Similarly, if your house gets burglarized, it's your fault for not making the house more secure. If you're the victim of a violent crime, it's your fault for inadequately defending yourself. If you get bilked out of your life savings, it's your fault for not being more careful.
In all of these cases, there's someone perpetrating a hostile act against you, and I'd say it's the perpetrator's fault. Taking inadequate precautions may be unwise, but it isn't in itself blameworthy.
Is this different just because it's on a computer?
The important thing is whether this is an act of cyberwar, not whether it can be proven so to the public without compromising US capability. Putin knows, and if he knows Russia did this and there was retaliation that's the important thing.
Not that I trust the government, but I don't distrust them either. It seems likely to me that there is evidence that we haven't seen that would convince us. I sure don't know enough to justify retaliation, but people in the government may.
The unfortunate thing is that we won't find out until it's long past.
The unusual thing is not that this is an act of cyberwar, but that it's a public act of cyberwar. If it is to be countered, it should be done publicly. The actual counterstrike, if there is one, will not be announced in advance, but the intention can be revealed now.
Show me then a single word in lucm's post that is wrong.
Show me a single word that has clear evidence behind it. Let's look at lucm's claims:
Obama (apparently) sees the Federal government as his own personal army. To start with, I really don't understand that statement; What does "[seeing] the Federal government as his own personal army" really mean? Disregarding that, we have the unsupported statement that Clinton would be much worse (presumably her vision of the Federal government).
Clinton is apparently supposed to be planning to "monetize the Presidency again", which is another thing that sounds like it should be bad but which I don't really understand. She's the spawn of Satan, which I rather doubt, and the claim that there's a trail of corpses behind her is just malicious speculation.
If you haven't seen anything that lends the slightest bit of credibility to the claim, you haven't been looking. There's not nearly enough evidence publicly available to arrive at a conclusion, but there's some pointing in the direction of Russia. The US government has a lot more knowledge of what's going on than you or I do, so it seems reasonable to me that they might have good evidence for what they say. I gave up trusting US intelligence agencies for good in 2003, but I consider it likely in most cases that they would be telling the truth.
If this was a state-sponsored Russian attack, it's a public one, so I think we need to take it seriously and retaliate in some way if that's the case.
.
Back in '03, I was seeing evidence that Iraq didn't have a real WMD program (I knew they'd gotten some from us earlier), and Bush seemed to want to attack Iraq for his own reasons. Currently, I wouldn't expect to be seeing significant evidence that Russia wasn't behind it, but I've seen no indication that Obama wants to pick a fight with Russia either. I had better evidence that the case against Iraq was faked than the case against Russia, for whatever that's worth.
Yup, the one that accurately said Clinton did nothing worth bringing charges over.
Thing is, I've looked at cases of negligence with classified material, and they aren't criminally prosecuted. (There was this one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but was let off that, and that's the closest I've found.) You may think such negligence should be criminally prosecuted, and I'm OK with that, but the fact is that it isn't, and that prosecuting Clinton would have been an unprecedented move for political reasons.
If there is evidence of criminality in Trump's tax returns, he'd be audited, which he is. Nobody should be assumed to have done anything bad just because he or she is being audited, but Trump isn't going to get prosecuted unless and until the IRS has the illegal behavior nailed down. The government isn't in a tremendous hurry to prosecute tax evasion.
What I find interesting is that he apparently can't make a profit, and thus apparently owes no taxes. He presents himself as a successful businessman, but there's good reasons to doubt that.
It's normal for investigative bodies to not release all their evidence. I'm not going to take them at face value (*cough*IraqiWMD*cough*), but they do have more information than you or I do. What you and I know is that the attack at least went into Russia, there's some evidence in what code we've got, and there are apparently similarities between this attack and some attacks strongly believed to be Russian state-sponsored. I'm not ruling it out.
Obama is also making a diplomatic matter of this, which means he takes it very seriously (for whatever reasons), and I don't remember him seeming eager to get into more open conflict with Russia (in contrast to Bush, who did seem to want to pick a war with Iraq).
