My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
Yeah, it's all mixed in there
but we had confirmation bias in 2008 as well, and we had "fact check = liberal propaganda" then too. I think we've created an entirely new problem because the corporatization of the Internet experience means that it's simply hard from a technical level to actually accomplish "let's see the sources on that" when your primary interface is a smartphone. Often the sources are formatted for the PC, links are literally hard to tap anyway, information can't be effectively presented side-by-side, ads distort your viewing space... all this makes you want to rely on trusted proxies more, at a time when the proxies are less reliable than they have ever been.
The interface promotes confirmation bias and blind trust. This is a real problem that we are not going to solve easily, because it's absolutely not in the interest of any media outlet or social platform to move back toward the interconnected, link-heavy, and easily navigable internet of the previous decade.
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
"Fact-checking sites? More like liberal lies and propaganda!! :mad:"
Literal quotes. The culture war seems to be raging harder than ever in the US and I'm afraid the democrats have lost.
ebb and flow. ebb and flow. Republicans may have won a battle, but they haven't won the war by a long shot. LGBT acceptance in the last 10 years alone is a win for the left and isn't going away
Basically, because the right wing goosery isn't sustainable over the long haul Exhibit A: Kansas. Yes, the left couldn't get behind Hillary which is why she lost, But more people DID vote for her, it's just that a lot of other elements came together to bear fruit against her. Charisma matters. Bill had it, Obama had it, Hillary didn't. It didn't matter how qualified she was. We don't live in that world yet where qualifications matter.
But even MAJOR elements of the right can't stand Trump and agree that we were hacked in his favor. Trump is extremely divisive and could finally wake the sleeping giant over the next four years.
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
"Fact-checking sites? More like liberal lies and propaganda!! :mad:"
Literal quotes. The culture war seems to be raging harder than ever in the US and I'm afraid the democrats have lost.
My gay uncles, who got married the day after my wife and I did, would disagree
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He makes statements before bothering to hear any facts and then refuses to acknowledge any facts that contradict his statements. If he contradicts his own statements later, that isn't him being wrong or contradictory or flip-flopping, shut up.
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
Yeah, it's all mixed in there
but we had confirmation bias in 2008 as well, and we had "fact check = liberal propaganda" then too. I think we've created an entirely new problem because the corporatization of the Internet experience means that it's simply hard from a technical level to actually accomplish "let's see the sources on that" when your primary interface is a smartphone. Often the sources are formatted for the PC, links are literally hard to tap anyway, information can't be effectively presented side-by-side, ads distort your viewing space... all this makes you want to rely on trusted proxies more, at a time when the proxies are less reliable than they have ever been.
The interface promotes confirmation bias and blind trust. This is a real problem that we are not going to solve easily, because it's absolutely not in the interest of any media outlet or social platform to move back toward the interconnected, link-heavy, and easily navigable internet of the previous decade.
You often see that here, and I do this too, where someone will say they're on a smartphone and it's too hard to find links to back up what they're arguing, or present a quick and incomplete argument because typing on the phone isn't as easy.
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
Yeah, it's all mixed in there
but we had confirmation bias in 2008 as well, and we had "fact check = liberal propaganda" then too. I think we've created an entirely new problem because the corporatization of the Internet experience means that it's simply hard from a technical level to actually accomplish "let's see the sources on that" when your primary interface is a smartphone. Often the sources are formatted for the PC, links are literally hard to tap anyway, information can't be effectively presented side-by-side, ads distort your viewing space... all this makes you want to rely on trusted proxies more, at a time when the proxies are less reliable than they have ever been.
The interface promotes confirmation bias and blind trust. This is a real problem that we are not going to solve easily, because it's absolutely not in the interest of any media outlet or social platform to move back toward the interconnected, link-heavy, and easily navigable internet of the previous decade.
You often see that here, and I do this too, where someone will say they're on a smartphone and it's too hard to find links to back up what they're arguing, or present a quick and incomplete argument because typing on the phone isn't as easy.
So smart phones really are making us dumber?
Fantastic.
It's not hard to find links. It's hard to text edit complex posts. Links are easy. Info is easy. Editing and formatting inside quoted posts is the pain.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I had a Facebook argument with a guy who wanted "proof" of the russian hack. I linked the US-CERT report. He denied it was proof. Basically he wasn't going to be satisfied with anything unless he could obtain Top Secret clearance, which obviously wasn't ever going to happen. He also tried to pull a no true scottsman and claimed phishing wasn't "real hacking" which was irrelevant. a breach is a breach, regardless of how it was obtained.
But anyway, I give the Republicans credit. They're being very careful with their language. They are consistent at specifically saying that it didn't affect the outcome, which has a grain of truth. Even if they hadn't interfered, it may have gone the same way. But that's the point...
I have met multiple people who are genuinely convinced that an ancient frog god wanted Trump to win for the lulz. Stop trying to win the war of ideas and start shitposting pronto or we'll all be eating jackboot and broken teeth casserole.
Also people don't go back and check things they've read already to see if there's been corrections. Too many places handle corrections as edits to the original article/on page 9 rather than as an article all their own/on the front page. So when in the first hour of a story everywhere reports falsehoods, those falsehoods become the "truth" even if those places come back later and correct things.
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
Yeah, it's all mixed in there
but we had confirmation bias in 2008 as well, and we had "fact check = liberal propaganda" then too. I think we've created an entirely new problem because the corporatization of the Internet experience means that it's simply hard from a technical level to actually accomplish "let's see the sources on that" when your primary interface is a smartphone. Often the sources are formatted for the PC, links are literally hard to tap anyway, information can't be effectively presented side-by-side, ads distort your viewing space... all this makes you want to rely on trusted proxies more, at a time when the proxies are less reliable than they have ever been.
The interface promotes confirmation bias and blind trust. This is a real problem that we are not going to solve easily, because it's absolutely not in the interest of any media outlet or social platform to move back toward the interconnected, link-heavy, and easily navigable internet of the previous decade.
You often see that here, and I do this too, where someone will say they're on a smartphone and it's too hard to find links to back up what they're arguing, or present a quick and incomplete argument because typing on the phone isn't as easy.
There's a TLDR problem too - a post on mobile looks a lot bigger than when you go look at it on your PC....
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
Yeah, it's all mixed in there
but we had confirmation bias in 2008 as well, and we had "fact check = liberal propaganda" then too. I think we've created an entirely new problem because the corporatization of the Internet experience means that it's simply hard from a technical level to actually accomplish "let's see the sources on that" when your primary interface is a smartphone. Often the sources are formatted for the PC, links are literally hard to tap anyway, information can't be effectively presented side-by-side, ads distort your viewing space... all this makes you want to rely on trusted proxies more, at a time when the proxies are less reliable than they have ever been.
The interface promotes confirmation bias and blind trust. This is a real problem that we are not going to solve easily, because it's absolutely not in the interest of any media outlet or social platform to move back toward the interconnected, link-heavy, and easily navigable internet of the previous decade.
You often see that here, and I do this too, where someone will say they're on a smartphone and it's too hard to find links to back up what they're arguing, or present a quick and incomplete argument because typing on the phone isn't as easy.
There's a TLDR problem too - a post on mobile looks a lot bigger than when you go look at it on your PC....
Similarly, it can take a lot of effort to make a post on mobile so it can feel to the poster that there should be more merit given to their post than what the same post would feel like if typed up real quick on PC.
I did this post on mobile while being distracted by a wild 3 year old and football on in background. Took me forever and my thumbs might cramp up soon but I think the thesis is valid and should be read by all who read it as worthy of consideration.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
"The whole universe is lying except me" is a thing among totalitarians.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
The problem isn't fake news per se. The problem is confirmation bias. There is never going to be an objective fact-checking mechanism that is accepted by all parties. Even if they were objective and truthful, One side will just launch a smear campaign against it and claim it's biased, and again, because of confirmation bias, they'll believe it.
One person looks at a piece of news and even if it agrees with their world view, they might say "let's see sources on that"
Another person looks at a piece of news that agrees with their world view and says "yep, thought so" and moves forward, patting themselves on the back and never investigates it.
but even someone who does investigate claims is not immune 100 percent, everyone falls for confirmation bias at some point, because we don't live in a world where we can stop whatever it is we're doing and go investigate every claim put forth. At some point, you have to believe someone.
Human condition.
