Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Qxir" channel.

  1. From a Russian point of view, the logic is simple. Make it public so other possible targets (say, traitors to the state) know what happened and don't do anything more damaging. Make an example out if him/her. But make it so that Russia can't legally be charged with anything. All governments do this. The U.S. simply has more to lose (pretending to be democratic is a great way to make money), so it covers up its crimes better. China has figured out a way around this. Destroying Tibetan culture? Don't talk about it, unless you wanna lose access to our 1.1 billion-person market!
    11
  2. Out of genuine curiosity (I swear, I just don't know the answer), how does the U.S. know that Russia interfered? I mean, the implication being that it affected the outcome of the presidency. Facebook ads is totally up Russia's alley, it has a very developed cyber-culture, etc.. All governments do that, or attempt to, to some degree or another. My question is, how could that have gotten Trump elected? The Presidency is decided by the Electoral College, and the pool of people from whom the electors are chosen were already established (in addition, electors can't be Congress(wo)men, so they aren't bound by law to elected by the popular vote). There is the argument that they could have hacked our voting booths, which is admittedly easy to do, but the influence, numerically, (because only a quarter of voting machines have no paper trail at all) isn't enough to sway votes in a country where only a few states are "swing-states." You could of course say that Russians are physically in the U.S. and have physical access to doctor some of the votes, but that's a whole different issue. Anyway, my question still stands: what's the evidence? So far, I've seen Crowdstrike say it detected attacks on American vote-counting servers whose tactics are distinctly similar to Russia's, but that's about it. What do you think?
    2