Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You didn't give them the password so they could use it to get into your stuff, you gave it to them under some false pretense that they set you up to fall for.
In other words, they stole it in order to gain unauthorized access to your accounts. So they could hack them. The phishing part is a means to an end.
Getting unauthorized access to someone's computer via the Internet is called hacking. I'm curious as to what your definition is.
It's called social engineering and it results in the same thing as hacking a network. Wolves sounds pretty knowledgeable so I don't understand why he's making issue of it?
It's your fault if you set up a network that's vulnerable too. What's the difference? It seems like an arbitrary and meaningless distinction to make as far as I'm concerned.
It's your fault if you set up a network that's vulnerable too. What's the difference? It seems like an arbitrary and meaningless distinction to make as far as I'm concerned.
Indeed, I don't think someone's alternate definition of hacking changes the end result any. If someone's got access to your data that you didn't willingly give them, then they've hacked you. It seems odd to quibble over it.
Your first sentence is just not true his unfavorables are in the 60's.
The rest of your post has zero to do with Trump or my post and as such is irrelevant.
Again Trump lost by 3million votes that matters. He won 3 states by less than one percentage which total add up to about 88,000 votes that matters. He is extremely unpopular with the vast majority of Americans that matters. This stuff isn't going to help his popularity. He was aided in his win by a foreign nation hacking our election, and by an FBI director creating a news story days before the election about absolutely nothing.
His administrative/cabinet picks are unpopular. He has an altright racist, an anti Muslim bigot who is a nut job, one who has ties to Putin, and a bunch of Goldman execs.
And there are real questions about corruption at the very start of his administration. He has put people in his administration who gave him money. His business ties are so opaque that corruption is a legit concern there as well.
You are splitting hairs and making up things to suit you.
Trump won 30 of the 50 states and landslided in the electoral college which is how the president is elected. Perhaps take a American history class and learn why there is a electoral college and why the popular vote does not count. The EC was put in place to safeguard a state like California not to be allowed to monopolize the vote.
California which is way out of touch voted by 4 million for Clinton. The rest of the 49 states in total voted for Trump.
The Russians hacked way before Trump became the GOP nominee. Connecting it to Trump is insane.
He won fair and square with the rules that are in place. If you don't like the EC fight to change it.
I am not sure what "atright" is but he is not Alt-Right if that is what you were trying to imply. Spell check!
Sour grapes! My suggestion for 2020. Field a candidate that is not dirty and tarnished like Hillary Clinton. Someone not paid for Goldman Sacs speeches. Someone not benefiting from the Clinton Foundation piggy bank. You had a good guy in Sanders but your DNC screwed up. Get over it! You had your chance and blew it!
You make a few good points. I particularly agree with you on the fact that the results of the hacking are immaterial at this point.
But the motivation (and this were the NY times differs from Putin) for the hacking is what is extremely troubling to me. Most important to me is that we recognize it for what it was, an effort by a foreign power to destabilize and delegitimize our processes and that we take steps to insure we don't allow it to happen again. They're not gonna stop screwing with us just because Trump won.
As for trusting sources. We have to go with the best we have. We (me and you) are never going to be in the loop enough to know what sources the FBI and CIA are relying on. We have no recourse but to trust them and get pissed and demand change if we find later that they were wrong or dishonest.
IF the Russians are responsible then that is troubling. But would the Russians honestly risk it meddling in our election? Sure they might get a more Russian-palatable POTUS, but what if they meddled, got caught and their guy lost?? Trump came very close to losing this thing. We all too often forget that Russia is at least as terrified of the USA as we are of Russia. Would they really want an absolutely pissed off president elect Hillary Clinton -- one who was already pushing us towards war with Russia? Also consider that the difference between us and those pesky Ruskies is that we were actually crazy enough to nuke another country. Twice. Nobody else ever has. Not even once. Other countries really and truly believe that we're crazy enough to go for the whole mutually assured destruction nuclear exchange based on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So you're suggesting that Russia, knowing this, risked having a woman in the White House who might just have been pissed off enough at them for things to rapidly escalate towards nuclear war. Sounds mighty stupid to me -- but I'll grant you that Putin ain't far from crazy. But is he really that crazy?
It is also quite telling that Obama's rhetoric towards Russia over this is extremely subdued. It could just be my imagination, but he doesn't' seem to be that angry with them dirty Russians. And then Julian Assange has said repeatedly that the Russians are not his source. This guy has no issues throwing Russia or Trump or Hillary or anyone else under the bus. Throwing people under the bus via the big reveal of corrupt crap they've done -- that's kinda his thing. What motivation does he have to lie to us? I can't think of a single thing he stands to gain. The Democrats stand to gain a lot here. They're successfully undermining Trumps as-yet-not-begun presidency massively. They might even pull off a bait and switch that puts Hillary Clinton on the throne. The Democrats have many many many reason to lie about this and there will always be some within the intelligence community who are willing to play ball in even the most corrupt of schemes for the right kind of compensation. That's exactly how we ended up invading Iraq.
At this point, I'm willing to buy into Russian hackers when we see real and compelling evidence. Too many people have too many reasons to lie, manipulate, distort, etc. All comes back to my assumption about politics: Everyone must be assumed to be lying to you until proven innocent. It's because lying is their natural state. It's what they do. Every day. 24/7. Part of the job description even.
You are splitting hairs and making up things to suit you.
Trump won 30 of the 50 states and landslided in the electoral college which is how the president is elected. Perhaps take a American history class and learn why there is a electoral college and why the popular vote does not count. The EC was put in place to safeguard a state like California not to be allowed to monopolize the vote.
California which is way out of touch voted by 4 million for Clinton. The rest of the 49 states in total voted for Trump.
The Russians hacked way before Trump became the GOP nominee. Connecting it to Trump is insane.
He won fair and square with the rules that are in place. If you don't like the EC fight to change it.
I am not sure what "atright" is but he is not Alt-Right if that is what you were trying to imply. Spell check!
Sour grapes! My suggestion for 2020. Field a candidate that is not dirty and tarnished like Hillary Clinton. Someone not paid for Goldman Sacs speeches. Someone not benefiting from the Clinton Foundation piggy bank. You had a good guy in Sanders but your DNC screwed up. Get over it! You had your chance and blew it!
He didn't landslide anything and everything I posted about him is accurate.
This is about Trump. I have not mentioned Clinton once you keep bringing her up because that's what you want to discuss.
I am discussing Trump's win in that he lost the popular vote by a lot. He narrowly won 4 states and 3 by a combined 88,000 votes. He was aided by a foreign nation who wanted him to win. He was aided by the FBI director creating a controversy a few days before the election.
He is extremely unpopular. He ran a divisive dishonest campaign and his administration/cabinet picks are an altright guy, an anti Muslim bigot who is a nut job, and a person with ties to Putin, and a bunch of Goldman execs.
There are real questions about corruption in that many of his administrative/cabinet picks are people who gave him money. And his business ties are so opaque that pay for play is a concern.
You don't actually want to focus on Trump and the fact that the Russians hacked our election to help him win.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
