Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

What if it wasn't the Russian's who hacked the DNC?

27 posts in this topic

On Fox earlier today they mentioned the Russians, Chinese & Israelis all backed Clinton's email account, which is the first I've heard of the Israeli's doing that.  What if they're also responsible for the hack of the DNC?

Russia would've benefited from a Clinton presidency as we wouldn't have continued ramping up oil production.  This would've helped the Russian economy and allowed him to tighten his grip at home.  Also, softening relations between the US and Russia aren't in Putin's best interests.  He needs an adversary and what greater adversary is there than the United States? 

Israel would've had the most to lose from a Clinton presidency.  She didn't campaign as a pro-Israel candidate and her ties to the Saudi Royal family could've been problematic for the Israelis.  What if they're the ones who released the info to Wikileaks but we are saying the Russians so we don't embarrass ourselves and our Middle East ally?  It's easier to explain away Russian hacking than it is Israeli hacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mugtang said:

On Fox earlier today they mentioned the Russians, Chinese & Israelis all backed Clinton's email account, which is the first I've heard of the Israeli's doing that.  What if they're also responsible for the hack of the DNC?

Russia would've benefited from a Clinton presidency as we wouldn't have continued ramping up oil production.  This would've helped the Russian economy and allowed him to tighten his grip at home.  Also, softening relations between the US and Russia aren't in Putin's best interests.  He needs an adversary and what greater adversary is there than the United States? 

Israel would've had the most to lose from a Clinton presidency.  She didn't campaign as a pro-Israel candidate and her ties to the Saudi Royal family could've been problematic for the Israelis.  What if they're the ones who released the info to Wikileaks but we are saying the Russians so we don't embarrass ourselves and our Middle East ally?  It's easier to explain away Russian hacking than it is Israeli hacking.

At this point I think it is safe to say a preponderance of evidence points to Russia but that does not mean it is a certainty, far from it.  I read Pravda pretty regularly (as well as half a dozen other foreign papers @jackmormon and @CPslograd <_<) and have a fellow Ericson family member who currently lives just outside of St Petersburg.  The general tone was very fearful of a Clinton Presidency and continued perceived acts of aggression that she favored. 

Would not surprise me of the Israelis were indeed behind it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mugtang said:

On Fox earlier today they mentioned the Russians, Chinese & Israelis all backed Clinton's email account, which is the first I've heard of the Israeli's doing that.  What if they're also responsible for the hack of the DNC?

Russia would've benefited from a Clinton presidency as we wouldn't have continued ramping up oil production.  This would've helped the Russian economy and allowed him to tighten his grip at home.  Also, softening relations between the US and Russia aren't in Putin's best interests.  He needs an adversary and what greater adversary is there than the United States? 

Israel would've had the most to lose from a Clinton presidency.  She didn't campaign as a pro-Israel candidate and her ties to the Saudi Royal family could've been problematic for the Israelis.  What if they're the ones who released the info to Wikileaks but we are saying the Russians so we don't embarrass ourselves and our Middle East ally?  It's easier to explain away Russian hacking than it is Israeli hacking.

Putin can deal with a bad economy so long as he is able to convince the Russian people that he is reasserting Russia's preeminent place in the world. An adversarial Clinton would have given him a boogeyman to blame the ills of Russia's economy on, its true. But even with the US not increasing our energy output, Russia's economy is not doing great and will not be doing so anytime soon. So I don't think Clinton would have been a boon of support to how Putin handles Russia's domestic problems. She very well could have posed a serious challenge to him in his foreign aspirations though, which are central to Putin remaining in power. Whatever else can be said of Clinton, she has a worldview that maintains a strong NATO, which is in direct conflict with Russia's interests.

Trump...I don't know what he will do, no one does, least of all Trump. But assuming he does take the path of shaking up the world order by changing America's stance from a world-view centric one to a more national interested one, I can see how things can break Putin's way and break very hard. As the world order is currently constituted, America is the west. We are the keystone that has held everything together for 7 decades and allowed peace to bring a prosperity that has been unimaginably widespread. Without us occupying that keystone, and in the way that we done it for so long, it doesn't take much at all for the slightest tremble in places that seem trivial to most Americans to cause earthquakes that have drastic consequences for the rest of the west. It doesn't even take American action, or inaction; only a posture or a word that causes doubt and defensive self interest to collapse everything. Russia's moves are limited so long as opposition to them is concrete. If that concrete crumbles then their number of moves grow exponentially. So I can easily buy Russia doing what it's been purported to have done acting in its own interest.

