By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DrDoomz on 04 January 2017
Edit Thread
mizzou_guy said:
DrDoomz said:

Interests =/= motive/plans.

"They (Foreign interests) tend go be selfish and they are seldom if ever in the interests of the parties being influenced".

Foreign interests are never for your benefit and should never be ok. Russian interests = bad.  Saudi interests = bad. So no, it doesn't matter what their interests are. It is never good, so it should not be acceptable. All foreign influence should not be allowed.

Would rather have a non-centric world, tbh.

Still missing my point, tho.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here?  Are you trying to excuse the Russian interference with the election, or are you just trying to get Soundwave to say that there is no difference between influencing public opinion during an election and donating money to a candidate during an election?  I find your arguments odd, honestly, as Soundwave is trying to have a well thought-out discussion about what is happening and what could potentially be the consequences to our future elections.

Well if you read my original posts, then you'll get my point. Soundwave took the direction of the discussion towards a different direction.

My point is that espionage exists. It is a reality. We may want to live in a world of rainbow and lollipop raindrops (borrowing this line from SW) but world powers/groups with interests/etc want to exert influence on the US and they would do so to the best of their ability. The hack exposed a vulnerability with the political parties and they should learn the lessons of the election and improve how they handle their security/be less scummy/have less secrets. No skeletons/secrets = no leverage. It does not excuse or absolve the groups performing once caught, however. That was my only point. He then took it to a discussion that I didn't initiate, I simply responded.

Also, I read the report. I am not convinced that Russian Intellience did the hack, the evidence provided was vague and mostly circumstantial. Altho, i admit I have a limited backround in IT security, if someone can point out where the definitve proof is in the report, I would appreciate it.