Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP
Comments
-
Clinton should really be scared. Trump could do a Brexit. Going within a few months from not even seriously considered by most political observers to actually happening.
This was to be expected. Trump was always going to take the lead after the convention and the email scandal. Hillary will be back in the lead by the end of next week or whenever Trump makes another inflammatory remark. Clinton won this election when Trump won Indiana causing Cruz and Kasich to drop out.0 -
In that way it is similar to Brexit polls. People who carry out opinion pools know this and can usually correct for it based on previous experience; but when the parameters of the vote are too different from previous ones (question never asked before or atypical candidate) it becomes very difficult for them.
I don’t believe pollsters are correcting much for it, simply because their polls did represent, for the most part, the people’s vote in 2008 and 2012.
But It's no secret that across this nation publicly stating that you're a Trump supporter will bring you accusations of racism, bigotry, misogamy, being stupid and much worse. Trump actually performs about 6% better in online polls than live telephone interviewing. And 10 points better with those with college degrees in online surveys over phone surveys. If Trump wins watch for all the experts post-blaming poll inaccuracies on a social desirability bias.0 -
If cui bono is to be the standard now for top media stories and accusations, then why no breaking stories about the shenanigans surrounding Clinton Foundation while she served as Secretary of State?
Interesting that you want to see Trump’s tax returns but nothing about the text of Hillary Clinton’s outrageously paid speeches to Wall Street.
Mainstream news agencies haven't been going cui bono. They reported that the e-mails were hacked and they reported the Democrat's response. They haven't said themselves that Russia was behind the hack-they merely reported that the Democrat's accused Russia. That would indeed what I expect. The Democrat's also seem to be merely passing on what they company they hired told them. Are there any articles in particular you are unhappy with as this is what I would expect them to report.
Sure the speeches and the Tax returns can come in the next grouping.0 -
Mainstream news agencies haven't been going cui bono. They reported that the e-mails were hacked and they reported the Democrat's response. They haven't said themselves that Russia was behind the hack-they merely reported that the Democrat's accused Russia. That would indeed what I expect. The Democrat's also seem to be merely passing on what they company they hired told them. Are there any articles in particular you are unhappy with as this is what I would expect them to report.
Sure the speeches and the Tax returns can come in the next grouping.
You are correct that they haven't said themselves that Russia was behind the hack, and merely reported that the Democrat's accused Russia. Although it was hard to tell as they argued the Democrats position with much gusto. And it was the main focus of the email leak story from most of western journalism.
If the media were unbiased they should have jumped on the Democrats position and challenged the "Russia" claim.
For months it's been reported that is was Guccifer 2.0 that was responsible for the DNC hacks. Here is part of an interview (translated from Romanian) done by Motherboard with Guccifer 2.0.
Motherboard: So, first of all, what can you tell me about yourself? Who are you?
Guccifer 2.0: I'm a hacker, manager, philosopher, women lover. I also like Gucci! I bring the light to people. I'm a freedom fighter! So you can choose what you like!
And where are you from?
From Romania.
Do you work with Russia or the Russian government?
No because I don't like Russians and their foreign policy. I hate being attributed to Russia.
Why?
I've already told! Also I made a big deal, why you glorify them?
Tell me about the DNC hack. How did you get in?
I hacked that server through the NGP VAN soft, if you understand what I'm talking about.
So that was your entry point, what happened next?
I used 0-day exploit of NGP VAN soft then I installed shell-code into the DNC server. it allowed me to intrude into DNC network. They have Windows-based domain architecture. then I installed my Trojans on several PCs. I had to go from one PC to another every week so CrowdStrike couldn't catch me for a long time. I know that they have cool intrusion detection system. But my heuristic algorithms are better.
When did you first hack them?
Last summer.
And when did you get kicked out?
June 12, when they rebooted their system.
And why did you hack the DNC in the first place?
DNC isn't my first deal.
Who else have you hacked?
Follow my blog and you'll know! I can't tell you now about all my deals. My safety depends on it.
OK, I understand. But why did you target DNC? why are you interested in them?
Lazar began this deal and I follow him! I think we must fight for freedom of minds, fight for the world without Illuminati
Lazar?
Marcel Laz?r [The original Gufficer]
But no! The media is happy being a simple shill for the DNC, and journalistic integrity be damned.
0 -
You are correct that they haven't said themselves that Russia was behind the hack, and merely reported that the Democrat's accused Russia. Although it was hard to tell as they argued the Democrats position with much gusto. And it was the main focus of the email leak story from most of western journalism.
