What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

DNC Leaks...official thread (1 Viewer)

I just searched the CBS news site for "wikileaks" and they don't have anything about it either.  If anyone needs any proof that the system is completely rigged look no further.  2 of the biggest news networks completely avoid even mentioning a major story that is a top trend on Twitter, that numerous other news outlets are reporting on.  Trump has been tweeting all about it, and everything hr does is news.  Even CNN had a story on it.

It will be interesting to see how the host / panelists on CNN avoid talking about the elephant in the room during the DNC.  I guess they are going to bring out Bernie, Debbie Whatashame Schultz, and not even mention anything about this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the DNC is so rigged, I'm sure there are lots of emails in this leak containing proof of rule changes and DNC policies changes to screw Bernie, right?

where is the smoking gun? 

 
MaxThreshold said:
I agree with @Widbil83: The race was over the second he decided not to go after Hillary and the emails.  Nice doesn't win you elections and Hillary went after him no holds barred knowing he wouldn't do anything.  It has to be one of the dumbest campaign moves ever.

Of course, Hillary and the DNC colluding to crown Hillary Queen made it an up hill battle to begin with for Bernie, but not going after her effectively ended it.
Click to expand...
Bernie has gone his entire political career without attacking demeaning his opponents character and it had served him well in the past, not to mention that's just the kind of guy he is.  Basing his merits on his own credentials and goals rather than his opponent's lack of them is what got him many of the followers he had in the first place.

It's sad to me that there are people (a majority even) that think trying to run on your own merits rather than fear of the other guy's is akin to not caring.  It's exactly the kind of mindset that leads to fear mongerers like Trump doing so well.

 
Quez said:
I really don't think the guy ever wanted it.  He just wanted to add his 2 cents about his unrealistic ideas.  It's really easy to say "everyone deserves healthcare" and "college should be free for everyone", but actually doing it is another story.
Click to expand...
What a crock of absolute baloney.  Almost as outlandish as the nonsense that Trump is only running to help Hillary win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
Bernie has gone his entire political career without attacking demeaning his opponents character and it had served him well in the past, not to mention that's just the kind of guy he is.  Basing his merits on his own credentials and goals rather than his opponent's lack of them is what got him many of the followers he had in the first place.

It's sad to me that there are people (a majority even) that think trying to run on your own merits rather than fear of the other guy's is akin to not caring.  It's exactly the kind of mindset that leads to fear mongerers like Trump doing so well.
Click to expand...
I agree with Bernie running on his merits, but this is POTUS election, not a Senate election in your state.  He could still run on his merits AND go after Clinton.  The ammo was right there, all he needed to do was point it out and reinforce what most of America already knows:  HRC is a lying, untrustworthy and incompetent crook.

He effectively ended his campaign when he wouldn't go after her on the email fiasco.  Not only that, he actually gave her a boost in the process.  On running for President, that's an epic level fail.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quez said:
Go watch the documentary on YouTube about the hacker convention in Vegas.  Hackercon I believe.  The good ones are like 10 steps ahead of the US government.   They can go into hundreds of peoples IPs, from various places around the globe to originate an attack. They can make it look like it originated from another government of they wanted. But, if you want to believe our government, who gets hacked all the time, have people leaking data, etc. have gotten to the bottom of it, then great.  We are #1!  USA USA!
Click to expand...
At first I wasn't going to respond because I have forgotten more about hacking network systems than you know from watching a youtube video.   I am not saying the US is impervious to hacking, they do get hacked all the time!  What I said is that forensic hackers do have the ability to go back and sniff out the trail once a breach has been discovered, no matter the proxying or spoofing, etc.   This isn't about nationalism at all, the US government is likely hiring other foreign hackers to do this type of work.  

 
FreeBaGeL said:
What a crock of absolute baloney.  Almost as dumb and outlandish as the nonsense that Trump is only running to help Hillary win.
Click to expand...
You have to consider it seeing is how he gave Clinton a pass on the emails, which in turn actually gave her a boost.  Who the #### deliberately does that in a POTUS campaign?

