Slashdot Mirror


Report: Russian Hackers Phished The DNC And Clinton Campaign Using Fake Gmail Forms (buzzfeed.com)

Citing a report from SecureWorks, BuzzFeed is reporting that Russian hackers "used emails disguised to look as Gmail security updates to hack into the computers of the Democratic National Committee and members of Hillary Clinton's top campaign staff": The emails were sent to 108 members of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign and 20 people clicked on them, at least four people clicking more than once, Secureworks' research found. The emails were sent to another 16 people from the DNC and four people clicked on them, the report said.

Researchers found the emails by tracing the malicious URLs set up by [state-sponsored hacking group] Fancy Bear using Bitly, a link shortening service... "We were monitoring bit.ly and saw the accounts being created in real time," said Phil Burdette, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks, explaining how they stumbled upon the the URLs set up by Fancy Bear.

The URL apparently resolved to accounts-google.com (rather than accounts.google.com), and Burdette says "They did a great job with capturing the look and feel of Google."

435 comments

  1. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It had to be the Russians because she has done nothing to kill members of our intelligence community that may have taken some offense and are smart enough to know "false flag"

  2. Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education and training is always the weakest link. I think such a targeted phishing expedition would have similar success against the vast majority of organizations today, unfortunately.

    1. Re:Education by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Education and training is always the weakest link.

      No, human trust is the weakest link.
      I doubt that you can convert a single human being from "trust by default" to "distrust by default" through education. And training can only help with specific and narrow threats, and once attackers change their tactics, those who trust by default are just as vulnerable again.

      It's a mindset, not knowledge. If you don't have healthy paranoia, you're always going to be prey.

    2. Re:Education by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Paranoia is never "healthy". *Awareness*, however, is always a damned good idea.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re: Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Stripping the ugly and stupid "web standards" is the solution. URL-shortening should not be possible. It destroys the whole idea behind an URL. Javascript can be enabled when it is provably secure (good luck). You morons working with these thing: Get your act together!

    4. Re:Education by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Awareness only works in retrospect - you have have something defined to be aware of. Faced with new ideas, it's useless.

      Healthy paranoia and skepticism is what stops what people aren't aware of.

    5. Re:Education by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Paranoia usually refers to irrational beliefs and is usually considered a mental illness. I would shy away from that word.

      I cultivate a healthy skepticism. Skepticism provides sufficient justification for rejecting unfounded statements and requests.

      There is also the idea of erring on the side of caution, which people seem to ignore when it comes to computers.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    6. Re:Education by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I prefer "Trust but verify". Most people tend to be trustworthy for various degrees of trustworthiness. Kind of like double entry accounting should catch the crooks.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Education by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      "Trust but verify" is just an odd way to say, "don't trust." That said, it is almost always a good idea to verify.
      The idea expressed by GP poster that distrust can't be taught would seem to fly in the face of any security training, anywhere.
      In training to be a military trainer, we were taught that attitudes can most definitely be taught. Then they taught us to hate liberals. JK: they taught us to hate whiners - who just happened to be liberals.

    8. Re:Education by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The idea expressed by GP poster that distrust can't be taught would seem to fly in the face of any security training, anywhere.
      In training to be a military trainer, we were taught that attitudes can most definitely be taught.

      Attitudes can be impressed, most certainly.
      I believe mindsets are harder to change.

    9. Re:Education by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Paranoia usually refers to irrational beliefs and is usually considered a mental illness. I would shy away from that word.

      There is not really a good word for a mindset where distrustfulness is a state of mind. I tend to call it "healthy paranoia", but suggestions for a better phrase would be welcome!

      We're social beings, and trust is somewhat hardwired. That works reasonably well as long as we physically meet people, and anyone not being trusted quickly being ostracized or pulped. With the advent of the Internet, that hardwired trust became a problem. Those with a mild "paranoia" (for lack of a better term) tend to be safer netizens.

    10. Re:Education by lhowaf · · Score: 1
      Even though dictionary.com has this definition:

      noun
      1.
      an attitude, disposition, or mood.

      I trust your assertion that mindset and attitude are different.

    11. Re:Education by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Saying "I trust you, but need to verify a few things before we go on" isn't the same as saying "I don't believe a word you're saying, prove it". One is a position of permission, the other one is a position to cause defensive response.

      I know people who honestly thought one thing, and their balance sheet said something completely differently. The problem wasn't the honesty of the person, but rather one of ignorance, they just didn't know. Now, on the other hand, there are people who lie about their balance sheet in an effort to defraud look exactly the same way.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Education by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you are saying but...
      I don't trust motorists to stop when I enter a crosswalk. It matters not one bit whether they are malicious or incompetent. Until they stop, I'm staying on the curb (verifying?).

    13. Re:Education by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Partial. The weakest link is the dumbass in your organization. We recently did a well known government agency. They had JUST completed an awareness campaign. What to look for. I.e. look for a duck. Walk like duck, talks like duck, looks like duck it's probably a duck. Report it.

      Sent out a "password streangth checker" We had a lot of mis-spellings, all the stuff we told them about in the e-mail. First guy to check his password with the outside machine? It took less than 5 minutes - the head of the windows admins. A guy that completed the training just the day before. We had about a 10% hit rate with win admins. We didn't get squat with the Unix admins. They smelled us like last week's fish in the trash. All that is negated by just one dumbass windows admin because all the passwords in that environment are handled by AD.

      Then there is the typical windows user. I think we all realize that's a dumbass by definition based on the Windows calling centers. Machine's not working... did you turn it on.. oh yea, it's working now. Just get that guy to click on something. Boom, you're in.

      Equal Employment BS ensures there's always a few in every organization. It's like requiring roaches and mice on every ship.

  3. LOL by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Using bit.ly. Oh the IRONY that the .ly TLD could somehow be involved in taking down Hillary Clinton.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the irony that an anti-Clinton does not know how to spell "lie".

    2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lmao if you think Hillary Clinton is getting taken down. This isn't an election anymore, its a murder.

    3. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did we forget to mention how Russian these Russian hackers from Russia are? They are using Russian hacks to place Russian influence on the elections. They used Russian phishing techniques from Russia to accomplish this.

    4. Re:LOL by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The good news is that 'Correct The Record' and the team in St Petersberg will be keeping each other fully occupied and the rest of the Internet can get on with our usual level of misinformation, misinterpretation and misanthropy.

    5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure the fact that a lot of people confuse "Hillary" with "all politicians" (liars) makes the uninteresting coincidence that the TLD sounds like "lie" somehow ironic or noteworthy. What is funny and ironic to me, however, is how homophobic Russian policy is but how incredibly homoerotic their culture is. Fancy Bear? Yeesh.

    6. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a sexist comment and deserves no place on Slashdot. It should be removed immediately. I have already written to the Slashdot editors, demanding that your comment be removed and that your account be closed. Stop the misogyny in tech! http://aboutfeminism.me/

    7. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to dox him.

    8. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was referring to the fact that ".ly" is the TLD for Libya.

      Like the typical Clinton supporter, of course, you are utterly ignorant of the world around you; you think you're sophisticated and educated because of the political brand you support.

    9. Re:LOL by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      LIBYA you ignorant fuckwit. But now that you mention it - the .ly as "lie" ALSO fits. Triple irony.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:LOL by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      Using bit.ly. Oh the IRONY that the .ly TLD could somehow be involved in taking down Hillary Clinton.

      thats where im a bit lost ... assuming fancy bears are not complete monkeys randomly re-creating shakespeare by smashing buttons && they do it in the name of Trump all this does is boost Clintons profile in the name of what about the commies and the anarchists and all that so why on earth would zee russians openly attack and continue to reverse-promote clinton by hacking her administration ?
      something smells fishy , more fishy than usual in the state of the free narcists ... i personally still think they should do a coup and keep obama on for four more years but i guess thats not
      democracy
      madam secretary ? ... no connections with any secret service i suppose ... am i the only one ?
      super contraproductive russian statesponsored hacking by putin who already said if im correct trump is the ideal candidate ?
      fishy .... phishy even but well, who are we to speak on matters of the free world

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  4. Click? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not click, this is prick! Call it that and make dicks think twice before PRICKING on a link!

  5. Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A few points on this alleged story:

    1. The Clinton campaign desperately trying to distract attention away from Hillary's fundamental dishonesty.
    2. Maybe the story is true, and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.
    3. Buzzfeed? Really?
    4. Maybe they figure if they keep yelling "Trump is a Putin pawn!" enough we'll ignore the fact that Podesta is a registered lobbyist for Putin's bank.

    There's one candidate in this race who has a proven record of taking money for favors from Russian sources, and it isn't Trump.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?

    2. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Democrats fire-bombed a GOP office today.

      Yeah, they're feeling desperate.

      Don't forget, Wikileaks has more stuff they're going to leak and some of the most interesting stuff is being held until Hillary's birthday.

      Trump is in no way out of this race. Unless you listen to the biased media that's been doing everything they can to try and prop Hillary up.

    3. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      So let me get this straight. Don't trust Buzzfeed. Instead, trust "Battle Swam Blog". Got it.

      Re, the "uranium deal" thing: false and false. Meanwhile, Trump chose as his campaign manager Paul Manafort, a consultant to Yanukovitch (including being earmarked for over $12m in payments from a slush fund uncovered after Yanukovitch fled), his foreign policy advisor (Carter Page) works (present tense) for Gazprom, one of Trump's sons talked about his father having to focus on loans from Russia when he couldn't get them from the US, and how heavily they rely on Russian investment, Trump Soho turned out in court to be a money laundering organization for Russian criminals (Trump followed up by hiring its principal partner into the Trump organization), Trump bragged during a meeting in Russia that “Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room” just to meet with him, numerous Trump businesses have been financed by Russian oligarchs, Trump has repeatedly called Putin a great leader, both in isolation (without comparison to other US leaders), and in comparison to not only Obama, but Bush as well; Trump advisors intervened in the Republican Party platform on precisely one issue, that being to weaken references to supporting Ukraine; Trump claims that Russian troops aren't in Ukraine, and has endorsed Russia's Syria policy. Not to mention thinks NATO is obsolete. Oh, and whole "we don't know who did the hack, maybe it was China, maybe it was a 400 pound guy in his bedroom" line? He had already been given an intelligence briefing where US officials explicitly told him it was Russia. And then there's his knack for getting ahold of Russian propaganda faster than anyone else, like when he walked into a rally waving around a report on Clinton that had only been published (and later retracted) by Sputnik International.

      For all your propaganda that's too bad even for Russian propaganda outlets to push, Trump has your back.

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    4. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OH SHIT. Politifact calls it false. If a Democrat newspaper pretending to be an impartial fact checker says so, then you know it must be true.

      Remember Politifact labeling "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" the Lie of the Year? What they don't tell you is that they used to call it "true". Then they later changed it to "half true". Only after it became completely indefensible did they finally turn on it.

    5. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you trust a fact checker that takes their dayjob paychecks from fox news?

      Here is a hint for you, look at the board of directors for politifact and see how they make their living.

      Check out how many people are on multiple boards for fact checking organizations. politifact and factcheck are led by some of the same people.

    6. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Click on the first link, it's the actual report from SecureWorks
      Their evidence is that Russian hackers have, in the past, built Gmail spoofing pages to spearphish people in Ukraine/etc. Because Russians have done a similar campaign before, they assume this is Russians again. They are moderately confident that it is Russian agents. (They leave it ambiguous whether it is state-sponsored or not).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Informative

      Democrats fire-bombed a GOP office today.

      Crazy. I didn't believe it at first, but here's the story, from Orange County, North Carolina. It was a Molotov Cocktail, accompanied by graffiti that says, “Nazi Republicans leave town or else.” Real gents, these people.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Respected Avatar or NPC,

      We notice that you are vigorously trying to overcorrect for your simulation's liberal bias. If you are unhappy in your simulation you can submit petition KB3035583 to request being moved to another simulation with a different bias.

      Sincerely,
      The Operators

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by hairyfeet · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If the Guccifer 2 rumor is true and a week before the election he is gonna drop a hidden cam vid of Hillary calling a black female staffer a "stupid n*gger bitch"? I'd be happy to take those odds, you could make a killing!

      And for anybody that doubts she would say that? Read what Billy's former secret service said about Hillary, her calling them something like that would probably be considered a nice day as according to them she treated everyone that worked for her like slaves and talked to them about as well.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by harperska · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      wsj.com is paywalled. As far as I can tell from that link you posted, it could have just as easily been the Russians, or even space aliens, who firebombed that office.

    11. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes scroll down to get what is
      "Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence."
      More terms like "credibly sourced" and "plausible"?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will vegas let me bet on hillary getting us into another war?

      or is that so obvious they won't take the bet...

    13. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by colin_faber · · Score: 1

      CTU researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government

      More wild guessing based off of limited information and guestimation.

    14. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else". Who else do you think would have done it?

      The Democrats have created a dangerous divide between patriotic Americans and the loons that support Hillary, and it's what naturally leads to things like this.

      Note that the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack, probably because they know they bear some of the blame.

    15. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6-1? Have you seen the recent Trump Ohio rally? Yuge. As lazy as we Americans area, you have to figure for every 1 person that shows up to a massive rally like that.. huge multiplier of more supporters at home.

    16. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative
      Fortunately, someone remembered:

      Research led me far afield and I uncovered this gem from PolitiFact in its Pulitzer Prize-winning year of 2008. It rated as TRUE Obama's statement at the October 7, 2008, "If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it."

      Five years later, only after Obama was safely elected and re-elected did PolitiFact name that claim the Lie of the Year of 2013 -- even though it dated back to 2008.

      Before and after. Same journalist wrote both and no apology for the earlier, "fact check" or the about face on the claim.

    17. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's been reported in multiple sources, so if you use Google you can find plenty of other sources. If you want to look at the WSJ link, you can click here, and WSJ lets you through the paywall with a Google referral.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else [twitter.com]". Who else do you think would have done it?

      It was done by an insane person, neither party has a monopoly on insanity (if you doubt it, look at the leading candidate of each party).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If such a video does exist, so what? The election outcome won't change over an epithet.

      The sentiment of the USA is, "I hate Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump is even worse." There will be a small percentage of people that are overjoyed to see Clinton elected. For most, though, they will reluctantly vote for Clinton.

    20. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.

      Representative government?

    21. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Looks like it has a happy ending. Democrats raised money to help rebuild it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If such a video does exist, so what? The election outcome won't change over an epithet.

      You might wind up being surprised what losing 99% of the black vote in America will do to a campaign. If you seriously doubt that would happen as a result of such a video being published, you clearly haven't spent much time in racially diverse environments. Having grown up in Atlanta, please let be the first to tell you that black folks would be immeasurably angered (and quite rightfully so) seeing an old, privileged, powerful white lady who has spent months persuading the populace that she's firmly against racism and fully supportive of women's rights treating a black female staffer in such a manner.

      Did she say it? Dunno. If she said it, is it on video? Dunno. If it's on video, will the footage be released before election day? Dunno. However, I sure as hell know what would happen if the answer to all three questions were "yes." -PCP

    23. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So clearly orchestrated by the DNC? Stupid partisans believe any old shit that's fed up to them.

    24. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politifact is crawling with Jews; as are all "fact checking" organisations. It is impossible to get any reliable, unbiased information from them.

    25. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And their names echo, one and all.

    26. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A week before the election is too late. Early voting is already in progress, the people who've already locked-in can't un-vote if they change their minds.

    27. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      Put your money where your mouth is.

    28. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Gussington · · Score: 1

      A few points on this alleged story:

      1. The Clinton campaign desperately trying to distract attention away from Hillary's fundamental dishonesty.

      True, but so is Trump trying desperately trying to distrac this negative aspects. Desperately trying to distract is a key skill of all politicians.

      2. Maybe the story is true, and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.

      Not Clinton, the DNC. And yes they probably do just like the Republicans and Independents do too. Any sufficiently large organisation will have numpties among their numbers. even the CIA, KGB, NSA, DoD etc have numpties. This is not unusual.

      3. Buzzfeed? Really?

      Pass

      4. Maybe they figure if they keep yelling "Trump is a Putin pawn!" enough we'll ignore the fact that Podesta is a registered lobbyist for Putin's bank.

      There's one candidate in this race who has a proven record of taking money for favors from Russian sources, and it isn't Trump.

      Registered and disclosed. Do you see how it works now?

    29. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Someone firebombed the GOP office.

      Was it even further right wing nutjobs?
      Was it a false flag operation as they are getting desperate about losing NC?
      Was it really really dumb left wingers?
      Was it democrats?

      Who knows. I hope they catch whoever did it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    30. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by opus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're so invested in a two-party system, that they won't consider a 3rd party candidate, although both are more honest the the Democrat and Republican offerings. We deserve what we are getting, either way.

    31. Re: Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you stop with the "fundamental dishonesty" prudishness. It's fundamental appearance of corruption that matters. Not quite the same.

    32. Re: Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are doing business with Russians or Japanese, you are pretty much doing business with "criminals". That is just how it works. I realize that may be shocking to you accustommed to our pristinely moral business culture in the US.

    33. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Note that the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack, probably because they know they bear some of the blame.

      WTF are you talking about? You seem to be just making random shit up to conform to your "liberals are evil, and the extreme polarization in the US is all their fault" narrative.

      I see the news story in plenty of places (including your so-called "liberal media"), and Hillary Clinton did not ignore the attack at all; in fact she condemned it.

      E.g. see http://americablog.com/2016/10/rare-moment-civility-humanity-2016-election.html

      And FWIW I'm liberal and I also condemn the attack.

    34. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There's one candidate in this race [...]

      Look, idiot. Not liking Clinton (I don't, for sure) doesn't mean having to like Trump. For me Clinton is in the "corrupt, in bed with Big Finance" category, to be god rid of as soon as possible. Trump, that is in the "Catastrophic: can't even think straight. Avoid at nearly any price" category.

      If I had to choose (glad I haven't to!) it would be a clear (albeit painful) choice.

