Slashdot Mirror


CIA Prepping For Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia (nbcnews.com)

Slashdot reader schwit1 reports that the Obama administration "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election," according to U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to NBC News: Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership. The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact." When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, "Hope not."

Not mounting a response would weaken U.S. credibility, one senior U.S. official said, while others said hundreds of millions of dollars has been allocated to the team mounting the attacks. Thursday US officials familiar with the investigation told CNN there was "mounting evidence" that Russia was supplying leaked emails to WikiLeaks, and last week in a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign, former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell said it was "absolutely clear... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this."

48 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're really escalating toward what could become war over completely unproven allegations that Russia hacked a private organization like the DNC? This wasn't even a hack of the real government. This is pure insanity.

    1. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      How do you know the allegations are completely unproven?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

    3. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      It's unproven until someone proves it, that's how it's unproven. Jeez! Think much?

    4. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

      Completely agree.

      A democratic president using the CIA to attack speech and actions against his political party. You might not like it but our political leaders and political issues affect other nations around the world. They may not get to vote but I see no reason they shouldn't be able to sway voters. Especially with something like truth and exposing hypocrisy. Our CIA has been swaying foreign elections since it's creation.

      Our political leaders are all for violating our privacy and constitutional rights yet they are the ones with the skeletons in the closet that cry foul the loudest.

      There is nothing to show it's "state sponsored". It simply doesn't have to be since it's not that expensive. They are private contractors. And private contractors at this level could be funded by any individual with political interests.

      What I find interesting is none of the exposed information is claimed to be falsified.

      P.S. I'm very much Against Trump.

    5. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

      The Russian hacks of the state election systems were not announced by "anonymous sources". They came directly from the FBI, as well as election officials in Arizona (red state) and Illinois (blue state). Oh, and Florida (red state).

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/...

      https://www.theguardian.com/te...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're claiming that evidence exists, then the burden of proof falls on you.
      If no evidence is forthcoming, then your claim is baseless. We owe it to ourselves to demand proof before stirring the pudding. Especially after Iraq.
      How soon we forget.

    7. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's unproven until someone proves it, that's how it's unproven. Jeez! Think much?

      "The FBI, and the election officials in Arizona (R), Illinois (D) and Florida (R) could all be lying!

      It's not proven until Breitbart, SputnikINT and RT.com say it is."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're really escalating toward what could become war over completely unproven allegations that Russia hacked a...

      Well on the bright side, a nuclear winter would offset global warming. Unless of course that's a Chinese hoax.

    9. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one wants to read links that lead to propaganda organizations writing articles about corrupt 3 letter organizations.

    10. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WaPo, The Clinton News Network, and theguardian.com are not reliable sources of information when the DNC is involved any more than RT is trustworthy when Putin is in the news.

    11. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The washingtonpost has:
      "IP addresses listed" and near the end its " “not aware of any specific or credible cybersecurity threats relating to the upcoming general election systems,”"
      CNN notes:
      "We have seen no access into statewide registration database and no manipulation of that database." and "FBI investigators believe the the hacks and attempted intrusions of state election sites were carried out by hackers working for Russian intelligence."
      The Guardian has
      "in calling out what it says is Russian-directed hacking."
      So its back to ip ranges a "calling out" and a 'believe"?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Calling people who want proof "trolls" is the oldest trick in the book. It's the sign of a completely unsupportable position.

      We're talking about an act of war against a nuclear state that can actually attack us on our home soil if they so choose. If an American citizen doesn't want to see at least some evidence of WHY we're committing an act of war against that state, then they're an idiot.

      And "The government said so" is not the same as proof. That's like saying "My favorite politician is honest!".

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    13. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "FBI investigators believe the the hacks and attempted intrusions of state election sites were carried out by hackers working for Russian intelligence."

      Make up your mind. Is the US government an all-seeing intrusive eye that's hoovering up every bit of our data on the internet or are they unable to figure out that Russians are behind the hacks? It's unlikely that both conditions are true.

