Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on August 11, 2017, 10:42:51 AM
-
If the facts are accurate, this is interesting information. Also that a publication like Bloomberg published it.
The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic. However, as Forensicator has pointed out, the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story
-
I note the media's obsession with who leaked what or got hacked by whom is still nicely diverting the hoi polloi from the fact that the DNC actually DID what it was leaked they did. The leaks wouldn't have been an issue if the DNC hadn't been defrauding it's members and donors.
-
I note the media's obsession with who leaked what or got hacked by whom is still nicely diverting the hoi polloi from the fact that the DNC actually DID what it was leaked they did. The leaks wouldn't have been an issue if the DNC hadn't been defrauding it's members and donors.
Very good point.
As an immediate thread drift (that ties into what you said), I just saw this morning that NYT is attempting to divert attention from "The midget wants to nuke Guam" to "Greater threat to Guam than North Korea - Climate Change!!!"
-
Very good point.
As an immediate thread drift (that ties into what you said), I just saw this morning that NYT is attempting to divert attention from "The midget wants to nuke Guam" to "Greater threat to Guam than North Korea - Climate Change!!!"
They are all afraid the North Korea stuff is making Trump look good. Gotta get it off the headlines. They rolled out the news that they did a search warrant on one Trump's former campaign people even though it happened a month ago.
-
One thing I've noticed in all of this- most of the media has their knickers in a snit over Trump overtly threatening North Korea.
"YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT! Not Presidential!1!!!1!"
Yes, you certainly can. Incidentally, most of his base and quite a few more Americans are happy to have a president willing to tell aggressive countries that we are more than willing to put them in their place. As I've said before, I'd much prefer someone who has a different style, but the sentiment, I fully support. (Addendum: Trump is growing on me. It's no longer "much prefer" and just "prefer.")
I'm sure the same people are also the ones mystified by the fact that Trump's voters still strongly support him. It's inexplicable!
-
Unrelated, I'd love to have a president who answers the question "What keeps you up at night?" with "Nothing. I keep other people awake at night."
-
Unrelated, I'd love to have a president who answers the question "What keeps you up at night?" with "Nothing. I keep other people awake at night."
I have to say, while I appreciate that Trump is taking a stand and not bowing to NK, when he gives his warnings, he sounds kinda like he's talking to his teams on The Apprentice. No disrespect meant, but his demeanor, voice, and tone just don't put the fear of God into you. The follow up statements by Mattis? Short, to the point, nearly monotone statements of fact. He doesn't talk a lot, but when he does, you take him seriously.
Trump, with the NK talk, is sorta like the grumpy neighbor who tells the kid to get off his lawn, then the kid comes back and hovers his foot over the lawn and says, "I'm not on your lawn! I'm not on your lawn!". Mattis is the grumpy neighbor who tells the kid to get off his lawn and the kid runs home and then his family packs up and moves two states over. =D
-
Trump, with the NK talk, is sorta like the grumpy neighbor who tells the kid to get off his lawn, then the kid comes back and hovers his foot over the lawn and says, "I'm not on your lawn! I'm not on your lawn!". Mattis is the grumpy neighbor who tells the kid to get off his lawn and the kid runs home and then his family packs up and moves two states over. =D
That's the difference between a commanding officer and an executive officer, and between a chairman of the board and a CEO. The big man sets the policy, the #2 executes. If you know the #2 is going to put the "execute" in execute, you'd be wise to pay attention.
-
I have to say, while I appreciate that Trump is taking a stand and not bowing to NK, when he gives his warnings, he sounds kinda like he's talking to his teams on The Apprentice. No disrespect meant, but his demeanor, voice, and tone just don't put the fear of God into you. The follow up statements by Mattis? Short, to the point, nearly monotone statements of fact. He doesn't talk a lot, but when he does, you take him seriously.
Trump, with the NK talk, is sorta like the grumpy neighbor who tells the kid to get off his lawn, then the kid comes back and hovers his foot over the lawn and says, "I'm not on your lawn! I'm not on your lawn!". Mattis is the grumpy neighbor who tells the kid to get off his lawn and the kid runs home and then his family packs up and moves two states over. =D
This is exactly my style criticism. I don't find Trump frightening because he ALWAYs exaggerates. (See what I did there?)
As a result, "FIRE AND FURY!" is, of course, discounted.
However, "cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and destruction of its people." Is my preferred style. It means the exact same thing as "fire and fury" but, to me, is far more effective in conveying a determination, rather than anger.
But, of course, that's what I'd prefer. The American people may want something else.
-
That's the difference between a commanding officer and an executive officer, and between a chairman of the board and a CEO. The big man sets the policy, the #2 executes. If you know the #2 is going to put the "execute" in execute, you'd be wise to pay attention.
This is an interesting point.
I've been thinking that Trump needs to get his team in order because they need to do nothing but signal competency and commitment. Trump can be the one drawing all the fire while they work to support his big pronouncements. (Sort of the reverse of the normal things where the president tries to always appear calm and collected and has underlings doing the dirty work/undermining/etc...)
He, at least, has some of that in place. (General Mattis, of course, being the most prominent example. Tillerson appears to be lacking a handle on the State Department, needed to project this image.)
-
Tillerson appears to be lacking a handle on the State Department, needed to project this image.)
I'm actually giving Tillerson a lot of slack in this. He's a no nonsense guy, but he's in a predicament where half the State Dept is working for "the resistance" and fed gov just doesn't give him the authority or ability to quickly and decisively clean house. I think there's probably less "resistance" in DOD.
-
I'm actually giving Tillerson a lot of slack in this. He's a no nonsense guy, but he's in a predicament where half the State Dept is working for "the resistance" and fed gov just doesn't give him the authority or ability to quickly and decisively clean house. I think there's probably less "resistance" in DOD.
I'd go with 3/4s of the state dept are likely actively working against Tillerson and Trump.
-
Even the hard left mag The Nation is skeptical. (https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/)