Someone who is not really in it to win it, that's who.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
I agree with Bernie running on his merits, but this is POTUS election, not a Senate election in your state.  He could still run on his merits AND go after Clinton.  The ammo was right there, all he needed to do was point it out and reinforce what most of America already knows:  HRC is a lying, untrustworthy and incompetent crook.

He effectively ended his campaign when he wouldn't go after her on the email fiasco.  Not only that, he actually gave her a boost in the process.  On running for President, that's an epic level fail.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there were people in Bernie's ear every step of the way telling him that he had to attack in his next election.  "This isn't the mayoral election any more, this is the US House of Representatives, you have to attack your opponent's flaws.".  "This isn't the House we're talking about anymore, this is the US Senate, you have to go after your opponent on a personal level".

The bottom line is the one of Sanders' big draws was that he believes in his principles and sticks with them.  Attacking Clinton would have betrayed those principles and betrayed one of his most likable traits.  That's not even considering the crazy notion that he is actually an honest guy who actually believes in those core principles.

This election cycle has been fascinating to me.  Go back a year and all anyone was talking about was how much they hate corruption and dishonesty and politics.  Yet here we are, a year later with the least corrupt and most honest politician to ever run for president cast aside in favor or two of the most corrupt, dishonest ever.

If people had actually voted for the thing they complained about most, Bernie would be the DNC nominee with a huge lead in the polls right now.  Sadly, as much as people complain about those things, it appears that when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is they're more than willing to sacrifice them in favor of "hey look, I'm a woman with a famous last name!" or "ISIS is going to blow up your house tomorrow if you don't vote for me!".

 
FreeBaGeL said:
I'm sure there were people in Bernie's ear every step of the way telling him that he had to attack in his next election.  "This isn't the mayoral election any more, this is the US House of Representatives, you have to attack your opponent's flaws.".  "This isn't the House we're talking about anymore, this is the US Senate, you have to go after your opponent on a personal level".

The bottom line is the one of Sanders' big draws was that he believes in his principles and sticks with them.  Attacking Clinton would have betrayed those principles and betrayed one of his most likable traits.  That's not even considering the crazy notion that he is actually an honest guy who actually believes in those core principles.

This election cycle has been fascinating to me.  Go back a year and all anyone was talking about was how much they hate corruption and dishonesty and politics.  Yet here we are, a year later with the least corrupt and most honest politician to ever run for president cast aside in favor or two of the most corrupt, dishonest ever.

If people had actually voted for the thing they complained about most, Bernie would be the DNC nominee with a huge lead in the polls right now.  Sadly, as much as people complain about those things, it appears that when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is they're more than willing to sacrifice them in favor of "hey look, I'm a woman with a famous last name!" or "ISIS is going to blow up your house tomorrow if you don't vote for me!".
Click to expand...
What you post all makes sense, but I still think he could have said SOMETHING to help is cause.  He didn't have to go all out dirty like Hillary, but he had to say something...anything...to help highlight how dirty, corrupt and dishonest she is.  I agree that there is a fine line but I think Sanders could have walked it.

He completely failed to do that and it sunk his campaign, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tone1oc said:
At first I wasn't going to respond because I have forgotten more about hacking network systems than you know from watching a youtube video.   I am not saying the US is impervious to hacking, they do get hacked all the time!  What I said is that forensic hackers do have the ability to go back and sniff out the trail once a breach has been discovered, no matter the proxying or spoofing, etc.   This isn't about nationalism at all, the US government is likely hiring other foreign hackers to do this type of work.  
Click to expand...
What if someone went into a public place with open wifi, and using a stolen computer originated an attack from there?

