100 comments, i thank you all for posting this seems to be a very active conversation and i thank you for not getting to deep and not taking anything that was said personally. not saying it needs so end here, keep going you guys have brought up so many good points and have actually followed the conversation were as i just skipped to the end. so yea um.... keep going and have um...fun ...cough cough that what she said (the grandma one looks better lmao)

11 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-cia-director-fbi-and-cia-find-strong-1481920045-htmlstory.html

https://www.rt.com/usa/370641-fbi-cia-agree-russia/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.90a21ad75e35

The Washington Post is the only source for that, I read all the articles you sent, and both say the exact same information, and the LA Times specifically refer to all the information being from that article. 

 

All the articles that say the FBI and CIA think Russia did it lead you in circles, they all refer back to the Washington Post. The only evidence they have of this is a "leak" of information from an "anonymous source inside the CIA", and other unnamed officials. Do you think that since nobody's accountable at all, not even an organization's legitimacy like Wikileaks would be for example, that they would say that to give any reason possible to stop Trump or for that matter get a ton of money because of a story like that?

 

Even better, the Washington Post article you sent me to (which both of the others refer you back to) includes this little gem "FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday." They leave out many specifics in that, such as what officials?

 

Where did they disclose this?

 

Why haven't the CIA and FBI publically released a statement?

 

Why is Obama the only official who seems to "know" about this situation even though this could, somehow, affect the legitimacy of the election (despite that only emails were released regarding corruption)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

After this point in that article there's even more oddly vague details that should be very specific, and should refer to references like a normal article.

 

" 'Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,' Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message."

 

This leaves the question, as to what US officials, and why they aren't referring us to anything else outside of this article that could back this statement up?

Furthermore, the last word in that sentence is an interesting word choice when Brennan wasn't giving a message, he would have been giving a statement.

 

My reason for bringing word choice up is because of the difference in definition for the words.

 

Message: a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly.

 

Statement: an official account of facts, views, or plans, especially one for release to the media.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The CIA and the FBI declined to comment on Brennan’s message or on the classified intelligence assessment that CIA officials shared with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month,"

 

Why would they have any reason to decline to comment on the statement at all?

Why is the report classified? It seems the Washington Post and all the media already know the answers, so why not just release a statement already?

 

Furthermore, if this was the joint opinion of both the CIA and FBI, why did only the CIA share information to the Senate? Why didn't both?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"In the closed-door Senate briefing, CIA officials said it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was one of Russia’s goals,"

 

How would they get information from a closed door Senate briefing?

 "according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters."

 

God damnit, I swear that every one of these officials are anonymous! Who the hell's accountable for information that has the potential to escalate into a war with Russia?

 

As for only CIA officials, see the last comment.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This article just goes on about numerous claims from unnamed officials, and goes in circles with itself, without a single credible source. This leads me to believe even further that this whole situation is false, and I already know it is.

Everyone needs to remember that the DNC emails that Wikileaks obtained weren't hacked, they were leaked.

 

This means that someone within the DNC had given the information to Wikileaks, this couldn't have been Russia in this case.

 

Hack: use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system.

 

Leak: an intentional disclosure of secret information.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As I stated before, Julian Assange is no friend of any government. Yet has already stated that Russia is not the source of the emails.

 

"The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists."

 

This is from an article on Wikileaks itself by Julian Assange, here's the link. https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html

Funny, when in Russia anything is leaked regarding corruption among high ranked and/or election the government blames it on American hackers. Apparently when something goes wrong on the other side of the pond they blame Russia. Convenient for both parties involved.

4 hours ago, crkinnh said:

The Washington Post is the only source for that, I read all the articles you sent, and both say the exact same information, and the LA Times specifically refer to all the information being from that article. 

 

All the articles that say the FBI and CIA think Russia did it lead you in circles, they all refer back to the Washington Post. The only evidence they have of this is a "leak" of information from an "anonymous source inside the CIA", and other unnamed officials. Do you think that since nobody's accountable at all, not even an organization's legitimacy like Wikileaks would be for example, that they would say that to give any reason possible to stop Trump or for that matter get a ton of money because of a story like that?

 

Even better, the Washington Post article you sent me to (which both of the others refer you back to) includes this little gem "FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday." They leave out many specifics in that, such as what officials?

 

Where did they disclose this?

 

Why haven't the CIA and FBI publically released a statement?

 

Why is Obama the only official who seems to "know" about this situation even though this could, somehow, affect the legitimacy of the election (despite that only emails were released regarding corruption)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

After this point in that article there's even more oddly vague details that should be very specific, and should refer to references like a normal article.

 

" 'Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,' Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message."

 

This leaves the question, as to what US officials, and why they aren't referring us to anything else outside of this article that could back this statement up?

Furthermore, the last word in that sentence is an interesting word choice when Brennan wasn't giving a message, he would have been giving a statement.

 

My reason for bringing word choice up is because of the difference in definition for the words.

 

Message: a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly.

 

Statement: an official account of facts, views, or plans, especially one for release to the media.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The CIA and the FBI declined to comment on Brennan’s message or on the classified intelligence assessment that CIA officials shared with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month,"

 

Why would they have any reason to decline to comment on the statement at all?

Why is the report classified? It seems the Washington Post and all the media already know the answers, so why not just release a statement already?

 

Furthermore, if this was the joint opinion of both the CIA and FBI, why did only the CIA share information to the Senate? Why didn't both?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"In the closed-door Senate briefing, CIA officials said it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was one of Russia’s goals,"

 

How would they get information from a closed door Senate briefing?

 "according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters."

 

God damnit, I swear that every one of these officials are anonymous! Who the hell's accountable for information that has the potential to escalate into a war with Russia?

 

As for only CIA officials, see the last comment.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This article just goes on about numerous claims from unnamed officials, and goes in circles with itself, without a single credible source. This leads me to believe even further that this whole situation is false, and I already know it is.

You: "Until the director from either one outright make a statement stating Russia has, I will be very skeptical of the claims"

Me: *Gives you the exact info you wanted to see*

You: *Finds some other reason to not believe it*

On 12/19/2016 at 1:45 AM, Riley24 said:

You: "Until the director from either one outright make a statement stating Russia has, I will be very skeptical of the claims"

Yes, a publicly released statement regarding whether or not Russia was involved in the "influencing" of the election via Wikileaks leaks from the DNC and John Podesta.

 

On 12/19/2016 at 1:45 AM, Riley24 said:

Me: *Gives you the exact info you wanted to see*

As stated above in this comment, by the criteria I asked for, you did not provide anything.

If I was still interested in looking at numerous stories all referring back to the same Washington Post article from Friday followed by a followup article from them, I would have asked.

 

I'm looking for evidence that doesn't leave any room for skepticism.

On 12/19/2016 at 1:45 AM, Riley24 said:

You: *Finds some other reason to not believe it*

I don't believe it because there is serious credibility problems in that article. With the wording, and numerous other oddities, it seems to be faked in entirety.

Furthermore, there is accountability problems because everyone cited is anonymous. With the same things that they have given as sources (which are none, but anonymous sources) I could say this:

 

A government official declares Kim Jong Un as president. As they wished, they will remain anonymous. Sources tell us that congress in a closed door session declared him president after an illegitimate election of Hillary Clinton.

 

That's no less credible as an article than the Washington Post article you sent me, and the others refer you to.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by crkinnh
spelling

I'm sure all of you know by now, but the electoral college is revoting today, let's see how plays out. To me, it just seems like another desperate attempt to get Trump not to be president. 

1 hour ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

I'm sure all of you know by now, but the electoral college is revoting today, let's see how plays out. To me, it just seems like another desperate attempt to get Trump not to be president. 

 

It's not a revote, it's the normal EC vote. It is a routine part of the process.

Okay, I thought these reports that I found to be relevant to this chat. I came across some interesting reports from the US Govt that weren't classified or from "anonymous sources". 

 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

 

Something rather interesting to be noted is that while the Russians have used these tactics, these tactics are too widespread to be attributed to the Russians. Something that someone else pointed out is really important to this conversation: "The report indicates that this tool was detected on the machines in question following investigation. Further, the suggestion is that this adds weight to the probability of Russian involvement, because that tool is very popular among Russian hackers. However, that tool is also very popular among Ukrainian hackers. Where, Ukraine has spent the past several years attempting to gain western and especially American support in its competition with Russia. One might then conclude that Ukraine infiltrated the machines in question, and utilized this tool specifically for the purpose of incriminating Russia, in order to gain additional support from America and to apply additional pressure to its nemesis, Russia. After all, western and also American support for Kiev was waning. Kiev was concerned western sanctions against Russia may cease in the near future, which Biden directly suggested to them, where now we observe the continuance of western and American sanctions, as well as the addition of new sanctions and new pressures against Russia. 