Yeah, it's all mixed in there
but we had confirmation bias in 2008 as well, and we had "fact check = liberal propaganda" then too. I think we've created an entirely new problem because the corporatization of the Internet experience means that it's simply hard from a technical level to actually accomplish "let's see the sources on that" when your primary interface is a smartphone. Often the sources are formatted for the PC, links are literally hard to tap anyway, information can't be effectively presented side-by-side, ads distort your viewing space... all this makes you want to rely on trusted proxies more, at a time when the proxies are less reliable than they have ever been.
The interface promotes confirmation bias and blind trust. This is a real problem that we are not going to solve easily, because it's absolutely not in the interest of any media outlet or social platform to move back toward the interconnected, link-heavy, and easily navigable internet of the previous decade.
You often see that here, and I do this too, where someone will say they're on a smartphone and it's too hard to find links to back up what they're arguing, or present a quick and incomplete argument because typing on the phone isn't as easy.
There's a TLDR problem too - a post on mobile looks a lot bigger than when you go look at it on your PC....
Which doesn't help when the media's been particularly bad about burying the lede this year. Saying pretty much exactly the opposite of the headline, a few paragraphs into the actual story
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Working against/trying to undermine the will of the american government? You mean treason?
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
And you can bet money Wikileaks ain't gonna give two shits about them.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Working against/trying to undermine the will of the american government? You mean treason?
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
And you can bet money Wikileaks ain't gonna give two shits about them.
Or would they? The leaks would cause more chaos and in-fighting, the difficult part will be to convince that it is in Assange's best interest to play along.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
That is something that already happens. Customers will take what they want from products they get, or outright ignore those products because they don't line up with an already preconceived notion of the PIR they put out or because it doesn't fit a narrative that is being developed.
If someone is going to leak an intelligence product over that then they had a low bar for divulging classified information to begin with.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Working against/trying to undermine the will of the american government? You mean treason?
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
And you can bet money Wikileaks ain't gonna give two shits about them.
I don't know about that. The Trump administration is now the US government, not an opposition campaign. I don't think Wikileaks has any loyalty to Trump; if their goal is destabilization then leaking classified info serves that purpose whether it's Obama, Clinton, or Trump in charge.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Working against/trying to undermine the will of the american government? You mean treason?
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
And you can bet money Wikileaks ain't gonna give two shits about them.
I don't know about that. The Trump administration is now the US government, not an opposition campaign. I don't think Wikileaks has any loyalty to Trump; if their goal is destabilization then leaking classified info serves that purpose whether it's Obama, Clinton, or Trump in charge.
IIRC they didn't go into full swing until Obama was in office, and they started in 2006.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Working against/trying to undermine the will of the american government? You mean treason?
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
And you can bet money Wikileaks ain't gonna give two shits about them.
I don't know about that. The Trump administration is now the US government, not an opposition campaign. I don't think Wikileaks has any loyalty to Trump; if their goal is destabilization then leaking classified info serves that purpose whether it's Obama, Clinton, or Trump in charge.
IIRC they didn't go into full swing until Obama was in office, and they started in 2006.
Wiki(pedia) tells me that they published Sarah Palin's emails in the 2008 campaign, and in 2007 released documents showing that the US military was lying about aspects of its treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.
I thought the theory was that they were pro-Russia, not specifically pro-Republican. Being anti-Clinton during the campaign makes sense in that context. Being friendly towards GWB's neoconservative administration makes less sense. If Trump's foreign policy ends up being pro-Russia then things could be different, but they might still see causing more chaos in US politics as in their best interests. Plus, if they straight up refuse to release damaging documents leaked by/during the Trump administration, much of their purpose for existing would disappear, and the possibility of a competing leak site emerging might become more likely.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Working against/trying to undermine the will of the american government? You mean treason?
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
And you can bet money Wikileaks ain't gonna give two shits about them.
I don't know about that. The Trump administration is now the US government, not an opposition campaign. I don't think Wikileaks has any loyalty to Trump; if their goal is destabilization then leaking classified info serves that purpose whether it's Obama, Clinton, or Trump in charge.
IIRC they didn't go into full swing until Obama was in office, and they started in 2006.
Wiki(pedia) tells me that they published Sarah Palin's emails in the 2008 campaign, and in 2007 released documents showing that the US military was lying about aspects of its treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.
