Reply With Quote
Fair to question the use of unprecedented, but the underlying point stands. Unprecedented in our lifetime for sure.
the washington post
Its a pathetic organization bought by the Amazon got owner and he got a multi billion contract fro
The CIA so he is whoring his paper for them
ing pathetic. I am not ordering from Amazon no mo. that piece of company
Fair to question the use of unprecedented, but the underlying point stands. Unprecedented in our lifetime for sure.
A straight up demagogue winning. You have to go back to Huey Long and Pappy O'Daniel becoming state governors back in the 1930s. One was much more powerful than the other.
Interestingly enough, I hear the New Deal social contract is about to get renegotiated.
Edwin Edwards against David Duke?
Reinforces Taibbi's take.
From a few pages back
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post8844184
Obviously I can't be 100% sure.
Knowing what I know about that generation, though, it's very hard to imagine a lot of tolerance for anything resembling sympathy for the enemy. What could be argued, I suppose, is the extent to which Americans viewed someone like Hitler as the enemy before we were at war.
Still, we live in an era where we are much more aware of foreign atrocities so ignorance isn't nearly as good an excuse today.
Stalin was hated but Hitler was loved by many americans pre-pearl harbor
Many americans were actually rooting for Nazism and they even started a nazi party here. So its a good point tbqh
Don The Con Tue or Wed will certainly absolve Pootin of electing him
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016...ly-to-rage-on/The intelligence community has found itself in this position before, including in attributing a highly destructive attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2014 to North Korea. In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified. Still, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Thursday's Joint Analysis Report provides almost no new evidence to support the Obama Administration's claims Russia attempted to interfere with the US electoral process. Absent something more, the increasingly bitter debate may rage on indefinitely.
40 get massacred in Istanbul, but, they ain't white so it's not like in Berlin/white when a quarter of that got massacred and it was the end of the world.
tee, hee.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/0...rican-cut-out/Because security professionals are so confident in the Russian attribution of the DNC hack, they have largely ignored alternative theories from the likes of Wikileaks and Bill Binney. That’s unfortunate, because Craig Murray, in his description of his own role in getting the Podesta files to Wikileaks, at least, revealed a detail that needs greater attention. He believes he received something (perhaps the do ents themselves, perhaps something else) from a person with ties to US national security.
[I]f we believe that Murray believes this, we know that the intermediary can credibly claim to have ties to American national security.So on September 25, Murray met a presumed American in DC for a hand-off related to the Podesta hack.
I raise that because Trump is now promising we’ll learn something this week about the hack that may cast doubt on the claims Russia was behind it.
He added: “And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”If Murray met an American claiming to have done the hack, then Trump may have too. That doesn’t mean the Russians didn’t do the hack (though it could mean an American borrowed GRU’s tools to do it). It could just as easily mean the Russians have an American cut-out, and that while the security community has been looking for Russian-speaking proxies, they’ve ignored the possibility of American ones.
When asked what he knew that others did not, Mr. Trump demurred, saying only, “You’ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.”
I have a su ion that Trump’s campaign did meet with such a person (I even have a guess about when it would have happened).
The Hitler card has well worn edges. You can identify it even before it's flipped.
Weird thing is how the Hitler card is being used in this case.
I mean, if your argument is that it's not crazy for Americans to favor a foreign tyrant over its own government and the best historical case you can make is American support for Hitler...
Except that wasnt my argument.
My argument was that it has hapoened in the past. So this myth that its unprescedented that americans support dictators in the past is again nothing but a regurgitated myth. Stop regurgitating it
Of course. Now, can you recall any other ways the Hitler card has been played in the last 12-18 months?
Do you have any specific backup to show that admiration of Hitler in either political party was similar to the 37% of Republicans admiring Putin, and how that admiration compared to their feelings about the POTUS?
I'm totally open to accepting that and amending my statement to "Americans haven't supported a foreign dictator like Putin over the current President since Hitler." Pretty sure that doesn't hurt my overall point or make the Putin Love from Republicans any less ridiculous. Probably helps it, tbh.
Also, I only had to keep regurgitating it because it took you 2 or 3 pages to actually start arguing the point I was making instead of one you were inventing.
Not really. Trump already going after China and and N. Korea. Don't mess with Trump.
Typical neocons bent over backwards for that war.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/no-smok...ian-dnc-hacks/
No smoking gun for Russian DNC hacks
There's no question that Russia wanted Donald Trump to win the 2016 Presidential campaign. Trump's own tweets stated he wanted the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's email. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) email was hacked. But the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation's Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russian cyber attacks doesn't prove the Russians were behind the DNC hacks.
