-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial ha ha - You know I was being sarcastic.
I'd also like to know how the emails of Don Jr and Goldstone ended up in the hands of the NY Times.
That's an interesting point. Who leaked them and why, although the who will probably tell you the why. However the leakings themselves do not absolve Don Jnr's behaviour. The two issues are different but connected. You couldn't have had the leaks if he hadn't have acted like a clown.
A clown??
Because he wanted to find out what dirt this lawyer has on Clinton?No. A clown because he put himself and by association his father in a potentially compromising position. Dopey behaviour.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
What it means is the Trump administration has been caught red handed doing exactly this. As far as I know, theres no proven ongoing pattern that all other campaigns have intended to take intel from foreign adversaries in order to influence elections. Further to that, even if there were isolated cases, it still wouldnt excuse the Trump administration.
Never said it excused the Trump administration. I said Trump Jr was stupid. There is no proven pattern because most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks. It's laughable to claim this has never happened before.
Well I agree with you there, Trump Jr is indeed stupid.
I don't buy your "most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks" - the head of the Clinton campaigns email was compromised after a successful phishing attack after all. Its been my experience that most people are not savvy with digital security at all and I've not seen anything to suggest that those involved in a campaign are any different.
On what grounds do you believe most campaigns are smart enough to cover their tracks?Right, so if Chelsea Clinton gets a similar inquiry, she immediately rings the Feds? Bullshit Phonetia?
On the grounds they rarely or ever get caught. Or are you so naive that you believe US election campaigns are totally ethical and above-board?
I suspect Chelsea Clinton has more integrity than Don Jr and only she could answer that question for you but I assume you wouldnt believe her anyway so its a pointless question to ask.
The problem with your reasoning is in the past election alone, the two major campaigns showed themselves to be anything but smart enough to cover their tracks. The absence of a pattern is not evidence that they must be covering their tracks in much the same way that it also isnt evidence that they are ethical and above board. The only evidence we have of tracks being covered is Don Jrs ongoing lies and Kushners repeat misreportings.
I suspect all campaigns play loose and fast with the rules to varying degrees however I thought it very unlikely that a campaign would wilfully engage a rival world power / foreign adversary in order to improve their chances of winning an election. It just seemed too far fetched to be true and it still does - yet here we are.
Why would you suspect Chelsea Clinton has more integrity? Is that based on her parents? Because we all know what beacons of integrity they are.
Wilfully engage a foreign power? JR was offered dirt and was willing to hear about it. It's not like he was sitting with Vlad at the Kremlin pouring over a campaign map. Get a grip.
Just because Podesta got hacked isn't evidence that nothing untoward occurs. Like I said, they erect firewalls when concerning this kind if thing. Don Jr didn't.
Its on account of having only ever seen Don Jr repeatedly lying and trying to cover his ass. Ive never seen Chelsea do that. 2bh I dont even know wtf Chelsea has to do with any of this, its just some strange meaningless deflection of yours that leads no where.
Yeah dirt was offered from who he thought to be a foreign adversary and he jumped at the opportunity. No one mentioned Vlad or the Kremlin. You might not like the language but its fact. Deal with it.
I used Podesta as an illustration of a campaign not being digitally smart being that they fell for a phishing attack and saw their emails compromised as a result. I'm not sure what point you think you're making there.
You've mentioned firewalls a couple of times now - I'm curious, how do you think Don Jr might have used a firewall to allow him to cover his tracks?So just to summarize. Representatives of foreign countries have never soliticited dirt to representatives of candidates, and if they had this would naturally have been reported to the feds. Chelsea Clinton would have course done this because she's a Clinton and Clinton's never do anything dodgy. They wouldn't even think of meeting with such a person because "the ends justifies the means" is totally foreign to them.
As for firewalls. That should be pretty obvious. Don't answer the email yourself. Get someone else to investigate and vet this person. Don't meet with them in person. Etc etc etc. But yeah, Podesta was hacked so that must mean no one has the ken to successfully execute the above. Or something.