      If Putin will kill a critic with polonium, imprison three young girls for making fun of him and enact legislation making being gay a crime, do you really doubt that he'd take the relatively low-cost step of trying to help out his pal and debtor Donald become president? Especially if he can gin up a new cold war to distract his subjects from the Russian economy which is in free fall?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

      Perhaps you might tell us why this is the case? Seriously - you figeu=re intel is going to give us IP addresses, phone numbers and all? Or are you an alt.right person who wouldn't believe any evidence anyhow.

      Here's your cohort where I confirm your alt.right street cred. http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

      You might try for a position on old pussy grabber's staff, after he is elected.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they hadn't been sent to jail, the highly religious parishioners would have attacked them and torn them to pieces.

      So benevolent Putin put them in jail for their own good?

      Those women would have been arrested if they had done that in America too, and possibly have been tainted for life by being labeled a sex-offender.

      In Soviet Russia, sex-offender votes for you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and Hillary's credibility which is in free fall?

      You might as well start calling her "President Clinton", so you can get used to it. Call it aversion therapy.

      http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

      And just so you can get the bad news from conservative sites, too:

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

      https://electionbettingodds.co...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      we certainly believe

      Now that is what I call evidence. They are pretty sure so it must be true. Glad we have that all cleared up. I don't have a horse in this race, but these arguments are ridiculous. If the government wants to release actual evidence they can, but until or unless they do there is no evidence. Just because the government claims something doesn't make it true. And they don't have to be lying. They could just be mistaken.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    18. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary was trumpeting "But Russia!" the day of the leak, before any investigation could possibly have taken place.

      To use your police analogy, sure, maybe Russia can benefit -- and that gives us motive. In police terms, that's enough to possibly get a search warrant (a bit thin, really), but not to arrest you or throw you in jail, let alone convict you of a criminal offense.

      Right now it's going something like this:

      Hillary: "Hey, Joe Bob can benefit from stealing my car, he must've done it!"
      Me: "But where's your proof that Joe Bob actually stole your car?"
      Hillary: "Joe Bob did it!"
      Me: "Where was Joe Bob on the day your car was stolen?"
      Hillary: "Joe Bob!"
      Newspapers: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"
      Citizens: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"

      Meanwhile, Joe Bob is a few thousand miles away vacationing in Hawaii, where he's been this whole time, and Hillary's car is actually in her neighbor's garage, and they're letting people come look at it. They moved it there because she forgot to lock it, and they don't like her, so they want the public to see the deplorable state she's kept it in.

      And to the other poster on this, yeah, this is not a partisan issue. This is a "someone is trying to put us on a collision course with Russia" issue. If they're going to do that, they damn well need to provide evidence that Russia is the bad actor here. Motive is not even remotely close to evidence. I've not seen anything that lends even the slightest bit of credibility to the claim.

      That someone can, or might want to does not in any way mean that they did.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    19. Re: For them theoretically hacking a private org? by KevvinBrandsma · · Score: 2

      You make it sound like the entire CIA is stupid as f*ck, don't you think they know about proxies? Everybody knows about them, they exist for years and still hackers are arrested.. Why do you think that happens? Right, cause proxies aren't some magic fix for everything

    20. Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The president kept going on about WMDs in Iraq. When Canada was asked for help we said show us the evidence and our Parliament will vote on the matter. The US wouldn't even show the "evidence" to the party leaders. So we didn't go.

      I agree that we don't know the truth in this matter, beyond Vlad Putin's desire to fuck with the US and see Trump elected.

      My argument was that the information about the Russian hacks was not coming from "anonymous sources", but from state and federal officials on both sides of the political aisle. If you want "anonymous sources", you'll have to go to Wikileaks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Fuck it. by ruir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when is slashdot a propaganda tool?

    1. Re:Fuck it. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Oh come on. Where have you been?

    2. Re:Fuck it. by bongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slashdot has pretty much been blocking any anti-clinton stories. Even when they are from neutral stories from people like Glenn Greenwald.
      I have 3 submissions one from wsj and two from the intercept just die.

      *Hillary wants "Manhattan-like project" for secure communications the government can read. https://theintercept.com/2016/...