I also have no reason to trust anything in particular in the released emails, since I distrust Russia, Assange, and anyone who would hack into a political organization during campaign season.
There are sites that are not worth going to, because you know they'll slant things their way and make up things freely. Breitbart is one of those on the right wing. There are others, mostly on the right or left wings.
The primaries (plural) were not rigged. IIRC, Sanders generally did better in states that selected delegates through caucuses, which suggests that Clinton had broader support but Sanders had more dedicated support. The DNC slanted things toward Clinton, but having the party establishment have some say in who gets nominated is good, and making the more fringe candidates prove themselves more is reasonable.
Come on, only the people who know what they're talking about tries to claim Hitler was far right,
Fixed that for you.
However, I have to admit that, if unicorns are green, the Moon is symphonic. You have taken a list of things that you project on Nazi Germany, many of which have nothing to do with socialism, and concluded that National Socialism was in some sense leftist or socialist. There was a socialist, possibly leftist, wing to the party, but that was eliminated in the 1930s. The party after that was dictatorial and nationalist and heavily capitalistic, and is therefore classified as right-wing. Until 1944, Germany's war economy was less centrally controlled than that of the US or UK. Some things were regulated, some essentially weren't. There was no particular rhyme or reason to this.
Why would you think I don't know about asymmetric warfare? The US government claim is that this was a state-sponsored attack from Russia, and a country attacking another country's citizens like that isn't asymmetric. Asymmetric would be something like Assange hacking in without permission from his Ecuadorian keepers.
Cherrypicking happens, whether you like it or not. Modern media typically finds excerpts, because you can't read an entire speech in a three-minute news slot, nor fit it on a newspaper or web page above the fold. Anyone who frequently says sentences that he or she doesn't mean is going to have serious problems in politics, government, and diplomacy. You're telling me that Trump's speeches have to be read in entirety and analyzed carefully. That isn't going to happen, and when (for example) he criticizes a judge who is a native-born US citizen for being of Mexican ancestry, he is going to offend people and create diplomatic incidents, and it's his fault.
I take it you have managed to get full legal responses from both Clinton and Trump, because one element of US jurisprudence is that the defendant gets to defend himself or herself. I think that the fraud charges about Trump U are likely to stick, and Trump is likely to be convicted, but I haven't heard Trump's side of it in detail, and he's not going to present his defense where I can see it (unless I'm at the actual trial), so I am not going to conclude that he's guilty based on what I've got. The US justice system may be somewhat corrupt, but it's a whole lot better than judging someone from afar.
I read your cites, and reported on them. If you have cites that actually say what you want them to, you should post them instead, rather than trying to insult me for taking you seriously and reading the stuff you posted and referred to.
Yes, there's that "let you". I know a person who knew a woman whose baby was threatened by a home intruder. She let him do anything he wanted. By your reasoning, that's not rape or assault.
I fail to see in what way extreme carelessness that results in something bad isn't negligence.
I said that those who were negligent with classified material weren't prosecuted. Clinton was negligent with classified material. Therefore, Clinton was not prosecuted.
In response, you post an article that talks about several people who deliberately violated the law, and were prosecuted. That proves nothing, since we already knew that people who intentionally committed such an act got prosecuted, and it has absolutely nothing to do with negligence.
The case was decided by the FBI not finding intentional violation of the laws governing classified material, and the fact that prosecuting Clinton despite the fact that such people have never been prosecuted would have been a flagrant political act.
For the record, people who were negligent with classified data have not been prosecuted. That applies to everyone, as far as I've been able to find.
The criterion seems to be if the mishandling of classified material was a deliberate action or just negligence. Clinton was negligent, and was therefore treated like anyone else would have been. Feel free to have whatever opinion you like about that criterion, but it does exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Similarly, if your house gets burglarized, it's your fault for not making the house more secure. If you're the victim of a violent crime, it's your fault for inadequately defending yourself. If you get bilked out of your life savings, it's your fault for not being more careful.
