Just some thoughts not a part of the argument: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion
*I wonder how Bernie supporters feel about this. I wonder which side they voted for and are arguing for now. Or have they over looked the content of the emails and gone along with this Russia propaganda fear campaign set out by the corporate media and US government who are bought off by the same people. And who also own the Military industrial complex and want to go to war with Russia for more money. Maybe Bernie being a sell-out is part of the evil Russian Propaganda campaign*
As a Bernie supporter of sorts, I can say my feeling is that the issues surrounding Hillary Clinton are at least mostly just the establishment and not personally due to Clinton herself. I also don't think they are very big problems.
My support has always been for Clinton over Trump. Clinton has issues, bit Trump is worse.
I also believe Russia did to some degree intentionally spread misinformation around the election and may have been involved in some of the leaks.
I don't think Russia rigged the election.
DJK -- I don't think anyone is really saying that Russia rigged it. This was an indirect attack, not a direct one like changing the results themselves.
Also, somewhat Ironic is that ZeroHedge was the first site that was discovered to be Russian Propaganda, way back in April of this year when one of the staff got fed up with the ridiculous editorial line and went public.
DJK -- I don't think anyone is really saying that Russia rigged it. This was an indirect attack, not a direct one like changing the results themselves. This was an indirect attack, not a direct one like changing the results themselves.
Some people have, though not many. Thought it was worth being clear.
Not relevant to this exposure of Hillary's emails. Maybe nobody from China or Russia, has come forward.
Oh, but they have. Just not on Wikileaks. You may recall the Panama Papers this year? The largest leak of anything ever in history? Among lots and lots of other stuff, it included damaging information about the finances of a close friend of Vladimir Putin's -- just how did a freaking cellist get his hands on billions of dollars? Now, Wikileaks was not responsible for publishing the Panama papers. According to the leaker, he attempted to contact Wikileaks multiple times with his information but they never got back to him. Furthermore, when the Panama Papers were published through another outlet, Wikileaks was critical of them, calling them an "attack on Putin" funded by the U.S. government (even though the government only funded the OCCRP, just one out of the many news groups reporting on the leak, which also included Russian papers Vedomoya and Novaya Gazeta, and the leaks also embarrassed many Westerners, bringing down the government of Iceland). A strange reversal for an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom of information, don't you think?
All this was in the New York Times article you were bashing, by the way.
Is he working for Russia, that is yet to be proven. You calling it the truth means nothing.
There are two possibilities: he is working for Russia or he isn't.
If he is not working for Russia, he is going to say he is not working for Russia.
If he is working for Russia, he is still going to say he is not working for Russia.
Because him saying he is not working for Russia would happen either way, it does not constitute evidence either way. Something is only evidence if it would not happen any other way.
If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as documented tactics, tools, server addresses, and online accounts used in the attack that are distinctive to a covert operations group known to be sponsored by the U.S. government and act in its interests, you would be shouting it from the rooftops.
So you believe this one with its 'evidence', yet disbelieve 9/11 with its evidence?
Reading comprehension, dude. "If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as [this] = you don't have evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as this. You believe in that conspiracy on the basis of no admissions of guilt, no paper trail, no evidence of any of the sort that you're demanding here. Your bar for evidence is, in fact, absurdly low for it. But when it comes to Russian hacking, this for some reason you don't want to believe, so the bar suddenly becomes absurdly high, and all the real and demonstrable links to Russian agents -- the sort of links you do not have for 9/11 -- are just "speculation". Be consistent. Set the bar at the same standard for both cases.
“Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” -- Julian Assange, 2006 (source 1source 2)
Assange COULD just be going for a candidate that might pardon him. These Secrets don't matter to this case, he might have a bias in those that want to help him live.
...and not to belabor the point, but Russia kills journalists.
I supported Trump cause I thought he was the most peaceful candidate that wanted to work with Russia to help defeat ISIS. Hillary wants to go to war with Russia and Take out President Assad.
Do me a favor: google "Trump China Taiwan". Then try to tell me Trump is peaceful.
Maybe Russia was maybe it wasn't but it was still using free speech, which is part of the US constitution.
