Pete's Prediction for Hillary's secret weapon at the DNC

[Pete at Home]

Is Russia really manipulating our elections though by revealing to us that and how they are rigged and who is rigging them?

It seems to me that they aren't manipulating our elections so much as Un-manipulating them.

Brilliantly worded, but given the DNC's record for obfuscation, manipulation, and outright lying, I have little confidence in its investigation of the hack.  Russian code snippets can be planted by DNC investigators.  Why does no one even consider the possibility that someone at the DNC grew a conscience and leaked to Wikilinks?  If that was what happened, of course Assange would let the DNC lie an pretend it was a Russian source rather than burn his actual source.

[D.W.]

Obligatory flattery that this crowd is likely smarter than the average voting population.

Are ANY of your surprised the DNC was trying to undermine Sanders and was not impartial?  Was this news to ANY of you at all?  Who didn't already know this that paid any kind of attention to the campaign to date?

I'll admit that it's still an important reveal that shines a little light of reality so the inattentive / oblivious notice things.  I'll even go so far as to say that if it was a foreign state sponsored intrusion to get this information out, it's a big deal.  However, this is like the worst kept secret of the year. 

[Pete at Home]

Obligatory flattery that this crowd is likely smarter than the average voting population.

Are ANY of your surprised the DNC was trying to undermine Sanders and was not impartial?  Was this news to ANY of you at all? 

Not to me.

Who didn't already know this that paid any kind of attention to the campaign to date?

Al Wessex, for one, claimed not to know it.  And the DNC and Hillary denied it.  So it *is* outrageous, now that the proof is so strong that no one can deny it anymore, that the previous deniers are saying, "look!  a Russian Bird!"

I'll admit that it's still an important reveal that shines a little light of reality so the inattentive / oblivious notice things.

It's also an important reveal that even when caught, that the DNC thinks that this is a week for celebration, and acts like the only reason anyone could have a problem is misogyny.

  I'll even go so far as to say that if it was a foreign state sponsored intrusion to get this information out, it's a big deal.

 

If they did it, why would it be a big deal that the Russians did it -- since like you said, there's no new information here, simply confirmation of what we already knew?

[Fenring]

She doesn't need to apologize.  Just fire Wasserman-Shcwartz, sending the message that she's breaking with her evil henchmen.

They are both henchmen. But in any case she intends to reward Schultz, not break with her. Another email hack revealed that Hillary intended to reward donors and other allies with key government positions. A good example that became a brief scandal would be that businessman she was friends with (a day trader, I think?) whom she put on the nuclear security council until the other members laughed him off it after they asked who the hell he was. The Bush cronyism will be back with a vengeance.

[AI Wessex]

I find that this discussion is rife with false naivete and phony idealism.  As Biden said last night, gimme a break.  It's beyond imagining that any of you don't know that this is how things work from the top to the bottom.  Picking on the the imperfections and corruption built into the system is fair, but let's not forget to wink-wink while you do it.

[Fenring]

I find that this discussion is rife with false naivete and phony idealism.  As Biden said last night, gimme a break.  It's beyond imagining that any of you don't know that this is how things work from the top to the bottom.  Picking on the the imperfections and corruption built into the system is fair, but let's not forget to wink-wink while you do it.

I find it telling that when confronted by objections to how things have been done you call it "phony" idealism, implying that people actually having ideals (to say nothing of standards) cannot be a real thing. Maybe you should just speak for yourself when stating that these sorts of things are no big deal?

[Pete at Home]

I find that this discussion is rife with false naivete and phony idealism.  As Biden said last night, gimme a break.  It's beyond imagining that any of you don't know that this is how things work from the top to the bottom.  Picking on the the imperfections and corruption built into the system is fair, but let's not forget to wink-wink while you do it.

Al doesn't seem to conceive of any idealism other than "phony" idealism.  I love how this wikileak has flipped him seamlessly from denial to "this is how things work from top to bottom."

Well Al, to best phrase the matter to suit your cynical world view: the little people require a sacrifice to continue the false ceremony of innocence.  Give them Schultz.  That's how Bill would have done it.

[D.W.]

If they did it, why would it be a big deal that the Russians did it -- since like you said, there's no new information here, simply confirmation of what we already knew?

I get that the DNC may not be the tightest security our nation has to offer, however the fact that state sponsored Russian hackers were able to get in is noteworthy and a "big deal".  That anyone could/did is a big deal but that a nation which is a competitor (I hesitate to call them a rival) is troubling.  A:  in that they are capable, and B: that they chose to direct their efforts towards this goal, and lastly C:  that they found enough value in the act that tipping their hand (or risking doing so) was acceptable.

[D.W.]

I find that this discussion is rife with false naivete and phony idealism.

  I would point out that I was dismissing the notion of anyone informed being naive about this.   As to idealism and how genuine I am about it...  That's why I supported Sanders.  If voting against Trump (by casting for Hillary) makes me a hypocrite and you would label me a "phony idealist", so be it.

I cannot bring myself to vote independent just because what I've long known to be true now has a tiny bit more evidence behind it and is known by a few more people.  I'm not immune to the prisoner's dilemma even if it makes me feel a little bad acknowledging that.

[Pete at Home]

I find that this discussion is rife with false naivete and phony idealism.

  I would point out that I was dismissing the notion of anyone informed being naive about this.   As to idealism and how genuine I am about it...  That's why I supported Sanders.  If voting against Trump (by casting for Hillary) makes me a hypocrite and you would label me a "phony idealist", so be it.

It's just funny that Al calls you a hypocrite for actually believing what Al pretended to believe in until what he previously called "conspiracy theories" became "this is how things work from top to bottom."

[AI Wessex]

To DW's comments, it is significant that Russia is behind the hacking, but it's not anything new. It's not particularly significant that the DNC was leary at first and then skeptical and possibly antagonistic toward Sanders.  While he's a more idealistic politician than most, until the start of the election he wasn't even a Democrat.  The DNC and RNC aren't just about the candidate at the top, but aim to deliver as many offices as possible.  Sanders had zero coattails when he jumped into the race and as he leaves it still has virtually no coattails.  Can anyone think of any Democrat who will run on the slogan "I'm with Bernie"?

I'm amused that most of the people who are attacking the DNC (and Clinton) for the emails are less concerned that a foreign government is responsible for the hack.  It seems like the fact that Russia did it almost makes Putin somehow a more sympathetic figure.  Polls show support for Russia increasing among Republicans over the past week, for instance.  And let's not forget that Trump is *happy* about the hack and even encourages Putin to hack into the State Department email archives to look for more damaging emails he can use against Hillary.  He now says he was just being sarcastic, but he's made inflammatory comments with disclaimers after he gets strong pushback too many times for me to want to take him at his word about that.  Even so, he says he was being sarcastic but sees nothing to apologize for.  Really?

And of course some here (Seriati) aren't similarly concerned if we were to find out that RNC emails were just as vicious or even moreso about Trump, because he expects it.  That's a great example of "my *censored* don't stink", but what stinks is the incredibly partisan take on this whole mess.

Bottom line, every political organization does this and always has since as far back as 1800.  The difference is that hyper-partisanship has reached new heights in the past two decades, and if you didn't already realize this, none of you are exactly being objective.

It's just funny that Al calls you a hypocrite

Pete, shut the *censored* up about me.  Since I stopped responding to you you're ramping up your pathetic little attack machine like a dog who has slipped his leash and can eat as much garbage as it wants.  Keep it up and I'll start posting about your personal life, too, as DJ seems to have done against you effectively.  I've been around a lot longer than he has and have a lot more dirt I can throw in your face.

Ai: Please check your email. -OrneryMod

[scifibum]

I'll be honest: I wasn't aware that the party itself would be expected to be neutral.  The party ranks include many of the superdelegates that were pledging their support for Hillary all along.  With all of this very much out in the open rigging of the game, what we saw in the emails seems inconsequential to me. 

Am I missing something? 

Admittedly, there could certainly have been more work against Sanders happening than what we've seen evidence for, so far.  But what we've seen does not seem to be the bombshell that many of the Sanders die hards are making it out to be.  I'm of the opinion that DWS's resignation was more about trying to quiet the noise at the convention than an admission of fault.


BTW, Trumps call for Russia to dig up dirt on Clinton is just (yet more) evidence that Trump is a foolish blowhard, it doesn't actually influence the likelihood of Russia doing anything of the sort.  If they can and want to, they already did.  I'm annoyed with anyone pretending that it actually has a security impact. 

[scifibum]

I agree with AI that it's odd to expect an outsider who isn't even running on the party's platform NOT to get some pushback from the party.  But again, maybe I'm missing something about the severity of what was in those emails.

[AI Wessex]

I agree with AI that it's odd to expect an outsider who isn't even running on the party's platform NOT to get some pushback from the party.  But again, maybe I'm missing something about the severity of what was in those emails.

From all accounts I've seen, you're not missing anything.  Even the incendiary email about Sanders' supposed atheism (he's not) was not part of a longer conversation and nothing was done in that vein.  As I mentioned before, the Bush (II) campaign spread rumors in South Carolina in 2000 that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.  There was plenty of speculation that the Party was either complicit or did nothing to counter the false rumor.  But of course we don't have any emails from back then.

[scifibum]

I think people seize on that email because it confirms for them that the party insiders didn't want Sanders to win, and this shows that some of them said so.

But again: what about superdelegates?  The party rules are already set up to let the insiders swing the result, and it's out in the open, and it's been clear from the beginning that they were lining up behind Clinton.  A suggestion about a possible attack on Sanders that didn't go anywhere is nothing next to this.

[D.W.]

Of course you aren't missing anything.  It was always an empty claim of being unbiased and allowing Sanders to move forward as a Democrat.  Everyone knew from the start why he chose to ran as a Democrat (rather than a Democratic Socialist or independent) and they "played along". 

Nobody with even a passing interest in politics should be shocked.  However, in order to stay in the media, something the clown car the RNC was doing without effort, HRC needed an opponent.  They probably never believed for an instant Sanders could prove a threat so... they played along.

Then suddenly people start realizing that all the things the Democratic party pays lip service to, Sanders may actually want and fight for and when faced with, "that's unrealistic" he didn't back down.  I was hugely skeptical at first as well.  Turns out I had reason to be.

Once the party realized this was more serious than free air time and an opportunity to get Hillary into the news cycle they did the obvious and worked to insure their candidate came out on top. 

DUH.

[Fenring]

To DW's comments, it is significant that Russia is behind the hacking, but it's not anything new.

You do not know this. In fact, the only 'evidence' pointing to this is Hillary's spin machine churning out unsubstantiated rumors to deflect from expected fallout. You are literally treating a made-up story put out as a distraction and 'reported' by the press as being a fact. This is how far we've fallen from discourse having any relation to reality.

I'm amused that most of the people who are attacking the DNC (and Clinton) for the emails are less concerned that a foreign government is responsible for the hack.

On this point cherry's comment is apt. Being more concerned with who revealed the truth, than the truth itself, is very unfortunate.

It seems like the fact that Russia did it almost makes Putin somehow a more sympathetic figure.  Polls show support for Russia increasing among Republicans over the past week, for instance.  And let's not forget that Trump is *happy* about the hack and even encourages Putin to hack into the State Department email archives to look for more damaging emails he can use against Hillary.

It's funny that you turn what some people see as a scandal about the DNC into an attack on Trump and Putin. As if the two have anything to do with each other. Russia has hackers; no kidding. So does America, and many other countries. Putin and Trump apparently have a "bromance," so that adds to the flavor of the deflection. It's like you're going out of your way to make cherry's comment seem even more on point.

[Pete at Home]

It's just funny that Al calls you a hypocrite

Pete, shut the *censored* up about me.  Since I stopped responding to you

Bahaha!  Knew you couldn't do it.

No, I haven't ramped up.  Just kept calling you on your BS as I always did, an as I expect others to call me on if I said anything so transparently hypocritical.  Stop your whining; you were just calling others hypocritical for the sole crime of having a conscience.

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[AI Wessex]

You do not know this. In fact, the only 'evidence' pointing to this is Hillary's spin machine churning out unsubstantiated rumors to deflect from expected fallout. You are literally treating a made-up story put out as a distraction and 'reported' by the press as being a fact. This is how far we've fallen from discourse having any relation to reality.

This is a great example of why I don't believe you are idealistic.  You pretty much have to ignore virtually every news report to still be able to hold onto the notion that Russian intelligence was not involved.  Or maybe you're just falsely naive and I am mistaking it for phony idealism.

Putin and Trump apparently have a "bromance,"

Oh yeah?  Where's your proof?  They spent 20 minutes together in a green room and Trump came out smitten, or maybe he never met Putin as he now claims, or maybe they were connected through intermediaries over the years on business deals.  I'm going to go with Trump is a blowhard and figures saying he and Putin are bff's adds another inch in height to his ego.