    35. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Buzzfeed? Really?

      Buzzfeed has been spouting tons of pro-Hillary propaganda. That automatically makes them a legitimate news source these days.

    36. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, maybe not. I'm still wondering why that demographic didn't go for Sanders. But I'm not black so what do I know.

      I don't think a leak like that would have much of an effect.

      What would be hilarious about a leak like that would be people I know to be racist crying about how stupid blacks are. Blacks aren't stupider than anybody else.

      Everybody is pretty much brainwashed and unable to think for themselves.

    37. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by nomadic · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Note that the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack, probably because they know they bear some of the blame."

      That, sir, is a lie, and you are a liar.

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10...
      http://abcnews.go.com/US/north...
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po...

    38. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by nomadic · · Score: 0

      First, "honesty" is something you want in a President, but it isn't the only quality. Secondly, in this election the 3rd party candidates are terrible. Gary Johnson just seems almost as unknowledgeable as Trump, as does Jill Stein. I considered third-party candidates -- and rejected them. I think a lot of people are the same.

    39. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else [twitter.com]". Who else do you think would have done it?"

      Seems obviously, doesn't it? But given the fondness for unlikely conspiracy theories among some Trump supporters, I'm suprised you're taking it at face value. The one thing we know for sure is that we're dealing with crazy people that are attacking the democratic process itself. Guessing their political affiliation is a bit premature until the police come up with some actual evidence and suspects. For all we know it was some Trump supporter trying to generate sympathy and fit the narrative that they're under attack. I agree with you if you're only saying the possibility you have in mind is more likely, but it's far from conclusive. There are plenty of less likely alternatives to be eliminated before settling on that one. Wait for the police to do their job.

      "Note that the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack, probably because they know they bear some of the blame."

      That's nonsense. It's in all the headlines this morning.

    40. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by nomadic · · Score: 1

      That bloggger didn't remember well enough. He (and you) are missing intermediate posts about it that are linked in the Year of the Lie of 2013 post -- so there's no excuse for him missing it.

      From politifact in 2009: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      Now, close to a year later, we finally have detailed bills to examine. They closely mirror what Obama promised during the campaign.

      But the plans also introduce new ways of regulating health insurance companies that will surely change the current health care system. That could prompt employers to change their health plans, and we find Obama's statement less clear-cut now than it once seemed.
      (emphasis mine)

      So apparently Don Surber was a lot less honest than Politifact. That's why I never believe right-wing online nuts "fact-checking" because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally omit something important or misinterpret what is said.

    41. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when they caught those that threw the fire bombs did they admit to being democrats or found to have some connection? or are you just assuming it must be democrats? After all someone like Trump can't have possibly offended dozens of minority groups that would perceive his views as very similar to Nazi's right?

    42. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Informative

      lets see it is Trump, Who else might have a reason to hate him and perceive him as a Nazi
      Mexicans?
      Woman?
      blacks?
      Most of Europe?
      muslims?
      a quick count puts the potential non democrat suspects at several billion. Hillary may well be devil spawn but that doesn't somehow make trump any less insane a choice.

    43. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same journalist wrote both and no apology for the earlier, "fact check" or the about face on the claim.

      Except your own link indicates that said journalist did explain their position, namely that the results had changed from it being a right-wing hysteria driven lie, to a face-saving Obama administration lie. Facts and circumstances do change, and what's true today could be false tomorrow.

      That said, I think Obama's mistake was not promising to destroy the most harmful impediment to a free-market healthcare system in the US, namely the entrenched hold that the health insurance industry has on the provision of care. They're the ones strangling America under the burden of their support, and they even got to write the new law to suit them. He should have listened to the libertarians and made a genuinely free and honest market, rather than allow fraudster intermediaries to interject themselves into it.

    44. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?

      Doesn't mean shit. At one point a few weeks before brexit, Vegas was paying 15:1 leave. Hell, they were paying 5:1 leave 48hrs before the vote took place.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    45. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny how the comment accusing Democrats without any proof gets modded +5 informative, but the comment about Democrats coming together to help pay to rebuild the office only gets +3.

      It must really piss off the Republicans around here to be forced to acknowledge that Democrats are actually generous human beings.

    46. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness it's possible that at the time he posted they hadn't posted any stories. There was nearly 7 hours difference between their post and yours. And though I don't follow nytimes, abcnews or cbsnews, I do know that CNN isn't called the "Clinton News Network" for nothing. When there was that last explosion in New York it took CNN over 2 hours to even mention it because they had a breaking news story about Obama attending a fund raiser. I don't agree with CNNs priorities, but it's clear they have priorities, and those seem to be centered around anything the DNC is doing.

    47. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      The problem is there's nothing new here with regards to linking the attacks to the Russian government, except the US government saying no really trust us it was Putin himself h4xx0ring ur boxen. It may be. But there is still no proof of that, and the US government has a long, long, long history of lying about malicious enemy state activity in order to justify war. The Gulf of Tonkin never happened. I will never forgive Colin Powell and the neocons for lying to me about the aluminum tubes before the Iraq invasion.

      So now the neocons in Democrat form have had their dirty laundry exposed, they're desperate to deflect attention from the damning content of the leaks that prove our entire democracy is a sham, Obama/Hillary have been making aggressive moves towards Russia for years, they want Assad gone so they can get that damn pipeline, and I've seen a half dozen reports in the past few weeks of Russia calling citizens home and both sides moving strategic nuclear assets around. Gee I wonder.

      And then here's fucking buzzfeed fanning the flames. It's a bullshit propaganda method old as time. Start with the solid claim (phishing happened, evidence of Russian source), then jump to the government official saying without evidence it was the Russian government, and now the narrative is "it was the Russian government." Also I loved how they kept referring to the leaked information as a "disinformation campaign." What about the leaked docs earns them that "dis" prefix? "Ahhhh they haxx0red us! But it's fake! Don't look at our corruption don't look!"

      Neocons want war with Russia for oil and political power. Last time it was Fox News and CNN beating the war drums, this time it's fucking buzzfeed. And liberals are lapping it up because this time the neocon warmonger has a D after their name. Hold on to you butts, kids.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    48. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not Clinton, the DNC

      Doesn't Podesta work for Hillary, not the DNC? Were his emails stored with the DNC? I thought it was her campaign that was hacked/leaked also.

      Registered and disclosed. Do you see how it works now?

      No, I don't. What's different?

      Also, how does that make it okay? We've got leaked Podesta emails yelling "Take the money!!!!" from people linked to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other awful places, funneled through properly registered and disclosed agents. How does being bought by fucking Saudi Arabia and Qatar become okay just because it's legal? I care about the "being bought by Saudi Arabia and Qatar" part. Whether it was done by legal accounting legerdemain or sacks of cash in a DC parking garage at 3am is irrelevant.

      I would say we need to change the laws to make any money sourced from overseas illegal to be used in campaigning, but I don't think it would matter. Hillary breaks election and campaign finance laws with impunity and will never be prosecuted. We are in a post-legal state.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    49. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      That's the first piece of civility I've seen this entire campaign. Well done Dems.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    50. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Hillary tweeted this weekend about Alex Jones being a crazy conspiracy loon. If you believe the NCGOP firebombing was an inside job (no jet fuel or steel beams involved this time) you belong right in the basket with Alex.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    51. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      That's why I never believe right-wing online nuts "fact-checking" because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally omit something important or misinterpret what is said.

      This is why I never believe anything left-wing online sycophants say because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally introduce irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with the original claim so they can arrive at their pre-determined result. Leftists always work backwards.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    52. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by khallow · · Score: 1

      Except your own link indicates that said journalist did explain their position, namely that the results had changed from it being a right-wing hysteria driven lie, to a face-saving Obama administration lie. Facts and circumstances do change, and what's true today could be false tomorrow.

      Where do they say that in the 2013 story?

      That said, I think Obama's mistake was not promising to destroy the most harmful impediment to a free-market healthcare system in the US, namely the entrenched hold that the health insurance industry has on the provision of care. They're the ones strangling America under the burden of their support, and they even got to write the new law to suit them. He should have listened to the libertarians and made a genuinely free and honest market, rather than allow fraudster intermediaries to interject themselves into it.

      Because why not lie some more while you're at it?

    53. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except now, both parties are populated by people who believe the other party is entirely populated by insane people.

    54. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else". Who else do you think would have done it?

      Trump operatives, of course.
      He's running out of excuses, so creating fake attacks might be the next step.
      He still needs to convince some of his supporters to stand around polling places with their personal armories. And no, the Liberal Media Clinton have NOT ignored the incident.

      The Democrats have created a dangerous divide between patriotic Americans and the loons that support Hillary, and it's what naturally leads to things like this.

      Sorry, it's Trump who's doing all the anti-american stuff like trying to discriminate based on religion, strengthen libel laws to discourage the media, use intimidation to keep voters away from the polls, etc.
      Remember it's "liberty and justice for all," not "I want to punch that protestor in the face."

    55. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      I'll ignore the political crap and address the tech-related statement:

      2. Maybe the story is true, and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.

      About 99% of the population has the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.

      The rest work in IT, but that's barely enough for half of the IT personnel to be competent.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    56. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about what gets reported, but what gets repeated.

    57. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who else do you think would have done it?

      Couldn't have been Trump supporters, could it?
      Just like when a house burns down from Arson there's never any reason to believe it was the owner, right?

    58. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RT's bank accounts were shut down in the UK today. All of them.
      Assange's internet access has been cut off.
      The media narrative is 100% committed to drumming up public support for conflict with Russia.
      Hillary and all the elites need a conflict to shore up their domestic positions, particularly before the next leg of the financial crisis arrives.

      We're going to war. None of us can stop them now.

    59. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is, that when three guys get picked up plotting to bomb somebody, the DNC and their crew are very quick to blame Trump and everyone voting for him for it. Now, when actual firebombing occurs, those same people are quick to say "no proof" and "insane person" in a dismissive tone. The question is, why are people so fucking hypocritical while being blind to their own hypocrisy?

      Trump isn't worse than Hillary
      Hillary isn't better than Trump
      Both are horrible people and neither one has the temperament to be President. And their supporters are actively ignorant of real alternatives that don't suck.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    60. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the 3rd party candidate. He may be running under the GOP banner to make it easier to be included on the ticket but he is not a republican. He has been attacking the GOP ever since he decided to enter the campaign. The GOP ignored him until it was too late to keep him from winning the GOP primaries. A US Presidents power is limited. If Trump won the presidency he has almost zero chance of pushing any of his campaign platform items to success. He would have no support in Congress from either party. If he was to step slightly out of line he would be impeached in an afternoon. A US Presidents real power is proscribed by the Constitution. A President cannot annul any existing international treaties or trade agreements without gong through Congress first. A US President cannot rule through fiat and his veto power would be non-existent because Congress will always have the 2/3rds vote needed to override a Presidential veto.

      What Trump can do is totally derail the current Democrat and Republican elite who are used to buying influence through campaign financing. Clinton is bought and paid for. People do not give millions of dollars to someone's campaign and not expect a ROI. A Trump presidency would totally change the political landscape by forcing the entrenched parties to sit on the sidelines wondering how the citizenry was finally able to see them for what they are while allowing someone like Trump to get the better of them.

    61. Re: Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dic u are... Also an ignorant one⦠I bet you are being paid to lie

    62. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The third party candidate is a libertarian. Trump and Hillary both look good by comparison.

    63. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Hillary breaks election and campaign finance laws with impunity and will never be prosecuted.

      The argument goes something like this ... "TRUMP IS HITLER/A NAZI" ... as if that excuses Hillary of being Stalin purging Soviet Union of dissidents.

      I saw the question put this way ... "Which would you rather do, Microwave or boil the kitten?" As if one was better than the other.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    64. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, why not?

      I'm still certain that TPTB had hired the Bernie "supporters" that were causing problems at Trump rallies.

      Always remember that Trump and Clinton both are working for TPTB. Look at all the whinging in this discussion that the attack caused. I'd say that's a moderately successful distraction.

      MY major party is good, and YOUR major party is bad. Never mind they're THE SAME PARTY! Wake up sheeple!

      I think the sheeple would be better than letting TPTB take this where ever they're taking it. Sheeple 2016! Wake them from their 10,000 year slumber!

    65. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And if you believe it was an organized effort by the democratic party the same applies.

      BTW, democrats have gathered over $10,000 to help rebuild it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    66. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And if you believe it was an organized effort by the democratic party the same applies.

      Of course not. But when a whopping...two? out of millions of attendees to Trump rallies punched obnoxious protestors, that was blamed on Trump's "divisive rhetoric." But Hillary dehumanizes her opponent's supporters as "deplorable" and "irredeemable" and the media goes full tilt on the RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC NAZI rhetoric and that has nothing at all to do with leftist nutjobs firebombing Republicans. You literally have fascists reenacting Kristallnacht while calling their targets Nazis. The irony is off the charts. What's that quote about the "fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists?"

      BTW, democrats have gathered over $10,000 to help rebuild it.

      Yeah that was really nice. Only piece of civility I've seen on either side this election.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    67. Re: Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest is worthless when it's combined with stupid or delusional.

    68. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're talking about libertarians or the green party, I investigated and I don't find either to be a viable answer.

    69. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And moderation is not static, nor permanent. Those numbers are reversed now.

      But good job creating a post that had a shelf life of like 17 minutes.

    70. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary is a Republican.

      Your us vs. them thinking gets tiresome. Sure, flip the fuck out because I linked the lamestream media (specifically HuffPo, which I'm sure burnses you) but the article makes cogent points.

      The only people who actually want Hillary are shrived 2nd wave feminist hags. 3rd wave feminists don't even want her. In fact, 3rd wave feminists wanted Bernie. That's how disgusting Hillary is.

      The problem is that the Donald must not be allowed to be president. To speak to your us vs. them mentality, you should have selected Jeb! or Kasich instead of the Donald. Kasich probably would have gotten my vote vs. Hillary. As long as my state looks to be a shoo-in for Hillary, I'll be likely voting for Johnson.

      Anybody voting for the Donald is insane. Anybody voting for Hillary who isn't doing so to stop the Donald is insane. Voting 3rd party is the only rational choice to make.

      As repugnant as Hillary is, I may have managed to convince a few liberals I know to vote for Stein. Sad truth is that without people getting the word out about Stein and Johnson, a lot of people really do think their only options are to vote Hillary or stay home.

      Johnson and Stein don't need to be perfect or even a good idea for the Oval Office. Neither of them have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Voting for them is the only way to send a message to the major parties that this horseshit is unacceptable.

    71. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      No, Vegas is not paying out any odds on the Presidential election, as it is illegal to bet on political races in the United States.

      Las Vegas is still in the US, isn't it?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    72. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do they say that in the 2013 story?

      In the part you missed? They even used the years, so I hardly know how you missed it. In fact, even in the 2009 follow-up, it was explained why they were modifying their determination. It is a bit bogged down by the public option business, which we know didn't happen, but well, you're hardly going to blame Politifact for not knowing the future. Right?

      Because why not lie some more while you're at it?

      What lie? That's what I think Obama's mistake was, he should have sought to let people make their own decisions directly. Deal with the healthcare provider, not some bureaucrat pushing paper and thinking they're important.

    73. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Especially considering that the number of people that vote early rises with each election. I heard a statistic from some think tank that studies early voting that says they anticipate that 34% of the ballots cast this year will be early voting, or vote-by-mail.

      If 1/3 of the people likely to vote are voting right now, holding something for two weeks is very ineffective.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    74. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that Politfact is in the right so long as it doesnt "seem" to be "clear-cut" that something a Democrat said is a lie.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    75. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      My us vs. them thinking? My "us" is the commoners, and the "them" is the globalist elite. Which includes Hillary, and Jeb, and Kasich. Who the hell is your "us" and "them?"

      The Donald isn't just my candidate. He's my weapon to expose and destroy the entire wretched, fetid, rotten to the core political system. If you're voting for Hillary you're voting for your continued and likely permanent enslavement. If you're not voting for Trump you're complicit. Would I like him to be a little better spoken? A little more polite to the ladies? Sure. But cometh the hour cometh the man, and this is the man.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    76. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by khallow · · Score: 1

      I said "apologize" not "acknowledge" (though yes, I did miss the links in the 2013 to earlier weaseling and repositioning by Politifact). There should be some consequence for carrying water for four years for such a lie.

      And while there might have been a lot of lies and exaggerations from "right-wing online nuts", it's funny how they (and I for that matter) were able to determine, four years before Polifact, that the promise "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." was going to be a lie.

      Here's a clue. Polifact shouldn't say something is true before the promise has been acted on one way or another.

    77. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by khallow · · Score: 1

      In the part you missed? They even used the years, so I hardly know how you missed it. In fact, even in the 2009 follow-up, it was explained why they were modifying their determination. It is a bit bogged down by the public option business, which we know didn't happen, but well, you're hardly going to blame Politifact for not knowing the future. Right?

      Ok, I did miss a significant part of the 2013 article. But having said that, because they don't know the future perhaps they shouldn't say things are true, until they come to ass as such? OTOH, I note that I knew the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." promise was going to be bullshit from the first time it was uttered and I didn't need omniscience to figure that out.

    78. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's true, but it's part of politics. Whenever they do something, it's awful. Whenever we do it, it's good. When a party is in the majority, filibustering is bad. When a party is in the minority, filibustering is good.

      Politicians know they are being hypocritical, and they don't care because it works. And it will continue to work as long as the population is braindead. IMO, the braindeadedness comes from dividing into parties, rather than voting for the best person.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    79. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Having grown up in Atlanta, please let be the first to tell you that black folks would be immeasurably angered (and quite rightfully so) seeing an old, privileged, powerful white lady who has spent months persuading the populace that she's firmly against racism and fully supportive of women's rights treating a black female staffer in such a manner.

      They'd be angry... and then most would still go out and vote for her. Why? Because a disproportionate percentage of those voters is dependent on government programs, and their political and "civil rights" leaders depend on their financial and political ties to Democrats as well.