I thought the theory was that they were pro-Russia, not specifically pro-Republican. Being anti-Clinton during the campaign makes sense in that context. Being friendly towards GWB's neoconservative administration makes less sense. If Trump's foreign policy ends up being pro-Russia then things could be different, but they might still see causing more chaos in US politics as in their best interests. Plus, if they straight up refuse to release damaging documents leaked by/during the Trump administration, much of their purpose for existing would disappear, and the possibility of a competing leak site emerging might become more likely.
Back in 2008 Wikipedia want totally dependant on Russia for it's survival. They became a completely partisan organisation over the last 4 years ago when they were forced to stop having their major operational hq in iceland.
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Working against/trying to undermine the will of the american government? You mean treason?
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
And you can bet money Wikileaks ain't gonna give two shits about them.
I don't know about that. The Trump administration is now the US government, not an opposition campaign. I don't think Wikileaks has any loyalty to Trump; if their goal is destabilization then leaking classified info serves that purpose whether it's Obama, Clinton, or Trump in charge.
IIRC they didn't go into full swing until Obama was in office, and they started in 2006.
Wiki(pedia) tells me that they published Sarah Palin's emails in the 2008 campaign, and in 2007 released documents showing that the US military was lying about aspects of its treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.
I thought the theory was that they were pro-Russia, not specifically pro-Republican. Being anti-Clinton during the campaign makes sense in that context. Being friendly towards GWB's neoconservative administration makes less sense. If Trump's foreign policy ends up being pro-Russia then things could be different, but they might still see causing more chaos in US politics as in their best interests. Plus, if they straight up refuse to release damaging documents leaked by/during the Trump administration, much of their purpose for existing would disappear, and the possibility of a competing leak site emerging might become more likely.
Back in 2008 Wikipedia want totally dependant on Russia for it's survival. They became a completely partisan organisation over the last 4 years ago when they were forced to stop having their major operational hq in iceland.
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russia (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This all just seems like too convenient of an excuse and a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
Private security firms determined two Russian threat actors penetrated the DNC: One associated with the FSB, and one with the GRU. This information was released in the summer.
Those security firms have no reason to lie, more over lying would hurt their reputation and thus their business.
The hacking report states with "High confidence" that the GRU was/is behind Guccifer 2, and relaying the documents to Wikileaks.
Jullian Assange is not in a better position to judge the source of the hacks, and has every reason to lie about being used by Russian propaganda efforts.
Your "plausible" scenario requires coordination of multiple private security firms and the entire US Intel community to craft a massive lie to cover up one DNC staffer sneaking out some emails.
While that is not impossible, in an absolute sense, it is thoroughly ludicrous; and quite implausible.
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
Signed up an hour ago to post that. How much you getting paid?
If US intel has an axe to grind, it's usually based on recommendations rather than their findings. Iraq and the WMD's was a fluke in that regard, albeit a fucking huge one.
+1
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
Is there an etiquette to pointing out that this is your only post on these boards and that you joined this morning, posted this one reply attempting to throw shade on the idea that the Russians hacked the US, and then did nothing else on the boards, or should I just call it out? Asking for a friend.
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russia (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This all just seems like too convenient of an excuse and a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
Private security firms determined two Russian threat actors penetrated the DNC: One associated with the FSB, and one with the GRU. This information was released in the summer.
Those security firms have no reason to lie, more over lying would hurt their reputation and thus their business.
The hacking report states with "High confidence" that the GRU was/is behind Guccifer 2, and relaying the documents to Wikileaks.
Jullian Assange is not in a better position to judge the source of the hacks, and has every reason to lie about being used by Russian propaganda efforts.
Your "plausible" scenario requires coordination of multiple private security firms and the entire US Intel community to craft a massive lie to cover up one DNC staffer sneaking out some emails.
While that is not impossible, in an absolute sense, it is thoroughly ludicrous; and quite implausible.
There are several factors used to attribute these hacks to someone working on behalf of Russian intelligence. In the case of Fancy Bear, attribution is based on details from a number of assessments by security researchers. These include:
Focus of purpose. The methods and malware families used in these campaigns are specifically built for espionage.
The targets. A list of previous targets of Fancy Bear malware include:
Individuals in Russia and the former Soviet states who may be of intelligence interest
Current and former members of NATO states' government and military
Western defense contractors and suppliers
Journalists and authors
Fancy Bear malware was also used in the spear-phishing attack on the International Olympic Committee to gain access to the World Anti Doping Agency's systems. This allowed the group to discredit athletes after many Russian athletes were banned from this year's Summer Games.