      *Glenn Greenwald writing about the cozy relationship with the press. https://slashdot.org/submissio...
      *WSJ Story about the press burying clinton stories. https://slashdot.org/submissio...

      All we get nonsense stories about the russians and Obama trying to start cold war 2.0 just to get Clinton in the White House.
      Very obvious which candidate the /. editors want.

    3. Re:Fuck it. by ruir · · Score: 2

      Which Russia trolls? We Europeans just do not believe in the boogieman, or that communists eat children, or that north korea and Russia are the devil incarnate. Give us a break.

  3. must be a new meaning for 'clandestine' by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    since we're talking about it before it happens.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:must be a new meaning for 'clandestine' by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      It's clandestine because someone is using a computer to do it. That's the definition now.

  4. Saber Rattling by alternative_right · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Strong leaders just go ahead and do that cyberstrike.

    Weak leaders hint, mince and taunt, but never come to the table with force.

    This is why the USA is losing prestige worldwide. We have become a wimpy bully instead of a strong, clear force.

    1. Re:Saber Rattling by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Hold on, Tex. Often the threat alone can achieve the same goal as the attack, but with less lives and money. Read "Art of War". But, you have to know when to use what technique skillfully. "Always do X" is low-brow.

      In this case the public doesn't have enough info to make a judgement about which technique is best.

  5. I'm with Snowden by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia"

    Usually the first step in covert actions is you don't tell anyone. Especially not the enemy.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Don't vote for the Underwoods by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what you get when you elect people who see the federal government as their personal army. And yet that s nothing compared to what would happen under Clnton.

    Yeah, let's all get our panties in a bunch over the buffoon and his crude behavior and lack of class, meanwhile the spawn of Satan is getting ready to go back to the White House to monetize the presidency again. Who cares if American lives are lost in the process, as long as it's not her princess she doesn't care. There's already a trail of corpses behind that couple that makes Gacy look like Mother Teresa.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Don't vote for the Underwoods by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to Slashdot, where unhinged ranting is modded insightful.

      Show me then a single word in lucm's post that is wrong. Trump is a crude buffoon but he's calling for avoiding wars while the Lying Bitch has already caused one or, stretching it a bit, two, without even being president yet. Yes, she rather than Obama. And there's far more damage than mere wars she's about to cause.

      And, as someone who used to be a Satan worshipper (as a dumb teenager...), I strenuously object to naming the witch[1] a "spawn of Satan". In my country it's a crime to "insult religious feelings"[2]. She's worse than Putin, she's Lennart Poettering level of badness.

      [1]. Offending Wiccans, drat.
      [2]. Although despite the law's wording, in practice only one religion is protected.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  7. Distraction by fred911 · · Score: 2

    This is typical of people acting irresponsible. The real blame here is the people responsible for securing the data in the original place. They are the ones at fault and are using the media to distract from the fact that they are the failures in the first place. Had they done their job, secured their data, they wouldn't be searching high and low for someone to blame.

      If I leave $100 bill on a table in public and return to find it gone, I'm the one to blame. It's time the parties responsible for securing systems with worldwide access to stand up and admit their failures and to start doing their jobs.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Distraction by ArtemaOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. You should KNOW someone will take it, but it is still that person's personal failing for keeping someone else's property.

  8. Why am I reading about this on slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, really. Not that this is news that doesn't matter, but why is NBC broadcasting that the CIA is planning a huge cyberattack? If this is a serious attack then shouldn't they wait until they carried out the operation before telling the world. They're giving a heads up to Russia by publishing this story, and I'm assuming that NBC got the greenlight to tell the world about this, because I can't imagine that they'd publish this story if that wasn't the case.

    1. Re:Why am I reading about this on slashdot? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Given the removal of protections like the Smith–Mundt Act "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act" domestic propaganda is now legal.
      Once all this would have just been passed to a waiting international press.
      Now its been pushed domestically.
      "Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media" (18 March 2011)
      https://www.theguardian.com/te...
      or "British army creates team of Facebook warriors" (31 January 2015)
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
      So the past legal press protections are gone and contractors love the over time.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Please don't lead us into war! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Word on the street is that it's a war started specifically to win the election, to whip up some patriotism for the ruling party.

