Jump to content

Trump screwed up in FA?


Caecus
 Share

Recommended Posts

No.  It wouldn't be in the US's best interest to use nukes due to two foreign countries being at war.

 

The only time I'd see US using nukes is a direct invasion of US soil.

The US policies for WMDs is any of them is a nuclear weapon as far as the government is concerned and will be countered by US WMDs, which all happen to be nuclear. That also goes for the many, many countries that sit under our protective nuclear umbrella.

 

You know, the Democrats, Clinton especially, could just not... be as bad as they were? If Russia did hack (with like an Axe?), and there is no actual evidence, then what did they ultimately do? They didn't hack the voting machines to directly change the outcome, they didn't stuff paper ballots at the polls, or whatever else. They revealed the Democrats did some things they shouldn't have. I care less about the Russians possibly doing such things than Clinton and all the rest's bad stuff. 

 

As for the Republican party info and it not coming out, I trust Julian Assange's words that they were basically nothing. Trump is the man who had the media firing everything at him, negative story after negative story, do you think anything there would have damaged him? Get out of here. What of Ryan and the rest? Trump was running as an outsider, hitting them would mean nothing in relation to Trump.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

 

China invading Taiwan wouldn't just be "two foreign countries being at war". Not to say they'd use nukes but the United States could be tasked with defeating the Chinese military, and helping remove them if they manage to take over the Island. 

 

What appears to be happening is as I said months back. Trump wants to be friendly with Russia as he sees China as the threat, not Russia. Encircle China and starve it of support (getting the Russians on side is pretty big) and then if his threats get carried out Economically damage them. Such possible future efforts that Trump has shown interest in is why China is very scared at the moment as its bad juju for them. In response the Chinese have made some empty threats backed up by some meaningless actions mostly but they've also gotten closer to Iran apparently. Perhaps China will enter into the middle east in full and start supporting fanatics against American friendly dictators? May we all live in interesting times.

 

Which they fully deserve of course. China is terrible on its own, but their treatment of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, their continued support of North Korea, their claims on international waters, their claims on other countries land, it just goes on with them. 

There's still no proof those emails were even real. If you have a team of like ten Russian hackers it'd be pretty easy to fake email exchanges if they didn't find anything actually useful in the actual servers.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US policies for WMDs is any of them is a nuclear weapon as far as the government is concerned and will be countered by US WMDs, which all happen to be nuclear. That also goes for the many, many countries that sit under our protective nuclear umbrella.

 

There's still no proof those emails were even real. If you have a team of like ten Russian hackers it'd be pretty easy to fake email exchanges if they didn't find anything actually useful in the actual servers.

I'm pretty sure the emails were real.  Hillary voter here.

 

Yes, Russia used its cyber warfare capabilities to influence our election.  When all 17 US intelligence agencies agree on something, it probably happened, regardless of what partisans who adore Trump think.  No, Russia didn't actually "hack the vote".  But if they convinced enough people who were unconvinced Hillary was shady, that was a success.  Trump lost by about 3 million votes, but he won because he got a few dozen thousand votes in a few key states(MI-9000 votes, WI-23000 votes, PA-46000 votes).  Its "possible", but "unprovable" that he won beause of the influence of Russia on the election. 

 

More likely is that the FBI opening and re-closing the investigation of Hillary's emails just before the election tipped the election in his favor.

 

The actual content of the "leaked emails" wasn't really that damaging in my opinion.  More damaging was probably Hillary labeling Trump supporters, many of whom wave confederate flags and give nazi salutes, as deplorables.  The guy who's just a slob plumber who thinks maybe Trump can bring jobs back but usually votes Democrat, he just got called "deplorable", and he's pissed and she's sure as hell gonna go vote against Hillary now.  Throw in Hillary wasting time and money in deep red states because she arrogantly assumed she had this in the bag, and you can see how she lost.  A few million more in Wi and MI would have easily made a difference.  It might have been hard to win PA, the gap there was a lot of votes.

 

Then there's the "fake news" planted by Russian bot armies spreading Pizzagate-like stories.  Even if those influenced 0.5% of the people, that's enough to have won the election

 

But we'll never know if they influenced 0.0001% or 1%.  So, lets enjoy our 2nd Republican president this century who deserves an * next to his name.

 

As for FA, once you get past our American traditions, and just play the world like its a god damn computer game, you can see China is America's sole rival in the world.  Everyone else just pretends.  So !@#$ing with our rival is probably good FA.

Edited by Aisha Greyjoy

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's still no proof those emails were even real.

DKIM verification:rolleyes:

 

One bitcoin is up for anyone who proves DKIM keys are hackable here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-24/we-can-prove-podesta-emails-released-wikileaks-are-authentic-heres-how

And here: http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the emails were real.  Hillary voter here.

 

Then there's the "fake news" planted by Russian bot armies spreading Pizzagate-like stories.  Even if those influenced 0.5% of the people, that's enough to have won the election

 

But we'll never know if they influenced 0.0001% or 1%.  So, lets enjoy our 2nd Republican president this century who deserves an * next to his name.

 

As for FA, once you get past our American traditions, and just play the world like its a god damn computer game, you can see China is America's sole rival in the world.  Everyone else just pretends.  So !@#$ with our rival is probably good FA.

I'm pretty sure the SVR just had one of their cyber units make it one week. It's not hard and helps them immensely, especially with people just assuming it's real

 

that looks shadier than the emails themselves

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that looks shadier than the emails themselves

2 Bitcoins if you can prove us wrong (Approx $2,000 USD at current market rates). Put your money where your mouth is or shut up. 