In all of these cases, there's someone perpetrating a hostile act against you, and I'd say it's the perpetrator's fault. Taking inadequate precautions may be unwise, but it isn't in itself blameworthy.
Is this different just because it's on a computer?
It's a tool for lots of things. One of them is propagandizing geeks.
The important thing is whether this is an act of cyberwar, not whether it can be proven so to the public without compromising US capability. Putin knows, and if he knows Russia did this and there was retaliation that's the important thing.
Not that I trust the government, but I don't distrust them either. It seems likely to me that there is evidence that we haven't seen that would convince us. I sure don't know enough to justify retaliation, but people in the government may.
The unfortunate thing is that we won't find out until it's long past.
All the leaks have been proven authentic? The ones not independently verified can't be trusted.
The unusual thing is not that this is an act of cyberwar, but that it's a public act of cyberwar. If it is to be countered, it should be done publicly. The actual counterstrike, if there is one, will not be announced in advance, but the intention can be revealed now.
Show me a single word that has clear evidence behind it. Let's look at lucm's claims:
Obama (apparently) sees the Federal government as his own personal army. To start with, I really don't understand that statement; What does "[seeing] the Federal government as his own personal army" really mean? Disregarding that, we have the unsupported statement that Clinton would be much worse (presumably her vision of the Federal government).
Clinton is apparently supposed to be planning to "monetize the Presidency again", which is another thing that sounds like it should be bad but which I don't really understand. She's the spawn of Satan, which I rather doubt, and the claim that there's a trail of corpses behind her is just malicious speculation.
If you haven't seen anything that lends the slightest bit of credibility to the claim, you haven't been looking. There's not nearly enough evidence publicly available to arrive at a conclusion, but there's some pointing in the direction of Russia. The US government has a lot more knowledge of what's going on than you or I do, so it seems reasonable to me that they might have good evidence for what they say. I gave up trusting US intelligence agencies for good in 2003, but I consider it likely in most cases that they would be telling the truth.
If this was a state-sponsored Russian attack, it's a public one, so I think we need to take it seriously and retaliate in some way if that's the case. .
Back in '03, I was seeing evidence that Iraq didn't have a real WMD program (I knew they'd gotten some from us earlier), and Bush seemed to want to attack Iraq for his own reasons. Currently, I wouldn't expect to be seeing significant evidence that Russia wasn't behind it, but I've seen no indication that Obama wants to pick a fight with Russia either. I had better evidence that the case against Iraq was faked than the case against Russia, for whatever that's worth.
Clinton is honest for a politician, near as I can tell. Unfortunately, this isn't a high bar.
Yup, the one that accurately said Clinton did nothing worth bringing charges over.
Thing is, I've looked at cases of negligence with classified material, and they aren't criminally prosecuted. (There was this one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but was let off that, and that's the closest I've found.) You may think such negligence should be criminally prosecuted, and I'm OK with that, but the fact is that it isn't, and that prosecuting Clinton would have been an unprecedented move for political reasons.
Congressional transcripts are reliable. Wikileaks isn't.
If there is evidence of criminality in Trump's tax returns, he'd be audited, which he is. Nobody should be assumed to have done anything bad just because he or she is being audited, but Trump isn't going to get prosecuted unless and until the IRS has the illegal behavior nailed down. The government isn't in a tremendous hurry to prosecute tax evasion.
What I find interesting is that he apparently can't make a profit, and thus apparently owes no taxes. He presents himself as a successful businessman, but there's good reasons to doubt that.
It's normal for investigative bodies to not release all their evidence. I'm not going to take them at face value (*cough*IraqiWMD*cough*), but they do have more information than you or I do. What you and I know is that the attack at least went into Russia, there's some evidence in what code we've got, and there are apparently similarities between this attack and some attacks strongly believed to be Russian state-sponsored. I'm not ruling it out.
Obama is also making a diplomatic matter of this, which means he takes it very seriously (for whatever reasons), and I don't remember him seeming eager to get into more open conflict with Russia (in contrast to Bush, who did seem to want to pick a war with Iraq).