    Specifically, it's noted that if we actually wanted to do this, then we would not advertise it ahead of time (scroll down a few entries).

    We did a similar thing in Syria the last couple of days by announcing an attack, then filming the attack.

    Obama you're a lame-duck president, you've done almost nothing in 8 years, and please don't get us into WWIII before you leave!. Please PLEASE put the welfare of the people ahead of your political agenda this one time!

    On a different point, note that if whistleblowers were protected and shielded in this country the hackers could come forward and identify themselves as non-Russian agents and defuse a potential war.

    But that won't happen because they'd get royally screwed and their lives and freedom would be over. (Not that I blame them.)

    For example, here's a couple of wikileaks sources facing serious charges.

    Note that the hacker gave leaks to Motherboard under the agreement of anonymity. Here's what happened:

    “When Cracka leaked to Motherboard he asked not to be named as he wanted to confidentially leak information, Lorenzo disregarded it and listed that it was from him — he even wrote that Cracka asked not to be listed like a total piece of shit,” Liverman noted.

    Journalistic integrity at its finest.

    People thought a couple of months ago that Trump would be the one to get us into WWIII.

    I wonder what they think now?

    1. Re:Please don't lead us into war! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Word on the street is that it's a war started specifically to win the election, to whip up some patriotism for the ruling party.

      And by the street do you mean Fox News and Drudge Report?

  10. War under false pretenses by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm. How is it unproven? Because you and other civilians haven't seen or read the evidence, you believe there is none? Or, it's it because certain news outlets and other propaganda deny such evidence? Anyway, I can see a clear case for avoiding any proactive action on our part but also see good cause to do so. It's a difficult decision to make that the average person can't contemplate due to our lack of insight and knowledge.

    Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.

    If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.

    Everyone *else* in the world, including the UN inspectors, claimed that there were none.

    Does anyone remember the Iraq war? It took 9 years and cost us $2 trillion, caused half a million civilian deaths, 4500 American serviceman deaths, and several hundred American amputees.

    I think it's entirely reasonable that, before we go to war with a fukkin' nuclear power, that we be shown some of the evidence first.

    Do you disagree?

    1. Re:War under false pretenses by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It just shows how truly fucked up and corrupted this country is when so many get called right wingers for NOT wanting to go to war without concrete evidence from reputable sources just because the war mongers have a D instead of an R, and as far as the FBI is concerned? After their very own head got in front of congress and admitted under oath that Hillary was guilty of at least a dozen crimes, any one of which at the very least would warrant stripping of security status and at worst were worth a MINIMUM of 5-10 years a pop and he STILL refused to press any charges or bring it before a jury for the people to decide? If the FBI told me it was raining I'd want a second opinion, they are about as untrustworthy as the CIA at this point.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:War under false pretenses by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.

      If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.

      That's because the Bush administration treated the CIA as a lawyer instead of a scientist.

      They should have been asking "tell us what you can discover about Iraq".

      Instead they asked "give us the strongest case you can that shows Iraq has WMDs".

      The understandably the CIA did exactly as requested, and created false evidence.

      On the contrary, there's no huge political motivation to blame Russia, sure it's politically inconvenient for Trump, but lets be honest, no one is choosing who to vote for based on whether or not Russia is doing the leaking.

      With this on the other hand, the publicly available evidence is pretty damning, there's no significant political pressure to skew the investigation, and most of the off-the-record stuff from analysts is more convinced than the public statements from the administration.

      They could always be wrong, but I think it's really damn likely that Russia is behind the attacks.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  11. Re:The Donald by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Funny

    And here is photographic proof of Trump grabbing a pussy...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. Another stupid CIA idea funded with your taxes by shanen · · Score: 2

    Recommend everyone who thinks this is a good idea should read Cyber War . In short summary, America probably has good offensive capabilities, but pretty much NO defenses and HIGH vulnerability. The Chinese are actually best positioned to fight and win any cyber war, and I wouldn't even be surprised if they are framing the Russians right now...

