• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ocasio-Cortez, chief of staff illegally moved $885K in campaign contributions 'off the books,' FEC c

This is tough!

The usual defense of Trump supporters is to compare Obama's attitude towards Russia in 2012, before the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Russian meddling in the US elections to argue that Obama was softer against the Russian then! :roll:

we're way past that stage. the current strategy is to just say whatever and pretend that it's true / whataboutism before falling back to "so what?" i wanted to try it myself, and it was sort of fun, if a bit surreal.
 
Yes, they did had a broader set of targets. In fact, from the intelligence report we know that they even targeted republican sites. It is just that they allocated resources in different proportions and part of this decision was the fact that the Russians did not just wanted to attack the US elections. They also had a clear preference regarding the side which they would support.

I also notice that you try to qualify your thought by saying "the random public remark of a candidate would not typically be part of the process." It sounds that you indirectly admit that it is possible that such remarks may be part of the opponent's feedback. So, when you have an event of the type described in the link I posted where a similar new Russia operation is launched against Podesta on the same day Trump asked Russians to find Hillary's emails, is it an event which investigators should just dismiss out of hand, as you tried to do, by calling it a coincidence?

Also, it was not that we just had an isolated random public remark. This behavior was part of a general pattern of Trump's behavior which gave a clear signal regarding how he saw Russia and his leaders . And on top of that there was also the response of Trump supporters to such remarks which gave another signal regarding the willingness of the American public to resist or harshly retaliate against a Russian intervention.

I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion, but you obviously have no idea how these things work. I'll use one simple example. No professional would ever use Trump's remark as a pointer because there would be no way to rule out the possibility it was deliberately used to bait and compromise the Russian operation. Instead, the Russians would move deliberately and cautiously through their established target lists.
 
I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion, but you obviously have no idea how these things work. I'll use one simple example. No professional would ever use Trump's remark as a pointer because there would be no way to rule out the possibility it was deliberately used to bait and compromise the Russian operation. Instead, the Russians would move deliberately and cautiously through their established target lists.

Well, if they can send Russians with ties to the Russian intelligence to the Trump Tower meeting, they can certainly do the same to hack Podesta from far away. Plus, they used proxies like Guciffer 2. to have the cover of plausible deniability.
 
Well, if they can send Russians with ties to the Russian intelligence to the Trump Tower meeting, they can certainly do the same to hack Podesta from far away. Plus, they used proxies like Guciffer 2. to have the cover of plausible deniability.

You have no idea who or what they used, or who or what was compromised or when. And no, you don't just "hack" a target.
 
i haven't hyperventilated. i understand and have pointed out that you support shady hush money payments to cover up affairs with porn stars using an attorney's secret company.

Voluntary settlements between private parties are just that, and shouldn't be an issue. It's not a matter of passing moral judgement on the action. That's an entirely different issue altogether. No one should be looking to Trump as an example for moral guidance.

I'll note the attempt to shift the conversation, though I'll take your use of "shady" as an admission that it actually isn't that big of a deal, legally speaking.
 
Voluntary settlements between private parties are just that, and shouldn't be an issue. It's not a matter of passing moral judgement on the action. That's an entirely different issue altogether. No one should be looking to Trump as an example for moral guidance.

I'll note the attempt to shift the conversation, though I'll take your use of "shady" as an admission that it actually isn't that big of a deal, legally speaking.

as i said, you support it.
 
actually, it does, but in one direction. also, as one's speed increases, there is slight time travel when compared to someone who is standing still.

Time dilation - Wikipedia

pretty interesting stuff.

It's definitely interesting, but not sure if it qualifies as time travel, in the common usage of the word. I might say that people can experience time differently. The real crazy part is, who is standing still, what frame of reference are you using for context? Think about how we were blast way out to where we are at very high velocities, meaning we've experienced time at a much slower rate than matter that didn't and stayed closer to the catalyst. Are those areas billions of years older and possibly contain life that's way more advanced than what we are, with billions of years on us? They just can't get out to us traveling away so fast?

Really weird to think about.
 
It's definitely interesting, but not sure if it qualifies as time travel, in the common usage of the word. I might say that people can experience time differently. The real crazy part is, who is standing still, what frame of reference are you using for context? Think about how we were blast way out to where we are at very high velocities, meaning we've experienced time at a much slower rate than matter that didn't and stayed closer to the catalyst. Are those areas billions of years older and possibly contain life that's way more advanced than what we are, with billions of years on us? They just can't get out to us traveling away so fast?

Really weird to think about.

the malleability of time (if that's the right word for it) is fascinating. i commute a lot, and i've wondered how much i've moved forward in time. probably much, much less than a second.
 
You have no idea who or what they used, or who or what was compromised or when. And no, you don't just "hack" a target.

My point was not to describe the technical details how one hacks a target (which I do not know anyway). My point was that you have not given any reasonable explanation regarding how a public statement by Trump or any American inviting Russia to find Hillary's emails could be used as a bait to compromise a Russian operation which was using proxies from thousand of miles away to hack US computers. it was not that they would need to send people to Podesta's office to steal the materials they wanted. But as you said, you are not really interested in a discussion. You just want to make claims and use the argument of "Trust me, I am not making a partisan claim. I am just an expert who knows things"
 
Last edited:
the malleability of time (if that's the right word for it) is fascinating. i commute a lot, and i've wondered how much i've moved forward in time. probably much, much less than a second.

But it feels like years slower, rofl.
 