Long-term investment. The code in malware and tools is regularly and professionally updated and maintained—while maintaining a platform approach. The investment suggests an operation funded to provide long-term data espionage and information warfare capabilities.
Language and location. Artifacts in the code indicate it was written by Russian speakers in the same time zone as Moscow and St. Petersburg, according to a FireEye report.
These don't necessarily point to Fancy Bear being directly operated by Russian intelligence. Other information operations out of Russia (including the "troll factory" operated out of St. Petersburg to spread disinformation and intimidate people) have had tenuous connections to the government.
Scott DePasquale and Michael Daly of the Atlantic Council suggested in an October Politico article that the DNC hack and other information operations surrounding the US presidential campaign may have been the work of "cyber mercenaries"—in essence, outsourcing outfits working as contractors for Russian intelligence. There is also an extremely remote possibility that all of this has been some sort of "false flag" operation by someone else with extremely deep pockets and a political agenda.
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed.
Some of this information is new to me, but fascinating in context of the Ukraine connection and what I know about the actor there (a fugitive hacker from outside Ukraine granted residence there under unclear and unusual circumstances, who identifies as a white supremacist and who seems to now work on behalf of Ukraine's government and claims to have helped them identify and eliminate Russian spies in Ukraine).
I'm skeptical about the Russia "hacking" narrative for numerous reasons.
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
The only ones ignoring anything are the RNC, and Trump specifically, who are trying to discredit anything and everything about Russian involvement until their faces are practically shoved into the evidence (in public) at which point they are recognizing it in the most begrudging, and minimal, way possible.
This report, which states in absolutely no uncertain terms, concluded that all intelligence agencies concur that Russia acted upon the US election to influence it in favor of Donald Trump.
This is something that is correlated with private security firms and earlier intelligence as well.
The report CLEARLY stated, also in no uncertain terms, that it was not designed or meant to assess the effectiveness of this influence on the election.
Donald Trump has stated that it concluded there was no impact. That is 100% not what the report states, at all. It is explicitly clear on that claim.
He has also stated it says the RNC wasn't hacked. Whereas the document also explicitly states the RNC was indeed hacked, but there was no attempt to release any intelligence gleaned to the public.
Further, it was decided early on that knowledge of this wasn't going to be released during the election as it would be seen as the current administration favoring Clinton to influence the election.
And then the FBI released another e-mail statement "off the cuff" towards the end of the election that cast another unpleasant look at an issue that had already been blown entirely out of proportion.
So apparently launching several investigations over Clinton's improper use of an e-mail server is absolutely fine, and in America's best interests (even when they have repeatedly found nothing of any real importance).
Yet Russia meddling in the election with the clear intention of getting one candidate elected isn't even worth looking at in any way, and is simply the Democrats/liberals/progressives being butthurt.
When you lay out the actual facts of the matter, it isn't the Democrats who are looking like they are trying to ignore something.
Posts
My takeaway from that is more that Trump is an idiot. He's one of those people who is like "Tell me everything I need to know in only 10 seconds" and then stops paying attention at 5. His statements are not so much deliberate lies half the time as they are simply him not paying attention and just creating his own version of what is true based on the whatever he vaguely heard before he got impatient and started playing with his shoelaces.
Yeah, it's all mixed in there
but we had confirmation bias in 2008 as well, and we had "fact check = liberal propaganda" then too. I think we've created an entirely new problem because the corporatization of the Internet experience means that it's simply hard from a technical level to actually accomplish "let's see the sources on that" when your primary interface is a smartphone. Often the sources are formatted for the PC, links are literally hard to tap anyway, information can't be effectively presented side-by-side, ads distort your viewing space... all this makes you want to rely on trusted proxies more, at a time when the proxies are less reliable than they have ever been.
The interface promotes confirmation bias and blind trust. This is a real problem that we are not going to solve easily, because it's absolutely not in the interest of any media outlet or social platform to move back toward the interconnected, link-heavy, and easily navigable internet of the previous decade.
ebb and flow. ebb and flow. Republicans may have won a battle, but they haven't won the war by a long shot. LGBT acceptance in the last 10 years alone is a win for the left and isn't going away
Basically, because the right wing goosery isn't sustainable over the long haul Exhibit A: Kansas. Yes, the left couldn't get behind Hillary which is why she lost, But more people DID vote for her, it's just that a lot of other elements came together to bear fruit against her. Charisma matters. Bill had it, Obama had it, Hillary didn't. It didn't matter how qualified she was. We don't live in that world yet where qualifications matter.
