That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Agreed. Mother Jones is the liberal equivalent of Breitbart.RunningMn9 wrote:I mean...it's Mother Jones. Whatever their actual reputation, I generally discard something from them, especially if I'm not seeing it elsewhere. I saw this article in particular but didn't have much of a reaction based on the source.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us ... trump.htmlDefiant wrote:Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?
This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.
A good read that offers circumstantial evidence, but no solid proof, that suggests that someone in Team Trump was talking to someone in Russia and trying to hide their communication.
Also - at least per the story - the FBI is drawing a thin distinction in saying that Russia was "aiming at disrupting the election more than electing Trump." But...they only hacked the DNC, and only leaked anti-Clinton stuff. In this context... how is that not aiming at electing Trump?malchior wrote:The headline of that story is the discriminator. No Clear Link. The Slate story clearly says there are indicators of some sort of communications. I read that article and was thinking of all the innocents reasons that could explain it...up until the Times inquiries to Alfa prompted them to change up. That is the story maker and since that is a technical article I expect most people to need way more but my opinion has changed somewhat from even last night. I didn't think there was a direct link because that seemed too obvious. Why signal such strong support of a possible connection like this? Changing the platform for instance is pretty clumsy.
Anyway the short of it is that I could believe there is a link. That pattern is just too specific. The examination of timing of the communications is bread and butter sigint on the Internet and is very useful. It'd be interesting if they could get there hands on a years worth of queries at the root servers to get more context or whatever ISP is upstream of Trump. Either way there is a lot to think about with this one.
I think it's the deference to going that extra step because it requires a political analysis and determination. They are sticking to the facts. I want to believe that if they found a clear link that they would make some sort of move to inform the public. That said the NY Times article says they thought the Alfabank communications were likely benign but I would bet they feel differently now. But it is likely too late before the election.El Guapo wrote:lso - at least per the story - the FBI is drawing a thin distinction in saying that Russia was "aiming at disrupting the election more than electing Trump." But...they only hacked the DNC, and only leaked anti-Clinton stuff. In this context... how is that not aiming at electing Trump?
That would have been a far more compelling answer had Comey not sent his letter last week.malchior wrote:I think it's the deference to going that extra step because it requires a political analysis and determination. They are sticking to the facts. I want to believe that if they found a clear link that they would make some sort of move to inform the public. That said the NY Times article says they thought the Alfabank communications were likely benign but I would bet they feel differently now. But it is likely too late before the election.El Guapo wrote:lso - at least per the story - the FBI is drawing a thin distinction in saying that Russia was "aiming at disrupting the election more than electing Trump." But...they only hacked the DNC, and only leaked anti-Clinton stuff. In this context... how is that not aiming at electing Trump?
They probably tried but Barron was all over that weak shit.El Guapo wrote:Also - at least per the story - the FBI is drawing a thin distinction in saying that Russia was "aiming at disrupting the election more than electing Trump." But...they only hacked the DNC, and only leaked anti-Clinton stuff. In this context... how is that not aiming at electing Trump?malchior wrote:The headline of that story is the discriminator. No Clear Link. The Slate story clearly says there are indicators of some sort of communications. I read that article and was thinking of all the innocents reasons that could explain it...up until the Times inquiries to Alfa prompted them to change up. That is the story maker and since that is a technical article I expect most people to need way more but my opinion has changed somewhat from even last night. I didn't think there was a direct link because that seemed too obvious. Why signal such strong support of a possible connection like this? Changing the platform for instance is pretty clumsy.
Anyway the short of it is that I could believe there is a link. That pattern is just too specific. The examination of timing of the communications is bread and butter sigint on the Internet and is very useful. It'd be interesting if they could get there hands on a years worth of queries at the root servers to get more context or whatever ISP is upstream of Trump. Either way there is a lot to think about with this one.
Great - he should seek citizenship there.Rip wrote:Iraqis love Trump.
Right because his plan to combat ISIS consists of "I know sooo much about ISIS, I know more than our own Generals. Believe me!" and who could forget "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"Rip wrote:Iraqis love Drumpf.
Let's not forget about his promise to bring back waterboarding and things "far worse" than waterboarding.Scraper wrote:Right because his plan to combat ISIS consists of "I know sooo much about ISIS, I know more than our own Generals. Believe me!" and who could forget "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
Would those things he promises to bring back include making people relive the 2016 election?YellowKing wrote:
Let's not forget about his promise to bring back waterboarding and things "far worse" than waterboarding.