My point was not to describe the technical details how one hacks a target (which I do not know anyway). My point was that you have not given any reasonable explanation regarding how a public statement by Trump or any American inviting Russia to find Hillary's emails could be used as a bait to compromise a Russian operation which was using proxies from thousand of miles away to hack US computers. it was not that they would need to send people to Podesta's office to steal the materials they wanted. But as you said, you are not really interested in a discussion. You just want to make claims and use the argument of "Trust me, I am not making a partisan claim. I am just an expert who knows things"

Ah. Your misunderstanding is at an elementary level. It does not matter how far away the proxies are. The bait and compromise would be to lure the hack attempt for which preparations would be in place to "capture" the hacking tool software for study and exploitation.
 
Ah. Your misunderstanding is at an elementary level. It does not matter how far away the proxies are. The bait and compromise would be to lure the hack attempt for which preparations would be in place to "capture" the hacking tool software for study and exploitation.

And do what?

Issue a report like the US intelligence community did with the Russian hacking when they identified Guciffer and other Russian hacking operations? I do not see any big risk there. Software is replaced by new one very fast. Capturing people is a different game. It is like trying to compare the risk of using emitters from far away for intelligence purposes to the risk of sending a U2 recon airplane with Powers to do the same from close distance (to use an example from your era)
 
And do what?

Issue a report like the US intelligence community did with the Russian hacking when they identified Guciffer and other Russian hacking operations? I do not see any big risk there. Software is replaced by new one very fast. Capturing people is a different game. It is like trying to compare the risk of using emitters from far away for intelligence to the risk of sending a U2 recon airplane with Powers to do the same (to use an example from your era)

Because once you understand the software you can identify it (and therefore its sponsor) in any other attacks where it is used, and you can manipulate it to provide false information or even penetrate the sponsor.
 
Because once you understand the software you can identify it (and therefore its sponsor) in any other attacks where it is used, and you can manipulate it to provide false information or even penetrate the sponsor.

But this is something that is part of the normal 'hacking" business. Every day we have countless attempts to try to penetrate even very high secure networks in the military which are constantly monitored and defended by software which is designed to identify such attacks. And there are constant updates for both the "attack" and the "defense"
 
Last edited:
But this is something that is part of the normal 'hacking" business. Every day we have countless attempts to try to penetrate even very high secure networks in the military which are constantly monitored and defended by software which is designed to identify such attacks.

No. This is an entirely different level.
 
No. This is an entirely different level.

Well, as I said from the beginning, I do not know much about hacking, so I will not insist on this because the clarification of your claim will require a very technical conversation (which I would not be able to follow anyway). I do accept that any type of Russian operation would not be risk free. It would be a judgment call based on the perceived (by the Russian policy makers) different probabilities of reward and costs under different scenarios.


And the scenario of having the FBI "colluding" with Trump and telling him to make controversial and potentially damaging political comments to help the FBI expose Russian activities could very well be assessed as a worst case scenario with very low probability compared to more probable scenarios, especially when Trump gave plenty pro-Russian signs during his campaign in general.
 
LOL, at least Trump is President of the USA. He affects our lives as such.

This Cortez dementia stuff is about a brown 28 year old girl who does not affect you. LOL

Trumpets, wild men on drugs.

bang bang, shoot em up Trumpies!

Yeah... first move shouldn't be to shoot your own foot, right out the gate.
It's good to see that more than enough of you still can't resist delegitimizing yourselves right from the start.
 
If wrongdoing occurred, then those responsible should be punished. Now let’s see Trump-cultists/AOC Derangement Syndrome sufferers say the same about Trump’s glaring wrongdoings

Yeah... imagined wrongdoings, aren't actually wrongdoings.
 
Well, as I said from the beginning, I do not know much about hacking, so I will not insist on this because the clarification of your claim will require a very technical conversation (which I would not be able to follow anyway). I do accept that any type of Russian operation would not be risk free. It would be a judgment call based on the perceived (by the Russian policy makers) different probabilities of reward and costs under different scenarios.


And the scenario of having the FBI "colluding" with Trump and telling him to make controversial and potentially damaging political comments to help the FBI expose Russian activities could very well be assessed as a worst case scenario with very low probability compared to more probable scenarios, especially when Trump gave plenty pro-Russian signs during his campaign in general.

From a Russian perspective every negative in your presentation can be a positive.
 
haha...love that you guys are getting all bunched in the pants over this.

So, which is it, American? Do you think she should be investigated, or do you think this "witch hunt" should stop?

:lol:

See the predicament having no standards has left you in? If you justify shady behavior in your president, you automatically justify it in everyone else. Guess y'all didn't think that through...

Of course, being a lefty, I can still say "Investigate", and not be laughed out of the room...and if I don't, I'm no worse than the right. Huh...how bout dat...

And another one just delegitimizes themselves right out the gate.... great.
 
Here's a suggestion: turn whataboutery into collaboration - show "the left" how serious they should be about AOC's alleged corruption through your own seriousness about Trump's alleged corruption. This whole AOC thing is relatively new, while you guys have been setting the bar with Trump for a while now... Why get hot and bothered about AOC, given the new standard of accountability established with Trump?

Oh, I have an answer for this. It's probably because the democrats would call for an investigation in response to Trump nearly doing anything and I mean anything. So you'll have to excuse us on not readily jumping into the whole "orange man bad" pool party.

Cortez on the other hand, is the precious child of the democratic party. Their future even, given their own words. It's far more interesting than someone saying that Trump should be investigated for simply having a morning BM.
 
Back
Top Bottom