 
Quez said:
What if someone went into a public place with open wifi, and using a stolen computer originated an attack from there?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter where it came from.  A forensic hacker would start with where the breach occurred and work backwards from there, eventually getting to the MAC address and IP of that stolen laptop in a library.  

 
tone1oc said:
It doesn't matter where it came from.  A forensic hacker would start with where the breach occurred and work backwards from there, eventually getting to the MAC address and IP of that stolen laptop in a library.  
Click to expand...
nd by the time they get to the stolen laptop in the library the laptop is in the dumpster & the hacker has been gone for months.

 
tone1oc said:
Sure, on the application and presentation layers of network communication.  That's childs play to what I'm talking about and mentioned spoofing eariler. 
Click to expand...
So say they have a Mac address & syslogs of a stolen computer, and trace it to the location it originated.  That doesn't solve the crime.  Maybe someone from Ukraine hopped the boarder to make it look like it was Russians.  The point is you never know exactly, and for them to come out and say it was definitely Russia is a bunch of bs.

 
msudaisy26 said:
Quez said:
I really don't think the guy ever wanted it.  He just wanted to add his 2 cents about his unrealistic ideas.  It's really easy to say "everyone deserves healthcare" and "college should be free for everyone", but actually doing it is another story.
Click to expand...
You have to admire Sander's striving for the impossible though. Free healthcare and free college, who does that?
Click to expand...
Most other developed nations?

 
Quez said:
So say they have a Mac address & syslogs of a stolen computer, and trace it to the location it originated.  That doesn't solve the crime.  Maybe someone from Ukraine hopped the boarder to make it look like it was Russians.  The point is you never know exactly, and for them to come out and say it was definitely Russia is a bunch of bs.
Click to expand...
Your understanding of how this all works is way off base.  A single IP or MAC address is just one piece to the puzzle, and not a crime solver.  It does allow us to know where the attacks are coming from, not necessarily who.  So in that sense, you got me.   With the trove of data mining and other intelligence I'm sure it's not hard to get a really really really good idea as to the who's.   And this is not taking into account any artifacts found along the way such as patches or pieces of code that were used to exploit a system, which often can be smoking guns of their own. 

Hacking is a cat and mouse game, and almost always the mouse (hacker) is trying to move quickly, get their cheese before the cat finds them and get the hell out.  It's not impossible to cover your trail, but that takes time and rings more alarms in a system.   But as with network security, there are no absolutes.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tone1oc said:
Your understanding of how this all works is way off base.  A single IP or MAC address is just one piece to the puzzle, and not a crime solver.  It does allow us to know where the attacks are coming from, not necessarily who.  So in that sense, you got me.   With the trove of data mining and other intelligence I'm sure it's not hard to get a really really really good idea as to the who's.   And this is not taking into account any artifacts found along the way such as patches or pieces of code that were used to exploit a system, which often can be smoking guns of their own. 

Hacking is a cat and mouse game, and almost always the mouse (hacker) is trying to move quickly, get their cheese before the cat finds them and get the hell out.  It's not impossible to cover your trail, but that takes time and rings more alarms in a system.   But as with network security, there are no absolutes.  
Click to expand...
Don't you think it's awfully convenient that the Government traced an attack to Russia about the same time this embarrassing leak came about?  I believe that as much as I believe Benghazi was the result of a YouTube cartoon.  Something the government also told us.

 
Quez said:
Don't you think it's awfully convenient that the Government traced an attack to Russia about the same time this embarrassing leak came about?  I believe that as much as I believe Benghazi was the result of a YouTube cartoon.  Something the government also told us.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to your distrust of the government.  Only the reality of how hacking works, at least on a higher level. 

 
MaxThreshold said:
I agree with Bernie running on his merits, but this is POTUS election, not a Senate election in your state.  He could still run on his merits AND go after Clinton.  The ammo was right there, all he needed to do was point it out and reinforce what most of America already knows:  HRC is a lying, untrustworthy and incompetent crook.