But even MAJOR elements of the right can't stand Trump and agree that we were hacked in his favor. Trump is extremely divisive and could finally wake the sleeping giant over the next four years.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
My gay uncles, who got married the day after my wife and I did, would disagree
He makes statements before bothering to hear any facts and then refuses to acknowledge any facts that contradict his statements. If he contradicts his own statements later, that isn't him being wrong or contradictory or flip-flopping, shut up.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You often see that here, and I do this too, where someone will say they're on a smartphone and it's too hard to find links to back up what they're arguing, or present a quick and incomplete argument because typing on the phone isn't as easy.
So smart phones really are making us dumber?
Fantastic.
He said that the reports said things that they did not say, after being given a more in-depth version of the report. That's him lying. I doesn't matter if he just wasn't paying attention. He said that the reports said something they don't. That's a lie. That's a deliberate lie. If he says he's gotten expert opinions and the experts told him he's right, and they didn't, then he's lying.
But anyway, I give the Republicans credit. They're being very careful with their language. They are consistent at specifically saying that it didn't affect the outcome, which has a grain of truth. Even if they hadn't interfered, it may have gone the same way. But that's the point...
...Russia interfered.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I have met multiple people who are genuinely convinced that an ancient frog god wanted Trump to win for the lulz. Stop trying to win the war of ideas and start shitposting pronto or we'll all be eating jackboot and broken teeth casserole.
There's a TLDR problem too - a post on mobile looks a lot bigger than when you go look at it on your PC....
Similarly, it can take a lot of effort to make a post on mobile so it can feel to the poster that there should be more merit given to their post than what the same post would feel like if typed up real quick on PC.
I did this post on mobile while being distracted by a wild 3 year old and football on in background. Took me forever and my thumbs might cramp up soon but I think the thesis is valid and should be read by all who read it as worthy of consideration.
Steam: adamjnet
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as she is implying here. It's still lying but not in the same way she is implying imo.
The report says "We didn't make any determination if this affected the election". He says "The report said it didn't affect the election" because he doesn't understand or bother to take the time to understand the distinction between "We didn't even look" and "it didn't". This is however different from if the report had said "It did affect the election" and he had said "It didn't affect the election."
This is consistent with how he always behaves. He's like a particularly stupid incurious ADD-riddled toddler.
He's not lying because he knows better, he's lying because he doesn't and just doesn't care. He didn't even bother to read the report or listen to a summary of it and just skimmed the bullet points and then constructed his own reality.
If you enjoyed my video, hit like share subscribe for more.
"The whole universe is lying except me" is a thing among totalitarians.
He directly claims that experts have told him things that they haven't told him. There's really not much more to say about it. He is outright lying when the shifts it over to the narrative that the experts told him something rather than expressing it as his own interpretation.
In this case it seems much more like he's just interpreting his own wants into the document. That's how what his statement said and what the document said actually line up.
Which doesn't help when the media's been particularly bad about burying the lede this year. Saying pretty much exactly the opposite of the headline, a few paragraphs into the actual story
There are going to be so many leaks over the next four years just out of people frustrated that he's literally making shit up about something they spent seven months compiling.
Because that's how these things will get called out on, and hunted down as...
That is something that already happens. Customers will take what they want from products they get, or outright ignore those products because they don't line up with an already preconceived notion of the PIR they put out or because it doesn't fit a narrative that is being developed.
If someone is going to leak an intelligence product over that then they had a low bar for divulging classified information to begin with.
IIRC they didn't go into full swing until Obama was in office, and they started in 2006.
I thought the theory was that they were pro-Russia, not specifically pro-Republican. Being anti-Clinton during the campaign makes sense in that context. Being friendly towards GWB's neoconservative administration makes less sense. If Trump's foreign policy ends up being pro-Russia then things could be different, but they might still see causing more chaos in US politics as in their best interests. Plus, if they straight up refuse to release damaging documents leaked by/during the Trump administration, much of their purpose for existing would disappear, and the possibility of a competing leak site emerging might become more likely.