The Israeli possibility is intriguing, as they act in self interest as well. However, I'm inclined to believe the risk involved for them is too high. Without us, they are alone in the world. It would be quite a desperate move to +++++ with our election in a way that gambles upon their actions never being found out by our intelligence agency, and never discovered by an adversarial agency who might see a benefit in letting us know what they did. 

China needs America to trade with. It keeps their authoritarian government strong and keeps its people, who are mostly very poor and would be rightfully pissed off at doing any worse, from serious unrest. And it keeps us rich, which incentivized us too overlook their aspirations for regional dominance. There is no way they heard Trump's rhetoric and wanted him.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out who, or how many people, actually changed their vote due to the DNC emails. Serious question, have any of you met a single person who has said "Gottdammit, I was heart set on voting for Hillary until I learned about what was in those emails. SO I VOTED FOR TRUMP!!!" ? 

@jackmormon, what do you think? 10s of millions of people changed their vote because some of your emails got exposed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panetta's password was "password".   Not only that he responded to a phishing e-mail.   Not exactly a hack to begin with just a social crime morons fall for.   Any idiot could have hacked the idiots account at the DNC and probably several did.

 

My understanding is Hillary's server had similar level security.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Putin can deal with a bad economy so long as he is able to convince the Russian people that he is reasserting Russia's preeminent place in the world. An adversarial Clinton would have given him a boogeyman to blame the ills of Russia's economy on, its true. But even with the US not increasing our energy output, Russia's economy is not doing great and will not be doing so anytime soon. So I don't think Clinton would have been a boon of support to how Putin handles Russia's domestic problems. She very well could have posed a serious challenge to him in his foreign aspirations though, which are central to Putin remaining in power. Whatever else can be said of Clinton, she has a worldview that maintains a strong NATO, which is in direct conflict with Russia's interests.

Trump...I don't know what he will do, no one does, least of all Trump. But assuming he does take the path of shaking up the world order by changing America's stance from a world-view centric one to a more national interested one, I can see how things can break Putin's way and break very hard. As the world order is currently constituted, America is the west. We are the keystone that has held everything together for 7 decades and allowed peace to bring a prosperity that has been unimaginably widespread. Without us occupying that keystone, and in the way that we done it for so long, it doesn't take much at all for the slightest tremble in places that seem trivial to most Americans to cause earthquakes that have drastic consequences for the rest of the west. It doesn't even take American action, or inaction; only a posture or a word that causes doubt and defensive self interest to collapse everything. Russia's moves are limited so long as opposition to them is concrete. If that concrete crumbles then their number of moves grow exponentially. So I can easily buy Russia doing what it's been purported to have done acting in its own interest.

The Israeli possibility is intriguing, as they act in self interest as well. However, I'm inclined to believe the risk involved for them is too high. Without us, they are alone in the world. It would be quite a desperate move to +++++ with our election in a way that gambles upon their actions never being found out by our intelligence agency, and never discovered by an adversarial agency who might see a benefit in letting us know what they did. 

China needs America to trade with. It keeps their authoritarian government strong and keeps its people, who are mostly very poor and would be rightfully pissed off at doing any worse, from serious unrest. And it keeps us rich, which incentivized us too overlook their aspirations for regional dominance. There is no way they heard Trump's rhetoric and wanted him.

Good post.  

In regards to Israel, they are bastards.  Of all the crap Bubba did I think I resent him letting that Israeli spy go the most.

Sorry for the tangent, but I'll get back on topic next paragraph.  What frustrates me so much with Obama not vetoing the security council is that we really do need to reevaluate our relationship with them.  Why the hell do they get to use foreign aid for domestic military spending that is competing directly with Raytheon, Lockheed, and the rest?  That's crazy, we don't let anyone else do that.  And the Israelis have been terrible about transferring technology that we gave them, absolutely awful.  And there should be ramifications when they pursue policy that is harmful to American interests like building condos in the West Bank.  But this resolution was absolute crap, and all it did was weaken the position of moderates on US-Israeli policy.

In regards to the hacking of the DNC and Podesta, it's hard to believe it wasn't Putin.  The malware has Russian roots, Assange has Russian ties, and they have the motive and capability to do it.  But where was Obamas outrage when the PRC hacked the DoD database?  And now we got Trump claiming "there's nothing to see here, move along?"  All the while lavishing praise on Putin?  It's disgusting.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I'm still trying to figure out who, or how many people, actually changed their vote due to the DNC emails. Serious question, have any of you met a single person who has said "Gottdammit, I was heart set on voting for Hillary until I learned about what was in those emails. SO I VOTED FOR TRUMP!!!" ? 

