Given the final choices of the last Presidential election, I still, delightedly, fall back on my ABCs...Anybody But Clinton.

Trump should've announced Comey's firing with "after careful consideration and listening to the advice from Shumer, Waters, et al, I fired him."

Maxine Waters for President, 2020!

(rings all the progressive bells - minority, woman, dumber than a box of rocks.  Winning!!)

[waveshaper]

8 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Given the final choices of the last Presidential election, I still, delightedly, fall back on my ABCs...Anybody But Clinton.

The "F" Word;

There are only 11 times in history where the "F" word has been considered acceptable for use.

They are as follows:

11. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?"
-- Capt. E.J. Smith of RMS Titanic, 1912

10. "What the @#$% was that?"
-- Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

9. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?"
-- George Custer, 1877

8. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that."
-- Albert Einstein, 1938

7. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!"
-- Picasso, 1926

6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?"
-- Pythagoras, 126 BC

5. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?"
-- Michelangelo, 1566

4. "Where the @#$% are we?"
-- Amelia Earhart, 1937

3. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ***!"
-- Noah, 4314 BC

2. "Aw c'mon Monica. Who the @#$% is going to find out?"
-- Bill Clinton, 1998

1. "There is no @#$%ing way Trump will ever become President"
-- HilaryClinton 2016

[ItnStln]

The "F" Word;

There are only 11 times in history where the "F" word has been considered acceptable for use.

They are as follows:

11. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?"
-- Capt. E.J. Smith of RMS Titanic, 1912

10. "What the @#$% was that?"
-- Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

9. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?"
-- George Custer, 1877

8. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that."
-- Albert Einstein, 1938

7. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!"
-- Picasso, 1926

6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?"
-- Pythagoras, 126 BC

5. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?"
-- Michelangelo, 1566

4. "Where the @#$% are we?"
-- Amelia Earhart, 1937

3. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ***!"
-- Noah, 4314 BC

2. "Aw c'mon Monica. Who the @#$% is going to find out?"
-- Bill Clinton, 1998

1. "There is no @#$%ing way Trump will ever become President"
-- HilaryClinton 2016

Very truth

[Homestar]

This is so dumb.  Trump didn't even win as many votes as Clinton, so the Russians did a pretty lousy job "hacking" the election for Trump.  Explain to me how some freaking Russian cyber thugs knew how to expertly place an influence campaign in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan while the Clinton campaign itself couldn't figure it out.

 

[tk1313]

14 hours ago, Homestar said:

This is so dumb.  Trump didn't even win as many votes as Clinton, so the Russians did a pretty lousy job "hacking" the election for Trump.  Explain to me how some freaking Russian cyber thugs knew how to expertly place an influence campaign in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan while the Clinton campaign itself couldn't figure it out.

 

Fvcking THANK YOU! Would anyone want to place bets on whether or not any politicians consult the Russians in 2020 to figure out which counties they need to campaign in to win the swing states?

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 6:39 AM, Ram said:

You guys forget that the overall goal of any Russian influence is just to cast doubt upon the validity of our democratic process.

To them, ultimately it doesn't matter who won the election. They have ways to make both of our main candidates look bad. They also know that our political process is so polarized that the "losing" party will happily dance to the tune of electoral illegitimacy.

As long as the US electoral process is damaged, Russia meets its goal.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about this, but here we are bickering about foreign electoral influence like it's some sort of surprise. YGBSM.

Exactly, and the polarized politicians don't care about there actually being a connection between Russia and Trump as much as they care about dragging out this "investigation" as long as possible to induce Cold War reminiscent hysteria.

Every time Trump says or does something that makes me skeptical, the medias overreaction is so rabid that I end up defending him.

[disgruntledemployee]

Well, whenever I do something to influence elections, I always make sure it looks like the Ruskies did it.  Always.  Anyone would believe that.

Out

[brickhistory]

Washington Post, swiftly picked by the mob, reports via anonymous sources, that Trump revealed sources/methods when meeting with Russian PM and ambassador.

The only Americans in the room besides POTUS were SecState, NSC Director Lt Gen McMasters, and another senior NSC staffer.  All three have made on the record statements that it didn't happen.

Hmmm, anonymous sources who physically weren't in the meeting room or on the record statements by the senior USG officals.

But they are in the Trump administration so it's gotta be the anonymous sources that are correct, right?

[matmacwc]

Yes, it means they made it up.

[waveshaper]

This is nothing new and not the first time a Russian Ambassador has seen the "Big Board".

 

[tk1313]

WaPo = clickbait

Anyone else think that Trump is using his absurd tweeting/narrative and subsequent media reactions to distract the new party of opposition from stonewalling his agenda? Whether intentional or not, it seems to be working fairly well for now... Wouldn't be the first time he riled up the media to further his agenda.

[matmacwc]

He's playing the media like a fiddle.  The major DNC, er, media sources are losing their minds of the "classified" stuff he may or may not have let go.  Play it out for a little while, hire a new FBI director and drop the bomb on Hillary that she is back under investigation for mishandling classified.  The media will be stuck in the corner over what they said prior it will be fun to watch, kind of like the Comey firing.

[hispeed7721]

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Jaded]

What sources do you guys believe? Which do you consider "fake news"?

[tk1313]

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

What sources do you guys believe? Which do you consider "fake news"?

