- #1,401
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,531
- 10,138
Would not surprise me if its true (politics!), but the guy making the video is a know faker of videos.
russ_watters said:Maybe that makes me naive and maybe I won't see it until it's too late whereas you/others are seeing it before it happens. But to me this just looks like an extension of the early "Trump is a fascist/Nazi" rhetoric that opened the door for wild speculation that he could do anything a an actual 1930s fascist/Nazi might have done. Which to me sounds far fetched, to put it mildly.
Well, according to the polls and the FiveThirtyEight probabilistic models, it seems that many have already realized that they do not want Trump's finger on the Red Button (or whatever other reason). Their current estimate is that Clinton is more likely to win Texas than Trump is to win the election. Not only that, but it would seem that all the commotion of republicans pulling Trump support or not has resulted in the democrats now having a 3-in-4-chance of gaining control over the senate as well after being essentially a toss-up a week ago. Let us see how the third debate changes these numbers.DiracPool said:Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people. There's 20 days to decide.
DiracPool said:Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution.
While I do agree on the absolute scale, I do think that these models are rather sensitive to which direction the wind blows in. Even with an average polling error at the level of the Brexit vote, Clinton would still be competitive. FiveThirtyEight also had an article on this a few weeks back comparing the situations. Their conclusion was that it was certainly a possibility that Clinton was being overrated, but not as clearly as for Brexit. An argument could even be made for the polls underestimating Clinton's lead based on polling demographics. On my mobile currently so I have some difficulties digging it out.Vanadium 50 said:I don't like Donald Trump. I also don't like Message #1402. If that message were instead about Hillary Clinton as being an unacceptable candidate, it would have been removed. Instead it's "liked" by the staff.
Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time. Pollsters have learned to correct the raw sampling data on the left-right axis, but that's not really the axis this election is about: it's the elitist-deplorable axis. We simply have little experience with this: the Brexit polls, which have some similarities, were 6 points off the actual referendum. I would not be surprised if they were off by more than this - in either direction.
'Tis the time for the mythical (or not) "silent majority" to make their voices heard. If 2016 doesn't do it, they do not exist.Vanadium 50 said:Orodruin, I have little faith in the polls this time.
DiracPool said:Here's the deal. This election is too important to equivocate on. IMHO, you must vote for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because Donald Trump is a paranoid delusionist. He suffers from clinical delusions of persecution. This whole deal of rigged elections is a classic case of a paranoid delusional individual.
Do you really want a paranoid delusionist in the White house with his finger on the nuclear button? Wake up, people.
If I had to wager? I'd wager on "non-existence" and parlay that with a resoundingly low participation on the "featured" contest. Overall turnout may actually be higher, but there are going to be a lot of blanks cast for "pestilence of the country."TurtleMeister said:with last posts by Vanadium50 and Byst
A http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1478138886/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLndpeC5jb20vdWdkLzNiZWJiMl85OGZlOGIzNTU5ZjY0OTYwYTU3M2VjYWQ3ZGMyMmVjOS5wZGYA/RS=%5EADAUjZeUKB0gVD8YJhdgNAFlM8ykzs- showed McMullin leading the pack in Utah with 31% support. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump came in second with 27%, followed by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with 24%. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received 5% of the overall support.
The poll found that 51% of Utah voters who backed Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the primary now say they are voting for McMullin. Just 29% of Cruz voters in Utah are leaning toward Trump, per the poll.
Two Democratic operatives lose jobs after James O'Keefe stingmheslep said:Both are long time Democratic operatives with a public record. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sbfoval , Bob Creamer.
SixNein said:I thought I would drop by and throw my own two cents into this heap.
My view is that this election has set some very dangerous precedents that will probably live with us long after this election is over. In my view, the willingness of Russia to to engage cyber weapons in attempts to influence and disrupt the election process coupled with how it was received by the public along with a fairly muted response will almost certainly invite future attempts. There has been a sort of acceptability of it if for no other reason than political partisanship. That scares me.
SixNein said:I thought I would drop by and throw my own two cents into this heap.
My view is that this election has set some very dangerous precedents that will probably live with us long after this election is over. In my view, the willingness of Russia to to engage cyber weapons in attempts to influence and disrupt the election process coupled with how it was received by the public along with a fairly muted response will almost certainly invite future attempts. There has been a sort of acceptability of it if for no other reason than political partisanship. That scares me.
Student100 said:There's no clear and convincing evidence (beyond highly circumstantial evidence that's been released anyway) that Russia is involved.
SixNein said:Multiple independent cyber security companies point to russia in addition to our own government's cyber security experts.
We will have to agree to disagree on the use of cyber weapons.
An online persona calling himself Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for posting the material. Those sites and that persona are “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the joint statement said. “. . . We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
The Kremlin on Friday dismissed the administration’s accusation.“This is some sort of nonsense,” said Dmitry Peskov, press secretary for Putin. “Every day, Putin’s site gets attacked by tens of thousands of hackers. Many of these attacks can be traced to U.S. territory. It’s not as though we accuse the White House or Langley of doing it each time it happens.
Student100 said:`
Do you have links to these independent cyber security companies and their findings?
SixNein said:Are you incapable of doing a search?
https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign
https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...375bc0-3719-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...nd-dnc-breach-says-fidelis-cybersecurity.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/26/dnc-email-leak-russian-hack-guccifer-2
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...p-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/
- Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.
Between October 2015 and May 2016, CTU researchers analyzed 8,909Bitly links that targeted 3,907 individual Gmail accounts and corporate and organizational email accounts that use Gmail as a service. In March 2016, CTU researchers identified a spearphishing campaign using Bitly accounts to shorten malicious URLs. The targets were similar to a 2015 TG-4127 campaign — individuals in Russia and the former Soviet states, current and former military and government personnel in the U.S. and Europe, individuals working in the defense and government supply chain, and authors and journalists — but also included email accounts linked to the November 2016 United States presidential election. Specific targets include staff working for or associated with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), including individuals managing Clinton's communications, travel, campaign finances, and advising her on policy.
