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

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Options
1…1516182021…332

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    KingBrian2 wrote:
    Can you picture all the possible offenses the US gvt can introduce out of these hacks? Many criminals will be caused by legislators having a field day going after these hackers.

    Like hackers? What else would be criminalised?


  • Options
    #513
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Do any trump supporters have an opinion on what he should go about the hacking and fake news?

    Support efforts to get your the bottom of it or just move on and focus on the future? Anyone with an opinion?


  • Options
    #514
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Do any trump supporters have an opinion on what he should go about the hacking and fake news?
    Support efforts to get your the bottom of it or just move on and focus on the future? Anyone with an opinion?
    Hacking and fake news are two completely different issues. Hackers expose the truth, whereas fake news conceals it.
    Democrats never said the hackers had produced fake news. The hackers exposed the truth about how badly Bernie Sanders was treated by the Clinton campaign. If telling the truth is harmful to a supposedly democratic system, then there is something wrong with that system.

    Obama claims that when hackers exposed the truth it was "a manipulation of the US electoral system". To me, that claim in itself is a classic piece of "fake news". It is true in a very narrow sort of way, but it disguises the substantial truth of the matter.


  • Options
    #515
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    recedite wrote:
    Hacking and fake news are two completely different issues. Hackers expose the truth, whereas fake news conceals it.

    Grand. Feel free to treat them separately. Do you have an opinion Io on what trump should do about those issues?


  • Options
    #516
    Kitsunegari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Kitsunegari


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Do any trump supporters have an opinion on what he should go about the hacking and fake news?

    Support efforts to get your the bottom of it or just move on and focus on the future? Anyone with an opinion?

    Fake News is a major problem but in reality there is very little that can be done about it. If people want to swallow the first news report they read and take it as gospel then very little can be done about that.

    What can Trump do about hacking? The US intelligence agencies are hardly fit to police or pass judgement over anyone. Even if the intelligence community in the US can provide direct evidence of Russian hacking it won't change a thing as the United States, of all countries, can hardly get disgruntled about a foreign nation interfering in their own sovereignty.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Kitsunegari wrote: »
    Fake News is a major problem but in reality there is very little that can be done about it. If people want to swallow the first news report they read and take it as gospel then very little can be done about that.

    What can Trump do about hacking? The US intelligence agencies are hardly fit to police or pass judgement over anyone. Even if the intelligence community in the US can provide direct evidence of Russian hacking it won't change a thing as the United States, of all countries, can hardly get disgruntled about a foreign nation interfering in their own sovereignty.

    So a nothing to see here approach?


  • Options
    #518
    Kitsunegari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Kitsunegari


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    So a nothing to see here approach?

    Did I say that? I said very little could be done.

    Why don't you tell us what you would do?


  • Options
    #519
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Kitsunegari wrote:
    Fake News is a major problem but in reality there is very little that can be done about it. If people want to swallow the first news report they read and take it as gospel then very little can be done about that.

    Are you saying he should do nothing?
    Kitsunegari wrote:
    What can Trump do about hacking? The US intelligence agencies are hardly fit to police or pass judgement over anyone. Even if the intelligence community in the US can provide direct evidence of Russian hacking it won't change a thing as the United States, of all countries, can hardly get disgruntled about a foreign nation interfering in their own sovereignty.

    Again, does this mean do nothing?


  • Options
    #520
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Kitsunegari wrote:
    Why don't you tell us what you would do?

    I'm just curious about what trump supporters think he should or shouldn't do. Usually people know why they voted for a candidate and what they expect them to do. I don't think that applies to trump at all which is a dangerous position for domocracy

    Trump supporters know they support him but they have no idea what he's going to do. I suspect they intend to support whatever he does no matter whether he decides to investigate or not. So it would be decidedly inconvenient for them to put any concrete ideas about what he should/shouldn't do because it could make it difficult to reverse their position and support him if he does the exact opposite.

    I suspect trump supporters are waiting to see what he actually does before retrospectively saying they supported that action all along.