That summary is misrepresentations and deflection. Chelsea Clinton has nothing to do with this. No one claimed its never happened.
No, its really not obvious and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls are a security measure used to manage inbound and outbound traffic. One might use a firewall to augment their defence against hackers (amongst other reasons) but it would offer limited protection against a phishing attack. I have no idea how one might use a firewall to cover their tracks though. No one ever said "I need to be covert so I don't get caught, better get me a firewall". If Don Jr wanted to engage in discrete secure digital communications, he might have used a tor client through numerous anonymous vpns to drop off pgp encrypted messages however thats beyond the ability of IT novices. Perhaps he could have used an encrypted email service... At the very least, he might have anonymously bought a new device and installed signal / telegram / viber / whatsapp etc which is very easy to do. All that being said, its still not bulletproof so codeword substitutions are a further obfuscation measure that could be undertaken.Podesta was the victim of a phishing attack - he asked an assistant if an email was legitimate, the assistant recognised it was illegitimate and erroneously replied "its legitimate" facepalm.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
What it means is the Trump administration has been caught red handed doing exactly this. As far as I know, theres no proven ongoing pattern that all other campaigns have intended to take intel from foreign adversaries in order to influence elections. Further to that, even if there were isolated cases, it still wouldnt excuse the Trump administration.
Never said it excused the Trump administration. I said Trump Jr was stupid. There is no proven pattern because most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks. It's laughable to claim this has never happened before.
Well I agree with you there, Trump Jr is indeed stupid.
I don't buy your "most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks" - the head of the Clinton campaigns email was compromised after a successful phishing attack after all. Its been my experience that most people are not savvy with digital security at all and I've not seen anything to suggest that those involved in a campaign are any different.
On what grounds do you believe most campaigns are smart enough to cover their tracks?Right, so if Chelsea Clinton gets a similar inquiry, she immediately rings the Feds? Bullshit Phonetia?
On the grounds they rarely or ever get caught. Or are you so naive that you believe US election campaigns are totally ethical and above-board?
I suspect Chelsea Clinton has more integrity than Don Jr and only she could answer that question for you but I assume you wouldnt believe her anyway so its a pointless question to ask.
The problem with your reasoning is in the past election alone, the two major campaigns showed themselves to be anything but smart enough to cover their tracks. The absence of a pattern is not evidence that they must be covering their tracks in much the same way that it also isnt evidence that they are ethical and above board. The only evidence we have of tracks being covered is Don Jrs ongoing lies and Kushners repeat misreportings.
I suspect all campaigns play loose and fast with the rules to varying degrees however I thought it very unlikely that a campaign would wilfully engage a rival world power / foreign adversary in order to improve their chances of winning an election. It just seemed too far fetched to be true and it still does - yet here we are.
Why would you suspect Chelsea Clinton has more integrity? Is that based on her parents? Because we all know what beacons of integrity they are.
Wilfully engage a foreign power? JR was offered dirt and was willing to hear about it. It's not like he was sitting with Vlad at the Kremlin pouring over a campaign map. Get a grip.
Just because Podesta got hacked isn't evidence that nothing untoward occurs. Like I said, they erect firewalls when concerning this kind if thing. Don Jr didn't.
Its on account of having only ever seen Don Jr repeatedly lying and trying to cover his ass. Ive never seen Chelsea do that. 2bh I dont even know wtf Chelsea has to do with any of this, its just some strange meaningless deflection of yours that leads no where.
Yeah dirt was offered from who he thought to be a foreign adversary and he jumped at the opportunity. No one mentioned Vlad or the Kremlin. You might not like the language but its fact. Deal with it.
I used Podesta as an illustration of a campaign not being digitally smart being that they fell for a phishing attack and saw their emails compromised as a result. I'm not sure what point you think you're making there.
You've mentioned firewalls a couple of times now - I'm curious, how do you think Don Jr might have used a firewall to allow him to cover his tracks?So just to summarize. Representatives of foreign countries have never soliticited dirt to representatives of candidates, and if they had this would naturally have been reported to the feds. Chelsea Clinton would have course done this because she's a Clinton and Clinton's never do anything dodgy. They wouldn't even think of meeting with such a person because "the ends justifies the means" is totally foreign to them.
