Slashdot Mirror
'DNC Hacker' Unmasked: He Really Works for Russia, Researchers Say (thedailybeast.com)
The hacker who claimed to compromise the DNC swore he was Romanian, but new investigation shows he worked directly for Russia President Vladimir Putin's government in Moscow. The Daily Beast reports: The hacker who claims to have stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and provided them to WikiLeaks is actually an agent of the Russian government and part of an orchestrated attempt to influence U.S. media coverage surrounding the presidential election, a security research group concluded on Tuesday. The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a single, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found. ThreatConnect is the first known group of experts to link the self-proclaimed hacker to a Russian operation, amidst an ongoing FBI investigation and a presidential campaign rocked by the release of DNC emails that have embarrassed senior party leaders and inflamed intraparty tensions turning the Democratic National Convention. The emails revealed that party insiders plotted ways to undermine Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential bid. The researchers at the aforementioned security firm are basing their conclusion on three signals: the hacker used Russian computers to edit PDF files, he also used Russian VPN -- and other internet infrastructure from the country, and that he was unable to speak Romanian.
lets blame russia
Nothing to see here. These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much. That makes it OK.
I'm not sure the press is smart enough to understand that use of a Russian VPN means they're working for the Russian government...but I'd expect /. editors to understand at least the basics of, you know, connectivity.
From the same people who said...
"No classified email on my server"
"No material on my email that was classified at the time"
"No material marked classified on my server"
"I handed over all work related emails"
"The DNC did not collude to keep Sanders from winning"
"The DNC doesn't work with news media to plant stories against Sanders"
If they ever got caught telling the truth once, this might be believable. Who hacked the DNC server doesn't matter, what matters is how corrupt the DNC is from the content of the emails. They did their best to disenfranchise their base. Your vote doesn't mean anything to them, only their power and they are willing to lie, cheat and steal to keep that power and extend it over you.
What a joke the DNC is. How long till Debbie Waserman Schultz gets another high paid job thanks to Clinton? Oops, already happened, so corrupt she had to be fired from the DNC but is still truthful enough to work for Clinton.
Is this some pathetic attempt at political spin or misdirection?
1. "At this point, what difference does it make" who he was working for? Are the emails themselves not blatant enough for anyone?
2. What kind of half-assed chicken-shit "Security researchers" draw a connection between Putin's government and a Russian based malware serving IP address? I won't for a second deny that Russia and Putin's goverenment work extensively in hacking the wold. But, there are literally thousands of malware servers in Russia that Putin's government knows nothing about.
The real issue is the fact that DNC tried to stop Bernie with a few underhanded tactics.
The DNC is now trying to redirect the focus everyone to say the Russians did this rather than asking why Bernie didn't get a fair shot or why Hilary was basically given a free pass. I am more worried about why these emails were written in the first place and why the people at the DNC were stupid enough to think their email server couldn't be hacked.
....attack the messenger.
Isn't that pretty much Lawyer Response 101?
Dovetails nicely with the purported "vast Right Wing conspiracy", doesn't it?
If a hacker reveals illegal conduct, is it "less illegal" if the hacker is Russian?
I haven't noticed anyone asserting the emails are not genuine.
-Styopa
The Republicans are so inept, that they had nothing to do with this! This is all on the DNC and DWS and the entire Clintonista Crime Family. They own this, full and completely. The DNC is proven to be just as homophobic (no HOMO), racist (Taco Bowl) and Sexist ("bimbo" comment). I mean, if this was the GOP doing these things it would be front page of the NYT, but since the DNC has also been found colluding with the media to control the narrative ... several times ... this is just what everyone already knew, we just have a shit ton of smoking guns now.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Please provide examples of this buddy-buddy relationship you're describing, which appears to be exactly the opposite of reality.
Drumpf has praised Putin many times on the campaign trail. This has made the news numerous times. If you don't watch the news and don't know how to use a search engine I don't see how I can help you.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The Trump campaign welcomes your endorsement.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
"I supported Bernie Sanders but now I'm going to ignore everything he said."
