8 ms·

There is alot at stake in blaming Russia for the breaches. This was broadcasted, without evidence? and readily accepted by the public. For this reason it's es

by dpweb 10y ago

There is alot at stake in blaming Russia for the breaches. This was broadcasted, without evidence? and readily accepted by the public. For this reason it's essential that some security experts outside the standard government contractor "experts" validate or at least weigh the evidence implicating the Russian state as the attackers. - Security contractors have financial interests in going along with the popular political line / pleasing the govt. - Groupthink - Russian actor involvement does not mean Russian state involvement - There's benefit in claiming, only a state actor could have done this, to defend one's security system that is in fact weak enough that several non-state actors could have penetrated it

ting_bu_dung 10y ago
1) Now we know Manafort potentially received a cash payment of more than $12 million. Which, I mean, seeing how good he is at running a campaign is clearly money based on competence! 2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine. 3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical." 4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign. 5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on. 6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region. 7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama. 8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.
- TenOhms 10y ago
  Do you have a link to evidence in support of #4? #5 was as expected, taken out of context. All Trump said was that if the Russian did hack Hillary's email, that they release the 'lost/deleted' ones, something FBI wants very much as well. #7 that isn't very surprising considering Obama's policies are so far to the left of most Republicans and frankly so seldom make any sense. #8 again, not surprisingly that this was taken out of context by someone. Trump correctly pointed out that NATO has serious issues that need some tough love if they're going to be resolved.
  - dave_sullivan 10y ago
    Can you provide a link with evidence it wasn't? Because every article I've seen cites Russia. Applying Occam's razor and asking "Who benefits?" along with everything about Trump's campaign manager, along with proposed policies re: anti-nato and pro-Russian regional invasions, it all leads to Trump being an unwitting or witting agent of Russia. Trump wants some of that oligarch money. Anyone who doesn't see that is being willfully ignorant. What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management. Selective paranoia apparently.
    - anjc 10y ago
      So just to be clear, you have zero evidence to back up your assertion.
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        It wasn't his assertion. The user who made the assertion posted evidence that you can respond to if you like.
    - igivanov 10y ago
      "Who benefits?" The hawkish neocon establishment, as can be easily observed. "evidence" You mean, "code with comments in Russian"? Then I presume if the comments had been in English, it would be evidence of a British involvement? Or maybe Australian?
    - Cuuugi 10y ago
      Just admit you hate Trump. It makes these rambling thesis' based on NO EVIDENCE easier to defend.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - 10y ago
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  > "Now we know Manafort potentially received a cash payment" In other words you don't know. Those are weasel words
  - ting_bu_dung 10y ago
    it is simply 'innocent before proven guilty'. a great american ideal. also, there are proof dugged up by the great american press. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-... "Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012"
    - michaelbuddy 10y ago
      Yes I saw that quote too. Handwritten ledger means zip.
      - DankCorrector 10y ago
        It just means it was hand written.
- DankCorrector 10y ago
  Okay, some of this begs a response. >> 8) anti-NATO stance Nope. This is actually really really wrong. What is being covered as his anti-NATO stance is a position the US has nailed on quietly for years. As someone who grew up in a Canadian military family, I heard the same criticism for years around the dinner table. A lot of nations, Canada included, do not contribute our fair share to our collective security. For decades Canada has signed on to NATO commitments but our government (liberal, more so than the conservatives) for just as long as yet to put pass the budgets in order to meet those commitments. One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. The american tax payer is paying for the lion share of our collective security, and our current security environment has been suffering a tragedy of the commons. >>Trump and NATO pivot to terrorism One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. We actually fought and put