      What Hillary or Trump believe or say has nothing to do with this simple logic of wealth and power.

    80. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The problem is there's nothing new here with regards to linking the attacks to the Russian government, except the US government saying no really trust us it was Putin himself h4xx0ring ur boxen.

      Yeah, the skill level required to accomplish this attack is somewhere between script-kiddie and code-camp-graduate. There's no reason to think the Russian government is behind it any more than the US government was behind Anonymous.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    81. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      although both are more honest the the Democrat and Republican offerings

      I'm not sure that's true. I'm voting third party, but if either one started to get popular, the fact-checkers would start checking them and calling them liars.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    82. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Re, the "uranium deal" thing: false and false

      Politifact is saying that it hasn't been strictly proven that Clinton actually engaged in pay-for-play. There is no question that the Clinton foundation received the money while Clinton was SoS. I consider that deeply corrupt by itself. You're free to disagree.

      Factcheck gets hung up on the fact that Trump said that the State Department had "veto power", which technically only the president has. They acknowledge that State Department approval was required. The fact that approval was required makes the charge of corruption even stronger, because the State Department didn't merely let the deal through through inaction, the State Department actively had to consider the deal and come to a decision. The fact that Factcheck gets this so wrong tells you only one thing: Factcheck's judgments cannot be trusted at all.

      So let me get this straight. Don't trust Buzzfeed. Instead, trust "Battle Swam Blog". Got it.

      Personally, I don't trust anyone; I think for myself and check the facts. I suggest you start doing the same instead of rattling off a litany of talking points.

    83. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I mean, I can't say I would be shocked if Putin were behind it. It's obvious the elites want war with Russia. The US anti-war movement is ONLY interested in stopping wars led by Republicans. So if a democrat, especially Hillary gets in, they're going full steam ahead. We'll have an illegitimate no-fly zone and some plane will crash or get shot down or something and blah blah blah Putin is the devil and he killed journalists (but not leakers via drone strike so it's okay) and I'm sure they'll figure out some way he "gassed his own people" (that one always works) and then consent will be manufactured and we'll be off to the races.

      If I'm Putin, or any sane individual, I do not want war between the US and Russia. So yes, of course I'd attempt to sabotage the democratic candidate via h4xx0ring. There really is no downside, since they're going to try to kill you anyway.

      That doesn't mean he did it, though. I'd give it 50-50 odds.

      I don't even know what would happen if Hillary wins and she starts a war with Russia. I would not be shocked at a US military coup. Those Red State boys are the ones who get sent to die, and they are woke as fuck about this election. They might love killin' hajis, but I don't think a one of them is itching to kill Russians (or get killed by Russians) for Hillary.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    84. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above post has been brought to you by a Clinton supporter trying to smear people who criticize Politifact as antisemitic.

    85. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone wants war with Russia. Democrats are just trying their version of the Red Scare.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    86. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I don't think any voters, Republican, Democrat or other want war with Russia. I think the people who fund both parties want war with Russia.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    87. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Correction. Hillary Clinton is fully aware she's paying thugs to start violence with Republicans. We don't know about this bombing specifically, but all through the campaign, yes. Literally fascism, from the top down.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    88. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think the people who fund the parties want war with Russia, either. That would be insane.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    89. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Insane to you. But the elite have different objectives and morality than you do.

      How many wars have already been fought, and how many millions of people have been killed or maimed based on complete lies? Those weren't accidents. That was deliberate malice, with zero concern for the people killed on either side.

      Anyway, we'll find out. Just keep watching the news. Particularly if Hillary wins. Just keep watching for more and more saber rattling. The pattern goes:

      1. Media question of Russian nefarious behavior.

      2. Government "sources" who confirm Russian nefarious behavior.

      3. Media "forgets" the nefarious behavior was ever in question and treats it as fact.

      All of this plays out over a few weeks, and via different media outlets. Paper A reports allegations which Channel B cites as fact which then Paper A cites as fact and now "everybody knows."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    90. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As European, let me disagree with your suggestion that "Most of Europe" is against Trump. In case if you will succeed in your idiotic attempt to begin the war with Russia, we'll suffer first. And I'm afraid that Clinton is a shortcut to nuclear winter.

    91. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Just to put it out there (it's tangential) because it's inspiring...

      Conservative and liberal; christian, jewish and people of other faiths have helped multiple times to rebuild and repair different mosques which have been attacked by extremists and racists (most apparently using using fire bombs/molatovs). Atheists were not explicitly called out but probably some of the liberals were atheists.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    92. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Attacks actually happened at 6 different trump rallies.

      That was pretty shocking. But the real issue was trump offering to cover legal expenses and encouraging violence. And taking people's coats then throwing them out into freezing weather. It was an early reveal of Trump's character and that he was pretty dangerous when he has power.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    93. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Given how the tech community substantially consists of Hillary bootlickers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsupporters, I can't see how they could not have security experts of significant caliber that would work for free.

    94. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's a democrat, god knows, there are enough nut jobs on that side of the fence, too.

    95. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 1

      That doesn't always work for me, idk its probably just me

    96. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Turn on private browsing to clear your cookies (and other tracking).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    97. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's awesome. Someone should burn down your fucking house too!

    98. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill all conservatives, kill all liberals, kill all voter scum = the path to freedom. Seriously, build IED's, put them in right-wing neighbourhoods. And don't forget to shoot the cops, anyone with camo and an armed forces badge should be gunned down too. This goes double for their supporters. Kill them all, gun down the fucking right!

    99. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. The second Politifact piece - which you link to, so you must have read it, right? - explicitly talks about the change in rating, and explains the reasons for it at some length.

      What more do you want them to do, exactly?

    100. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Did Trump cover anyone's legal expenses? The Democratic operatives on the tape admit to doing so, routinely.

      And did he actually confiscate anyone's coats? Or was that a joke, that everyone got, except liberals playing dumb?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    101. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I also read a story recently about muslims who helped rebuild a Christian church in Egypt that was destroyed by extremists. There's rare good in this world.

      Of course I wouldn't shocked if those muslims were later killed by other muslims as apostates.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    102. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Registered and disclosed. Do you see how it works now?

      No, I don't. What's different?

      You don't understand how disclosure is useful as an anti-corruption measure? If that is the case I can't help you.

    103. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The argument goes something like this ... "TRUMP IS HITLER/A NAZI" ... as if that excuses Hillary of being Stalin purging Soviet Union of dissidents.

      I saw the question put this way ... "Which would you rather do, Microwave or boil the kitten?" As if one was better than the other.

      Actually according to independent analysis , Trump is like Hitler, but Clinton is similar to Thatcher.
      So a more accurate analogy is, which would you rather do microwave the cat, or merely punch it in the face? One is actually a less worse outcome.

    104. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False Flag operation. Firebomb your own office, which may (or may not) have completed absentee ballots (illegally) stored in it, then blame the Clinton campaign.

    105. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sadly they are both terrible, though you are far more likely to end up at war with Trump as he will pull his support from NATO and allies leaving them exposed. As a European your ignorance speaks for a minority.

    106. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by khallow · · Score: 1

      Apologize for the bullshit they posted in 2008 and 2009, of course. It should be painfully obvious that you don't rate a promise as "true" when the speaker has yet to deliver on the promise.

    107. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting here that this was the most important lie of all, because it was a key promise by President Obama, the most powerful backer of the PPACA bill. That's what it took to pass the bill. But it took Polifact four years to properly classify it.

    108. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (disclaimer: I'm not GP)

      It should be painfully obvious that you don't rate a promise as "true" when the speaker has yet to deliver on the promise.

      Sure, but... what makes you think they were rating a promise in both instances?

      The first instance was judging the statement as a "description of his [Obama's] plan", not about people keeping their insurance plans.

      Fast forward a few years later, when the results are in, then they judged it as a promise, and found it wanting.

      In short, they judge the same statement under two different criteria and got two different results, being technically correct (the best kind of correct) in both cases without contradicting themselves. They'll then pat themselves on the back in how "nuanced" they are.

      Yes, it's sneaky, but it works. Reminds me of the old Space Balls quote: "Evil wins because good is dumb"

    109. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I'm shocked! Shocked! to hear that there is illegal gambling in Las Vegas.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    110. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      No. when push came to shove.. lol.. he stiffed them and left them to twist in the breeze after saying he would cover their expenses.

      Classic trump!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    111. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Probably because he thought better of it. But he's the bad guy, for not doing it, and the good guys are the Democrats, who pay their thugs' legal bills. Got it.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    112. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      No he's the bad guy for saying

      There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hellâ" I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It wonâ(TM)t be so much â(TM)cause the courts agree with us too.

      This is almost certainly the crime of incitement to violence (or murder if they'd accidentally killed someone).

      What ever the democrats are alleged to have done is a separate issue. So I'm going to ignore your attempted /pivot but I'll give you a cookie for not using "But Hillary!"

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    113. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with what he said? If you see someone about to throw an Assault Fruit, you wouldn't punch them?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    114. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Telling people to punch other people and offering to pay their legal bills is a crime.

      Brandenburg v. Ohio

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    115. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      But not in defense of another. It would be justified.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    116. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be a small percentage of people that are overjoyed to see Clinton elected.

      You are either lying or stupid. Believe me, I understand you. But you pretend not to understand that the percentage of people that will be overjoyed to see the first female president of the united states after fourty four male ones... well, I'm guessing it's not small. In fact the number 50% comes to mind for some reason.

    117. Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Attacks actually happened at 6 different trump rallies.

      Yes, and as it turns out, they were likely attacks provoked and/or engineered by Clinton's political machine.

      But the real issue was trump offering to cover legal expenses and encouraging violence.

      No, the real issue is Hillary's organization hiring goons to cause violent disturbances at Trump rallies. That's in addition to the already frequent left-wing violence at progressive and social justice-related protests, which is also caused by Hillary's (and Sander's) rhetoric.

      The Democrats really are behaving more and more like the Nazi party: violent demonstrations and violent disruptions of the political events of their opponents.

  6. Link shortening is a horrible, horrible idea by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Frankly I'm surprised we don't see this technique used more often.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Link shortening is a horrible, horrible idea by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if people checked URLs before clicking them, but...

      Good web browsers should warn whenever a main URL is redirected to a different SLD, show the new URL, and require the user to check a box "Yes, I understand that this can be dangerous" and hit Continue before redirecting.

    2. Re:Link shortening is a horrible, horrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good web browsers should let you inspect and pin the certificate of a https site if you want to. In mobile browsers, you can't even do the former, let alone try to control what certifying authoridies or individual certificates you trust. They barely even show you the url any more.

      No one cares about security.

    3. Re:Link shortening is a horrible, horrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. Now you've just taught everyone to ignore the words and just blindly click "Yes, I understand that this can be dangerous" any time it pops up.

      If you really want to make someone think about it, give them a CAPTCHA-style test similar to the one that keeps people from sending drunk emails.
      (But all that will really do is cause users to flee to another browser.)

    4. Re:Link shortening is a horrible, horrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Criminals don't want you to see it used, or else you might fear it and mitigate it. They'll only let the public see it used when the stakes are high. I think this counts. Be afraid, be very very afraid. Note clearly the Obama administrations cyberwar drumbeating, NOT over the fact that such techniques were used by Russians against US citizens, but ONLY over the fact that the public at large became aware of it. If the perps had used the information in any less than 100% public fashion, that would have just been business as usual amongst the power spooks. But because the public found out about the techniques being used, then it becomes grounds for Cyber World War One.

      Fuck.

  7. A little perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:A little perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I get from that map is that, despite a clear majority of states voting for Trump, their model still for some reason "predicts" a Clinton win. Almost as if the election has been rigged. Somehow.

      Every election is rigged by design, because of the electoral college system. If you're just now figuring out that the elections are rigged, you slept through civics and should probably refrain from contributing to political conversations.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:A little perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every election is rigged by design, because of the electoral college system. If you're just now figuring out that the elections are rigged, you slept through civics and should probably refrain from contributing to political conversations.

      The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.

      If anyone has a beef with the electoral college, take it up with the Founding Fathers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was due to technical limitations, like communication latency. You are physically able to straw poll the Electoral College but not an entire state.

    4. Re:A little perspective by Peter+Desnoyers · · Score: 3, Funny

      What I get from that map is that, despite a clear majority of states voting for Trump, their model still for some reason "predicts" a Clinton win. Almost as if the election has been rigged. Somehow.

      The astute reader will notice that 22 states on that map are colored red or pink. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

    5. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -What I get from that map is that, despite a clear majority of states voting for Trump, their model still for some reason "predicts" a Clinton win-

      Because States don't elect the POTUS, the people do. You did see the comparison of electoral to popular vote predictions, yes?

    6. Re:A little perspective by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I get from that map is that, despite a clear majority of states voting for Trump, their model still for some reason "predicts" a Clinton win.

      You're either not American or you slept through civics class in high school.

      The number of states doesn't matter. The populations of those states (and thus the number of electoral votes each one has) are negligible compared to those in the Clinton column. In fact, the only populous state that's likely to go for Trump is Texas.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:A little perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.

      The EC has disagreed with the popular vote only four times in history and one of those was a Bush presidency. Tell me again how great it is.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: A little perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I thought it was due to technical limitations, like communication latency.

      If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.

      But I agree with you that the Constitution is a living document.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking high? That's because nobody lives in the flyover states. Do you not like that the president is elected on the basis of the number of people that vote for him/her? Would you prefer that the president be selected on the basis of total land area?

    10. Re:A little perspective by harperska · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but the map clearly shows the majority of the land area of the country is colored red. And everybody knows that the only fair way to conduct an election is for each square mile of the country's landmass to get exactly one vote.

    11. Re:A little perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The EC has disagreed with the popular vote only four times in history and one of those was a Bush presidency. Tell me again how great it is.

      I didn't say it was great. I'm just pointing out that it isn't an evil conspiracy hatched by George Soros and Saul Alinsky.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:A little perspective by Aboroth · · Score: 1

      Can you count? By looking at the map and practicing the difficult techniques taught on Sesame Street, we can see that there are more blue states than red states. The site says "updated 3 hours ago" so I know we looked at the same map. Not that the number of states is a good metric anyway, for reasons which I will leave you to deduce since I have confidence you can use your brain if you try.

    13. Re:A little perspective by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The Electoral College is the best thing in all of human history. Knowledge of it has saved me from so many disasters I have lost count. I do agree that it is confusing to people who have no understanding of history, but please know you mess with it at peril of your very soul.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    14. Re: A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What clear majority? That's 22 red states on that map. Don't be fooled by them all being in the middle.

    15. Re: A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Oh shut the fuck up you inveterate shill. You can't even discuss the topic without shitting on the second amendment.

    16. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And trump is going to win. When he does, I can't wait to hear all you useless cunts scream in terror. It's going to be a symphony of epic proportions.

    17. Re:A little perspective by Gussington · · Score: 0

      The astute reader will notice that 22 states on that map are colored red or pink. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

      Without even looking it up, I'm going to bet that those 22 states correspond to the lowest education and human development standards in the US as well.

    18. Re: A little perspective by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You're the one who gave himself away by specifying his favourite amendment, smart guy.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different states have different populations. If you think that a majority of states implies that a candidate has a majority of votes or that a candidate should be elected, then you fail both mathematics and electoral system knowledge.

    20. Re:A little perspective by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're the first person I've seen that suggests the president should be picked by an even more skewed electoral college than we have. Taking the side that the candidate up by six points should be losing.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    21. Re:A little perspective by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The electoral college favors trump..

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    22. Re:A little perspective by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      They also created the 2nd amendment to put the fear of God into the political establishment so they wouldn't be so inclined to try and bilk an entire nation for all that it is worth. Is it irony that the very same establishment is trying to do away with that special little "check"? I think so.

      Also read up on faithless elector laws. Any sort of attempt at using this to throw an election against Trump would lead to a civil war. The establishment knows it's on thin ice.

    23. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... though I believe, the gerrymeandering associated with the electoral college, was an innovation NOT conceived by the Founding Fathers.

    24. Re:A little perspective by denzacar · · Score: 2

      The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.

      Except that in this case Trump doesn't get the popular vote - he's at 42.5%. Clinton has 49.3%.

      Also, electoral votes being a representation of the will and the number of the people in each state - they tend to vote in accord to the popular vote.
      I mean... last time popular vote winner lost the election was in 2000 - back when Gore lost to Bush by less than 1% of the electoral vote, while wining the popular vote by 0.5%.
      Last time before that... you'd have to go back to the '80s. 1880s. Before women could vote and just after black men got the right to vote... at least on paper.

      Other than that... there are only two more cases of a winner of the popular vote not winning the electoral vote as well. In the 1870s and in the 1820s.
      Winning the popular vote but losing the election is not a normal thing. It's an exception which happens very rarely.
      Like, centuries can come and go between such elections.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    25. Re:A little perspective by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hiding behind what people did 200+ years ago means that you are either unable, but more likely unwilling to solve anything.
      So no, do NOT take it up with the founding fathers. Go out there and solve the shit that is going on yourselves.I live in a country that is younger than the US and has gone through more changes on a political level.
      Stop blaming others for the mess you are in.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    26. Re:A little perspective by CByrd17 · · Score: 1

      USA does not elect a president based on a majority of states. Rather the electoral college, which is tied to population.

      So they believe that the minority of states that they predict Clinton will win is enough to win the race by a landslide. And of course we know the electoral counts for each state, so we can confirm independently that if they are right about which states she wins, then we can assume she will win in a landslide.

    27. Re: A little perspective by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.

      Rat, this is a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.

      "A living Constitution" is shorthand for the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal friends shouldn't be bound by the actual words in the Constitution, but by (her interpretation of) the intent of the Constitution, which coincidentally always lines up with liberal policy preferences.

      "Living Constitution" advocates are making laws and rulings against the plain text of the Second Amendment NOW, with that amendment still in place.

      Changing the Constitution through the amendment process is different than ignoring it when it gets in the way, which is what "Living Constitution" advocates are advocating for.