I don't think so. MJ definitely has a liberal bias and slants pretty hard, but most of their work tends to be based on more of a journalistic ethos than BB. The language isn't as incendiary and they try to get multiple sources and don't accept everything as gospel.Skinypupy wrote:Agreed. Mother Jones is the liberal equivalent of Breitbart.RunningMn9 wrote:I mean...it's Mother Jones. Whatever their actual reputation, I generally discard something from them, especially if I'm not seeing it elsewhere. I saw this article in particular but didn't have much of a reaction based on the source.
Yeah, I agree. They're definitely left wing, but they are still fact-based. They will interpret facts from a left-wing viewpoint, but they're not ones to make up facts. I would assume from this article that the source is telling MJ what they say they're saying, although I suppose MJ is more likely to believe them (since they're saying anti-Trump stuff).Pyperkub wrote:I don't think so. MJ definitely has a liberal bias and slants pretty hard, but most of their work tends to be based on more of a journalistic ethos than BB. The language isn't as incendiary and they try to get multiple sources and don't accept everything as gospel.Skinypupy wrote:Agreed. Mother Jones is the liberal equivalent of Breitbart.RunningMn9 wrote:I mean...it's Mother Jones. Whatever their actual reputation, I generally discard something from them, especially if I'm not seeing it elsewhere. I saw this article in particular but didn't have much of a reaction based on the source.
Unlike BB they don't try to actively deceive, they just slant hard. I don't see it as an equivalence. I'd put them more on the scale of HotAir and allahpundit, but with reporters.
I can see that. My thinking was more along the lines of "I won't take anything I see on that site at face value unless I see it from other sources as well."El Guapo wrote:Yeah, I agree. They're definitely left wing, but they are still fact-based. They will interpret facts from a left-wing viewpoint, but they're not ones to make up facts. I would assume from this article that the source is telling MJ what they say they're saying, although I suppose MJ is more likely to believe them (since they're saying anti-Trump stuff).Pyperkub wrote:I don't think so. MJ definitely has a liberal bias and slants pretty hard, but most of their work tends to be based on more of a journalistic ethos than BB. The language isn't as incendiary and they try to get multiple sources and don't accept everything as gospel.Skinypupy wrote:Agreed. Mother Jones is the liberal equivalent of Breitbart.RunningMn9 wrote:I mean...it's Mother Jones. Whatever their actual reputation, I generally discard something from them, especially if I'm not seeing it elsewhere. I saw this article in particular but didn't have much of a reaction based on the source.
Unlike BB they don't try to actively deceive, they just slant hard. I don't see it as an equivalence. I'd put them more on the scale of HotAir and allahpundit, but with reporters.
No, that makes sense, and is a prudent way to evaluate stories.Skinypupy wrote:I can see that. My thinking was more along the lines of "I won't take anything I see on that site at face value unless I see it from other sources as well."El Guapo wrote:Yeah, I agree. They're definitely left wing, but they are still fact-based. They will interpret facts from a left-wing viewpoint, but they're not ones to make up facts. I would assume from this article that the source is telling MJ what they say they're saying, although I suppose MJ is more likely to believe them (since they're saying anti-Trump stuff).Pyperkub wrote:I don't think so. MJ definitely has a liberal bias and slants pretty hard, but most of their work tends to be based on more of a journalistic ethos than BB. The language isn't as incendiary and they try to get multiple sources and don't accept everything as gospel.Skinypupy wrote:Agreed. Mother Jones is the liberal equivalent of Breitbart.RunningMn9 wrote:I mean...it's Mother Jones. Whatever their actual reputation, I generally discard something from them, especially if I'm not seeing it elsewhere. I saw this article in particular but didn't have much of a reaction based on the source.
Unlike BB they don't try to actively deceive, they just slant hard. I don't see it as an equivalence. I'd put them more on the scale of HotAir and allahpundit, but with reporters.
I agree - TBH I think Comey needs to resign (after the election). He messed up. Badly.El Guapo wrote:That would have been a far more compelling answer had Comey not sent his letter last week.
Mortoned.malchior wrote:I agree - TBH I think Comey needs to resign (after the election). He messed up. Bigly Badly.El Guapo wrote:That would have been a far more compelling answer had Comey not sent his letter last week.
It wouldn't stay secret for long.El Guapo wrote:Mortoned.malchior wrote:I agree - TBH I think Comey needs to resign (after the election). He messed up. Bigly Badly.El Guapo wrote:That would have been a far more compelling answer had Comey not sent his letter last week.
It's going to be an awkward relationship if Hillary wins. Of course she can't ask him to resign given the politics of the situation, so that will be entirely up to him.
