Slashdot Mirror
US Announces Response To Russian Election Hacking [Update] (reuters.com)
Dustin Volz and Joel Schectman, reporting for Reuters: The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday a series of retaliatory measures against Russia for hacking into U.S. political institutions and individuals and leaking information in an effort to help President-elect Donald Trump and other Republican candidates, two U.S. officials said on Wednesday. Both officials declined to specify what actions President Barack Obama has approved, but said targeted economic sanctions, indictments, leaking information to embarrass Russian officials or oligarchs, and restrictions on Russian diplomats in the United States are among steps that have been discussed. One decision that has been made, they said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is to avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict that could spiral out of control. One example of an excessive step might be interfering with Russian internet messaging. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and Office of Director of National Intelligence agree that Russia was behind hacks into Democratic Party organizations and operatives ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. There is also agreement, according to U.S. officials, that Russia sought to intervene in the election to help Trump, a Republican, defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.Update: Here's the statement by the President of the United States in response to Russian malicious cyber activity and harassment: All Americans should be alarmed by Russia's actions. In October, my Administration publicized our assessment that Russia took actions intended to interfere with the U.S. election process. These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government. Moreover, our diplomats have experienced an unacceptable level of harassment in Moscow by Russian security services and police over the last year. Such activities have consequences. Today, I have ordered a number of actions in response. I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners. Using this new authority, I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU's cyber operations. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is designating two Russian individuals for using cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information. The State Department is also shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes, and is declaring "persona non grata" 35 Russian intelligence operatives. Finally, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are releasing declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity, to help network defenders in the United States and abroad identify, detect, and disrupt Russia's global campaign of malicious cyber activities. Editor's note: the story has been updated to include the statement and has also been moved to the top of the front page.
Sound familiar? Some things never change
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It will be news when it actually happens. Can't we wait until then instead of pretending that it's news that something is supposedly going to happen in a few hours?
The Russians won anyway. They got their man in the White House and he owes them a lot.
I'm still not convinced you got the right guy. I don't ASSUME someone is guilty because "I hate them" (Which I don't. I don't hate strangers.).
Total slam-dunk case those Russkies were guilty of it, just like Iraq!
One thing that I find amusing: Love or hate Snowden, he 100% leaked large numbers of highly classified government documents and ended up finding asylum in Russia.
Consequences to Russia for that action? None.
So-called "russian" hackers grab private emails from the DNC that were not official U.S. government documents and were never classified at all?
Obama makes Bush look like a hippy peace protester and all of the sudden the good little left wingers start making Patton look like a librarian.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Does this mean that Russia will be spared the delights of having their citizens' health destroyed by US fast 'food' chains?
Requiem for the American Dream
There is no "Wikileaks organization" any more, there's the Cult of Assange, and Assange clearly had a personal vendetta against Clinton. I wouldn't believe a single thing Assange said.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Especially seeing as the way this has been covered 50% of Democrats now think the Russians hacked voting machines
https://today.yougov.com/news/...
Gotta give the DNC credit on this one, they have managed to completely deflect from their security incompetence and breaking faith with their voters.
They found no evidence of actual election systems hacking, the only thing they can even vaguely blame on the Russians is leaking the damaging things that the Democrats actually said in their emails, and most of the good stuff probably came from plain old insider leaks to WikiLeaks.
I wonder what sort of actions they're going to take against Democrat campaign staffers for having such terrible email security practices?
Seriously... why couldn't this wait for the actual, you know, measures to be announced before posting? At this point, it's akin to "in a few minutes, something will happen... we don't know what, but here's a news flash to tell you before anything actually occurs!"
Before we escalate to all-out cyber and/or nuclear war with Russia, will we be seeing any -actual evidence- of anything other than a very dumb phishing link clicking Podesta, or of "hacking" involving anything requiring more skill than a neighborhood high school computer club, much less a nation-state?
Although I'm sure the Democrats would much prefer the accused not be allowed to speak at all, Putin's question is still pertinent--is he responsible for Democrat losses at -every other governmental level-, as well? Were the Wikileaks e-mails manipulated or untrue, which has still not been asserted?
This red herring is becoming as dangerous as it is ludicrous.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
President-elect Trump says we should put this behind us. And hd did it without Putin's lips moving.
After that, the Democrats will protest the peace initiative from Trump to defuse the new cold war with Russia and call for more war.
One decision that has been made, they said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is to avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict that could spiral out of control.
What they really want to do is avoid further embarrassment and the exposure of their total incompetence when it comes to security. They know we are extremely vulnerable but refuse to do anything to rectify the situation. All their dirty secrets should be exposed and the security should be fixed. They will go to war when it's soldiers get blown apart but they won't even raise a hand when the truth could be exposed and it may damage their reputation.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
> Trumpelthinskin
I want to shake the hand of whoever came up with this.
When was our country attacked?
The DNC is far from my country. The so-called attack, merely showed that Hillary and the DNC was engaged in election rigging (attacking our country).
This administration has provided zero proof of Russia's involvement nor motive.
The only proof we have is that Hillary, exclaimed this was in retaliation to her mucking about in Russia's election. *facepalm* So let's say ALL of this is true. That means this was retaliation on U.S. for interfering in their election.
WE'RE THE BIGGEST DAMN HYPOCRITES IN THE WORLD!
The problem you have is the person who leaked the "hacked information", WikiLeaks, said it was not the Russians.
If you read Obama's claims, he is not claiming Russians hacked the election, as is reported. He is claiming they hacked DNC and Podesta's emails. It looks like Podesta fell for a phising attack, which EASILY could have not been Russian. And the DNC emails came from an insider according to Assange.
So not only are they not releasing their evidence, there actually is pretty good evidence it isn't Russia. In addition they are claiming personal email accounts being hacked, not government in any way, are hacking the election which is deceptive at best. So the evidence is stacked against Russia being involved and the people claiming it are being deceptive as well.
Sounds like utter BS to me.
Remind me again about "yellow cake" outrage?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I thought it stood for Jesus..
Donald Jesus Fucking Christ Trump.
Russia was trying to help Russia by showing how weak the U.S. was, and how easily the Russians could break their security at will.
Inadvertently they may have helped Trump, but only to the degree that they simply showed us what Democrats were thinking and doing. Did it not occur to anyone that if the Democrats simply did nothing unethical or shameful that the election would not have been effected?
It was the fact that the DNC shoved Bernie Sanders out in favor of Queen Hillary that cost them so many Bernie voters, not the Russians.
It was the fact that Hillary lied about so, so many things (including to the FBI) that lost her so many other voters, not the Russians.
By contrast, what could the Russians really do to hurt Trump in the election? You can say many things about Trump but can you truly say he was not transparent and vocal about what was truly on his mind? Or that the Democrats dug and aired things beyond even the capability of the Russians to find?
The Russians played no favorites, they dredged up whatever they could and put it out for display to show the world they could. It just happened that Hillary lived by deception and so unvarnished truth hurt her far more than the open-to-a-fault utterly de-varnished Trump.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What has Assange ever lied about? As far as I knew WikiLeaks has a spotless record.
On the other hand, what has the CIA ever told the truth about?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Hacking is when someone (maybe a foreign government) sends a phishing email and then Podesta clicks on it.
Yep. They got hacked.
The GOP wasn't "hacked" by this definition because they didn't click the email.
Does any of that undermine what was exposed in the leaks?
Clinton and the Democrats only have themselves to blame for losing the election.
This is a fools game. Retaliating by interfering in Russian politics will simply invite more of the same.
Sounds great to me. With the ultimate Red Team aiding you in finding vulnerabilities, our systems should be more than secure against the average script kiddie. As it stands some guy in a yogurt stand in Bulgaria could probably take down half our government working part time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict that could spiral out of control.