Back in 2008 Wikipedia want totally dependant on Russia for it's survival. They became a completely partisan organisation over the last 4 years ago when they were forced to stop having their major operational hq in iceland.
Wikipedia or Wikileaks
What's laid out in this article for starters.
It seems like like a lot of this is resting on a pure "argument from authority" that US intelligence agencies are both trustworthy and always correct in their assessments. But that said, even they have acknowledged they have no "smoking gun". Much more of the substantive content in the intelligence report focused on the RT television channel than on "hacking" at all. I don't know that there is a very compelling argument to say that RT hosting a third party debate or programming against fracking is something we should view as malevolent or particularly important.
We have also had several kind of ridiculous stories emerge recently that have been either entirely disproved (Washington Post claiming Russia hacked Vermont electric grid) or nearly so (Russia hacked voting machines).
I can divulge that I personally am aware that the Podesta hack was not done by the Russian government (the hacker is a far-right guy in Ukraine who is actually anti-Putin, ironically). I have no direct knowledge about the DNC hack but Assange says it was an insider at DNC that leaked it and that does not sound implausible to me.
This narrative just seems too convenient of a way Democrats can ignore faults of the Clinton campaign and continue trying to rev up Cold War sentiments to me.
Private security firms determined two Russian threat actors penetrated the DNC: One associated with the FSB, and one with the GRU. This information was released in the summer.
Those security firms have no reason to lie, more over lying would hurt their reputation and thus their business.
The hacking report states with "High confidence" that the GRU was/is behind Guccifer 2, and relaying the documents to Wikileaks.
Jullian Assange is not in a better position to judge the source of the hacks, and has every reason to lie about being used by Russian propaganda efforts.
Your "plausible" scenario requires coordination of multiple private security firms and the entire US Intel community to craft a massive lie to cover up one DNC staffer sneaking out some emails.
While that is not impossible, in an absolute sense, it is thoroughly ludicrous; and quite implausible.
Signed up an hour ago to post that. How much you getting paid?
Steam | XBL
Is there an etiquette to pointing out that this is your only post on these boards and that you joined this morning, posted this one reply attempting to throw shade on the idea that the Russians hacked the US, and then did nothing else on the boards, or should I just call it out? Asking for a friend.
From what I can see from the US tech press, the case for Russian state-sponsored involvement in the DNC leak was not quite as ironclad as you indicate: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/
Some of this information is new to me, but fascinating in context of the Ukraine connection and what I know about the actor there (a fugitive hacker from outside Ukraine granted residence there under unclear and unusual circumstances, who identifies as a white supremacist and who seems to now work on behalf of Ukraine's government and claims to have helped them identify and eliminate Russian spies in Ukraine).
The only ones ignoring anything are the RNC, and Trump specifically, who are trying to discredit anything and everything about Russian involvement until their faces are practically shoved into the evidence (in public) at which point they are recognizing it in the most begrudging, and minimal, way possible.
This report, which states in absolutely no uncertain terms, concluded that all intelligence agencies concur that Russia acted upon the US election to influence it in favor of Donald Trump.
This is something that is correlated with private security firms and earlier intelligence as well.
The report CLEARLY stated, also in no uncertain terms, that it was not designed or meant to assess the effectiveness of this influence on the election.
Donald Trump has stated that it concluded there was no impact. That is 100% not what the report states, at all. It is explicitly clear on that claim.
He has also stated it says the RNC wasn't hacked. Whereas the document also explicitly states the RNC was indeed hacked, but there was no attempt to release any intelligence gleaned to the public.
Further, it was decided early on that knowledge of this wasn't going to be released during the election as it would be seen as the current administration favoring Clinton to influence the election.
And then the FBI released another e-mail statement "off the cuff" towards the end of the election that cast another unpleasant look at an issue that had already been blown entirely out of proportion.
So apparently launching several investigations over Clinton's improper use of an e-mail server is absolutely fine, and in America's best interests (even when they have repeatedly found nothing of any real importance).
Yet Russia meddling in the election with the clear intention of getting one candidate elected isn't even worth looking at in any way, and is simply the Democrats/liberals/progressives being butthurt.
When you lay out the actual facts of the matter, it isn't the Democrats who are looking like they are trying to ignore something.
Noted for future reference. My bad.
Steam | XBL