      Once we're squarely in "we're talking about changing the text of the Constitution with an amendment territory," repealing the Electoral College and repealing the Second Amendment have nothing to do with each other. If one was a good idea (neither are), that wouldn't imply anything about the other.

    28. Re: A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noooo! My precious 21st amendment!

    29. Re:A little perspective by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.

      No they didn't. The idea was to ensure that the interests of the Federal government lined up with those of the member states. The separation of powers and rule of law is what's supposed to prevent Trump from being a problem.

      When Trump and Clinton were neck and neck two or three weeks ago (gosh, has it been that long? But Arancia Mussolini's definitely definitely going to lose, right?), 538 was showing that they were also neck and neck in the electoral college.

      The constitution does nothing to punish populism as long as that populism is sufficiently broad based, attractive to all of the country, not just some regions.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    30. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The electoral college is a duality. It is sword that can be politically used to undermine the representation of US citizens, raised under the guise of representing said citizens in a time when communications were lacking compared to today's infrastructure. Propaganda and fear have kept the illusion of representation alive. The problem with Donald Trump, is he has used the calculated rhetoric of the far right to gain a foothold, and thus does somewhat represent a fairly large portion of the population that live under this particular illusion.

    31. Re:A little perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was great. I'm just pointing out that it isn't an evil conspiracy hatched by George Soros and Saul Alinsky.

      Right. It's an evil conspiracy hatched by the rich white male founding fathers, who wanted to retain control of the nation. What, you thought they were fucking angels?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re: A little perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.

      If we rewrote the bill of rights to be congruent with laws passed since its inception, we'd just wipe our arses with it and throw it on the burn pile.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, I hate to throw personal insults, but you're an idiot. The EC was created because the size of the US 250 years ago (yes, smaller then it is now, but still very large) meant that reliably getting a popular vote to a central location was damn near fricking impossible, so instead you voted for electoral college candidates who would then go to DC and cast their vote for president. It was a practicality thing, not something to prevent "populist perverts" from getting elected. If you don't understand this you lack a basic ability to understand logistics.

    34. Re:A little perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      he EC was created because the size of the US 250 years ago (yes, smaller then it is now, but still very large) meant that reliably getting a popular vote to a central location was damn near fricking impossible, so instead you voted for electoral college candidates who would then go to DC and cast their vote for president.

      So, you're saying they believed it was easier to send a human being to Washington DC than it was to send a letter that said, "The vote total was..."

      So then why was an electoral college needed in states like Virginia and Maryland which are walking distance from Washington DC?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re: A little perspective by Dripdry · · Score: 0

      And they set up the rest of the system to stop people like Hillary from getting in. What's your point again?

      --
      -
    36. Re: A little perspective by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Well said. The Constitution is only a "living document" when it turns left.

      "Islam is incompatible with western civilization. We should ban Islam and burn the Koran."

      "But that's unconstitutional!!"

      "Well the Constitution is a living document that was never meant to deal with a xenocidial political system masquerading as a religion and..."

      Good luck with that argument.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    37. Re:A little perspective by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The constitution does nothing to punish populism as long as that populism is sufficiently broad based, attractive to all of the country, not just some regions.

      This. The EC is more about ensuring that a president is elected on broad nation support more than just popular because of the issues of population densities skewing trends. It was designed to give smaller states more say in presidential elections. It really is just like the bicameral congress except it is for POTUS elections. Each congressional chamber represents the states in a different way; Popular and as a whole. The EC is a mix of these to guarantee that any president will have broad national support and broad popular support (exceptions apply albeit rare).

      You don't want a president elected by the few very heavily populated cities just like you don't want a president elected on many small dispersed towns. You want a president elected by a broad support of states and people.

    38. Re:A little perspective by jittles · · Score: 1

      Every election is rigged by design, because of the electoral college system. If you're just now figuring out that the elections are rigged, you slept through civics and should probably refrain from contributing to political conversations.

      The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.

      If anyone has a beef with the electoral college, take it up with the Founding Fathers.

      The Electoral College is also designed to help balance out the distinct advantages of the most populous states. Without the electoral college you'd have almost half the US population in the 5 most populous states. You could probably safely ignore 40 out of the 50 states and still get elected with a popular vote.

    39. Re:A little perspective by jittles · · Score: 2

      I didn't say it was great. I'm just pointing out that it isn't an evil conspiracy hatched by George Soros and Saul Alinsky.

      Right. It's an evil conspiracy hatched by the rich white male founding fathers, who wanted to retain control of the nation. What, you thought they were fucking angels?

      I do not believe that the United States would even exist without the electoral college. Why would Rhode Island want to participate in a popular presidential election when they have basically no say over who is elected? At least they're guaranteed 2 electoral votes through their senate seats. All of the little states could band together and have their voice heard through the electoral college. The five most populous states contain almost half the US population and would therefore dominate elections. It would lead to neglect of the smaller states and their departure from the union. Were the founding fathers saints? No. Of course not, but it sounds like they understand people a hell of a lot better than you do.

    40. Re: A little perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And they set up the rest of the system to stop people like Hillary from getting in. What's your point again?

      My point is that it's time for a Constitutional Convention, because the Founders done fucked up.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    41. Re:A little perspective by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Because the states with the largest populations are all going to Clinton: CA, IL, PA, NY, FL, OH, GA, NC

      The only big state leaning Trump is TX. Rounding out the biggest 10 states is GA on Trump's side. And TX+GA combined have fewer votes than CA.

      So out of the states with the most people and electoral votes, 8/10 are leaning Clinton. No surprise she is expected to win.

      It's not a conspiracy, it's basic math.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    42. Re:A little perspective by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      In fact, our system gives outsized influence to lightly-populated states (since each state gets two senators). If anything, this election is rigged against the Democrats, since the big western red states get more votes per capita than California, etc.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    43. Re:A little perspective by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      He's not hiding behind anything. Things were setup to avoid "mob rule", "tyranny of the majority"; to get the little states to agree to a union with larger states. And, yes, if we decide to change it, we need to "take it up with the Founding Fathers", as they argued that shit out 200 years ago. We'd best be very careful changing something that has brought us to superpower status.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    44. Re:A little perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why would Rhode Island want to participate in a popular presidential election when they have basically no say over who is elected?

      Because otherwise they just get annexed and made a part of some state with enough land area to justify being one.

      At least they're guaranteed 2 electoral votes through their senate seats.

      Yeah, that's dumb. It should be one man, one vote. If a state wants more power it should attract more residents. If it doesn't have space for them, it doesn't deserve it.

      Senate vs. House is cool, multiple branches, I get that and even support it. But electoral votes to states? Shit no.

      Were the founding fathers saints? No. Of course not, but it sounds like they understand people a hell of a lot better than you do.

      Yes, including how to manipulate them. It's still working on you and you weren't even born yet

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:A little perspective by Peter+Desnoyers · · Score: 1

      If he can't count states on a map (28 for Clinton, 22 for Trump when the post was made), subtleties like state populations are going to go entirely over his head...

    46. Re:A little perspective by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.

      The EC has disagreed with the popular vote only four times in history and one of those was a Bush presidency. Tell me again how great it is.

      Who said the electoral college was "great"? I'm not a huge fan of the idea, but it is what it is, until we amend the Constitution.

      Anyhow, there's a big difference between saying there's something undesirable about the electoral process vs. claiming that an election is "rigged." That implies that there's a secret behind-the-scenes variable manipulating election results. The electoral college doesn't satisfy that criterion -- I suppose it would if there were so-called "faithless electors" who could be bribed or something on a regular basis. But the last time faithless electors played a major role was in 1836. Well, there were a couple situations since then when a candidate died before the inauguration, in which case one can argue about the utility of forcing them to vote for a dead person.

      In any case, the majority of states have laws prohibiting electors from being "faithless," so "rigging" by means of swaying the electoral college isn't realistic.

      But you don't even seem to be talking about that. This last post seems to be claiming that even a discrepancy between popular vote vs. electoral vote is "rigging."

      There are at least a couple problems with this argument:

      (1) Candidates actually make significant campaign choices to try to win the electoral vote, NOT the popular vote. They show up in some states just to grab those votes, when otherwise they'd probably just spend most of their time in major cities and ignore half of the country (where population density is less). Is that good or bad? I don't know, but the point is that it's hard to call an election "rigged" when the rules are clear and candidates choose to campaign to win the electoral vote. (It also makes the "Gore should have won in 2000 because the electoral college sucks" argument a little specious -- Gore and Bush were not campaigning to win the popular vote. If they were, they might have campaigned differently, and there's no evidence that Gore would still have won if they made different choices to try to win the popular vote, since the margin was small. By the way, I'm NOT arguing in favor of a Bush presidency, just that the "Gore won the popular vote" thing is just a BS argument, since the candidates were trying to win the electoral vote.)

      (2) There are plenty of situations where the "one person, one vote" argument is not what we'd consider the best. If three kids vote to have M&Ms and Cheetos for dinner, should the parents give in, since they're outnumbered? Or should the parents' votes "count more" in this circumstance?

      Obviously the U.S. system is more complicated than that, but it was designed in such a way as to prioritize individual state "voices" more than popular votes. After all, it's up to individual states to determine how their electors are allocated. A couple (e.g., Nebraska) don't do "winner-take-all" but most do. Thus, the anti-populist impetus takes place on various levels of government that have little to do with the electoral college directly.

      And really, if you're going to complain about problematic voter representation, are you seriously going to claim the electoral college is the worst offense? How about the entire U.S. Senate? States like Wyoming and Alaska get as much voice there as California. Is that "rigged"? If so, our entire federal government representation system is "rigged."

      But again, that's not what the term usually means. Instead, we should note that the Founding Fathers prioritized state voices -- that's why they made Senate representation equal for all states (and why senators were originally appointed by state l

    47. Re:A little perspective by Peter+Desnoyers · · Score: 1

      Check the map. Not that it matters, but Clinton has 28 states and Trump 22. It's even easier to have a majority when you have most of the big states *and* most of the states overall.

    48. Re:A little perspective by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The country is geographically red (Republican) and not even close.
      The country is politically blue (Democrat) by a thin margin.

      http://www.frihost.com/forums/...

      The elitists call it flyover country for a reason, their bases are mainly on the coasts. The electoral college was created to get the politicians out of the big cities, and help provide balance between rich city folk, and poor country folk. Nothing has really changed in 225 years.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    49. Re:A little perspective by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Taking the side that the candidate up by six points should be losing.

      The candidate winning by six points SHOULD be losing, if ethics mattered as much as her supporters claim they do.
      The candidate losing by six points SHOULD be losing, if being hypocritical mattered, like they claim it should.

      The real question is, why are EITHER of them winning when both shouldn't even be close to winning? If everyone who doesn't like either candidate, and is holding their noses why swallowing the poison of their vote actually voted their conscience, NEITHER Trump nor Clinton would win.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    50. Re:A little perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The elitists call it flyover country for a reason, their bases are mainly on the coasts

      The real reason is that's how most of us want to treat it. That's why the population is concentrated on coastlines. They're grrrreat.

      The electoral college was created to get the politicians out of the big cities, and help provide balance between rich city folk, and poor country folk.

      It was created to avoid democracy, which is what you would have if you gave the vote to everyone. It was a means of ensuring that you didn't in fact give the vote to everyone.

      There's lots of good stuff in the constitution, because the framers had many of the same concerns as the populace. But there's also some crap in there, because they also had rich white fuck concerns. That is to say, how do we keep running this show for as long as possible? First, we make sure that only other white men can vote, that'll help...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. This should be modded up.

      The way that the electoral college gets thrown around by ignorant internet commenters who slept through high school civics is fucking stupid, and you explained why better than I could have. Or at least far more politely than I was about to :)

      Personally I'm big on states' rights, and I've been wondering for some time if we'd be better off if the president weren't elected by the people/electoral college at all but appointed in some kind of parliamentary system. (I also think it's better if the senate were to go back to being elected by the states.) The federal government just shouldn't have that much power, and the president especially shouldn't have the amount of power we all seem to ascribe to her/him. Just my $0.02.

    52. Re: A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be called prejudice, motherfucker. But I bet you STILL will feel like your clever opinion is correct.

    53. Re:A little perspective by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The Electoral College isn't particularly helping Clinton here. If anything, it's probably going to end up helping Trump in that it skews political power *toward* less populous states. For example, Wyoming will go to Trump. While Wyoming accounts for only .6% of the electoral vote, but if it were a popular vote, it would account for less than .2% of the popular vote. (Pretty sure my math there is right, but admittedly I just googled some numbers and plugged them into a calculator)

      The Electoral College was designed to prevent populous areas from exerting too much control over the federal government, and given that populous areas tend to be more liberal, it usually works in favor of the Republicans.

    54. Re: A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would prefer thePresident having so little power that nobody really cares.

    55. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The founders created and approved the 2nd amendment so that rich southern slave owners would not have to finance the weapons necessary to arm the non-slave owning populations that would be conscripted in the event of a slave revolt.

    56. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, our entire federal government representation system is "rigged."

      Yes, it is. Check out the Wyoming Rule. California is disadvantaged.

    57. Re: A little perspective by Gussington · · Score: 1

      That would be called prejudice, motherfucker. But I bet you STILL will feel like your clever opinion is correct.

      Some states have higher education levels than others, this is a fact. Just because you can't grasp that fact doesn't make it any less true.
      Donald Trump has by far the lowest percentage of educated voters of any candidate in the modern era, so it follows that the strongest support would be in the least educated states.
      If you had an education you would understand this, instead you get angry and call names when you hear things you don't like to hear.

    58. Re:A little perspective by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out, the number of states doesn't matter, so there's no need to count them, and so I didn't bother to.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    59. Re:A little perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Anyhow, there's a big difference between saying there's something undesirable about the electoral process vs. claiming that an election is "rigged." That implies that there's a secret behind-the-scenes variable manipulating election results.

      No, no it does not. That's one potential meaning of rigged. But the system can be rigged in one direction or another without it being secretly rigged. For example, vegas casino odds are rigged in favor of the house, right out in the open. People play anyway on the premise that they will be in the lucky minority. The etymology has to do with sailing ships. Your ignorance of the language has led you to accuse me of ignorance. I would be shocked and appalled at this if this were not Slashdot. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

      But you don't even seem to be talking about that. This last post seems to be claiming that even a discrepancy between popular vote vs. electoral vote is "rigging."

      Well, yes. That's clearly what I was implying. So why did you waste time on some other argument?

      There are at least a couple problems with this argument:

      Oh goody, actual arguments to refute.

      Candidates actually make significant campaign choices to try to win the electoral vote, NOT the popular vote.

      Yeah, that's a drawback. It's to the detriment of the people. The majority want to see certain things be permitted, and a minority is able to abuse the system to prevent them.

      I don't know, but the point is that it's hard to call an election "rigged" when the rules are clear

      Only if you don't own a dictionary.

      There are plenty of situations where the "one person, one vote" argument is not what we'd consider the best. If three kids vote to have M&Ms and Cheetos for dinner, should the parents give in, since they're outnumbered? Or should the parents' votes "count more" in this circumstance?

      That is frankly a terrifyingly horrible and completely unacceptable simile, because you're implying that those who know what is best for us must rise and save us from ourselves by treating us like children. But we are not children, and if we are poorly prepared to vote it is because our government has failed us in the education department — which, by the way, has been excused by the behest of the flyover states. Their influence leads to nonsense like abstinence-only education being forced into schools, or schools being allowed to suggest that creationism is a theory on par with evolution. So this is not only a terrifying example that displays your mind set, but it also works against your prior argument. Steeeerike two! I note you didn't take a third swing at a bold-faced, central point. Good call.

      Obviously the U.S. system is more complicated than that, but it was designed in such a way as to prioritize individual state "voices" more than popular votes.

      Yes, and that means that the will of the people can be ignored through clever manipulation of the vote in low-information states.

      But again, that's not what the term usually means.

      In your mind. But rigged doesn't have to mean "secretly", and by default it doesn't imply any such thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, if we've learnt anything in Europe over the last few years it's that the popular vote is terrible for the people and terrible for the country.

      - AV was rejected, even though it would've given us a more accountable democracy and reduced the margin by which parties could win the election - i.e. it would mean instead of being able to get 100% of the power with only 30% of the popular vote you'd have needed to gun for at least 40%+ of the power.

      - European Parliament is proportional, but people all voted UKIP, the people least able to represent our interests in Europe.

      - Brexit is showing that Project Fear was actually project Fact, and once again people voted against their own best interests. They were lied to on immigration, NHS funding, and countless other things and the economy is indeed now tanking with our currency at it's weakest point since we were the sick man of Europe.

      - Even Switzerland, the popular vote has caused them to risk complete isolation in Europe by voting to block the free movement of people and the net result is they could be cut off from trade and have borders all around their country, a bit shit for a tiny land locked nation dependent on the countries around them for jobs and income.

      Popular vote only works if you have a population educated enough to understand the details of the issues they're voting on, thus far very few countries seem to have achieved that. Otherwise you just get a cluster fuck of stupidity and a descent into failure as the UK is seeing right now.

    61. Re:A little perspective by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's true, I think very easily either of them, espiacialky trump, could pull a plurality.

      If everybody voted for who they wanted, I'd bet 35% trump. 30% Johnson. 25% Hillary 10% Stein.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    62. Re:A little perspective by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the map clearly shows the majority of the land area of the country is colored red. And everybody knows that the only fair way to conduct an election is for each square mile of the country's landmass to get exactly one vote.

      Crap. Just look what happened when a real estate mogul got hung up in politics. Now it'll go the other way with the politicians buying up land...

    63. Re:A little perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why are you concerned about the influence of states in Presidential elections? Rhode Island is not its own group mind. It just contains a lot of voters, and a popular election would give each voter an equal say in the election. As it is, my vote for President is meaningless, since I don't live in a swing state. I don't think that's fair, myself.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:A little perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm a pretty well-off city folk. There are poor country folk. Our votes are counted equally. The Electoral College isn't needed for that.

      If a candidate wants to appeal to the rich city folk only, that works within the system. If the candidate loses by a landslide in the countryside, and can't pick up enough city votes to counter that, that's the system in action.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    65. Re:A little perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's also the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and pushed it into acceptance. Nobody had experience with a large country without a monarch, and what they basically knew was that the Articles of Confederation weren't working at all well. I believe they did a very good job of faking it, but they didn't get everything correct.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    66. Re:A little perspective by jittles · · Score: 1

      Why are you concerned about the influence of states in Presidential elections? Rhode Island is not its own group mind. It just contains a lot of voters, and a popular election would give each voter an equal say in the election. As it is, my vote for President is meaningless, since I don't live in a swing state. I don't think that's fair, myself.

      Because Rhode Island needs influence in the election or presidential candidates (incumbents included) will tend to not really care about the state. If the state is ignored by everyone but its own senators then why would they want to even bother being a part of the union? The way that house seats and electoral votes was doled out was to balance the needs of low population states versus densely populated states. Just because they have a low population doesn't mean that they add no value to the nation.

    67. Re:A little perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I asked about why Rhode Island per se had any interest in the election, and you ignored that question. Why are you talking about Rhode Island and not the residents of Rhode Island? Each resident of Rhode Island would have the same vote in a popular vote election as everyone else in California or Alaska. Under the Electoral College system, each resident of Rhode Island has more of a say than each resident of California.

      And does this mean anyone cares about Rhode Island? Is it a battleground state? Nobody on the national level seems to care about how I vote, because my state's electoral votes are going to Clinton no matter what. In a popular vote, Clinton would want to keep my state happy to build up a greater margin of victory that might offset losses somewhere else. Even if Rhode Island is seen as a swing state, under how many scenarios are its three electoral votes going to swing the election? Group voting systems like this generally give disproportionate influence to some blocs over others.

      House seats are supposed to reflect population. Senate seats are intended to balance states (and Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    68. Re:A little perspective by jittles · · Score: 1

      I asked about why Rhode Island per se had any interest in the election, and you ignored that question. Why are you talking about Rhode Island and not the residents of Rhode Island? Each resident of Rhode Island would have the same vote in a popular vote election as everyone else in California or Alaska. Under the Electoral College system, each resident of Rhode Island has more of a say than each resident of California.

      And does this mean anyone cares about Rhode Island? Is it a battleground state? Nobody on the national level seems to care about how I vote, because my state's electoral votes are going to Clinton no matter what. In a popular vote, Clinton would want to keep my state happy to build up a greater margin of victory that might offset losses somewhere else. Even if Rhode Island is seen as a swing state, under how many scenarios are its three electoral votes going to swing the election? Group voting systems like this generally give disproportionate influence to some blocs over others.

      House seats are supposed to reflect population. Senate seats are intended to balance states (and Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures).

      Did you not even read the first sentence I wrote? Rhode Island needs to have some measure of influence in the presidential elections. And by Rhode Island I mean both the government and its people. Why would you want to belong to a nation that gives you no influence over its national government? You wouldn't. Sure you claim that Rhode Island would benefit from a popular vote but give no real reason how it would benefit anyone to cater to the needs of Rhode Island. Like I've said several times - a federal election would depend almost entirely on the will of the 10 most populous states without the electoral college. That would account for almost 171 million out of 314 million Americans. With the electoral college those 40 states could band together to prevent their neglect. The 10 most populous states only account for 256 out of 538 electoral votes. You cannot guarantee a win in the electoral college system with just the support of 10 states. Remember that the constitution was made to prevent the US from splintering. States are granted all rights not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution (or reserved to the people). This is the founding fathers recognizing that all regions want to feel like they have a say in what happens to the country.

    69. Re: A little perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Living Constitution" advocates are making laws and rulings against the plain text of the Second Amendment NOW, with that amendment still in place.

      When was the last time the Second Amendment protected my right to invent a better, more silent gun. Get a clue, then tell me where I can buy a tactical nuke.

    70. Re:A little perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Rhode Island needs to have some measure of influence in the presidential elections. And by Rhode Island I mean both the government and its people.

      And, as before, you completely fail to explain what the Rhode Island government needs to do about the elections. The people of Rhode Island deserve to have a say proportional to their numbers in the election, just like the people of every other state.

      And, under the Electoral College, people in different states don't have the same say. Wyoming has a lot of electoral votes per voter, and California has a lot less per voter. Nobody's vote matters if they live in a predictable ("safe") state. If my vote matters in determining the electors from my state, said electors don't matter because the College is packed with electors voting Republican, so for practical purposes I don't get a vote..

      Nor would candidates limit themselves to the larger states. Right now, candidates concentrate on states because winning individual states matters (and only rarely the margin of victory matters). If a candidate can get a bare majority in states with enough electoral votes, and loses badly in other states, that's enough to win. If the election is not state-by-state, candidates will campaign to get the popular vote, however they see fit. Normally the Democratic candidate would not care about Texas voters, since those electoral votes are almost certainly Republican, but in a popular vote situations there's value in being a fairly close second rather than an also-ran.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Notice the disinformation ? by zapadnik · · Score: 1, Informative

    Notice the disinformation? the misdirection from many outlets designed to have you worrying about whether the Russians did or did not hack the DNC and Clinton emails. This is so you focus on that rather than on the contents of the emails - which are extremely shocking in their levels of Machiavellian dealing, corruption, subversion of democratic processes and explicit contempt for the average American citizen and their vote.

    It is time to withdraw Hillary as a candidate. The American people deserve better than her (or Trump). If Hillary is elected it is clear she'll be impeached in record time as the only people who like her are misogynistic dictators and theocrats who like people who accept naked bribes to sell out the American citizens.

    The Democrats used to have some amazingly promising candidates, surely they can muster some now ?

    1. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Notice the disinformation? the misdirection from many outlets designed to have you worrying about whether the Russians did or did not hack the DNC and Clinton emails. This is so you focus on that rather than on the contents of the emails

      From what I've seen so far they are pretty standard stuff. It is not really news that Hillary plan everything out in a pretty analytical way. Hell, that is actually a trait I want in a candidate. The news is the breathtaking scope of the help Trump has gotten.

      1) CNN and others gave him tons of free air time. Reason: To line their pockets

      2) The cast of the Republican Survivor failed to adequately address Trumps faults early on. Reason: Expected him to implode. Wanted to grab followers after implosion. Just didn't know how to handle him.

      3) The system of the republican primary was well matched to a Trump victory. Reason: First past the post/This one is not like the others.

      4) Hacks, likely Russian, have pretty much turned over every bit of digital information associated with Hillary Clinton. Reason: Likely to destabilize and muck with the American election process. Weakening the US makes Russia and others stronger by comparison. Alternate Reason: If it does somehow turn out to be republican linked, reasons become obvious.

      5) Even after it was patently clear that Trump was, well unfit to be president, the alt right world continued to 100% support him. Reason: Internet does not spread truth as well as one could hope. Division by faction. Mobilization of easily manipulated people. People only read news that advances their world view. Suggestion: Read politifact/snopes/factcheck.org occasionally. Hell CNN is generally truthful. They just tend to be lazy and fail to follow up sometimes.

      6) Some support is truly faith based. They believe things like abortion are so morally wrong, that supporting a guy who is technically a republican is still the lesser evil. Information: Abortions are falling over time. Abortions can be reduced by making sure preventative measures are available, and making sure needed support exists. Caring for the child after he or she is born is also important. Also, Trump is not a real republican. There is no reason to believe he will appoint the judges you expect he will, other than maybe as a way to appease the GOP, and if doing a 180 and saying he was a democrat all along works for him, or he thinks it might, you bet he will do it. Trump's loyalty is to himself, as demonstrated by his scorched earth strategy of late.

      7) Trump is severely guilty of projection. He always attacks his opponent where he is weakest. Infidelity is only the latest. His most common attack is his continued use of "believe me", which he is actually lying. Sadly in Trump world, where no one bothers to actually fact check, or even care that he is lying (A wall mexico is going to pay for? Really?) this works. The current trend towards fact checking is pretty new. He had a long period where news services simply didn't do their jobs and the republicans didn't do it either. That was a huge benefit to Trump.

      8) Trump has succeeded in hiding almost everything about himself, including his tax returns. Yes, some is coming out now, before it is too late, but much is still unknown. This together with Hillary's long very public history and all the hacking gives a very lopsided advantage to Trump, and yet he is still losing. It would be sad, if it didn't generate a pure feeling of relief that sanity may prevail.

      9) Many hard core republicans hate anything to do with Clinton. The dislike is well beyond rational. I don't really understand it. Certainly the things they complain about, various republicans that they still respect have also done, such as Newt.

      10) Strangely many of his followers seem to know he is a liar and all the rest. They simply don't care. It seems more like a cult of personality as much as anything. Some pure racism is in there as well. Stunt 1 ma

    2. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so you focus on that rather than on the contents of the emails - which are extremely shocking in their levels of Machiavellian dealing, corruption, subversion of democratic processes and explicit contempt for the average American citizen and their vote.

      We're still waiting, you have an example or are you talking hypotheticals?

    3. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If Hillary is elected it is clear she'll be impeached in record time as the only people who like her are misogynistic dictators and theocrats who like people who accept naked bribes to sell out the American citizens.

      Probably not......would you rather have Kaine? The guy has the intelligence of a koala and the clarity of mind of a guinea hen.
      Republicans don't like Hillary, but she's someone they can work with.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope all his effort to portray his likely loss as a massive theft of the election doesn't result in riots or injuries, let along anything worse.

      Not in 2017. Most everybody will be fairly relieved that this farce is over.

      However, mid 2017 the stock market will crash hard. TPTB are trying their damnedest to keep the thing up through the Coronation of Clinton. It will take a while before that's really felt by most people.

      By the spring of 2018 the pieces will be in place for riots in every major city.

    5. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Process

      The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. ... To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required.

      Good luck with that. Sure, the Republicans will still have a majority in the house, so they can impeach anyone whenever they feel like it. But there are only 8 toss-up Senate seats up for grabs, so at best there's a 54-46 Republican majority in the Senate (most likely 50-50 with VP tiebreaker), which means there's basically zero chance of a 2/3 vote for conviction.

      p.s. Republicans and Libertarians should write-in Pence and leave Trump wondering how he lost the election to his running mate.

    6. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'll be honest, I stopped following the Podesta emails thing when the first few "scandals" that trended on Twitter turned out to be complete BS, from Hills calling black people the N-word (uh, those emails weren't from her...) to the public/private position thing which was already overblown long before she talked about it in the debate.

      The problem with the anti-Clinton mob is their insistence on making up allegations against the couple, from the string of murders they supposedly committed to the original Whitewater land deal which... was nothing.

      When you lie and lie and lie and lie, it makes it impossible to take a word you're saying seriously. Right now Clinton (either of them) could murder Betty White and send an email boasting about it afterwards, and unless you had videos of it happening, nobody would take it seriously.

      I've mentioned it before, but it's worth a reminder: some of us read a story called the Boy who Cried Wolf when we were kids. Perhaps it's time the Anti-Clintonites did too.

      Clinton's emails aren't shocking, if they were there'd be no need to lie about them. The media isn't covering the way they're released because they're trying to cover up a scandal, there is no damned scandal - if there was one, again, there'd be no need to lie about it. The media is covering a fairly reasonable story that it appears there's covert foreign involvement in the election campaign. That's a story. It should be covered.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Is that you, John Titor?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:Notice the disinformation ? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I don't think it really matters. The DNC would have colluded with the media regardless of who the Democratic candidate was (well maybe not as much Bernie...they didn't want him because he's not really a Democrat). Hillary just serves as an excellent means to show how bankrupt the system is, as she's indefensible on pretty much every front and she has no natural charisma she can use to distract people from the festering, rotten political system propping her up.

      We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The elite who own both the media and the politicians (Republicans are little better) are going to instruct the media to prop up whatever puppets they appoint. Donna Brazille was always going to give the debate questions ahead of time to the preferred puppet. Nothing to do with Hillary herself. It's just that Hillary is a really, really shitty puppet.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re: Notice the disinformation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stopped "following" the Podesta emails as soon as you learned they has been leaked. Shouldn't you be working the phone banks, or is this your breaktime to astroturf blogs?

  9. Still Confused .... by pollarda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians... How do we not know that it isn't some dude sitting on the beach in Tahiti and bouncing it off a server or VPN in Russia? How do we know it isn't the Chinese doing the same thing? How about a disgruntled Lithuanian? Most anybody can look like they are from anywhere. In fact, on virtually any TV show where hacking is involved, they always talk about it not being tranceable because it is "bouncing all over the world" so it isn't like the Evil Lithuanians / Chinese / Icelanders / Argentinians / etc. hackers can't figure out how to use a few VPNs or hacked machines to do their job.

    1. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shut up and stop making sense. Everybody knows that Russians did it because Russians are bad and they like Trump, therefore Trump and Russians are in league with each other to destroy America. That's all the evidence we need!

      Sure, we laughed at Mitt Romney 4 years ago when he said Russia was our enemy, but then again we elected an inexperienced non-insider candidate then. Now we say that the country CAN'T have an inexperienced outsider candidate, because that's not what ours is. A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.

    2. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point taken. I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the IP addresses have been verified as *not* being TOR exit nodes. I'm not sure how to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the addresses in question belong to the Russian govt, or an agency controlled by then. Any ideas? I doubt if they would make it easy, or even possible, to trace the traffic back to them. Wouldn't that make the whole thing a waste of time? I'm not holding out hope for them to make an admission of guilt. So what kind of proof is needed?

    3. Re:Still Confused .... by grcumb · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians... How do we not know that it isn't some dude sitting on the beach in Tahiti and bouncing it off a server or VPN in Russia?

      Because they weren't simply working with SRC and DST packets, Donald. They did actual analysis, and found that the intrusion tools were the same as those used, among other things, to hack the German Bundestag (Parliament). They found Russian language bits mistakenly left in the leaked materials—which disappeared and never emerged again once their presence was pointed out. A shared SSL certificate also implicated the Russians.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:Still Confused .... by colin_faber · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, in this case SecureWorks admits in their analysis that it's an educated guess at best. Just like all of the rest of the thin as tissue paper "evidence" that has been presented so far.

    5. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      READ ABOUT IT. There's a lot of ways they know and they aren't going to disclose 25% of them, so get over it!

    6. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've never seen so many Americans rush to defend Russias honor

    7. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This all reminds me of that incriminating yellow cake evidence that Bush pulled on Saddam.

    8. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully they'll be the first sent to the gulags.

    9. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe we are sick of being manipulated into going to war.

    10. Re: Still Confused .... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never seen so many Americans rush to defend Russias[sic] honor

      People are talking about starting a war over this with Russia. The evidence better be clear and conclusive before something dumb like that happens.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Still Confused .... by Max_W · · Score: 0, Troll

      In the former USSR a lot of people, if not a majority, are still running broken Windows XP and even piratated Windows 3.1. I saw PCs with several botes running along simultaneously. These PCs do not receive security updates (or receie them from teh bot owners' servers).

      Since these people do not use credit cards online, they do not care about security. It is so easy to simulate a hack from these parts or even DDoS attack, as bot owners can copy parts of text in Cyrillics directly from these PCs as de facto they co-own them too.

      I would prefer a solid evidence like a witness account or copies of government documents. Russia cannot produce a single PC, notebook, or even a smartphone. I would not believe that it has got supernatural powers to enter firewalled hardened US government servers.

    12. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has SecureWorks submitted their article to a peer reviewed journal? Or just \.

    13. Re:Still Confused .... by Kiuas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.

      Ah yes, because having a wall street endoresed 1 % is bad surely electing someone who belongs to said 1 % and has said: “It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

      According to the Times, a building on the Avenue of the Americas in New York City's Manhattan borough that is partially owned by Trump has a loan of $950 million that was paid for by a few different entities, including the Bank of China and Goldman Sachs.

      Yes, yes indeed, this is the candidate that will put wall street in its place and change the status quo!

      How... how does this shit fly with the american public, seriously?

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    14. Re:Still Confused .... by cryptogranny · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hi, as a Russian I'd like to make a few points.

      > if not a majority, are still running broken Windows XP and even piratated Windows 3.1.

      This is simply not true. We (not me personaly because I'm a Linux user) pirate any modern staff (MS products, Adobe, etc) very fast, partly because a lot of cracking teams are from xUSSR.

      > Since these people do not use credit cards online, they do not care about security.

      Well, it's actually simpler to use cards in Russia then in U.S to make a transfer to your buddy. But I agree about lot's of infected machines.

      > Russia cannot produce a single PC, notebook, or even a smartphone.

      That's correct. Government can't but people is another story.

      > I would not believe that it has got supernatural powers to enter firewalled hardened US government servers.

      No supernatural powers of course, but Russia is known for IT outsourcing. A lot of Russians move to U.S. to work in companies like Microsoft, Amazon and so on. The world known debugging tool IDA pro (used for cracking) is also made by Russians.

    15. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was terorists! And al qaeda syrian electronic army! Shut up and drink the gooddamn koolaid.

    16. Re:Still Confused .... by Tesen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shut up and stop making sense. Everybody knows that Russians did it because Russians are bad and they like Trump, therefore Trump and Russians are in league with each other to destroy America. That's all the evidence we need!

      Sure, we laughed at Mitt Romney 4 years ago when he said Russia was our enemy, but then again we elected an inexperienced non-insider candidate then. Now we say that the country CAN'T have an inexperienced outsider candidate, because that's not what ours is. A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.

      Are you kidding me? Both are Wall Street endorsed, lol. Trump is connected to Wall Street as is Hillary. To think that Trump does not rub elbows with the same people as hillary is naive in the extreme. You do not get to both of their levels in our society with out this happening, do you actually think there are different entities interacting with politicians based on how they emerged? Nope. They are the same, one is cold and a liar (Hillary) and one is a sociopath and a lies more than the other (Trump) and is a sexual pervert, but both coordinate with Wall Street.