[scifibum]

I think independent security experts have indicated that it appeared to be Russian hackers, but that is not quite the same as saying that Russia was behind it, of course. 

[Pete at Home]

I agree with AI that it's odd to expect an outsider who isn't even running on the party's platform NOT to get some pushback from the party.  But again, maybe I'm missing something about the severity of what was in those emails.

From all accounts I've seen, you're not missing anything.  Even the incendiary email about Sanders' supposed atheism (he's not) was not part of a longer conversation and nothing was done in that vein.  As I mentioned before, the Bush (II) campaign spread rumors in South Carolina in 2000 that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.  There was plenty of speculation that the Party was either complicit or did nothing to counter the false rumor.  But of course we don't have any emails from back then.

And that's a conspiracy, that email wasn't made available to the public until the Clintons were in office.  Curse that Al Gore for inventing the internet!

[Pete at Home]

I think independent security experts have indicated that it appeared to be Russian hackers, but that is not quite the same as saying that Russia was behind it, of course.

Do you have any indication that the security experts are "independent" from the DNC?  Is this in the same sense that the DNC chairwoman was supposed to be fair?  Why did Tulsi Gabbard (a Sanders supporter) resign from the DNC to avoid conflict of interest if it's not supposed to be fair to the candidates, rather than say, scheming to smear them with lies about their religious beliefs?

[Pete at Home]

No, Al, Trump never spent a second in any room with Putin.  They were on the same show, but on different continents at the time.  Wonders of telecommunications, eh?  So Trump lied about meeting him.  Too bad for your argument that he hasn't actually lie under oath, since that would balance out some of your Hillary problem.

[Pete at Home]

"I'm of the opinion that DWS's resignation was more about trying to quiet the noise at the convention than an admission of fault. "

If they want unity or quiet, Hillary should not have hired her.  That's worse than leaving her at the DNC; that's an overt bribe.

[Seriati]

I'm amused that most of the people who are attacking the DNC (and Clinton) for the emails are less concerned that a foreign government is responsible for the hack.

I agree actually it is bizarre, that there has been zero coverage of what it could mean that a foreign government is responsible for the hack.  The extent of the coverage has been to support the Dem's using it as a distraction without really considering what the consequences could be.  Let's ask it plainly, what kind of blackmail risk are senior members of the Democratic party now exposed to if they release was NOT the most damaging thing on the server?

How many people have emails on that server that could cause them problems in their personal or professional life?  Any emails demonstrating infidelity or that could have impact on a custody battle, or that show illegal actions?  If you really want to consider what it means that this hack was done by a foreign government, please do consider what that means.

And let's not forget that Trump is *happy* about the hack and even encourages Putin to hack into the State Department email archives to look for more damaging emails he can use against Hillary.

That's such a fake interpretation of what he said, you should get five Pinnochios for it.  I get you're just restating what the talking heads on the left are saying, but even still.

And of course some here (Seriati) aren't similarly concerned if we were to find out that RNC emails were just as vicious or even moreso about Trump, because he expects it.  That's a great example of "my *censored* don't stink", but what stinks is the incredibly partisan take on this whole mess.

You fixate on the most bizarre things.  In light of a scandal in your party, you're mad because I won't assume that there are damaging emails in the other party and hold them accountable for a non-existent leak of those emails?

Since you seem to be confused, I have no doubt you'd find similar emails in the RNC database, the RNC was transparently against Trump.  The DNC however went to great lengths to tell the Bernie supporters that they were crazy to believe they were in the tank for Hillary.  Its the hypocracy that makes it interesting.

[Fenring]

You do not know this. In fact, the only 'evidence' pointing to this is Hillary's spin machine churning out unsubstantiated rumors to deflect from expected fallout. You are literally treating a made-up story put out as a distraction and 'reported' by the press as being a fact. This is how far we've fallen from discourse having any relation to reality.

This is a great example of why I don't believe you are idealistic.  You pretty much have to ignore virtually every news report to still be able to hold onto the notion that Russian intelligence was not involved.  Or maybe you're just falsely naive and I am mistaking it for phony idealism.

You do know that "every news report" gets their information from the same source, right? They don't have investigative journalists scouring their many sources to get the inside scoop. Can you guess what the source is?

