Hillary Clinton

I dont doubt that Russian hackers exist. Such individuals exist in virtually all nations and perform these hacks for multiple reasons. I am just very skeptical when a govt. is accused without anything to show for it. The US has a very sophisticated network and is able to catch (I would imagine) just about anyone from anywhere.... As stated by some from high places and experts in the area, a footprint or so would be left.

Aside from accusations from "anonymous" sources nothing has been presented...

as for a contradiction, not really... There were anonymous sources that claimed Iraq had WMD's some were not anonymous. The "types" of people are the same....

 

Yes really. How can you claim the "very same individuals" are responsible when you can't even name their positions much less their real names? You can't with any veracity. Have any of the individuals who were not anonymous been confirmed as contributing to the current statements? Note that in one case you are talking about Middle Eastern analyst and the other European and specifically Russian analyst. It's unlikely they would be the same until you get to the very to and many of those at the top have changed between the two events.

If by type you mean they are American intelligence analyst, that's correct but that's a different proposition and mostly hand waving anyway.

 

This is precisely what I meant...

 

I don't doubt that other governments have the ability to hack. I have just always been under the impression that in this particular sphere the US leads. I for example am under the impression that the US is perhaps the toughest nut to crack and the best at catching someone red handed. The US has been doing it the longest but ofcourse I may very well be wrong (not my field of expertise ).

I will claim that in the case of the Sony hack, the FBI released evidence and such was the case in the Chinese hack. If I remember correctly a system called XKEYSCORE was used in tracing the footprints. This is something the NSA has used for a while and quite successfully. Nothing has been presented in the Russian case as of yet tho...

What I find entertaining is that didn't Obama try to influence the elections in Israel not too long ago?

To quote Ron Paul the same people who are complaining about Russia meddling in US affairs are the same ones who have tried to meddle in Syria for years.... Something along those lines anyway.

Oh the irony

 

The only people who affect the result of the US election are the electorate. If putting the truth before the electorate during the campaign helped the electorate to decide this can only be a positive outcome.

There is an old saying regarding mushroom management- well at least someone here has turned on the lights even if the electorate is still being fed bulls**t

 

The problem comes from someone releasing selected pieces of the truth in order to effect the election. A real new organization that looks for the truth about both sides is welcome. One that makes sure nothing wrong is said about one side and digs up all the dirt (and none of the positive) on the other is not. Now that applies to some extent to most of the major news sources but when a foreign government is behind the effort that's not acceptable. It's not at all clear by the way whether or not this actually had any significant effect on the election but that's hardly the point.

 

Where do you find one of those?

 

There are some that try and some try harder than others. Most of the major networks are not so much bound by political philosophy (although it plays quite a role) as they are by high ratings. There are some sources that are still decent news wise though especially if you avoid their pet projects.

 

So to sum up, you get hold of a bit of true information on one candidate but cannot let the electorate know what it is until you find an equally true piece of information on each of the other candidates?

What rubbish you write. Any true information from any source should be made available to those who make the final decision whether in an election or any other matter. The only people to whom the question does this information have any effect should be the ones making the decision, in this case the electorate.

 

It's not me that's writing rubbish. In this case the Russians apparently went looking for negative information on Clinton ignored any positive information and any negative information they had on Trump and released only the former. Then there's the fact that other foreign heads of state made comments in regards to their opinions on the capabilities of both candidates but they did this in an open way, so no grounds for criticism there. If one only presents the facts on one side of a story they may be true but they can be incredibly misleading when that is done deliberately and covertly it is contemptible. Then of course there is the way that the information was released which put even more of a negative spin on it. There were and are some very good reasons not to vote for Hillary but that's not the issue here.

 

Says it all for both sides.

 

Looks like The Nuremberg Rally of 1936.
A virtual Sea of White, Rosenberg "Aryan", mesmerized faces.

 

At least you'll never see those folks out demonstrating and rioting. They have to go to work during the day.

 

Indeed, they should go work during the day and show respect for their Elect President...

... and think a bit more. Here is a good starting point:

 

#373- That's not a large group. Look how peaceful they are (a bit disillusioned, yes). No worries about suicide bombers in that crowd. They are all about moving forward, evolving as humans.
How about that hajj?... Large groups of people lining up like lemmings to be crushed, in order to throw small rocks at a larger rock. Rocket science in action...Thanks merkel and bama for your gifts to us, the (ass backwards) gifts that keep giving (exploding).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_during_the_Hajj

 

Once O'Bama leaves the White House, ISIS would collapse within days without the main supporter.

 

What an absurd statement.

 

What a biased view.