Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like watching Norse Corp's live attack map. Its oddly entertaining to see China and Russia obliterate the US with multicolor lasers nonstop. Best part is if you Google the places in the US that are repeatedly attaked, there is almost always a major US federal building or military facility in the area.

 skyth wrote:
What is required to be absolutely sure though?

A back trace directly to the Kremlin would be nice

American intelligence gathering certainly knows more than we know, but they're not going to tell us because "national security." For all we know they might be absolutely sure, but are unable to say how or why. We can only operate with the information that we have. There are alternate plausible scenarios from the current information base than Putin ordering attacks against the DNC. Could be pro-Russians Nationalists independent of the Russian state operating on their own for example. The threat assessment given doesn't even say the group has been sourced to actually be located in Russia. They could be located in the Congo for all we know. it doesn't exactly take state resources to do a basic google group infiltration. Everything "TG-4127" has been recorded doing has certainly been pro-Russia and pro-Putin, but that in itself is not sufficient evidence to indefinitely declare that TG-4127 is an agent of the Russian state.

There's a simple reality in this kind of things that we all have to deal with; we will often never be absolutely sure.

Not in the now anyway. Who knows what might be released in someone's memoirs, a government statement, or declassified intel 50 years from now.

 LordofHats wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm probably not going to keep saying it's a chicken just to suit my conspiracy theory. Others, however, seem to favor that tack.

Tneva is not peddling conspiracy so much as being very skeptical. I think he's wrong, but I don't think you have to be crazy or a conspiracy theorist to reach his conclusion.

Agree to completely disagree...and I think it's Rosebuddy that I was responding to in reference to your post.

Skeptical, fine, as one really should be with regards to such matters. But when faced with, and presented with, repeated instances of evidence, that the mainstream opposition doesn't even dispute, then I call partisan belligerence or tin foil hat, neither equates to healthy skepticism. There's nothing even subtle about the difference. Also, a dead give away to me is when someone just sprinkles "WW3" into the discussion mix.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Wow! You mean the intelligence community didn't come out and spell out all the who, how and where they accumulated the data? Covert intelligence gathering mechanisms not revealing themselves? That's crazy! What's next? That's your determining factor for it being flimsy? Both candidates already briefed on the situation. Yeah, sorry, you're alone on this.

I love your mentioning that one of Trump's ideas "is a solid one". Unfortunately, it hardly comes close to deflecting the sheer heinous nature of the man. It's like pointing to a broken watch, at one of the two times a day when it's correct, and saying "See, what an accurate time piece."

Only fact is we have word vs word situation here. There's no PROOF given on either side that's something that can be believed.

Fact is one can say truth is X for both sides just as well as you can say whether god exists or not. It's matter of faith ATM.

And why you bring Trump into this? You think I'm defending him? Lol I hate that and I don't care what Trump has to say in this. Don't even know. All I'm pointing out there's no EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER either way. All we have is US intelligence saying "it's russian". However Russians are saying "we didn't do it". NEITHER side are actually providing any EVIDENCE.

And last time I checked "innocent until proven guilty" is pretty important factor in western juridistical system. I believe it's even in USA constitution but guess you aren't fan of that principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There's grain of salt acceptance of intel and then there's stupefying belligerence in the face of repeated evidence. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm probably not going to keep saying it's a chicken just to suit my conspiracy theory. Others, however, seem to favor that tack.

That's just it. You keep up bringing word evidence but so far there isn't ANY evidence. Just US intelligence saying "it's russians". But no evidence.

Sorry but I don't take words of anybody at face value. Especially when they are saying stuff that happens to fit into their agendas to begin with. Especially when said factor is also known for deliberately lying to push their agendas. This goes for Russians, this goes for US intelligence, this goes to anybody in the world.

Now is it highly likely they did it? Yes. Many countries are wanting to influence US votes just as US is meddling in other countries politics all the time so not even surprising. But so far I have yet to see any EVIDENCE you keep repeating. Sorry but just saying "there's evidence" without providing that evidence ain't good enough.

tneva82 wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Wow! You mean the intelligence community didn't come out and spell out all the who, how and where they accumulated the data? Covert intelligence gathering mechanisms not revealing themselves? That's crazy! What's next? That's your determining factor for it being flimsy? Both candidates already briefed on the situation. Yeah, sorry, you're alone on this.