"Fake news" was a term coined by Facebook for what, I think, was their attempt to provide an explanation/excuse as to why Clinton lost "bigly" even though polls showed her with double digit margins over Trump. Personally, I only use it ironically, usually to dismiss views I don't agree with.

What sources do I believe? I guess I "believe" most of them, even though most news nowadays is just the same regurgitated crap that is more speculative opinion than actual information... So I definitely don't arrive at the same conclusion as the author does due to his/her obvious bias. For example, when Comey was fired, McCabe said he believed the FBI had all the information they needed to finish the probe into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign, and that the investigation would be unaffected by the firing since Comey played more of a supervisory role in the investigation. MSM's version: McCabe "vows" not to let Comey firing deter the FBI's investigation of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign. Leading the reader to believe that Trump fired Comey, the "lead investigator" (actual quote from the media), to "cover-up" (again, actual words used by media sources) the investigation... And now Trump might wage a war on McCabe and the rest of the FBI if it weren't for the fact that McCabe's righteous beacon of justice can't be dimmed by the communist dictator Trump and his brutal, tyrannical suppression of freedom and truth! Vive la République!

Edited May 16, 2017 by tk1313

[Jaded]

I guess I still don't understand, but whatever. It kind of seems like people just find things on the internet to make them believe that whatever side they are on is right.

Here's the Wall Street Journal saying that Trump revealed classified information received from Israel:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-russia-was-from-israel-officials-say-1494960259

So if you're a Trump supporter, either this is him playing 4D chess, or "fake news." If you're not a Trump supporter, this is yet another example of him being irresponsible and you still want him impeached. If a person hasn't changed his mind by this point, nothing will. I think Trump could murder a child on TV, and his polling numbers wouldn't change.

[tk1313]

32 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I guess I still don't understand, but whatever. It kind of seems like people just find things on the internet to make them believe that whatever side they are on is right.

Here's the Wall Street Journal saying that Trump revealed classified information received from Israel:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-russia-was-from-israel-officials-say-1494960259

So if you're a Trump supporter, either this is him playing 4D chess, or "fake news." If you're not a Trump supporter, this is yet another example of him being irresponsible and you still want him impeached. If a person hasn't changed his mind by this point, nothing will. I think Trump could murder a child on TV, and his polling numbers wouldn't change.

I think the opposite is true as well. Trump could end world hunger or cure cancer and he'd be blamed with destroying healthcare and agriculture jobs (not technically wrong, but you see the bias). Highly polarized news... Same shit, different day.

I think WSJ is a pretty good source in most cases. I'm still not sure if I see an issue, though. All of the news articles now seem to hint at Trump warning Russia about ISIS technology that could harm those fighting them. Russia is fighting ISIS, so are we. Did Israel hear of a terror plot involving Russia? Would you not be OK with us sharing that information with them? I'm OK with something like that, but chances are that we'll never know the details and it will continue to be polarized speculation. Just more of the same "grumble, grumble, Russia." McMaster seems to be defending Trump on this one, and so far he hasn't given me a reason to doubt him... so... I'll defend Trump on this one too for now.

Edited May 16, 2017 by tk1313

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, Jaded said:

What sources do you guys believe? Which do you consider "fake news"?

"Fake news" is the modern incarnation of propaganda. The reason for the new term is because of the modern proliferation of "news" sites along with the historical association of the term "propaganda" being so closely linked with what Communist governments do in their own countries. Those two factors necessitated the creation of a new term, though it's really nothing new.

Basically, it's everywhere. People are either outright lying, lying by omission, or selectively hearing statements and reading into them what they want to hear, you name it - it's literally everywhere I look.

50 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I guess I still don't understand, but whatever. It kind of seems like people just find things on the internet to make them believe that whatever side they are on is right.

Here's the Wall Street Journal saying that Trump revealed classified information received from Israel:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-russia-was-from-israel-officials-say-1494960259

So if you're a Trump supporter, either this is him playing 4D chess, or "fake news." If you're not a Trump supporter, this is yet another example of him being irresponsible and you still want him impeached. If a person hasn't changed his mind by this point, nothing will. I think Trump could murder a child on TV, and his polling numbers wouldn't change.

People do that with or without the internet - that has been true since the dawn of time.

Question: Is 4D chess distinguishable from "fake news" or anything else? At what dimension of chess do we finally arrive back at checkers? I say the proof is in the pudding - it's really the only way to tell.

Edited May 16, 2017 by ViperMan

[Jaded]

37 minutes ago, tk1313 said:

I think the opposite is true as well. Trump could end world hunger or cure cancer and he'd be blamed with destroying healthcare and agriculture jobs (not technically wrong, but you see the bias). Highly polarized news... Same shit, different day.

I think WSJ is a pretty good source in most cases. I'm still not sure if I see an issue, though. All of the news articles now seem to hint at Trump warning Russia about ISIS technology that could harm those fighting them. Russia is fighting ISIS, so are we. Did Israel hear of a terror plot involving Russia? Would you not be OK with us sharing that information with them? I'm OK with something like that, but chances are that we'll never know the details and it will continue to be polarized speculation. Just more of the same "grumble, grumble, Russia." McMaster seems to be defending Trump on this one, and so far he hasn't given me a reason to doubt him... so... I'll defend Trump on this one too for now.

So you think Israel will ever share intel with us again?