Still, that's dubious. It doesn't matter whether or not that tool is popular in Russia or Ukraine. Anyone can acquire and utilize that tool. This incriminates no party. Yet if you wish to conclude the probability of Russian involvement is high because that tool is popular among Russian hackers, to be reasonable, one must also acknowledge that the probability of Ukrainian involvement is high because it's also popular in Ukraine. What's more: the tool isn't exclusive to government operatives. It's popularized by civilian hackers. The alleged discovery of this tool's usage soonest suggests civilian hackers, not government operatives, because civilian hackers utilize this tool regularly, and certainly more frequently than any government organization. Again, that's dubious as well. Any argument based in the demographics of the popularity of this tool is obviously fallacious, and proves nothing.

No further "evidence" was presented by JAR."

 

He was referring to the tool that left this signature:

Yara Signature rule PAS_TOOL_PHP_WEB_KIT { meta: description = "PAS TOOL PHP WEB KIT FOUND" strings: $php = "<?php" $base64decode = /\='base'\.\(\d+\*\d+\)\.'_de'\.'code'/ $strreplace = "(str_replace(" $md5 = ".substr(md5(strrev(" $gzinflate = "gzinflate" $cookie = "_COOKIE" $isset = "isset" condition: (filesize > 20KB and filesize < 22KB) and #cookie == 2 and #isset == 3 and all of them } 

Long story short? We'll see what happens. I have hopes that he improves the economics of the US, and establish proper connections with Russia, but I have a feeling that that will be just about it. Most of the "topical stuff" (Gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, legalization of weed, etc...) will be up to the individual states anyways. The only thing that worries me is that he might increase mass surveillance measures.

hey guys, i was just watching the news last night and saw that TRUMP has built a hotel named TRUMP in Canada. there are riots going on in Vancouver Canada right now. sounds like they are going to change the name due to the protesters outside. i personally was mad to hear about this what about you. personally i want trump to keep his lost some little self in America. if he thought he was going to get people to actually stay in it i think he was mistaken. what do you guys thinkÉ

First things first, it's great to be back in the forum here.

2 hours ago, awsomeboy232 said:

there are riots going on in Vancouver Canada right now. sounds like they are going to change the name due to the protesters outside.

Okay, there's a problem here. Is there a riot or a protest? There is a very big difference, as such would warrant a different reaction, and also if it is a riot would prove how batshit crazy those people would be/are.

3 hours ago, awsomeboy232 said:

sounds like they are going to change the name due to the protesters outside.

Dumb idea on their behalf, you never give ground to these people. The second you do is when you lose everything, even if you try to please them you never can. 

I'm sure you want examples, in the US I can give you a few. The people who are protesting are the same people who cry for diversity quotas, and when they are filled still cry for more diversity even though minorities might even be statistically over represented because of these quotas (I'm looking at you higher education). The people there are the same people that always cry about their "right" to have an abortion, still protest for it despite being ruled in favor over 40 years ago; they also cry that they are being oppressed in the same way again despite the aforementioned. These same people claim they are being discriminated against (not for) in the STEM field as a major example, yet can't describe how there's been hundreds if not thousands of scholarships specifically only for all women (not even for specific races or skillsets in women) for at least the past 10 to 15 years over mens. It baffles me with the amount of stupidity, and scaremongering these people do.

 

Other than that, they would never do that because they would lose brand recognition.

3 hours ago, awsomeboy232 said:

i personally was mad to hear about this what about you. personally i want trump to keep his lost some little self in America.

Why? You don't want foreign investment into your country? You don't know how much money in taxes Vancouver will make nevermind British Columbia do you? Even if you don't like his policies, his investment in your country is only beneficial to you. Seems a bit naive and short sighted to not want him in your country.

 

3 hours ago, awsomeboy232 said:

if he thought he was going to get people to actually stay in it i think he was mistaken.

I think you don't understand his target demographic. Anyone with around $1000 USD to blow a night (which is more people than you realize) can stay there, there's a conference center, champagne lounge, spa, "signature" restaurant, and also has luxury penthouses for sale (which once again attracts quite a few people). The point is that you don't understand the rationale behind target demographics and the multipurpose functioning of the building.

3 hours ago, awsomeboy232 said:

what do you guys thinkÉ

I think you need to stop using a bi-lingual keyboard.

 

In all seriousness, you already see my thoughts on this through the above.