OMG.... Now the whole world know that you can screw with the US and they will punish you less than what you did to them. Nice.
Even if it's true you don't tell people. That makes Obama not just a pussy but one extremely dumb pussy.
As I see it .. This Russian hacking crap is all "BULLSHIT" cooked up by liberals because their liberal Wildebeest "Hildebeast Clinton "
Yes because every single US intelligence agency like the CIA is so liberal. You know who else is super liberal: Wikileaks. They confirmed that they got emails from Russian sources. They won't confirm how much only saying "some". Please wake up.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Two years ago, Russia invaded a sovereign country, Ukraine, and occupied it.
More recently, Russia (maybe) took part in telling the truth about the DNC.
Which do you think will result in a stronger response from Obama. As a reminder, his response on Ukraine was basically wagging his finger at them, saying "bad Russia, bad boy" - no concrete action.
From "can the adults be in charge now" to "Drumpf" and "Trumplethinskin" in eight short years. Yes, we really need you guys setting the course for our country...
Really? Log files are classified? That's all the "evidence" there is in computer systems, it's not like there's an informant on the other end of the world smuggling messages by pigeon about who did what.
In simpleton: someone visited a web page that they shouldn't have been able to because someone our-side failed to do their job or the Russians tricked someone else in visiting a web page they shouldn't have visited because someone our-side is a moron. That describes the 'attacks' on the DNC
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
...and they now must be punished.
Is someone going to prosecute and sanction the DNC for stealing the election from Bernie? Or the Clinton Foundation for running a massive pay to play scheme?
Next time Voice of America points out corruption in some foreign election, should we expect to be sanctioned by that foreign nation?
And this is even if you believe that we have 100% proof that Putin leaked Podesta's and the DNC's emails.
Honestly, if Putin *did* do the crime, we should be thanking him for doing a job that the US mainstream media should've been doing.
Given the fact that Trump won the election anyways, I'm not sure how the number more votes that Clinton received is relevant. If indeed they *did* hack it, then it appears that their mission was accomplished... why bother doing something else that could potentially make it more conspicuous?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday a series of retaliatory measures against Russia for hacking into U.S. political institutions and individuals and leaking information in an effort to help President-elect Donald Trump and other Republican candidates, two U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
They could have written that a little differently.
On the first read through, I thought Obama was doing it "...in an effort to help President-elect Donald Trump..."
If only I had mod points.
The Russian hacks only did the press's job for them.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The stage that is being set is very frightening. Any information that does not conform to what the powers that be want the people to hear is being labeled interference. The final touches on wide scale internet censorship are being put into place.
The capability of the internet to provide an alternative source of information and discourse is being eviscerated. It is happening faster than I thought it would. For the longest time, the government had more or less complete control of the media and the public discourse. The internet threatened that, but the DNC leaks finally made the government show their hand.
It just will not do to have anybody, internal whistleblowers or foreign governments pointing out the hypocrisy of the United States government. If the people actually realized that they were being manipulated by the government and that the entire electoral process and American Dream are just a sham, they might....
Oh fuck it, who am I kidding? Nobody gives a shit as long as the television / internet works and there is some food in the fridge.
Hillary Clinton will never be president. That is all.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Knowing Obama, he is going to get Europe to destroy its economy even further by placing even more sanctions on Russia... Worked out marvelously last time as well.
One decision that has been made, they said, speaking on the conditiopn of anonymity, is to avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict that could spiral out of control.
Shades of Vietnam! This is how minor conflicts escalate into major wars.
The government may be able to handle bothersome individuals by spanking them once when "they're bad", like a parent disciplining a disobedient child, and expect it to stop there. But try that as foreign policy and it's more like slapping the drunken gangster in front of his cohorts.
By only giving a "proportional response", the leader(s) of the opposite side are put on the spot. They HAVE to retaliate in turn, or be viewed as weak. If it is perceived that you intend to avoid a serious conflict (ESPECIALLY if you have ACTUALLY ANNOUNCED that!), you are a "Paper Tiger" and they have no excuse to back down without losing face. So they retaliate a little harder, and you retaliate in proportion, and it ramps up into war. It goes on for years. If you're not willing to put in the effort and take the risk of trying to win it as a war, you fight on and on until your infrastructure is too damaged and your population is sick of it, and then you lose.
Once you have to go to war, if you want to win, the way to do it is with overwhelming force: "rapid dominance" (coned in 1996 but practiced at least since the Roman Empire), also known as "Shock and Awe." This gives the opponent the opportunity to withdraw and still save face, and minimizes casualties on your side. It may also massively reduces casualties on the other side, in comparison to a dragged-out, escalating, conflict. (But even if it doesn't, "... You [win the war] by getting the other poor bastard to die for HIS country.")
Tit-for-tat, with a little forgiveness to compensate for noise in the system, can lead to stabilization. But never-more-than-tit-for-tat, when confronting a strategy of a-bit-more-than-tit-for-tat, grows without bound. You have to switch to "pound-them-into-the-ground" or "surrender" at some point, or a determined opponent will debilitate you until the latter is the de facto result of your collapse. So if you're going to engage in tit-for-tat on the foreign policy level, you have to be ready to go to all-out war or all-out surrender. (You also have to be enough stronger than your opponent to make it work, or at least strong enough, AND appearing determined (and/or crazy) enough, to take them down with you, "Mutual Assured Destruction" style, if they keep pushing.)
In the Vietnam case, US involvement started in 1950, as a sidelight of the Korean conflict and the Cold War. The proportional response policy was implemented in 1961 by Kennedy and the escalation started. By the time the conflict ended the low-end estimates were about half a million dead and a million and a half wounded. (By contrast, the Iraq War had well under an order of magnitude less casualties.)
So now Obama wants to give Trump a going-away present: A shiny new, Vietnam-style, ever-escalating war with Russia, and a public perception that, if he tries to end it, or even keep it from escalating, it's because he's a Russian puppet.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Russians, if they did anything, didn't hack the election, they increased the elections truthyness!
All the leaked stuff, no one denies it was true.
So the USA wants to punish Russia for making US voters aware of inconvenient truths huh? Nice 'freedom' you have there!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
That's the classic diplomatic cop-out. All the sound and fury; ginning up fake new stories around the world... finally — knowing he's empty handed and has no credible proof of any of this — our cowardly shitheel of a president expels a couple diplomats. Jesus fucking Christ.
More fake kool-aid for the libtards. Trump is going to welcome those same diplomats back into the US with a big shit eating grin; this pathetic exile will last about 22 days.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
There has never been a particularly easy way to deal with Russian belligerency. Napoleon's Grande Armee found itself in a frozen hell when Napoleon tried to hold Alexander I's feet to the fire for betraying him. Britain had to basically pretend the Katyn Massacre didn't happen and had to classify Finland as an Axis ally just so it could gain an ally on Germany's eastern flank. The US was forced to stand by and watch the Soviets crush the Prague Spring. The only things that have ever really worked, at least in the post-WWII era is to get Russia bound up in some sort of regional proxy disputes like Afghanistan. That is what Syria was supposed to be, I suppose, except ISIS appeared in the middle of the chaos, seized the initiative from whatever passed for legitimate anti-Assad rebels, and created a new player that ended up fucking up Iraq and buggering up relations with Turkey.
Russia certainly didn't create the Syrian situation, but it has used it to its advantage. Between Syria and fucking around with elections, a nation with a GDP smaller than Italy's, whose military has, by and large, degraded over the last two decades to regional power status, has managed to project force in a whole new way. Whether that works for Russia in the longer term is hard thing to predict, but it's pretty astounding to watch.