If the media were unbiased they should have jumped on the Democrats position and challenged the "Russia" claim.
For months it's been reported that is was Guccifer 2.0 that was responsible for the DNC hacks. Here is part of an interview (translated from Romanian) done by Motherboard with Guccifer 2.0.
Motherboard: So, first of all, what can you tell me about yourself? Who are you?
Guccifer 2.0: I'm a hacker, manager, philosopher, women lover. I also like Gucci! I bring the light to people. I'm a freedom fighter! So you can choose what you like!
And where are you from?
From Romania.
Do you work with Russia or the Russian government?
No because I don't like Russians and their foreign policy. I hate being attributed to Russia.
Why?
I've already told! Also I made a big deal, why you glorify them?
Tell me about the DNC hack. How did you get in?
I hacked that server through the NGP VAN soft, if you understand what I'm talking about.
So that was your entry point, what happened next?
I used 0-day exploit of NGP VAN soft then I installed shell-code into the DNC server. it allowed me to intrude into DNC network. They have Windows-based domain architecture. then I installed my Trojans on several PCs. I had to go from one PC to another every week so CrowdStrike couldn't catch me for a long time. I know that they have cool intrusion detection system. But my heuristic algorithms are better.
When did you first hack them?
Last summer.
And when did you get kicked out?
June 12, when they rebooted their system.
And why did you hack the DNC in the first place?
DNC isn't my first deal.
Who else have you hacked?
Follow my blog and you'll know! I can't tell you now about all my deals. My safety depends on it.
OK, I understand. But why did you target DNC? why are you interested in them?
Lazar began this deal and I follow him! I think we must fight for freedom of minds, fight for the world without Illuminati
Lazar?
Marcel Laz?r [The original Gufficer]
But no! The media is happy being a simple shill for the DNC, and journalistic integrity be damned.
Possibly they should mention that this interview exists but they can hardly hand over heart back the interview to the hilt. They can't verify or disprove what he is saying.0 -
Advertisement
-
Agreed they can't verify or disprove what he says, but the media should challenge his serious claim, and not give the information from the DNC as much credibility and recognition as they have. The reporting I've seen gives the viewers the perception it's all true.Possibly they should mention that this interview exists but they can hardly hand over heart back the interview to the hilt. They can't verify or disprove what he is saying.0 -
Amerika, can you please post a link for the text of that interview with Guccifer 2.0?0
-
LostinKildare wrote: »Amerika, can you please post a link for the text of that interview with Guccifer 2.0?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-full-interview-transcript
Here is the New York Times reporting (the best of the best in US reporting... or so they say)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.html?_r=00 -
Sky News talking to a few Bernie supporters in Philly earlier today who are taking part in a large protest later
The four have four signs:
'Election fraud is un-American'.
'Demexit'
'Hillary for Jail'
'Down with the DNC'
One called Hillary a war queen and all she will do is more interventionist wars. She went onto say why should she vote Hillary to stop Donald Trump when Bernie Sanders would have easily beaten Trump.0 -
I've seen several reports from Philly with Sanders supporters chanting 'LOCK HER UP'Sky News talking to a few Bernie supporters in Philly earlier today who are taking part in a large protest later
The four have four signs:
'Election fraud is un-American'.
'Demexit'
'Hillary for Jail'
'Down with the DNC'
One called Hillary a war queen and all she will do is more interventionist wars. She went onto say why should she vote Hillary to stop Donald Trump when Bernie Sanders would have easily beaten Trump.
0 -
Advertisement
-
and two weeks after Julian Assange announced 'More Clinton leaks to come'BoJack Horseman wrote: »It is absolutely true that DNC & the Billary foundadtion have been hacked for Russia.... it was widely reported over a month ago.
Blaming Putin for everything was only way for democrats to downplay facts which could come to public eye
Trump wants to see USA strong again even if it will take some time stay away from disastrous foreign policiesBoJack Horseman wrote: »There and then Putin knew that he had Barry's number.
Confirmed when Obama refused to step up wrt Ukraine and instead let Merkel & Hollande perform their best Neville Chamberlain impersonations at the Minsk conferences.
Fans would call that 'leading from behind'.
When you say Trump "weakens US diplomacy" what do you mean?
There is little doubt that Hilary would be more bellicose towards Russia.
Trump has expressed admiration for the Russian Czar.
Which of these two stances makes diplomacy work better do you think?
