Slashdot Mirror

At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey said a number of curious things, but one comment in particular stood out. When asked about Russian influence in the U.S. election and the ability to combat a foreign actor’s misinformation campaign, the Director said, “We need to arm ourselves with good troll armies pushing back.”

https://ivn.us/2017/05/03/come...

The U.S. Department of Defense spent an average of more than US$626 million annually on propaganda

Countries are allowed to defend themselves you know - Anyhow, it is perfectly fine for America to do this - that's the hidden issue with whataboutism. While presumably to show that your hated opponenet is hypocritical, it merely says that it is okay for you, the aggrieved innicent to do it, because your hated enemy does it. And two groups doing the same thing have to be the same.

Ain't it great tovarish?

Pentagon employees account for 40 percent of the federal public relations workforce and also have the highest combined salaries, the audit revealed.

These 2 are about America expanding it's propaganda to domestic audiences, that's a kind of trolling isn't it? http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/... https://www.globalresearch.ca/...

My Gawd! This is an outrage. Time for only other countries, preferably ones who know of 'Murrica's evil wayds to disseminate any news to Americans.

At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey said a number of curious things, but one comment in particular stood out. When asked about Russian influence in the U.S. election and the ability to combat a foreign actor’s misinformation campaign, the Director said, “We need to arm ourselves with good troll armies pushing back.”

https://ivn.us/2017/05/03/come...

The U.S. Department of Defense spent an average of more than US$626 million annually on propaganda

Pentagon employees account for 40 percent of the federal public relations workforce and also have the highest combined salaries, the audit revealed.

These 2 are about America expanding it's propaganda to domestic audiences, that's a kind of trolling isn't it?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/...

You don't think the RNC is doing the same stuff? They're both corrupt, don't delude yourself.

No, actually, I don't. Or if they are, they're not very effective at it, because if they were, Trump wouldn't be the nominee now. It's been no secret at all that the RNC does not like Trump, and never wanted him to be their nominee. They wanted Jeb! or Little Marco or Lyin' Ted. Blowhard Trump was not at all what they wanted, but because they weren't remotely as effective in rigging things as the DNC, that's what they got.

Trump even used their new winner-takes-all primaries rules against them, which is how he got so many delegates. They only enacted those new rules recently so they could avoid brokered conventions, but it blew up in their faces, with Trump winning the nomination with a minority of votes. It probably didn't help that the media gave so much free air-time to Trump just because he was such a spectacle, and perhaps also because they (correctly) reasoned that with Hillary to be coronated by the DNC, that her only chance of winning the general election was if Trump was the nominee.

So sure, the RNC may be "corrupt" too, but completely inept corruption just isn't a problem the way competent corruption is.

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated

I invite you to imagine, David Duke and friends standing in front of a polling place somewhere, pointing a weapon at non-White would-be voters and telling them: "You are about to be ruled by a White man." This is precisely, what happened in Philadelphia.

Ah, but such speculation would invite far too many problems without an actual voter complaining. Criminal convictions are rarely pursued simply on imagination.

Take here. Nobody did anything.

Why not?

Of course, I've had weird encounters at polling places myself. One time, a guy came up to me for some reason, and I still can't figure it out, but was somehow wondering why I didn't have my ID or voter card out. Given that I had yet to go inside the building, I'm still baffled to why I was even approach. I don't know how he acted towards anybody else though. Still, I can imagine somebody being bothered by it. I suppose I should have done something like called the police, but I didn't bother.

False. Says Wikipedia:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered

I'm afraid you aren't paying close attention, your example is a poll watcher, offering his opinion, not a voter saying "I was too intimidated to vote" which is what would make a successful criminal complaint.

He just made statements regarding his opinion. But again, the question of such speculation is a perilous path to walk, and well known to be circumscribed in legal courts. You didn't even quote him saying "And I saw somebody walk away" but he'd never be allowed to testify to his opinion in court, as that'd be grossly prejudicial.

The Justice Department has won their case already — and then asked the court to dismiss the default judgment in their favor.

Yes, eventually they refused to pursue a default. Because apparently for some reason, nobody responded to the DOJ. That meant that the DOJ had a problem since a court would be extremely leery as they had not won their case in a contested fashion. I can't even believe an attorney in a criminal case would try to do that. It's one thing if you don't show up to a bounced check claim, but a case like this?

Nope. Bad policy there. It'd just be appealed, and I can't imagine an appellate court not rejecting it. Hell, do you want the government winning legal cases against you in that fashion? I know I don't.

Whatever the problem was, it was not the difficulty of actual prosecution.

Maybe the problem was that elements in the DOJ wanted to make a prosecution out of nothing due to their own partisan biases, and they eventually got stopped, but remained bitter about it. Prosecutors can run rampant, you know?

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist

Ah, and here we go redefining terms — as if asking for a proof of eligibility is "suppressive". Nice try, but fail...

You mean the documented and recognized practice of refusing to register people unless they comply with onerous requirements is not suppression in your book?

Even after a judge saw it in a court of law? With the opposing side given a chance to present evidence?

This sort of response raises my eyebrows. You freak out ov

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated

I invite you to imagine, David Duke and friends standing in front of a polling place somewhere, pointing a weapon at non-White would-be voters and telling them: "You are about to be ruled by a White man." This is precisely, what happened in Philadelphia.

making the case difficult to impossible

False. Says Wikipedia:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered

The Justice Department has won their case already — and then asked the court to dismiss the default judgment in their favor. Whatever the problem was, it was not the difficulty of actual prosecution.

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist

Ah, and here we go redefining terms — as if asking for a proof of eligibility is "suppressive". Nice try, but fail...

well as death threats about a Mosque being used as a polling station in Florida.

Completely off-topic.

Funny, how Obama's Justice Department dropped the only voter-intimidation/suppression case documented in recent history — as if that was curtailed by something too...

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated, making the case difficult to impossible. And in fact, throughout the history of the act, prosecutions have been rare to non-existent.

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist, as well as death threats about a Mosque being used as a polling station in Florida.

But heck, even if we pretend all of that isn't a problem, the fact that voter turnout in 2014 was outright abysmal should make everybody take notice.

It was actually a reform pushed around the turn of the century (19th to 20th), as part of the same movement that pushed the 17th amendment allowing the direct election of Senators. The idea was (as I understand it) to take nominations away from the party bosses and smoke filled rooms, and put it in the hands of the people. It's still largely a state by state thing, and some don't have public funded primaries, or primaries at all, opting for party caucuses instead. Some also have different rules on open versus closed primaries.

Reference: http://ivn.us/2015/07/30/story...

Strictly speaking we didn't cause the fire.

Yes you did, with your meddling in their politics, funding and arming "freedom fighters" which is a small disgruntled minority you can find in ANY country to further your own political and financial agenda's. Drone strikes have created more radical extremists then anything else you have done. If I was at a wedding and you dropped a bomb on it because my nephew Yusuf once dialled a wrong number and is now linked to a terrorist group I would be pretty fucking radical after that.

Sure we removed the fire department and we struck the match

So why the fuck did you even do THAT? Their biggest issue has always been America meddling in their affairs, the problem is your economy is driven by war, you keep bloody starting them (although you suck at ending them - and I don't agree with that list either, you lost the Korean war). America has been around about 236 years, and for 214 years of that you have been at war. Around 90% of the time.

So it's really not our fault...

Yes, yes it is.


I also love how any critical posts of the USA get modded into oblivion. See you on -1 side.

"The two largest private sector sources for these EPA positions are Monsanto and Waste Management Inc. Since the creation of the EPA in 1970, at least twelve high-level employees of the agency also have one of these two companies on their resume." ref

Maybe California, which does not consider hydroelectric a renewable source, hence it is dirty.

Is that why the republicans voted to stop obamacare which centrally manages 1/5 of the nations economy?

No, that's why they voted to approve it.

The reason why they voted to stop "Obamacare" in particular is because it was suggested by Obama, not because they actually have any ideological stances on economic freedom (Tea Party aside).

"This comes shortly after the release of the Worldwide Threat Assessment, in which U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, identifies cyber attacks and cyber espionage as the nationâ(TM)s biggest threat, passing that of terrorism."

So according to his own opinion, he is a bigger threat than a terrorist. Time to rid the world of its Clappers.

If Obama actually said [that cyber was the greatest threat to national security]

Hah! Actually, I was wrong. It wasn't Obama. It was James Clapper. :)

"This comes shortly after the release of the Worldwide Threat Assessment, in which U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, identifies cyber attacks and cyber espionage as the nationâ(TM)s biggest threat, passing that of terrorism."

sorry, it was 5% of the vote... and heres one of his campaign images http://ivn.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/what-will-gary-johnson-really-get-with-5-of-the-vote-66396.jpg