      As for the hacking, Russia has been on our top 2 threat list to our country for over a decade; in this day in age most countries are trying to hack others (even friends). Shit, our own CIA spied on our own Senate. This is not a false flag by the Clinton campaign in coordination with our government, this is Julian Assange coordinating with Russia (to what degree, who knows). In my opinion Julian is scared, he is running out of time since the current Ecuadorian president does not plan to run again (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/23/ecuador-correa-wont-run-again-in-2017/) and that pretty much is his last friend. He hates Hillary and she hates him, so he is probably hoping that Trump will either ignore him, or pardon him.

      Again, this is my $0.02 but Hillary has supported President Obama's intention to bring Snowden and Assange to trial here in the US. And again my $0.02 a Trump presidency is a presidency built on arrogance and incompetence and that is easily exploitable by Putin, in addition, a Trump presidency means that congress and the administration will be at odds, again four years of getting nothing done, so that is great for Russia too.

      Putin plays the long game, we tend to play the short game here which is why we are fucked.

    17. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin has no long game. You fucking computer geeks act like you know everything.

    18. Re:Still Confused .... by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Ahem.....Fancy BEAR! Do you not get it. Russia bear, not Bearnstein bear.

    19. Re: Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is isn't all that difficult to setup your own VPN server yanno.

      It wouldn't be a far stretch for ANY hacker group to run their own VPN server to allow secure comms with other group members. Works very well with a VOIP setup like Asterisk or something similar.

      Believe it or not, there are folks out there who are not amateurs and don't have to rely on other folks to provide their tools for them.

    20. Re: Still Confused .... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to point out the obvious but, were I the NSA or other three letter agency and wanted to provide " proof " that the $pickabadguy were behind this, I would simply instruct the coders to " accidentally " leave behind bits of $language in the code for the world to find.

      To be fun, were I a Russian hacker, I would create another Stuxnet and leave a giant American Flag in ascii buried in the code somewhere just to prove that point.

    21. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like .000001% choice. Or I broke the math meter.

    22. Re: Still Confused .... by Tesen · · Score: 1

      Putin has no long game. You fucking computer geeks act like you know everything.

      I am sure it is not your fault you are dumb.

    23. Re:Still Confused .... by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      Your whole card house of an argument fell, when you used the non-word "piratated"...

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    24. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not believe that it has got supernatural powers to enter firewalled hardened US government servers.

      Um... you think a firewall magically protects you from all attacks?

    25. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I get it. They like large grizzly men.

    26. Re:Still Confused .... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      As for the hacking, Russia has been on our top 2 threat list to our country for over a decade

      I think you mean top threat to our country's energy companies. That's why we're fighting proxy wars over pipelines. Of course the Putin hate really ramped up after they gave Snowden asylum. Hillary has a personal vendetta against him, and is clearly interested in starting a war with Russia just to get at Snowden.

      This is not a false flag by the Clinton campaign in coordination with our government, this is Julian Assange coordinating with Russia (to what degree, who knows).

      More unsubstantiated Russia hate and warmongering. Assange has now be cut off from the Internet, thanks to threats to Ecuador by the Obama administration. I think it's pretty horrible that it appears the president is ready to start a war just to ensure the current party stays in power.

      Again, this is my $0.02 but Hillary has supported President Obama's intention to bring Snowden and Assange to trial here in the US.

      And she's perfectly willing to start wars to make it happen.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    27. Re: Still Confused .... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      I don't care about Russia's honor. I just know that the last time the government gave me UNDENIABLE CONCLUSIVE PROOF of malicious enemy state action to justify a war it was a complete lie, hundreds of thousands or more people died, trillions of dollars were wasted, the reputation of the united states was forever tarnished. So before we go to war with Russia I'd like something a little bit better than "trust us, we're the US government, would we lie to you?"

      And no, you can't say "but we're not talking about war right now, just where the hacks came from!" Bull fucking shit. There's a story last week about how the CIA is prepping for a retaliatory cyber attack (which I think is probably retarded bluster or disinfo...why would the CIA be doing it and not the NSA?). But the point is, if we go ahead and conclude the Russians did this now, with no hard evidence, then a month from now something else happens, maybe IRL (jet fighter shot down or something? New "evidence" Putin is "gassing his own people!" That one always seems to work), then we'll have Buzzfeed's "Top 10 Reasons Why Nuking Russia is the Right Thing to Do!" including "They haxx0red the DNC, remember we already proved that!"

      WE'VE SEEN THIS SHIT BEFORE.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    28. Re: Still Confused .... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3

      I've never seen so many Americans rush to defend Russias honor

      If more Americans had questioned the evidence that Iraq was stocked with WMDs and ready to use them, maybe we would have never gotten in that war. Let's question evidence that Russia is involved in espionage before we decide to go to war with them, okay?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    29. Re:Still Confused .... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians....

      Then you have not been paying attention. Security researchers know who they're looking at most of the time. No, it's not just based on geo location of an IP. In this case all the signs point to a handful of groups that have long been identified with state-sponsored activity in Russia.

    30. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like it's common place to get capital from a bank before buying real estate. You know, like every single person does.

    31. Re: Still Confused .... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because it's entirely impossible for someone to set up a VPN that isn't Tor. Or (paying someone to) plug in a $150 device on a network that is geographically inside Russia.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    32. Re: Still Confused .... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      This isn't so much defending Russia, as calling the shit from a horse "horseshit."

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    33. Re:Still Confused .... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Oh, so we should just trust a government that has lied in order to create a pretext for war in the past, because Anonymous Coward says to "get over it".

      Up your ass.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    34. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably a democrat sitting next to Podesta snickering while they did it.

      They are just that desperate enough for votes to do the sort of thing that might make people feel sympathy for them even if its the dirtiest thing on earth.

      Have you people not read the emails? They said themselves they have done this kind of thing before: tricking the sheeple.

    35. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the smartest programmers I have ever worked with was a Russian from Moscow.

      We worked together in California.

      They have since moved back to Russia.

      Any logic pointing to Russians being dumb or not tech savvy is in fact dumb and not savvy. Russian people are usually pretty smart.

      And while I'm on the praising: Dear Russians, every one of you I have ever met have been really cool. While I do not always agree with your government policies (or ours for that matter), I hope our looney liberal lefty party do not start or allow a war to happen over this. Most of us do not want the DNC anywhere near positions of power anymore anyway.

    36. Re:Still Confused .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are using the same techniques, and the same level of resources (valuable zero-day exploits), to go after a list of targets that have only one thing in common: they're high on Putin's shit list.

      Why would a dude sitting on a beach in Tahiti spend hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of resources (those exploits) on targets that are of no financial value? Why would the Chinese target Georgia, Ukraine, and other countries that are distinguished mostly by their prominence on Putin's shit list? Of course, either one is possible, but to pretend that they're somehow comparably credible with the "it's the Russians" explanation is just disingenuous in the extreme. It's like saying "okay, Hillary could win the presidency, but so could Jill Stein. We just don't know yet."

    37. Re: Still Confused .... by colin_faber · · Score: 1

      Well said.

    38. Re:Still Confused .... by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Russia bear, not Bearnstein bear.

      Ah, I see the confusion. Welcome to the Berenstain Universe, traveller. Some disorientation is expected after arrival.

    39. Re: Still Confused .... by Pablogee · · Score: 1

      Shows you don't know much about the internet. You can trace back bouncing. And it isn't as hard as you think. The more bouncing the more chance the encrytion will get botched.

    40. Re:Still Confused .... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's suggestive evidence of a Russian attack. US intelligence agencies claim that it definitely points there, and they almost certainly know a whole lot more about it than the US public does. I consider it perfectly believable that they're correct, although I don't perfectly believe it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re: Still Confused .... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It looks somewhat similar to the 2003 deceit, but there's quite a few differences. Iraq was a pushover for the US military. Russia isn't, and has nukes. Bush clearly wanted to invade Iraq. Obama wants to do something nonviolent. There was fairly strong evidence in 2003 that Saddam didn't have the WMD he was alleged to have. I've seen no evidence that this wasn't a Russian state-sponsored attack, so people are saying things like "I don't see any strong evidence" rather than "but Hans Blix says".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re: Still Confused .... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Hillary's said her priority for Syria is the removal of Assad. That's going to put her on a collision course with Russia.

      I've seen no evidence that this wasn't a Russian state-sponsored attack

      Isn't the burden of proof on the accuser? All we have is the word of "sources" in the "intelligence community" in the US government. I guess that's good enough to fully endorse attacks against Russia in response. After all, the US government would never lie to us.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    43. Re: Still Confused .... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There is public evidence that the attack was Russian, although certainly not conclusive evidence. The evidence I've got points at Russia, although not strongly, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. In 2003, I had actual evidence that the government was lying.

      However, the CIA knows more than you or I, so Obama gets better reports than we do, and Obama is responsible for what we do. If he knows it's from Russia, he should react accordingly. If the situation is as the government says it is, I think we should retaliate in some fashion.

      So, while I don't particularly trust that it was an official Russian attack, it's reasonable for the President to act as if it were without needing to convince me first. It's reasonable for the government to withhold all their evidence and reasoning, although it's also reasonable to doubt the government on this. We won't know the truth for some years now, and then we'll be better able to judge Obama's actions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re: Still Confused .... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      So let's say President Trump's in office, and documents get leaked that are embarrassing or damaging for the Republican party. And Trump said "it was Iranians! They hacked our shit and we gotta bomb the hajis!" And Trump's CIA says "yes, we believe it was the Iranians." Would you be okay with bombing Iran based on that declaration from the government?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    45. Re: Still Confused .... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not fine with bombing Iran if the CIA has good evidence they hacked us. I might well be in favor of non-violent forms of retaliation, depending on the situation. (For example, how bad a hack, and was it clear that this was a retaliation for Stuxnet or something, and how are other relationships doing?) Under these circumstances, if it was a Russian attack, I'm fine with some sort of retaliation. You'll notice that I didn't name any real or hypothetical Presidents here, because it really doesn't matter. The right thing to do doesn't change (although the probability that the President chooses the right thing varies between Presidents).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  10. seriously by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2

    The most amusing bit about the democrats response isn't the fact they aren't screaming "LIES!" It's the fact that they are pointing at Russia and yelling "Those dicks did that!"

    My guess is that if the defense is true - she pissed them off with the reset button!

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

    Or not.

    According to that she was in bed with Putin.

    that does ignore this book

    http://www.penguinrandomhouse....

    Which tells where the "reset button" was swiped from.

    It amazes me that people forget that hillary reset relations and simultaneously screams about hacking.Was she a complete failure back then? Or is she lying now?

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:seriously by s.petry · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Was she a complete failure back then? Or is she lying now?

      What is "both"?

      now tell me about what I win Alex!

      --

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

    2. Re:seriously by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The most amusing bit about the democrats response isn't the fact they aren't screaming "LIES!"

      I know, right? The "hacks" have been astonishingly ineffective. They've not published lies, and they've not published any truths which are remotely damning. So... what's left.

      It's the fact that they are pointing at Russia and yelling "Those dicks did that!"

      So, Russia is hacking stuff to try to influence the US election and the fact that people are annoyed by that is amusing? I don't really understand your reasoning.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:seriously by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Actually they are also yelling "lies." Even in the buzzfeed (jesus christ, buzzfeed?) article they call the leaks a "disinformation campaign." Why is it disinformation?

      "They hacked us!!! And it's all lies!!!"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:seriously by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The leaks confirmed everything I've always thought. We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The elite own the media and the politicians, they pick the policies they want, the politicians implement them and the media colludes with the politicians to persuade the public to go along with their pre-drawn conclusions, and if the public disagrees they're evil and stupid because all the Smart People in the media say so. The campaigns write news articles the "unbiased" news publishes for them, they time stories to coincide with campaign messaging, the networks give the debate questions to the preferred candidate ahead of time. It's a show. Top down not bottom up. There is no democracy.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  11. incorrect by Swampash · · Score: 1, Informative

    That's not "using fake emails to hack into the computers of the Democratic National Committee" That's "using hack emails to trick gullible staff members".

    Without gullible staff members the computers would have been secure.

    1. Re:incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Without gullible staff members there would be no democratic party leadership.

    2. Re:incorrect by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The emails were sent to 108 members of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign and 20 people clicked on them

      and why the 88 non-clickers didn't warn the 20 clickers is beyond me.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:incorrect by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Because they thought that in 2016 it was common sense to not click random unsolicited links.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like I've never dangled out a sacrificial bug when it's time to dump the data so the security drones stop looking and don't find the six other exploits still in place. Secure, real secure.

    5. Re:incorrect by sabbede · · Score: 1

      We perform regular phishing drills to train our people. Seems to work pretty well, especially since our users are far from being the young, savvy and eager types the parties tend to hire.

    6. Re:incorrect by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      When the phishing mail is that elaborated, and you don't fall into the trap, maybe that would be wise to warn others around...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  12. Scary by JWW · · Score: 2

    It's kind of scary that the people who want to be elected to run the branch of government that is in charge of implementing cyber security are such a bunch of damn clueless morons about it.

    I mean there are high schoolers who would do better securing and safeguarding their emails than this crew...

    Heh, who's the JV team?

  13. What are PROBABLY Russians by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:
    "researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"

    I know it fits the playbook to simply call them "Russian Hackers" but hey, maybe...journalism instead?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:What are PROBABLY Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow you noticed the snowjob too?

      *scary description of how somebody tried to attack gmail*

      *admit they have no evidence*

      Russia!

      Personally I find it unlikely that this is the method that was used.

    2. Re:What are PROBABLY Russians by quantaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the article:
      "researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"

      I know it fits the playbook to simply call them "Russian Hackers" but hey, maybe...journalism instead?

      Did you read the rest of the article, and the buzzfeed article as well?

      First the group has been going after Russia's enemies for years, including Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany. This suggests the group is very pro-Russian.

      Second the group has used multiple zero-day exploits in its attacks, which strongly suggests a state actor. Not only because getting zero-day exploits is really hard, but zero day exploits are also very valuable, and the described hacks only really had significant value to the Russian government.

      I'm not sure why SecureWorks is hedging so much, but the hacks being orchestrated by the Russian government seems extremely likely.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:What are PROBABLY Russians by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but the POINT is really the smoke and mirrors campaign.

      Even criminals can accuse other criminals of murder, and the background of the accuser doesn't intrinsically change whether the accused is guilty (or not).

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:What are PROBABLY Russians by mveloso · · Score: 1

      This more likely was a job-for-hire. Something this exciting would be done a bit more cleanly. It's almost like the people who did it wanted it to be found.

    5. Re:What are PROBABLY Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high? Since when Germany is the enemy of Russia? They are doing business, and doing it very well. Georgia and Ukraine are plain idiots, and Poland is "anti-Russian" only in political top, which is hated by Polish people. Polish people, unlike Ukrainians and Georgians, have no hatred for Russians.

  14. A little more perspective by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

    From that fivethirtyeight article some months ago:

    So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get3 if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet.4 Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.

    People have to remember that Nate Silver is using statistics based on assumptions, and those assumptions may or may not be valid.

    The particular assumption in the link you quoted, is that his chances will not change in the next two weeks.

    Let's see what tomorrow may bring, shall we?

    1. Re:A little more perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      People have to remember that Nate Silver is using statistics based on assumptions, and those assumptions may or may not be valid.

      And he's also using statistics based on data and there is a whole lot more (and much much better) data during a national general election than there is of the individual parties state-by-state.

      I bet if you think about it, you'll figure out how the general and the primaries can't really be compared.

      Anyway, we also have assumptions made by Real Clear Politics:

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c... ...and assumptions made by people who are actually betting their own money on the election:

      https://electionbettingodds.co...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:A little more perspective by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even if Hillary *is* a lesbian, what of it?

      This is supposed to make up for the fact that no man who actually cared about his daughter would leave her alone with Trump?

      More false equivalence from the RWNJ lobby.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:A little more perspective by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      I'm voting for Hillary but I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with the Clintons either.

    4. Re:A little more perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MMMMMM ahhh, do you smell that in the air? Its the lovely stench of Trump supporters desperation in the air, unskewing polls and trying to hold onto any hope his dumpster fire of a campaign can still win.

    5. Re:A little more perspective by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      In fairness, while I wouldn't either, it's because I wouldn't leave my daughter with any stranger outside of an extreme emergency. It's kind of a stupid metric. "Oh, you say George W. Bush isn't a child molester, but would you leave your daughter with him?"

      (Picked on Dumbya because I've never heard anyone suggest he's a danger to children, before anyone protests. That's the entire point, that he's probably totally OK.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:A little more perspective by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And he's also using statistics based on data

      You'll notice the results of polls swing wildly depending on who's doing the polling. This is because that objective data is derived from subjective opinions. But the numbers get reported as if they're facts with no discussion of the underlying assumptions, who's making them, or why they're valid.

      The thing that anyone who pays attention has always known is that we don't have a state-run media so much as we have a media-run state. The elite that own the media, also own the politicians. The elite determine what policies they want, tell the politicians to enact them, and then have the media companies propagandize the public as to why this policy is good and just and moral and only stupid and evil people oppose. Take for example illegal immigration. Ignoring immigration laws only serves the interests of the elite (eventual votes for Democrats, cheap labor for everybody). But it hurts the illegal immigrants who are denied protection from our labor laws, it hurts our low-skill citizens who cannot compete with the cheaper labor, it hurts those who become victims of illegal immigrant violence, which are mostly those in the poor communities where the illegal settle, it creates new racial tensions like all the blacks who are being basically ethnically cleansed from Southern California, etc. There's really no coherent argument for why a pro-illegal immigration stance is in the best interests of the average voter, yet you'll find people who will go to the mat excusing this behavior that is entirely negative for them...because the pretty man on TV has them convinced that only stupid, evil people are against illegal immigration.