As for firewalls. That should be pretty obvious. Don't answer the email yourself. Get someone else to investigate and vet this person. Don't meet with them in person. Etc etc etc. But yeah, Podesta was hacked so that must mean no one has the ken to successfully execute the above. Or something.
That summary is misrepresentations and deflection. Chelsea Clinton has nothing to do with this. No one claimed its never happened.
No, its really not obvious and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls are a security measure used to manage inbound and outbound traffic. One might use a firewall to augment their defence against hackers (amongst other reasons) but it would offer limited protection against a phishing attack. I have no idea how one might use a firewall to cover their tracks though. No one ever said "I need to be covert so I don't get caught, better get me a firewall". If Don Jr wanted to engage in discrete secure digital communications, he might have used a tor client through numerous anonymous vpns to drop off pgp encrypted messages however thats beyond the ability of IT novices. Perhaps he could have used an encrypted email service... At the very least, he might have anonymously bought a new device and installed signal / telegram / viber / whatsapp etc which is very easy to do. All that being said, its still not bulletproof so codeword substitutions are a further obfuscation measure that could be undertaken.Podesta was the victim of a phishing attack - he asked an assistant if an email was legitimate, the assistant recognised it was illegitimate and erroneously replied "its legitimate" facepalm.
I was talking about firewalls from themselves being implicated not in a bloody IT context. I'm done wasting time on you.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
That summary is misrepresentations and deflection. Chelsea Clinton has nothing to do with this. No one claimed its never happened.
No, its really not obvious and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls are a security measure used to manage inbound and outbound traffic. One might use a firewall to augment their defence against hackers (amongst other reasons) but it would offer limited protection against a phishing attack. I have no idea how one might use a firewall to cover their tracks though. No one ever said "I need to be covert so I don't get caught, better get me a firewall". If Don Jr wanted to engage in discrete secure digital communications, he might have used a tor client through numerous anonymous vpns to drop off pgp encrypted messages however thats beyond the ability of IT novices. Perhaps he could have used an encrypted email service... At the very least, he might have anonymously bought a new device and installed signal / telegram / viber / whatsapp etc which is very easy to do. All that being said, its still not bulletproof so codeword substitutions are a further obfuscation measure that could be undertaken.Podesta was the victim of a phishing attack - he asked an assistant if an email was legitimate, the assistant recognised it was illegitimate and erroneously replied "its legitimate" facepalm.
I was talking about firewalls from themselves being implicated not in a bloody IT context. I'm done wasting time on you.
😂 Ive never known anyone to use the term firewall in that context.
Chinese Walls, yeah maybe, its not a great fit but its a much better fit than firewall and certainly less misleading.
I thought to myself "maybe theres some obscure use of firewall that Im not aware of" but even wikipedia has no idea what you are talking about. -
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
That summary is misrepresentations and deflection. Chelsea Clinton has nothing to do with this. No one claimed its never happened.
No, its really not obvious and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls are a security measure used to manage inbound and outbound traffic. One might use a firewall to augment their defence against hackers (amongst other reasons) but it would offer limited protection against a phishing attack. I have no idea how one might use a firewall to cover their tracks though. No one ever said "I need to be covert so I don't get caught, better get me a firewall". If Don Jr wanted to engage in discrete secure digital communications, he might have used a tor client through numerous anonymous vpns to drop off pgp encrypted messages however thats beyond the ability of IT novices. Perhaps he could have used an encrypted email service... At the very least, he might have anonymously bought a new device and installed signal / telegram / viber / whatsapp etc which is very easy to do. All that being said, its still not bulletproof so codeword substitutions are a further obfuscation measure that could be undertaken.Podesta was the victim of a phishing attack - he asked an assistant if an email was legitimate, the assistant recognised it was illegitimate and erroneously replied "its legitimate" facepalm.
I was talking about firewalls from themselves being implicated not in a bloody IT context. I'm done wasting time on you.
