4 ms·

All of your articles are from 2016 and 2017, meaning they predate the indictments and muller report. Why do you cite older and less extensive reporting as thou

All of your articles are from 2016 and 2017, meaning they predate the indictments and muller report. Why do you cite older and less extensive reporting as though it debunks more recent and more thorough investigation? > Furthermore, IP addresses change constantly Yes, and if this was the only evidence, you'd maybe have a point. But, the collection of evidence is: - a russian-state associated IP was used to - deploy software developed by the Russian government - to steal data that would be beneficial to Russia if published - and was ultimately published via channels known to be associated with Russia (I'm not talking strictly WikiLeaks here, but also how they got the data) For each of these bullet points, there are multiple pieces of supporting data. Your alternative explanation is what, exactly? A random ukranian group hacking for the lulz successfully stole this info and either did it so well that the us thought it was actually Russia, or the us lied and claimed it was Russia. That lulzy group proceeded to publish the data via russian-appearing channels or Russia then stole the data from the hackers to publish it. And said group never took credit, even though "we tricked the CIA" is about as much cyber hacker cred as you can get. I apply Occam's razor. What's your excuse? Keep in mind, I can apply exactly your logic and say that appearing amateurish is good operational practice for a state actor as it will make it more likey for people to claim that the attacker wasn't a state actor. That's the problem with unfalsifiable claims like yours, I can simply invent a better conspiracy, so to speak.

rendall 5y ago
> Why do you cite older and less extensive reporting as though it debunks more recent and more thorough investigation? Not an argument or a refutation. A fallacy, in point of fact. Its age has nothing to do with the correctness of its argument. Have you not read any of the comments above? All of these "more recent and thorough reports" - and again, here, as to which specific reports you're being as vague as the "reports" themselves - are obfuscating, designed to confuse and redirect, at the end of which is always "trust us, here are some other trustworthy reports that say the same thing". By contrast, the word fence report goes through specific allegations and adresses them point by point. Clear, simple, straightforward. In all of the reports demonstrating that Russians hack the DNC, not one is as clear and straightforward, because it never can be. Your alternative explanation is what, exactly? You haven't really refuted anything here, and your reference to Occams Razor should come only after clear logical steps from evidence to conclusion, which you do not have. I don't know who did it. Which is the point. No one does, and no one can know, given the evidence presented so far. I can tell you this, though: politically, the content of the emails themselves were deeply embarrassing to the DNC. Collusion with the media, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, to kneecap Sander's campaign; Donna Brazile passing debate questions to Clinton; Clinton's strategy to promote Trump as the easy win, etc. Now, however, any time anyone discusses the content of the emails, true believers such as yourself will interrupt to talk about how Trump won only because of Russians. It was such a stupidly transparent strategy I was stunned it actually grew legs and walked. Skeptical, but open, I eagerly awaited the evidence which never materialized, sadly. ...us lied and claimed it was Russia. That lulzy group proceeded to publish the data via russian-appearing channels or Russia then stole the data from the hackers to publish it. And said group never took credit, even though "we tricked the CIA" is about as much cyber hacker cred as you can get. Here you kind of rhetorically descend into incoherence. I get it. You don't want to steel-man alternative ideas, because "Russians" is what you have been told and "Russians" is what you believe. But almost any other explanation is as plausible as Russians.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > You haven't really refuted anything here, and your reference to Occams Razor should come only after clear logical steps from evidence to conclusion, which you do not have. I listed 4 bullet points. You've agreed with 2 of them (the first, that a russian-state associated IP was used in the hack), and 3, that the data if published would be beneficial to russia (by being beneficial to trump). Those 4 evidence based claims, some of which you've admitted you agree are true, point to a simple answer: Russia was the culprit. Yes, there are other alternative explanations, but all are vastly more complex, or fail to sufficiently address all of the evidence presented, hence my reference Occam's razor. > Now, however, any time anyone discusses the content of the emails, true believers such as yourself will interrupt to talk about how Trump won only because of Russians. I've never said this. > I get it. You don't want to steel-man alternative ideas, because "Russians" is what you have been told and "Russians" is what you believe. But almost any other explanation is as plausible as Russians. No, that's my point. That was my steel man. Your argument is incoherent. You're free to prove me wrong. Its easy: provide the alternative explanation that is more likely than it haivng been russia. Provide an explanation that better explains the facts we agree on: 1. A russian state-affiliated IP was used in the attack 2. The data stolen and leaked was geopolitically beneficial to russia. Again, here's my simple explanation of these facts that we agree on: "A russian state-backed attack stole and leaked these documents". What's your simpler explanation? Prove me wrong. It should be easy. Looking directly at the evidence, the simplest, and far and away most likely answer, is that Russia was the culprit. Other answers are, perhaps, possible, but that doesn't make them as likely, unless you want to pretend that two explanations of the same phenomena are always equally likely. That's simply a failure to reason correctly, and I'd expect better of someone who wants to bring up fallacies. Put another way, there's some evidence that supports the claim that it was Russia. There's no evidence that supports the claim that it was the Ukraine. This doesn't mean that it had to be Russia, yes, alternative explanations are possible, but looking solely at the evidence, all of it points to Russia, and none of it points to anyone else. You can create alternate hypothesis, but they all rely on the evidence being somehow misleading ("The US government is lying", "The Ukranian teenager spoofed a Russian attack"). By Occam's Razor, those explanations are less likely, because they are more complex. You're welcome to present some additional evidence that makes those explanations more likely, but you haven't presented any, you've simply said the evidence we have isn't conclusive (which I agree with), and because of that all possibilities are equally likely, which is terrible reasoning.

rendall 5y ago

> Why do you cite older and less extensive reporting as though it debunks more recent and more thorough investigation? Not an argument or a refutation. A fallacy, in point of fact. Its age has nothing to do with the correctness of its argument. Have you not read any of the comments above? All of these "more recent and thorough reports" - and again, here, as to which specific reports you're being as vague as the "reports" themselves - are obfuscating, designed to confuse and redirect, at the end of which is always "trust us, here are some other trustworthy reports that say the same thing". By contrast, the word fence report goes through specific allegations and adresses them point by point. Clear, simple, straightforward. In all of the reports demonstrating that Russians hack the DNC, not one is as clear and straightforward, because it never can be. Your alternative explanation is what, exactly? You haven't really refuted anything here, and your reference to Occams Razor should come only after clear logical steps from evidence to conclusion, which you do not have. I don't know who did it. Which is the point. No one does, and no one can know, given the evidence presented so far. I can tell you this, though: politically, the content of the emails themselves were deeply embarrassing to the DNC. Collusion with the media, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, to kneecap Sander's campaign; Donna Brazile passing debate questions to Clinton; Clinton's strategy to promote Trump as the easy win, etc. Now, however, any time anyone discusses the content of the emails, true believers such as yourself will interrupt to talk about how Trump won only because of Russians. It was such a stupidly transparent strategy I was stunned it actually grew legs and walked. Skeptical, but open, I eagerly awaited the evidence which never materialized, sadly. ...us lied and claimed it was Russia. That lulzy group proceeded to publish the data via russian-appearing channels or Russia then stole the data from the hackers to publish it. And said group never took credit, even though "we tricked the CIA" is about as much cyber hacker cred as you can get. Here you kind of rhetorically descend into incoherence. I get it. You don't want to steel-man alternative ideas, because "Russians" is what you have been told and "Russians" is what you believe. But almost any other explanation is as plausible as Russians.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> You haven't really refuted anything here, and your reference to Occams Razor should come only after clear logical steps from evidence to conclusion, which you do not have. I listed 4 bullet points. You've agreed with 2 of them (the first, that a russian-state associated IP was used in the hack), and 3, that the data if published would be beneficial to russia (by being beneficial to trump). Those 4 evidence based claims, some of which you've admitted you agree are true, point to a simple answer: Russia was the culprit. Yes, there are other alternative explanations, but all are vastly more complex, or fail to sufficiently address all of the evidence presented, hence my reference Occam's razor. > Now, however, any time anyone discusses the content of the emails, true believers such as yourself will interrupt to talk about how Trump won only because of Russians. I've never said this. > I get it. You don't want to steel-man alternative ideas, because "Russians" is what you have been told and "Russians" is what you believe. But almost any other explanation is as plausible as Russians. No, that's my point. That was my steel man. Your argument is incoherent. You're free to prove me wrong. Its easy: provide the alternative explanation that is more likely than it haivng been russia. Provide an explanation that better explains the facts we agree on: 1. A russian state-affiliated IP was used in the attack 2. The data stolen and leaked was geopolitically beneficial to russia. Again, here's my simple explanation of these facts that we agree on: "A russian state-backed attack stole and leaked these documents". What's your simpler explanation? Prove me wrong. It should be easy. Looking directly at the evidence, the simplest, and far and away most likely answer, is that Russia was the culprit. Other answers are, perhaps, possible, but that doesn't make them as likely, unless you want to pretend that two explanations of the same phenomena are always equally likely. That's simply a failure to reason correctly, and I'd expect better of someone who wants to bring up fallacies. Put another way, there's some evidence that supports the claim that it was Russia. There's no evidence that supports the claim that it was the Ukraine. This doesn't mean that it had to be Russia, yes, alternative explanations are possible, but looking solely at the evidence, all of it points to Russia, and none of it points to anyone else. You can create alternate hypothesis, but they all rely on the evidence being somehow misleading ("The US government is lying", "The Ukranian teenager spoofed a Russian attack"). By Occam's Razor, those explanations are less likely, because they are more complex. You're welcome to present some additional evidence that makes those explanations more likely, but you haven't presented any, you've simply said the evidence we have isn't conclusive (which I agree with), and because of that all possibilities are equally likely, which is terrible reasoning.