He could shot term win, but long term loss for Russia
Clinton will successfully destroy USA even if it will cause some discomfort for Putin at the beginning of her term0 -
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-full-interview-transcript
Here is the New York Times reporting (the best of the best in US reporting... or so they say)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.html?_r=0
Did you know that the interviewer, Lorenzo Franceschi-Biccierai, didn't believe Guccifer 2.0? Five days previously (15 June), Franceschi-Biccierai posted on Motherboard an article titled "'Guccifer 2.0' Is Likely a Russian Government Attempt to Cover Up Their Own Hack". It is long and filled with technical stuff to back this up, as well as the views of others experts. Here is some of it:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack[C]onsidering a long trail of breadcrumbs pointing back to Russia left by the hacker, as well as other circumstantial evidence, it appears more likely that Guccifer 2.0 is nothing but a disinformation or deception campaign by Russian state-sponsored hackers to cover up their own hack—and a hasty and sloppy one at that.
The main element pointing to Russia is the timeline of the events. For a year, hackers with ties to the Russian government—likely the FSB and the military GRU—were inside the servers of the DNC, stealing documents and even reading chats and emails, according to CrowdStrike and The Washington Post. Then, after the IT people at the DNC noticed weird network activities and called in CrowdStrike, the hackers got kicked out. This led to the operation being exposed in the media.
That’s when the Russian intelligence services likely decided they needed to come up with a cover hacker identity to claim credit and shift blame away from themselves. Guccifer 2.0 had no online history until yesterday, and multiple security sources said they'd never heard of nor seen anyone by that alias until Wednesday.
This suggests that the Guccifer 2.0 persona—whose name references Guccifer, a notorious Romanian hacker who is jailed in the US and claims to have hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server—was created in response to the news of the hack, and was used to put up a defiant blog post and leak documents directly to Gawker and The Smoking Gun at the same time.
.....
Given all the evidence available, as well as the timeline of the events, it’s “more likely than not” that the whole operation, including the Guccifer 2.0 part, was orchestrated by Russian spies, according to Thomas Rid, a cybersecurity expert.
“One of the most convincing details to me is how quickly this hacker apparently came out with this pretty sophisticated false flag operation, including leaking files and talking to various media outlets. It’s too smooth for one hacker,” Rid, who is a professor in the Department of War Studies at King's College London, told me in a phone call on Thursday.
......
Using a lone hacker or an hacktivist to deflect blame is not new for Russia, as Timo Steffens, who works for German Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-Bund) pointed out. Such a strategy is “reminiscent” of using a blog post written by an alleged group called CyberBerkut to cover up an attack on the German government. The same thing happened with a fake "analysis blog" after the hack on the French station TV5Monde, he tweeted.
But why would Russia want to hack the DNC? First of all, it would make sense just from an intelligence collection standpoint. That’s what spies do. But in this election cycle, there’s another reason: the Russian government would like to have Donald Trump as president.
“Look, the coming elections is of high priority for Russia as many people close to the Kremlin believe that Trump could help to lift the sanctions and ease the tensions between Russia and the US,” Andrei Soldatov, an independent journalist who has written extensively about Russia's surveillance powers, told Motherboard in an email.
And hacking the DNC and embarrassing Hillary Clinton would help with that.
There’s no way to know for sure that the Russian government and its intelligence agencies are really behind the hack on the DNC and the bizarre claims by Guccifer 2.0. (The Russian embassy in Washington, DC did not respond to a request for comment.) But if they are, this might be a huge turning point in the history of government hacking campaigns.
“Let’s spell this out,” Rid said. “We have a foreign intelligence agency that is picking sides, that is doing a sophisticated hack and influence operation in support of the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the US general elections. That’s craziness, if that’s actually the case.”
That's not Hillary's campaign, but Thomas Rid, a cybersecurity expert and professor in the Department of War Studies at King's College London (not a "housecat," as Don Jr says), explicitly suggesting, 6 weeks ago, that this was done by Russians in support of Trump. Rid's publications listed here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PQUA11sAAAAJ&hl=en
Franceschi-Biccierai and Motherboard followed this up with the interview with Guccifer 2.0 that you linked to. In conjunction with the interview transcript, F-B published "We Spoke to DNC Hacker 'Guccifer 2.0'" (21 June), which notes the several ways Guccifer 2.0 gives himself away as a fake, including not having a grasp of Romanian.
