NSA Chief: Nation-State Made 'Conscious Effort' To Sway US Presidential Election (aol.com) 667
The head of the US National Security Agency has said that a "nation-state" consciously targeted presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to affect the US election. From an AOL article:Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments in response to a question about Wikileaks' release of nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal. "There shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's minds," Rogers said. "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials suspect Russia provided the emails to Wikileaks, after hackers stole them from inside DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. At least two different hacker groups associated with the Russian government were found inside the networks of the DNC over the past year, reading emails, chats, and downloading private documents. Many of those files were later released by Wikileaks.Further reading: Quartz and MotherJones.
Blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
I am tired of the military-industrial complex requiring a boogie man to support their funding.
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, however....if Hillary hadn't been such a weak candidate, and not had so many skeletons in her closet, and hadn't been involved with SO many shady things over her career, then none of her staff would have been talking about all this on those emails that were leaked, and there wouldn't have been so much dirt on her to be leaked.
While I detest the meddling in our country's election, regardless of the source....this info DID come strait from the Democrats showing their dirty laundry and underhanded tricks, being in bed with much of the main stream media.....and from the Clinton campaign where her staff was rightfully worried about all the baggage she carried and how poorly she was adept at handling it and not causing more problems for herself and public image.
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Funny)
You know....I hope they find exactly who did the break-ins AND the meddling and there are consequences for that.
I totally agree that there should be consequences for whoever exposed this corruption. Maybe a Congressional Gold Medal, or a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes Everybody is BooHooing the Russians interfering with the US election by having the audacity of telling the American Electorate the truth.
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
if Hillary hadn't been such a weak candidate, and not had so many skeletons in her closet, and hadn't been involved with SO many shady things over her career, then none of her staff would have been talking about all this on those emails that were leaked, and there wouldn't have been so much dirt on her to be leaked.
I'd believe Hillary lost because of the Comey email investigation leak. But she also lost for a thousand other reasons... not connecting with a large number of disgruntled underemployed workers being the primary reason. Saying this country is great, when no one feels it is a sure way to lose an election.
Re: (Score:3)
if Hillary hadn't been such a weak candidate, and not had so many skeletons in her closet, and hadn't been involved with SO many shady things over her career, then none of her staff would have been talking about all this on those emails that were leaked, and there wouldn't have been so much dirt on her to be leaked.
I'd believe Hillary lost because of the Comey email investigation leak. But she also lost for a thousand other reasons...
It's like if your football team lost 70-68 because the field goal kicker missed a field goal, while ignoring the abhorrent 70 POINTS that the defense allowed. Sure, the kicker missed, but if the other team allows 68 points, you should have won by a wide margin and have no excuse for letting it get that close anyway.
not connecting with a large number of disgruntled underemployed workers being the primary reason. Saying this country is great, when no one feels it is a sure way to lose an election.
Is the country in "great shape?" No, but it's not nearly so bad as Trump's campaign made it out to be either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just Hillary, but democrats in general. I was a big Bernie fan and the DNC unfairly shutting him out left more than just a bad taste in my mouth. I mean not only did that show their corruption, but also idiocy. The morons could have won with Bernie had they just followed their own rules!
They'll be lucky if I ever vote anyone with a D next to their name for the rest of my life.
Re: (Score:3)
As if Hillary took advantage of them...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Blah blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect.
If you are:
Rich
Famous
Professional Athlete
Celebrity
Holy Man ( priest, Cardinal, etc )
Politician
You can grab and grope as much as you want and the most you'll ever get is a hand slap. Unless someone higher than you needs a scapegoat to sacrifice to the masses.
Trump merely stated what we already know about the folks on the above list.
It pissed a lot of people off, but the truth usually does.
Re: Blah blah blah (Score:4, Funny)
I think "Holy Man ( priest, Cardinal, etc )" shouldn't be on that list. It should be on another list ;)
Re: (Score:3)
I do in fact support Snowden being pardoned and awarded a medal.
Re: Blah blah blah (Score:3)
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, when the commies invade a scrappy band of high school students will defeat them.