Accessing private email servers is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. If I hacked into your emails and published them online, I would be criminally liable. Notwithstanding that, it's a bit rich of you to praise Russia for exercising freedom of speech when that is a freedom the Russian government has been strangling to death domestically. Siding with Russia against the United States in this is siding with a nation that has one of the most extensive state-controlled media systems in the world against a nation that has enshrined journalistic independence as its literal first political ideal. Which, again, is why it's so bizarre that Wikileaks and Assange have decided to do exactly that.
The opposing side should have used arguments to try and defeat them, but now they are silencing them and just calling them 'fake' without reason. The emails are real!!!
Not relevant to this exposure of Hillary's emails. Maybe nobody from China or Russia, has come forward.
Oh, but they have. Just not on Wikileaks. You may recall the Panama Papers this year? The largest leak of anything ever in history? Among lots and lots of other stuff, it included damaging information about the finances of a close friend of Vladimir Putin's -- just how did a freaking cellist get his hands on billions of dollars? Now, Wikileaks was not responsible for publishing the Panama papers. According to the leaker, he attempted to contact Wikileaks multiple times with his information but they never got back to him. Furthermore, when the Panama Papers were published through another outlet, Wikileaks was critical of them, calling them an "attack on Putin" funded by the U.S. government (even though the government only funded the OCCRP, just one out of the many news groups reporting on the leak, which also included Russian papers Vedomoya and Novaya Gazeta, and the leaks also embarrassed many Westerners, bringing down the government of Iceland). A strange reversal for an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom of information, don't you think?
All this was in the New York Times article you were bashing, by the way.
Still not relevant to this case.
There are two possibilities: he is working for Russia or he isn't.
If he is not working for Russia, he is going to say he is not working for Russia.
If he is working for Russia, he is still going to say he is not working for Russia.
Because him saying he is not working for Russia would happen either way, it does not constitute evidence either way. Something is only evidence if it would not happen any other way.
Still not evidence of the Russians doing it.
Of which I still have yet to see you cite a single word of incriminating evidence. Which, again, has been the goalpost I set for you all along.
You setting them does not mean I have to answer. We are looking for evidence of Russian Hacking or support.
(a) Now who's moving the goalposts? (b) Yes, they actually are; that's what the "Bear" means.
Bear =/= Russian Government.
Reading comprehension, dude. "If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as [this] = you don't have evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as this. You believe in that conspiracy on the basis of no admissions of guilt, no paper trail, no evidence of any of the sort that you're demanding here. Your bar for evidence is, in fact, absurdly low for it. But when it comes to Russian hacking, this for some reason you don't want to believe, so the bar suddenly becomes absurdly high, and all the real and demonstrable links to Russian agents -- the sort of links you do not have for 9/11 -- are just "speculation". Be consistent. Set the bar at the same standard for both cases.
My 'bar' is still not evidence for Russian Hacking.
“Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” -- Julian Assange, 2006 (source 1 source 2)
" but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations" Even if they haven't published anything, still not proof of Russian Hacking or Support.
...and not to belabor the point, but Russia kills journalists.
Evidence? But still doesn't prove Russia Hacked or Supported.
Words for you to live by.
Whatever, telling me how to live now... Still not proof of Russian hacking or Support.
Do me a favor: google "Trump China Taiwan". Then try to tell me Trump is peaceful.
I said most peaceful candidate... "Reading comprehension, dude."
Accessing private email servers is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. If I hacked into your emails and published them online, I would be criminally liable. Notwithstanding that, it's a bit rich of you to praise Russia for exercising freedom of speech when that is a freedom the Russian government has been strangling to death domestically. Siding with Russia against the United States in this is siding with a nation that has one of the most extensive state-controlled media systems in the world against a nation that has enshrined journalistic independence as its literally its first political ideal. Which, again, is why it's so bizarre that Wikileaks and Assange have decided to do exactly that.
There is no evidence of Russian Hacking or publishing the Emails, Wikileaks published them. It is a claim by the CIA, the FBI does not support that claim. The freedom of speech in the US is fading, especially calling it 'fake news' and google and Facebook now censoring. With or without the emails, Russia is still allowed to publish news against the USA illegal actions, which bias Journalists/editors seem to be missing out on.
Nobody here is saying the emails are fake.
They are saying the news is 'fake' without reason.
I'm just going to give my closing statement. This is going around in circles and not achieving anything. No evidence has been brought forward on the Russian Hacking/Fake news side.
-There is no evidence, but 'magic' connecting WORDS that claim the Russians Hacked.