 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the emails were confirmed by one of the parties on the emails.  

 

Of course, the smartest thing would be to release 1500 emails, and 1480 of them are authentic, then throw in 20 more damaging ones and let people assume they are true.  But I did not hear Podesta or the DNC insist the emails were fake.  The lack of denials demonstrates their validity.

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the perfectly logical reason the DNC wasn't talking about them was because they are/were evidence in an active investigation and to keep the focus on Hillary during the election, not some groups of forged emails designed to help Trump win. So they leave things until after the election and then work with the FBI or whomever is handling things to help them try to track down the forgers; presumably a Russia government team.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to be paranoid it's not a hard thing to do. I believe a Russian team hacked the DNC server, then didn't find emails that sufficiently helped Trump so they spend a week, each with many personas faked and generated that traffic that they then dropped with Wikileaks. It's not real if there's no proof.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe a Russian team hacked the DNC server, then didn't find emails that sufficiently helped Trump so they spend a week, each with many personas faked and generated that traffic that they then dropped with Wikileaks. It's not real if there's no proof.

You have a chance to get $2k for proving yourself right. I guess you believe something if you repeat it enough times. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to. The burden of proof is on the accuser(s).

You're accusing Russia of hacking the DNC, right? 

 

That's from 2012 using 512 bit keys. Most of Podesta's emails were 1,024 or 2,048 bit keys. 

 

Unless you are saying that you can break a 2,048. In which case, you should get your BTC and apply to the NSA/CIA/three letter agency.  :rolleyes:

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burden of proof only matters in a court of law. Generally when you make an assertion in the context of a debate you're expected to provide evidence or others can assume there's a high likelyhood you cannot prove your assertion, even if that assertion may be true. I find it highly unlikely that Milton has special knowledge about this that no one else has had the opportunity to see that he's somehow precluded from sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're accusing Russia of hacking the DNC, right? 

 

 

That's from 2012 using 512 bit keys. Most of Podesta's emails were 1,024 or 2,048 bit keys. 

 

Unless you are saying that you can break a 2,048. In which case, you should get your BTC and apply to the NSA/CIA/three letter agency.  :rolleyes:

Unless I phrased it incorrectly before, I believe our intelligence community when they point to who they accuse.

 

Burden of proof only matters in a court of law. Generally when you make an assertion in the context of a debate you're expected to provide evidence or others can assume there's a high likelyhood you cannot prove your assertion, even if that assertion may be true. I find it highly unlikely that Milton has special knowledge about this that no one else has had the opportunity to see that he's somehow precluded from sharing.

We're not in court and I still give him the burden of proof. General practices are just that: general, as in not applying to everyone or everything. I can prove my assertion as well as others have "proven" that the emails are real. If you don't agree with that, don't debate me. Pretty easy.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bulk of the intelligence agencies said specifically that Iraq didn't likely have WMDs. People just decided Colin Powell and his prop were more useful to informing themselves.

 

HRC emails are fake, and the current people blamed by our government are of the Russian government.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not in court and I still give him the burden of proof. General practices are just that: general, as in not applying to everyone or everything. I can prove my assertion as well as others have "proven" that the emails are real. If you don't agree with that, don't debate me. Pretty easy.

If your counter to an assertion about these emails is that they are not real and you cannot prove that they aren't real, you're making just as poor an argument as anyone basing their arguments on the emails if they are indeed fake. What you are saying isn't based in logic, it's based on faith. There's a time and a place for that, but just repeating yourself in increasingly shriller posts without furnishing a basis for your claim is silly. Creating a construct wherein someone takes the time to hack these emails and then leak fake emails seems like several leaps of paranoia with a conclusion that doesn't appear to have any falsifiable results in your world view.

 

When these things devolve to the point where your only case is a simple minded belief in a set of data points you expect others to accept without proof, it's not difficult to see why anyone else that isn't getting some kind of emotional reward from taking you at face value do not see the argument you are making to have much validity.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your counter to an assertion about these emails is that they are not real and you cannot prove that they aren't real, you're making just as poor an argument as anyone basing their arguments on the emails if they are indeed fake. What you are saying isn't based in logic, it's based on faith. There's a time and a place for that, but just repeating yourself in increasingly shriller posts without furnishing a basis for your claim is silly. Creating a construct wherein someone takes the time to hack these emails and then leak fake emails seems like several leaps of paranoia with a conclusion that doesn't appear to have any falsifiable results in your world view.

 

When these things devolve to the point where your only case is a simple minded belief in a set of data points you expect others to accept without proof, it's not difficult to see why anyone else that isn't getting some kind of emotional reward from taking you at face value do not see the argument you are making to have much validity.

We obviously disagree. Until someone neutral verifies them, to me and a lot of others, they're just fakes. It's not based on faith, it's based on Putin's past actions in interfering with other countries internally. This fits perfectly since he can't annex us, or fake an apartment bombing or invade. I've seen no emotion in what I've posted, let alone something where I'm shrill (since posts make no noise and emotion isn't present). If my beliefs are silly to you, I can't say it matters. Having been caught doing similar things before this example it's perfectly reasonable to believe they're faked. Emails are easily faked, which supports what I've said.

 

When did I ask anyone to accept my thoughts or beliefs? If you don't believe it, don't believe it. But maybe stop complaining if you don't believe me because I'm not going to change my mind.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stating that you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your perception of events and then pretending that validates your perception of events is foolishness. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not making a coherent logical argument.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.