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Interesting)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
No you didn't; I owned one of those, way back in the day (was connected to the much-upgraded COSMAC ELF microcomputer trainer, that I added 8KB of static RAM to, a serial interface, and 2KB integer BASIC in 2708 EPROMs. A Model 33ASR Teletype was uppercase-only, at a blazing 10cps. Fully electro-mechanical, the keyboard had a 1-key rollover, so if you were a good typist, you'd have pressure on the next key before the TTY had finished transmitting the last one over the 20-milliamp current-loop interface.
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:4, Interesting)
They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary didn't lose due to Wikileaks. She lost because she promised absolutely nothing other than to be not Donald Trump.
Donald Trump promised to bring back jobs lost to off-shoring. He promised to bring back the parts of America that are hurting.
Hillary Clinton promised to say one thing and public and other things in private. She promised to continue the status quo of the elite ruling over us with little to no input from the public. She lost because her selling point was "first woman president!" and not policy.
She lost for a thousand reasons.
Wikileaks is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Clinton fan by any stretch, but honestly, if America voted for Trump to break the "the status quo of the elite ruling over us" then you deserve what's coming your way.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Clinton fan by any stretch, but honestly, if America voted for Trump to break the "the status quo of the elite ruling over us" then you deserve what's coming your way.
Finally the change that people are expecting after years of ruling class shitting on people?
The fact you said "America" show's you're not paying attention. World wide elections are turning ugly, Australia at came out of a double dissolution (which normally solves divisive politics) with an almost hung parliament, the British wanted out of the EU, Austria they voted for the greens a party which historically has enjoyed a crappy 15% of the vote, governments around the world see political wildcards and nutcases skyrocketing in popularity.
People the world over are finally showing how truly sick of the shit they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The American media has become far too good at making the average Joe hate anyone who might be trying to help him. This causes them to flail about blindly. They become easy prey to con men.
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly can't see how Trump is not ruling class.
Having power over people comes in many forms. Having loads of wealth is not the same thing as being a member of a political system dominated by specific families belonging to a very select club deciding the fate of millions.
Trump is not the ruling class, he's an outside who bought his way into the ruling class. It's the "change" so many people are wanting. Also while everyone is likely going into the shitter, it's been 2 weeks and so far the only political outcome is that the TPP has been dropped as it won'
Re: (Score:3)
and the they wisely elected those beacons of change and prosperity, right?
And what came of it? Until very recently an incredibly unified Europe and a current generation of people who for the first time ever think it's a preposterous idea that Germany and France would ever go to war.
History has since the dark ages and well before come in waves of ever growing power gap between the rulers and the ruled, every time some event comes along which hits a reset on the political spectrum whether it was a fight for independence, or the rise of Hitler. In each case the result after the chao
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
if America voted for Trump to break the "the status quo of the elite ruling over us" then you deserve what's coming your way.
Of Trump and Hillary Clinton, which of the two has been in politics for three decades? Which of the two had their political party's highest leadership game the primaries to guarantee they won the candidacy? Which of the two engaged in a conspiracy to repeatedly violate the laws pertaining to handling of classified information, and then had the Director of the FBI personally whitewash the investigation? Which of the two had the news media helping to bury strong evidence of felony lawbreaking?
It wasn't Trump.
You can be sarcastic all you want, but the news media will be all over Trump, watching for him to do the slightest wrong thing and tell all the voters about it 24/7 for weeks. (He's already in hot water for the crime of telling reporters "I'm done for the night" and then going to dinner with his family. Doesn't he know that the reporters have a right to watch him eat dinner?)
The Congress will actually push back on Trump if he tries to aggregate more power to the Presidency (contrast to President "I've Got a Pen, and I've Got a Phone" Obama, bypassing Congress to bind the USA to international agreements that sure looked like treaties but were not treaties because he said so).
The IRS would refuse to follow Trumps orders if he were to try to sic them on his enemies, while the IRS actually volunteered to do this for President Obama. (I don't think the bad actors in the IRS did it because they personally liked President Obama, they did it because he was a "progressive" Democrat... so they absolutely would have continued to do this for Hillary Clinton.)
The Republican establishment never wanted Trump. He's already shaking things up in Washington D.C.
So I'll grant you that Trump is in the 1% and thus not very well connected to the daily struggles of the "little people" in America. But of the two candidates, which one just might "break 'the status quo of the elite ruling over us'"? Trump. By a landslide. It's not even remotely close.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. Let's see how broken the status quo gets once he announces his Republican cabinet. I can't believe people are so naive about this.
Oh, and BTW: the really scary thing about Trump is not the potential clusterfuck his presidency might be, but the fact than on a single sweep the GOP gained control of the White House, congress and, as soon as vacancies are filled, the Supreme Court. Don't expect a lot of pushbacks on those ends.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
on a single sweep the GOP gained control of the White House, congress and, as soon as vacancies are filled, the Supreme Court. Don't expect a lot of pushbacks on those ends.
It depends:
If Trump tries to lighten the amount of regulations on businesses, don't expect a lot of pushback. If he tries to lower taxes, don't expect a lot of pushback.
But a relative of mine said that Trump will start rounding up minorities and putting them into concentration camps. If Trump tries to do anything like that? Pushback. Expect it.
If Trump tries to strip LGBT of equal protection under the law? (I don't know why we are even talking about that, he hasn't historically been negative about LGBT, but my liberal friends are saying he will be a disaster to LGBT.) Again, expect pushback.
In short, don't expect a lot of pushback on the typical center-right issues. But if Trump actually starts doing any of the deranged dictator stuff that my liberal friends are staying awake at night worrying about, do expect pushback. Lots.
I even expect pushback if Trump goes crazy with Executive Orders. For some reason the Congress just took it when President Obama started overstepping the bounds of the Presidency, but I really don't think the Congress will take it from Trump. All the Democrats would be opposed and enough of the Republicans would be opposed.
Also, I'm grimly looking forward to the spectacle once the Republicans start nominating Supreme Court Justices. I expect the Democrats to link arms and obstruct every single candidate, no matter how reasonable and qualified. If they actually do this I then expect to see the Republicans invoke the Harry Reid precedent [politico.com] and shut down the filibuster on Supreme Court Justice nominations. I don't actually want to see this happen, but the silver lining would be the entertainment of watching liberals explain how the Harry Reid precedent isn't really a precedent at all, it's totally different this time, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Who is more "ruling elite": the career politician who's been doing whatever their billionaire backers tell them to do for decades... or one of the billionaires they've been working for?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't vote in the US, but i would have chosen Clinton. In a heartbeat.
My point is: Trump is as much elite ruling status quo as HRC is. I feel bad for you if you can't see this.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Informative)
Trump isn't part of the political elite. Yes, he's rich, but he's never really spent any of his time or money in politics. He's a true outsider.
Your "true outsider" was openly Democrat until the 2010s and did spend both time and money on politics - a lot of both. Here's a beautiful example [buzzfeed.com].
Honestly, you should've researched your candidate a bit better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing how to govern isn't the quality I despise in her.
Wanting to govern absolutely everything is the quality I despise in her.
Being good at oppressing me didn't win my vote. At least with Trump I don't have a certainty that he will crush liberty and give nothing in return.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Funny)
>
Also, you voted for a racist, misogynistic fascist. .
I think the term you are looking for is "deplorable".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, your attempt at patronizing humor failed. I am not a Trump supporter, I voted for Jill Stein. I just like seeing all the precious snowflakes getting their panties in a twist because their favorite sociopath was defeated by a more intelligent one.
Re: (Score:3)
He is a member of the elite, he's just an outcast. The elite recoiled in horror because they know him *personally*. All of the lies, sexual assaults, mob connections, corrupt deals, scams, they all knew about long before half of America dismissed them as slander.
Re: (Score:3)
You can tell he's not one of the elite by how they reacted to him - in both Democratic and Republican circles.
Yeah, i don't think the reactions to Trump had anything to with politics.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think that Russia was the power that supplied the emails to WikiLeaks. If they really did want Trump to win, they'd have muzzled Snowden, who they allowed to release a statement debunking Trump's claim about how the 2nd investigation could have wrapped up so quickly.
While I agree that WikiLeaks may not have been the sole reason Clinton lost, I also don't think that people ignored it. While the media may well have ignored it, there was nothing stopping voters from going there and seeing what was out. Whether it was Clinton's statement about a borderless Americas, or her staff's views on Catholics, or Donna Brazille leaking questions to Clinton that she was gonna be asked the next day, people didn't need the media to tell them more if they were interested.
But yeah, while Trump would have a policy speech a day in each of his 6 rallies in the last few days, the only thing Clinton had was abusing Trump. Okay, but how different would your policies be from Obama's? And if it won't be, why would it result any differently in what we have now? Why would your plan on Obamacare salvage the pocketbooks of people who have to pay enhanced premiums and higher deductables for reduced coverage? Blah blah blah
And yeah, first woman president was singularly unimpressive, given that she got where she did due to marrying a politically savvy AK governor who went on to become the most successful Democrat president to date. If Warren or Pelosi were to run, the 'first woman president' moniker would suit them.
fewer disqualifications (Score:3)
She promised to be someone with three decades of experience in Washington, someone with strong financial and political ties to Wall St. who didn't tweet weird xenophobic shit at all hours of the day and night.
That's one disqualification.
Whereas with Donald, I quite lost track.
Re: They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
I never said Trump was going to succeed. Trump promised a lot of things he almost certain can't deliver.
But he promised SOMETHING and that sure beats promises of things staying the same, especially as things continue to get worse. And don't try and claim they're not getting worse - cities are improving and largely voted for Hillary, but rural America is in rapid decline and they came out in massive support for Trump. Because he promised to help them - even if there's almost no chance that he really can.
Re: They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
Christ, you guys sound like the naive Obama supporters in 2008.
The president is not going to save you. He's not the messiah, he's not even a dictator. You're supposed to vote for the better person, the smart one, the one who knows what they're doing.
I'm the first to admit that Hilary isn't really smart enough or good enough to be a good president, but Trump isn't even close.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who had ignored all the evidence up to then was in the tank for Hillary and no additional evidence would change their minds.
What cost Clinton the election? Voter turnout. She was not Obama, so blacks stayed home. Trump's redneck voters were not expected to vote but did.
What drove that? Black racism and angry trailer parks. None of which were served by Hillary's campaign strategy. Blacks were taken for granted, trailer trash were called 'despicables'.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
What drove that? Black racism and angry trailer parks.
Or put in a less insulting way, poor rural white men were promised the jobs they felt were taken away from them by ... everyone else.
None of which were served by Hillary's campaign strategy. Blacks were taken for granted, trailer trash were called 'despicables'.
"Deplorables" is the word you are looking for. It's important, because only someone like Hillary Clinton would use that word. It conveys a strong sense of rich, out of touch elitist, describing ... all other people. It just happens that this time she meant rural whites.
This is why she lost the election. Benghazi, email-gate, whatever... the republicans have been attacking her for so long, for so many reasons that most of us had tuned out.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who had ignored all the evidence up to then was in the tank for Hillary and no additional evidence would change their minds.
What cost Clinton the election? Voter turnout. She was not Obama, so blacks stayed home. Trump's redneck voters were not expected to vote but did.
What drove that? Black racism and angry trailer parks. None of which were served by Hillary's campaign strategy. Blacks were taken for granted, trailer trash were called 'despicables'.
Nope.
Conclusion first because it's a long read:
Stop calling Trump voters racist. A metaphor: we have freedom of speech not because all speech is good, but because the temptation to ban speech is so great that, unless given a blanket prohibition, it would slide into universal censorship of any unpopular opinion. Likewise, I would recommend you stop calling Trump voters racist – not because none of them are, but because as soon as you give yourself that opportunity, it’s a slippery slope down to “anyone who disagrees with me on anything does so entirely out of raw seething hatred, and my entire outgroup is secret members of the KKK and so I am justified in considering them worthless human trash”. I’m not saying you’re teetering on the edge of that slope. I’m saying you’re way at the bottom, covered by dozens of feet of fallen rocks and snow. Also, I hear that accusing people of racism constantly for no reason is the best way to get them to vote for your candidate next time around. Assuming there is a next time.
It's from Slate, hardly a bastion of alt-right support:
You Are Still Crying Wolf [slatestarcodex.com]
It does one helluva job destroying the idea that Trump won because of racism. Read it - that conclusion is supported by various bits of data - including the fact that Trump got a higher percentage of votes than Romney in all racial categories but one - whites.
I have a different perspective. Back in October 2015, I wrote that the picture of Trump as “the white power candidate” and “the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era” was overblown. I said that “the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data”, and predicted that:
If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.