@jackmormon, what do you think? 10s of millions of people changed their vote because some of your emails got exposed? 

I disagree, I think it mattered.  Not the specifics but the whole narrative that Clinton was a lying crook with dirty emails, which of course she was/is.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I'm still trying to figure out who, or how many people, actually changed their vote due to the DNC emails. Serious question, have any of you met a single person who has said "Gottdammit, I was heart set on voting for Hillary until I learned about what was in those emails. SO I VOTED FOR TRUMP!!!" ? 

@jackmormon, what do you think? 10s of millions of people changed their vote because some of your emails got exposed? 

I don't think this was Mug's point. Trump was elected for millions of reasons. It's impossible to quantify how much were the result of the DNC hacking or the alleged withholding of information on Trump. We have entered into an age where the flow of information is the Wild West. Nobody knows how to handle it, and too few care to verify and contextualize it on their own. 

Who did it? And do you think it meant anything? And what does it mean going forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CPslograd said:

I disagree, I think it mattered.  Not the specifics but the whole narrative that Clinton was a lying crook with dirty emails, which of course she was/is.

Okay, fair enough. So with that, how many people have you heard changed their vote as a result of the emails? Has there been any polling on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I don't think this was Mug's point. Trump was elected for millions of reasons. It's impossible to quantify how much were the result of the DNC hacking or the alleged withholding of information on Trump. We have entered into an age where the flow of information is the Wild West. Nobody knows how to handle it, and too few care to verify and contextualize it on their own. 

Who did it? And do you think it meant anything? And what does it mean going forward?

I'm not saying anything against Mug, just throwing the point out there that the emails probably didn't mean that much in the big scheme of things with the election results. Hacking and data breaches are certainly a big concern but my theory/opinion is that people were already going to vote for who they were going to vote for regardless of those emails. I highly doubt jack ever wavered on his dedicated commitment to Hillary and the DNC. 

As to who did it, not sure but as mentioned before it may have been the Russians. I'm also not sure someone on the inside of the DNC didn't help with the breach, a Sanders supporter perhaps. Going forward it means that we as a country need to be more vigilant in protecting our data. Cybersecurity is just as important to our national security as maintaining a nuclear defense shield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

Good post.  

In regards to Israel, they are bastards.  Of all the crap Bubba did I think I resent him letting that Israeli spy go the most.

Sorry for the tangent, but I'll get back on topic next paragraph.  What frustrates me so much with Obama not vetoing the security council is that we really do need to reevaluate our relationship with them.  Why the hell do they get to use foreign aid for domestic military spending that is competing directly with Raytheon, Lockheed, and the rest?  That's crazy, we don't let anyone else do that.  And the Israelis have been terrible about transferring technology that we gave them, absolutely awful.  And there should be ramifications when they pursue policy that is harmful to American interests like building condos in the West Bank.  But this resolution was absolute crap, and all it did was weaken the position of moderates on US-Israeli policy.

In regards to the hacking of the DNC and Podesta, it's hard to believe it wasn't Putin.  The malware has Russian roots, Assange has Russian ties, and they have the motive and capability to do it.  But where was Obamas outrage when the PRC hacked the DoD database?  And now we got Trump claiming "there's nothing to see here, move along?"  All the while lavishing praise on Putin?  It's disgusting.

Wasn't the provision about guaranteed Israeli domestic defense spending curtailed in the new agreement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Okay, fair enough. So with that, how many people have you heard changed their vote as a result of the emails? Has there been any polling on this?

I'd suspect it did little to actually change votes but probably did contribute to suppressed turnout of the "Obama coalition" in key swing states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

I'd suspect it did little to actually change votes but probably did contribute to suppressed turnout of the "Obama coalition" in key swing states.

Okay, point taken. Has there been much study on this? Any statistical evidence to support the theory?

Election manipulation is a serious issue, I'm not arguing against that. But I'd still like to see some actual research done to support the theory that those emails either changed votes over to Trump or kept Obama voters from going out to the polls in sufficient volume to change the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

I'd suspect it did little to actually change votes but probably did contribute to suppressed turnout of the "Obama coalition" in key swing states.

Why though?

