NO. Even it it was Russia (I'm not convinced). No wars, cyber or physical. I'm fine, the economy is fine, your fine, we don't need any wars or escalating tensions.
The DNC is a private organization, that apparently knows nothing about security, but a "major retaliation" is dumb. Besides, we now know the DNC's "election" was faked anyway, so why prepare a giant cyberattack when the outcome was rigged anyway?
You know what's also hilarious about Obama is he taunted a massively transparent administration, but Edward Snowden proved that otherwise. Yet, I see people lauding his praises and talking about Michelle Obama as if they actually did something. Why is he allowed to distance himself from the abuses by the NSA 6 years into his presidency? Either he was a complete moron, or willfully ignorant of his predecessor, both which are inexcusable. So when he "recommends" Hillary, we should all be running the other way.... especially now that these massive scandals about Hillary have proven to have substance. CA/NY/IL, please don't reward these political families and organizations with your electoral votes.
I agree with you in principle, but it's impractical not to respond to attacks from the foe. Even if the US stops, Russia/China won't. It's an ever lasting game of cat and mouse
I'm willing to take that risk when the deescalation is to prevent WW3. The time for a world sheriff passed, and using proxy wars is like playing with matches next to dynamite. Why are we bristling for a status quo foreign policy, which was shown repeatedly to be predicated on false terms of engagement?
In the two party system that we have, when you propose "running the other way," you're actually asking people to vote for Trump instead. Donald does not even meet the bar for semi-decent human being, let alone presidential candidate. It doesn't matter what your concerns are with Clintons' politics or potentially shady dealings, they pale in comparison to the alternative. I would love to move to a parliamentary or multi-party system where we have more choices than between Clinton and a human dumpster fire, but this is the hand we have.
I've purposefully written this comment to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't think your comment through, rather than that you support Trump and also missed the minimum requirements for human decency. Unfortunately, this election was never about politics. It's been a battle between decent humans and hateful cowards. As a result, it is important to call out anybody who attempts to normalize Trump's behavior and treat him as a viable candidate.
I think this kind of talk is what worries me more than trump, and frankly disgusts me. The blanket assertion that anybody who supports trump is basically subhuman is not the kind of way a 'decent human' would talk IMO. The fear mongering going on this election has reached an almost comical level on both sides.
Probably voting third party or not at all, but I hope Trump wins, just to see the reactions from people like you. Its the same type of hysteria we saw from Conservatives after Obama was elected but even more extreme.
> It doesn't matter what your concerns are with Clintons' politics or potentially shady dealings, they pale in comparison to the alternative.
In my book, a blowhard possibly having used his wealth and fame to get sex is nothing compared to the things Clinton has said and done and is accused of. A crass remark by Trump is paraded as a war crime whilst Clinton nonchalantly calling for the assassination of someone spreading inconvenient information is swept under the rug. I'm not American so perhaps it's not my business, but looking at it from the outside it is clear which candidate was able to afford the biggest propaganda machine.
That kind of demonizing and dehumanizing language is not really appropriate here IMO.
While Trump is pretty much acting like any other celebrity (which doesn't make what he's doing right), Clinton's brother secured a rare gold mining contract in Hati in exchange for US Aide to Hati. I'll leave you to do the Googling yourself so you believe me.
There is far too much talk about cyber warfare and far too little talk about cyber safety, cyber security and similar things. Maybe the DNC getting hacked is something you can laugh at, but there are a lot of other organizations where this is no laughing matter.
People have got to become more responsible about implementing cyber security, not just in DOD and HIPAA related organizations, but across society. To do otherwise is to accept incompetence and negligence as the norm.
And how can you know whether or not to believe anyone who claims that they know where the REAL source of a cyber attack is? There are so many non-state actors out there, not just Al-Qaeda and friends, that you cannot assume anything and you have to be sceptical about everything. Other wise you find out that it was some high-school kid whose goal was not to spy on the DNC, but to raise hell and make people think that the Russians are coming.
Hype and grandstanding do not lead to knowledge or understanding.
You have to wonder why this is making the rounds today. Is it to remind the general public that America currently has a beef with Russia and the two might engage in more overt forms of cyber warfare? Is it an abstract response to the missile strikes on the USS Mason in Yemen, the implication being Russia was involved? Perhaps they want to turn cyber security into a bigger issue, and it'll take a few tit-for-tat attacks to get the public sufficiently outraged enough to demand better security.
The report seemed to come out of nowhere and for no particularly good reason.
15 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 47.4 ms ] threadThe DNC is a private organization, that apparently knows nothing about security, but a "major retaliation" is dumb. Besides, we now know the DNC's "election" was faked anyway, so why prepare a giant cyberattack when the outcome was rigged anyway?
You know what's also hilarious about Obama is he taunted a massively transparent administration, but Edward Snowden proved that otherwise. Yet, I see people lauding his praises and talking about Michelle Obama as if they actually did something. Why is he allowed to distance himself from the abuses by the NSA 6 years into his presidency? Either he was a complete moron, or willfully ignorant of his predecessor, both which are inexcusable. So when he "recommends" Hillary, we should all be running the other way.... especially now that these massive scandals about Hillary have proven to have substance. CA/NY/IL, please don't reward these political families and organizations with your electoral votes.
I've purposefully written this comment to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't think your comment through, rather than that you support Trump and also missed the minimum requirements for human decency. Unfortunately, this election was never about politics. It's been a battle between decent humans and hateful cowards. As a result, it is important to call out anybody who attempts to normalize Trump's behavior and treat him as a viable candidate.
Probably voting third party or not at all, but I hope Trump wins, just to see the reactions from people like you. Its the same type of hysteria we saw from Conservatives after Obama was elected but even more extreme.
In my book, a blowhard possibly having used his wealth and fame to get sex is nothing compared to the things Clinton has said and done and is accused of. A crass remark by Trump is paraded as a war crime whilst Clinton nonchalantly calling for the assassination of someone spreading inconvenient information is swept under the rug. I'm not American so perhaps it's not my business, but looking at it from the outside it is clear which candidate was able to afford the biggest propaganda machine.
That kind of demonizing and dehumanizing language is not really appropriate here IMO.
How about a side by side comparison?
People have got to become more responsible about implementing cyber security, not just in DOD and HIPAA related organizations, but across society. To do otherwise is to accept incompetence and negligence as the norm.
And how can you know whether or not to believe anyone who claims that they know where the REAL source of a cyber attack is? There are so many non-state actors out there, not just Al-Qaeda and friends, that you cannot assume anything and you have to be sceptical about everything. Other wise you find out that it was some high-school kid whose goal was not to spy on the DNC, but to raise hell and make people think that the Russians are coming.
Hype and grandstanding do not lead to knowledge or understanding.
The report seemed to come out of nowhere and for no particularly good reason.