He effectively ended his campaign when he wouldn't go after her on the email fiasco.  Not only that, he actually gave her a boost in the process.  On running for President, that's an epic level fail.
Click to expand...
That is who he is...He didn't want to attack her on that, he knew that defeating Trump was more important than scoring points against hillary

 
tone1oc said:
I can't speak to your distrust of the government.  Only the reality of how hacking works, at least on a higher level. 
Click to expand...
Ok, we can end the hacking debate, but even if it was Russia I don't see how that changes anything about the information that was obtained.  It seems like an attempt to draw on cold war fear mongering.  It's not like Whatashame, Hillary, anyone at NBC, or anyone associated with the party is denying any of this.  They are simply ignoring it as if it didn't happen. 

 
Sounds like Bernie got outflanked to me. :shrug:  

I like the guy and in fact voted for him but it's not a good look to be the leader of the free world when your own party plays you. Gotta be in front of that. Politics and life are dirty games. Can't pretend it's all rainbows and flowers. 

 
Capella said:
Sounds like Bernie got outflanked to me. :shrug:  

I like the guy and in fact voted for him but it's not a good look to be the leader of the free world when your own party plays you. Gotta be in front of that. Politics and life are dirty games. Can't pretend it's all rainbows and flowers. 
Click to expand...
Let's not act like he should have seen this coming from "his" party. He isn't a democrat and I am sure he understood they would play dirty, but he took the high road. That is what he always does.

 
Let's also not pretend that similar stuff hasn't been happening in both parties forever. Email exchanges have replaced smoke-filled backrooms, but the game is the same.

 
Quez said:
Ok, we can end the hacking debate, but even if it was Russia I don't see how that changes anything about the information that was obtained.  It seems like an attempt to draw on cold war fear mongering.  It's not like Whatashame, Hillary, anyone at NBC, or anyone associated with the party is denying any of this.  They are simply ignoring it as if it didn't happen. 
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from, but the reality of it is that any attack like this is almost always going to be from either Russia, China, North Korea.  That's not fear mongering, that's just reality.  It's not an accident that our "enemies" (I say that loosely) are safe havens for those with the l33tz.  

I'm not going to change your mind with regard to distrust of information sources.  I understand.  This IS a huge slippery slope with regard to media journalistic standards.  I know that you probably don't believe there is any journalistic standards anymore, but when we start using private communication hacked from foreign entities, possibly governments we are opening up a world where even private email correspondence is put through a public filter, and I don't think that is fair. 

I think that if you were feeling ripped off as  Bernie supporter, this leak will only validate and/or reinvigor the distain for HRC.  I get it. 

 
Walking Boot said:
Now there is an email that proves a Politico reporter sent an article to the DNC about Hillary for approval before he sent it to his bosses. 
Click to expand...
Can you link the actual emails so we can read them for ourselves? We've had multiple cases already of people claiming leaked emails said something they really didn't

 
badmojo1006 said:
That is who he is...He didn't want to attack her on that, he knew that defeating Trump was more important than scoring points against hillary
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, HE was the best option to beat Trump.  If he was that concerned about it he would have went after Hillary.

 
See that doesn't say what your original post claimed. There's nothing there about approval. 

I don't think it is unusual to give a campaign or part an advance copy so the they can offer their reactions or comments. IE: "Push back"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26 said:
Let's not act like he should have seen this coming from "his" party. He isn't a democrat and I am sure he understood they would play dirty, but he took the high road. That is what he always does.
Click to expand...
He could still stay on the high road AND go after Hillary.  They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  If your opponent has some serious and major flaws, it is your duty as a POTUS candidate to point that out.

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
See that doesn't say what your original post claimed. There's nothing there about approval. 

I don't think it is unusual to give a campaign or part an advance copy so the they can offer their reactions or comments. IE: "Push back"
Click to expand...
IE Editorial oversight.

Do you think Cronkite ran his stories by the Nixon administration?