Also I'm not sure what you think you mean when you if you say that me not believing a rumor means I'm not "idealistic". In fact, even the construction of the previous sentence comes across as offence to prepositional logic, to say nothing of its semantic content. By the way, who claimed I was "idealistic"? I commented on your construction of 'phony idealism', which does not automatically imply that by contesting your claim I am therefore idealistic. Let's just say that in that context I choose to call myself "realistic," as in, concerned with what was really said.

Putin and Trump apparently have a "bromance,"

Oh yeah?  Where's your proof?  They spent 20 minutes together in a green room and Trump came out smitten, or maybe he never met Putin as he now claims, or maybe they were connected through intermediaries over the years on business deals.  I'm going to go with Trump is a blowhard and figures saying he and Putin are bff's adds another inch in height to his ego.

Whoosh...

[Wayward Son]

Stop the brainwashing and think a bit about this crap that you're parrotting.  What Trump has rhetorically "asked" Putin to do isn't an act of "hacking" but an act of time travel.   All the Congress' horses and all the Congress' cybersleuths couldn't find those 30,000 emails under a lawful discovery order. How could Putin "hack" what is no longer there without a time machine?

OK, Pete, I'll grant you that Russia would have trouble hacking e-mails that are no longer on a server (we assume).  So Trump's use of verb tense may have been sarcastic or just silly.

But here's a question for you, as a lawyer.  Is it legal to ask someone to use something that you know was obtained through a crime?   Is it legal to ask a bank robber to give you some of the stolen money, or to give it to charity?  Is it legal to ask to someone to use a car that you know is stolen?  Is it legal to ask someone to provide information that was hacked, even to a news agency?

Somehow, it doesn't seem legal.  It certainly doesn't seem ethical.

And there is still the issue of what happens if Russia complies?  Didn't they do a favor for Trump in releasing that info?

[AI Wessex]

It's just funny that Al calls you a hypocrite

Pete, shut the *censored* up about me.  Since I stopped responding to you

Bahaha!  Knew you couldn't do it.

No, I haven't ramped up.  Just kept calling you on your BS as I always did, an as I expect others to call me on if I said anything so transparently hypocritical.  Stop your whining; you were just calling others hypocritical for the sole crime of having a conscience.

Back off, last warning.

[scifibum]

I think independent security experts have indicated that it appeared to be Russian hackers, but that is not quite the same as saying that Russia was behind it, of course.

Do you have any indication that the security experts are "independent" from the DNC?

I'm not sure what you're asking for.  I can't prove a negative, but I don't really have any reason to suspect that Shawn Henry or his company CrowdStrike would risk their professional credibility to shill for the DNC.

[AI Wessex]

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has never actually met Russian President Vladimir Putin despite bragging multiple times recently about conversations he has had with him.

"He said one nice thing about me. He said I'm a genius. I said thank you very much to the newspaper and that was the end of it. I never met Putin," Trump said.

Trump, who has complimented Putin before, said that he would treat the dictator "firmly" but have their two countries be "friendly."

On the GOP debate stage in November, though, Trump bragged about meeting the Russian leader.

"I got to know him very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,' we were stablemates, and we did very well that night," Trump said.

Time reported that for that edition of "60 Minutes," Trump was interviewed in the United States by CBS host Charlie Rose, who then traveled to Russia to interview Putin. The two appeared on the same segment of the long-running docu-series.

Trump also said during a National Press Club luncheon in 2014 that he was in Moscow and he spoke "directly and indirectly with President Putin who could not have been nicer."

Fenring, does this count?.  I found it easily:

Since Democratic National Committee officials first discovered their data networks had been compromised this spring, a growing chorus of experts and officials have seen evidence that the Russian government was responsible.

In the months since, the infiltration and its consequences have taken surprising and often bizarre turns, culminating in a political scandal this week as the Democratic National Convention opened in Philadelphia. But one constant has remained: a growing body of forensic evidence implicating the Russian government.

The first hints came in May, after committee officials noticed unusual activity in their network. They hired the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to investigate, and its experts quickly found the source of the activity: a group of hackers had, in late April, gained access to the systems of the committee’s opposition-research team, from which the group had stolen two files containing information on Donald J. Trump, who would eventually become the Republican nominee for president.

[D.W.]

It's just funny that Al calls you a hypocrite

Pete, shut the *censored* up about me.  Since I stopped responding to you

Bahaha!  Knew you couldn't do it.