...
Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.
Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on.
I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clint
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not my point. Black racists didn't come out to vote for Hillary because of the color of her skin.
That simple.
Alternatively: Black racists did come out to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Insightful)
racist, misogynistic fascist
If you keep calling everyone who disagrees with you those kinds of names you're going to lose again in 2020.
Re: (Score:3)
If you keep calling everyone who disagrees with you those kinds of names you're going to lose again in 2020.
#ThatsHowYouGotTrump
You'd have thought this was clear after Bush's re-election. At this rate it won't be clear after Trump's re-election.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think that it is adult to call anyone who disagrees with you "fascist", than you will fit in nicely with this argument thread.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I am. I don't want a fascist as president.
Shouting down opposing views using shaming language is not fascist? Surely you see the irony in disagreeing with roughly half the voters, stereotyping them with a few labels, and then attempting to shame them into silence...
You're correct, of course. Even people who don't know the meaning of the word "fascist" dislike fascists; this is why they dislike you so much.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, voting for a unidicted felon, willing to take money from nations both friendly and not so friendly to us, influenced by a husband who is an admitted sexual predator, is tolerable.
Oh, and a former lawyer, having surrendered her license to avoid the further embarrassment of prosecution over unethical behavior in her home state of Arkansas. As her husband had to, the result of a civil suit decision.
Or maybe not. Many Americans said it was not tolerable. Enough that one was elected, the other rejected. And that's how it works. Given a choice, you make it or abdicate your limited, minimal voting power.
Re: (Score:3)
Where the server is, is irrelevant. If an email that has anything to do with her being Secretary of State, then that email, regardless of what server it is located on, is property of the United States government. It is called work product and belongs to the employer, in this case the United States government. It is subject to records retention acts. Hillary, as a lawyer, knew or should have known that. Instructing someone else to delete them is the same as deleting them yourself. Just like a mob boss who i
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
*sigh* He's not. You never saw Rev. Sharpton hanging out with David Duke, but you saw him with Trump. You saw Jesse Jackson with Trump. You saw Latinos rallying for Trump
This "Trump is a racist" meme was entirely fabricated by the left-wing media that took offense to his "Mexican rapist" speech-- when "Mexican" is a nationality and arguably an ethnicity, not a race-- and decided to pretend he was advocating for white supremacy. Trump also once made a contemptuous statement about women-- about the same time Hillary was calling young black men "superpredators" and lauding the continued disarmament of them through gun control laws. I am aghast at how much traction this completely fact-free narrative took-- but not surprised, because it's easier to vilify someone than refute his points and policies. And I'm a guy who voted for Gary Johnson.
Re: (Score:3)
when "Mexican" is a nationality and arguably an ethnicity, not a race
I'm kind of surprised how much traction this idea got as a refutation to Trump's racism. Trump was a jerk to Mexicans, and I call that racism, but you can call it something else if you want. I would never want to see him imposed on my Spanish-speaking friends, so there was no way in the world Trump was ever going to get a vote from me.
And there's no left-wing media fabrication about it. I'm decidedly not left-wing.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Interesting)
They voted for a racist, misogynistic fascist
I don't think Donald is racist or misogynistic. He is just tone-deaf to political correctness, and has no filter between his brain and his mouth. So he says things that would indeed be racist if they were said by someone that ACTUALLY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. But he doesn't do that, so he shouldn't be judged by the same standard.
There were women in high levels in the Trump organization, and in his campaign, and by most accounts he treated them fairly. He also worked well with blacks and gays. There is some evidence he discriminated against blacks when marketing the condos in his towers, but the evidence is weak, and was likely motivated by business rather than by prejudice.
I didn't vote for the guy, and I don't like him. But calling him a "racist, misogynistic fascist" is hyperbole. He is another Berlusconi, not another Mussolini.
Re: (Score:3)
So he says things that would indeed be racist if they were said by someone that ACTUALLY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. But he doesn't do that, so he shouldn't be judged by the same standard.
What the actual fuck?
So, it's ok for him to say racist & misogynistic stuff, but he's not to blame because he just spouts shit?
Does that work in 4th grade?