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview
Today, Motherboard published an article by Rid, quoted above, titled "All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack." It is very long and detailed and really kind of scary in its detailing of cyber black ops. Here: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack?trk_source=homepage-lede0 -
WikiLeaks denies Russian intelligence is behind the document dump.LostinKildare wrote: »Did you know that the interviewer, Lorenzo Franceschi-Biccierai, didn't believe Guccifer 2.0? Five days previously (15 June), Franceschi-Biccierai posted on Motherboard an article titled "'Guccifer 2.0' Is Likely a Russian Government Attempt to Cover Up Their Own Hack". It is long and filled with technical stuff to back this up, as well as the views of others experts. Here is some of it:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack
That's not Hillary's campaign, but Thomas Rid, a cybersecurity expert and professor in the Department of War Studies at King's College London (not a "housecat," as Don Jr says), explicitly suggesting, 6 weeks ago, that this was done by Russians in support of Trump. Rid's publications listed here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PQUA11sAAAAJ&hl=en
Franceschi-Biccierai and Motherboard followed this up with the interview with Guccifer 2.0 that you linked to. In conjunction with the interview transcript, F-B published "We Spoke to DNC Hacker 'Guccifer 2.0'" (21 June), which notes the several ways Guccifer 2.0 gives himself away as a fake, including not having a grasp of Romanian.
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview
Today, Motherboard published an article by Rid, quoted above, titled "All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack." It is very long and detailed and really kind of scary in its detailing of cyber black ops. Here: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack?trk_source=homepage-lede0 -
WikiLeaks denies Russian intelligence is behind the document dump.
So what? Even if you believe them, what do they know? They probably got it through an intermediary.
Just wondering . . . what was the source that led you to that (partial, uncontextualized) Guccifer 2.0 interview, as if it were some kind of smoking gun?0 -
What exactly is the point of deflecting by saying the Russians are responsible for the leak? It doesn't matter who leaked it, what matters is the content.
Although I'm not sure how much damning content there is, is there anything overt?0 -
Suryavarman wrote: »Trump just tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/757332905047752704
Another one to add to the list of reasons he is a racist. For people that don't know the significance of putting someone's name in brackets on Twitter.PopePalpatine wrote: »The neckbeards of 4chan must be messing their pants right now thinking, "Our God-Emperor noticed us!"
Are you serious, so brackets are racist now….. Lads, you are really clutching at straws here. These posts really belong in conspiracy theories rather than politics. If it had have said (((Bernie))) then perhaps you may have some weight to claims, but it was single , grammatically correct bracket use. Not the start of the trains to poland again.0 -
I just counted the number of characters in the tweet and it added up to 140, so there was no room for additional brackets. Also, why include the brackets in the first place? IMHO they don't improve the grammar of that tweet one bit.0
-
PopePalpatine wrote: »I just counted the number of characters in the tweet and it added up to 140, so there was no room for additional brackets. Also, why include the brackets in the first place? IMHO they don't improve the grammar of that tweet one bit.
implys that bernie is the big player he's on aboutIf the Republican Convention had blown up with e-mails, resignation of boss and the beat down of a big player. (Bernie), media would go wild
implys that bernie and the media would go wild if it was that way round, makes no sense.If the Republican Convention had blown up with e-mails, resignation of boss and the beat down of a big player. Bernie, media would go wild
Listen , I get it, you think trump is a mad racist, I disagree with you a lot on these topics, but in this case I think you're taking an almost religious fanaticism level of trying to find something there when its just not. Donald has stuck up for bernie a lot in the past, mostly because he believes bernie would be an easier opponent. I doubt him, or his media team that actually wrote that tweet would dare use a seldom heard of 4chan joke code thing.0 -
The word to describe the DNC in Philly is raucous.
Lots of chanting of Bernie, some booing, very noisy in a bad way, sounds a mess, to the point Bernie contacted people asking for calmness, the DNC issued an apology, and there were booing around the time that was issued, so God knows where this convention is going.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »Are you serious, so brackets are racist now….. Lads, you are really clutching at straws here. These posts really belong in conspiracy theories rather than politics. If it had have said (((Bernie))) then perhaps you may have some weight to claims, but it was single , grammatically correct bracket use. Not the start of the trains to poland again.
As PopePalpatine pointed out he had used all 140 characters. Instead of mentioning Bernie or saying big player he could have just said candidate. Instead he decided to tweet a mess of a sentence and put a Jewish persons' name in brackets to give a nod to his anti-semitic supporters.0 -
Advertisement
-
Suryavarman wrote: »As PopePalpatine pointed out he had used all 140 characters. Instead of mentioning Bernie or saying big player he could have just said candidate. Instead he decided to tweet a mess of a sentence and put a Jewish persons' name in brackets to give a nod to his anti-semitic supporters.
and all of the tweets before and after that, mentioning bernie, do not possess brackets. He also has a tweet with the word stupid in brackets . So was he saying jews are stupid ? and was he only giving the nod to the neo-nazis with that one tweet ?