      Back to polling. So if we accept that the point of the news media is not to inform but to persuade (and this is proven in the Podesta email leaks. News outlets are publishing articles written by campaign staff as if they're objective news, coordination to plan story release along with campaign events, Hillary gets the debate questions from CNN ahead of time, etc), then what's the point of media polling? Is it to inform you about what your neighbors think? Or is it to persuade and influence the audience? Jump on the bandwagon for the winning team, or demoralize and depress the opposition team.

      Well when you look at the polling methodologies, the assumptions they make are almost always 1) not justified and 2) bear no semblance to reality, particularly in this election. For instance, in several recent polls in order to get Hillary's numbers up over Trump they had to select a demographic sample that was over 60% female. They don't justify this. They just do it. In the past turnout has usually been 52% female and 48% male. Why select 60% now? You'll also find that "Likely Voter" polls typically make a pre-req for being considered a Likely Voter a history of voting in the 2012 and 2014 elections. That means they're not capturing any of the new registrants. Hasn't new registration been through the roof?

      And who's funding these polls? Turns out some of them like the "Clinton +11" NBC/WSJ poll that got thrown around last week (and is bizarrely used in the calculation of RCP's average) is paid for by a Hillary Clinton SuperPAC.

      So when you run around shoving polls in people's faces, why are you doing it? Do you believe the polls are accurate? If you honestly thought they were legitimate, then that's okay, you were just ignorant, and I hope now you'll see they're pointless propaganda and change your opinion. On the other hand if you know they're bullshit, and you're flashing them around anyway, then you're just a manipulative liar.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:A little more perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You'll notice the results of polls swing wildly depending on who's doing the polling.

      But they all show Hillary winning.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:A little more perspective by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Elite's choice for president shown winning elite media propaganda polls. Who would have thunk it?!

      I bet in North Korea the polls show Kimmy winning re-election by 110%. There will be severe consequences for the disloyal when his vote total is only 105%.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:A little more perspective by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Elite's choice for president shown winning elite media propaganda polls. Who would have thunk it?!

      How do you make it through the day, believing the entire world is out to get you?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:A little more perspective by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      How do you breathe, gargling plutocrat cock 24/7?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re: A little more perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are totally invested in the outcome of this election. Here is hoping you eventually, sometime, come up with something more meaningful to live for.

    12. Re:A little more perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans tried running polls that were biased in favor of Romney in the last presidential election. Unsurprisingly, the results showed a very close race with Romney winning. I first assumed that they were doing this for propaganda purposes, to encourage Republicans to get out and vote because their candidate wasn't doomed. So I was surprised when, on election night, Republican pundits were shocked that the election returns were so much different from their slanted polls (and so much like the "biased" polls of the main stream media). Apparently, they were dissatisfied with the way accurate statistics were portraying their candidate, so they made up their own that showed him in a better light, and then they were mystified when their misrepresentation of the electorate turned out not to be representative of the electorate.

      Opinion polling businesses that turn out results that are inaccurate and not predictive of actual election results don't tend to last very long. It's not in their interests to turn out bad results. I certainly wouldn't put much faith in a poll run by a super PAC that's supporting Clinton, but historical performance shows that the long-lasting, respectable polling outfits do a pretty good job. And those polls are showing Clinton winning, and I'm inclined to agree.

    13. Re:A little more perspective by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      I would actually be ok leaving her with GWB, I think they would have a nice play date.

    14. Re:A little more perspective by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's media that's not pro-Clinton, and they generally have been showing Clinton as the winner. While I agree somewhat about the power of media, it isn't monolithic, and there's tension between the generally liberal reporters and editors and the generally Republican owners.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is certainly best for Clintons campaign ito fix blame on "the Russians". It would be better for Trumps campaign if he could blame China. Ergo if the Russians actually did it they would have false flagged China. That is if Russia cares.

  16. Odds of note by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?

    What will their odds be in 3 weeks?

    That would be the odds of note.

    1. Re:Odds of note by quenda · · Score: 0

      What will their odds be in 3 weeks?

      If you think they will improve, bet on Donald now, and Clinton then. Come election day, you win either way.
      Vegas is betting they will get worse for Donald.

    2. Re:Odds of note by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      If you like those odds, take them. Otherwise deal with it.

    3. Re:Odds of note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly the odds will be even worse for him in 3 weeks. He can't even crack 40% and as it gets closer and closer and he's still stuck without a shot in hell of winning, the odds that he can turn it that far around in only a few days is even worse.

      I do love watching the Trumpsters getting desperate as he continues to sink. Its already at the point of not believing in any polling so they can keep hope alive... but hey, that's great for me because the more Trumpamaniacs still think he can win, the sweeter reading all their crying online after he gets thrashed will be.

    4. Re:Odds of note by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Wait until the n-word video surfaces...

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/apprentice-producers-footage-trump-n-word-report-article-1.2824047

    5. Re:Odds of note by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Already dropped. It was just Trump calling Lil Jon an Uncle Tom, and then Lil Jon corrected Trump, Trump never said it again, and Lil Jon is cool with it.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:Odds of note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know it's possible to win the Electoral College and not win the popular vote, right?

      National polls mean jack shit if they have a strategy to get to 271 electoral college votes. Not saying Trump has that available to him at this time, but there is an important distinction.

  17. One state one vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crack Whore Hillary rigging the election again. It's clear, one-state one-vote! Crooked Hillary's met Putin! Trump has never met Putin! He's never received gifts from Putin, never praised Putin, never even been to Russia.

    He's never even met a Russian person in his life. Not one Russian, ever!

    So if anyone got these state sponsored hackers to hack the DNC, it must be Hillary or the Left Wing Media! To distract attention away from her crack problem, which is real BTW, if only the crooked and crooked Paul Ryan would investigate.

    1. Re:One state one vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clear, one-state one-vote!

      That statement outed the post as a troll. Be a little more subtle next time.

  18. The irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they weren't using at work, (reading/sending) a public email service (which they were doing so to skirt the "Freedom of Information Act" or other laws) and follow security procedures using a secure email address they were given their dirty laundry would never been in the media. What pisses me off to the core is that I would get fired no questions asks for skirting security practices at all of the employers I have worked for. Of course politicians, just get oh well, it not that big of a deal or they acted like that are completely and utterly stupid about the situation.

    1. Re:The irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DNC and Clinton's campaign were skirting FOIA and other laws by using a public email service?

  19. What a terrible source by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    The left-leaning Buzzfeed staff needs to stick to what they do best.....making videos about Britons eating American snacks.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    1. Re:What a terrible source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, just because Fancy Bear is a known state sponsored hacker group in Russia, does not mean they work for Putin. Perhaps they work for France or Mexico or Blacks or Fat Women, or the crooked left wing media.

      Trump has made it clear he'll be a tough anti-Putin leader. Trump knows Russia has invaded Crimeria, he knows that Crimeria is in Ukraine. Does crooked Hillary know that??? He has a strong grasp of Putin's actions in Syria, killing those ISIS fighters in Alleppo, which crooked Hillary is defending!

      Buzzfeed are the Pravda of online news sites.

      Trump, Make America Great Againe!

    2. Re:What a terrible source by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Trump has made it clear he'll be a tough anti-Putin leader. Trump knows Russia has invaded Crimeria, he knows that Crimeria is in Ukraine. Does crooked Hillary know that???

      I know that Gary Johnson sure doesn't.

    3. Re: What a terrible source by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I bet that Gary Johnson knows how to spell "Crimea", though.

    4. Re: What a terrible source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't take that bet.

  20. In before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump wins the election but the results are nixed due to "meddling" by Russia.

  21. I bet Snowden is doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Russia with love.

  22. it takes a village.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..idiot

  23. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pronounced Gina. Gi-na.

  24. Same ole tactic, different day by s.petry · · Score: 2, Informative

    Explaining virtually every spear phishing plan ever run on people for the last 20 years proves nothing. Who-is data for the domain they claim responsible is registered in France, not Russia. Registered to one "sacko.fatou17@yahoo.fr". Domain created 22FEB2012 and expires on 22FEB17. I'll paste more below just in case, but neither the name or the address of the registrant relate to Russia. Fatou is an older family name in France. You want to convince me it's Russian they need to do better than common knowledge. They make it sound like copying a Google page is hard, when in fact it's as simple as "save-as" and downloading a couple of pictures from the same source.

    Domain Name: GOOGLE-ACCOUNT.COM
    Registry Domain ID: 1703474033_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
    Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.register.it
    Registrar URL: http://we.register.it/
    Updated Date: 2016-03-26T00:00:00Z
    Creation Date: 2012-02-22T00:00:00Z
    Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-02-22T00:00:00Z
    Registrar: REGISTER.IT S.P.A.
    Registrar IANA ID: 168
    Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse[at]register.it
    Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +39.0353230310
    Reseller:
    Domain Status: ok
    Registry Registrant ID:
    Registrant Name: Google-Account
    Registrant Organization: Google-Account
    Registrant Street: 12 Allée des Noisetiers
    Registrant City: St denis en val
    Registrant State/Province: Haut-Rhin
    Registrant Postal Code: 45160
    Registrant Country: FR
    Registrant Phone: +33.489750045
    Registrant Phone Ext:
    Registrant Fax:
    Registrant Fax Ext:
    Registrant Email:
    Registry Admin ID:
    Admin Name: Google Account
    Admin Organization: Google Account
    Admin Street: 12 Allée des Noisetiers
    Admin City: St denis en val
    Admin State/Province: Haut-Rhin
    Admin Postal Code: 45160
    Admin Country: FR
    Admin Phone: +33.489750045
    Admin Phone Ext:
    Admin Fax:
    Admin Fax Ext:
    Admin Email:
    Registry Tech ID:
    Tech Name: Technical Support
    Tech Organization: AMEN.FR
    Tech Street: 12-14, Rond Point des Champs Elysees
    Tech City: PARIS
    Tech State/Province: PARIS
    Tech Postal Code: 75008
    Tech Country: FR
    Tech Phone: +33.811887744
    Tech Phone Ext:
    Tech Fax: +33.140877689
    Tech Fax Ext:
    Tech Email:
    Name Server: NS1.AMENWORLD.COM
    Name Server: NS2.AMENWORLD.COM
    DNSSEC: unsigned
    URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/

    --

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

    1. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      As if a Russian or a Frenchman acting on the Russian's behalf couldn't register a domain in France?

      *That's* the best you can come up with?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They make it sound like copying a Google page is hard, when in fact it's as simple as "save-as" and downloading a couple of pictures from the same source.

      Yeah lol, to be honest I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by chihowa · · Score: 1

      As if a Russian or a Frenchman acting on the Russian's behalf couldn't register a domain in France?

      *That's* the best you can come up with?

      If you're the one claiming that it's the Russians, then you're the one who has to come up with better evidence; everybody else just needs to poke holes in your argument.

      He's pointing out that there's no obvious connections to Russia here. That's more than you've come up with.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What do you want? There's only circumstantial evidence it was the Russians, and then it turns out part of the circumstantial evidence is false.

      Looks like same-old same-old to me. Government wants war. Government makes up or exaggerates evidence of enemy treachery to justify war (Gulf of Tonkin, aluminum tubes and yellow cake, etc). Get war. Profit!

      It seems all you have to do to turn liberals into bloodthirsty warmongers is put a D after the name of the President.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is as much evidence that you are behind the attacks as a Russian agency. The only difference, is that they claimed they did not do it.

      *That's* the best you can come up with?

      When are you going to come clean?

    6. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I'm not old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but this really is starting to feel like the lead-up to the War in Iraq, down to the vague and unsubstantiated "evidence" being unquestioningly parroted by the media. Who in their right minds wants to start a war with Russia, especially over something as inconsequential as this?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    7. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Who in their right minds wants to start a war with Russia, especially over something as inconsequential as this?

      Among citizens? Not a fucking one. Elites with multi-billion dollar interests in the political climate of Syria? Lots.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a Swede. There's nothing stopping a Swede from paying a Frenchman to register a domain on the Swede's behalf.

    9. Re:Same ole tactic, different day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what you are insinuating, but I'm wondering- Are we to believe that this domain existed for 5 years without Google taking notice?

  25. Another reason to use 2 facter auth by Kythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As long as they were using Gmail in the first place, enabling 2 factor authentication, with the second factor being a U2F key like an inexpensive Yubikey, would have gone a ling ways towards preventing this,

    --

    Kythe
    1. Re:Another reason to use 2 facter auth by Kythe · · Score: 1

      "*long". My kingdom for a Slashdot "edit" feature.

      --

      Kythe
    2. Re:Another reason to use 2 facter auth by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It has one. It's called "Preview". How much did you pay for that 4-digit account, anyway?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re: Another reason to use 2 facter auth by Entrope · · Score: 2

      The mobile version of the website doesn't have a preview function, you nitwit.

    4. Re:Another reason to use 2 facter auth by Kythe · · Score: 1

      Back then, it was cheap! The prices have gone up.

      --

      Kythe
    5. Re: Another reason to use 2 facter auth by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You admit to using the mobile version, yet call *me* a nitwit?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:Another reason to use 2 facter auth by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Touché.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  26. Alternate headline: Russian hackers phished peeps by Snotnose · · Score: 0

    love how my headline gets cut off.

    Anywhoo, "Russian hackers phish everyone, some idiots in the DNC and Clinton campaign fall for it.

  27. I use accounts-google.com all the time by Snufu · · Score: 2

    and have never had any security proble...Slashdot is decadent. Comrade, why not visit sunny Moscow and rub lucky chest of King Putin?

  28. Small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anyone else have a problem with the phrase "We were monitoring bit.ly and saw the accounts being created in real time."?

  29. accounts-google.com was registered to Google 2013 by HongPong · · Score: 1

    Why was Accounts-google.com registered to Google inc, 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway at least as far back as 2013? http://www.domainhistory.net/a... and via MarkMonitor https://www.markmonitor.com/ which "protects the leading brands". YAN has been laughing about this all day. Didn't anyone bother to check any of this??

  30. The press will also suggest it was "government" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a big difference between "some hackers in Russia" and "Russian government hackers".

    Think the press will make that distinction? LOL.

    1. Re:The press will also suggest it was "government" by Layzej · · Score: 1
    2. Re:The press will also suggest it was "government" by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      U.S. agencies say they are "confident" that Moscow orchestrated the attacks.

      Nope, no US agency has said anything of the kind. Your article quotes unnamed "former security officials" saying that Russia stole files from the DNC. One is actually named, retired CIA director Hayden, who has been out of government for 7 years, and has no idea what was in the security briefing.

      It's interesting to note that this is the same Hayden Hayden referred to people who believed that enhanced interrogation techniques used against CIA detainees have never yielded useful intelligence, as "interrogation deniers". He currently works for the Chertoff group. Conflict of interest? Yes. Credible? No.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re:The press will also suggest it was "government" by MachineShedFred · · Score: 0

      They were "confident" that Iraq had warehouses of WMD too.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  31. Re: Trumps America by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    It's pronounced Zhongguo, actually.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  32. Americans should cringe by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope all Americans realize that the rest of the world is dumbfounded that Clinton and Trump are supposedly the best candidates for the presidency of your great nation.

    Surely not.

    You are all lost!

    1. Re:Americans should cringe by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2
      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Americans should cringe by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope all Americans realize that the rest of the world is dumbfounded that Clinton and Trump are supposedly the best candidates for the presidency of your great nation.

      A lot of us Americans share your disbelief. Personally, I could really go for a repeal of the twenty-second amendment right about now...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Americans should cringe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I wish we could have a pig-f**cker as President like some other Great countries :)

    4. Re:Americans should cringe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton and Trump should not be even mentioned in the same sentence, except when listing the party nominees. Clinton served as US Senator and US Secretary of State. You can see in the debates that she can discuss economic and foreign policy in cogent terms. She is arguably the single person most responsible for universal health care in the United States - her campaign compelled Obama to make the issue a top priority in 2008.

      Trump's debating style is to mention a topic and then exclaim "It's a disaster! The worst in history!". That's because he has the attention span of a 15 year old boy. You or I could do better than that, seriously.

      What are Donald Trump's good points, that make him qualified to be President of the United States? I can't think of even one.

    5. Re:Americans should cringe by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize your media is propaganda.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:Americans should cringe by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Obama isn't any better. Every one of his promises he has failed to live up to. And the ones that he has kept have been disastrous. He makes GWB look competent.

      That, and to the GP post, the best candidates do not run, because of the trashing by the other party is pretty nasty. The " ______ kills kittens and eats babies" tactic works, unless you put up candidates like Hillary and Donald, which create their own versions which happen to be true, or close to being true, that we just are trying to avoid the worst possible case, by promoting the next worst possible case.

      I can see why people think Obama (and GWB before him) are looking good, comparatively, but that doesn't mean they were good. We are the banana republic we used to ridicule.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Americans should cringe by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I missed the second debate, but in the first one, Clinton's ability to "discuss economic and foreign policy in cogent terms" consisted mostly of "see my website".

      Color me unimpressed; we'll see if this week's debate is any better.

      As for Trump... Yeah, can't really dispute that.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    8. Re:Americans should cringe by nine-times · · Score: 1

      As an American, I have a hard time remembering the last time politics didn't make me cringe. I think a lot of us are dumbfounded.

    9. Re:Americans should cringe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I more wish that Americans realized that these are not our only choices, let alone our best ones!

      Evan McMullin
      Jill Stein
      Gary Johnson
      Darrell Castle

      We need far more conversation about these people in this country.

      I would probably be labeled a "true centrist", though I think that's mainly because anyone trying to constrain belief to a one-axis system will find I don't belong. I do believe that both conservative and liberal views have validity, and that often times one side's idea is no better or worse than the other's. More, the people need to commit to living by the rules we establish and try to lead honest and compassionate lives. But, I'm an anomaly in my society.

        In any case, I have been discovering that while I do disagree with a few of his ideas, Evan McMullin is perhaps one of the most sane people to have run for POTUS in a long time. I honestly believe he's an excellent compromise for everyone, and would certainly be worlds, even universes better than the greased donkey or the red elephant in the room.