-FBI, Ron Paul, Julian Assange have said it is NOT the Russians.
There is no case.
Good Luck, have fun, Bye. Keep up the Russian fear propaganda and lead us to war :S
-There is no evidence, but 'magic' connecting WORDS that claim the Russians Hacked.
Words and numbers. As in, lines of computer code and IP addresses. For the third time: that's more than you have ever had in support of any of your pet theories.
-There is no evidence, but 'magic' connecting WORDS that claim the Russians Hacked.
Words and numbers. As in, lines of computer code and IP addresses. For the third time: that's more than you have ever had in support of any of your pet theories.
There is code that was used by some Russian located group in the past and that IP went through a Russian time zone... "For the third time" that is not evidence of Russian Government hacking or support. Do you have an email or money trail? Which I have asked in the past which people have not answered the question...
"FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump" LOL ok, Russia wanting to help Trump =/= evidence for Russian Government hacking or paying hacking group.
Yes, an electronic trail consisting of IP addresses and Bit.ly accounts. Now, do you have an email or money trail for a 9/11 conspiracy? No. Do you have any evidence for such a conspiracy remotely equivalent to the evidence presented here for the Russian hack? No. So why do you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? And don't try to give me the "not relevant" brushoff, because what constitutes evidence is very relevant. Tell me exactly why you are demanding a standard of proof to which you do not hold yourself.
"FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump" LOL ok, Russia wanting to help Trump =/= evidence for Russian Government hacking or paying hacking group.
I wasn't posting that as evidence of the Russia hack. I was posting that as evidence that you had made a patently false statement about the FBI's findings. At least have the decency to own your mistake.
Because him saying he is not working for Russia would happen either way, it does not constitute evidence either way. Something is only evidence if it would not happen any other way.
Still not evidence of the Russians doing it.
Nor is it evidence of the Russians not doing it. You claimed that it was. That was incorrect.
You setting them does not mean I have to answer. We are looking for evidence of Russian Hacking or support.
You: Why are we talking about Russian hacking? The content of the emails is what matters! Me: Okay, show me evidence of a crime in the emails. You: ... Why are we talking about the content of the emails? The Russian hacking is what matters!
“Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” -- Julian Assange, 2006 (source 1 source 2)
" but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations" Even if they haven't published anything, still not proof of Russian Hacking or Support.
Is the highly oppressive regime in Russia a "primary target" of Wikileaks? Obviously not. Assange did not tell the truth here.
Me: Show me evidence of the U.S. interfering in a foreign election. You: Here's eleven seconds of Hillary Clinton discussing the rebellion against a man who never stood for an election in his life, and rolling her eyes at the suggestion that she was involved.
With or without the emails, Russia is still allowed to publish news against the USA illegal actions, which bias Journalists/editors seem to be missing out on.
They are saying the news is 'fake' without reason.
When articles report fabricated and factually incorrect information, that's pretty good reason to call it "fake". And we're not talking about fake news, anyway.
Yes, an electronic trail consisting of IP addresses and Bit.ly accounts. Now, do you have an email or money trail for a 9/11 conspiracy? No. Do you have any evidence for such a conspiracy remotely equivalent to the evidence presented here for the Russian hack? No. So why do you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? And don't try to give me the "not relevant" brushoff, because what constitutes evidence is very relevant. Tell me exactly why you are demanding a standard of proof to which you do not hold yourself.
"FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump" LOL ok, Russia wanting to help Trump =/= evidence for Russian Government hacking or paying hacking group.
I wasn't posting that as evidence of the Russia hack. I was posting that as evidence that you had made a patently false statement about the FBI's findings. At least have the decency to own your mistake.
These IP addresses n Bit.ly account does not prove it's the Russians. Me believing that 9/11 used bombs does not prove Russians done it either. How do you know my standards haven't changed. This have nothing to do with 9/11 for the 4,5,6... time...
Your link that FBI agrees with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump is not the same as the FBI saying there is no links to Russian hacking. FBI agreeing with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump =/= Russian hacking or paying for hacking. There is no mistake that I have to own. It is your reading comprehension that is a mistake, please own that mistake.
FFS quit with these smart ass comments;
"At least have the decency to own your mistake.", " that's more than you have ever had in support of any of your pet theories","Reading comprehension, dude.","Words for you to live by."