Lads , you went looking for a needle in a hay stack, and ended up painting some hay silver.0 -
LostinKildare wrote: »So what? Even if you believe them, what do they know? They probably got it through an intermediary.
Just wondering . . . what was the source that led you to that (partial, uncontextualized) Guccifer 2.0 interview, as if it were some kind of smoking gun?
I had remembered from months back that is was reported Guccifer 2.0 was the person who hacked the DNC emails. I also remember reading that the description he gave on how he hacked their system appeared very plausible to cyber security experts, and that his methodology pointed to him as the person who actually did it. Just wanted to know more about him and came across the interview.
And if Guccifer 2.0 is actually a Russian spy or Russian intelligence, when exactly do you think spies and intelligence officers started giving public interviews and disclosing their methodology?0 -
I had remembered from months back that is was reported Guccifer 2.0 was the person who hacked the DNC emails. I also remember reading that the description he gave on how he hacked their system appeared very plausible to cyber security experts, and that his methodology pointed to him as the person who actually did it. Just wanted to know more about him and came across the interview.
It wouldn't have been months back, because according to Motherboard, Guccifer 2.0 didn't exist until he was created in mid-June. And it doesn't sound like any cyber security experts found him plausible.Guccifer 2.0 had no online history until yesterday [June 15], and multiple security sources said they'd never heard of nor seen anyone by that alias until Wednesday.
I believe you were misinformed, perhaps deliberately. So please provide links to the sources you read. It couldn't have been more than a few weeks ago, and I suspect it was more recent than that.And if Guccifer 2.0 is actually a Russian spy or Russian intelligence, when exactly do you think spies and intelligence officers started giving public interviews and disclosing their methodology?
When they started pretending to be Romanian hackers. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "false flag."0 -
It might have been a few weeks ago. This elections seems to have been going on forever.LostinKildare wrote: »believe you were misinformed, perhaps deliberately. So please provide links to the sources you read. It couldn't have been more than a few weeks ago, and I suspect it was more recent than that.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »and all of the tweets before and after that, mentioning bernie, do not possess brackets. He also has a tweet with the word stupid in brackets . So was he saying jews are stupid ? and was he only giving the nod to the neo-nazis with that one tweet ?
Lads , you went looking for a needle in a hay stack, and ended up painting some hay silver.
It's worse than that. They went looking for a needle in a pile of needles and painted some hair silver. There is plenty of evidence that Trump is a racist, I fail to see the need this as evidence when there are clearer cut cases.0 -
FBI lost any credibility after they blamed Russian government for hacking Clinton personal server year ago and then arrested Romanian guyLostinKildare wrote: »When they started pretending to be Romanian hackers. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "false flag."
Just shows if something bad always blame Russians rather than admit own faults0 -
Count Dooku wrote: »FBI lost any credibility after they blamed Russian government for hacking Clinton personal server year ago and then arrested Romanian guy
Just shows if something bad always blame Russians rather than admit own faults
Some very, very weird goings on if Russia has nothing to do with this - http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack0 -
I already had a good laugh when I was reading this rubbishSome very, very weird goings on if Russia has nothing to do with this - http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack
a) why somebody inside a DNC couldn't set locale to Russian language to distract attention and point evil Putin for his own safety?
b) statement that Office 2007 was popular in Russia is also show madness of author because illegal copies of all Microsoft products are very popular in Russia
c) another article claimed that it was FSB and GRU were hacking DNC in parallel - how those "experts" managed to find it?
d) how Russians got information that it might be something damaging for Clinton on DNC server ?
e) Why Russian state TV looks totally unprepared for this scandal and give very little coverage?
etc etc0 -
Looking at CNN there and it's rather spicy.
Bernie vehemently booed by his own supporters for him calling for unity, rival chants from the convention floor.
It will probably calm down, but in a way seeing this passion could be beneficial.
It will hold the public's attention more at least.0 -
Advertisement
-
Last week Ted Cruz saved the boos for himself.
I thought the Dems in Philly was going to be a boring convention, this looks potentially chaotic.
Talk of more emails about the Clinton foundation to be revealed this week. Looks like Clinton's unsecured servers were hacked..,
By the end of all this, people will be asking why Obama trusted her with state secrets.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement