Quote:
Originally Posted by ikalugin
Before we do this, you really shouldnt get worked up emotionally as this leads to attacks against my person rather than my arguments.
...
|
Oh, I assure you, I am most calm and measured in my demeanor; I have nothing to worry about other than the need to get to the truth of the matter, which can best be got at by investigation...
..and I have not made any personal attacks against you specifically, just the methodology of argument employed; if you take this as a personal affront, there is little I can do about it: bad argument is bad argument...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikalugin
...
The USG and US mainstream media one ofc regarding the elections overall. For example did FBI (or other agencies) claim that there was interference (ie hacking voting machines)?
...
|
No, but the NSA has:
From post #16 above --
Quote:
...
As a by-the-way, if there is any doubt of the very real possibility of foreign efforts to influence or tamper with the last Presidential elections, there is this:
Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election --
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/...2016-election/
The NSA has not denied the origin, authorship, or accuracy of the document; in fact, the person who leaked the report has been arrested and has confessed to copying and passing on the report. Here is a link to the actual document:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...arphishing.pdf
If there is any doubt of the need to settle the issue of foreign interference in the 2016 Elections and/or the active participation of US citizens in same, the above document should severely lessen any doubt. Who knew the greatest possible danger to the election process would come, not from home-grown "dead voters" but, rather, from foreign entities using modern technology? I don't know about anyone else, but the integrity of the election process is too important to just gloss over...
|
The provenance of the document is known and acknowledged; none of the agencies involved in the investigation of the leak, most notably the NSA, has expressed any doubt as to the authenticity of the document nor have they denied its actual existence. Other non-governmental intelligence experts have affirmed the document is real and have used the most elemental of clues to do so; the NSA has even acknowledged the copy was made on one of their internal machines through the very, very simple means of verifying the 'yellow dot' codes virtually all modern printers and copiers are required by US law to provide on all documents processed by those machines. So, we have the acknowledgement the document is a copy of an internal NSA report, we have the tacit acknowledgement, by virtue of the FBI arresting the 'leaker', that an actual theft of an official government document has occurred, and we have the fact neither the NSA nor any other investigative agency has openly or furtively denied the origin, content, or authenticity of the document. I fail to see a real substantive doubt anywhere in the mix. Can you provide documented, substantive evidence of any of the above to be false or would you like to have time to, you know, investigate?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikalugin
...
First of all there is a significant difference between influence and interference, as it was already described by Platapus there is no known evidence regarding Russian interference into the elections.
Secondly if we are discussing the influence then we are discussing degrees of influence Russia had over the US presidential elections as Russia would invariably have some degree of (indirect) influence by merely existing.
...
|
Still falling back on the weak leg: give us something solid...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikalugin
...
Thridly the "evidence" that you have posted in the past regarding the influence (ie DNC hack stuff) is weak, especially in regards to attribution, as I have said before. Morever in that specific example I would view evidence as tainted and thus not credible because it was provided by a third party with vested interests (crowdstrike).
|
Please be so kind as to be specific: what in the above, specifically and substantively, can you point to as being totally false? I have, at the very least, provided cites and sources and have done actual research for my comments, something your 'apples/oranges' arguments are sorely lacking. It is time to show your hand...
As I said at the top, I am not emotional about this, far from it; I am calm, confident of the substance of my arguments and evidence and am not fearful of defending the specifics. If you feel honest, open, factual presentations are a personal affront to you, there is nothing I can do about it; you, however, can aid your cause by giving actual, specific counters to what you fell is erroneous or false; arguing semantics is not a strong argument...
<O>