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:5, Interesting)
So, it's ok for him to say racist & misogynistic stuff
No it is no "ok", but it also doesn't necessarily mean he is racist. If I was running for president, would I want David Duke to vote for me? YES, I would. Every extra vote helps. If I was asked by a reporter if I wanted David Duke to vote for me, what would I say? I would say "NO", because that is the politically correct thing to say, and too many Americans are too stupid to understand the difference between desiring someone's vote and agreeing with them. Since Donald doesn't filter what he says through political correctness (or rational analysis) he didn't disavow David Duke. But, to his credit, he did try to weasel out of it later by blaming it on a bad earpiece.
Tossing around insults like "racist", "misogynist" and "fascist" doesn't help to win elections. Instead, the Democrats should have talked about what they could do to help working class people. They abjectly failed to do that. It is ironic how the Republicans are perceived to be the party of the working class, while the Democrats are seen as controlled by the elite.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Informative)
Hillary's congressional mentor was a KKK member. I'm sure you hold her to the same standards? No...what a surprise.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary's congressional mentor was a KKK member. I'm sure you hold her to the same standards? No...what a surprise.
I don't give a crap about Hillary's mentor, or her email server, or how many people she killed in Benghazi. I didn't vote for her because she opposes accountability in schools, flip-flopped on TPP, and is too interventionist on foreign policy. These things are ACTUAL ISSUES. Since there was no way I was voting for Trump either (again, because of ACTUAL ISSUES), I voted for Gary Johnson.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know who came up with 'Drain the swamp'?
Mussolini.
Do you know what fascists do?
Mute the press. Check
Make it us vs them (jews/muslims/dems). Check
Promise that everything will be great, without real plans. Check
Put in their friends/elites. Check
THEN they have the power to whatever they want, laws don't matter to them. Remember, this is the guy who promised the military would do war crimes for him. During the second national debate. On live TV.
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Informative)
Not Mussolini, another leftist. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/... [knowyourmeme.com]
Still it's got the stink of socialism/fascism on it. Trump should find another figure of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
They voted for a racist, misogynistic fascist - something well known for decades.
No they didn't, they voted for Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, its quite likely most Trump voters aren't racist. But they did vote for one.
I don't know what is worse. The fact that someone would willingly vote a racist president or that he/she simply doesn't give a shit.
Or maybe, most voters agrees that he just isn't racist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Still millions of ballots that will never be counted.
Absentee ballots in most states with clear winners are not counted.
False. All votes are counted, absentee or otherwise. It may take awhile, and elections may be called before the ballots are all counted, but they are indeed all counted.
http://help.vote.org/article/8... [vote.org]
https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/a... [fvap.gov]
Re:They didn't succeed though (Score:4, Interesting)
Because providing every citizen with a free government ID with a picture on it is, apparently, racist.
I am still trying to figure this one out. However I have been assured by the media that Hillary Clinton's tears will cure ovarian cancer, and that black people catch fire if Trump looks at them in anger, free government ID's are racist to the core. Its the god's honest truth, told to me by an atheist journalist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Getting less votes is not one of them either.
1: The word you want is "fewer", not "less".
2: "Fewer" is a relative term (as is "less"). You need to compare it to something, such as getting fewer votes than Boothead.
It's obvious you are a grammar Trumparian
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot prove a negative. But if they were altered the DNC could prove that in a second.
The DNC could show the originals. The fact they haven't, tells me they are unaltered.
Also note: cryptographic signatures put there by the server show the messages are genuine and unaltered. Sure the NSA could fake that, but likely nobody else.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to thank the leader of said nation-sta (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so I'm clear about your statement, you are saying it was incumbent upon the "lying media" to hack into the computer systems of one or all candidates (fair and balanced), breaking untold number of laws set forth by the computer fraud and abuse act, and disseminate the findings of which to the viewing public?
That's an interesting point of view.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'd like to thank the leader of said nation-sta (Score:4, Interesting)
Releasing those emails a week before the election so that the FBI could start another investigation into them probably swung it for Trump. Turned out that there was nothing there though, mostly just duplicates and nothing really related to Clinton.
In other words, they released nothing but innuendo and triggered an investigation. How is that not corrupt and deliberately misleading the public? And in what way did the media lie about it? Seems more like they wouldn't shut up about it even when it turned out to be nothing, all the while damaging her campaign.
You live in a strange fantasy land where the mainstream media is somehow in the Democrat's pocket while also helping them to go from a near certain win to a loss. They lapped up Trump's campaign too, giving him massive amounts of free publicity every time he said something stupid or outrageous. They were actively helping him, playing into the hands of an obvious demagogue who fed off controversy and being deliberately offensive.
Re:It's Russia's fault! (Score:5, Funny)
man, our own medicine tastes terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has been mucking around influencing foreign governments for many, many decades. Kinda sucks when someone does it to us.
That's all fine but (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I am concerned the only thing that is important was were the e-mails faked. If the were not than all said nation state really did was give us a better informed public.
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what? Its not like all sorts of world leaders, and international organizations, didn't make their opinions known about who they wanted to be the next president. Should we image those acts and the resulting media coverage don't impact US elections?
Re:That's all fine but (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what?
I was and am very much against Donald Trump, but I'm not sure what hacking his organization would have accomplished - every kooky thing he seems to believe was already right out there in front of us. Unless he was secretly boiling and eating babies, I don't know what additional info about him could've swayed the election... and, even then, it might not have mattered.
He famously said "I could shoot somebody and wouldn't lose voters", and apparently he was right.
Re:That's all fine but (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what?
I care. The Soviet^W Russian^W WikiLeaks dumps were giving only half the story. It's like a trial where only one side gets to present evidence. Sure, the opposition can cross-examine, but if the opposition can't call its own witnesses, the jury isn't going to get a complete picture.
Re: (Score:3)
And how exactly are you going to be assured if they were real or fake? Ask Russia if the information they already denied stealing is accurate?
No, you ask the people who wrote the emails. There were no denials. Even so much as a "I didn't really write that" would have put the whole story in its grave.
Manchurian Candidate (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately chances are we are dealing with Putin's proxy in the White House. Just the facts:
1) Trump had no interest in changing the GOP platform presented at the Republican convention, with one exception, he pulled all the hawkish lingo that condemned the Russian intervention in the Ukraine.
2) His second campaign manager Paul Manafort spent considerable time in the Ukraine working for the former president, and Russian asset, Viktor Yanukovych. He had to step aside when this connection became too much of an obvious liability to the Trump campaign.
3) The Russian deputy minister confirmed that they were in contact with the Trump campaign through-out the election process.
4) According to a CNN report, a Kremlin advisor admitted they coordinated with Wikileaks.
5) Trump has considerable business interests in Russia and visited the country often.
6) Trump exhibits considerable sexual appetite.
7) Russian "political culture" perfected the art of compromising politicians with embarrassing material, they even have a word for it.
8) Mother Jones reported that a retired Intelligence officer came forward, alleging that this is exactly what has been done to Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
8) Mother Jones
Ok, sure. So is quoting Infowars now fair game, too?
Re:Manchurian Candidate (Score:4, Funny)
Quit insulting Infowars.
American Exceptionalist Dumbfuckery (Score:3)
The Russian intervention in Ukraine?
Russians gave Ukraine a low interest loan and a cheap rate on gas. The west wanted Ukraine to take on IMF loans with crushing austerity measures. The assistant secretary of state, Victoria Nulan, is on video bragging (in front of Chevron banners) about the billions spent to b
Re:Manchurian Candidate (Score:5, Informative)
The Russian call it Kompromat. And they perfect that dark art. [wikipedia.org]
As to the business connections. Trump works with Russian investors, and brought the Ms. Universe pageant to Moscow. [politico.com]
From bad to worse (Score:3)
Quoting Opinion pieces on left wing rags hardly establishes facts. Trump has the Ms. Universe pageant in the US more often than not, so I guess he's pro US. Then again, they voted a Japanese model Ms. Universe in 2007, so I guess he's a Japanese puppet.
Your argument is stupid, which says much about the author. Keep reading those left wing rags though, it's great for your mental health to live in an echo chamber.
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Clinton accepted 500,000.00 US from Moscow for speaking fees. Is he also a Russian Puppet making Hillary a Russian puppet by marriage? You also happen to ignore every other country which has held the Ms. Universe pageant in your argument. Is Trump also a puppet of those states, or just the one that fits your hyperbole? Your argument is stupid, you are stupid.
Your master should not pay you, you suck at shilling.
Re: (Score:3)
Please re-read my original post. This is not about the intel on Clinton but the alleged compromising of Trump on one of his trips to Moscow.
Or to put it in simple terms: The suspicion that the Russians have something on Trump that they can use for coercion, hence his bending over backwards to be nice to them (something that seems rather out of character).
Possibly (Score:4, Insightful)
But i sincerely think it made little to no difference in the result. The Dems are certainly trying to pin what's probably their worse election in history to the CIA but the sad truth is that Clinton was never a good candidate. She certainly was qualified for the job though, but that has little to do with what ends up appealing to the voter.
If she weren't running against Trump her number would've been way worse. And this is fucking Donald Trump we're talking about.
Re:Possibly (Score:4, Interesting)
This was a disaster of the Democrats own making.
I'd wager Clinton agreed to a forced compromise on Obama getting the nod in 2008 based on his popularity in return for a clear path in 2016 and maximum party support.
The Democrats did everything -- suppress alternative candidates who could have risen up since 2008, railroad the Sanders campaign -- they could to clear a path for Hillary and Hillary only. And she presented a candidacy that only promised more of what everyone already had, which was great for the professional, ownership and social welfare classes but absolutely awful for everyone else.
Fair is Fair (Score:3, Interesting)
The United States has been making "conscious efforts," one way or another, since at least the 1960's if not earlier. Unless the US has some super-special unique privilege among nations, then any nation can play in any way it pleases.
What, like the Chinese did in 1996? (Score:4, Informative)
China was a big supporter of Bill Clinton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
lol @ nsa (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite the conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how to take this statement. Apparently the NSA is good enough to detect a "hacker" and yet powerless to stop it. So if this was an example of "cyber-warfare" are we to expect that the US is completely open and vulnerable, since no counter-measures can be taken? It seems that "the enemy" is so good that they can get in, do damage, get out and get away with it.
Or MAYBE... this guy is just making all this shit up and John Podesta, who uses a GMAIL account - was simply phished. "I was hacked" is the usual excuse to try and hide your own bumbling incompetence when something like this happens. Risking a diplomatic incident to try and distract from your own or your colleague's incompetence is monstrous.
swaying elections eh? (Score:3)
I know one superpower that has intelligence service in the business of swaying elections and causing civil wars and fighting in them. it isn't Russia's
That's a nefarious way of putting it (Score:3)
Another way to look at it is in addition to activists groups, corporations, billionaires, we now have nation stations lobbying for candidates.
Podesta was the only target??? (Score:3)
Re:What If The Effect Was... (Score:5, Funny)
After reading some of the emails released, I am not sure the DNC could spell GPG let alone get it installed and use it correctly.
Re:Amazing Disconnect (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I think that establishing full audit trails for elections are a good thing. We should not blindly trust that electronic systems do what we're told they do - we need ways to verify that (and that goes for so many things other than voting too). I'd be perfectly happy to have voter audit methods as well - and we can easily come up with ways to do that which don't prevent legitimate voters from casting a ballot. Have them sign an affidavit, and take their picture. If you insist on ID cards, make the voter ID itself come with a picture, and don't charge money for them. That way everyone who's registered to vote automatically has a valid ID.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think are the odds of voting illegally and getting away with it? Considering there's only a handful of cases that get detected for any particular election, and that you need a couple hundred thousand illegal votes to reliably rig an election, it would mean a party would have to devise a way to get people to vote illegally with only one chance in 100,000 of getting caught. And on top of that, you have to make it impossible to trace the fraud back to the party. That's just insanely hard. It's much
Re:Amazing Disconnect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You have proof of this? Or at least evidence?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because every time a county "cleans up" its voter rolls, it ends up disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters. It's happened time and time again and to suggest that the DOJ is the one in the wrong here is disingenuous.
Re: (Score:3)
Metaphorically the Russian bear is drunk as fuck, covered in puke in the gutter and babbling incoherently about 'former greatness'.
Former Soviet Republics should be ashamed of themselves for not being able to stand up to Russia. Sure the Ruskys have nukes, but their conventional forces would lose to Texas in a fair fight.
A large percentage of Hillary supporters are also morons. But well indoctrinated morons.