You are just trying to shame me and not find the truth. It makes you sound like a thin 24 y.o. feminist SJW collage student with glasses on his second degree, whose parents have been broken up.
If the IP addresses are Russian...it kinda proves that it was Russians...unless your argument is that there is a difference between "Russians" and "The Russian Government". The counter-question to this then becomes:
If the IP addresses are Russian, what motive would the common Malek or Nikita have to hack the DNC, if not for the money? Why not hack their own government for things...actually useful to them. Sabo held Peutro Rico's digital communications in his hands to prove that he could do it, not Peutro Rico's major political party's email server. It just seems, out of all the things one can do in their spare time, messing with an election in another country without being paid to do so is rather unlikely. Most people would rather help themselves, or boast of their powers. Make a statement. Spreading "AIDS" on World of Warcraft or some online community for the lulz is one thing...this is just too weird if just a spare time activity by a random Russian person/group. It's like getting someone a box of matches in a ziplock bag for their birthday...you could do it, I guess, but would you really?
Your link that FBI agrees with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump is not the same as the FBI saying there is no links to Russian hacking. FBI agreeing with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump =/= Russian hacking or paying for hacking.
Did you read any part of the provided link beyond the headline?
Even a cursory scan of the article reveals that in context, the method by which Russia helped Trump was via the hacking.
Your link that FBI agrees with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump is not the same as the FBI saying there is no links to Russian hacking. FBI agreeing with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump =/= Russian hacking or paying for hacking.
Did you read any part of the provided link beyond the headline?
Even a cursory scan of the article reveals that in context, the method by which Russia helped Trump was via the hacking.
Well if someone wants to quote something from the article, instead of going here read all of this... or read this book to understand my argument. What evidence does this present that Russia done the hacking?
@Boyachi
If the IP addresses are Russian
They came from a Russian timezone, this does not mean that originated there. You can bounce your IP off many servers.
what motive would the common Malek or Nikita have to hack the DNC, if not for the money?
Not going to war with USA.
@BS
Impeaches credibility and establishes motive.
It may be bias, but does not impeach on credibility or establish a motive.
Nor is it evidence of the Russians not doing it.
Still doesn't mean that did it.
You: Why are we talking about Russian hacking? The content of the emails is what matters!
Me: Okay, show me evidence of a crime in the emails.
You: ... Why are we talking about the content of the emails? The Russian hacking is what matters!
irreverent rubbish you made up with assumptions. pft...
So wait, the emails don't matter all of a sudden?
Really? who said that? They are not needed in the context of the example I gave.
Is the highly oppressive regime in Russia a "primary target" of Wikileaks? Obviously not. Assange did not tell the truth here.
So a set of emails published, now means Russia is not a "Primary Target".
Me: Show me evidence of the U.S. interfering in a foreign election.
You: Here's eleven seconds of Hillary Clinton discussing the rebellion against a man who never stood for an election in his life, and rolling her eyes at the suggestion that she was involved.
Arming Rebels in Syria to over throw Assad.
When articles report fabricated and factually incorrect information, that's pretty good reason to call it "fake". And we're not talking about fake news, anyway.
You should give good argument why it is fake. But you don't know much about arguing but the looks of it.
*sigh* If only...
You had your counter and I replied. This is going in a circle and still waiting on evidence...
I've closed, you have no evidence.
Well not really, I asked for evidence, he provided, I agreed, and compared to the US. Still doesn't mean Russia hacked or sponsored hacking the emails.
***
Well I get warning for teaching BS how to debate:
"Are you debating or moderating. If you want to be the moderate please be neutral and then you can claim that I lose at the end of the debate."
Yet when he/she tells me how to live; "Words for you to live by." and I report for flaming... nothing... Bias to the core!!!! This forum 'debate' section is just 'circle jerking'.
***
Yous are sticking up for people with sex beads around a child's neck with the Hash tag #Chickenlover which means Child lover in FBI code.
A person on another site I visited created a topic, which I've lightly edited to meet the minimum standards of this forum and follows below in the quote. I've largely in the past agreed with his point of view, but he's always been more extreme and frankly nihilistic. Anyways, he's asking a very specific question that I think is going to be asked a lot more and I'll now let his words live on in a close approximation of what he posted:
Fake news. Clickbait. Kneejerk articles. Confirmation bias. Echo chambers. Bubbles of autonomy and safe spaces.