For future reference, you look like less of a troll if you use fewer *****STARS*****.
One party nominated a racist. The other party nominated a serial liar. And still, I bet the Libertarian and Green parties won't get 5% of the vote. I suspect that Hillary and Trump could beat American children in public while shouting "America sucks" and we still wouldn't get a third-party into office.
My favorite is the guy attending the RNC, wearing the "STOP TRUMP" t-shirt, who said he would vote for Trump. **NUCLEAR FACEPALM**
It's what's IN THEM that is the story behind the curtain nobody wants you to see
To my knowledge, ThreatConnect was paid by the DNC to do this investigation, and the company that owns the news source used as a reference here (The Daily Beast is owned by IAC) has Chelsea Clinton on their board of directors.
I would not draw any conclusions until this is independently confirmed.
Putin does not seem to be one to shy away from using extralegal measures to silence people he doesn't agree with, is that what you are suggesting Drumpf might want some tips on to solve "mutual problems"? Certainly Putin is much closer philosophically with Drumpf than he is with anyone from the democratic party; do you expect he has a good method for Drumpf to use to deal with pesky liberals and socialists?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Do they blame all of their cyber-problems on " Those American Hackers " ?
Or is it just this country where we blame whatever the problem of the week is on whatever country has a higher "Evil Quotient" at the time ?
( Usually Russia, China or Iran if you've noticed the trend )
And I also said that they shouldn't be claiming their emails are hacked by Russians, after all we've been hearing about hacked emails for the past year. They may be telling the truth, but making the argument at all is bad optics.
But then I hear this from Trump yesterday, clarifying his previous statements on NATO, which makes the Russian involvement seem more suspicious:
NATO. They ask me about NATO. Right? You saw that the other day, Meet the Press.
"Well, I hear you want to give up NATO..." I don't want to give up NATO. I like... NATO's fine. But they gotta pay. They gotta pay.
So we have all of these countries, and they're not paying. They're not paying. And we're protecting them.
And the question is: "If such-and-such a country were attacked, are you willing to start World War 3?" Because that's essentially what's happening. They don't pay.
They say, "Well, we have a treaty!" So they have these articles: "Donald Trump wants to give up NATO." No no no. I don't want to give up anything. I want them to pay.
We're a country. It's not 40 years ago, 50 years ago. And now, most people in this audience don't even know, that we're protecting Japan, China, we're protecting Germany! Nothing but money.
We're protecting Saudi Arabia. If we weren't around, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be around for two weeks. We protect Saudi Arabia. They don't pay us what that should be paying. We're losing everything. Folks, we lose on everything.
We protect South Korea. We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, against the maniac on the right. We have 28,000 soldiers against North Korea, separated. Pretty dangerous stuff, considering he's got a million-person army. Pretty dangerous stuff.
So we're doing all this, and yet they're paying us a fraction of what it is.
I saw it with Japan. And by the way, I think it's fine- but they've got to pay us. We don't have the money. They gotta pay us. And they will pay us if the right person asks. If the right person asks. They will. They will.
Do you have any idea the difference that makes for our country if we get countries to take care of us the way they should.
We had a general recently, because we've been doing this, and he said, "Mr. Trump doesn't understand that Japan is paying almost 50 percent of the cost of what we do for them." And I said, why not 100 percent? Why? Tell me why. Tell me why.
Folks, we're run by incompetent people and it's going to end. And it's going to end soon. Because people aren't taking it anymore.
Now, when I talk about we're going to protect Japan, which is great, now, you always have to be prepared to walk. And I said, in one of the articles, they said, "Now what would happen if they didn't pay." I said, âoeWe have to walk."
Hillary Clinton said, "He wants to walk from Japan!" Now, see, what she did, she makes it impossible to negotiate. She's not a negotiator. She's a fool. She's a fool. No, she's a fool.
Because when you tell Japan- very smart people, great people, I have many friends there- but when you say you're not prepared to walk, you'll never walk? So she said, "How dare he say that! We will never walk!"
Then they're never going to pay us. We may have to walk! Folks, we may have to walk.
But- the same thing with Germany. We're spending a fortune in Germany. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Let me tell you. Saudi Arabia? So we'll say this: "Folks, you gotta pay us. You gotta pay us. Sorry."
They're gonna say no. Bye-bye! Within two days, they're calling back, "Get back over here, we'll pay you whatever the hell you want."
OK? One hundred percent.
But whe
Irrelevant.
I don't remember this much controversy when the Russians were giving millions to the Clinton Foundation to award them with a giant uranium deal. Don't shoot the messenger on this one. She is what she is.
There is video of Donald Trump Jr saying just a year or two ago that the bulk of the Trump corporation profits now come from Russia.
I've been wondering if they affixed Reagan to some magnets by now because the Republican party backing a candidate that supports and admires (by his own words) a former KGB officer who's been running practice bombing runs on the US mainland for the last couple years along with threatening to abandon the NATO alliance and leave Europe in a lurch has got to have Reagan doing about 2000 RPM's and that's one hell of a source of energy right there.
The Irony is apparently lost on those who believe in a person 99% of them will openly admit is a liar, he's just not *wink* *wink* lying about the things they care about. Trump spits on the entire Legacy of Reagan and he's using Reagan's Election slogan! My god you've got people screaming about communists in the democratic party while at the same time supporting the guy that claims he respects the foreign one and will abandon allies we protected from being overrun by the same communists. You couldn't make this stuff up, if you tried no one would believe you because it's so outlandish.
The Democratic party has a huge problem. It's also a pretty simple problem: If the US equivalent of the Australian Electoral commission got caught picking a favourite between one of the two major parties there would be a royal commission and a complete overhaul of our political system. The Democratic Party in America should be showing the same level of impartiality between candidates as the Electoral Commission does. It hasn't, and now people are rightly pissed off. This issue isn't going to go away. They have a serious problem on their hands and I don't think that merely putting Sanders on the ballot to run against Hillary for the nomination is enough to fix it.
Conspiring to violate 18 USC/599 is a federal crime.
Assuming that the e-mail is authentic. It might well be, but there should be some serious scrutiny of any evidence that has been 'dug up' by Russian intelligence running false flag ops to influence US elections. They might just be up to something....
Trump and Putin, what a pair they would make...I bet they would get on like Hitler and Mussolini...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Vote for divided govt so Trump can't get anything done. A blocked Trump is better than President Hillary.
No conspiracy necessary. His campaign is over, he didn't get the nomination, now he's recommending that his supporters make the best of a bad situation and elect a ho-hum stay-the-course centrist, the only candidate who can realistically win enough votes to keep a bigoted, inept and childish protofascist from winning the presidency.
If you have to step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet, you do it. It's the smart and sensible choice.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I find the DNC to be much more racist. If you actually listen to what they say about blacks and minorities, it is as if they are COMPLETELY incapable of doing anything normal because of some pigment condition.
"voter ID, disenfranchises Blacks" How exactly does pigment affect getting ID? The same ID that is required to hold a job, get liquor, buy a gun, Open a bank account ....
"Removing a slate vote (single box ballot) disenfranchises Black people" Are blacks somehow unable to select each candidate individually? Oh, I realize that this is nothing more than a way to get upwards of 85% of them voting for the DNC slate.
I just find the whole idea that Blacks are somehow incapable of doing normal things highly racist. Yes, even if it is under the best of intentions. And if I were a black person, I would be really pissed.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It may be sensible if you live in a swing state, but it's completely nonsensical if you live in a solid blue or solid red state. Your vote for Clinton/Trump does nothing, your vote for a third party actually influences the major parties much more.
This space intentionally left blank
Yes, why vote against Hillary or Trump when you can vote against BOTH HILLARY AND TRUMP!
Vote third party, ANY third party. If you really want to stick it to them, vote for the most likely 3rd party Gary Johnson because if he wins even a few electoral votes, it could prevent either candidate from securing the election and the House of Representatives will have to make the call. You can't just not vote or write in, because those don't get counted and thus might as well be a vote for the status quo.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
First off, by referring to the question I asked as a 'conspiracy theory', you are suggesting that asking questions about the chain of evidence and motives of the parties involved is somehow a crazy crank idea. Subtle straw man type suggestion, there spanky.
It is possible that the DNC isn't saying anything on the advice of lawyers, or at the request of the FBI, CIA, NSA, military or other federal agencies, who are undoubtedly investigating the hell out of this. This was a cyber attack by a hostile foreign intelligence agency, not some script kiddies defacing a AOL web page, so there are going to be a lot of people looking into this.
It is also possible that the DNC is still trying to work out what is real and what isn't. A smart way to manipulate this sort of info is to leave 99% alone, and just change a few key things so there is an air of authenticity about it. It would take a little time to properly work out the dif of the two streams.
To be clear: I never said that the email isn't 100% authentic. I am just pointing out that only a truly stupid person wouldn't start asking a lot of questions about this info considering the source.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
So people within our borders actively manipulating the elections is fine, but someone outside of our elections proving the fraud most of us suspected is bad. Got it.
People are more likely to take you seriously if you don't construct straw men.
Citizens are generally allowed to "actively manipulate elections". One form is called "voting", another is called "free speech". There is evidence that the DNC did not want Sanders to win, but unless you found something that everyone else missed, there is no evidence that they DID anything. Unless you are calling for Thought Crime?
On the other hand, there are few ways that foreign powers are legally allowed to influence elections. (Sadly our case is weakened since the US seems to have done this a number of times. We're masters of Do What I Say.)
That is a Red Herring. Sanders was the only candidate allowed to compete and Hillary is so bad she would have lost if not for the cheating in the party.
"Allowed to compete"? Citation Needed. "so bad she would have lost"? Citation Needed. Please either quote the specific emails which prove these, or admit that you are making shit up.
Look, I realize that you hate Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it turns out that many people like her. Many other people people may dislike her but try to base her fitness on "facts" not "rage". Personally I think she'll be very similar to Obama: Good for the economy, lower the deficit, improve the safety net and wealth inequality via the minimum wage and/or health care. Pretty good internationally, Fair for the environment, Pretty Poor from a privacy standpoint. Not perfect but a solid step towards a more liberal society. (Probably more so than Sanders would have; unless you are a dictator it's hard to make progress if you cannot compromise.) Turns out a lot of people agree with me.
The Mark Twain quote about the 3 kinds of lies comes to mind reading this one. Hillary has a very long history of being viewed negatively. Her being under "investigations" does not sweep things under the rug, but is surely not the only issue with the negativity facing the person's statement. At least as important, these people (Hillary et. al) have all been found to be GUILTY of the charges people are investigating.
So, Hillary is GUILTY of what? Killing Vince Foster? Parachuting into Benghazi and slaughtering dozens of Americans? Giving her emails to religious terrorists? Selling weapons to the enemies of America? Lying to the public to start needless wars? (Sorry, those last two were other presidents.)
It sounds like you feel that "investigated" means GUILTY, and "no evidence" means GUILTY. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure how else to interpret your answer.
A lot of people don't like her. Honestly, she's not a very likable person. But she seems competent, loyal to the US rather than just herself, and reasonably honest as politicians go. If you think the main skill set for the presidency should be likability, feel free to write in Miss America. If you want the president to be effective and liberal, though, she's one of the best choices you could make.
I have no idea how these talking points about DT necessarily appointing ultra conservative justices makes any sense.
Although it is highly unlikely to know what DT's position is on anything (he flip-flops all the time and talks off the cuff), his history of political donations doesn't indicate any ultra-conservative streak.
Not saying DT is the best candidate for the job, but these specific irrational fear-mongering talking points aren't really making a good case to vote against him. DT is definitely not Ted Cruz.
AFAIKT, both candidates attempted to throw a bone to the conservative wings of their respective parties by nominating Mike Pence and Tim Kaine.
But stick to your talking points, if that's all you got...
FWIW, that whole ultra-conservative justice talking point is mostly crapola this election cycle. Often this same talking point applied to the "Koch" brothers, but that's pretty misguided too. Politically, the Koch brothers can best be described as libertarian/progressive not ultra-conservative (and I think they are favoring, but not supporting HRC this year anyhow). That's like saying if you really feared the Koch brothers, don't vote HRC this time (wouldn't that be stupid).
What I think that democrats really fear is a non-activist court that doesn't want to advance federal concerns over states rights, but that doesn't rile up the base as much as warning it's gonna be an "ultra-conservative" court as that also fools the libertarian leaning wings of the democratic party to fall in line with the liberal wing of the party.
This is literally like shouting "Squirrel!"
The Dems have gone off their fucking nut.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty...
You realize we sent Stalin a massive infusion of arms and armaments to help him keep fighting Hitler, and supported him despite his evil, right through V-E day? That we really preferred having Russian soldiers dying to having Americans dying, so we gave him all the help we could?
Yes, there was a strong feeling in certain circles that when the eastern front met the western front, the fighting would continue and we'd wind up in a war with the Russians. But still, we absolutely supported evil when it was fighting another evil.
Real lawyers write in C++
So, Hillary is GUILTY of what? Killing Vince Foster? Parachuting into Benghazi and slaughtering dozens of Americans?
Hillary's involvement is Benghazi is what disqualifies her for me.
We first learn that there was an attack on the embassy and people, including the Ambassador, were killed.
The we learn that this was a spontaneous riot due to anti-Islam movie made in the US.
What does Hillary do? Does she defend free speech? No.
Is this considered to be a teachable moment? Where we explain to the Muslim world that Freedom of Speech (which is the expression of Freedom of Thought) is to be respected and honored even if the opinions are disagreeable. (Yes the Muslim world would have brought forth hadiths and other religious commentary showing how insulting Islam is punishable by death and yadda, yadda yadda. This would have be the so-called teachable moment that so many people as so fond of having.
But no. What happens? The film maker is prosecuted. An American citizen who made a horrible movie (I saw it. It a laughable movie, horrible acting, horrible writing.)
Even if that was the end of the story Hillary would be the villain for kowtowing to religious nuts and for throwing free-speech under the bus.
But it turns out the facts we learned from the administration was false.
The spontaneous riot was a planned, well-executed attack. We had a carrier group within reach. We had hours to respond to the attack. The ambassador (it is relayed by French and other European news outlets - and believed by many, especially in the Muslim world) was gang raped before being tortured and killed.
And still - the state department (read Hillary) blames the event on a pathetically bad movie.
Why this charade? Because it was 8 weeks before the 2012 Presidential election. And, as we all knew. Al Quaeda was defeated; ISIS was the junior varsity team, and doofus Romney was channeling the 1980s for his "Russians" quote.
No. Hillary is not acceptable. I actually think that Trump will be put in his place by Congress and the Media and we may have the fortunate outcome of rolling back the Imperial Presidency.
#NeverTrump #NeverHillary - Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
My political opinions are so variant from the mainsteam that I've never had the privilege of voting for a candidate who represents the way I think or solve problems. Every election I've voted in has always been a case of choosing the least-worst candidate.
Frankly, the idea of not voting against the greater evil seems to be utterly brainless. Why would anybody knowingly let the greater evil win?
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty..."
First, you do know that the U.S. did ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, right? Or does that piece of history just get glossed over these days?
Are you saying we shouldn't have?
And, second, the current candidates are really nothing like HItler nor Stalin. This is a Godwin's law reducto-ad-absurdum comparision, not relevant to the current election.
Hillary's involvement is Benghazi is what disqualifies her for me.
[ Cutting a anti-H rant which disagrees with the events in every official Benghazi investigation ]
We can agree on a few things:
* There have been about 8 Benghazi investigations.
* The first few focused on finding Obama at fault. After the 2014 election, they quickly pivoted to finding Hillary at fault.
* Most, maybe all of them were controlled by Republicans
* Republicans have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault
* Republicans are supported by a number of generous billionaires, who also have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault.
* Every investigation has returned largely the same results:
* Hillary and Obama did not give complete information at first (while conflicting information was coming in), but neither one lied. They gave the facts as they were known at the time.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama could have done anything during the attack which could have changed the outcome or had any effect.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama did anything (or failed to do anything) before the attack which directly led to or caused or enabled the attacks.
* Some lower level people at State made some decisions which were (in 20/20 hindsight) poor, but were not malicious.
* Some of the people involved in the investigations have not disagreed with the facts in the official reports, but have nonetheless claimed without explicit basis that Hillary and/or Obama lied and caused it and were otherwise EVIL. Again, without facts or clear explanations.
Now here is where we disagree.
You seem to believe that all of the investigations were wrong for some unexplained reason, and all wrong in the exact same way, and nobody involved has clearly explained how they were wrong, but you know more than all of the investigators and can prove that your version is correct.
I believe that you cannot deal with what you WANT to be true disagreeing with reality, so you are making shit up and ignoring facts while truly believing every word you say, You are not lying. You are also not correct.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/...
All told, a single donor can give more than $700,000 for the election.
That's serious money, according to campaign finance lawyer Brett Kappel.
He said, "It also shows you where campaign finance law has gone. We're now back in the era of soft money."
"Soft money" was the term for unregulated contributions to the party committees in the 1980s and '90s.
The soft money system led to corruption cases in both major parties, and Congress barred party committees from raising it in 2002.
But eight years later, the Supreme Court gave unregulated money a new path with Citizens United and other court decisions.
In a 2014 ruling in the case McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court elevated the importance of joint fundraising committees between campaigns and parties, such as the Hillary Victory Fund.
Campaign finance law had previously set an overarching limit on how much one person could give to federal candidates and the major parties â" combined â" in one election cycle.
In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court said that limit was unconstitutional.
As in other rulings, the court said removing the limit didn't raise questions of corruption.
You don't like that? Well, you can hop on your time machine and go and shoot down people responsible - two Bushes and a Reagan.
They appointed the guys who made it legal. Obama and Clinton appointed judges were against it.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down an overall cap on the amount that large campaign donors can give to parties and candidates in a two-year election cycle.
Chief Justice John Roberts led the opinion and was joined by justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.
A separate but concurring opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The way the system is designed in the US it strongly favours a bi-party state.
At this point it's actually self-perpetuating. The Democratic and Republican parties created the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the billionaire Perot has been the only non-member of the two parties to appear in a prime-time televised debate. The Ds and Rs enforce their agenda by blacklisting any media outlet that shows a debate featuring a candidate from any other party, and the parties have enough contacts in the media which they are in bed with that threats of political boycotts of those media outlets also mean that they can stop media outlets from even reporting on other candidates. The leaked DNC emails show some of that collusion, DWS was on the phone with the head of MSNBC after one of their on-air personalities dared to suggest that DWS should step down as the chair for favoring Clinton. The parties are in bed with the media, and all together they effectively block any other party from gaining any significant following.
You can see it here too, there are plenty of people who are very happy to tell people that voting for another party is a waste of a vote (it's not), or it helps one of the major parties (it only helps the party you vote for), etc. That's the stranglehold that needs to be broken. This election is so far the most likely that I've seen for the general public to ask questions like why aren't Gary Johnson or Jill Stein allowed in the televised debates. The answer will naturally be some arbitrary thing like "they haven't reached X% of support, therefore they aren't included", even though it's obviously circular reasoning (they haven't reached the support because they aren't included). Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, clearly it's possible for him to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to win, so why would they shut him out? So that you only hear their own voices. Jill Stein is on the ballot in 23 states but it looks like she probably also has access to 270 electoral votes, or she's really close. Both parties should be part of the debates, and let the 50% or more of Americans who don't identify as either a Democrat or Republican decide who best represents them.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black