No, I haven't ramped up.  Just kept calling you on your BS as I always did, an as I expect others to call me on if I said anything so transparently hypocritical.  Stop your whining; you were just calling others hypocritical for the sole crime of having a conscience.

Back off, last warning.

As a favor to the rest of us here, please refrain from pointless personal attacks and blackmail as a replacement for debate.

[scifibum]

Why did Tulsi Gabbard (a Sanders supporter) resign from the DNC to avoid conflict of interest if it's not supposed to be fair to the candidates, rather than say, scheming to smear them with lies about their religious beliefs?

Looking back at Gabbard's complaints prior to resignation, I would have to agree that there's more than the emails to suggest that the DNC officials were trying to favor Clinton.  And the soft landing for DWS of course looks bad.

But by and large it looks like these things were done by the rulebook (even if against the spirit of the rules).  The suggestion to attack Sanders for his religion was over that line, but doesn't appear to have had any effect. 

This is definitely all confirmation that Clinton can't begin to compare to Sanders when it comes to openness and fairness.  He was the only guy in the game who seemed to want to change the game.  And I'm sad that he lost, and that he will probably be too old to try again later.

[Fenring]

It's also worth noting (not to eliminate the possibility that Russia [i.e. the government] was behind the hack) that saying "Russians" are behind the hack isn't the same as saying "Russia" is behind the attack. I never saw evidence, for instance, that Guccifer was a Russian government employee. If he was, I very much doubt his extradition would have been allowed. More likely he was a private operator who just enjoys hacking stuff as a hobby.

So if it turns out that Russian hobbyists hacked the DNC email, even that doesn't point directly at Putin. It certainly doesn't help his credibility, mind you, but we are still a long way off from "Russia is behind the hack, and maybe Trump even colluded with them." That is taking a possibility, converting it into a certainty, and then twisting it into a conspiracy theory. I'm totally open to such theorizing, but I think we should be cautious about stating such things as givens.

[AI Wessex]

As a favor to the rest of us here, please refrain from pointless personal attacks and blackmail as a replacement for debate.

Tell that to Pete.  If he continues to attack my character or honesty he should expect the same level of discourse in return.

[AI Wessex]

t's also worth noting (not to eliminate the possibility that Russia [i.e. the government] was behind the hack) that saying "Russians" are behind the hack isn't the same as saying "Russia" is behind the attack. I never saw evidence, for instance, that Guccifer was a Russian government employee. If he was, I very much doubt his extradition would have been allowed. More likely he was a private operator who just enjoys hacking stuff as a hobby.

You're still ignoring the content of the article I quoted from.  To refresh you:

Since Democratic National Committee officials first discovered their data networks had been compromised this spring, a growing chorus of experts and officials have seen evidence that the Russian government was responsible.

Other articles have suggested the possibility that Guccifer was fed the hacked documents so it would appear that he is unaffiliated, and others suggest that there is no such person, that Russian intelligence has been feeding the documents using a phony account.  Note that I can't say with absolute certainty that the Russian government is behind it, but then again, I'm not one of the experts who are saying that is the most likely scenario.

[D.W.]

Your threats were not to respond in kind.  Saying "AI believes X", or "AI agrees that Y" is different from saying you will drag out personal information in attempts to embarass someone into silence because you've been around long enough and he's been foolish enough to air his personal matters.

Makes me glad I never decided to air much of my own or meet up in person with anyone here.  I like the buffer the internet offers sometimes even if it does tend to tarnish our good manners from time to time.

[scifibum]

AI, if you ignore it I do not think there is a major risk that anyone else will therefore conclude that Pete is right.  I wish he'd stop nursing grudges and picking fights, and he knows that about me already, but if he was going to change it would have happened already.  I think you can either try to involve a moderator or ignore it, but I don't think you can successfully fight it down, however low a road you take.

[AI Wessex]

I yield.  I'll find a way to bury his posts...

[Pete at Home]

It's just funny that Al calls you a hypocrite

Pete, shut the *censored* up about me.  Since I stopped responding to you

Bahaha!  Knew you couldn't do it.

No, I haven't ramped up.  Just kept calling you on your BS as I always did, an as I expect others to call me on if I said anything so transparently hypocritical.  Stop your whining; you were just calling others hypocritical for the sole crime of having a conscience.

Back off, last warning.

As a favor to the rest of us here, please refrain from pointless personal attacks and blackmail as a replacement for debate.