I love your mentioning that one of Trump's ideas "is a solid one". Unfortunately, it hardly comes close to deflecting the sheer heinous nature of the man. It's like pointing to a broken watch, at one of the two times a day when it's correct, and saying "See, what an accurate time piece."

Only fact is we have word vs word situation here. There's no PROOF given on either side that's something that can be believed.

Fact is one can say truth is X for both sides just as well as you can say whether god exists or not. It's matter of faith ATM.

And why you bring Trump into this? You think I'm defending him? Lol I hate that and I don't care what Trump has to say in this. Don't even know. All I'm pointing out there's no EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER either way. All we have is US intelligence saying "it's russian". However Russians are saying "we didn't do it". NEITHER side are actually providing any EVIDENCE.

And last time I checked "innocent until proven guilty" is pretty important factor in western juridistical system. I believe it's even in USA constitution but guess you aren't fan of that principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There's grain of salt acceptance of intel and then there's stupefying belligerence in the face of repeated evidence. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm probably not going to keep saying it's a chicken just to suit my conspiracy theory. Others, however, seem to favor that tack.

That's just it. You keep up bringing word evidence but so far there isn't ANY evidence. Just US intelligence saying "it's russians". But no evidence.

Sorry but I don't take words of anybody at face value. Especially when they are saying stuff that happens to fit into their agendas to begin with. Especially when said factor is also known for deliberately lying to push their agendas. This goes for Russians, this goes for US intelligence, this goes to anybody in the world.

Now is it highly likely they did it? Yes. Many countries are wanting to influence US votes just as US is meddling in other countries politics all the time so not even surprising. But so far I have yet to see any EVIDENCE you keep repeating. Sorry but just saying "there's evidence" without providing that evidence ain't good enough.

Firstly, your initial response to me is by quoting a response I had to SemperMortis who brought the Trump comment into it and hence my response TO HIS POST. I think you need to work on your post editing skills. I know mine could be better.

The second bit, really sums it up. "Sorry but I don't take words of anybody at face value." Man, whew...so it's all lies and agendas? Cynical doesn't even come close. Conspiracy theorist it is then. There is no debating with you if your reality is tainted by everything being false.

Here's some more evidence, or non-evidence, as you'll probably twist it to say. Pretty straight forward and powerful indictments of Russian manipulation at the highest levels, but what does the findings of 17 Intelligence Agencies mean, right?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

There is a difference between "I don't know the evidence therefor I am skeptical" and "I don't know the evidence therefor it has to be false".

We are not operating a court of law and do not have to stick to normal rules of evidence. Western courts follow the principle of "reasonable doubt" anyway. They don't require absolute certainty.

There is no reasonable doubt that the Russians are behind the cyber attacks.

Trump is brought into it by his own mouth. He's the one who invited the Russians to hack Clinton, and quoted a Russian "news item" that hadn't appeared anywhere he could have read it.

Is Trump planning to betray the US to Russia? Not really. He's just an egotistical fool who puts himself in front of everything. But it is the Russians clearly trying to interfere in the election and get Trump in rather than Clinton.

Therefore to get back to the topic, it is pretty obvious why Democrat voters might think the result is false if Trump surprisingly wins when the projection is for him to lose badly.

 Ahtman wrote:
There is a difference between "I don't know the evidence therefor I am skeptical" and "I don't know the evidence therefor it has to be false".

The devil is always in those details...

So, Trump has released his Contract with the American Voter during his speech at Gettysburg. The name seems deliberately intended to invoke the House Republicans' Contract with America pledge. Bob Dole was dismissive of the original and that's part of what caused the base to stay home during his run at the White House.

This "contract" sets the agenda for his first hundred days in office. It's pretty ambitious and we'll really have to see how receptive the Republicans in the current House and Senate are.

Even though some Representatives run on a promise of a self-imposed term limit, I can't see the Senate getting on board with a Constitutional Amendment.

Hiring freezes are nothing new. I expect this will find support.

I'm not sure how the third item would work. It's nice to say that you'll eliminate two regulations for every new one that gets introduced, but a lot of those regulations are developed by government agencies, not Congress or the Presidency.

I'm not sure how a ban on becoming a lobbyist is legal. That's like saying that you can't become a doctor or an actor or whatever. It likely won't get through Congress and if it does, may be struck down by SCOTUS.

I do like the idea of former high-ranking employees not being allowed to lobby on behalf of foreign governments but this is also questionable in legality. Rules already exist for disclosure and conflict of interest but I have to wonder if an outright ban would withstand SCOTUS review.

The proposed ban on foreign lobbyists fundraising is another one that feels good but seems fuzzy on the law. We have SCOTUS rulings that begging is free speech and fundraising is pretty much just a sophisticated begging operation.

These are just the items at the beginning. There are a bunch more covering everything from NAFTA to School Choice to Sanctuary Cities in the pdf and I encourage everyone to read it. It would be nice if we could actually discuss some of those specific items instead of the usual "nobody actually reads the thing but everyone bitches about it" back and forth we usually do.

 Breotan wrote:
It's pretty ambitious and we'll really have to see how receptive the Republicans in the current House and Senate are.

That seems like a significant understatement. I think "delusional" is probably a better description. Some of it is pretty standard conservative wishful thinking, but then there's the sheer raving lunacy of things like "repeal everything Obama did" and "MEXICO WILL PAY FOR MY BORDER WALL BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!!!". It's pretty sad when the best I can say for any of this stuff is "this is a really bad policy decision, but it's possible to do it".

How much involvement did Trump actually have in it I wonder?

These 7 actions stuck out to me. To quote:

"On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:
 FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
 SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
 THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
 FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
 FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
 SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
 SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure."

So here's my Cliff's Notes comments...


1st Point) Prepare to pay a lot more money for a lot of things. That means inflation, or in this case, probably stagflation. Remember the -70's? Stagflation, for those who didn't experience it is the joy of inflation without the accompanying growth that ideally drives it. I'm sure it will do wonders for our relationships with our neighbors, and their economies as well! Just wait until we start refinancing our 20TUSD debt at the higher interest rates!
2nd Point) Europe, South America, etc. thank you for stepping aside and allowing them greater competetive access to a hungry, growing market of billions of Asian consumers.
3rd Point) Trade War potential with the world's second largest and one of the fastest growing economies on the planet. Oh, this will go very well!
4th Point) Care to direct that mirror at us and our bevy of protectionist subsidies and other punitive trade peccadillos?
5th Point) Yeah, the world doesn't have enough oil. More supply will be great for oil prices and the producer's profits. Seen the layoffs in the oil patch this year? Say goodbye to the feeble recovery being experienced by the developing world heavily reliant on commodity prices that aren't in freefall. This, btw, brings us all down...remember the oil free fall at the beginning of the year and it's impact? Coal? Another great idea! More greenhouse gasses from a dying industry that should have had a stake put through it already. Who needs innovation and development of the next generation of energy technology. Let's go backwards and race to the bottom.
6th Point) The Keystone Pipeline? Really? We've got the largest known oil reserves in the world and we're going to pressure domestic producers with imports from Canada...but this guy is against NAFTA.
7th Point) Feth the planet! Feth our standing and good faith with the rest of the world! What do the world's scientific bodies know? What, btw, is an "environmental infrastructure"?

"a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated"

How arbitrary and ridiculous is that...

 Compel wrote:
How much involvement did Trump actually have in it I wonder?

I assume he had some level of involvement. Most of the things in the Contract reflect stuff he's been espousing during the campaign.

 Vaktathi wrote:
"a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated"

How arbitrary and ridiculous is that...

Borders on the idiotic. Who am I kidding, it is idiotic.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
2nd Point) Europe, South America, etc. thank you for allowing them greater competetive access to a hungry, growing market of billions of consumers.

They're going to need it with Belgum scuttling their EU/Canada free trade agreement.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
5th Point) Yeah, the world doesn't have enough oil. More supply will be great for oil prices and the producer's profits. Seen the layoffs in the oil patch this year? Say goodbye to the feeble recovery being experienced by the developing world heavily reliant on commodity prices that aren't in freefall. This, btw, brings us all down...remember the oil free fall at the beginning of the year? Coal? Another great idea! More greenhouse gasses from a dying industry that should have had a stake put through it already. Who needs innovation and development of the next generation of energy technology. Let's go backwards and race to the bottom.

I dunno, it seems to be working pretty well for Venezuela. Right?

