Donald Trump Backs Assange over Russian Hacking claims...

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Yes it did is hillary in office?

I suppose Hillary is bastion of all of America's corruption too! How naïve! If the hackers truly wanted to expose corruption within the US party system, they would have exposed the RNC too. They didn't. Makes you wonder, how much are blackmailers in exile making these days?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Lol he is an upstanding guy to the world hes risking his life to bring you the truth!

Oh really? IS that what he did? Is the government less abusive/intrusive because of it? More transparent? What did it get us and Chelsea Manning? What good did it do?

I say, pick your battles.

What data do you suppose Julian Assange got, from anywhere really, the man doesn't have scruples about where he gets his data from, obviously, that he deemed too sensitive for the mass public's eyes through his WikiLeaks site, and has sold to foreign governments or is blackmailing them with?

You guys act like Julian Assange is a superhero, and will only do good for mankind. The guy's a common criminal, with a price tag for everything. After all, Chelsea Manning is in prison, and Snowden, like Assange, is in exile. Looks like the intel knew who the hackers were then, and I'm sure they do now too.

What computer science degree do you have that would make you an expert on the subject matter of hacking? Interesting side note I have a degree in computer science in information security. I know more about the subject then most people. Please do tell me why you believe the russia hacked and gave information to wikileaks?

Did they traceroute it back to russia? Was there proxy's did they use the deepweb and thor? What hacking footprint was most telling of russian influence? was it just phishing or corporate espionage or was it a ddos or specific coded virus that allowed the dnc to be hacked? Please do tell im really looking forward to the data forensics that will link russia to the crime.

Assange says a 14-year-old could have hacked Democratic emails as he reveals John Podesta’s password was 'password'

Oh man...

originally posted by: Konduit
Assange says a 14-year-old could have hacked Democratic emails as he reveals John Podesta’s password was 'password'

Oh man...

a reply to: Sillyolme

So, what, should Trump cater to these people if he thinks that they're wrong?

Unfit would be agreeing just so that feathers aren't ruffled. Unfit would be agreeing to the conclusions, even though no proof is offered up with the conclusions.

Unfit would be jumping to conclusions and then having tantrum-esque knee-jerk reactions, like expelling Russian operatives from the country because of some unproven belief. Unfit is purposefully trying to sabotage the state of U.S. affairs with another country mere days before a different president (from your opposing party) will take over. Unfit would be doing actions as the sitting president that demonstrate a petty side driven by vindictiveness.

I'm not saying that Trump will be a ton better in that last department, but I'm just calling it like it is. "Unfit" can be demonstrated in many different ways.

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Lol he is an upstanding guy to the world hes risking his life to bring you the truth!



Oh really? IS that what he did? Is the government less abusive/intrusive because of it? More transparent? What did it get us and Chelsea Manning? What good did it do?

I say, pick your battles.

What data do you suppose Julian Assange got, from anywhere really, the man doesn't have scruples about where he gets his data from, obviously, that he deemed too sensitive for the mass public's eyes through his WikiLeaks site, and has sold to foreign governments or is blackmailing them with?

You guys act like Julian Assange is a superhero, and will only do good for mankind. The guy's a common criminal, with a price tag for everything. After all, Chelsea Manning is in prison, and Snowden, like Assange, is in exile. Looks like the intel knew who the hackers were then, and I'm sure they do now too.

What computer science degree do you have that would make you an expert on the subject matter of hacking? Interesting side note I have a degree in computer science in information security. I know more about the subject then most people. Please do tell me why you believe the russia hacked and gave information to wikileaks?

Did they traceroute it back to russia? Was there proxy's did they use the deepweb and thor? What hacking footprint was most telling of russian influence? was it just phishing or corporate espionage or was it a ddos or specific coded virus that allowed the dnc to be hacked? Please do tell im really looking forward to the data forensics that will link russia to the crime.

Pure deflection!

What makes Julian Assange an expert and an arbiter on what the public should know and have access to? What does he do with the information that he gets that he deems too sensitive, or of personal value for blackmail/leverage, in order to withhold that sensitive information from the public's eye?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Unfit is saying the intel community is wrong before attending the briefing.

Unfit is Trump saying that he knows what the intel community does not.

Unfit is announcing to the American people that you reject US intel based on the last Republican liar administration that was in office 16 years ago, and therefore have the right to undermine and belittle the current President's actions.

Unfit is praising Putin's "smarts" for waiting for Trump to take office and roll over as the truly weaker president, so that Putin can come back and do whatever he wants.

originally posted by: introvert

What does Silly's will have to do with the topic?

She is correct that Trump is casting a lot of doubt on US intelligence agencies and that is not a wise decision considering the relationship he needs to have with them moving forward.

He sure is. And so is most of the country and even outsiders. So far, Assange and Wiki leaks has been truthful. So far, Obama's admin has been less than truthful. At this moment, we have two vastly different narratives on the leaked e-mails.

We have Wikileaks saying the leaked mails came from a source that was not Russia. It's just too easy to tell the truth on this, if they were from Russia. it would be the easiest way to go about things. To lie and go against the US government is a risky position to take, unless you are certain you are in the right. (IMHO)

Also, we have Obama's entire staff of spies and analysts claiming it was a Russian Hack, but they can't divulge any facts on how they know this, we are just going to have to "trust them".