So it's a personal attack for me to point out that Al's being hypocritical when he accuses others of being hypocritical?

There's no blackmail on my side.  Al is the one saying "last warning, which is the closest thing to blackmail on this thread.

[Fenring]

Since Democratic National Committee officials first discovered their data networks had been compromised this spring, a growing chorus of experts and officials have seen evidence that the Russian government was responsible.

Right, this is a possibility. I can't evaluate how strong a possibility. How this leads to "Russia was behind it" is understandable but also a jump, and even worse the extrapolation that because Trump went to Russia once that therefore his 'close' relationship with Putin may be at play here.

Other articles have suggested the possibility that Guccifer was fed the hacked documents so it would appear that he is unaffiliated

He, himself, said it was easy as hell and frankly I believe him. Maybe he didn't personally actually do what he said he did, but another hacker easily could have. He wasn't lying about the low security level, even if he was lying about where he got the emails and the screenshot.

others suggest that there is no such person

This would be calling the FBI a liar, since they arranged his extradition and said they interviewed him. Anyone claiming this certainly isn't out to make America look good as compared with Russia.

Note that I can't say with absolute certainty that the Russian government is behind it, but then again, I'm not one of the experts who are saying that is the most likely scenario.

Reporting what some experts believe is completely legit, as long as that's how it's presented. Claiming something as a fact in passing, however, makes it falsely appear to be an establish truth, which is not the case here. It's a way of making an argument appear stronger than it really is by eliminating the element of possibility from its claim.

[Pete at Home]

AI, if you ignore it I do not think there is a major risk that anyone else will therefore conclude that Pete is right.  I wish he'd stop nursing grudges and picking fights, and he knows that about me already, but if he was going to change it would have happened already.  I think you can either try to involve a moderator or ignore it, but I don't think you can successfully fight it down, however low a road you take.

I nursed a grudge against djquag for all of 2 and a half days, and I havent has a longer feud with anyone since Adam. I'm not nursing a grudge against Al.  I'm just not giving him the degree of deference that he believes himself entitled to.   There's no rule against saying a stupid argument is stupid, even when the member says that you arent his social equal.

[Pete at Home]

I respect scifi and dw, and show you more respect than Al does, but if you made the argument that Al made on this thread, reversing your previous factual claims and calling people fools or hypocrites for believing in anything, I'd call you on that bit of hypocritical nihilism.

With that said, I believe and hope that al is a better person that he protrays on this thread, and hope he will come back to himself.   I'd be happy to give him what Obama called a mutual reset button.  ')

[AI Wessex]

Right, this is a possibility. I can't evaluate how strong a possibility. How this leads to "Russia was behind it" is understandable but also a jump, and even worse the extrapolation that because Trump went to Russia once that therefore his 'close' relationship with Putin may be at play here.

Fenring:

“American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have ‘high confidence’ that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee.”

Who is Guccifer:

Who is Guccifer 2.0, the self-proclaimed Romanian “lone hacker” responsible for copying thousands of emails and other files from the Democratic National Committee — a real person, or a front created by Russian intelligence officials?

Technology specialists have been debating that question since June 15, when CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm hired by the Democratic National Committee, announced that sophisticated hacker groups with Russian links were responsible for breaching the committee’s computer servers. Within hours of the announcement, someone using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 started a blog to mock that finding, posting several of the stolen documents and claiming sole credit.

But the publication by WikiLeaks of an archive of the committee’s internal emails — and the uproar they caused on the eve of the Democratic National Convention — have focused wider attention on who, or what, is operating behind that name. While WikiLeaks has not said how it obtained the emails, Guccifer 2.0 claimed in a blog post last month to have sent them to WikiLeaks.

Cybersecurity specialists have pointed to an array of forensic and technical evidence suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 might not be a Romanian as claimed. That evidence included metadata hidden in the early documents indicating that they were edited on a computer with Russian language settings. American intelligence officials believe that Guccifer 2.0 is a front for the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence service, according to federal officials briefed on the investigation.

Believe what you want.

[Fenring]

Believe what you want.

I didn't say Guccifer 2.0, I said Guccifer.

[Pete at Home]

As a favor to the rest of us here, please refrain from pointless personal attacks and blackmail as a replacement for debate.

Tell that to Pete.  If he continues to attack my character or honesty he should expect the same level of discourse in return.