In comparing the turnout of the Obama Coalition, shouldn't a black man in his forties against a white woman nearing seventy also play a part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Why though?

In comparing the turnout of the Obama Coalition, shouldn't a black man in his forties against a white woman nearing seventy also play a part?

Sure, but the email revelations, especially those concerning Bernie Sanders, may have helped to sway some voters to stay home, especially ones not already too engaged in the process. This is just my suspicion however, there's no statistical proof of this that I am aware of.

 

Personally I'm firmly of the belief that Clinton lost because she was Clinton, but the hacking sure didn't help, and even if it had no effect whatsoever on the outcome, its very concerning.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Sure, but the email revelations, especially those concerning Bernie Sanders, may have helped to sway some voters to stay home, especially ones not already too engaged in the process. This is just my suspicion however, there's no statistical proof of this that I am aware of.

 

Personally I'm firmly of the belief that Clinton lost because she was Clinton, but the hacking sure didn't help, and even if it had no effect whatsoever on the outcome, its very concerning.

I feel much the same. And it was a close number of voters in a few key states that decided it. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Sure, but the email revelations, especially those concerning Bernie Sanders, may have helped to sway some voters to stay home, especially ones not already too engaged in the process. This is just my suspicion however, there's no statistical proof of this that I am aware of.

 

Personally I'm firmly of the belief that Clinton lost because she was Clinton, but the hacking sure didn't help, and even if it had no effect whatsoever on the outcome, its very concerning.

I agree. I would also argue that there are two separate issues with this fiasco.

1. The actual hack/breach, which is frightening for obvious reasons if a foreign power was involved.

2. Whether or not the content of those emails actually influenced enough voters to switch to Trump or not vote at all. 

The first point I think we can all agree on - if Russia did indeed hack those emails, then Obama should push forward with punitive repercussions. It's the second point that I'm skeptical of until I see some verifiable data to back it up. I'm also curious as to the number or percentage of people who actually know of or understand the content of those emails. My assumption is if you asked the average Joe on the street, he would have no clue.

Just within my inner circles, people had already decided who they were going to vote for a long time before those emails were exposed and nobody I know of changed their mind as a result. I know this isn't as credible as witnessing 500,000,000 TCSUFs in Denver but it's all I got. ;) 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barron was obviously behind it all in order to ensure his dad's victory. After all, he's an expert on "the cyber". 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mugtang said:

On Fox earlier today they mentioned the Russians, Chinese & Israelis all backed Clinton's email account, which is the first I've heard of the Israeli's doing that.  What if they're also responsible for the hack of the DNC?

Russia would've benefited from a Clinton presidency as we wouldn't have continued ramping up oil production.  This would've helped the Russian economy and allowed him to tighten his grip at home.  Also, softening relations between the US and Russia aren't in Putin's best interests.  He needs an adversary and what greater adversary is there than the United States? 

Israel would've had the most to lose from a Clinton presidency.  She didn't campaign as a pro-Israel candidate and her ties to the Saudi Royal family could've been problematic for the Israelis.  What if they're the ones who released the info to Wikileaks but we are saying the Russians so we don't embarrass ourselves and our Middle East ally?  It's easier to explain away Russian hacking than it is Israeli hacking.

I gotta disagree with your take.

Clinton's a warhawk and likes the US to carry a big stick. US foreign policy under Obama and Bush did a decent job of containing Russia. NATO is a firewall that actually works, China stops them cold in Asia, really the only place they could get their influence going was Syria and a big part of that is just American west asia war fatigue. AWAWF. 

Trump has talked openly about withdrawing from NATO. Even if there is only a 10% chance for that to happen, that represents a massive opportunity for Russia and it would be the biggest foreign policy coup in Moscow since 1945. NATO is the shield that keeps Europe more or less capitalist, more or less democratic, more or less liberal. Dissolving that shield would mean massive opportunities for Russian influence across the board. 

Furthermore, Putin has to be drawn to populism. Russia's government is effectively autocratic and nationalist. The rise of nationalism abroad helps relieve democratic desires at home, and the rise of populism abroad also legitimizes his own faux democratic rule. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Wasn't the provision about guaranteed Israeli domestic defense spending curtailed in the new agreement?

Yes, in the out years.

i don't have a problem with Obama on that deal, if the "no congressional plussups provision" holds, because of the political realities.

i would have preferred Obama makes a statement about West Bank settlements by withholding military aid rather than abstaining on the resolution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.