 BigWaaagh wrote:
6th Point) The Keystone Pipeline? Really? We've got the largest known oil reserves in the world and we're going to pressure domestic producers with imports from Canada...but this guy is against NAFTA.

I guess it depends on your stance on fracking.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
What, btw, is an "environmental infrastructure"?

I assume clean rivers and lakes along with industry/factory water pollution, or maybe he's talking about solar, wind, and electric cars. Hopefully a reporter will ask him about that and we'll get a better definition.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
There is a difference between "I don't know the evidence therefor I am skeptical" and "I don't know the evidence therefor it has to be false".

The devil is always in those details...

Of course, and there is also a danger in conflating the two.

 Breotan wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
2nd Point) Europe, South America, etc. thank you for allowing them greater competetive access to a hungry, growing market of billions of consumers.

They're going to need it with Belgum scuttling their EU/Canada free trade agreement.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
5th Point) Yeah, the world doesn't have enough oil. More supply will be great for oil prices and the producer's profits. Seen the layoffs in the oil patch this year? Say goodbye to the feeble recovery being experienced by the developing world heavily reliant on commodity prices that aren't in freefall. This, btw, brings us all down...remember the oil free fall at the beginning of the year? Coal? Another great idea! More greenhouse gasses from a dying industry that should have had a stake put through it already. Who needs innovation and development of the next generation of energy technology. Let's go backwards and race to the bottom.

I dunno, it seems to be working pretty well for Venezuela. Right?

 BigWaaagh wrote:
6th Point) The Keystone Pipeline? Really? We've got the largest known oil reserves in the world and we're going to pressure domestic producers with imports from Canada...but this guy is against NAFTA.

I guess it depends on your stance on fracking.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
What, btw, is an "environmental infrastructure"?

I assume clean rivers and lakes along with industry/factory water pollution, or maybe he's talking about solar, wind, and electric cars. Hopefully a reporter will ask him about that and we'll get a better definition.

Wallonia's only holding out for more concessions. But that's a different thread. Besides, access to a established market with a population of 35m or access to a growing and developing market with a population of 1.4b...hmmm, really nothing to discuss there.

The fracking observation isn't really the point. Besides, that genie is out of the bag and never going back. What is relevant is Trump's double talk of "NAFTA bad, errr!" reconciled against the greenlighting of importing Canadian oil, when we are awash with it, just to hit that button. Hypocrite!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There is no reasonable doubt that the Russians are behind the cyber attacks.

Considering the sheer nonsense that hobby hackers and regular organised crime can get up to and the absolute gak show that IT security is in general, there certainly is reasonable doubt that the Russian state is directly responsible. Especially when you add in that the best that anyone has ever offered in the way of evidence is saying that they're somewhat sure but open to being wrong and when you factor in the wave of irrational anti-Russian sentiment that is currently sweeping the world and that US intel is hardly infallible or above lying.

I remember when they said that Saddam was extremely evil and needed to be stopped. I remember when they said that Qaddafi was extremely evil and needed to be stopped. I also remember what happened afterwards. I don't want the US to start up the same dumb gak with the second mightiest military in the world let alone a nuclear power.


I mean, look at this:



Does this remind you of something? Ring a bell?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There is no reasonable doubt that the Russians are behind the cyber attacks.

Considering the sheer nonsense that hobby hackers and regular organised crime can get up to and the absolute gak show that IT security is in general, there certainly is reasonable doubt that the Russian state is directly responsible. Especially when you add in that the best that anyone has ever offered in the way of evidence is saying that they're somewhat sure but open to being wrong and when you factor in the wave of irrational anti-Russian sentiment that is currently sweeping the world and that US intel is hardly infallible or above lying.

I remember when they said that Saddam was extremely evil and needed to be stopped. I remember when they said that Qaddafi was extremely evil and needed to be stopped. I also remember what happened afterwards. I don't want the US to start up the same dumb gak with the second mightiest military in the world let alone a nuclear power.


I mean, look at this:



Does this remind you of something? Ring a bell?

What is scary to me is that one of the main authors of the Lybian gak show you mention, Clinton, is most likely the next president.l

 BigWaaagh wrote:
These 7 actions stuck out to me. To quote:

"On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:
 FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
 SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
 THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
 FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
 FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
 SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
 SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure."