  • Options
    #521
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    If Trump was squeaky clean, he would have nothing to fear from hackers, wikileaks etc..
    Nobody is squeaky clean, but as it happens, he has led his life in the limelight, so there is very little about him that could be exposed which is not already in the public domain. So he has less to fear than most.

    However, as POTUS he represents the USA, which has a lot to hide. He will want to order a review of Pentagon security. Just to be sure. However there is no suggestion that Pentagon security has been breached AFAIK.

    He does not give a $hit about the security of the Democrat party computer systems, nor should he. Their lapse in security exposed their own crookedness, and he gained from that. End of story.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    recedite wrote: »
    Hacking and fake news are two completely different issues. Hackers expose the truth, whereas fake news conceals it.
    Democrats never said the hackers had produced fake news. The hackers exposed the truth about how badly Bernie Sanders was treated by the Clinton campaign. If telling the truth is harmful to a supposedly democratic system, then there is something wrong with that system.

    Obama claims that when hackers exposed the truth it was "a manipulation of the US electoral system". To me, that claim in itself is a classic piece of "fake news". It is true in a very narrow sort of way, but it disguises the substantial truth of the matter.
    Politically motivated hacking exposes the 'truth' the hackers want to expose

    Perfect example being 'climategate' where climate scientists had their email accounts hacked, and then deniaists cherrypicked sentences out of cotext to 'prove' that the scientists were faking their data.

    Rleasing raw information is not the same as exposing the truth. it can have the opposite effect if the raw data is then misinterpreted through motivated reasoning


  • Options
    #523
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Rleasing raw information is not the same as exposing the truth. it can have the opposite effect if the raw data is then misinterpreted through motivated reasoning
    The "hackee" is free to release the raw data, with their own explanation of it.
    Only people who are afraid of the truth try to hide it.


  • Options
    #524
    Kitsunegari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Kitsunegari


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I'm just curious about what trump supporters think he should or shouldn't do. Usually people know why they voted for a candidate and what they expect them to do. I don't think that applies to trump at all which is a dangerous position for domocracy

    Trump supporters know they support him but they have no idea what he's going to do. I suspect they intend to support whatever he does no matter whether he decides to investigate or not. So it would be decidedly inconvenient for them to put any concrete ideas about what he should/shouldn't do because it could make it difficult to reverse their position and support him if he does the exact opposite.

    I suspect trump supporters are waiting to see what he actually does before retrospectively saying they supported that action all along.

    What does that have to do with what you think Trump should do about fake news and hacking?

    I strongly suspect you don't have the same thoughts about people who supported Obama or Clinton.


  • Options
    #525
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Kitsunegari wrote:
    What does that have to do with what you think Trump should do about fake news and hacking?

    I asked for trump supporters' opinions on what they think he should do. No one has any suggestions except to say there isn't anything to be done about it. I was testing a hypothesis for my own benefit mostly.
    Kitsunegari wrote:
    I strongly suspect you don't have the same thoughts about people who supported Obama or Clinton.

    Youre right. I dont have the same thoughts about Clinton or Obama supporters. Usually politicians make promises which her supporters would expect to get to keep. Trump's supporters don't seem to have any actual expectations of him so they're free to support whatever he does. I said exactly that earlier so there's no need to speculate


  • Options
    #526
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I asked for trump supporters' opinions on what they think he should do. No one has any suggestions except to say there isn't anything to be done about it. I was testing a hypothesis for my own benefit mostly.
    recedite wrote: »
    He will want to order a review of Pentagon security....
    He does not give a $hit about the security of the Democrat party computer systems, nor should he.
    I take it you now consider your hypothesis to be disproved?


  • Options
    #527
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Or maybe its more of a dogma than a hypothesis, in which case you can shrug off any evidence that disproves it.


  • Options
    #528
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    recedite wrote:
    I take it you now consider your hypothesis to be disproved?

    One poster has made a prediction that he will do nothing because he should do nothing (was it a prediction?). Cheers.

    Does anyone else have an opinion or is that it from the Trump supporters on this thread?