 
Smack Tripper said:
IE Editorial oversight.

Do you think Cronkite ran his stories by the Nixon administration?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I know that pretty much anybody that's any good in political media has connections within one or both parties that they communicate with. Claiming sharing an advance copy means giving editorial oversight is a pretty big stretch.

 
MaxThreshold said:
He could still stay on the high road AND go after Hillary.  They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  If your opponent has some serious and major flaws, it is your duty as a POTUS candidate to point that out.
Click to expand...
At what point did the Republicans back off and support Trump? Well, some are still attacking but most have gotten behind their candidate. That is what Bernie did...And that is what most of the nominees for the past 200 years have done. For the greater good. You have to let things go

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
Let's also not pretend that similar stuff hasn't been happening in both parties forever. Email exchanges have replaced smoke-filled backrooms, but the game is the same.
Click to expand...
I do not doubt similar #### happens in both parties. You have to imagine Reince almost #### his pants when he saw how easily it was to access DWS's emails. I'm sure he talked a lot of smack about Trump, particularly earlier in the primaries.

Let's also not pretend that Trump wouldn't have supported the eventual Republican nominee(assuming he won fairly) despite rallying against the establishment himself.

The difference is, the Democratic establishment was able to fend off Bernie where as the Republican establishment was unable to avoid Trump.

 
Widbil83 said:
:goodposting:

Anybody watching knew Bernie tossed in the towel after the first debate when he said he wouldn't go after Hillary.  He won a bunch of states and helped reinforce Hillary is rotten to the core but in the end showed he's just part of the game.  
Click to expand...
Bernie knew the system was rigged and he was running as an underdog.  :shrug:

This is what happens when you are nice to someone who does not deserve it.

 
Quez said:
Ok, we can end the hacking debate, but even if it was Russia I don't see how that changes anything about the information that was obtained.  It seems like an attempt to draw on cold war fear mongering.  It's not like Whatashame, Hillary, anyone at NBC, or anyone associated with the party is denying any of this.  They are simply ignoring it as if it didn't happen. 
Click to expand...
Yep.  The dirt has to be there for someone to hack it.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
 Attacking Clinton would have betrayed those principles and betrayed one of his most likable traits.
Click to expand...
Endorsing her betrayed his principles. Going after her corruption, emails, and Wall Street ties may have impacted his favorables, but he would have at least been fighting for his principles. Endorsing her pretty much goes against everything he stood for.

 
You guys don't get it.  These email are only a story if they are from Sony and expose celebrities salaries and contract demands.  Throw in a little VP of company talking smack about an actor and you are headline news.  Welcome to Idiocracy!  Mike Judge was correct.  Reading is for f@gs anyway, let's go to Starbucks and all get "Full body lattes".

 
It's not a story for CBS, NBC, or worth acknowledging by anyone in the party, but I guarantee they all have staff burning out the wikileaks search tool right now.

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
I have no idea. I know that pretty much anybody that's any good in political media has connections within one or both parties that they communicate with. Claiming sharing an advance copy means giving editorial oversight is a pretty big stretch.
Click to expand...
Unless it was a term of the access, I cannot fathom any reporter affording any subject this sort of access. It literally serves no point but for editorial oversight. 

 
MaxThreshold said:
He could still stay on the high road AND go after Hillary.  They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  If your opponent has some serious and major flaws, it is your duty as a POTUS candidate to point that out.
Click to expand...
That isn't who he is, from everything I have read on Sander's he doesn't play that game. We have hindsight to help us say what he should have done.

 
ABC, CNN & Fox News are picking up the wikileaks DNC leak fwiw..  I'd bet that all of the networks pick it up soon.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED: GEKKO WAS WRONG, 2016 POTUS Results Were Clearly Not The Product Of A "Free And Fair" Election (10/6/22 02:43 PST)
Replies
9
Views
471
The Dude
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top