Is that the On Day One stuff? Because, if so, I don't think he's going to have any Secretaries that early, since they still have to be approved by the Senate.
Regarding #3, yes, let's really antagonize a country that owns 30% of the US debt. Oh, right, Trump plans to renegotiate the debt.
Regarding #7, that's a bit late for Flint, ain't it? Because a Republican governor, and a Republican Congress couldn't help Flint, but it will take a Republican president to do it?

Anyway, I'm going to take the hit to my braincells and read the thing.:
Hiring freeze: Blanket hiring freezes have always been stupid, and always result in inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the work force, because it's not necessarily the "good employees" that are staying behind, and those that do have even more incentive to leabe for a better job because of being overworked.
New regulationss mean getting rid of old ones: Yeah, no. Most policies exist because someone, somewhere screwed up.
Removing illegals: How you gonna do that with a hiring freeze? We don't have enough agents, case workers, judges, correctional officers, and other support staff to do that now.
Ok, yeah, the rest is just mind boggling: these great things will happen because I say they will happen.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Wow! You mean the intelligence community didn't come out and spell out all the who, how and where they accumulated the data? Covert intelligence gathering mechanisms not revealing themselves? That's crazy! What's next? That's your determining factor for it being flimsy? Both candidates already briefed on the situation. Yeah, sorry, you're alone on this.

I love your mentioning that one of Trump's ideas "is a solid one". Unfortunately, it hardly comes close to deflecting the sheer heinous nature of the man. It's like pointing to a broken watch, at one of the two times a day when it's correct, and saying "See, what an accurate time piece."

Well as someone who has worked in the IC I do find it rather odd that they didn't identify which agency came out with the intelligence. Also, I have watched solid intelligence products get shot down because they didn't jive with the higher ups opinions, so sorry, I tend to take things with a grain of salt.

I keep forgetting about how this forum operates. Anyone remotely right of center who posts something remotely right of center gets ganged up on and their opinions shot down.

Usually this revolves around people claiming

1: If your information came from a very valid source they respond with "Well its wrong because I feel..." Or "Your wrong because this persons blog or unreliable left wing news agency says so".
2: If your information comes from a borderline valid source: "Haha you think they are reliable how cute"
3: If you state an opinion without posting a source: Shot down ruthlessly, constantly hounded to provide a source.

Then when you apply that same logic and reasoning to their posts you get ganged up on again by those same people who call you a conspiracy theorist for not listening to their own opinions.

Well I am going to tip my hat to this specific forum and head back over to 40k where at least facts can be backed up consistently with math. Just as a friendly reminder though, this forum is very left leaning, these same people who are SURE Trump won't win are the same ones who were SURE Brexit wouldn't happen. Anyway, good luck to you all.

Funny...I often see the left wing arguments get ganged up on.

Is it November 9th yet? Can we just fast-forward two and a half weeks, please?

 Spinner wrote:
Is it November 9th yet? Can we just fast-forward two and a half weeks, please?

That would mean missing the premier of RWBY Volume 4, so no

 Spinner wrote:
Is it November 9th yet? Can we just fast-forward two and a half weeks, please?

well the walking dead starts tomorrow, should be epic, quite unlike the presidential debates

prepare for a week of trump meme's being replaced with "NOOOOOOO not that person, why him?"

Lol@Semper about being "ganged up on" when there are several people arguing for the validity of your position. You know those people who were saying you ignore evidence Semper? Proving them right is a great way to ensure people actually do dismiss your opinion without thinking. Self-fulfilling prophecy I guess

 Spinner wrote:
Is it November 9th yet? Can we just fast-forward two and a half weeks, please?

I know I'm ready to start talking about the midterm elections and the pre-primary roundup for 2020!

 d-usa wrote:
I know I'm ready to start talking about the midterm elections and the pre-primary roundup for 2020!

I hope Ben Carson runs again. He can probably use a break from making movies with Kirk Cameron, and I think the rest of us really enjoyed seeing just how dumb a smart guy can be.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I know I'm ready to start talking about the midterm elections and the pre-primary roundup for 2020!

I hope Ben Carson runs again. He can probably use a break from making movies with Kirk Cameron, and I think the rest of us really enjoyed seeing just how dumb a smart guy can be.

Mr Sulu just posted about Michele Obama running for president. so Obama again for 2024 I guess. She'll be a fun candidate, she seems as clean as Mother Teresa and obama so far has not had any sex scandals.