- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Thanks. I did some Googling, and find all kinds of information about Gucifer 2.0 in mid-June 2016 and his (their) connection to Russia...perhaps. And yet no outrage.No investigations. No accusations. Until Trump won. Does anyone else see this is disingenuous?
Gudifer 2.0 was the Russian hacker that hacked the DNC.
Yes, I don't think anyone who is not blindly loyal politically believes otherwise. Whether or not that assistance was solicited from the Trump campaign is the question which needs to be answered. Certainly there are numerous pieces of evidence to warrant investigation, but whether those pieces are coincidental or not has yet to be proven.
EDIT: To be clear, when I say there was Russian interference, I'm referring to their attempt to influence. I'm not stating they hacked voting booths or anything like that.
Because the administration did not want to interfere with the election
Right. OK for a supposed foreign power to interfere, but not an investigation to STOP it?? REALLY??
Thanks. I did some Googling, and find all kinds of information about Gucifer 2.0 in mid-June 2016 and his (their) connection to Russia...perhaps. And yet no outrage.No investigations. No accusations. Until Trump won. Does anyone else see this is disingenuous?
Watch the Senate Intelligence hearings and see if you still feel that way. I hate to agree with Dick Cheney, but this was an act of war.Ya' know, I have yet to read one thing that tells us what this supposed interference was. You got somethin'? Otherwise, you might reconsider what you're describing as dumb.
No...all we see is how clueless you are about current events.
Watch the Senate Intelligence hearings and see if you still feel that way. I hate to agree with Dick Cheney, but this was an act of war.
Hacking and releasing emails was only a small part of the effort. Simply put, the Russians have used highly sophisticated techniques to effectively brainwash politically influential portions of the US population. They targeted more than just Trump supporters too. They've used psy-ops to push Bernie Sanders and Occupy Wall Street. They do this by circulating lots of conspiratorial stories with local social media using bots, fake accounts, honey pots, etc.. The goal isn't to convince you that the stories they push are true, the goal is to make you distrust the reputable news sources that don't cover these conspiracies.
As an aside.. creating a conspiracy to push conspiracy theories to achieve a political aim is kind of brilliant.
The OP asked if their was Russian influence, not if there was 'attempted' Russian influence.
Thing is, Moot, they don't know WHO is behind Gucifer 2.0 by everything I read. He claims to be Romanian like the Gucifer psently in jail in the states. But there's sure nothing saying THAT'S true...
You insult yourself with your "disingenious" ignorance.Go insult someone else. Just because you don't have clear answers, doesn't mean I'm clueless. I'm trying to learn. You???
Imagine if you're investigating this pre-election. It was very clear that Trump was willing to parrot the news the Russian intelligence was pushing, but you don't know how far the coordination goes. The goal of the Russians was to undermine the election. It looks serious, but you assume like everyone else that Hillary is going to win. So as an investigator, your biggest fear isn't that the Russians influence the elections. Your biggest fear is that post election the Russian media can make it look like the US government was leaning on the political scales against Trump.Thanks. I did some Googling, and find all kinds of information about Gucifer 2.0 in mid-June 2016 and his (their) connection to Russia...perhaps. And yet no outrage.No investigations. No accusations. Until Trump won. Does anyone else see this is disingenuous?
Thanks. I did some Googling, and find all kinds of information about Gucifer 2.0 in mid-June 2016 and his (their) connection to Russia...perhaps. And yet no outrage.No investigations. No accusations. Until Trump won. Does anyone else see this is disingenuous?
Yes, I don't think anyone who is not blindly loyal politically believes otherwise. Whether or not that assistance was solicited from the Trump campaign is the question which needs to be answered. Certainly there are numerous pieces of evidence to warrant investigation, but whether those pieces are coincidental or not has yet to be proven.
EDIT: To be clear, when I say there was Russian interference, I'm referring to their attempt to influence. I'm not stating they hacked voting booths or anything like that.
You have got to be kidding. Wrong forum.
There's no doubt there was Russian influence...but whether or not it effected the outcome of the election isn't known...yet.
Thing is, Moot, they don't know WHO is behind Gucifer 2.0 by everything I read. He claims to be Romanian like the Gucifer psently in jail in the states. But there's sure nothing saying THAT'S true...
There seems to be quite a bit of doubt actually or these conversations wouldn't be happening.
There's no doubt the Russians tried to influence the election in Trumps favor....none...at least not by the sixteen intel agencies. But what they don't know is whether or not the Russians efforts were the reason that Trump won the election.
Guccifer 2.0 claims to be Romanian, but that claim doesn't hold up very well. He claims to not speak or write Russian, but was identified as using a Russian-language only VPN, and when pressed to speak Romanian it seemed more like he was using an online translator than was a native speaker.
Numerous Cybersecurity experts have linked Guccifer 2.0 with the Russian government. While I don't believe that Russia is directly responsible for the outcome of the election, I do find it surprising how many people are reluctant to believe that Russia would do something like this. It's par on the course for them.
It think its a little deeper than that.
I voted other because even though the Russians MAY have influenced the election to a small degree, they did not change the election results.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?