As to Ukraine, if NATO had rolled in there, it would have meant, in very short order, NATO and ultimately uniformed Russian troops would have been lobbing bullets at each other, and that kind of crisis could likely have escalated very quickly. I don't see how any other President would have handled the situation any differently. Neither Ford or Nixon intervened when the Soviets reimposed control over Czechoslovakia in 1968, and for the same reason Obama would not have intervened militarily in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member, it is not a EU member, and while it has had growing ties with the West, it's still not a first order ally. Couple that with the unwillingness of Europe, and Germany in particular, to wage economic war on Russia to the extent that the Obama Administration had wanted, how can you fault Obama for the more muted response?
And if you think Obama went easy on the Russians, what do you think Trump with his Secretary of State pick (presuming the Senate doesn't sink Tillerson's nomination) is going to do? Do you think he'd stand up to Russia, considering he's made his admiration for Putin pretty clear, and seems to be leaning heavily towards a Russo-American Detente, if not outright Entente?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No.
Russia incited an internal revolution and then said 'come on home'. There was no invasion, there was no occupation. Keep to the real news, not the fake stuff.
But I can already tell where your head is, sad thing this is 'insightful'.
The parallels between Trump's Friends of Putin Club and Hitler's pre-WWII Germany are great and very disturbing.
FTFY
Yet the extremely ignorant and uneducated left insist and saying, "literally Hitler" when speaking about Trump.
As a college-educated moderate conservative, I can reassure that Trump is clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution and the country. Sticking your hand up your ass isn't going to change that.
This. I don't understand Democrats these days. This isn't a team sport. This is our lives. How can you be silent when you have learned what your party was up to? They were conspiring to undermine you, the Democrat voter. Where is the outrage?
When I read the stories about the NSA, the five-eyes, the affront to the 4th amendment. I was outraged. I think Edward Snowden is a hero for going against some very very powerful forces and revealing what was happening in our own country against us by the leviathan. Russia did that for the democratic party. You can't be against Russia's hacking, but for Edward Snowden. They play the same character in this one.
"...and disrupt Russiaâ(TM)s global campaign ..."
*sigh*
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
> Two years ago, Russia invaded a sovereign country, Ukraine, and occupied it.
In 2003, the United State of American invaded two sovereign countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and occupied them.
As a reminder, the response of the world was basically wagging their finger at the USA, saying "bad Americans, bad boys" - no concrete action.
The Bush administration set the precedent for the international ambivalence to invasions by Russia of Georgia and the Ukraine.
So the USA may not be in a position to criticize Russia on the military actions taken on behalf of its energy sector.
I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners. Using this new authority, ...
Since when can a President grant himself new authority? The Constitution enumerates his powers, and the Tenth Amendment says:
Granting himself additional power, and establishing the precedent for himself and his successors to continue that in the future, is not the act of a President of a Constitutional Republice. It is the act of a tyrant.
THIS is one of the factors in Trump's win: He ran against Hillary and successfully portrayed her as a continuation, and escalation, of Obama's style of rule.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
... when is the Whitehouse going to issue apologies and offer reparations to all the countries where it directly interfered and even overthrew or attempted to overthrow democratically elected governments, such as ...
Or helped a puppet government rig an election, such as Vietnam.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Well, at least the Senate seems in general agreement. There seems to be very strong bipartisan accord that the Russians were fucking with the elections, and what this is going to do is give the Senate the political clout it needs to hold Trump in check. There have been grave misgivings about Tillerson's coming nomination for Secretary of State, and I wouldn't be surprised if he pulls out fairly quickly because he's going to have to stand before some pretty critical Senators and explain how he intends to hold Russia accountable. And waving his hands and declaring "You've got no evidence", while that may work with the Trump crowd, isn't exactly going to be much of a defense against the likes of Rubio and McCain.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
aren't I witty for using his middle name?
Trump is no Ronald Wilson Reagan (666) either.
Yes because every single US intelligence agency like the CIA is so liberal
They are currently being run by Obama political appointees. You do understand that, right?
You know who else is super liberal: Wikileaks. They confirmed that they got emails from Russian sources.
No, they explicitly said they did NOT get them from the Russians. What's with the phony narrative? How does that help anyone?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
aren't I witty for using his middle name?
I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I did vote for him. He's done some good stuff, he's fucked up some stuff. I think he'll go down in history as a decent president. That being said, it still drives me nuts that people still literally go out of their way to point out his middle name is of middle eastern origin, and happens to be the surname of a particular dictator we killed. As if that some way discredits him.
One thing I do like about Obama is that I think he really is personally committed to measured and considered policy.
But one thing I hate about Obama is that there's a whole sphere of *leadership* where appearing measured and considered doesn't do you any good. At absolute best it makes you look "strategic" but mostly it just makes you appear weak and unwilling or unable to make a decision, caught in a web of analysis paralysis and afraid of risk.
With Obama, he treats every issue as if decision making is the primary element. If that was the case, when we wouldn't really need a leader, we'd just need someone to be the committee chairman. But in many cases we need a leader willing to take risks and rally people behind decisions. With Obama it's hard to do that when everything feels like the outcome of a committee discussion as to what color to paint the bike shed.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no understanding of current, recent, or historical events.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So now Obama wants to give Trump a going-away present: A shiny new, Vietnam-style, ever-escalating war with Russia, and a public perception that, if he tries to end it, or even keep it from escalating, it's because he's a Russian puppet.
Meh. I don't think Trump is one to stick his finger in the air or worry about the "optics" like a typical politician. So, he'll probably just defuse the whole thing, the media will see this as evidence of him being in bed with Putin, lots of Democrats will believe it, most Republicans won't trust the media, Trump will tweet something angry in response, and life will go on.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”
George Orwell, 1984
Of course Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed part of it. But it's not surprising when people in Russia (like you) aren't aware of that or pretend not to be aware of that.
The USA and a bunch of other countries imposed strong sanctions on Russia as a result of their aggression in Ukraine. Is that not concrete action?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Real Crisis is that the DNC and their prized candidate were exposed as corrupt. The DNC invented "superdelegates" to the benefit of Clinton. The DNC chairwoman rigged the primary to favor Clinton (she resigned). A DNC insider at CNN provided debate questions in advance to Clinton (she was fired). Clinton had sought to blame a video on Benghazi (she resigned to minimize the political fallout). After too many shady scandals dating back to Watergate, voters rejected the MSM's sheltering of Clinton and refused to elect a crook to the executive branch.
The DNC did that to themselves and they are outraged that their corruption was exposed, so they sought a scapegoat to create a diversion from the Real Crisis. Russia didn't invent superdelegates, didn't rig the primaries, didn't provide debate questions in advance. The Real Crisis is that the DNC is losing their voter base even to minorities. Obama's weaponizing of federal agencies as tools of intimidation and retaliation date back to his Illinois state government chicanery and has damaged diplomatic relations. Voters saw government going in the direction of "Boss" Tweed corruption and they wanted none of it.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Because what the party was up to wasn't nearly as nefarious as you seem to want to paint it. Yes, they had a preferred candidate going in - and a strategy for her to glide through to the nomination with as little damage as possible. They chose her because of her name recognition, her popularity at the time (believe it or not), and yes, her connections - in the sense that she and her husband had done a lot to promote other Democrats. But they played it mostly straight once a viable challenger emerged.
If you were privy to the internal private emails of almost any organization (not just political parties) you'd see plenty that would be embarrassing - maybe even compromising. But you only saw the DNC stuff - and yet you're prepared to think that the Russians did us all a service. Well they didn't. Sure the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders - largely because they thought she'd be more likely to win (being wrong on that doesn't make them criminal). But they didn't do anything significant to stymie Sanders. Even if they did the things they were accused of (and there's no proof they did), they wouldn't have affected the outcome in any state. Sure, there were the superdelegates - but they were there in 2008 too, and they flipped to the winner of the primary delegates, and would've flipped in 2016 had Sanders won more primary delegates than Clinton did. And you know what - if Trump hadn't won the Republican nomination, Sanders probably would've lost to any other Republican - though I agree he might well have won against Trump. Though, you know, Clinton probably would've won against Trump too had Comey, the Russians, and yes, folks like you - who trashed her for being her party's preferred choice - not had their way.