We are flooded by gonzo propaganda journalism. It used to be the news came with a little spin, now the spin comes with a little news. Journalistic standards are at rock bottom lows. An article on a news site has less factual authority than grafitti on a bathroom stall.
But there's a solution, it's just unconstitutional: regulate journalism.
They do it in china all the time, the government controls the media, to keep them from lying or spreading corporate propaganda.
How much Benghazi will it take to change the will of the people? We've seen the restrictions on guns come down from mass shootings, constitution schmonstitution (yes, I am unamerican [edited]). People voted for Trump because they figured there was NO WAY he could posssibly be as big of a piece of **** [edited] as he appears, that it's all a smear campaign. How many more fake scandals will it take for Americans to say "enough is enough" and start finding a way to abandon freedom of the press and regulate the media?
They used to do it under the auspices of the FCC. You needed a license to broadcast television or radio, and you had to fulfill some sort of civic good to justify your license. Remember public programming? They used to make the cable stations give away free airtime to budding television makers, for crying out loud. Broad cast fake news back then, hell, even broadcast "profanity" and you'd get your license pulled.
It looked like freedom of the press, but really the FCC could shut anyone down they wanted to if they became a problem. The internet ruined all that, of course. Hell, I'm making this thread: I'm well aware of how **** [edited] things have become if you're getting this news from me.
So, will all this propaganda reach a breaking point, where people start to someway or another regulate the media to a standard higher than the National Enquirer? Will we one day welcome the end of freedom of the press in favor of a well regulated media we can trust for a change?
Or, could things actually get WORSE?
I'm frankly of the opinion that the system isn't going to fix itself, he's right there. I'm also of the opinion that our government can't fix this through regulation, though it's probably the only hope of getting in gear. I think it's more likely our system is heading for an inflection point where something core in our society is going to change. The optimist in me thinks young people given time and power can get things right, but frankly we just elected Trump.
I don't think this kind of anti-democratic call is going to go away. I think there will be more appeals towards authoritarianism in the coming years as the continual degradation of faith in our systems continues.
I know two things:
1. Government of the people/by the people can work, but only if its citizens believe that and if it has actors within that are trying to do good for everyone.
2. The populist backlash doesn't believe in the system or government anymore and so the voices which could make number 1 work out will be told to shut up and sit in a corner.
Piece one contains all of my hope, but piece 2 is I think our reality. And in losing faith in the system I simultaneously know that I'm part of the problem and can't see a way out of it. I'm pretty sure self-harm is on the menu for the foreseeable future. I'm having a real hard time seeing this work itself out and I don't think the people in power have any desire to have a functioning media that interested in facts or truth.
Another friend told me once:
Reality is the thing that keeps punching you in the face no matter how hard you try to deny it.
I guess that's true too, but I can't help but feel we'll in a world of hurt, and if you're blind and paralyzed you might not understand that you attached a rocket pack to your own fist and its hitting you over and over again because you did this to yourself.
/nihilistic rant
The only thing that I could maybe shed some light in the tunnel is that the people themselves can regulate the media by actually demanding the truth and craving what actually matters rather than just clicking whatever entertains them. I am not a fan of government controlling the media. The people are in control, it's just when they cede that control to laziness and stupidity do the corrupt lead.
We are in a deep hole and once we finish the task of digging ourselves out do we get to enjoy a being great nation, and being vigilant will allow us to coast through time as a great nation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a Bernie supporter of sorts, I can say my feeling is that the issues surrounding Hillary Clinton are at least mostly just the establishment and not personally due to Clinton herself. I also don't think they are very big problems.
My support has always been for Clinton over Trump. Clinton has issues, bit Trump is worse.
I also believe Russia did to some degree intentionally spread misinformation around the election and may have been involved in some of the leaks.
I don't think Russia rigged the election.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Also, somewhat Ironic is that ZeroHedge was the first site that was discovered to be Russian Propaganda, way back in April of this year when one of the staff got fed up with the ridiculous editorial line and went public.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog
All Russia identified hacking groups get Bear nicknames, if that wasn't obvious. It's the naming scheme crowdstrike, and others potentially, use
Panda = China
Bear = Russia
Kitten = Iran
India = Tiger
North Korea = Chollima (a mythical winged horse)
Non-Nation-State Adversaries
Jackal = Activist groups
Spider = Criminal groups
Also,
Typhoon,
You have repeatedly evaded K's question. I'd like to see some evidence, anything, about wikileaks accuracy.