    However, my main disappointment just now is with the state of Slashdot. No prior mention of "defense"? Where has all the insight gone?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Another stupid CIA idea funded with your taxes by bongey · · Score: 2

      Probably right on that.
      Why would a Russian from Russian use Russian VPN to hack america?
      And use codenames fancybear and cozybear.

      More likely the real hackers purposely leading bread crumbs back to Russia.

  13. Further by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The claim defies history and basic reasoning. Wikileaks gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a US Soldier fed up with the system. The Guardian (now looks like a leftist rag) gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a NSA contractor fed up with the system. Obama has jailed a record 31 Whistle blowers during his term so far, and wanted a 32nd in jail who fled to Russia. They also want Assange in jail or dead. Make it 33.

    The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen. We have countless people working in Federal law enforcement fed up with the system who are forced to leak information for fear of being jailed or worse. The damages from these dumps are not anti-America, they are anti-corrupt politician. Russian gains nothing from seeing Hillary lie, they probably laugh and think "just like us".

    Write your Congress and Senate representatives and demand a halt to any action. It could be blowing smoke, but given the massive amount of visible corruption I'm not so sure. I sure as hell don't trust Obama or Clinton who have on numerous occasions stated that they want to censor web sites "they" find unfavorable. Consider that the US is currently bombing Yemen without any public inspection of policy and media refuses to talk about it. They are way too busy fabricating false victims to smear Trump to talk about the real world.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Further by quantaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen.

      Only by people who are desperately trying to deny Russia's role.

      First he wasn't that important a figure, there's no reason to think he would have had access to all of the docs that were leaked.

      Second a fatal mugging where nothing is stolen actually makes a lot of sense. Mugger comes up, victim decides to make a run for it, the mugger panics, shoots, and runs like hell because running away from a murder rap is more important than grabbing a wallet.

      Third, he was conscious and breathing when he was found. So you apparently think that not only did the hit squad leave him alive, but that he wasn't really interested in telling the cops about the hit squad who'd just assassinated him.

      Frankly the whole conspiracy theory is disgusting. A person is murdered and jump with glee at the opportunity to hijack their memory for you dumbass conspiracy theory.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  14. Irony? by Jfetjunky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anyone else not find it hilarious there are reports of a covert CIA "cyberattack" plastered all over the Internet?

    "Hey, we're gonna attack Russia soon, but don't tell anyone, k?" *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*

  15. Re:You've outed yourself as a crazy Hillary-hater by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are rational reasons for hating Clinton. The ties to Wall Street are the ones that matter for me. (Well, in addition to being a lizard person--I'm a mammal supremacist and speciest towards lizard people.)

    Whether it's because of a deep-seeded hatred for women (did your mommy not hug you enough?), or just maybe the sight of a powerful woman is a trigger for your micro-phallyic self-loathing

    Woah, there! You're dangerously close to asserting that anybody who dislikes Clinton a.) is male b.) suffers from a medical condition (warning: penis!) c.) for some reason hates women because of that medical condition. A guy I knew who said he suffered from that would indicate that he was perfectly capable of pleasuring a woman in other ways. I forget why it even came up. Probably lots of alcohol.

    What would you say to a woman who isn't voting for Clinton? Or is that unpossible in your mind? What about Stein voters? Are they also all sexually inadequate men? Are Stein voters sexists now too?

    I was encouraged that the media did not go down the macho white knight rabbit hole you just went down. Does bigoted shit like that get you all the Hunnies? No? Yes? Good for you.

    Protip: there's still a chance I might vote for Clinton. But please be my guest and fly off the handle and post something equally bigoted in response to this comment that will completely turn me off to the idea. Obviously I must be a Trump supporter. Because how dare I question the Lizard Queen?!

    Disclaimer: No, I've never had a girlfriend. I made out with a girl once while drunk. I can confirm that I am not attracted to women no matter how much you want to pretend I am in your response. I have no problem getting boyfriends. Some of us don't view women as sexual objects or define our lives in terms of creeping on women and popping cherries. I know that's a radical concept to a white knight like you.