Indeed, even though President Barack Obama has expelled Russian diplomats over the cyber-attack, the JAR doesn't finger the Russian government. Instead, it merely claimed there are technical indicators that Russian intelligence Services (RIS) are attacking the US government and political and private sector en ies. This continued assault is called Grizzly Steppe.
The primary method used in Grizzly Steppe is spear phishing. In spear phishing, a very common hacking approach, you receive messages, which look like they're coming from a friend or co-worker. In Grizzly Steppe, if you click on the message's content or follow a link, you infect your device with Remote Access Tools (RATs) malware. From that, emails and other data are syphoned to the attacker.
The JAR included "specific indicators of compromise, including IP addresses and a PHP malware sample." But what does this really prove? Wordfence, a WordPress security company specializing in analyzing PHP malware, examined these indicators and didn't find any hard evidence of Russian involvement.
Instead, Wordfence found the attack software was P.AS. 3.1.0, an out-of-date, web-s hacking tool. The newest version, 4.1.1b, is more sophisticated. Its website claims it was written in the Ukraine.
Mark Maunder, Wordfence's CEO, concluded that since the attacks were made "several versions behind the most current version of P.A.S [sic] which is 4.1.1b. One might reasonably expect Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources."
True, as Errata Security CEO Rob Graham pointed out in a blog post, P.A.S is popular among Russia/Ukraine hackers. But it's "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world." In short, just because the attackers used P.A.S., that's not enough evidence to blame it on the Russian government.
Now, Graham continued: "If they've got web server logs from multiple victims where commands from those IP addresses went to this specific web s , then the attribution would be strong that all these attacks are by the same actor." But that's not what we've been given.
Maunder and his crew also analyzed the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses used in Grizzly Steppe. They found the IP addresses that DHS provided "may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15 percent of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes."
In short, Maunder continued in a FAQ, the data in the DHS/FBI Grizzly Steppe report contained "'indicators of compromise' (IOCs) [sic] which you can think of as footprints that hackers left behind. The IOC's in the report are tools that are freely available and IP addresses that are used by hackers around the world. There is very little Russia-specific data in the Grizzly Steppe report."
Others beside Wordfence found the JAR less than convincing. Robert M. Lee, CEO of the security company Dragos, wrote: "This ultimately seems like a very rushed report put together by multiple teams working different data sets and motivations. It is my opinion and speculation that there were some really good government analysts and operators contributing to this data and then report reviews, leadership approval processes, and sanitation processes stripped out most of the value and left behind a very confusing report trying to cover too much while saying too little."
In short, maybe it was the Russians behind the attacks on the DNC and other US organizations, but neither the source code nor the network analysis we've been shown so far strongly supports this conclusion.
Trump refuses to admit that Russia had any influence on the election, so we can expect little further information to come from the US government on the attacks once he's inaugurated. True, Trump promises to reveal insider information about Russian hacking. However, since Trump won't listen to intelligence briefings and minimal security experts on his staff, it's hard to imagine what "insider information" he could possibly possess.
This is, after all, a man whose closest computer expert appears to be his 10-year-old son. Perhaps he''ll reveal that Russian president Vladimir Putin told him that Russia didn't do it? Or, that, there were never any attacks and that the FBI and DHS are in cahoots with that nasty woman to ruin his victory? Who knows.
Sarcasm aside, the US and its organizations recently have been subjected to multiple cyber-attacks. These assaults must be treated seriously. We need a more thorough investigation of who is behind them.
Inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fox News political pundit Sean Hannity asked Assange to address the allegation that WikiLeaks was a tool employed by Moscow to interfere with the U.S. election.
“Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity inquired.
“We can say, we have said repeatedly that over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,” Assange responded.
China & N. Korea are not Russia. He loves Russia and especially Putin -- he praises him every chance he gets.
so you're convinced you adorable Pootin did nothing to help get his compromised Man Toy elected?
All top-level spooks and hackers, crackers are excellent at covering their tracks. Russia's FSB, formerly KGB, must be assumed to be the darkest of the dark artists
And why did Assange, who has recently praised Pootin and Russia, dribble out the hacked info week by week, countering any of Hillary's moves, and give only info on Dems, NOTHING on Repugs? Assange is politically compromised, has no credibility as impartial source.
Of course, Trash fellator Hannity would believe every syllable from Assange that fit Hannity's politics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