    10. Re:Americans should cringe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama isn't any better. Every one of his promises he has failed to live up to.

      That, and to the GP post, the best candidates do not run, because of the trashing by the other party is pretty nasty. ... We are the banana republic we used to ridicule.

      The obstructionism by the GOP is the most banana-republic thing about your political process.

      The trashing of the other party - from outside - seems to be more than a little lop-sided as well. The moderate Republicans have all seemingly disappeared from your national discourse, and all that comes through is the bilge spewed by the alt-right sources. Forgive me for seeming biased, but there just doesn't seem to be the same level of personal and slanted attacking from the Dems (I hesitate to call them 'the left' because they're actually mostly centre).

      Had Obama been able to get his legislation in and then fine-tune it, it would likely have been made to work properly. Instead, since the 2010 midterms, you've had nothing but delay, deny, delay from the majority party, with NO pretence to standing up to their responsibilities, culminating in the absolutely amazing stonewalling of Obama's pick for Scalia's replacement. I mean, it's clear as day - the President gets to nominate for a position on the bench, the Senate investigates and ratifies (or not). But no! Now apparently you have a brand new tradition that only the first three years of a President's term count for Supreme Court placement.

    11. Re:Americans should cringe by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Some of us do. The rest have had a steady diet of cool aid (kook aid) for years.
      Try as we might, the cool aid is strong and they won't listen. They're stupid and don't even realize they're stupid. In fact, they'll even argue why they aren't stupid and even family members will threaten to block you if you link to facts and other sites that threaten their alternative reality as HRC puts it. She's in an alternative reality, clearly. It's fascism. It's even complete with firebombing of Republican election fronts. Even vandalism to conservative people's property.

    12. Re:Americans should cringe by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      It's a bitch because of the crazy left. Want to run to be Pres? It's a lot like signing up to be kicked hard in the crotch every day. Need to get rid of Political Correctness that has morphed into "we just want to be a victim."

  33. Re:I bet the press won't mention that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Judenpresse in full swing.

  34. Monitoring bitly in real time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saw the accounts being created?

    Do tell us more.

    Do these security researchers have access to some sort of API from bitly that exposes new account details? Did bitly let them into their servers to watch?

    1. Re:Monitoring bitly in real time? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Either these security researchers ARE the NSA or they are full of shit.

      The entire article is conjecture, trying to tie Trump into a series of actions by a "foreign" anonymous hacking collective. The problem is that this hacking collective has gone after a lot of things they see as humanitarian or democratic issues. If it was Mother Russia funding them they wouldn't go after targets so loudly, they wouldn't have gone after Syria or Iran, Russian allies and they sure as hell wouldn't have published it to Wikileaks.

      If I were a director at a government hacker agency, the primary method would be stealthy, I wouldn't use American controlled URL shortening services and I would let Clinton win because it's the only controllable candidate and I have dirt on her. What does Russia have to gain with a megalomaniac in the White House? They can't control Trump, if he is the way the media portrays him, he won't care that you gave him $100M, he will drop anyone including his own running mate when it inconveniences him.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  35. Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real american patriots!

  36. Russian Hackers by hackus · · Score: 1

    Is this before or after they want preplan the crash of the criminally run financial system?

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Secure works lists no such domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only trouble is... Secureworks doesn't say they spoofed using Accounts-Google.com, someone else claimed that. Secureworks say it was a man in the middle attack using a fake domain.

    "Between October 2015 and May 2016, CTU researchers analyzed 8,909 Bitly links that targeted 3,907 individual Gmail accounts and corporate and organizational email accounts that use Gmail as a service. In March 2016, CTU researchers identified a spearphishing campaign using Bitly accounts to shorten malicious URLs. .....The short links in the spearphishing emails redirected victims to a TG-4127-controlled URL that spoofed a legitimate Google domain. A Base64-encoded string containing the victim's full email address is passed with this URL, prepopulating a fake Google login page displayed to the victim."

    [i.e. they sent them to a page that looked like a Google page]

    "The Hillary for America presidential campaign owns the hillaryclinton.com domain, which is used for the campaign website (www.hillaryclinton.com) and for email addresses used by campaign staff. An examination of the hillaryclinton.com DNS records shows that the domain's MX records, which indicate the mail server used by the domain, point to aspmx.l.google.com, the mail server used by Google Apps. Google Apps allows organizations to use Gmail as their organizational mail solution."

    [i.e. the staff were using Google, so the attacker knew they would expect a Google prompt for email login]

    "TG-4127 exploited the Hillary for America campaign's use of Gmail and leveraged campaign employees' expectation of the standard Gmail login page to access their email account. When presented with TG-4127's spoofed login page (see Figure 1), victims might be convinced it was the legitimate login page for their hillaryclinton.com email account."

    So they logged into a screen that looked exactly like Google screen, but was a man- in-the-middle attack. In the process they handed over the password and login details for their Gmail account. Two part authentication and forced encryption everywhere is needed.

    1. Re:Secure works lists no such domain by psyclone · · Score: 1

      Yes, where did the editor get: accounts-google.com?

      The only thing I could get in the phishtank was this from 2011: https://www.phishtank.com/phis...

  39. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean PRC.

  40. Monitor DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google needs to monitor the DNS system for *google* to detect registration of fraud domains.

  41. 666-1? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?

    What will their odds be in 3 weeks?

    That would be the odds of note.

    While having 666-1 odds on Trump presidency may be of note, it will sure be too unsettling for most people to place such a bet.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  42. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are at least a dozen current or former members of the domestic intelligence community who have died of "natural causes" or "accident" in the past three months.

  43. Re: Trumps America by nomadic · · Score: 3, Funny

    "There are at least a dozen current or former members of the domestic intelligence community who have died of "natural causes" or "accident" in the past three months."

    You mean of a community made up of what is probably -- when you add together CIA, NSA, military intelligence and contractors -- tens of thousands of people, many of them old, "at least a dozen" have died in the past three months?

  44. My users are better trained than the DNC? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    They're mostly middle-aged realtors with low degrees of computer literacy, yet it seems they are less likely to fall for these fake google login scams than the DNC. That's sad.

  45. Re: Another reason to use 2 factor auth by Kythe · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, I can't claim that was the problem. Instead, I'll plead "typing on a treadmill using the hideous onscreen keyboard of a Surface Pro".

    AT ANY RATE...

    The point was, 2-factor auth would take care of this. I'm certainly not happy with Russian intelligence trying to mess with the U.S. election (and yes, the evidence is strong they are: see here), but regardless, since Podesta's email was STILL open as of a few days ago when a password reset sent to it was used to hack his Twitter account, it seems clear some folks desperately need some help with securing their accounts.

    P.S. yes, my account is original.

    --

    Kythe
  46. Re: Trumps America by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    Hang on, Trump **isn't** blaming illegal alien net-rapists for this ?? (evil grin)

  47. Asshole Trolls by sycodon · · Score: 2

    I appreciate how Slashdot posters have largely stayed out of the shit fest that is this campaign. Thank you.

    But recently, more and more assholes like the AC at the top are spamming Slashdot with political bullshit.

    I think that the majority of the Slashdot community would appreciate it if you cock suckers stayed in the designated cesspools that support your candidate and stay the fuck away from Slashdot.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  48. I don't get it: isn't the report from June? by aoeusnth · · Score: 1

    Why is it being reported as news now?

  49. Nobody believes you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you've been trying for MONTHS to make us think that the Russians are so smart that they can hack in everywhere, but also that they are so dumb that they leave evidence lying around everywhere. It's not working. If Russia or China or whoever hacked in, they would know better than leaving evidence all over the place.

  50. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    full retard, full steam ahead!

  51. How sophisticated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how pathetic.

  52. Re:You mean *Hillary's men* firebombed the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod the patent up! Join the Trump movement! Vote for a better, stronger America.

  53. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are at least a dozen current or former members of the domestic intelligence community who have died of "natural causes" or "accident" in the past three months."

    "There are also at least a dozen non-members of the domestic intelligence community who have died of "natural causes" or "accident" in the past three months."

  54. BULL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Network Engineer and I've been in the I.T. field for 30 years, and specialized in Computer Forensics, Penetration testing, ethical hacking for at least the last 10 years.

    SecureWorks is a joke.

    Russia had nothing to do with the hack. Clinton's friends were incompetent at securing her email, and her server, and they are incompetent at this also. This is a lame attempt at Clinton to use Russia as a scapegoat and provide plausible deniability for her own actions of attempting to steal the election.

    It's long overdue for her to be locked up, and the director of the FBI and Atty General Lynch also.

    1. Re:BULL by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Amen. Hit the target dead center. Lock the bitch up.

  55. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on the size of that population, what is the expected mortality rate due to natural causes and accidents over the past three months?

    Unless there is statistically significantly deviation from that baseline, your implication in unsupported.

    People die all the time. Call me when there is evidence that a particular group of people are dying at an abnormal rate.

  56. Not proof by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Considering how many "hacker" sites in Russia are used internationally. It merely means the servers were hosted there. For all we know it could of been Republicans who paid to have hosted servers.

    This is like claiming ALL the fraud that occurs at .com sites hosted in America are American hackers working for the U.S. government.

    STUPID = STUPID

  57. Paid for being President by mi · · Score: 1

    “It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

    That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.

    Having left the White house "dead broke" by their own admission, the couple are now worth tens of millions of dollars. What exactly have they sold in 15 years, that is that valuable?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Paid for being President by Atryn · · Score: 1

      “It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

      That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.

      Having left the White house "dead broke" by their own admission, the couple are now worth tens of millions of dollars. What exactly have they sold in 15 years, that is that valuable?

      That original quote is totally misunderstood... Trump said the first candidate to "run" and make money on it. I.e. - make money on RUNNING, not having anything to do with winning. Remember that once donors and the party started picking up the tabs he jacked up the rates on the offices and rooms in his own properties they were using? And now he plans to launch a TV network, etc? He doesn't need to win. He is saying he will be the first one to run, lose, cost the Republican party their shot at succeeding after Obama AND make off like a bandit anyway.

      I'm amazed more people don't see through it all.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
  58. Phished? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like phisted.

  59. Paranoia, the destroyer by XXongo · · Score: 1
    Paranoia is a form of schizophrenia, a mental illness characterized by disconnect with reality.

    One of the types of paranoid delusion is delusions of grandeur, including the belief that the paranoid is the object of all attention, central to a vast web of conspiracies. If you happened to have this paranoid delusion, you would probably be very careful guarding your work on the computer. But you would also be guarding against dangers that don't actually exist, believing that the CIA and the Illuminati are monitoring your thoughtwaves, that mosquitoes are injecting nanomachines into your blood to control your movements, and that devil-worshipping sorcerers are trying to collect samples of your bodily fluids in order to work black magic.

    1. Re:Paranoia, the destroyer by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The latter is true. You can't advance to the O.T.O. ninth degree without sex magic, and the eleventh requires anal insemination. And a Thelemic great rite also involves exchange of body fluids. And then there are the hand cutting and blood dripping of some rites. However, magi generally won't do it to you without your active cooperation.

  60. Shortening wasn't the problem. by XXongo · · Score: 1
    Meh. Since the URL that this expanded to was "accounts-google.com", they were relying on people speed-reading the link to see the "google.com" at the end and think it was google.com.

    URL shortening wasnt' the problem here; look-alike links was the problem.

  61. Crazy people by XXongo · · Score: 2

    Democrats fire-bombed a GOP office today.

    Somebody firebombed a GOP office. Whether it was "Democrats" or not is as yet unknown. I would say it was almost certainly crazy people, which america (unfortunately) has plenty of, and who come (unfortunately) in all political persuasions.

    At the moment, the Democrats are raising money to re-open the office. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/...

  62. Re:LIARS by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Do you fail at reading comprehension?

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  63. Re:LIARS by XXongo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously? You listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as sources of evidence?

    No. He listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as "liberal media" that did cover the story, showing that the statement "the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack" is false.

    They are proven to be owned and or controlled by rich and powerful friends of Clinton.

    In which case, his post shows that the original post was completely and totally false, doesn't it?

  64. The answer is: I don't know by XXongo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else". Who else do you think would have done it?

    The correct answer is: "I don't know, and you don't know either."

    It's hard to believe it was the Democrats, since all the polls and all the indications show that they're winning. Why in the world would they want to change a winning game?

    Throwing bombs isn't something you do if you're winning; it's what you do if you're losing.

    But, with that said, I doubt it's the Trump campaign. I expect it was lunatic fanatic crazies.

    Whether the lunatic fanatic crazies thought they were on Trump's side, or on Clinton's side, is yet to be seen.

    1. Re:The answer is: I don't know by simula · · Score: 1

      Unmod

  65. I wonder if's Hillary's site still allows phishing by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    I wonder if's Hillary's site still allows phishing?
    http://cybertical.com/clinton-phishing.html

  66. I guess, debility resides rather across the ocean. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Washington, rather than in Russia.

  67. The Real Story? by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

    Isn't the real story that hacking is the only current flavor of journalism that reveals real information about important stuff that would otherwise not be reported by "real" journalists (who are on the payroll of {$politician or $big_corporation})? It's disturbing how many Hillary shills dismiss the content of the leaked emails as "fake" and give her a pass for what appears to be some authentic and relatively "not-fit-for-office" activity.

  68. the other day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i had a burning feeling in my feet while i was at the computer, i tought it was athletes foot or something, now i fear its the russians, im seriously guys

  69. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, if it weren't for Hillary, nobody would die and we'd all live forever.

  70. Geography doesn't vote. People vote. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Most those middle states have large tracts of land - occupied by very few people.

    And no... Electoral college was NOT created "to get the politicians out of the big cities and blah-blah-blah".
    Number of electoral votes has fuck all to do with where the voters are located, are they rural or urban, OR are they visited by the candidates during their campaign or not.

    It was created back when there was no "flyover country" - but only towns, villages and farms along the coast. THE coast.
    And it was created cause they were paranoid about Congress ignoring the will of the people, getting together and electing the president on their own - while also being paranoid about big states doing the same thing.
    Which is why there's that stipulation about government employees not being eligible for the position of an elector.
    And why it is based on the number of people living in a state (while each state still gets two votes on top of that) and not its geography.
    Including those people counted as "three fifths of all other Persons".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  71. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am neither russian nor paid by any state to do hacking.....i have nearly 2300 ways to hack various crap that work....
    Let me ask you if i have this much how much do others with better funding actually have and email is one of the worst for security....just cause of the idiots that click links....let alone the software that its run on and the operating system its on....
    vectors people ..so many vectors now .....haha hehe hoho

  72. The press will correctly say it was "government" by Layzej · · Score: 1

    no US agency has said anything of the kind

    Wrongo bongo. Here's the Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement. It begins: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.

  73. Re: The press will correctly say it was "governmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well. I guess we are at war with Eastasia then.

  74. Re: Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, of "natural causes" or "accident".
    Something fishy is going on here...

  75. Re: The press will correctly say it was "governmen by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

    Just as we've always been.

  76. Re: Another reason to use 2 factor auth by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    At least you're getting some exercise--something which I really ought to do more.

    P.S. I was pretty sure you weren't some sort of impostor, I was just going for cheap laughs. Sorry.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  77. so, basically you hate democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You call the legitimate political opposition of the opposition party "obstructionism"????

    By that definition, it was Democrats who controlled both the House and Senate in 2006-2010 who "obstructed" George W Bush. When they blocked him from intervening in 2007 to stop the financial recklessness that led to the 2008 mortgage lending meltdown, their "obstructionism" cause the economic collapse. Senators Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all voted to block Bush from stopping the crazy subprime lending derivatives a year before that madness blew up Wall St.

    OK, then let's look at it THIS way:

    1. All bills originate in the House or Senate.

    2. Any bill must be supported by a majority of the members of both the House and Senate before being sent to the President for his signature.

    3. The president can sign, veto, or "pocket veto" (ignore until it dies) any bill. Any bill he signs becomes law.

    by definition, the senate can obstruct the house, the house can obstruct the senate, and the president can obstruct the congress..... but there is no way for the congress to obstruct the president.

  78. so, the smart tech-savvy and "connected"party... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is so stupid they were easily trolled with a bogus web page and shortened URLs???

    Aren't we glad these people have taken over the government and the student loan and health insurance systems?

    The reason this has not happened to Trump is simple: he uses paper documents, telephone calls, personal meetings, and then tweets to the public - he does not use e-mail.

    Being eager to use every new whiz-bang cloud-this and web-that in the excited certainty that it will help you manipulate public opinion and dominate the world apparently has a downside: you become vulnerable to the first woodpecker that pecks on your tree.

    "If builders built houses the way programmers built programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization." - Gerald M Weinberg

  79. security acumen of a burned-out toaster. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    1) Not surprised. As soon as they started waiving the Russian "Hacking" flag around like it was something out of the Matrix I immediately postulated that the DNC were taken in by very usual and mundane means common to anyone that actually has an internet connection.
    2) Considering the numbers, supposedly 20% and 25% of people fell for the scam, which really doesn't give you a lot of confidence in not only their "security acumen", but also just in their basic intelligence. You might do better with a random set of people. Cyber warfare campaign aside, there are a lot of other technology policy issues you really don't want someone who clicks on every attachment given to them to have power over.
    3) That said, if the RNC were targeted I'm not sure they would have fared any better, likely worse, so it is a bit of a moot point I guess in general.

  80. Re: Trumps America by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Russia cares. They have shills that post on Slashdot whenever an anti-Russian story shows up. No way they aren't monitoring this carefully, even if they're not involved.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  81. thinking outside the boxy arbitrary lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why are states necessary? If they serve a good, why is everyone so sure that having 10 times as many wouldn't serve us even better?

  82. Re:The press will correctly say it was "government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Obama administration will fabricate whatever facts might help keep the Democrats in power.

    So, who gives a fuck what they say?