Some people have, though not many. Thought it was worth being clear.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
All this was in the New York Times article you were bashing, by the way.
There are two possibilities: he is working for Russia or he isn't.
If he is not working for Russia, he is going to say he is not working for Russia.
If he is working for Russia, he is still going to say he is not working for Russia.
Because him saying he is not working for Russia would happen either way, it does not constitute evidence either way. Something is only evidence if it would not happen any other way.
Of which I still have yet to see you cite a single word of incriminating evidence. Which, again, has been the goalpost I set for you all along.
(a) Now who's moving the goalposts? (b) Yes, they actually are; that's what the "Bear" means.
Reading comprehension, dude. "If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as [this] = you don't have evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as this. You believe in that conspiracy on the basis of no admissions of guilt, no paper trail, no evidence of any of the sort that you're demanding here. Your bar for evidence is, in fact, absurdly low for it. But when it comes to Russian hacking, this for some reason you don't want to believe, so the bar suddenly becomes absurdly high, and all the real and demonstrable links to Russian agents -- the sort of links you do not have for 9/11 -- are just "speculation". Be consistent. Set the bar at the same standard for both cases.
“Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” -- Julian Assange, 2006 (source 1 source 2)
...and not to belabor the point, but Russia kills journalists.
Words for you to live by.
Do me a favor: google "Trump China Taiwan". Then try to tell me Trump is peaceful.
Evidence?
Accessing private email servers is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. If I hacked into your emails and published them online, I would be criminally liable. Notwithstanding that, it's a bit rich of you to praise Russia for exercising freedom of speech when that is a freedom the Russian government has been strangling to death domestically. Siding with Russia against the United States in this is siding with a nation that has one of the most extensive state-controlled media systems in the world against a nation that has enshrined journalistic independence as its literal first political ideal. Which, again, is why it's so bizarre that Wikileaks and Assange have decided to do exactly that.
Nobody here is saying the emails are fake.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Still not relevant to this case.
Still not evidence of the Russians doing it.
You setting them does not mean I have to answer. We are looking for evidence of Russian Hacking or support.
Bear =/= Russian Government.
My 'bar' is still not evidence for Russian Hacking.
" but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations" Even if they haven't published anything, still not proof of Russian Hacking or Support.
Evidence? But still doesn't prove Russia Hacked or Supported.
Whatever, telling me how to live now... Still not proof of Russian hacking or Support.
I said most peaceful candidate... "Reading comprehension, dude."
Hillary overthrowing Gaddafi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
There is no evidence of Russian Hacking or publishing the Emails, Wikileaks published them. It is a claim by the CIA, the FBI does not support that claim. The freedom of speech in the US is fading, especially calling it 'fake news' and google and Facebook now censoring. With or without the emails, Russia is still allowed to publish news against the USA illegal actions, which bias Journalists/editors seem to be missing out on.
They are saying the news is 'fake' without reason.
I'm just going to give my closing statement. This is going around in circles and not achieving anything. No evidence has been brought forward on the Russian Hacking/Fake news side.
-There is no evidence, but 'magic' connecting WORDS that claim the Russians Hacked.
-FBI, Ron Paul, Julian Assange have said it is NOT the Russians.
There is no case.
Good Luck, have fun, Bye. Keep up the Russian fear propaganda and lead us to war :S
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Assange wouldn't tell us if it were.
Ron Paul is an unconnected third party whose opinion is meaningless.
And the FBI said in no uncertain terms that it was the Russians -- you're just flat-out misrepresenting the truth there.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is code that was used by some Russian located group in the past and that IP went through a Russian time zone... "For the third time" that is not evidence of Russian Government hacking or support. Do you have an email or money trail? Which I have asked in the past which people have not answered the question...
"FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump" LOL ok, Russia wanting to help Trump =/= evidence for Russian Government hacking or paying hacking group.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
I wasn't posting that as evidence of the Russia hack. I was posting that as evidence that you had made a patently false statement about the FBI's findings. At least have the decency to own your mistake.
Nor is it evidence of the Russians not doing it. You claimed that it was. That was incorrect.
You: Why are we talking about Russian hacking? The content of the emails is what matters!
Me: Okay, show me evidence of a crime in the emails.