But if Trump gets elected he could probably become head of secret police if he wants.
Well, no. Secret police wouldn't be effective if their general existence wasn't known. The "secret" part is who in particular are members of the secret police.Isgrimnur wrote:It wouldn't stay secret for long.El Guapo wrote:Mortoned.malchior wrote:I agree - TBH I think Comey needs to resign (after the election). He messed up. Bigly Badly.El Guapo wrote:That would have been a far more compelling answer had Comey not sent his letter last week.
It's going to be an awkward relationship if Hillary wins. Of course she can't ask him to resign given the politics of the situation, so that will be entirely up to him.
But if Trump gets elected he could probably become head of secret police if he wants.
Point is that they generally operate in secrecy (and not that the organization is secret).Rip wrote:Actually the "secret" part refers to where they keep the "witnesses" and "subjects" of their investigations.
I've heard on a clear day Sarah Palin might be able to see them.
Like, oh, I don't know, not making statements about active investigations?El Guapo wrote:Point is that they generally operate in secrecy (and not that the organization is secret).Rip wrote:Actually the "secret" part refers to where they keep the "witnesses" and "subjects" of their investigations.
I've heard on a clear day Sarah Palin might be able to see them.
One of the 538, they discussed WI and MI, and the thinking was that it's not that Trump's recent activity would cause WI/MI to flip, but that *if* the election got tighter in the national polls, they want to be able to capitalize it. In other words, Trump would have much more pathways to victory available to him (so under that circumstance, PA, WI and MI can be thrown in to the list of plausible states he can win, rather than just PA). That still relies on the polls getting more tighter, but it does make some sense.El Guapo wrote:Also, the Trump campaign announced its final ($25 million) ad buy...and did not include Pennsylvania on that list. Kind of shocking, given that PA is on almost every plausible Trump win electoral map.
He did include WI and MI in the add buy, and those could help make up for PA....but that seems like a longer shot than winning PA.
Right, but how does that justify not buying ads in PA? PA would probably get close before WI and MI do, and if there's any state that Trump wants to win in a late surge, it's PA (which also doesn't have much in the way of early voting).Defiant wrote:One of the 538, they discussed WI and MI, and the thinking was that it's not that Trump's recent activity would cause WI/MI to flip, but that *if* the election got tighter in the national polls, they want to be able to capitalize it. In other words, Trump would have much more pathways to victory available to him (so under that circumstance, PA, WI and MI can be thrown in to the list of plausible states he can win, rather than just PA). That still relies on the polls getting more tighter, but it does make some sense.El Guapo wrote:Also, the Trump campaign announced its final ($25 million) ad buy...and did not include Pennsylvania on that list. Kind of shocking, given that PA is on almost every plausible Trump win electoral map.
He did include WI and MI in the add buy, and those could help make up for PA....but that seems like a longer shot than winning PA.
Because they can't spend everywhere. They'd rather keep the competitive map larger (if less competitive) than smaller (but more competitive).El Guapo wrote:
Right, but how does that justify not buying ads in PA? PA would probably get close before WI and MI do, and if there's any state that Trump wants to win in a late surge, it's PA (which also doesn't have much in the way of early voting).
Problem is that the "benefit" side of the ledger is immense. Like, Pennsylvania is virtually a requirement for Trump winning.gilraen wrote:Ad space is finite, especially this close to election. The networks may be physically sold out of desirable slots, and those that are left would be so expensive that the cost-benefit for Trump's campaign was not worth it.
Yeah, but we may be talking on the scope of getting a couple of 15-second slots in PA on a single day vs. getting a dozen prime-time slots in MI every night for the remainder of the week.El Guapo wrote:Problem is that the "benefit" side of the ledger is immense. Like, Pennsylvania is virtually a requirement for Trump winning.gilraen wrote:Ad space is finite, especially this close to election. The networks may be physically sold out of desirable slots, and those that are left would be so expensive that the cost-benefit for Trump's campaign was not worth it.
Wouldn't Trump be mainly advertising in the "Alabama" part in the middle of PA anyway? How expensive can that get vs. WI and MI?gilraen wrote:Yeah, but we may be talking on the scope of getting a couple of 15-second slots in PA on a single day vs. getting a dozen prime-time slots in MI every night for the remainder of the week.El Guapo wrote:Problem is that the "benefit" side of the ledger is immense. Like, Pennsylvania is virtually a requirement for Trump winning.gilraen wrote:Ad space is finite, especially this close to election. The networks may be physically sold out of desirable slots, and those that are left would be so expensive that the cost-benefit for Trump's campaign was not worth it.