😂 Ive never known anyone to use the term firewall in that context.
Chinese Walls, yeah maybe, its not a great fit but its a much better fit than firewall and certainly less misleading.
I thought to myself "maybe theres some obscure use of firewall that Im not aware of" but even wikipedia has no idea what you are talking about.You asked what I meant by firewall and I answered. I can't help it if you then waste time typing IT porn and reading wikipedia.
One now knows what one meant bro.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial ha ha - You know I was being sarcastic.
I'd also like to know how the emails of Don Jr and Goldstone ended up in the hands of the NY Times.
That's an interesting point. Who leaked them and why, although the who will probably tell you the why. However the leakings themselves do not absolve Don Jnr's behaviour. The two issues are different but connected. You couldn't have had the leaks if he hadn't have acted like a clown.
A clown??
Because he wanted to find out what dirt this lawyer has on Clinton?No, because the lawyer stated the information was part of Russian Govt support and he still wanted it.
Well that is completely and utterly wrong. Where do you get your information from?
It isn't completely and utterly wrong and you know it. Yes, I erred in typing lawyer instead of 'lawyer's go-between' but the point that the information was said to be part of support from the Russian govt and he still went ahead was the relevant part of the response.
-
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial ha ha - You know I was being sarcastic.
I'd also like to know how the emails of Don Jr and Goldstone ended up in the hands of the NY Times.
That's an interesting point. Who leaked them and why, although the who will probably tell you the why. However the leakings themselves do not absolve Don Jnr's behaviour. The two issues are different but connected. You couldn't have had the leaks if he hadn't have acted like a clown.
A clown??
Because he wanted to find out what dirt this lawyer has on Clinton?No, because the lawyer stated the information was part of Russian Govt support and he still wanted it.
Well that is completely and utterly wrong. Where do you get your information from?
It isn't completely and utterly wrong and you know it. Yes, I erred in typing lawyer instead of 'lawyer's go-between' but the point that the information was said to be part of support from the Russian govt and he still went ahead was the relevant part of the response.
No it was completely and utterly wrong. And IMO showed a lack of understanding of what went on
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
That summary is misrepresentations and deflection. Chelsea Clinton has nothing to do with this. No one claimed its never happened.
No, its really not obvious and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls are a security measure used to manage inbound and outbound traffic. One might use a firewall to augment their defence against hackers (amongst other reasons) but it would offer limited protection against a phishing attack. I have no idea how one might use a firewall to cover their tracks though. No one ever said "I need to be covert so I don't get caught, better get me a firewall". If Don Jr wanted to engage in discrete secure digital communications, he might have used a tor client through numerous anonymous vpns to drop off pgp encrypted messages however thats beyond the ability of IT novices. Perhaps he could have used an encrypted email service... At the very least, he might have anonymously bought a new device and installed signal / telegram / viber / whatsapp etc which is very easy to do. All that being said, its still not bulletproof so codeword substitutions are a further obfuscation measure that could be undertaken.Podesta was the victim of a phishing attack - he asked an assistant if an email was legitimate, the assistant recognised it was illegitimate and erroneously replied "its legitimate" facepalm.
I was talking about firewalls from themselves being implicated not in a bloody IT context. I'm done wasting time on you.
😂 Ive never known anyone to use the term firewall in that context.
Chinese Walls, yeah maybe, its not a great fit but its a much better fit than firewall and certainly less misleading.
I thought to myself "maybe theres some obscure use of firewall that Im not aware of" but even wikipedia has no idea what you are talking about.You asked what I meant by firewall and I answered. I can't help it if you then waste time typing IT porn and reading wikipedia.
One now knows what one meant bro.
Perhaps next time talk about measures to ensure plausible deniability. Dont use firewalls in that context again, even with your explanation it made no sense. Or you can dig your heels in and continue to misuse it, that's your call too "bro".