You: ... Why are we talking about the content of the emails? The Russian hacking is what matters!
Is the highly oppressive regime in Russia a "primary target" of Wikileaks? Obviously not. Assange did not tell the truth here.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Me: Show me evidence of the U.S. interfering in a foreign election.
You: Here's eleven seconds of Hillary Clinton discussing the rebellion against a man who never stood for an election in his life, and rolling her eyes at the suggestion that she was involved.
So wait, the emails don't matter all of a sudden?
When articles report fabricated and factually incorrect information, that's pretty good reason to call it "fake". And we're not talking about fake news, anyway.
*sigh* If only...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
These IP addresses n Bit.ly account does not prove it's the Russians. Me believing that 9/11 used bombs does not prove Russians done it either. How do you know my standards haven't changed. This have nothing to do with 9/11 for the 4,5,6... time...
Your link that FBI agrees with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump is not the same as the FBI saying there is no links to Russian hacking. FBI agreeing with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump =/= Russian hacking or paying for hacking. There is no mistake that I have to own. It is your reading comprehension that is a mistake, please own that mistake.
FFS quit with these smart ass comments;
"At least have the decency to own your mistake.", " that's more than you have ever had in support of any of your pet theories","Reading comprehension, dude.","Words for you to live by."
You are just trying to shame me and not find the truth. It makes you sound like a thin 24 y.o. feminist SJW collage student with glasses on his second degree, whose parents have been broken up.
Edit: Putin says democrats are sore losers, lost both houses. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRJDILGVkWA
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
If the IP addresses are Russian, what motive would the common Malek or Nikita have to hack the DNC, if not for the money? Why not hack their own government for things...actually useful to them. Sabo held Peutro Rico's digital communications in his hands to prove that he could do it, not Peutro Rico's major political party's email server. It just seems, out of all the things one can do in their spare time, messing with an election in another country without being paid to do so is rather unlikely. Most people would rather help themselves, or boast of their powers. Make a statement. Spreading "AIDS" on World of Warcraft or some online community for the lulz is one thing...this is just too weird if just a spare time activity by a random Russian person/group. It's like getting someone a box of matches in a ziplock bag for their birthday...you could do it, I guess, but would you really?
Even a cursory scan of the article reveals that in context, the method by which Russia helped Trump was via the hacking.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Well if someone wants to quote something from the article, instead of going here read all of this... or read this book to understand my argument. What evidence does this present that Russia done the hacking?
@Boyachi
They came from a Russian timezone, this does not mean that originated there. You can bounce your IP off many servers.
Not going to war with USA.
@BS
It may be bias, but does not impeach on credibility or establish a motive.
Still doesn't mean that did it.
irreverent rubbish you made up with assumptions. pft...
Really? who said that? They are not needed in the context of the example I gave.
So a set of emails published, now means Russia is not a "Primary Target".
Cool, US n allies do the same thing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un
Arming Rebels in Syria to over throw Assad.
You should give good argument why it is fake. But you don't know much about arguing but the looks of it.
You had your counter and I replied. This is going in a circle and still waiting on evidence...
I've closed, you have no evidence.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Your Logical Fallacy is Tu Quoque.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Well not really, I asked for evidence, he provided, I agreed, and compared to the US. Still doesn't mean Russia hacked or sponsored hacking the emails.
***
Well I get warning for teaching BS how to debate:
"Are you debating or moderating. If you want to be the moderate please be neutral and then you can claim that I lose at the end of the debate."
Yet when he/she tells me how to live; "Words for you to live by." and I report for flaming... nothing... Bias to the core!!!! This forum 'debate' section is just 'circle jerking'.
***
Yous are sticking up for people with sex beads around a child's neck with the Hash tag #Chickenlover which means Child lover in FBI code.
http://imgur.com/Z9PelXZ.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/therealstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-11-12-14_00_28-Films-TV.png?w=800&ssl=1
It really makes me sick, that you are passing this off as 'fake news'.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
The only thing that I could maybe shed some light in the tunnel is that the people themselves can regulate the media by actually demanding the truth and craving what actually matters rather than just clicking whatever entertains them. I am not a fan of government controlling the media. The people are in control, it's just when they cede that control to laziness and stupidity do the corrupt lead.
We are in a deep hole and once we finish the task of digging ourselves out do we get to enjoy a being great nation, and being vigilant will allow us to coast through time as a great nation.