the necessary dollars to support that fighting. We had to lease transport planes, but eventually spend the billions to buy our own, we upgraded equipment. In terms of spending, we took our military from using 1980s equipment (the prior combat uniform was drab olive) to a fighting military contemporary of 2007. Britain also met commitments, and, likewise, America did to. Other nations (like france, germany, poland) were reluctant to put their soldiers in combat roles and avoided risks. The issue in Afghanistan highlighted the relucantance and lack of incentive for france, germany and poland to incorporate their troops within a NATO joint chain of command because of their reluctance to see their troops engage in combat. None of these two issues that Trump has spoken about (NATO in Afghanistan and how horrible it was), and NATO as collective security, is him speaking about disbanding NATO. You americans paid a lot more for our collective security than the EU does, or canada (as percentage of GDP). And because of the tragedy of the commons, leaders will not spend more, or take more risks unless they have to, which NATO has proven year after year, that they wont unless they feel threatened. They would rather direct that budget to domestic needs and get a free ride from you, the american tax payer. > 7) Trump calling Putin better than Obama Trump believes Obama is the worst thing ever.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. " Nah, nah. There's two things NATO is about: (a) keeping money flowing in these economic empires and involved countries; (b) protecting the security of them. Money first, citizen safety second. Always in that order. Otherwise, U.S., U.K., France, etc wouldn't have screwed with so many Middle Eastern, Latino, etc countries for their resources in bloody wars. So, that's the game. Now, what of security? Wait, I know what you mean: U.S.-directed spending on military activities that profit U.S. defense contractors. The revolving door where defense contractors bribe Congress reps, hire Pentagon people for six digits, and get billions in contracts from same people. They build tons of stuff with no proven value on top of what has value. They have cost overruns due to mismanagement. They get involved in various forms of fraud and shoddy work. They pocket billions in process with tens of millions to their executives & Congress people's stock going up. America, with many starving and poorly educated, spends as much money as possible on these defense contractors' bottom lines... more than many others put together... while the other countries spend more on infrastructure, medical, school, etc. In such a situation, it's 100% reasonable not to match the spending of the U.S.. Matter of fact, countries should brag on not running their defense so foolishly. Any money they spend will probably just make some American executives or legislators wealthier. The problem here is American corruption and defense spending. That industry needs to get their shit together. The corruption won't go away. So, I've just asked they create jobs and line pockets building stuff that's actually useful in modern warfare. If they want spare soldiers, have them fix our crumbling highways and stuff when they aren't killing foreigners for questionable reasons. Should just get something out of our tax dollars like, say, Canadians are. "One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. " Wow. Thought you were American up to that comment as most countries are aware that was BS. Bush Sr and CIA funded terrorists in Afghanistan, training them to fight a superpower. U.S. govt also funded Sadaam in Iraq to tune of $600+ million in fight against Iran. We fought them since, as CIA admitted in 2013, we overthrew their government and installed dictator to help Britain steal their oil. Funded Sadaams war against them to punish their resistance. Slammed him when he resisted the meddling. Eventually, the Saudi terrorist they trained & supported brought a bunch of Saudi friends brainwashed by Saudi extremist religion into the U.S. to murder 3,000+ of us. U.S. response should've been to stop meddling, start some apologies w/ reconstruction money, and smash the hell out of Saudi Arabia until they stop promoting extremism. Instead, they convinced a bunch of people to smash Afghanistan and Iraq while walking hand-in-hand with Saudi king and training their military to be more effective. Yeah, you shouldn't be proud of your country sacrificing its people to support American imperialism and mass-murder in the Middle East. Those countries you knocked just used their brains. They decided they shouldn't die to make American politicians happy or U.S. defense contractors richer ($300+ billion richer). Now, those countries are destabilized plus ISIS formed in the wake threatening to kill more of us. Great. (thumbs up)
- mason240 10y ago
  It's the new Red Scare.
  - manlike_chive 10y ago
    Well we need someone to start a new war with, don't we?