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I dont think anyone here has made the claim Don Jr has definitely acted illegally so may need to get your fix from somewhere else. There is evidence that members of the Trump campaign wilfully engaged with who they thought were Russian representatives in order to win the election which is vastly different to how they presented themselves during and after the election and there are real concerns about the credibility of Kushner. If anything, the recent revelations give us a small taster of what Mueller is investigating and its likely there is plenty more to come.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I dont think anyone here has made the claim Don Jr has definitely acted illegally so may need to get your fix from somewhere else. There is evidence that members of the Trump campaign wilfully engaged with who they thought were Russian representatives in order to win the election which is vastly different to how they presented themselves during and after the election and there are real concerns about the credibility of Kushner. If anything, the recent revelations give us a small taster of what Mueller is investigating and its likely there is plenty more to come.
Illegality was certainly mentioned, insinuated and fantasized about by a few. But glad we can put the absurd claim of illegality to rest. ..that leaves political games...
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
That summary is misrepresentations and deflection. Chelsea Clinton has nothing to do with this. No one claimed its never happened.
No, its really not obvious and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls are a security measure used to manage inbound and outbound traffic. One might use a firewall to augment their defence against hackers (amongst other reasons) but it would offer limited protection against a phishing attack. I have no idea how one might use a firewall to cover their tracks though. No one ever said "I need to be covert so I don't get caught, better get me a firewall". If Don Jr wanted to engage in discrete secure digital communications, he might have used a tor client through numerous anonymous vpns to drop off pgp encrypted messages however thats beyond the ability of IT novices. Perhaps he could have used an encrypted email service... At the very least, he might have anonymously bought a new device and installed signal / telegram / viber / whatsapp etc which is very easy to do. All that being said, its still not bulletproof so codeword substitutions are a further obfuscation measure that could be undertaken.Podesta was the victim of a phishing attack - he asked an assistant if an email was legitimate, the assistant recognised it was illegitimate and erroneously replied "its legitimate" facepalm.
I was talking about firewalls from themselves being implicated not in a bloody IT context. I'm done wasting time on you.
😂 Ive never known anyone to use the term firewall in that context.
Chinese Walls, yeah maybe, its not a great fit but its a much better fit than firewall and certainly less misleading.
I thought to myself "maybe theres some obscure use of firewall that Im not aware of" but even wikipedia has no idea what you are talking about.You asked what I meant by firewall and I answered. I can't help it if you then waste time typing IT porn and reading wikipedia.
One now knows what one meant bro.
Perhaps next time talk about measures to ensure plausible deniability. Dont use firewalls in that context again, even with your explanation it made no sense. Or you can dig your heels in and continue to misuse it, that's your call too "bro".
I can use whatever term I like and it makes perfect sense, i.e. walling off or protecting the campaign from any culpability. Does one seriously believe it only applies in an IT context and never existed before computers bro, amigo, cobber?
-
@canefan
Shep Smith has always been very anti-Trump - and Chris Wallace, Charles Krauthammer and a host of other right wing guys don't like him that much either. They also have Never-Trumpers from The National Review on regularly.The most pro-Trump guys on Fox are Hannity and Lou Dobbs.
Fox is the most balanced channel (in terms of pro-anti Trump) in America by far
There is not a single pro-Trump host on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC.
If Trump succeeds, there is big gap in the market for a pro-Trump channel, because his policies are not establishment Republican in many ways.
There is a big outfit called Sinclair that looks promising in terms of getting the big cable licenses + OANN but it seems to lack big funding. -
@canefan said in US Politics:
Mr Smith going off the network reservation
You seem confused. Fox has been the only network that actually debated this. What network reservation are you talking about? I can only assume you never actually watch Fox.
I can guarantee that for every piece of Trump praise all the other networks combined I can find 5 negative reports on Fox about Trump.
There is a message in that if people care to look. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Illegality was certainly mentioned, insinuated and fantasized about by a few. But glad we can put the absurd claim of illegality to rest. ..that leaves political games...MSM use the word "collusion". Collusion is not a statutory crime.
Funnily enough, that is not mentioned unless they are challenged on it.To be fair, I have read that Don Jr. might have broken campaign finance laws or something. I note the media is now shifting their focus to Jared Kushner - more valuable target.
US Politics