I also have no reason to trust anything in particular in the released emails, since I distrust Russia, Assange, and anyone who would hack into a political organization during campaign season.
There are sites that are not worth going to, because you know they'll slant things their way and make up things freely. Breitbart is one of those on the right wing. There are others, mostly on the right or left wings.
The primaries (plural) were not rigged. IIRC, Sanders generally did better in states that selected delegates through caucuses, which suggests that Clinton had broader support but Sanders had more dedicated support. The DNC slanted things toward Clinton, but having the party establishment have some say in who gets nominated is good, and making the more fringe candidates prove themselves more is reasonable.
However, Trump is a much bigger and more prolific liar, even assuming that all your claims are true, so I suppose you mean we should vote for Clinton.
Fixed that for you.
However, I have to admit that, if unicorns are green, the Moon is symphonic. You have taken a list of things that you project on Nazi Germany, many of which have nothing to do with socialism, and concluded that National Socialism was in some sense leftist or socialist. There was a socialist, possibly leftist, wing to the party, but that was eliminated in the 1930s. The party after that was dictatorial and nationalist and heavily capitalistic, and is therefore classified as right-wing. Until 1944, Germany's war economy was less centrally controlled than that of the US or UK. Some things were regulated, some essentially weren't. There was no particular rhyme or reason to this.
Why would you think I don't know about asymmetric warfare? The US government claim is that this was a state-sponsored attack from Russia, and a country attacking another country's citizens like that isn't asymmetric. Asymmetric would be something like Assange hacking in without permission from his Ecuadorian keepers.
Cherrypicking happens, whether you like it or not. Modern media typically finds excerpts, because you can't read an entire speech in a three-minute news slot, nor fit it on a newspaper or web page above the fold. Anyone who frequently says sentences that he or she doesn't mean is going to have serious problems in politics, government, and diplomacy. You're telling me that Trump's speeches have to be read in entirety and analyzed carefully. That isn't going to happen, and when (for example) he criticizes a judge who is a native-born US citizen for being of Mexican ancestry, he is going to offend people and create diplomatic incidents, and it's his fault.
I take it you have managed to get full legal responses from both Clinton and Trump, because one element of US jurisprudence is that the defendant gets to defend himself or herself. I think that the fraud charges about Trump U are likely to stick, and Trump is likely to be convicted, but I haven't heard Trump's side of it in detail, and he's not going to present his defense where I can see it (unless I'm at the actual trial), so I am not going to conclude that he's guilty based on what I've got. The US justice system may be somewhat corrupt, but it's a whole lot better than judging someone from afar.
I read your cites, and reported on them. If you have cites that actually say what you want them to, you should post them instead, rather than trying to insult me for taking you seriously and reading the stuff you posted and referred to.
Yes, there's that "let you". I know a person who knew a woman whose baby was threatened by a home intruder. She let him do anything he wanted. By your reasoning, that's not rape or assault.
It does look like a bribe, doesn't it? Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll see about digging further.
I fail to see in what way extreme carelessness that results in something bad isn't negligence.
I said that those who were negligent with classified material weren't prosecuted. Clinton was negligent with classified material. Therefore, Clinton was not prosecuted.
In response, you post an article that talks about several people who deliberately violated the law, and were prosecuted. That proves nothing, since we already knew that people who intentionally committed such an act got prosecuted, and it has absolutely nothing to do with negligence.
The case was decided by the FBI not finding intentional violation of the laws governing classified material, and the fact that prosecuting Clinton despite the fact that such people have never been prosecuted would have been a flagrant political act.
For the record, people who were negligent with classified data have not been prosecuted. That applies to everyone, as far as I've been able to find.
The criterion seems to be if the mishandling of classified material was a deliberate action or just negligence. Clinton was negligent, and was therefore treated like anyone else would have been. Feel free to have whatever opinion you like about that criterion, but it does exist.
Could I get more details on the Tyson thing, such as when and a little more of what? I'd like to poke into that a little.