  • Options
    #529
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that hacking to help/hinder presidential candidates isn't worth serious investigation? Nothing morethan an election result people didn't like? Is that the approach you take to all matters?



    Why are you only caught up on the FBI? Are they the only security agency that matters?

    The FBI is the main government agency involved in these type of matters. And you must have missed where I stated... "nor has any other government agency run an independent forensic analysis on the system."

    What is now happening is just a show.

    The DNC is a private political entity, and should secure their security themselves. Would there be such a hullabaloo if someone hacked into the Socialist Workers Party server? Podesta fell for a simple phishing scam. What our government needs to concentrate their cyber security efforts and focus involve matters that peril America’s Infrastructure, not Podesta resetting his password to 'Password.'


  • Options
    #530
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Amerika wrote:
    The DNC is a private political entity, and should secure their security themselves. Would there be such a hullabaloo if someone hacked into the Socialist Workers Party server? Podesta fell for a simple phishing scam. What our government needs to concentrate their cyber security efforts and focus involve matters that peril America’s Infrastructure, not Podesta resetting his password to 'Password.'

    So do nothing?

    Wouldn't you even be curious about who did it?


  • Options
    #531
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    So do nothing?

    Wouldn't you even be curious about who did it?

    I would have the FBI tell the DNC to up their cyber security and train their members how to not fall for simple scams. More than that, there are far more pressing cyberwarfare matters to be concerned with. The FBI’s time might be better served investigating the mysterious murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, who Julian Assange hinted might have been the source of WikiLeaks’ DNC and Podesta emails.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    So do nothing?

    Wouldn't you even be curious about who did it?
    It's just total bias tbh; I've given up even attempting a conversation with that poster. If the tables were turned he would be saying the exact opposite thing.


  • Options
    #533
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Amerika wrote:
    I would have the FBI tell the DNC to up their cyber security and train their members how to not fall for simple scams. More than that, there are far more pressing cyberwarfare matters to be concerned with. The FBI’s time might be better served investigating the mysterious murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, who Julian Assange hinted might have been the source of WikiLeaks’ DNC and Podesta emails.

    Training on cyber security would be good.

    Wouldn't you even be curious about who did it?


  • Options
    #534
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Training on cyber security would be good.

    Wouldn't you even be curious about who did it?

    Curious, yes. Wasting vast amounts of government resources on the matter, no.


  • Options
    #535
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Amerika wrote:
    Curious, yes. Wasting vast amounts of government resources on the matter, no.

    Would you support efforts to find out who did it?


  • Options
    #536
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Would you support efforts to find out who did it?

    Absolutely... As long at the millions of dollars left over in the coffers of Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sander's campaign funds, and the DNC's general fund, are used to reimburse the FBI's costs of investigating it.


  • Options
    #537
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Amerika wrote:
    Absolutely... As long at the millions of dollars left over in the coffers of Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sander's campaign funds, and the DNC's general fund, are used to reimburse the FBI's costs of investigating it.

    So your curious but not curious enough to support government spending any money or go to any effort to find out?


  • Options
    #538
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    Absolutely... As long at the millions of dollars left over in the coffers of Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sander's campaign funds, and the DNC's general fund, are used to reimburse the FBI's costs of investigating it.
    I take it you're familiar with FEC rules on how these monies can be spent and what must be done with them post-election?


  • Options
    #539
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Says he supports effort being taken to found out who did it, but does not want much government money spent in doing so. After criticising the government for saving money on it by using a private report.

    Riiiiiiiiiight.


  • Options
    #540
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    So your curious but not curious enough to support government spending any money or go to any effort to find out?
    Pretty much, we spent a long time getting to something I think was evident at my first comment on the matter. Although how you go from 'vast amounts of government resources' to 'spending any money' is a bit disingenuous on your part.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    Pretty much, we spent a long time getting to something I think was evident at my first comment on the matter. Although how you go from 'vast amounts of government resources' to 'spending any money' is a bit disingenuous on your part.
    So I'm guessing you are calling for the Trump campaign to pay for the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server? FECA aside.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement