Slashdot Mirror
Hack of Democrats' Accounts Was Wider Than Believed, Officials Say (nymag.com)
A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report: The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
The Democrats are very busy people. Between starting ISIS and bringing in refugees to kill Americans, how do they find time to even hack their own accounts! And I haven't even mentioned the making false birth certificates to make the ISIS founder, the President!
Or maybe the conspiracy is that the Russians did it. Who knows. It seems sloppy that the little hints left behind would've been left behind in the first place. One thing is for sure is that we can't fully trust either side because they've been proven to lie either way.
This wouldn't happen to Republicans, because they're so old. They'd get competent sysadmins to run the servers, proficient clerks to print out their emails each morning, and they'd dictate their replies to a transcriptionist who can remember her fucking password.
There used to be a time when the press acted as investigative journalists, and worked with whistleblowers to expose political corruption and hold politicians accountable for their actions (think Watergate). This was lauded as necessary for the function of the country. Now, this function has been outsourced to the FSB, and the corruption they reveal is denigrated as "interfering with the sanctity of the electoral process". How about the press goes back to being watch dogs instead of lap dogs, shake off the "Democrats with bylines" label,expose the corruption themselves, and undermine the FSB?
Maybe I missed publication of some definitive proof, but this story kind of says the Russians did this, unqualified. We've seen some similarly confident attributions in the past that turned out to be wrong. Convenient, but wrong.
If I were Putin, and I had dirt on Clinton, I'd hang on to it until she were President. Much more leverage that way.
Troll.
Huh? Because VPN IP address? Again, TrustConnect's analysis was good, it traced back to a Russian VPN service provider. The rest of their analysis was best wild guessing.
The NYT article (which IMHO has become a water carrier for the Clinton's) references it's own story, which again incorrectly assumes that Russia is involved because of the TrustConnect's best guess. But TrustConnect even acknowledges that the originating network is obfuscated behind the VPN provider.
I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.
Trump my lord, is that you?
As usual, the stories in the press are disappointingly sparse in detail. A few things that would be interesting to know:
Who cares who did it. Look at the content of the e-mails. They show that the level of corruption, pay-to-play, lies, and other criminal behavior etc are immense. We all know this stuff goes on in politics but with the Clinton's it is not to earn a few extra dollars or a small token of goodwill. The Clinton's have built a global machine that subverts our nations sovereignty to the core in exchange for whatever deals she can profit from brokering.
Today I am much more willing to believe the 70+ people that have gone missing or died "mysterious" deaths days our hours before being scheduled to testify against Mrs. Clinton are not a coincidence. Start by watching Clinton Cash.
It seems sloppy that the little hints left behind would've been left behind in the first place.
Putin has nothing to lose if Russian involvement becomes known- it's obvious that Trump's supporters won't care anyway, since they clap and cheer whenever Trump says nice things about Putin and Russia.
He also doesn't seem to mind leaving his fingerprints on things. Ten years ago Alexander Litvinenko was a former member of the KGB who fled Russia after becoming a dissident and claiming that Putin's rise to power was a coup d'etat. He met at a hotel with some KGB agents in London who claimed to have information about a murdered Russian journalist. Shortly afterward he fell violently ill and had to be hospitalized. It turned out that his tea had been spiked with polonium 210. Now who the hell in the world could possibly have polonium available to poison people with? ("Who me? Nyet!")
Shawn Lucas, process server to the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz who, was found dead in his bathroom 8/2/2016, no cause of death released yet. He had served the DNC and DWS a month earlier in an election fraud case related to the Sanders campaign sabotage, and he can be seen doing this in a video posted to Youtube. This story is publicized exactly nowhere in the mainstream media.
The other funny conspiracy theory is that back when this happened, then there were a dozen Republican candidates and nobody thought Trump stood a chance of getting the nomination, he was somehow running Russia and having the Russian intelligence agencies attack an opponent that he was unlikely to even run against. At the time, Trump was running against Bush and 10 other Republicans.
Left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. I find it strangely ironic though that hackers have broken all of the major news stories this election cycle and it's the reports trying to cover them all up. Fucked up world we're in these days.
I know your being sarcastic, but the DRC employs more than one person to do these things.
--> What!! Now we are employing people from DRC - "Democratic Republic of Canopus" to do this?
FTFY. Aliens from space are always involved in these things you know.
Trump, Hillary, Putin, Kim. The whole ruling class are pretty much buddy buddy.
The story says unnamed American intelligence officials have "high confidence" it was the Russians.
However, I don't know how they've determined that. The only analysis I've seen was from the private security firm hired by the DNC to investigate after the attack. They found circumstantial evidence the hack originated from Russia (Cyrillic letters in metadata, timestamps that correspond with waking hours in Russia, etc). However, that doesn't mean it was state sponsored. There are lots of hackers in Russia and not all of them are getting rubles from Putin.
What we know: circumstantial evidence the hack originated in Russia.
What the media's running with: Trump is a secret agent taking orders from Putin who personally haxx0red the DNC and if you don't elect Hillary Clinton then Trump is going to take orders from Putin and invade Europe and/or nuke everyone.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
And, you can get a great deal on dehydraded food and dietary supplements that will cure cancer. The powers that be don't want you to know!
You are welcome on my lawn.
Where are the Republican emails?
Held back till after the election. For Blackmail.
Someone had to do it.
The ruling class doesn't care about dirt. None of it sticks unless one of them wants a vacation or something.
Oh, there are some people in the world that love him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.
It's almost as if their primary goal is propaganda instead of the reporting of facts...
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Conspiracy or not, I take the whole "the Russian's did it" with a grain of salt. I would love to know how they determine who was responsible, since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Russia has a ton of seriously black-hat hackers, so it's not hard to believe the hackers were Russian.
Here's the original story from Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/en...
which discusses this interview with "Guccifer2.0": http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
And, for reference, here's the slashdot story: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Unlike "Mission Impossible," in the real world nobody is perfect, not even Russians. Everybody tends to leave bits and pieces of evidence behind. But: whether they were Russian government, or just freelancers, remains to be seen.
Trump doesn't want his friend Putin and his friends to get tied to this too much.
Did you do know that Clinton (as SoS) sold 20% of American Uranium reserves to Russia, and coincidentally the Clinton foundation received massive donations from Russia?
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) sold advanced technology to Russia and coincidentally received "tens of millions" of dollars in donations to the Clinton foundation? (Dual-use technology, things that can be used for both industry and military.)
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) organized and helped build the "Russian Silicon Valley", which opened many US companies to industrial espionage? (17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.)
Out of curiosity, when you say Trump and Putin are friends, what's your evidence?
If you look deeper in last 4-5 weeks, 4 people been killed that were involved with DNC either alleged leaker or someone investigating DNC fraud. 1 person you could say its just coincidence, but 4 it looks more like someone is tring to stop something. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp...
Also, please learn to use italics correctly
The idea, that Russians are behind this is a red herring. Put out by anonymous sources it serves only to change the topic — from the contents of the e-mails and the negligence of the Democratic officials (including their Presidential nominee).
According to Assange, for example, Wikileaks got their data from DNC-sources including the misteriously murdered Seth Conrad Rich.
Maybe, Russians were involved too, maybe not. But the facts remain: DNC officials (including Hillary Clinton herself) are incompetent in computer security and dishonest.
Why is my real account disabled?
Well now, he could have been referring to the Danish Refugee Council, Disability Rights Commission, Dutch Reform Church or even the Dogbert's Ruling Class!
Loading...
Well sure but I think that was case where Putin wanted just enough deniability to avoid legal consequences without it being entirely clear he is above the law at home, but at the same time sending an unmistakable message to other wood be dissidents.
He wanted it know who did it.
Its not nearly so clear to me why he would want it know He/KGB/Russia Gov is behind the DNC hack. Its not like US Democrats are likely to change policy positions because they fear Russians are going to put a hit on them or something. Having their finger prints on it allows the DNC to try and conflate, confuse, and distract from any issues revealed in the leaks by talking about and tieing them to some kinda bizarre Russian conspiracy. Do so degrades the impact of the leaks themselves so why bother in the first place.
The real possibilities are:
1) The Russian finger prints are plants to lead people away from the actual responsible party
2) The KGB was just sloppy
3) It was a non-state but possible Russia based group, that was sloppy
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'd sign up to be a part of Dogbert's ruling class, but I can't afford the fee. :)
Also, Assange has been hinting that the leak came from a DNC staffer, and not a hack at all.
The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Who cares who did it. Look at the content of the e-mails. They show that the level of corruption, pay-to-play, lies, and other criminal behavior etc are immense.
Have you even looked at those emails? I wasted a few hours looking for good stuff and all I found was a snotty attitude toward Sanders.
Today I am much more willing to believe the 70+ people that have gone missing or died "mysterious" deaths days our hours before being scheduled to testify against Mrs. Clinton are not a coincidence.
I think you forgot to take your Risperdal last night.
is that they hacked a bunch of accounts, published the DNC emails, then hung out to capture the scurrying-about as the rats reacted to the DNC hack.
THAT will be interesting!
That the "Russian Breach" story is still being pursued actively (this is by the same FBI that refused to prosecute the Secretary of State for gross secrecy and public-information violations) when it's growing clearer that the recently-murdered DNC staffer was likely the source of the leaks.
Willful ignorance, anyone?
-Styopa
I wonder how deeply concerned the media would be with the source of the hacks as opposed to what they exposed if the target had been the RNC instead of the DNC?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Gerbil and Stalin would be proud of the American Media at this point.
I've read a lot about Stalin, and seen a lot of documentaries about him. But I cannot remember any reference that he owned a small, desert rodent.
Or maybe . . . in Slashdot Kung Fu style . . .
"In Soviet Russia, gerbil owns Stalin!"
Although, maybe this would be a great idea for a trashy Hollywood sitcom. "Gerbil and Stalin" . . . starring Charlie Sheen as the gerbil, and The Soup Nazi as Stalin.
And Jerry Mathers, as "The Beaver". (Kim Kardashian would probably not accept the role).
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
"Reporters are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same." -- Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Principle_
Soon the Trump campaign will instead claim that the democrats hacked their own system and set it up to look like someone else, to take attention away from some other conspiracy.
What's more likely to happen is that the Dems did hack themselves - i.e. a Bernie supporter did it. Look for Seth Rich to be outed as a (deceased) Sanders supporter. Assange has all but said he is a source.
The Democrats can point at Russia and distract from the contents of the emails. The Democrats now owe Putin a favor.
If you're going to hack a major American political party, why stop there? Why not hack all of them? Where are the Republican emails?
The only evidence the DNC was hacked as opposed to the target of a whistleblower is from the security firm the DNC hired themselves. The evidence that the hacks originated in Russia is circumstantial, and there is no evidence it was state sponsored. Julian Assange has hinted the source was a leaker, not a hacker, and this also fits in better with his M.O...it is WikiLeaks and not WikiHacks, after all.
If I were running PR for the DNC and I knew one of our own people betrayed us because he couldn't stand our corruption and leaked our information, I would try to blame someone else, make us look like victims while smearing our opponent as having ties to evil criminal foreigners.
Trump is probably the most hated person on Earth right now, so I don't see a lack of motivated hackers here.
I'm willing to bet around the globe there are more motivated people who hate Clinton. Her hands are soaked in blood. Trump might be a big meanie who says nasty things, but he hasn't armed terrorists, toppled governments, or ordered drone strikes. (Yet.)
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Did anybody check to see if any of these people had any debilitating illness that would lead them to feel that it would be better for their lives to be ended? The murders happen because they want to manufacture rumor and divisiveness, not because they want to actually hide something. Dirt doesn't actually stick to these people whether or not they kill someone. Also check life insurance policies.
Looks like Hillary's strategy is to blame Russia.
And people are stupid enough to fall for it, rather than bother thinking about the content of the information.
The content of the emails is actual news. I don't think Murica's interested in facts and newsy-type-stuff any more. They'd rather listen to Clinton vs. Trump. We need a new candidate, one who's a pro-wrestler and a porn star. Vote for Dwayne Alozando Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho for president - F*CK YEAH! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Presuming the Russians want to damage her campaign, if she does get elected then we'll have elected her despite having seen all her dirty laundry. She'll be the most transparently elected President in history.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Also, Assange has been hinting that the leak came from a DNC staffer, and not a hack at all.
Assange has had an extensive relationship with the Russian government. He's even hosted a television show on a Russian state-owned network. And he's made it quite clear that he wants her to lose.
The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.
And therefore it can't be true? What kind of logic is that?
I'm more apt to believe that the IT guy Killed in early July that WikiLeaks has a reward for his killers was actually the source of the leaks. What IT guy wouldn't have had motive given the DNC's position on H1B, who was also in a key position in IT to get ALL the emails, and who died in a clear hit, and not mugging since nothing was stolen? I hear ghosts of the 90's coming back which was my main issue with Clinton back in 08.
If I were Putin, and I had dirt on Clinton, I'd hang on to it until she were President. Much more leverage that way.
Why? Then you have someone with a head on their shoulders running your rival country and all you can do is try to get leverage on them after the fact with dirt on someone who is already covered in it (both candidates are well-covered, in fact). If you release the dirt before the election, you might get a fawning fanboy of yours who thinks like a 12-year-old boy running the US instead, giving you far more leverage overall than threatening Hillary with yet another skeleton for her cavernous walk-in wardrobe full of them.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Assange has had an extensive relationship with the Russian government. He's even hosted a television show on a Russian state-owned network. And he's made it quite clear that he wants her to lose.
Therefore the leak didn't come from a DNC staffer? What kind of logic is that?
The truth is, we do not know if the documents came from a leak or a hack, and we do not know the identity of the leaker(s)/hacker(s). It would be nice if the media would 1. dig more into the content of the leaks and 2. investigate the source of the leaks and give us facts rather than try to spin some kind of "Trump is a Russian plant" conspiracy theory.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The majority of legislators and politicians in the US seem hell-bent on destroying everyone's privacy in the name of "national security". Now the Dems are experiencing the result of Russia's attempts to further its own national agenda by invading US politicians' privacy. There's at least a little poetic justice in that, methinks...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Therefore the leak didn't come from a DNC staffer?
I didn't say that, I said that Assange "hinting" at it means nothing.
The Democrats can point at Russia and distract from the contents of the emails.
Which are what? Wikileaks is a public site you know; if there's anything interesting, then you can post the URL instead of just ranting about what you imagine might be in there.
However, I don't know how they've determined that. The only analysis I've seen was from the private security firm hired by the DNC to investigate after the attack.
There are several reasons why you'd only hear from the DNC itself and not the U.S. government. From the New York Times:
The assessment by the intelligence community of Russian involvement in the D.N.C. hacking, which largely echoes the findings of private cybersecurity firms that have examined the electronic fingerprints left by the intruders, leaves President Obama and his national security aides with a difficult diplomatic and political decision: whether to publicly accuse the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the hacking.
Such a public accusation could result in a further deterioration of the already icy relationship between Washington and Moscow, at a moment when the administration is trying to reach an accord with Mr. Putin on a cease-fire in Syria and on other issues. It could also doom any effort to reach some kind of agreement about acceptable behavior in cyberspace, of the kind the United States has been discussing with China.
What the media's running with: Trump is a secret agent taking orders from Putin who personally haxx0red the DNC and if you don't elect Hillary Clinton then Trump is going to take orders from Putin and invade Europe and/or nuke everyone.
The general consensus seems to be that the Russians consider him a useful idiot, not a "secret agent". He obviously isn't going to take orders from Putin, and Putin won't need to give him any. Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket that he might abandon like a failing casino. (As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.)
Indeed. Assange merely hinting suggests that he is trying to mislead: outrage would be the appropriate response. Surely outing the leak after he has been killed for leaking does no harm and helps expose his murderers. Instead we get innuendo from an advocate for radical transparency.
Does the Democratic Republican Committee employ anyone other than Trump?
Have you even looked at those emails? I wasted a few hours looking for good stuff and all I found was a snotty attitude toward Sanders.
Wait, somebody actually read the e-mails? Everybody else I know is just parroting conclusions some website fed them.
(I have to say, I didn't read the whole stack, but the ones I saw didn't seem to be anything other than a couple of people venting opinions in private that would be politically incorrect in public.)
This election is surreal. On the one hand, we have Hitler. On the other hand, we have a murderer who takes orders from satan himself.
Neither of these things is remotely close to real. Donald Trump is a dork, and Hillary Clinton is an awkward idealist who's been jaded somewhat by bumping into life. Neither one will destroy the country. Neither one will be Hitler.
After muddling through another 4-8 years, the country will have another election where we hear that it's again Hitler against the antichrist, and somehow people will believe again that it might actually be true.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Alternatively, this is the warning to Hillary that they have lots of stuff to blackmail that isn't public knowledge and knew - through watching campaign coverage news coverage - that this wouldn't hurt her chances for winning since the media would keep the focus on "evil Russians" rather than on the contents of the email.
In fact, most of the coverage seems more focused on what part Trump may have possibly hypothetically played in this rather than the actual content of the emails.
Make no mistake, but this hasn't hurt Hillary at all and has probably damaged Trump. And Russia is savvy enough to expect this outcome. Like us, they are skilled at the game of overthrowing and then installing puppet governments.
Sanders wasn't frozen out due to some misguided left wing ideology. Not in the slightest. He was frozen out due to right wing stances on the economy and social services that tried to brand him as unelectable and unrealistic.
Sorry, but Sanders wasn't 'frozen out' of the media at all, not in the slightest. He was built up by the media, because the media likes a horserace, and wanted opposition to Hillary. He never had a chance in the first place, but the media touted all of his wins--even though he never won enough to make him competitive-- and downplayed all of his losses, even though he was losing the delegates he needed to win.
It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story. "Frontrunner wins again" doesn't cut it, "plucky underdog challenges frontrunner"-- yes.
The assessment by the intelligence community of Russian involvement in the D.N.C. hacking, which largely echoes the findings of private cybersecurity firms that have examined the electronic fingerprints left by the intruders, leaves President Obama and his national security aides with a difficult diplomatic and political decision: whether to publicly accuse the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the hacking.
Why would they need to do that when there is no evidence the hack was state sponsored? The reason Obama can't accuse Putin of engineering the hacking isn't because "diplomatic tensions" but because there's no evidence the Russian government had anything to do with it. There's only circumstantial evidence the attacks even came from Russian soil. I'm not saying they didn't do it. I'm saying we literally don't know. I can only surmise the media is pretending like it's a set-in-stone fact is because it helps the Democrats politically to be seen as the victims of foreign aggression and distracts from the embarrassing content of the leaks.
Since the media reporting this falsely, do you think they're doing so because they're lying, or because they're incompetent?
Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket
Isn't it, though?
As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.
Of course not. I would never vote for someone who says they would categorically never use nukes, because that defeats the purpose of nukes as a deterrent if you've already sworn never to use them.
Do you think the nuke card should be taken off the table? Why?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Gotta say it's a hell of a ride, though. Most entertaining election of my life for sure.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
But you did say:
Assange has had an extensive relationship with the Russian government. He's even hosted a television show on a Russian state-owned network.
Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?
Is there anyone outside the DNC you don't think is on Putin's payroll?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Because Sanders supporters have no motive to hack the Rs.
I don't get the point you are trying to make. GP stated that "The Press" is no longer performing it's function and that the solution is to move back to being journalists. Are you suggesting that the expectation should be to give up and/or commit suicide because the media has been consumed by corruption? Or are you advocating a positive change in a bad way?
The "Press" in the US today has become what we used to make fun of in other countries. Baghdad Bob telling people how Iraq was crushing the Americans is no different than every media outlet yesterday (I checked 8 networks and 2 independent radio stations who call themselves conservative) falsely claiming that Trump said to assassinate Hillary. The dishonesty we are seeing from the Press is what we saw in the Pravda in Russia.
Unfortunately the lack of media credibility is causing a secondary set of media problems. Certain people and third party media may provide better truths but include messages of their own which are not part of the truth. We can say that some of it is for money, but another aspect is to distort reality in the opposite direction of the broadcast media. Sadly I distrust _all_ media at the moment and check sources. There is a reason people extract 5-8 second sound bites and invent a narrative around it, and that reason has nothing to do with you, your country, your best interests, or concerns for your welfare.
When it comes to media it's probably about time to format and rebuilt. If you asked, I'd suggest the same for both major political parties.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The only reason Trump isn't Hitler is that he's way dumber than Hitler. Otherwise, he says all the right things.
Most likely, but democracy isn't guaranteed to survive. We only have a Republic as long as we can keep it. "Only I can fix it" Donald Trump represents an anti-democratic strain in the country. We're blessed that they are mostly ineffective. They may not always be.
Play Command HQ online
and who died in a clear hit, and not mugging since nothing was stolen?
Or just a botched robbery. Guy get's held up, resists/makes noise, robber shoots him then runs off before people call the cops or come outside and see him. Or the robber shoots him then runs off before he can take anything because a car is coming down the street. Hell, could even have just been a random killing like what's going on in Phoenix or a target of opportunity for some guy trying to look tough/join a gang. All of these scenarios are at least as plausible as a Clinton/DNC hit.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Truth, I remember back when elections used to be kind of boring. Doonsbury had a fake look-back from the future something like "Given this context, president Perot's subsequent invasion of Canada almost makes sense."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The only reason Trump isn't Hitler is that he's way dumber than Hitler.
Hitler was really dumb, man. He got lucky that a populist surge lifted him, but any time he tried to take control (for example, telling the military what to do), he messed things up.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Have there been corporate e-mails leaked from Google or Microsoft? I don't think so...
Humbler people recognize their incompetence and use services provided by experts. Hillary Clinton, evidently, is not one of them — in her desire to hide her official communications from the future FOIA-requests, she put it all (including the national secrets) on her own server (and chose the worst platform imaginable for it too).
So, you are justifying the dishonesty of the DNC in general and Hillary Clinton in particular by Trump being "idiot"? Is that your argument?
-1 Offtopic.
Or, maybe, you are trolling? That must be it... And I almost fell for it...
Why is my real account disabled?
John Ashe: People made up that he was going to testify against HRC in his bribery trial-there is no reason to believe he was going to do so other than to connect his suicide to HRC. My guess is that it was an unprovable suicide (choked by a barbell) to avoid conviction and allow his family to collect life insurance.
Victor Thorne: Holocaust denialist conspiracy theorist, said mean things about the Clintons. This is a fringe author's fringe author, who is more famous dead than alive. I have a hard time believing that he managed to lean anything worth killing for. Plus he appears to have committed suicide.
Shawn Lucas, a process server (not lead attorney!) in a lawsuit going nowhere against the DNC. The conspiracy mongers had to lie (rather than just BS) because even they know that a process server would not have confidential information and killing a process server would accomplish nothing.
But to many the lack of evidence just shows how deep the conspiracy runs...
You can get around the New York Times paywall by using an incognito tab.
There is a reason why the Left (as opposed to the Democrats or the Liberals) refers to the NYT as "Pravda on the Hudson". Lately, the Washington Post is the same way -- just check their headlines. If you are paying any atttention at all, you will notice that Hillary is running to the right of everyone on policy and on her actual history in office. Notice lately how they cranked it up to 11 regarding what Trump *might* do, while completely ignoring what Hillary actually *has* done.... meanwhile the media is acting all innocent as if they are governed by a bunch of angels. When in fact, they need to be punched in the face and hard.
C|N>K
Well if my post was actually about the contents of the emails I might. But my post is actually about the mechanations of the ruling class to keep people divided and loyal to their side's dear leader. The ruling class doesn't care which dear leader you have as long as you have one. They believe they are the answer to the problem that is the unwashed masses and everything you see them do is towards keeping the people needing them.
Meh. Nobody is saying that Trump was running Russia and OP isn't saying that Russia hacked in for Trump. Russian hackers (or hackers from Russia, if you prefer) got into the DNC because they could, and they have since used the info to serve their ends. It is a bonus from their perspective that they get to help Trump--rather than a non Putinista like Rubio or Cruz-but not a prerequisite.
I find it incredible that there has been so much, much more ink about the source of the hack than the damning material in the hack. The docs show an amazing (maybe not) lack of ethics and high-schoolish crap done by the major political party. What a bunch of liars, cheats, manipulators, ethically-void bunch of leaders of democracy.
And now the "evidence" is a VPN in Russia....Gee. And lets make sure there is a magic key that only lets the good guys get into encrypted messages. Oh, the land of rainbows, unicorns and safe-space for the snowflakes....
On the other hand, the media's "nothing to see here" attitude of anything Clinton or Democrat follows the expected playbook. Obfuscate from the story and focus on the messenger.
BTW, you did notice -- those of you that read about the docs and didn't obsess about the hacker -- that part of the DNC playbook was to look for anything that could be construed as Republican violence tendencies and then amplify, exaggerate them with indignant hyperbole. The leap that "second amendment people" were assassins is a perfect following of that play. Sigh.
PS....all the best to the snowflakes....
No, Seth Rich was killed so that the little people who are against the Democrats would think cover-up and cling to whoever TTY her dear leader happens to be even more. Nothing sticks to the ruling class. They just want to be needed and nothing makes a member of the ruling class seem to be more needed than apparent evilness in their arranged opponent.
Were you watching the same media I was? They had basically called the country for Clinton before Super Tuesday, showing how she had so many superdelegates in her pocket that Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
The news I saw pretended that Sanders had a chance. Although, in fact, Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
And no, you're wrong about the left bias.
Since I didn't claim the media had a left bias, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was
"It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story."
Every single study I've seen that has analyzed the American media as a whole has found that there's a right-wing bias, on average.
I'd be interested in a link to those studies you refer to. You must read a lot of left biased studies. The most thorough report I've seen, linguistic analysis of bias in newspapers, came to the interesting conclusion that newspapers, as a whole, showed a political bias that was identical to the bias of the market they served. Newspapers in right-leaning locations were right-leaning; newspapers in left-leaning locations were left-leaning.
Which turns out to not be not very surprising.
Seriously? What kind of evidence do you think they would say.
The security firm the DNC hired presented their evidence.
But who are "they" and what assertions have they made? The article says Obama won't accuse Putin because of "diplomacy," and yet here we have the government saying it was the Russians? So the government is telling the government and the press it was the Russians but the government isn't saying it was the Russians?
It sounds more like propaganda FUD to me. I'm not saying it was aliens but it was totally aliens! I'm saying it was Putin but it was totally Putin!
I just don't see how Putin's thought process works here. I can believe he wants Trump to win and not Hillary, because Hillary and Obama act like they want WWIII with Russia whereas Trump wants to ally with Russia against radical Islam. And so to help enable this, Putin...sloppily hacks the DNC and releases some emails that mostly confirm what everybody already knew, that the DNC didn't like Bernie Sanders? They didn't reveal any criminal wrongdoing that would actually sink Hillary. If it's a play by Putin I don't get his game. There must have been better targets and better use of compromised information than this. And why involve WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks doesn't deal in stolen goods from hackers, they deal in leaked documents from whistleblowers.
My theory: like Assange hinted, the leaks came from a DNC staffer. When the DNC learned they got compromised they had to play PR spin, and "we're victims of evil Putin who's in league with evil Trump!" is a waaaaaaay better story than "our own people were disgusted with our corruption and leaked our documents."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Putin is on Trump's payroll. I don't know who said it, but I hear people say that. Could be true. (Said exactly as trump would say about crazy crap)
The content is irrelevant. The purpose in all this is to make the people for Clinton to go "OMG, the Russians!" And for people on the "other side" to go "See why we need our guy to get in?" The ruling class need to be needed and everything they do is about maintaining that. Meanwhile we all just need to stop for a moment and talk about what form and degree of government we all really want to have. To that end, I have started the Facebook group, " The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party".
you'll forgive me for thinking that the comparison between Trump and Hitler is a bit closer than "remotely close to real."
Oh, here's another one: Hitler and Trump both breathe.
I don't forgive you, I think you're a complete moron who can't remember history even as far as the previous election. There are always comparisons between Hitler and the president, at least back to Carter. You are like those idiots who look at the similarities between the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination, and think it must be related somehow (because Lincoln was shot in the Ford theater, and Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln, made by Ford! I swear that is 100% true!!).
I will also add that you are an ignoramus for thinking that "Muslim" is a race, or that of all the plenty of leaders in Europe that ostracized Jews for hundreds of years before Hitler, none of them turned out to be Hitler. That is why Hitler was a scapegoat, because Germans already hated the Jews going back as far as Martin Luther......they weren't somehow 'tricked' by Hitler's propaganda into hating Jews.
You are the problem with this country: people who can't learn from history, even if it was history from their lifetime.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Let's not forget that previously Assange had been insisting that he didn't know who leaked the information to them.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
Trump has been hacked, it's just that nobody knows what the random jumble of words in the emails mean.
Nullius in verba
Gonna call this like I called the Assange attributing the leaks to DNC staffer Seth Rich:
If the narrative becomes politically convenient, "Russian" will come to mean "Snowden."
This, however, is more of a stretch than the Assange thing. That one was as predictable rain.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?
(Are you clutching your pearls?) Sure he is. He has a lot to lose if she's elected (he's holed up in an embassy that he can't leave unless Trump wins) and he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. Whoever hacks the DNC- Russians or otherwise- is naturally going to go to him.
Is there anyone outside the DNC you don't think is on Putin's payroll?
Nobody is on Putin's "payroll". I don't see why anyone finds the idea that Russian black-hat hackers might be involved in this surprising- Russia is full of them, if you've noticed. (Who else would do it? You guys? I don't think so.) There's no complicity going on in Trump's side of this. There's nothing Trump is hiding. Everyone can read his tweets. Everyone can hear what he says. He's not encouraging Putin in secret, he does it out loud for everyone to see. Cooperation between Putin and Assange is perfectly consistent with both their own motives and with Trump's public statements.
Franky I don't see why it really matters whether Russia was involved in the hack at all. Even if it's true, I don't think it unearths anything that wasn't completely obvious to begin with.
"Do you think the nuke card should be taken off the table? Why?"
Keeping the nuke option open isn't just for Trump. The Democrats would use them if they suspected that our adversary is planning a copyright violation.
Is the press bias to the left or ideologically neutral to a fault? You can't really be both, ya know? They're polar opposites.
Anyway here the reality: the press is left on social issues (guns, abortion) and right on economic ones (e.g. the ones that actually matter). Outside of Mother Jones you won't find anyone seriously investigating income inequality or the massive wealth grab that happened post 2008. My favorite are a bunch of stories I keep reading about why the middle class' spending isn't going up. Since the press won't talk about income inequality they just kinda trail off when it comes time to talk about why.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You are like those idiots who look at the similarities between the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination, and think it must be related somehow (because Lincoln was shot in the Ford theater, and Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln, made by Ford! I swear that is 100% true!!).
I always just like those weird historical coincidences.
Time to offend someone
My view is Assange is simply making shit up, because Wikileak's policy against revealing identities of whistleblowers means he can say anything he wants and never have to justify it. He's had a hate-on for Clinton for a while (maybe justified, if you buy into the idea that he's been persecuted, rather than being a rather shabby sex fiend). Clearly he believed that the leaks would destroy Clinton's electoral hopes, but he, like a lot of people, didn't bargain on Trump being so tremendously awful that it ceased to matter what dirt real or imagined could be produced.
And yes, I know, the overwhelming number of Trump supporters on /. is likely to mean I'm going to lose even more karma. It's getting to the point where I don't even care.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That changes nothing about what I just said.
Well we have already had a professional wrestler as a governor and also a body builder so why not a porn star.
Time to offend someone
I have a friend who is definitely not a "brown-skinned person of Arabic or Iranian origins" as you so subtly call it (which aren't races either, there's some serious ethnic diversity over there), who has for some reason decided to become Muslim. When she wears her hijab, she gets negative looks and comments, even though she doesn't fit your stereotype of a middle-easterner.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
there's no evidence the Russian government had anything to do with it. There's only circumstantial evidence the attacks even came from Russian soil.
So there's no evidence, and there's circumstantial evidence. Whatever that means.
I can only surmise the media is pretending like it's a set-in-stone fact is because it helps the Democrats politically to be seen as the victims of foreign aggression and distracts from the embarrassing content of the leaks.
Your logic is basically this:
Since the media reporting this falsely,
...as you "surmised"... that's proof I guess...
Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket
Isn't it, though?
No. It's a treaty, ratified by Congress (which means that abrogating it would be unconstitutional), that says if one member gets attacked, it will be treated as an attack on all of them and all will cooperate in a counterattack. The United States spends the largest amount on NATO only because it has unilaterally made it its own prerogative to spend more than half its budget on defense. If "we spend too much on NATO", then we can just cut our military spending. Telling Estonia "oh well, if Russia attacks you, you're on your own because you didn't pay up" not only encourages Russia to attack, it unravels any obligations other countries might have to help us if we get attacked (as they did in the Iraq War).
As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.
Of course not. I would never vote for someone who says they would categorically never use nukes, because that defeats the purpose of nukes as a deterrent if you've already sworn never to use them.
Do you think the nuke card should be taken off the table? Why?
If we "swear never to use them", which has been our position for the past 60 years, it's still pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that we will use them if someone launches a nuclear attack on us. There's a big difference between the card being on the table, and announcing to everyone that you've got this awesome nuke card that you might use under some new unpredictable circumstances. That just emboldens your enemies and frightens your friends.
Than any voter asked to submit a ballot is allowed to see.
Democracy. Republic. Transparency.
PPppppppppppptttttttttt!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"Most likely, but democracy isn't guaranteed to survive." With how Clinton got into the ring in November, why in the world would you think it survived this election cycle?
So there's no evidence, and there's circumstantial evidence. Whatever that means.
I said there's no evidence it came from the Russian government and only circumstantial evidence it came from within Russian borders.
You understand not everything that is done within a country is paid for by that country's government, right?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The Mexicans want to destroy the US? An army of brown people invading the US? Yes, orange pickers are such a profound threat to the US.
I'm pretty dubious the Russians want to, they just want to get back their old Soviet sphere of influence. And China wants to build its own sphere of influence, but pretty much needs the US to keep buying stuff made in China, or its navy won't be able to afford an inflatable raft, let alone destroyers, patrol boats and aircraft carriers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
there's no evidence the Russian government had anything to do with it. There's only circumstantial evidence the attacks even came from Russian soil.
So there's no evidence, and there's circumstantial evidence. Whatever that means.
Well, it's pretty simple - there is some evidence that someone(s) in Russia did it, but there's no evidence that - if that's even true - that person or group was working for the Russian government. Assuming it did come from Russia, it could be a private organization or hacker that did it.
The United States spends the largest amount on NATO only because it has unilaterally made it its own prerogative to spend more than half its budget on defense
Well of course the US unilaterally sets its own budget priorities. Who else would? Also, it spends more than half the *discretionary* budget on its military, not the whole budget. It's a much smaller percentage of the whole budget.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Watching the two of them fight on Twitter is simultaneously entertaining and sad.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Or you can just actually provide some real evidence, as opposed to inventing lists of dead people that two individuals who have been in politics their entire adult lives had involvement with.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Having lived near Fort Meade, I have always believed that if NSA was out to get me, I couldn't stop it. Something they would do would get around my security. The one thing I could count on is that NSA was highly unlikely to actually take an interest in me. So I will take reasonable measures, but I don't walk around covered in tin foil.
Yet so many of those that have good reason to think that they would be a target of highly competent infiltrators appear to rely on the same hope of obscurity. And so do their sysadmins. We see if from these officials of the Democratic Party, we see it from movie stars that ought to know that the traffic through their phones is of great interest, and we see it from businesses that have information on hundreds of thousands or millions of their customers.
Yo! You are NOT obscure.
I guess they're just motivated to destroy freedom!
The only evidence the DNC was hacked as opposed to the target of a whistleblower is from the security firm the DNC hired themselves.
I keep seeing this quoted, but Crowdstrike's conclusions were also confirmed by Fidelis and Mandiant/FireEye, i.e. their competitors:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The evidence that the hacks originated in Russia is circumstantial, and there is no evidence it was state sponsored.
Definitively and absolutely making an attribution call is very difficult, but this is hardly the case of using one indicator to state "Well it was Russia." The research, evidence, and conclusions are all clearly laid out, and while they didn't point to a smoking gun, there's a reasonably clear case that the majority of the signs point to Russian APT activity as being behind the intrusion:
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
That phenomenon is called the "echo chamber", where you have 30 or so outlets quoting and referencing each other in a cyclical fashion rather than the other 29 outlets checking original sources. The result is like the rumor game; eventually what is said is so wildly distorted it's unrecognizable. The problem is that by outlets doing this, is you have so many people saying the same thing it lends an aura of credibility to something with very little actual fact behind it. The root cause is the 24 news cycle, where journalists are pressed to publish as soon as possible, often within minutes of the event. This doesn't allow any time at all for research, so the temptation is to skip primary sources and go to third party sources, which is either the press pool or Twitter. The reason for this, in turn, is their revenue model, which currently revolves around display ad impressions (commercials) or clicks. The clicks don't care whether your info is right. They just care that the headline is fresh and enticing.
It would be nice if the media would 1. dig more into the content of the leaks and 2. investigate the source of the leaks and give us facts rather than try to spin some kind of "Trump is a Russian plant" conspiracy theory.
Like these? http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
http://arstechnica.com/securit...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Disagree with the conclusions all you like, but there's certainly not a lack of facts or investigation going on. I also haven't seen any serious suggestions of Trump being a Russian plant (outside of biased partisan stuff at least). I have seen lots of speculation that Russia/Putin have a strong interest in backing Trump, or that Trump is favorable towards Russian interests, but that's hardly the same thing.
Lincoln was as professional wrestler too.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
If in all this hacking, there's absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part, aside from snide remarks about one another/political rivals. That'll shut all you conspiracy theorists the fuck up for good! Looking forward to the headline "Email leak reveals Democrats said not nice things about republicans"
They did. The leaks were largely not newsworthy. Even Snowden remarked at the lack of editorial review on the part of Wikileaks. Releasing private emails not pertaining to the DNC and the names and personal info of donors (of which the top donors are already public per law) does nothing to advance transparency or expose wrongdoing. It's a dick move and shows Assange's malice more than anything. Also, as it is leaked, you're free to read them yourself at any time at this point....
Hitler had a lot going for him. His WWI record is excellent, according to what records we've got that we're at least moderately sure weren't changed. He showed intelligence, coolness under fire, and courage. He was a superb orator and politician. As a military commander, he wasn't bad as far as heads of state go. Churchill and Stalin certainly screwed things up at times, and Roosevelt was better only in that he stayed further away from direct command.
Hitler's big military command problems late in the war were that the military authorities thought they should surrender and undergo another Versailles-like treaty, which would be bad but survivable. Hitler believed that defeat would be the destruction of advanced civilization and the descent of the world into mongrel barbarianism, and so Hitler was willing to take big chances for a small chance to win and despised those who sought an unfavorable negotiated peace.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, he does. Lots of people who might vote Trump or at least stay home will be offended by a clear Russian intervention, even those who like Putin. Moreover, if it becomes clear that Putin is behind this, there may be diplomatic repercussions. He's much better off if people just think he may have done it. That way, he looks strong but can't be retaliated against and it's not going to discourage the Trump followers.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And what, pray tell, is so awful about Trump? Please, enumerate a few things you find particularly disagreeable. If you are going to list any promises or statements by him, please, be sure to include links to where he made them (not somebody else building a strawman or two).
America's media — only 7% of them being Republicans — would try to help a Democratic nominee against any Republican. Had the party nominated anyone else — Cruz or Rubio or Bush or whoever, they would've attacked him just as viciously.
Chances are, your own anti-Trump opinions are subliminally formed by these guys' efforts rather than something especially bad he did or said... Hence my question and the insistence on evidence.
Why is my real account disabled?
I find it sort of interesting how uncomfortable hijabs make people. I also find it interesting how many people don't believe women who wear hijabs do so voluntarily. I've found that being in the company of somebody wearing a hijab is the one thing I can do to get more dirty looks than being in the company of a trans woman who doesn't pass well.
I'd bet a black Spanish-speaking trans woman who doesn't pass well wearing a hijab would be lynched on sight.
I also find it interesting how many people don't believe women who wear hijabs do so voluntarily
An interesting thing about that........here is a picture of a woman in a hijab and a woman in a bikini playing volleyball. The woman wearing the hijab chose to, the woman wearing the bikini was required to as it was the uniform chosen by her country.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
this reasoning is specious as fuck! Sometimes people are shot for no reason at all, unless you are going to try to draw a specious connection between the Clintons and this guy playing pokemon go in san francisco http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c... who was also shot but nothing taken
Okay, let's hear your explanations for the dozens of other victims of Arkancide. There are just too many bodies in the Clintons' past to say it's all coincidence. Even if you explain away 75% of them, that's still crime on the level of the Mafia.
Snopes' take on this
Spread the new meme.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
This is obviously untrue: the validity of one allegation has nothing to do with the others. Ordinarily it is fair to assume that "where there is smoke there is fire." But as with the 4 examples above, often the smoke is imagined or made up by people who really, really want the Clintons caught doing *something*.
Snopes has pretty good explanations of the other "Arkancide victims." I know it has become fashionable on the right to dismiss Snopes as leftist, especially since the whole Obama Birth Certificate thing. Accepting this as true, at least you have facts that you can verify yourself, rather than swallowing falsehoods wholesale, and assuming that because X% must be true, the Clintons are as bad as the mafia.
The world ruling class is constantly making trades that are bad for the people and are subversions of the concept of sovereignty. The point is not to keep being the old joke that goes: Groucho tells Harpo, "I'll sell you a pair of dimes for a quarter, and Harpo buys several.
When we look at what is good for us, I think we find that sovereignty is not part of it. We need to be doing things that is good for everyone in the or at least affects no one to a net negative. I believe that means that sovereignty plays no part in determining anyone's good.
When she wears her hijab, she gets negative looks and comments, even though she doesn't fit your stereotype of a middle-easterner.
Well, sure. She's deliberately wearing around a sign that says she's embracing a medieval theocratic culture the more orthodox members of which are - here in the 21st century - doing things like burning people alive in cages, lopping off the heads of the insufficiently Islamic, and throwing gay dudes off of rooftops. So choosing to associate with the social organization that has millions of people who applaud that stuff does, of course, make other people raise their eyebrows. Which is a completely rational response to watching someone choose to celebrate that bit of backwards nastiness. Yes, other religions are also ridiculous. But Islam is more than a religion, and it's still stuck several centuries ago.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The only people who benefit from the "Russian involvement" narrative is the DNC themselves.
And therefore it can't be true? What kind of logic is that?
Meta-Monkey didn't say it means it can't be true, so that is a strawman. I is both fair and reasonable to look at the potential motives of the players to determine how it may impact on the credibility of their statements. Ignoring potential motives would in fact be illogical.
Maybe I missed publication of some definitive proof, but this story kind of says the Russians did this, unqualified. We've seen some similarly confident attributions in the past that turned out to be wrong. Convenient, but wrong.
If I were Putin, and I had dirt on Clinton, I'd hang on to it until she were President. Much more leverage that way.
Perhaps it was some member of the Republican party!
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Ok, I've got one. The inside man (the leaker) was found murdered. Killary's body count continues to grow...
Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?
(Are you clutching your pearls?) Sure he is. He has a lot to lose if she's elected (he's holed up in an embassy that he can't leave unless Trump wins) and he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. Whoever hacks the DNC- Russians or otherwise- is naturally going to go to him.
Wow, the irony. When Meta-Monkey brings up how the DNC has a lot to gain from by saying it is the Russian government behind it and therefore their public statements may be biased or less than credible, you jump on him/her essentially saying potential motives don't matter since it isn't proof. Now when he/she brings up what Assange has implied is a recent interview, you dismiss it saying Assange has a motive to mislead so we can't trust what he says. Please pick a belief system and stick with it, not just choose the one that is most convenient at the time to help your argument. You do not look good with two faces.
Franky I don't see why it really matters whether Russia was involved in the hack at all. Even if it's true, I don't think it unearths anything that wasn't completely obvious to begin with.
Because the core of this thread is debating the difference between what has been claimed versus what has been proven. People claimed, and many believed, there was bias in the DNC to make sure Billary won and Sanders was locked out, but now there is proof documenting at least some bias that occurred. So yes, it matters.
We know the Dems don't care about security... so who wants to donate money to their campaign? Only a sucker would. A sucker that is ripe for the picking.
"You know how the media are. They wait for a mistake and that's all you are. It happened to Hitler. No one ever talks about his paintings." – Jack Donaghy
"Voluntary" is a funny word. With enough brainwashing from the early age, you can make people voluntarily choose all kinds of nasty things.
Just because Hitler comparison is used so often for its shock value, doesn't mean that it's never appropriate.
As a Russian, when I look at what's going on at the Trump rallies, what I'm seeing it a very similar sentiment to one that gave Putin power. And no, Putin is not Hitler, either. But he already did a lot of nasty things, and is on the course to do even more.
If they really did, they would be silly to dump everything they have on her - I mean, at this point, they have to realize that odds aren't exactly in Trump's favor, and I seriously doubt that anything in those emails would prove to be a sufficiently large skeleton to change that. It would make sense for them to hedge their bets, and leave something to try to blackmail her with.
In fact, that itself is an interesting tactic. They only need to dump enough info to establish certainty that they did in fact hack her emails, and then hint that there are really damning things in there that they are intentionally not releasing before the election. The prospect of having something like that hang over the president ought to give quite a few people pause.
Just because Hitler comparison is used so often for its shock value, doesn't mean that it's never appropriate.
If there is a problem, then find some other historical parallel. If the only historical analogy someone can find is Hitler, then they are ignoramuses and should be reading books, not making comparisons.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Analogies don't have to be perfect, you know. Saying that Trump is like Hitler in some (albeit important) respects is not the saying that he's exactly the same.
And why shouldn't such an analogy be used, if it's accurate? Is there something special about Hitler in particular?
Is there something special about Hitler in particular?
Yes, people who can't think of any analogy other than Hitler are ignoramuses, every one.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hitler's real big military blunder was attacking Russia and trying to fight a war on two fronts. Granted, it's hard to know if things would have turned out differently if he didn't attack Russia, but in retrospect is wasn't a good move.
Sanders absolutely had a chance, if you look at the turnout among his supporters.
That's right: if you only look at his supporters, you could convince yourself he had a chance.
He didn't: not at the beginning, not at the middle, not at the end, not at all. He never had the polling, he never had the demographics, he never had the organization. If you looked at the actual numbers, he needed miracles to win, and while he did better than predicted... not enough better than predicted to actually win.
But when you narrow your view and look only at the enthusiasm of his supporters and ignore everyting else (and his supporters looked only at his supporters and ignored everything else)- yep, he gave that illusion.
That gets into interesting speculation.
Hitler's main wartime goal was to get territory in the East, and this meant fighting the Soviets sometime. In 1941, the Soviet armored formations were scheduled to get some serious training, and since there were about 40 Soviet tank divisions that could have had a big difference on the war. Hitler also thought that the Soviet Union was a lot more fragile than it was, since what the Germans did in the first few weeks of Operation Barbarossa was more decisive than the WWI actions that cause the fall of the Tsar.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I find it sort of interesting how uncomfortable hijabs make people. I also find it interesting how many people don't believe women who wear hijabs do so voluntarily.
It's because the hijab is the symbol of the oppression of women. Sure, a number of muslim women will convince themselves that it's good for them and they do so voluntarily. But it's still a reflection of age-old prejudices that women should not be seen, that the sight of women will corrupt a man. It is, of course, then woman's fault, and the woman's obligation to correct.
There are just too many bodies in the Clintons' past to say it's all coincidence
There are a LOT of live bodies in the Clintons' past. They knew a ton of people (well, not really, "interacted with" a lot of people is more like it). I've yet to hear that the people who died that the Clintons' once knew is abnormally high compared with other national politicians.
Hell, I've had two friends commit suicide, my circle has to be just a tiny fraction of theirs, and no one's coming after me, I hope.But everyone loves to make up bullshit against the Clintons because they're so hateable.