I didn't attack your character or honesty.  I simply said that it was ironic or hypocritical that you should mock people for "phony idealism", for expressing disappointment in what the DNC did, when as late as days ago you were furiously denying that the DNC would ever do such a thing.

[D.W.]

I respect scifi and dw, and show you more respect than Al does, but if you made the argument that Al made on this thread, reversing your previous factual claims and calling people fools or hypocrites for believing in anything, I'd call you on that bit of hypocritical nihilism.

I'm not here for respect any more than I'm here to witness mud wrestling in written form.

I honestly don't care if you two are civil to each other (or to me) or not.  I just don't find it useful or entertaining. (And there are rules even if enforced rather whimsically and intermittently here.)  For the record, in case it was lost on you Pete, I offered no criticism towards you and my plea was to AI.  I took it as a given you were baiting him, but it was on topic and relevant to the discussion.

Now maybe it's because I don't care about gaining Ornery respect, (I remain anonymous for *censored*'s sake) and am here to stay informed and test my thinking, but I don't see anyone here as showing me more or less respect.  I enjoy discussions with AI just as much as with you Pete.  Far more interesting discussing topics with people you split time sharing and opposing points of view.

If either or both of you want to keep poking at each other until the great and terrible mod awakens from their slumber, so be it.  It's just that censorship is the one thing here that tends to get me riled up more than personal attacks.  But... it's not my site.  Do whatever you guys want.  I just had to make my request.

Maybe I'll just go back to just clicking "like" on posts for a few more days.

[Fenring]

“American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have ‘high confidence’ that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee.”

I'd also like to mention, regarding this, that one should take any claims of this sort with a huge grain of salt. When the media has been relentlessly pushing an anti-Russia narrative on repeat lately it should be viewed as highly suspicious when a random hack is almost immediately attributed to Russia; especially since Wikileaks has released all sorts of things on a regular basis and until now no one has thought to ask where the information comes from. But suddenly, while the anti-Putin narrative is at an all-time high (especially in regards to Trump) this is slipped into the mix. And right when possible DNC misconduct is being spilt all over the news. Hm...

I'm reminded of the time, a couple of years back, when North Korea was the subject of a lot of fear-rhetoric in the media, and right after the Sony hack occurred we received the same exact message about that hack as we're receiving now: intelligence says with high confidence that North Korea was behind it. Right after this, you may recall, North Korea was, itself, hit with a crippling DDOS attack (which the U.S. government casually allowed everyone to believe was its own retaliation for the Sony incident). However in the aftermath I read several very compelling accounts whose thesis was the North Korea had nothing to do with it, and that it was, in fact, an inside job from a Sony employee, probably out of Japan. Rather than just saying "evidence suggests", these accounts actually cited their evidence, and I thought it was convincing to whatever extent I can given that I'm not a cyber-security expert.

All this to say, although scifi may be right that CrowdStrike is correct about this one, it's worth pointing out that they are the exact same firm upon whom the claims were made about the Sony hack!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrowdStrike

Founded in 2011, CrowdStrike has customers in more than 170 countries [2] and offices in Northern America, EMEA, and APAC. The company has detected, prevented, and attributed complex cyber attacks, including the Sony Pictures hack,[3] the DNC email leak,[4] as well as nation state, criminal, and hacktivist adversaries

On account of this, I am, let us say, highly suspicious that their findings have magically twice ended in naming the one current villain in an ongoing media narrative being spun. Especially so since I do not believe North Korea had anything to do with the Sony hack.

I'm not even saying that Russia had nothing to do with it, by the way. It wouldn't surprise me if they did. But I have doubts that actual evidence has led to this particular claim.

[Fenring]

Oh, and there's this, too:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757335823754887168

[D.W.]

Apparently we can add the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to the list as well.

http://gawker.com/it-wasnt-just-the-dnc-somebody-hacked-the-dccc-too-1784518718

[DJQuag]

Al

I just want to make this clear.

It is not false idealism. That is the reason that I supported Sanders, and it is the reason that I hold Clinton in disdain. I, and others like me, are done - finished - with excusing bull*censored* as just "the way things are." They're only the way things are because people ACCEPT it.

Yeah, okay, the Republicans have probably done the same. Maybe even worse. But why should I care? There are a dozen other reasons that I choose not to support the R's. I care because it's my side doing it, and my side is supposed to be better, and if they just can't find it in themselves to be better, then it's time to find a new, different side.