You are free to trust whomever you like. I believe Assange is closer too the truth than Obama, but my opinion means just about as much as yours does. (about zero)

If Russia Hacked the DNC, and released the e-mails that show how corrupt they were, is that a bad thing, or a good thing? And please explain your answer.

a reply to: windword

Its deflection to address the topic we are discussing and explain why you believe the intel from the intelligence community is correct based off your understanding? Lol let me ask you a question if you got your hands on the actual report could you even grasp what it was telling you considering its going to be filled with technical jargon? Or are you just taking there word as pure truth? My guess would be option 2 solely because it fits your preconceived notion that trump somehow cheated.

And for someone who seems to hate trump this russia hacked the elections thing is turning into a liberal birther movement. It would seem you have more in common with the president then you know lol

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Julian Assange may or may not know who the hacked emails actually came from.

I believe the intelligence agencies of my own government over a person who has made a living selling stolen government secrets.

Our intel agency weren't questioned when they claimed that N. Korea hacked Sony, or when China hacked the US civil servant data base. Why would I doubt them now?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Unfit is saying the intel community is wrong before attending the briefing.

Unfit is Trump saying that he knows what the intel community does not.

Well, if you're going to even attempt to be slightly fair, here, the intel community still doesn't have proof of anything, just a belief that the Russians had a hand in it, unless something has changed since the last time that I blinked.

Unfit is announcing to the American people that you reject US intel based on the last Republican liar administration that was in office 16 years ago, and therefore have the right to undermine and belittle the current President's actions.

I'm not sure what you're really referencing here, as this comment was oddly worded, but any president-elect has the ability to undermine and belittle the sitting president. I'm not saying that they necessarily should, but the ability is there and isn't necessarily a metric of being "unfit" if the undermining and belittling has some sort of merit. I don't regard a lack of political correctness in how one speaks about someone else as being unfit for much in life.

Unfit is praising Putin's "smarts" for waiting for Trump to take office and roll over as the truly weaker president, so that Putin can come back and do whatever he wants.

No, that is intelligent on Putin's part, especially if he thinks that Obama's replacement will approach the issue differently. That's called diplomacy, which is smart. Your comment is full of biased spin and unverifiable soothsaying, but if that makes you happy, keep at it, just do it with someone else who cares to continue such childish banter.

At least you didn't deny the reality of the "unfit" ways that Obama is currently acting, so at least there's that glimmer of hope.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: digital01anarchy

I believe the intelligence agencies of my own government over a person who has made a living selling stolen government secrets.

So you believe government-sponsored intelligence agencies, who have a history of misinformation and outright lies, over someone who is privy to actual government secrets and releases them to the public.

I'm beginning to see what's wrong with your thought process on this topic.

Personally, I view them both with a skeptical eye, but tend to go with the group (or person) making the claim that really gains nothing from what is claimed. The intelligence agencies (and, therefore, the government) gains a lot by claiming a supposed enemy/unfriendly nation is hacking a rigging an election when the election ended in an unfavorable way for the sitting administration tasked with administering said intelligence agencies. It's fear-mongering 101 for dummies, and it's been effective on too many people.

Assange really has nothing to gain claiming that the source of his info was a disgruntled DNC employee, unless, of course, you're implying that he was threatened by Russia in a way that forced him to say such things.

a reply to: windword

are you serious........
you believe what governments tell you, and thats the truth.
seriously though, you need to stop believing everything that doesn't
damage your fragile little bubble, burst that bubble yourself, try it, try and look at things from different angles.
but to believe that your government is honest, is crazy.
delusional even..

Considering our "intelligence" agencies have a horrid track record, I have problems believing anything they say. Honestly, I have a problem believing anything anybody says, especially when the proof doesn't add up, or is manufactured, or doctored.

In my quest to lighten the mood a few memes




Can someone please photoshop putins face on the fisherman from the state farm commercial?

a reply to: digital01anarchy

I am no good at PS, but that is a tremendous idea.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, if you're going to even attempt to be slightly fair, here, the intel community still doesn't have proof of anything,

They have compelling evidence.

just a belief that the Russians had a hand in it

Please. This isn't religion.

No, that is intelligent on Putin's part, especially if he thinks that Obama's replacement will approach the issue differently. That's called diplomacy, which is smart.

For 8 years Congress has been criticizing the Obama administration of placing the spirit "diplomacy" over the harsh sanctions that they've been asking for.

Now that Obama has done that, and imposed sanctions of Russia after the election so as not to influence it, you are complaining about diplomacy? LOL

At least you didn't deny the reality of the "unfit" ways that Obama is currently acting, so at least there's that glimmer of hope.

Well then, let me make that clear to you now. I have no problem whatsoever with what our current president is doing to protect our nation and his legacy. I do have a problem with the president elect pretending that we have 2 presidents at one time, trying to railroad the one in office with his naïve interference in national security.

a reply to: Davg80

are you serious........
you believe what governments tell you, and thats the truth.

I have no reason to doubt them on this, and every reason to suspect that Assange is not telling us the whole truth. There are compelling reasons why Trump would rather side with a known criminal than with his own country's intelligence, that suggests his election to be just a tiny bit rigged.

Do you doubt that N Korea was behind the Sony hack, and that China was behind the US civil servant data base hack? Why, or why not?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So you believe government-sponsored intelligence agencies, who have a history of misinformation and outright lies, over someone who is privy to actual government secrets and releases them to the public.

What misinformation and lies are you talking about? Our government has no obligation to divulge classified information to the general public for their approval before taking action.

Confirmation bias is all I get out of this.