by dpweb 10y ago

ting_bu_dung 10y ago

1) Now we know Manafort potentially received a cash payment of more than $12 million. Which, I mean, seeing how good he is at running a campaign is clearly money based on competence! 2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine. 3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical." 4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign. 5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on. 6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region. 7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama. 8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.

TenOhms 10y ago
Do you have a link to evidence in support of #4? #5 was as expected, taken out of context. All Trump said was that if the Russian did hack Hillary's email, that they release the 'lost/deleted' ones, something FBI wants very much as well. #7 that isn't very surprising considering Obama's policies are so far to the left of most Republicans and frankly so seldom make any sense. #8 again, not surprisingly that this was taken out of context by someone. Trump correctly pointed out that NATO has serious issues that need some tough love if they're going to be resolved.
- dave_sullivan 10y ago
  Can you provide a link with evidence it wasn't? Because every article I've seen cites Russia. Applying Occam's razor and asking "Who benefits?" along with everything about Trump's campaign manager, along with proposed policies re: anti-nato and pro-Russian regional invasions, it all leads to Trump being an unwitting or witting agent of Russia. Trump wants some of that oligarch money. Anyone who doesn't see that is being willfully ignorant. What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management. Selective paranoia apparently.
  - anjc 10y ago
    So just to be clear, you have zero evidence to back up your assertion.
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      It wasn't his assertion. The user who made the assertion posted evidence that you can respond to if you like.
  - igivanov 10y ago
    "Who benefits?" The hawkish neocon establishment, as can be easily observed. "evidence" You mean, "code with comments in Russian"? Then I presume if the comments had been in English, it would be evidence of a British involvement? Or maybe Australian?
  - Cuuugi 10y ago
    Just admit you hate Trump. It makes these rambling thesis' based on NO EVIDENCE easier to defend.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - 10y ago
michaelbuddy 10y ago
> "Now we know Manafort potentially received a cash payment" In other words you don't know. Those are weasel words
- ting_bu_dung 10y ago
  it is simply 'innocent before proven guilty'. a great american ideal. also, there are proof dugged up by the great american press. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-... "Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012"
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    Yes I saw that quote too. Handwritten ledger means zip.
    - DankCorrector 10y ago
      It just means it was hand written.
DankCorrector 10y ago
Okay, some of this begs a response. >> 8) anti-NATO stance Nope. This is actually really really wrong. What is being covered as his anti-NATO stance is a position the US has nailed on quietly for years. As someone who grew up in a Canadian military family, I heard the same criticism for years around the dinner table. A lot of nations, Canada included, do not contribute our fair share to our collective security. For decades Canada has signed on to NATO commitments but our government (liberal, more so than the conservatives) for just as long as yet to put pass the budgets in order to meet those commitments. One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. The american tax payer is paying for the lion share of our collective security, and our current security environment has been suffering a tragedy of the commons. >>Trump and NATO pivot to terrorism One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. We actually fought and put the necessary dollars to support that fighting. We had to lease transport planes, but eventually spend the billions to buy our own, we upgraded equipment. In terms of spending, we took our military from using 1980s equipment (the prior combat uniform was drab olive) to a fighting military contemporary of 2007. Britain also met commitments, and, likewise, America did to. Other nations (like france, germany, poland) were reluctant to put their soldiers in combat roles and avoided risks. The issue in Afghanistan highlighted the relucantance and lack of incentive for france, germany and poland to incorporate their troops within a NATO joint chain of command because of their reluctance to see their troops engage in combat. None of these two issues that Trump has spoken about (NATO in Afghanistan and how horrible it was), and NATO as collective security, is him speaking about disbanding NATO. You americans paid a lot more for our collective security than the EU does, or canada (as percentage of GDP). And because of the tragedy of the commons, leaders will not spend more, or take more risks unless they have to, which NATO has proven year after year, that they wont unless they feel threatened. They would rather direct that budget to domestic needs and get a free ride from you, the american tax payer. > 7) Trump calling Putin better than Obama Trump believes Obama is the worst thing ever.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. " Nah, nah. There's two things NATO is about: (a) keeping money flowing in these economic empires and involved countries; (b) protecting the security of them. Money first, citizen safety second. Always in that order. Otherwise, U.S., U.K., France, etc wouldn't have screwed with so many Middle Eastern, Latino, etc countries for their resources in bloody wars. So, that's the game. Now, what of security? Wait, I know what you mean: U.S.-directed spending on military activities that profit U.S. defense contractors. The revolving door where defense contractors bribe Congress reps, hire Pentagon people for six digits, and get billions in contracts from same people. They build tons of stuff with no proven value on top of what has value. They have cost overruns due to mismanagement. They get involved in various forms of fraud and shoddy work. They pocket billions in process with tens of millions to their executives & Congress people's stock going up. America, with many starving and poorly educated, spends as much money as possible on these defense contractors' bottom lines... more than many others put together... while the other countries spend more on infrastructure, medical, school, etc. In such a situation, it's 100% reasonable not to match the spending of the U.S.. Matter of fact, countries should brag on not running their defense so foolishly. Any money they spend will probably just make some American executives or legislators wealthier. The problem here is American corruption and defense spending. That industry needs to get their shit together. The corruption won't go away. So, I've just asked they create jobs and line pockets building stuff that's actually useful in modern warfare. If they want spare soldiers, have them fix our crumbling highways and stuff when they aren't killing foreigners for questionable reasons. Should just get something out of our tax dollars like, say, Canadians are. "One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. " Wow. Thought you were American up to that comment as most countries are aware that was BS. Bush Sr and CIA funded terrorists in Afghanistan, training them to fight a superpower. U.S. govt also funded Sadaam in Iraq to tune of $600+ million in fight against Iran. We fought them since, as CIA admitted in 2013, we overthrew their government and installed dictator to help Britain steal their oil. Funded Sadaams war against them to punish their resistance. Slammed him when he resisted the meddling. Eventually, the Saudi terrorist they trained & supported brought a bunch of Saudi friends brainwashed by Saudi extremist religion into the U.S. to murder 3,000+ of us. U.S. response should've been to stop meddling, start some apologies w/ reconstruction money, and smash the hell out of Saudi Arabia until they stop promoting extremism. Instead, they convinced a bunch of people to smash Afghanistan and Iraq while walking hand-in-hand with Saudi king and training their military to be more effective. Yeah, you shouldn't be proud of your country sacrificing its people to support American imperialism and mass-murder in the Middle East. Those countries you knocked just used their brains. They decided they shouldn't die to make American politicians happy or U.S. defense contractors richer ($300+ billion richer). Now, those countries are destabilized plus ISIS formed in the wake threatening to kill more of us. Great. (thumbs up)
mason240 10y ago
It's the new Red Scare.
- manlike_chive 10y ago
  Well we need someone to start a new war with, don't we?