Snowden was an actual whistle blower - providing information kept from the public about what their government was actually doing. The DNC hackers were just trying to stir up trouble - using information that didn't belong to the public in the same way that the government does.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Another child posts.
Another AC talks out of his ass. How tiresome.
Provide some proof.
Trump consistently playing the down Russian interfering, defending Russia against Obama and praising Putin at every opportunity. Most Trump's appointees have some kind of relationship with Russia. Trump's casual disregard for every rule put into place to prevent another Watergate scandal 40 years ago. If the Russian connections weren't bad enough, the Nixon connections might be scarier.
As a reminder, his response on Ukraine was basically wagging his finger at them, saying "bad Russia, bad boy" - no concrete action.
What did Russia do when the US invaded Iraq? Anything more than finger wagging?
The USA and a bunch of other countries imposed strong sanctions on Russia as a result of their aggression in Ukraine. Is that not concrete action?
I'm sorry, that doesn't fit with any anti-Obama narrative. Disregarded.
If you haven't watched it yet, "The Untold History of America" by Oliver Stone will open your eyes about what really underlies the position of the United States with relation to Russia.
There is a good reason that Obama only wagged his finger at Russia over the Ukraine.
If you or I get hacked, and our computers are held for ransom, the FBI acts like, "Meh. We don't know who did it. Just pay the ransom." But if the DNC gets hacked, suddenly we know exactly who did it, and we're expelling diplomats and what not.
Proverbs 21:19
1. What the DNC 'was up to' pales in comparison to what the NSA was up to.
Actually, the DNC didn't do that much at all. That part of it was and is a tempest in a teapot.
2. Besides that, Russia's hacking is malicious, whereas Snowden's revelations are clearly well-intended. So yes, you can be against Russia's hacking and for Edward Snowden.
'Tis a shame that comment score is capped at 5, as I have mod points and the willingness to use them.
Simply blackhole the whole Russian ip blocks at the routers.
Stuff it Russky Comrades.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
First off, "Russian Hacking the Election" is so fucking broad it is borderline meaningless.
1) What "hack" did they commit that interfered with the US Elections? Don't tell me to go read the news, I know what the supposed "Russian" hacks were, I am asking if you do. We're talking about DNC Hacks, Phishing of Podesta Emails and maybe one other event, covered by WikiLeaks. If you're talking about some nebulous boogieman hacks of undefined unverified classified and otherwise unknown events, then no, it wasn't the Russians.
2) Assange (of WikiLeaks) has done something extraordinary here about this particular case. He has said that it was NOT a state sponsored event, that both were "inside" jobs. This means that either Assange is lying or Obama is full of shit. I don't believe a word that comes out of Obama's mouth, he's fucking embarrassed that his legacy is dead, killed by incompetence of the DNC and Hillary and is lashing out to try to save any semblance of whatever it is he is trying to save.
3) In the hints given by Assagne, and other events, it leads one to suspect that it was DNC staffer Seth Rich who actually leaked the DNC material .
4) There is absolutely no evidence presented to the public to support the "It was the Russians!!!" hysteria being presented by all the willing participants in this charade. This is right up there with Obama and Clinton's other great failure ... "It was an Internet Video!!!!!" bullshit for Libya.
Given the penchant to blame everyone else for his complete and utter failures it is clear that Obama is simply being a spoiled brat having a temper tantrum, and burning the bridges as he is retreating off to retirement. All of this says way more about Obama than it does anyone else.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
And right there is the fact. the US Press and the no talent hacks called "Journalists" here are completely worthless. They are honestly nothing more than paid bloggers today.
There are very very few real news sources anymore inside the usa. and even the trusted ones I fact check with sources outside the USA.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes, collusion and corruption are not nefarious undertakings. If they are not as bad as you want to paint it, then the Russian hacks don't matter, do they? After all, if what they showed American voters was totally mundane regular office affairs how could they have influenced the election? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
The Russians apparently tried hacking the RNC but failed because no one clicked on a stupid phishing link.
"Stir up trouble" is informing American voters the extent the DNC colluded and how corrupt Clinton was. Good god man, did the Pentagon Papers stir up trouble too? You bet it did and for good reason. Showing the unadulterated truth to voters is not "stirring up trouble" especially compared to the shit that those leaks exposed.
Do you think that a Trump administration will be tougher on Russia regarding the Ukraine?
Think again. The Trump team signed off on every single item in the RNC platform -- taxes, trade policy, abortion, education, religion, all of it -- except one thing. They said nope, that one has to go.
You know what it was? Support for the Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Russia did a lot more than hack DNC emails. Not that I care one bit about Clinton or DNC, but it is naive to ignore what Putin has been up to and dismiss it as partisan politics. Here's a good article in The Atlantic that provides an overview of Putin's actions. Personally, I had no idea how busy Putin has been in restoring Russia. This is an interesting read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/russia-liberal-democracy/510011/
On the global chessboard, there has been no more deft and brilliant (and of late, lucky) player than Putin. From the early days of his presidency a decade and a half ago, he began to signal that he intended to make Russia great again, and that he saw this imperative as a zero-sum game: As the West gained friendships among post-communist states, Russia lost, and so everything possible had to be done to force Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and the Balkan states out of a Western liberal orientation and back into the greater Russian orbit.
It's just another example of Obama stirring up as much crap as he can in his final days in office; both to screw things up for Trump, and to implement some of his ideas that are deeply unpopular.
A man of honor and dignity would be a much more modest caretaker of government business during the final weeks of his tenure. Instead, Obama is trying to start fights with Russia, has orchestrated a UN backstab of a traditional US ally, and is spewing out regulations that won't survive their first challenge in court. This is what we elected. Twice. This is the man he's always been. If it wasn't for the sycophantic media, it would have been clear to most Americans by 2012.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
what the party was up to wasn't nearly as nefarious as you seem to want to paint it.
So, fucking over Bernie's supporters in favor of the Wall Street candidate is just fine with you?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
in fairness, you're full of s***.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and a few years before that they invaded Georgia and Bush did the same thing.
maybe there's a reason we're hesitant to actually engage Russia in a physical manner.
or specifically something like 10,000 reasons.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and he did this out of the kindness of his heart?
no.
they hacked both parties.
but only leaked stuff from one.
cause they made a decision as to whom would more benefit them.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Where are the statements about this from the intelligence agencies involved? Who has gone on the record and with what findings of fact?
"I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners."
Allies or Partners being ...the DNC, at whose behest we're all playing along.
-Styopa
I guess we're just ignoring the Russian troops who were present in the Ukraine then?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Raising a stink with nothing substantial to back it up is not exactly a new tactic. See for example the infinite number of hearings about Bengazi, and the climategate nonsense.
Just because somebody waves a few 'liberated' emails around and shouts SCANDAL!!! doesn't mean there really is a scandal.
Unfortunately manufactured scandals can still influence an election.
"Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are releasing declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity"
I wager it'll show that two Russians engaged in criminal activities of identity theft and credit card fraud. But with little tie to the Russian government. And the rest will just be a flourish of high language about spear-phishing attacks. And zero evidence will actually be provided.
Let me fix that for you:
> In 2003, most significant countries in the world, other than Russia and France ...
> As a reminder, the response of the world was to join together in eliminating Hussein
those words.
you keep using them.
I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
for example, corruption is the stuff trump is doing RIGHT NOW to enrich himself and his businesses off his newfound position.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The sanctions basically consisted of banning seven people from coming to America to do business. I guess that IS considered strong sanctions for Obama, since he invites everyone else here, regardless of what the law says on the matter.
You know, the same guy who adamantly testified to both America and Congress that the NSA was not violating the Constitution and spying on millions of Americans.
We believe you dude.....
This made me giggle. Thank you.
From Germany, the UK, Israel, etc. All those countries HE spied on, and tried to influence national elections within. After all, if he's so upset about rumored Russian involvement (and it is rumored - not a single shred of evidence yet, and the people who leaked the actual stuff, Wikileaks, state unequivocally it wasn't the Russians) then he should get on his knees and crawl across Europe asking for forgiveness from Merkel et al.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What are you trying to say, that what was in the emails were lies? That the collusion between the DNC, MSM, and Clinton campaign were manufactured scandals that caused people to resign and lose their jobs?
I am confused. So far the DNC and Clinton has acted like that what was in the emails were true. Is there any reason to believe that what is in the emails are manufactured?
Here's today's CNN front page photo for their story about Obama's response :
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/...
He's LITERALLY finger wagging.
What is he doing RIGHT NOW that is corrupt? You do realize that conflict of interest laws apply different to POTUS, right? I would love to hear what you and your mods think he has done RIGHT NOW that is corrupt.
Are you denying what was in those emails? Do you think the collusion between the DNC, MSM, and Clinton campaign are just republican conspiracies? Do you think the pay to play policies of the Clinton Foundation were jokes?
I'm getting so tired with this nugget of "wisdom".
The problem people have with this is not with the content that was released or the fact that it was released all, what they are upset about is the fact that Russia set out to try to change the outcome of the US election through hacking and releasing any info they could find that would help a specific candidate.
Would it be cool if after 4 years of Trump messing with China, China started trying to hack the RNC to dig up their dirty laundry for all to see? I try not to say things like this because I do believe that people approach issues from all sort of different directions but honestly, how can any rational person think it's a good thing that a country that has gone out of its way to be adversarial to ourselves and the West has attempted to manipulate our elections in their favor?
Foreign interference in our elections, particularly as direct as this, is not okay under any standards.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
don't make a right. Speaking of our right (wing) we mostly meddled in those countries to keep Socialism from taking root. Hell, there was just a lovely little story on the Smithsonian (yeah, I know, liberal rag and all that) about how the media covered Mussolini & Hitler. It was almost exclusively favorable until the war started. They were pleased at Mussolini's "economic miracle" and how he reigned in the Socialists and called Hitler the German Mussolini.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The DNC is made up of American Citizens. You just asked for whom the bell tolls, asshat.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It funny that President Obama felt no need for retaliation when Hillary Clinton as SOS allow the tacit Russian Federation purchase of strategic resources like uranium mines in the US and Canada following healthy speaking fees for Bill and donations to the Clinton (crime) Foundation.
everyone knows the Republicans have a monopoly on hacking voting machines.
Jokes aside we Dems are used to having to win by a wide enough margin that shenanigans can't come into play. Oh, and Nice to see Obama playing dirty. It's about fucking time.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're damned right I'm outraged. The selection of our elected officials has been tainted through illegal and unethical methods.
It's not about Democrats vs. Republicans, it's about influencing elections and breaking the law with illegal access of private systems.
Regardless of who was behind Wikileaks documents related to US politics, they were almost entirely anti-Democrat. Anybody who thinks that Republicans don't have a comparable amount of dirty laundry is delusional. Why anyone would trust the veracity of these 'leaked" documents and the motivations of those responsible is beyond me.
I would think, however unlikely, that if the Russian government is not directly responsible, they should be highly motivated at this point to help bring those responsible to justice. There has to be some response and it has to be now because it is unlikely to occur after President Trump becomes our President.
There is a right way and a wrong way to fix the system. Breaking the law, being a traitor, and using unscrupulous means to win an election are lazy self-serving shortcuts that none of us should ever support.
As technical professionals, many of us have the capability of accessing private systems. Don't do it. It's illegal and unethical. If you want to change the system do it the right way through legal means, otherwise you become worse than those you oppose.
Greed is the root of all evil.
both a blessing and a curse.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
See, it's not the message that matters, it's the messenger. As once famously stated "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters." Tom Foley, Democrat, Former Speaker of the House. Truthfulness - or lack thereof - is inconsequential in this case. It's the fact that what should have been kept from the plebians became public knowledge, and in the minds of the Democrats that is the REAL crime. Unless it was a leak about a Republican. In which case leaking is A-OK.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Regardless of who was behind Wikileaks documents related to US politics, they were almost entirely anti-Democrat.
Like it's the RNC's fault that they weren't stupid enough to 1) hang an unsecured private MS Exchange server directly on the public Internet, 2) fall for a monumentally stupid phishing scam, and 3) use email to coordinate some stupefyingly shady shit (colluding with the media and vice-versa, screwing over Sanders and his voters, etc.)
I mean, come on... if the RNC had even thought of doing anything like any of that, you can bet your ass that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC... all of them would be announcing it from the rooftops and covering it ad nauseum the whole election.
Instead, all this stuff gets revealed about the DNC, and the majority of media in response pooh-poohs it, then keeps it as quiet as humanly possible.
Unless you're a frothing partisan, you cannot think that there's anything right about any of that kind of behavior.
And by the way, Anonymous (not Russia per se) and a leaker within the DNC were the ones behind it. Assange himself even said as much. Anonymous stated from the get-go that because of various shady doings by Clinton and her confederate Wasserman-Schulz (Sanders' fucking in the primaries being among those doings) that they would actively go after Clinton with everything they had.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Actually, the RNC wasn't hacked. Neither was Trump.
If they were, where's the proof (and no, some say-so from an unnamed source does not count. Show me a dropbox URL, or at least something similar.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That false perception will never be perpetuated as long as people are reminded that Obama was the initial instigator. Obama was a master of deflection having learned from Saul Alinsky well.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
"As a reminder, his response on Ukraine was basically wagging his finger at them, saying "bad Russia, bad boy" - no concrete action." Have you seen the Russian economy recently? The sanctions put on Russia are certainly biting. They just do a good job of hiding it.
Insightful? And what corruption DID they expose?
From what I recall all the fallout was was a lot of negative news about Clinton that amounted to nothing more than lower ratings in the polls but no actual meat.
The only useful thing to come out of the email dump was the risotto recipe along with the reason for mixing the rice in stages.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Do you think the pay to play policies of the Clinton Foundation were jokes?
Jokes? No. Daft conspiracy theories? Yes. Much more daft than for example Trump using his charitable foundation to pay off personal fines. Here's the thing that doesn't ring true about the professed reasons for voting Trump. Almost everything Hillary is accused of, Trump has done worse. That means that those professed reasons aren't the real ones, merely rationalisations.
I'm pretty sure I know what many of the real reasons for voting Trump over Clinton were.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I keep seeing a theme here in multiple threads. Are you a political intern?
Almost everything Hillary is accused of, Trump has done worse.
That's funny, I always thought it was the other way around simply because of the fact that Clinton has been in politics longer and had more opportunity to do all those things people are scared Trump might do. Silly me, here I thought actually doing something bad was worse than a 'what if' doing.
I was plenty outraged at foreign nations trying to influence the election - the Democrats have never taken steps to block foreign campaign donations, and the Clinton Foundation laundered millions in foreign donations to directly effect those in power - quid pro quo from the State department. But it all ended up OK, and Hillary Clinton will never be president.
BTW, both the DNC and RNC were hacked in about the same way - there just wasn't anything embarrassing about Trump that we didn't already know. Heck, 90% of the embarrassing things about Trump was stuff he said as a candidate!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You've missed my point completely, so I'll restate it.
Regardless of how stupid the Democrats were (and it's pretty breathtaking), it was illegal and unethical to access their private systems and spread biased and potentially untrue information.
Here is a simple analogy. If a neighbor leaves their doors unlocked, it's illegal and unethical to go into their home and take their stuff to prove a point about security, and then appoint yourself the moral police by showing the world their offensive porno collection you've stolen.
Greed is the root of all evil.
I'd guess that Japan drafting and passing a bill to legalise casinos in Japan for the first time almost immediately after Abe met Trump is one example, but more concrete evidence is going to take time.
As with some of your other stuff, it's a really stupid unanswerable question that is more a trick than a question. An honest question would be what has Trump done before that is corrupt (eg. the Cuban stuff etc) because we don't have a fucking clue what he is doing "right now" do we?
How about an honest discussion instead of pathetic tricks with "mass debating" shit?
I can be what ever you want me little buddy.
You are right, an honest question would be what has Trump done before that is corrupt but the comment I was responding to didn't make that distinction. That also is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that Trump is President-Elect.
It is murkey now because the way conflict of interest laws are set up to exclude the president. Are you a legal scholar that is going to educate us all on how Trump is breaking laws? We do know what he is doing right now; transitioning into power.
"pathetic tricks with 'mass debating' shit".. wtf does that mean? If you have a point of contention I have no problem discussing it. But you already said "high school debating shit is getting old"... so either fuck off or say something substantive. I don't care which but don't act like I forced you to make a stupid argument.
If the RNC internal documents show that they're giving away debate questions, or colluding against primary contestants to get their favored candidate in, or running corrupt charities to take foreign money in return for government failures, then I'm all for having them exposed, whether it is a Russian bear, a Nork kimchee, or even just a disgruntled insider.
Now, if the DNC internal docs had just shown say, motorcade schedules, and children's school addresses, or other sensitive information that didn't show corruption, Obama would have more of a leg to stand on. Instead, it looks like he's punishing the messenger to avoid the message.
You certainly live up to your name, UnknowingFool.
Turn off the news on Comedy Central and find some reliable news sources.
As much as I did not want Trump to win, it became obvious that it was Hillary who actually lost. The democrats need to clean their act first before blaming republicans. There was major indication for favoring a candidate during preliminaries, and possible leaking of debate questions to that particular candidate. It did not help that Hillary camp did not have any concrete policies and promises during the campaign. They were like an abstract vapour.
Literally giving debate questions away to the detriment of Bernie.
Literally taking gifts from foreigners for access to the Secretary of State.
Literally saying that she lied to the public, but told the truth to the bankers.
Perhaps none of that rises to the label of "corruption" for you, but by most accounts, those actions are at least immoral if not illegal.
I would add to this: 8 years ago Russia invaded a sovereign country, Georgia, and occupied part of its territory. What was one the first things Obama did after being elected? "Reset" the relations with Russia. What we have now are consequences of that reset. And another "reset" would be even graver mistake.
read the comical FBI report, some typical clueless people clicked on phishing email links that could have been sent by anyone.
Nevertheless, Obama's reset after what Russia did in Georgia in 2008 paved way to what Russia did next.
But compare those sanctions to what was promised in the Budapest Memorandum.
Silly me
Yes.
Let's pick a few. Clinton has been accused of being in favour of off shoring. Trump has actually engaged in offshoring.
Clinton has been accused of being in bed with big business. Trump is a card carrying member of big business.
Clinton has been accused of at best weakly substantiated claims of corruption with the foundation. Trump has been caught using his foundation to pay off personal fines.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
2016: Russia ruined the elections.
Which one is it? Romney predicted Russia would become a problem. Obama responded with a soundbite: The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back.
Which is it???
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
So which is it?
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
- Under some circumstances, a somewhat relaxed form of tit-for-tat, used by both sides (and with a low profile), leads to deescalation and stable boundaries.
- But under other circumstances and/or against a number of other strategies, it leads to escalation (and that leads to high-profile reportage of the ongoing conflict). If you limit yourself to ONLY tit-for-tat or a variation of it, the exponential rises into general war - and you've set up your opponent so he CAN'T back down and remain in power.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Is offshoring illegal?
Is being a card carrying member of big business illegal?
Is a politician using their position to be good bed fellows to big business illegal?
Clinton said she wanted open boarders. No accusation those were her words.
Which Foundation issue are you talking about, the millions in foreign donations that evaporated after the election from countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, or Clinton's Daughter using funds for a wedding, or using it as pay to play with Bill?
I know the Trump Foundation is still under investigation by the FBI which is why he can't dissolve it right now. I will form my opinion after the investigation.
Honestly, I am not a fan of Trump but I am not alone in thinking that he was better of the two choices. Some prefer a turd sand-which to a giant douche. At least you provided something more than mysterious 'what ifs'.
Cheers.
We already knew that before the hacks. Compared to the GOP, the DNC is only gently screwing us. Russia asymmetrically exposed the bullshit, and that's a problem. Information wars have been going on for some time and are more important.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
The US is not the Ukraine. Only fools think that we should cede control over which truths to reveal to foreign nations.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
bla bla bla
My gosh! What a load of crap! So unfortunate to see that people believe it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Do you really think Ukraine could have done anything against Russia? If Russia invaded Ukraine as you claim, Ukraine would now be under Russian jurisdiction. It's obvious Russia never invaded Ukraine.
As for Crimea, there was a referendum and considering Ukraine decided to ban Russian language and voted other anti-Russians policies, it's quite obvious no Russian would have wanted to stay in Ukraine. I live in Quebec, and you can be sure that if Canada decided to ban the French language, Quebec would leave Canada quite fast.
So no, Russia never invaded anything. On the other hand, not only it's kind of obvious the coup in Ukraine was supported by the US, but Russia did leak evidence showing the US controlled Ukraine's election after the coup.
Are you saying the mighty Ukrainian army was able to beat the weak Russian army?
Can you give me a list of those "significant" countries? Because it looks to me that what you call "the world" is quite small.
No, the U.S. CIA destabilized the Ukraine government, and Putin sent aide to autonomous Crimea to protect the majority, ethnic Russians. They joined Russia, big surprise there
they were the same thing. And Hitler just borrowed the word Socialist. I can call my self Grand Admiral Thrawn if I want but it doesn't mean I lead the Empire.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For example:
Nobody can answer that. It's a rhetorical trick that insults the intelligence of the reader.
It means I think you are an utter wanker spreading partisan noise and cowardly about it.
Hey, I'm a huge fan of campaign finance reform (although Clinton has not been accused of any criminal wrong doing in any of that) None of that makes what the Russians did alright though.
Also, the RNC being hacked is not universally agreed upon: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
And if say the RNC had been hacked the lack of releases is certainly not proof that everything is morally prestine with them. One could just as easily say that that is proof the hackers favored Trump as i find it highly unlikely that both parties dont have a good bit of dirty laundry tucked away.
As for Trump, he still has plenty to hide. How about those tax returns?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
According to Obama: a leak == a hack.
And because information, unflattering to Hillary, was leaked: that means the election was hacked.
What about Trump's Access Hollywood comments? I doubt Trump wanted those comments to be public. Clearly that recording was leaked - i.e. hacked.
well if we then have to vote for you or ur neighbor to be the leader of the country then i vote for you, since your neighbor can't be trusted with securing his home against trivial invasion.
The other fun part is that the US is not even trying to find out who walked out the the actual material.
"Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections"
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are,"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... 15 December 2016
"The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'"
The US faced another Pentagon papers event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and tried to make some code litter thats floating around the "net" look like it was not a very internal, domestic issue.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/... ...etc.etc... Waterbug X-Agent
I'm no expert in all this but is this the best they've got...?
Reported Russian Military and Civilian Intelligence Services (RIS)
Alternate Names
APT28 APT29 Agent.btz BlackEnergy V3 BlackEnergy2 APT CakeDuke Carberp CHOPSTICK
A list of "reported" Russian hackers? I'm not real impressed...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
This is silly. To imply that active left-democratic voters don't pretty much hate the DNC means you've never sat in a room with actual left-democrats. But after the primary it is a team sport, and even among left leaning democrats, most of us are adults, and realize that if we couldn't manage to pull the win out in the primary, we're not going to win a general on a third party ticket, even if we could agree on one.
To ask "how could you possibly support the Deomcratic Party after blah blah blah" is like asking "how could you possibly eat french fries after trans-fats when you are starving and the only two other things to eat are a pile of shit and a packet of calorie-free coffee creamer" It's a silly, silly question and the only reason to even ask it is to try to stoke more division on the democratic side of the isle.
Someone had to do it.
What part is not true: All US Intelligence agencies confirm that Russia was involved. Or Wikileaks which confirms Russia was involved. Seems like the only person who won't admit anything is you.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Or Wikileaks. Or the CIA. Or the NSA. But you know so much more than them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
They are currently being run by Obama political appointees. You do understand that, right?
Yes because everyone ever appointed to government will lie according to you. If Putin himself admits Russia was involved would you admit you were wrong or are you merely incapable.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In what way were they f*'ed over?
You're funny. Does the word "superdelegate" mean anything to you?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Clinton has been accused of being in bed with big business. Trump is a card carrying member of big business.
a) It's not illegal for business to be in bed with other businesses.
b) It damn well *is* illegal for a politician to be in bed with big business.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
b) It damn well *is* illegal for a politician to be in bed with big business.
Citation fucking needed.
You see, I'd like to know which statutes Trump iwill be breaking by keeping his extensive business empire while being president.
Right wing: it's only illegal if a democrat does it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Is offshoring illegal?
WTF? Are you simple? Who said anything about it being illegal?
Me: Clinton was accused of supporting offshoring, Trump actually DOES offshoring.
You: That's not illegal
So your strongest defense of Trump is that what he did isn't illegal? We have a case of people accusing Clinton literally supporting something Trump DOES and somehow this is an argument against Clinton anf for Trump.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just asking, because it isn't certain America has been decapitated yet. We need to wait for Trump to encounter an actual crisis to see how phucked we are.
Pointless comment, since "insight" on today's Slashdot means someone agrees with you (or has a sock puppet with mod points). My real disappointment was with the total lack of actually funny comments. My hopes were raised by such an active topic.
As regards the alternative explanations, I think there is only one that passes my threshold of plausibility: The Chinese framing the Russians. However it fails on the motive criterion. It is possible the Chinese have the technical means to make it look like the Russians, and both had the opportunity, but the Chinese are doing well enough under the status quo and lack the motive to decapitate America. Haven't made up my mind about the anti-Hillary angle attributed to Putin, but again it appears the Chinese were looking forward to working with her in a relatively predictable way. Then again, the Chinese are capable of 3D chess, so maybe something will come up to reveal a motive?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
for example, corruption is the stuff trump is doing RIGHT NOW to enrich himself and his businesses off his newfound position.
What is he doing RIGHT NOW that is corrupt?
Nobody can answer that. It's a rhetorical trick that insults the intelligence of the reader.
Did you just read my post without reading the parent post?
It means I think you are an utter wanker spreading partisan noise and cowardly about it.
lol, neat. Sure thing buddy. Any disagreement is just wankers spreading partisan noise because muh feels. Not sure how I am partisan when I criticize Trump and GOP for doing things I don't like. How do I disagree with you and others without being a wanker spreading partisan noise? Please enlighten me oh little buddy.
For calling me a wanker you sure are acting like a twat. Maybe I should grab you to get the juices flowing a bit better. ;)
Illegal things are what society uses to judge behavior. If it is illegal the morality of that behavior is suspect. If it is a behavior that everyone does, it isn't something that we should be used to criticize.
When it comes to the offshoring, everyone does it and something similar i.e. take advantage of the laws to their benefit like tax breaks. I don't see how that is a valid criticism when everyone does something to the same effect. It is a very small minority that willingly pay more than they have to and we shouldn't use that minority as the base to decide scorn because we should nearly all be scorned.
Really, aside from the Trump foundation thing, the things you listed weren't illegal things that everyone in that position does. At least he says he uses it (letting everyone know people like him get that advantage) and he wants to change that (which is a promise that evaporates faster than a fart in the wind butts aside). There are plenty of things to criticize things Trump for and using behaviors that everyone does (take advantage of the laws to their benefit) that is not illegal that the law was set up to be used is not a good basis to lay criticism.
The difference between the offshoring and the " a politician using their position to be good bed fellows to big business " should be apparent besides the legality. It is everyday that business use offshoring because of free trade and globalization. It should not be every day that politician use their position to be good bed fellows to big business.
If the media was in the bag for Clinton, why was there so much coverage of EMAILS BENGHAZI and so little of Trump's actual conflicts of interest? Even now, the coverage is mostly of jobs announcements that don't have anything to do with Trump's election and whatever crazy tweet he made at 6am.
There have been many posts in this thread that claim there was no conclusive evidence to support Obama's claims re: the Russian hacking. That is simply not true. Below is a link the the report from the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) with a detailed forensic analysis that clearly identifies the source as Russian intelligence services. The are planning to release an even more detailed report very soon.
https://assets.documentcloud.o...
... Clinton has been accused of being in bed with big business. Trump is a card carrying member of big business. ...
Set a thief to catch a thief ?? ;-)
You're ignoring all the other stuff they found. Side from giving Burnie the shaft, there's espionage. There's illegal fund raising by people that don't like us. There's outright lies they had the press publish, such as Trump is against well fill in the blank. Gays, Blacks, Women, foreigners, if they missed something dear to you, just let them know, they'll include it next time. Facts show he came to the aid of the gays in the Pulse club while Obama could barely be dragged off the golf course to even think about it. There is no evidence he's racist, he's married to a foreigner so that's crap, Miss America and so on for women. Yet dumb people believed it. Still believe it. Too stupid to think about it, even if it's pointed out to them.
What did he say/do that was racist, against women, gays... and so on? NOTHING.
Never the less, we know Russia had nothing to do with it. Assange told us, he knows. This is stupid from a despot.
For such a lame duck to do this right now, seems like pissing in the wind. It won't help his legacy, probably will end up hurting it as a stupid reaction.
I'm not seeing anything definitive. They specify a few handles, and that the Russians Intelligence Service (RIS) knows about spear phishing and other attacks that are usually taught in the first cybersecurity courses. Most nations know about this stuff to. I think all Federal agencies teach their workers about spear phishing and such. I'm not impressed.
Maybe I missed it? Did something impress you in the report?
The inflation that has not happened yet because the economy has not yet really gone to shit (and hopefully will never get that bad). There's plenty of examples with Zimbabwe being a very recent one. In Zimbabwe the escape hatch was a foreign currency. With China people worried about a currency crash are buying up property in other countries as their escape hatch. Gold was a way out once but the gold price varies so much over time (it may crash along with the dollar), as well as there being tight controls on gold almost everywhere. A stash of cash might help since the US dollar isn't just used in the USA, but in other places it's just ended up as worthless paper when an economy crashes.
I'm not in the USA and some economists are predicting a 50% drop in currency value here if a few things happen with local interest rates versus others overseas. A stash of cash doesn't sound so good in that situation and other places have had it a lot worse.
If Putin himself admits Russia was involved would you admit you were wrong or are you merely incapable.
I suppose I would also have to apologize to you if it turns out that alien unicorns were involved, right?
The DNC emails were an inside leak by disgruntled liberal Bernie supporters fed up with the Clinton Machine's corruption. Podesta's emails came out after he fell for a script-kiddie grade phishing attack and his credentials were handed over to whoever phished. No emails were altered, the keys were intact. No "hacking of the election" took place, just email leaks. Putin laughs and says he didn't do it, and Wikileaks says they didn't get anything from any Russian sources.
But you're going to keep asking me if I'm ready to admit something something Putin something something.
I'm guessing you must have fallen for a phishing scheme yourself, once, and are still sore about it, and want to blame it on a sophisticated state entity to distract yourself. That's pretty much the DNC/Podesta strategy - and it seems to be working on you. Anything they can do to distract from how corrupt and disingenuous they are, as shown in their own emailed words, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What are you trying to say, that what was in the emails were lies? That the collusion between the DNC, MSM, and Clinton campaign were manufactured scandals that caused people to resign and lose their jobs?
Have you actually read those emails? Can you come up with some actual quotes from the emails that prove what you are claiming? What I am saying is that so far I have not seen any actual quotes that are in any way damning.
I am confused. So far the DNC and Clinton has acted like that what was in the emails were true. Is there any reason to believe that what is in the emails are manufactured?
Well, I have seen reports that according to the DNC some of the emails were altered in some crucial ways, but they wisely decided that that would not convince anybody because that doesn't fit in a Twitter message.
Yes, i have read a number of the emails. Others have done a better job at showing what was in there. Like this There are also the emails about the collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign. Colluding like who will be the Pied Piper during the Primaries to get the weakest perceived GOP candidate that Clinton could win (guess who that was) against. Or how media outlets would send their articles to get Clinton Stamp of Approval.
DNC some of the emails were altered in some crucial ways
First time I have heard of this but from the response of the DNC, clintons, media, DKIM validation, etc it seems they are legitimate. Why is it no one talks about them being altered if they were and everyone acting like they are legit?
I suppose I would also have to apologize to you if it turns out that alien unicorns were involved, right?
Show me an alien unicorn. The difference between you and me is that you'll still be in denial.
The DNC emails were an inside leak by disgruntled liberal Bernie supporters fed up with the Clinton Machine's corruption. Podesta's emails came out after he fell for a script-kiddie grade phishing attack and his credentials were handed over to whoever phished. No emails were altered, the keys were intact. No "hacking of the election" took place, just email leaks. Putin laughs and says he didn't do it, and Wikileaks says they didn't get anything from any Russian sources.
[Citation Needed]
But you're going to keep asking me if I'm ready to admit something something Putin something something.
Again if Putin admitted it, would you still deny it? Maybe that says something about you.
I'm guessing you must have fallen for a phishing scheme yourself, once, and are still sore about it, and want to blame it on a sophisticated state entity to distract yourself. That's pretty much the DNC/Podesta strategy - and it seems to be working on you. Anything they can do to distract from how corrupt and disingenuous they are, as shown in their own emailed words, right?
Is this your way of deflecting your own insecurities and denials? The question is simple and you still haven't answered it: If Putin admits Russia was involved, would you accept that you were just flat out wrong?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If the Russians affected the election outcome, then why can't we do another election?
Where's the evidence??? Which Electoral College members were affected?
Perhaps this 'cyber activity' on the part of the Russians is just 'standard' stuff from them. Like the 'standard' stuff the USA does to all other global states - including Russia.
How about all the meddling, covert and otherwise, the USA does to interfere with other governments?
Is this not the kettle calling the pot "black"?
Is it not that it is corporations that are behind all this crap anyway?!?!?!
How about we citizens actually STAND UP and DENY these corporations all this power?
Perhaps these corporations are actually making it look like Russia?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
If Putin wanted a puppet in the White House who would be incompetent and allow him to do whatever he wanted, all he had to do was contribute to the Clinton Foundation and support Hillary.
Yeah, yeah, funny line for the late night comics, but the US has also pushed for sanctions that have crippled the Russian economy and greatly expanded oil developments and backing other countries' efforts to do the same, causing oil prices to crash and further wrecking Russian finances as well a Venezuela's as a bonus.
Obama's foreign policy had few real teeth, but they were hardly complicit with the Russians. But Putin detests Hillary Clinton, and has ever since she cast doubts on the legitimacy of his 2011 election. He's wanted to her out ever since then and has made no bones about it. Not only that, but now that he has a real ally in the White House, not to mention a real buddy as Secretary of State, and that's a huge upgrade from Putin's perspective over Hillary. He doesn't HAVE to scrape together minor victories in his quest to make Russia the dominant power, he has someone to actively collaborate with.
This is apparently discourse in the 21st century.
Here's the magical thing about Trump compared to Hillary: Trump won't be able to blow his nose without the press reporting on it. They won't give him an inch
The press? You think he's going to give a shit about the press? They can report indiscretions as accurately as they like -- he's just not going to care. And his supporters won't care either. Donald Trump has, for years now, told absolute bold lies, and anyone who naysays him is the liar, the puppet, and the loser. And look where he is now. He lies and he lies big, and he apologizes for nothing. And the Trump-lovers like him like that.
Can you give me a list of those "significant" countries? Because it looks to me that what you call "the world" is quite small.
You're not forgetting Poland again, are you??
In 2003, the United State of American invaded two sovereign countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and occupied them.
Afghanistan attacked the US, making that quite clear when they refused to give up Bin Laden. The Afghanistan invasion was entirely justified and was supported by the international community. None of the territory of Afghanistan became part of the United States.
I can't defend the invasion of Iraq though. It was based on bad intelligence and the Bush administration's willful cherry-picking of intelligence to fit the narrative they already wanted to believe. Yet even with that, no territory of Iraq has become part of the United States.
Russia invaded Ukraine for the purpose of seizing territory permanently.
You mean when they voted overwhelmingly to leave and were welcomed with open arms?
You mean the vote that the Russians oversaw in an occupied zone, then announced their own numbers anyway?
Yes because everyone ever appointed to government will lie according to you. If Putin himself admits Russia was involved would you admit you were wrong or are you merely incapable.
Some people still think Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 even though he eventually released a tape admitting it was more successful than they had planned.
Remind me again about "yellow cake" outrage?
Doubts about the yellow cake came early, with investigations by both the CIA and the State Department finding the yellow cake documents to be forgery. The IAEA also judged the documents to be false. That didn't stop Colin Powell from giving his little speech at the UN (which killed his career) or GWB from slipping it into the 2003 State of the Union address.
The impotent morons running the Republican side in congress (McConnell with Boehner, then Ryan) have been too scared to do anything to stop him
Are you talking about some bizarro version of the US? Aside from that over-compromised crap of Obamacare, what exactly has he been able to get through? Were you asleep when Congress blocked every move, going so far as to leave a Supreme Court vacancy for a year?
You showed me!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^3
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Bad news for you, many here work in advanced IT security. That report is an amateur level cut and paste job. It proves nothing about the origin of the phishing attacks. Let's remember what the U.S. intelligence community does, spreading propaganda to destabilize governments and inciting wars and riots while spying on U.S. citizens. They are a den of lying snakes.
In fairness, Obama and the CIA were smack in the middle of the Ukraine situation and is what initiated the Russian response. The same is also true for Syria.
In fairness, only Russian propoganda tries to claim what you stated as fact. The whole rest of the world sees the claim that the CIA was behind anything in Ukraine as the paranoid ravings of crazy people.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Are you calling Putin a liar?
https://www.google.com/search?...
He has come out and admitted that they invaded Crimea to force a favorable vote so they could seize the territory of anouther country.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?