...
While TG-4127 continues to primarily threaten organizations and individuals operating in Russia and former Soviet states, this campaign illustrates its willingness to expand its scope to other targets that have intelligence of interest to the Russian government.
Analysts suspect but don’t have hard evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is, in fact, part of one of the Russian groups who hacked the DNC.
The malware involved was advanced, and at times identical to malware the Russian hacking groups have used in the past, Fidelis said in a http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html on Monday.
“This wasn’t ‘Script Kiddie’ stuff,” the company added
Student100 said:I remain unconvinced that it was a state sponsored hack.
SixNein said:I don't know much more that I could do for you. CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect all came out publically citing russia. In addition our own intelligence organizations have fingered russia.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national
In any regard, we disagree fundamentally on the importance of this issue. So it is a moot point.
Astronuc said:Two Democratic operatives lose jobs after James O'Keefe sting
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Two-Democratic-operatives-lose-jobs-after-James-9983970.php
I agree with Gingrich that the FBI needs to be investigating this matter.
Student100 said:Pure hyperbole. Playing an armchair psychiatrist is silly.
Student100 said:One, the president isn't all that powerful with nuclear weapons or in general. They're much more just a figurehead for the state. Back to nuclear weapons, there is no "nuclear button."
So after last night's comments by Trump regarding accepting the result of the election. You are seriously not concerned that you have a presidential candidate indicating and entertaining the possibility that the election is being unfair and that he will not accept the outcome? The peaceful transfer of power and acceptance of a democratic vote is a fundamental part of a democracy (as exercised by Cameron after the Brexit vote - he did lots of things wrong regarding it but he got that one right).russ_watters said:Why do we care about Trump's rhetoric?
DiracPool said:That is nonsense. The president has ultimate authority to launch a nuclear strike. That's the whole point of the nuclear football. Under an attack, the president has as little as 4 minutes to make a decision to launch a nuclear strike. Do you really think that there's time in there to discuss the issue with the secretary of defense and the chiefs of staff?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...d-the-risks-of-a-hair-trigger-nuclear-button/
"In short: A president could push the button all by himself or herself, legally- and constitutionally-speaking. Physically, military personnel would need to carry out the strike of course. They could choose not to, perhaps at the instruction of the secretary of defense or the four-star officer leading Strategic Command—who together constitute the chain of command between the president and the trigger-pullers. But any military officer ignoring a presidential order would be in open insubordination, subject to dismissal and court martial."
Please don't be so cavalier in your assertions and back up your arguments with factual data..
DiracPool said:Do you really think that there's time in there to discuss the issue with the secretary of defense and the chiefs of staff?
Physically, military personnel would need to carry out the strike of course. They could choose not to, perhaps at the instruction of the secretary of defense or the four-star officer leading Strategic Command—who together constitute the chain of command between the president and the trigger-pullers
Student100 said:I'm sure if the president lost all grip on reality and opted for a first strike completely unilaterally when un-threatened, that it wouldn't happen, and that president would rendered unfit to lead.
DiracPool said:That's a fanciful notion at best and wishful thinking. And to be so "sure" about it is alarming..
Student100 said:It really isnt, when you consider the fanciful nature of the topic to begin with and the many places were the strike authorization could break down - assuming such a thing ever actually happened.
Student100 said:The DHS statement doesn't really provide any supporting evidence, they may well have it, but they aren't sharing.
I just find it unlikely that a state sponsored attack would release information, when it's likely far more useful as blackmail material.
I see the blame game as a diversionary tactic. In the debates, Clinton pivots away from the substance of the released emails to "Russia did it!" Well, you and your campaign should not have saying/doing the things you were doing to begin with!
It's like Astronuc's link:"We were infiltrated by political spies and goaded into saying really awful things"
They shouldn't have been saying what they said regardless, goaded or not, spied on or not.
DiracPool said:Well, that's the problem, you're talking about a hypothetical scenario where the chain of command is broken. Hypothetical. You can always come up with a hypothetical scenario to support your argument. But as I stated in post #1424, this would amount to an insubordination on the part of what we would hope to consider loyal American military personal. So my argument is based upon the law as is stands now, not on some Hollywood hypothetical where the subordinates have the prescience to counter the commander in chiefs orders.
Student100 said:You realize that isn't insubordination to not follow a non-lawful order under the UMCJ right? The president unilaterally deciding to use nuclear weapons when no clear threat to national security exists is clearly what I would, and other people who served with me would unanimously, consider a non-lawful order.
DiracPool said:Who has the authority to make that determination? Who had the authority to make the determination that there were WMD's in Iraq in 2003? And who challenged that and how did that work out? The bottom line is that if the president presses the button the nukes will fly, plain and simple.
This is not really a good line of argumentation. Just because a scenario is unlikely does not mean it should not be considered. If the implications of that scenario occurring are catastrophic, it certainly needs to be considered in proportion to its probability and its impact. I do not find that he is selling it as the only possible scenario as much as a possible scenario (with potentially catastrophic repercussions). The difference here lies either in how you both estimate the probability or what amount of risk you are willing to accept.Student100 said:You're taking the most unlikely scenario, in an already unlikely event, and trying to sell it as the only one.
DiracPool said:...am a cognitive neuroscientist and part of being one is doing extensive study in cognitive psychology and abnormal psychology.
American Psychiatric Association
...The Goldwater Rule: Why breaking it is Unethical and Irresponsible
...
“the Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated