Slashdot Mirror
US Releases Declassified Report On Russian Hacking, Concludes That Putin 'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has released its unclassified report on Russian hacking operations in the United States. "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," according to the report. "Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." The report, titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," details the successful hack of the Democratic National Committee. "The Kremlin's campaign aimed at the U.S. election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations; intrusions into U.S. state and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda," according to the report. The report states that Russian intelligence services made cyber-attacks against "both major U.S. political parties" to influence the 2016 election. The report also publicly names Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com, two sources of stolen information released to the public, as Russian operatives working on behalf of the country's military intelligence unit, the GRU. Officials from the organization were recently the target of U.S. sanctions. WikiLeaks is also cited as a recipient of stolen information. The report also notes that the U.S. has determined Russia "accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards," though no vote-tallying processes were tampered with. The FBI and CIA have "high confidence" the election tampering was ordered by Putin to help then-candidate Trump, according to the report. NSA has "moderate confidence" in the assessment.
bongey writes: The declassified DNI report offers no direct evidence of Russia hacking DNC or Podesta emails. Exactly half of the report (subtract blank and TOC) 9 of 18 is just devoted to going after RT.com by claiming they have close ties to Russia and therefore a propaganda arm, trying to imply that rt.com is related to the hacking. "Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts -- including specific cyber operations -- and Russian views of key U.S. players derive from multiple corroborating sources. Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlin loyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin."
UPDATE 1/6/17: President-elect Donald Trump met with U.S. intelligence officials Friday, calling the meeting "constructive" and offering praise for intel officials. "While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines," Trump said in a statement after the meeting.
Would be Obama/Clinton, given the number of "red lines" enacted and withdrawn.
'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump? Wow, I never thought the US people and Putin could have so much in common.
Also in the report, note there there is no evidence, no claim, and not even a suggestion that the election was hacked. Not a vote was changed, not a voting machine infected, nor even the voter registrations modified.
This is in contrary to the majority of of Democrats that now believe Trump was only elected because Russia hacked the vote tallies. More Democrats believe this than Republicans believed Obama as a Muslim, or even than Democrats believed that Bush lost the 2000 election.
So, no, the election was not hacked, by anyone. During the 18 month campaign, Russia tricked and DNC idiot into falling for a phishing email, and got anti-American website WikiLeaks to publish it all. Embarrassing, but not a major event at all.
Who's been more successful undermining the populace's faith in the process, the Russians, or {Jill Stein, the Democrats, the MSM, left wing organizations}?
TL;DR:
- Russia wanted the candidate who didn't want to start WW3 to win
- The wikileaks emails were all real
- Russia didn't hack the election
- The Russian propaganda network dispensed Russian propaganda
I seem to remember the Obama administration had a preference against Brexit and Netin-yahoo...
"Russia, if you're listening..."
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
. . . there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines. . .
Why bother with the voting machines when you can tamper with the voters?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Democratically elected president of Russia - Not allowed to like one candidate over another
Absolute monarchist King of Arabia - Giving millions to one candidate's campaign is just totally cool.
Let's compare/contrast the historical veracity of information released by Assange/WikiLeaks with that of any US intelligence service, shall we?
One has an impeccable record of authenticity, while the other is run by documented liars. In fact, both Brennan and Clapper sat before Congress and bald-faced LIED when asked about the existence and activities of the NSA's domestic spying apparatus.
The better question would be: Why would anyone in their right mind not believe Assange over the Liar McPantsonFires in Washington DC?
"While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines," Trump said in a statement after the meeting.
OMG! That seems like an actual, complete sentence with a coherent message from Trump!
"... there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines," Trump said in a statement after the meeting.
It's important to remember that Donald Trump apparently has no technical knowledge, so him saying that is at most a report of what he was told by people who want him to approve of them.
It's not as if Trump will get unelected or nuking the Kreml would help anyone. Putin got a little slap on the wrist and US authorities and party officials will hopefully secure their machines better in future. Now the world can move on.
I've never heard of one. Anyone else?
... so the Russians influenced the elections in Trumps favor by exposing only true facts about the Hillary campaign?
Hard to find something wrong with that.
And still doubtful the US intelligence service suddenly knows where the leak originated from.
Lots of BS to hide the fact that both Hillary and Trump are corrupt 'leaders' who should be put in jail, next to drone-mass-murderer Obama.
Bah, these politicians make me sick!
Just a reminder that the US government are proven liars. They lied all through the 1950s about the Middle East and Iran, They lied their arses about Vietnam. They lied about not supporting South American dictators. They lied about the Contras. And when came to WMD they even lied to themselves and then fabricated evidence to prove their own BS. Up until 1973, when they were found out, they even paid reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post to print fake news. This is an incredible but true fact. Well documented. It's amazing stuff. And they always get away with it. Heck, go back to the 1800s, the Philippine war or the Spanish-America war. They were even printing fake news back then. It never ends.
California suffers from numerous problems. 1. Illegal voters 2. Voter intimidation 3. Voter depression
Are those three things enough to make up for the difference in votes? We don't have a way to measure those things accurately, but they surely played a big role. I work in SF, and the majority of the people I discussed politics with either didn't vote or voted Trump. The majority of the non-voters were afraid to vote Trump for fear of being blackballed.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
How does what Russia is accused of differ from the Obama administration influencing the Israeli presidential election by giving over $300k to groups acting against Netanyahu?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Yes, of course, he meant Electoral College. The US has been electing Presidents via the institutions from the very beginning.
How many of them voting illegally?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Democrats: "Whaaa, Russia tried to cheat by revealing that we were actually cheating".
It is a lot harder for a single person (someone who follows the right-wing philosophy) to manufacture a nuclear bomb, than a UNION of people (those who follow the left-wing philosophy). If Putin did have some influence in making Donald Trump the President of America, I say good on him.
Who the hell is bongey, and why does he get his own editorial section? The editors are fucking trolling us here, this post is explicitly crafted to be flame bait.
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes it quite clear that the popular vote is irrelevant when it comes to electing the President.
See the parts where it says "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President ..." and "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President ...".
The Electors' votes matters. The popular vote does not.
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that whatever point you're trying to make (be it mockery or otherwise) with the popular vote is irrelevant, pointless, and not worthy of consideration.
especially without qualification.
I might believe this report over Assange because he had a very clear motive to make sure Hilary Clinton didn't get elected. Her dislike for him (and Snowden) was well documented).
And you'd be a fool if you didn't believe Russia preferred Trump over Hilary. Trump has been pro-Russia all along and has millions (billions?) to gain from his business interests by supporting them. The real question is, do American interests align with Russia. If the answer is yes, by all means, believe Trump and his ilk. Otherwise, well, Houston, we have a problem...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Like it or not, the perception of the incoming president as Putin's lapdog is going to stick. You cannot wipe off the stink at this point. In the history books, Donald J Trump is going to have an asterisk after his name, and the image of #RussianDon cuddling up to Vladimir Putin is forever.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The NSA said it has moderate confidence or about 50% that it was the Russians. So for nearly the same probability of flipping a coin, 35 diplomats were kicked out and 2 Russian sites that have been open since the 1970s were closed down.
The NSA opinion holds vastly more weight related to hacking because the NSA are the hacking experts, the FBI/CIA are doing political guessing.
The FBI changed there opinion on the CIAs information. Considering the former CIA head came out for Clinton and the current head John Brennan spoke out against Trump. Both the CIA/FBI ended with highly confident, sure not political at all, wink, wink.
I will trust the NSA over the CIA/FBI.
Did the intel agencies do a forensic investigation of the computers in question? The laptops, the servers/workstations/PDA's?
If this is anything other than a dopey fish/web forgery I'd think we'd need to know what malware they have identified. How
classified can this information be if it's on those machines? If you believe Comey, the HRC mail server underwent a much more
thorough inspection with the assertion that no malware was indicated. Talk is cheap, show me the code.
Hillary lost the election, not because of the Russians but because she's an evil bitch. Period.
Did you count that without those other states California could not be self sufficient? California imports fuel, electricity, water, agricultural products like fertilizer and agriculture equipment, meat products and the like. In fact, California imports so much that it might be better to say that California is a net debtor state.
.. "absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election".
Fuck you, you,spoiled little lying rich sexual sexual predator.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
So far US government has utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence to support it's assertions. Yet another worthless mostly off-topic 13 page document crying about success of foreign propaganda rather than supporting any of it's positions with evidence.
Everyone knows what "RT" is. It's no secret to anyone who isn't living under a rock why they exist and what they do any more than it's no secret why VOA/CNN exist.
All I've seen on CNN the past few weeks is... Wikileaks is an agent of Russia, Wikileaks stole information, Assange is wanted for rape, Assange rapes little girls and persistently pathetic stories of low morale and despair among TLAs because Trump won't listen to them.... WAHHHHHHH.
Do I trust US intel to provide truthful and accurate "assessments" to the public? After curveball's mobile production facilities, aluminum tubes and Uranium (dramatic pause) from Africa do you really need to ask?
This whole thing is just laughable. We've gone over the technical evidence and it's really bad. But they do nothing to justify their other random conclusions.
So we now have the idiot Left telling us we can trust Clapper & co. based on secret evidence that Russia might have... online trolls? Oh, but never mind Correct the Record's self-described "nerd virgins." Or is it because Julian didn't refuse Russian interviews, never mind that he's been doing lots of interviews with many outlets for many years now? The whole report is simply moronic. It's not even a good effort. It's aimed at people who just read headlines from media who rarely ever link to one lest you find all the ways they're lying.
But in the report, we obviously don't care about all the money funneled by Saudi Arabia & Qatar to the Clinton Foundation. No, that would never influence a candidate. And it's not like those states have anything to do with funding Islamic terrorists, like that guy who murdered a Russian diplomat. Yes, we're very confused as to why one of the "moderate" Islamic terrorists Hillary & co. were supporting in Syria would be a callous murderer.
Please do keep on informing us so well, media. We clearly haven't figured out how to research things ourselves from primary sources. Please do keep telling us about how we get all our info from idiot Macedonian clickbait sites we've never even seen before. It's really convincing when we can read your own damn emails on our own and find out about Glen "because I have become a hack" Thrush and the WaPo party and Donna "I get the questions in advance" Brazille. Good thing I don't watch CNN, or I'd think that it was illegal to read Wikileaks. I'm guessing Cuomo is as good at law as he was at math.
You LOSE soros loser. Quit cryin bitch! Trump's bringing back jobs before he's in office not taking a day off. So shut your crony winbag sycophant. You LOSE! Your European union is going down too. You are losing everywhere globaloid. You needed to be destroyed GLOBALOID!
'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump? Wow, I never thought the US people and Putin could have so much in common.
Actually, the majority of voters preferred Clinton. :)
Thanks Electoral College. /s
Where's the Beef? Here is the Declassified version of the U.S. Intelligence Report regarding Russia.
https://www.dni.gov/files/docu...
You know, the one cited for proof of undermining the U.S. election process. Well, I've read it, and I will sum it up with the following:
TOTAL BUNK...
Just some highlights...
"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order"
This was funny, so they're only focused on undermining the liberal democratic order, conservatives and libertarians - YOU ARE SAFE!
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him."
The fact that statement is made, shows that this entire intelligence review is utter BS and mere politics. There is NO reason for Russia to be supporting Trump, and the actions could have just as easily benefited Bernie Sanders. If they were to accuse Russia of a motive, it would be to prevent Hillary being elected. Nothing to do with her competitors.
"When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election" Really, cause the appearances and statements across U.S. media was that this was an apparent given that Hillary would win and be our next president. This was de facto for a year or more.
I saw in another article that they had record of Russian officials celebrating upon Trump's win. And clearly this means they were for Trump. Bogus. I didn't want Trump, but I was happy to not have Hillary. And I believe the Russians simply did NOT want Hillary - for good reason.
"Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences."
Which has zero affect on U.S. populace. Really, so what...we have tons of evidence that the mainstream media was a propaganda machine for Hillary which went so far as to rigged debates and more.
"Kremlin’s TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US" Really? How many American's were watching Kremlin TV?
Basically, this report is Russian media outlets denigrated Hillary, while U.S. media outlets denigrated Bernie and Trump. And it's only okay for foreign media to denigrate Trump, not Hillary.
"Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as US-directed efforts to defame Russia, suggesting he sought to use disclosures to discredit the image of the United States and cast it as hypocritical."
HE IS RIGHT, IT WAS!!!
Do I doubt Russia has hacked U.S. systems. Not one bit. Every government is doing it. Though few at the level the U.S. is. We've conducted more hacking and election affecting than every other country in the world has combined. So threatening military action and retaliation is not only hypocritical, it's ludicrously insane.
Gee, so per the document Russia has had agents involved in monitoring the election process since the Carter days. Of course they do. So do we. Of course they're going to want to have insight into who will be the head of their largest rival. Duh... nothing to see here, go home.
"Russia Times aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations."
Um, ya...seems like the truth to me.
So far as I read this, it pretty much appears to be 25 pages going thru decades of Russia and U.S. opposing opinions and expressions. Well duh...we did have a cold war. And even after it's pretty much been lukewarm. So none of this crap is evidence for U.S. claims being made against Russia currently.
At
So there was nothing there to contradict Julian Assange on his claims about Podesta's files.
There were claims that he is linked to Russia because of interviews on RT, that's half correct. It is a link to Russia, but that's also very thin. Media companies will give space to whatever fits their agenda. Now he is linked to Fox too. In the past he was linked to NYT and The Guardian. It seems he has his own agenda and uses every opportunity to be listened (he sat down with the Fox News guy that asked for his arrest for "wagging war against the US").
He has a 10 years perfect record as a publisher. The intelligence agencies don't directly contradict him. The MSM resorts to mixing parts of the agencies/POTUS's claims to give the impression that he may be lying. One guy claimed that there was one fabricated email on the set, he was caught lying, there was cryptographic proof of the authenticity of the email. But somehow we still see people doubting him and thinking we should trust the officials.
James Clapper lied about U.S. cybersecurity. James Clapper is the U.S. Director of National Intelligence. He resigned.
Two big issues:
1) If he feels comfortable lying, can anything he says be considered to be reliable?
2) He is 75 years old. Photos of him give the impression he is extremely conflicted. (See the resignation story.) Does he have any technical knowledge?
There is the possibility that everything that has been said is manipulated nonsense. Apparently NONE of the authors of the stories have investigated the depth of technical knowledge of ANYONE. There is no depth to any of the stories.
Your choice.
Round 2, this time a *25* page report from the "U.S. intelligence community" (nearly twice as big as last week's FBI/DHS joint 13 page report) claiming that the Russians hacked our election.
Oh, and it also contains *no* proof. Zero. None. Not even a little bit of proof. Nada. Zip.
But that's ok, we don't need no steekin' proof.
Right?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
Not lost anything yet, and I wont lose anything. DumbfuckTrumplthinskins are whining everywhere when their own tactics are used agaist them. Just wait, they will whine far more when they realise what a useless self enriching cunt Trump is.
Going to be fun watching the fat inbred morons intears in a few years.
When I switched from Dem to RepublicanTrumpocrat last year I never would've believed the view of the other side wouldn't change at all.
"Obama's a gun-grabbing tyrant who's gonna round up all the tea partiers and herd them into FEMA death camps! Just wait and see!"
"Trump's a racist misogynist whateverelseist who's gonna round up the muslims and herd them into death camps! Just wait and see!"
DumbfuckTrumplthinskins
M'kay, you're trying way too hard right now and it's showing. Sad!
Remember back before we knew the NSA was listening to everybody's packets and phone calls we would get declassified reports that were vague with statements that were essentially backed up with "trust us." Thing is we will not know because they will not declassify it and if it is political we can't tell and if it is 100% supported by proof they will not disclose that evidence. They will not even give evidence that leaks to the sources possibly how they collected it.
Remember North Korea? people were claiming BS politics on that until Obama announced/declassified we were into their computers and that is how we knew. We allowed the Sony hack because why would we stop them? We at least logged their actions. Giving away our secret just to help Sony? Forget that! Many people died in WW2 to avoid leaking we knew. Obama shouldn't have leaked just to shut up critics.
Instead of Trumptards preaching for the USA to harm itself, they need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that we should be galvanized against foreign influences in our elections. We should have expected it and prepared... but idiotically we don't despite the fact we do it to other countries. Obviously, you can't counter most of it without educating the public properly so they can THINK critically and not support our crappy media as well as reform the election system (instant run off; paper ballots; human counted - with checks) and campaign finance system is foobar -- foreign powers have unlimited access (even thru the US chamber of commerce!) Frankly, without limiting how much power a small group can acquire you can't make a system that can stand for long. "The Balance of Powers" must extend much further.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Another government expressed a clear preference for a presidential candidate? For example, like Merkel and most other European leaders expressed a clear preference for Hillary? Like the Norwegian Nobel Prize committee interfered in US politics by awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? Like those kinds of "clear preferences"?
Or, for that matter, like the US government has not just expressed "clear preferences" for candidates in various democratic elections around the world, it has supplied money, secret information, and even weapons in order to influence foreign elections.
Folks, this sort of thing is what countries do. And what Russia did in this election, which is to let people know their viewpoints and leak some stupid stuff Democrats did, is pretty benign stuff. In fact, I'm quite happy we got to see the kind of crap the DNC was pulling behind the scenes; it certainly did influence me, and I'm not apologetic about that.
All you need to provide at the polling station is a name and address. It is illegal to ask people for ID in California, and I know of several polling stations (publicized on 870AM LA morning show) who chastised people who volunteered ID.
This is why it's so hard to prove voter fraud, especially in places that refuse to implement a requirement for ID at polling stations.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Putin preferred the candidate that didn't promise to shoot Russian planes out of the sky over Syria.
Truely shocking. It is shocking, shocking news.
In the interest of fairness, and to prevent any possibility of foreign intelligence from ever effecting another election, from now on until forever the NSA will hack ALL political parties and post their emails on the internet. Every backroom deal, every bribe, every secret occultic meeting (looking at you pizzagate) with be secretly recorded and posted on the internet. We must burn the village to save it. This will also create a lot of government jobs.
One thing is perfectly clear. The Democrats would be perfectly justified in blocking any Trump Supreme Court Nominee. The Republicans said they were waiting for the American people to speak. They did by giving Clinton about 2.9 MILLION votes more than Trump. While he was elected by the Electoral College, it's clear the American people preferred Clinton. The people have spoken and Trump has no mandate to choose any Supreme Court justices. Of course, if the Republicans had any respect for the Constitution, they would have given due consideration to Obama's court nominee since he was president at the time of Scalia's death and constitutionally required to nominate a SC justice, and the Senate constitutionally required to consider Obama's nominee. Since the Republican Senate majority disregarded the Constitution they all swore to defend and protect, the Democrats in the Senate would be in accordance with both the Constitution and the majority of Americans and, interestingly, the Republican precident, in blocking any Trump nominee until a majority of American voters agreed with the Electoral College.
> You're only getting the public portion of the report, the part that doesn't compromise methods.
I have secret evidence that your secret evidence is completely bogus. This same secret evidence also indicates that you secretly wet the bed last night. And 20 organizations have signed off on it. Secretly. So it must be true! Unnamed high-level sources will gladly confirm this to any credulous media outlets that ask me about it. So you can't dispute it, just trust the experts. We have top men working on it right now. Top men. ~
See, it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on them. You can't be rational and still accept things based on secret, unverifiable evidence. The US public did this already and paid for it with stupid wars. You all were worried about fake news, but it's A-OK to start another lie-based war with secret evidence? Oh, and let's do that with a nuclear power this time. That's *really* good for the environment.... right?
I've seen the public evidence. The Russian state does not need to use ancient versions of P.A.S. Tor exit nodes are not evidence that Russia did anything. This isn't what nation state level hacking looks like to begin with and we do know that thanks to what we saw from the Belgacom hacks, from the leaks of the NSA's Tao catalog, or even the evaluation of Stuxnet.
If they were any good, they'd have been the ones to tell us that malware was an old version of P.A.S. All that took was someone googling, so what "sources and methods" would that have compromised? If they miss something that utterly basic, how can we trust the rest of the secret report of secret evidence from known liars? Why didn't they report that most of those IPs were Tor exit nodes?
It's supposed to be "trust, but verify" anyhow, not just "trust us." And I've done the verification on this one. This is a snow job.
I'm not dumb enough to fall for it. Are you?
the claim (in the report) that Putin dislikes Hillary because.... [wait for it, it's a doozy!] ... Hillary and Obama interfered in Putin's election.
ha ha ha ha
Obamabots and Hillary sycophants cannot have it both ways. Either the report is bogus as many on the right believe given how completely Obama politicized the executive branch, OR the report is accurate and Putin was seeking revenge for Hillary and Obama trying to hack Putin.
IF Hillary and Obama tried to hack Putin's election, and IF as so many from the Democrat party now insist, such a hack attempt is an act of war, THEN the natural conclusion is that Hillary and Obama tried to ignite a war against Russia and they are now outraged that he hit back without actually firing real bullets.
Which is it, progressives?
Actually, if you look at the full load of garbage, you see the case is remarkably thin:
Assange has been interviewed on RT, so he's a Russian stooge. Funny thing: One of America's most famous interviewers (Larry King) has done an interview show on RT and interviewd a bunch of people including some Democrats. RT is a pro-Russia propaganda site, but doing an interview there does not make you a stooge. Al Gore sold his media business to Al Jazeera. Is he an Arab stooge? (this is 1950s-style guillt-by-association)
Some Russian officials celebrated Trump's victory, so they must have cause it. That's odd. Trump was not MY guy, but I celebrated his victory for the degree to which it drove his opponents (in BOTH parties) into foaming-at-the-mouth insanity. Does this (celebrating the victory) make ME responsible for the hacks?!?!?!?
Russian IP addresses? Ha! How many cyber criminals route their activity through Russian servers precisely to avoid US law enforcement???
Fake news that MIGHT have influenced public opinion? Ha ha ha, I've been watching the cascade of fake news from the likes of CBS and NBC for decades. NBC once blew-up a pickup truck (rigged it with explosives) to show how dangerous its gas tank was. Nearly every media outlet in the US insisted Trump had little or no path to even 270 electoral votes - but he somehow ended up over 300 with ZERO evidence of any pro-Trump vote tampering. What about the "fake news" of mainstream news outlets NOT reporting on the contents of the Wikileaks dumps and thereby helping team Hillary present herself with a totally fake image??? (the fake Hillary image was intended affect the voters by tricking them into thinking she was ethical). In fact, simply reporting that "Russia hacked the election" is FAKE NEWS! There is ZERO evidence that Russia hacked ANY election machines etc, what's alleged is that they guessed tricked John Podesta into surrendering access to his e-mail account and thus allowed the public to learn the truth about Hillary and the DNC.... that's it. A phishing, not even a hack, and of a party NOT an election.
The only account they have on Twitter is the one that mirrors the organization's name.
That belligerent bitch would've been the worst.
I had a clear preference for Trump too! Does that mean i was part of the hacking effort?
You're suggesting that people read a book by a professional liar to mitigate their skepticism of lies currently being told by a guy who's on record lying under oath before Congress?
Has the world gone completely insane?
> "Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."
Sounds like someone is a bit butthurt, considering DNC was doing the exact same thing to Bernie Sanders, and it didn't quite work out as expected in the end. Come to think of it, it's actually ironic, that if DNC didn't sabotage Bernie, there would be no emails to leak, so there would be much less leverage in the alleged attempt to influence the elections, by exposing DNC's dirty laundry. So, basically, DNC did it to themselves, and double-time. Too bad the whole country has to suffer as the result too...
I think that the wrath of the US political elite could be explained by the fact that the small potatoes dared to trespass its territory.
They invested billions and years of organized hard work in software & hardware back doors, surveillance infrastructure, data centers, and suddenly some punks have stolen some simple email passwords. The whole world was reading with the genuine interest these email messages.
Certainly in their opinion it may seem so unfair. It is their pitch, they are the kings, but not these parvenus.
.... "While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines" said Trump.
Such an admission flies directly in the face of those claiming the whole thing was malarkey including Trump (lol).
It seems that the general line pushed by the most upvoted (and bellicose) comments on this website where indeed wrong.
Either that or now Trump is also part of the conspiracy against Trump. Could be.
Lies. Damn Lies. Government Reports.
I am pretty stunned to see that no one else here has mentioned this. This is scarier than it even appears. Their entire argument was that it was all made up - and now - even though Trump admits it in 'plain language'- they ignore it and there are still Trumpeters here saying they don't believe it and want evidence.
"Da. You want hear?"
"Of course!"
"OK. Here is sentence. Hey Donald, how my dictate last night? I got cigar for you too.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Every country tries to influence U.S. politics. That has been happening since the inception of this country. Our government has had a hand in foreign elections. But what is the "Russians" do? They hacked behind the doors truth and exposed it. They exposed some minor deceptions from a political candidate. It's the equivalent of egg on someones face.
When hackers expose Trump are we going to care about where the information came from or the content of the information?
It is everyone's responsibility to lock their own doors and close their curtains before they take off their closes.
Hilary lost the electoral college by millions of votes. She lost the election because she like her husband is a two faced used car salesmen except she doesn't have her husbands charm. And it doesn't help to have cry ins on TV about far left issues no matter if I slightly agree with the issues. During an election your suppose to be charming the other camp. I think middle America and the right is tired of Social Justice Warriors.
And leaving California for all those libruls you have on so much?
Maybe we can work out a relocation plan and you can move a bunch of libruls from other parts of the country to California in exchange for moving your obviously conservative ass somewhere else that more closely aligns with the values you hold dear.
Quite frankly California could survive just fine without the Colorado river, especially if NorCal stopped providing a water subsidy to LA, and the anti-nuke crowd stopped being a bunch of pussies. All California needs to water and energy independent from the rest of the country is nukes providing baseline power, freshwater in the form of steam, and dumping the brine back at a deep enough depth to not pollute the upper waters where the majority of marine ecosystem we utilize is.
Personally though I think it is about time America has that new Constitutional Congress we've long been putting off and see how many states really DO still agree that the whole countries values are being adequately represented by both our current legal entrappings and our federal government. Because if not, it may be time to redraft our national borders, just like was done during the past congress, and just like they attempted to do during the Civil War.
How does such a manager determine that people he or she hired have technical knowledge, when he or she has no technical knowledge?
Doesn't seem logical to me. You can't evaluate people for something you yourself don't understand.
The fact that a candidate does not require BOTH the necessary electoral votes *AND* at least 51 percent of the popular vote (I personally think 66 should be a minimum!) to be considered the elected leader of the United States says something about the shortcomings of the electoral system as enshrined in this country. We don't even have a 'Tyranny of the Majority' here because it is essentially two majorities oppressing the scraps and trying to pull one over on each other for 4-16 years (Has there been more than 2 full term presidents of a particular party before it swung back the other way?)
The American political system is flawed at many levels, but rather than continuing this pissing contest around Trump and Clinton, both of who are shitty candidates and were destined to be shitty presidents, maybe it is time to MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO WHAT REALLY MATTERS! Namely resolving these issues before the next fucking election takes place so the elected candidate will actually represent the concerns and the intersection of values of the majority of Americans. Do that and even Russia will have a hard time compromising our elections. America isn't standing united because it's been essentially two nations in the form of antagatory political parties fighting over legal turf while not actually promoting the values of either side they claim to uphold. Until the rest of you start realizing this and DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, the current spiral American is in will never correct.
The point is that the stories about cyber security and other technical issues are without foundation. Neither the reporters nor the people being reported have any idea what is being done.
On regular basis at all election people from both side AND political analyst question the EC as it is now. It is an half backed solution. Either you want people to have a say, contrary to the original EC, then it should be the popular vote, or you don't want to, then it should be back to the original no-vote situation. The half backed situation lead to possible corrupt or demagogue (whatever you may think of Clinton or Trump) being voted in, what the EC was supposed to avoid. So it fails at its original purpose.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
There are plenty of voting machines without paper trail and audits. Flipping the bits in those machines is also quite easy. Tweaking the results there cannot be identified later.
Of course, Putin likes Trump. Anything that massively destabilizes the US is welcome to Putin.
This is seriously an issue of don't shoot the messenger. I don't care how damning it is. The DNC is rotten to the core. I
...your new Russian overlords welcome you, for one.
So the US government doesn't want any critical examination of its policies, and despite all the harsh words, has no evidence of any Russian involvement in US elections - all while the US government happily interferes in the elections and affairs of other countries across the world. Shameful.
I hope Trump will pursue a more moderate an sensible approach. The rest of the world is tired of the fake news coming out of Washington, and its associated puppet press. I expect America will slide even further down the press freedom rankings this year.
Sigh....:
"...there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines,"
So basically, the voting machines are the most dependable part of the voting process? I guess the fact that there is no need to hack them when the voters can be hacked through Social Engineering instead goes right over his head (yeah, right).
You can't tell me he is unaware of this concept, it's what he does every stinking day. He has done this for so long, he is no longer aware of it.
He's the Spin Emperor!
I was born here. With little or no power to make decisions save a vote in a right wing state that gets drowned out by the zealots around me. The systems were built long before I had any say. Hell, most people had no say in the creation of America. You do know we have, had and always will have a ruling class, right?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The Electoral college failed miserable. It was there to prevent a popularist demagogue from taking advantage of momentary passions to damn a whole nation to disaster. On a side note it was also created to prevent those same popularists from voting themselves land and food from their ruling class. If you read even a little of what the founders wrote this is obvious. It failed miserably at the former though if the corruption in Trump's cabinet is any indication it'll do the latter swimmingly.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But to be safe, Russia hedged its bets, and donated to the Clinton Foundation.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
What a waste!
Glad the losers are out of a job!
Unfortunately their pensions are protected.
Again, you keep blaming the election on the hacking, rather than the content of the emails. If the emails were hacked and the content not made available to the public, it would have been a fruitless endeavor and we still would have seen Trump win the EC. Maybe the RNC does have corruption? Maybe they send emails back and forth full of racial slurs and bigotry (like the DNC)? Maybe they employed a better security system; one that doesn't allow an utter knob complete liability in a phishing attempt?
Blaming the hack for the election is like blaming a divorce on the fact that one spouse spied on the other, but caught them cheating in the act. It's juvenile and by this point, almost insulting to think any vindication is washed away as a result. Don't start with the whole "Putin interfered with our Democratic election" bullroar, either. America has and will continue arbitrarily dictating foreign elections, so to retort with that is literally a sense of American privilege that needs to be checked ASAP.
I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm certain most of the people around me did. I can tell you right now their minds were made up long before the exposure of corruption occurred.
1.) The popular vote may or may not be relevant to the current American political system, but it certainly seems like an appropriate and relevant response to determine what the U.S. population's preference is, which is exactly the subject of the comment he was replying to.
The popular vote for president in the 2016 election has little to do with with the US population's preference, specifically because of the Electoral College. The best that can be inferred from it (46% to 48%) was that the election was reasonably close (and there were significant numbers of people who didn't like either of them).
Most of the states are "winner take all" for the electors. Among those, many have sufficiently lopsided preferences that those on the minority side have no hope of swinging the state to their candidate. (This includes three of the four most populous states: California, New York, and Texas.) These people have little incentive to vote for president (and typically to vote at all, since they usually also can't affect state or local elections either - even in those voting districts that are lopsided the other way from the state as a whole). Similarly, the candidates lave little incentive to campaign in such states. They spend their money and effort elsewhere, where it can be more useful. Typically that is in the handful of "battleground states" - close enough to swing, big enough to swing a lot of electors.
If the President were elected by popular vote, especially in a close election, both the voters and the candidates would have different incentives. Voters opposed to the plurality candidate in lopsided states would still have as much effect on swinging the election. So they'd have more incentive to vote, and the candidates would have more incentive to woo them. So the popular vote outcome could be expected to be very different.
Trump concentrated his efforts where he could swing more electors, because that was what counted, and handily beat the candidate of the most powerful political machine, who had raised over a BILLION dollars and had the mainstream media in her pocket. Yet the popular vote was within a couple percent, despite large numbers of people not voting and/or not wooed. Don't you think that, if what counted was the popular vote, The Donald had campaigned differently, and the people had turned out differently, he might have been able to win that election, too?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Most of the states are "winner take all" for the electors. Among those, many have sufficiently lopsided preferences that those on the minority side have no hope of swinging the state to their candidate. (This includes three of the four most populous states: California, New York, and Texas.)
Oops. Meant Illinois, not Texas.
(Texas is the second most populous state. But it was a "battleground" / "swing" state this time around. Illinois is number four and Chicago puts it solidly in the Democratic camp.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
3.) You suggest that Putin didn't have an impact, and that's clearly a debatable point. We simply don't know. What are almost certain of is that Putin attempted to have an impact on the election, and if a nation-state dedicated resources towards that goal then I'd certainly say it's plausible.
But by what means is he accused of having an impact on the election? Did he rig the election process so the votes weren't counted correctly? Did he inundate the people with lies? Or did he arrange to have true (but hidden) information discovered and published?
The last I heard, nobody is accusing him, other state actors, or even script kiddies in basements, of either tampering with the vote count or spreading false information. The only accusation is that he was behind the cracking of the Democratic Party's emails and their delivery to WikiLeaks (which Assange denies).
IMHO, even if he did the latter, so what? It just means the real opinions and actions of the people running the Democratic Party machine were exposed. That's called "investigative reporting", and what the news media SHOULD have been doing (when the leaks show the mainstream media were colluding with the party, instead).
So if it was really Putin's cyberspies, and not an internal leaker, random partisan, or lucky computer geek, who did the Media's job of exposing the Democratic Party's corruption for us, we should THANK him. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
After Wikileaks, I thought that every country in the world is looking back to hack every US Based Network and Server... but I was wrong. Looks like (according to this report) ONLY Russians actually care to get their hands on their Data. (Insert Picard's Epic Double Facepalm) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We're sad for you as friends, gleeful as competitors.
This business of States (not people) electing the President has always struck us as dodgy. On top of your system basically a replacing the concept of "King" with "President", where the ENTIRE executive branch of government hinges on a single person, then that decision has rested, over and over again, on the vagaries of a half-dozen of your States representing 1/6th of your population.
What this election has absolutely done is clarify to everybody is that the American constitution that you so revere, is something no democratizing country writing one would touch with a 3-metre pole. (Only you use "feet", like only you think your Constitution is a good idea.)
The American constitution is like the Cathedral model: whomever gets into the papacy designs the cathedral. Parliamentary systems are more open-source, like Raymond's Bazaar model: you need a continuous sense of consensus to keep going forward. If Mr. Trudeau started ranting about Area 51 conspiracies tomorrow, his best friends would push him into resignation by the end of the week, after presenting him with the list of MPs who wanted him to know he's lost their support. It's just stabler system, as things have turned out.
Your Presidential "King" thing is a single-point-of-failure; affect that outcome, and you've hacked the country. And Palin showed nine years ago that utter incompetents with a string of applause lines can get past the outer filters. So it was a natural and obvious line of attack.
The US ship of state is very large, the bureaucracy gargantuan, the economy has enormous momentum; it'll "survive", obviously - but thriving is a whole other question. All Putin could hope for was to limit American advancement and growth to some extent. He's likely to get it, as good government rarely comes from radical voices, even popular ones.
Best of luck with it. Like all radical mutations, there's a chance it'll turn out really well; bold experiments sometimes do. But of course, most mutations turn out badly.
Russia just totally pwned the United States of America.
Ha ha.
Moving On.
The real revelation here, is that the data from the leak, regardless as to the context, and the party responsible, is authentic. It's been verified by the CIA and FBI as not containing any forgeries or being altered in any way. Not one word of the Podesta or DNC emails has been altered. So, now we know that pay for play, spirit cooking, post warrant email deletions on the private server, admissions of clinton foundation donors funding isis, and more, is all true. I'm not saying that anyone would ever chase Clinton down and press charges, but they certainly could now.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re: Troll Army Talking Point (5: Insightful)
Hola comrades. Hope you folks are earning overtime tonight.
The electrical system is well-established, but that means nothing, except that it's difficult to get rid of.
'The electrical system,' right?
It is well-understood, and people who understand it the most (constitutional scholars and such) say it's no longer a good idea.
...
It doesn't matter what Wikileaks have done before. What they currently do, does matter still, but the organization's value as a source of unbiased information diminishes by the day, because Assange chose a side -- specifically one, that does not work for the betterment of the world.
Wikileaks (WL) is now a one-man brand devoid of good sources and filters, but the public doesn't know it yet.
WL used to have good sources and filters, but good-quality people left the organization specifically after Assange fell out with them. Some went to found LiveLeak; yet others might be active in other places, but which don't support Russia. Bradley Manning was caught in 2010, tried, and put to prison. (Corollary: Were it not for him, Don't ask, Don't tell would still have been in effect.)
Julian Assange's womanizing manners -- or lack thereof -- apparently caused him to fall foul with Swedish law. Cynics, of course, would readily cite honey traps, but he should have known better.
His mindset has not been helped by the manhunt, and his thinking has been affected by those that later directly or indirectly helped him (Russia, that is).
Mr. Assange's dislike of Mrs. Clinton seems to be borne out of his having been chased during her tenure, and so his disdain towards her appears to be so great, that it has blurred his view of the big picture -- to the point, that he actually undermined Hillary's campaign in favor of the more dangerous candidate.
Trump really is dangerous, because he appeases Russia far too much, and that state is now making overtures of 'friendship' and 'cooperation', in hopes of possible U.S. non-interference when Russia is busy invading yet another free country that it doesn't like.
It should be noted, that Russia's neighbors really want to be free from Russia: the countries that are free, want to stay that way; and the lands that aren't yet, still want to be.
Perhaps if all the U.S. alphabet soup agencies were actually doing their work, then Trump would never have even become a candidate, much less a president-elect appointing cabinet nominees that each boast 'how close they are to Putin and what "awesome" deals they are gonna cut with him' in their résumés. Congressional confirmation hearings will be fun.
Snowden's eventual choice of Russia for was only logical, because Russia is one of the few countries in the northern hemisphere that does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S.
Your assessment is wrong: The day of the vote was set on a Thursday (23 June 2016), which is a working day, when people who would have voted for 'Stay', were actually working, and didn't have much other time to find out where their voting precinct is.
The day of the referendum ~also~ just happened to coincide with a huge storm right in the middle of London.
And that was that for Mr. Cameron, who completely forgot about the UK weather.
Were the day of the referendum set on a Sunday, then more people from the London area would have come out to vote, and maybe — just maybe — they would have tipped the scales in favour of Stay.
The polls by polling companies were accurate, though, because they mostly do phone-ins and web-based stuff, which most of the time happens indoors, and mostly in people's homes.
...is actually correct. Any person of sane mind and similar level of intelligence would come to about the same conclusion.
It's correct to criticize the U.S. intelligence agencies for doing what they are not supposed to do, and for not doing what they were made to do. Appearances matter, too.
And when they actually do seem to do their work, then in light of evidence that has surfaced since 2013, their current effort does not seem very genuine. Especially with those announcements from Mr. Comey. I don't know what side he is on, but once Hillary's nomination was locked, he should have stayed out of the game wrt making damaging public announcements about Mrs. Clinton until after her inauguration. Because if Hillary became president-elect instead of Trump, then she would have been able to better weather any subsequent scandals.
The only person Comey should have (publicly) investigated, is Donald Trump.
Honestly, the FBI, seems to have a knack for being left a bread crumb and thinking they have found the culprit. Heck, more recent revelations about N. Korea's internet network has cast doubt as to whether it could of even handled the quantities of data in a timely fashion.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://gawker.com/a-lot-of-sma...
Per Wiki
Doubts about accusations against North Korea[edit]
Members of the press and various cybersecurity experts have expressed doubt about the claims that North Korea was behind the hack. Cyber security experts, independently analyzing the hack separately from the FBI—including Kurt Stammberger from cyber security firm Norse,[86][87] DEFCON organizer and Cloudflare researcher Marc Rogers,[88] Hector Monsegur,[89] and Kim Zetter, a security journalist at Wired magazine[90]—have tended to agree that North Korea might not be behind the attack.
Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times journalist, said that all evidence against North Korea was "circumstantial" and that some cybersecurity experts were "skeptical" about accusations against the government.[91] Cybersecurity expert Lucas Zaichkowsky said, "State-sponsored attackers don't create cool names for themselves like 'Guardians of Peace' and promote their activity to the public."[92] Kim Zetter of Wired magazine called released evidence against the government "flimsy".[93] Former hacker Hector Monsegur, who once hacked into Sony, explained to CBS News that exfiltrating one or one hundred terabytes of data would have taken months or years, not weeks, "without anyone noticing". Monsegur doubted the accusations due to North Korea's possibly insufficient infrastructure to handle much data. He believed that it could have been either Chinese, Russian, or North Korean sponsored hackers working outside of the country, but most likely to be the deed of a Sony employee.[94]
Stammberger provided to the FBI Norse's findings that suggest the hack was an inside job, stating, "Sony was not just hacked; this is a company that was essentially nuked from the inside. We are very confident that this was not an attack master-minded by North Korea and that insiders were key to the implementation of one of the most devastating attacks in history."[95] Stammberger believes that the security failure may have originated from six disgruntled former Sony employees, based on their past skill sets and discussions these people made in chat rooms. Norse employees identified these people from a list of workers that were eliminated from Sony during a restructuring in May 2014, and noted that some had made very public and angry responses to their firing, and would be in appropriate positions to identify the means to access secure parts of Sony's servers.[96][97][98] After a private briefing lasting three hours, the FBI formally rejected Norse's alternative assessment.[99]
Maybe you should take a look at this. I don't know how much influence this guy has in the halls of government. Wikipedia would seem to imply that there is a considerable faction of their civil and military leadership which is very much interested in destabilizing American politics by inflaming racial tensions and supporting any and all dissidents.
You're generally arguing that it would be absurd for Russia to do these things, and it is absurd if you implicitly reject the notion that they would do so. Otherwise we can spin a pretty convincing narrative. Putin certainly has no love for Clinton, and is interested in increasing his share of world power. Since a direct military confrontation is a foregone conclusion, they turn to information and cultural warfare, and the well-worn tools of the spy trade. Hacking the voting machines directly is out of the question, but the majority of the people in the country are dumb enough to think that the major parties represent their interests, so the goal becomes controlling the narrative. Bribing journalists would be costly and prone to exposure. It's best to give them a story that is big enough that they have to report it. Hacking is deniable, doesn't require subverting anyone in a foreign nation, and has a fairly low cost and risk-reward ratio. Given the goal of destabilization, hacking a major political party becomes an obvious move. We've actually seen this exact scenario before, where state-level intelligence agents were caught attempting to hack the Democratic National Committee. We can probably assume that the intelligence interests between the major powers reflect the perceived threat level of the other powers, so it's probably safe to say that Russian hackers would be employed against US and Chinese targets primarily. It's likely that hacking attempts are made against the two major parties continually, but especially when the stakes are raised during an election.
So you're Putin. You exercise a great deal of power, but you are still ambitious. You don't exactly wake up every day thinking on how to knock the US off its pedestal, but it's never really far from your mind, and any ideas along that line will always find a willing ear. For Putin, this is nearly a foolproof solution, the only real consideration is what the US will do in response. You've already invaded the Ukraine and not drawn a military response. So why not do this?
So we have an established motive, an inarguable opportunity, and all of our intelligence agencies saying that there was at least some degree of influence. If Putin did not specifically authorize the hacks and subsequent leaks, he is certainly intensely pleased by this situation. Alexander Dugin and his friends in the Russian General Staff got everything they wanted, and not only that, they demonstrated the viability of this form of attack. If the goal is destabilization, one is led rather ineluctably towards this exact point of weakness.
The answer to this situation is to destabilize American politics. The voting system we have fairly obviously limits the power of minor parties, and encourages two large parties which are relatively homogenous in aims simply due to the laws of large numbers. So how are we, the electorate, driven to the polls? Wedge issues: global warming, border security, racism. The dissatisfaction with the major parties is very real, as are the underlying worldview differences, so it's not that we would not expect to see a strong conserv
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The minutemennews article claims there's a scary part in a recent law, but doesn't mention which law nor which section.
You claim that since illegal residents have drivers licenses, they can vote in elections. But you're wrong. It's a shit move to make people choose between believing something wrong and doing homework.
http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/ab-60-drivers-license.php
" This is a special driver's license that:
* May NOT be used for identification purposes.
[...]
* Has a distinguishing feature and notice on the front of the license indicating that it is for driving purposes only, per the AB-60 law (i.e. “DP" instead of “DL")."
Transparent ploy is transparent: paint the incoming president into a corner. Either he ignores the bullshit coming from the media and anonymous sources from the "intelligence community" and is portrayed as Putin's BFF, or starts down the Cold War 2.0 path with the new Birthers. The latter being Democrats who have lost their goddamn minds because the public rejected their shitty candidate who ran after Obama's shitty 8 years as president.
ZZ
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
First, you apparently don't know what I believe. Second, it's really odd that you believe nothing will change when most people against Trump are saying silly things about Nazis, martial law and nuclear annihilation. Third, rationality doesn't work that way. You believe people based on evidence.
That said, can you explain exactly why it's unreasonable to have a low Bayesian prior for P(they're lying) when they've repeatedly lied, even to cause wars, in the past, when they've presented ridiculous and flimsy evidence that was torn apart, and the best they can give us are political hacks and anonymous sources? Or perhaps you can explain why empiricists should believe things without evidence after having been given quite a lot of disproved evidence?
Oh wait, no, you were just building a straw man ... Is Burning Man coming up again? For some reason it feels that way...
Still going to be the perverted twerp, eh? Appeal to authority and making excuses for one and ad hominems for the other. Oh well, at least people get a glimpse of the true you this way.
“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.
Once a twerp, always a twerp
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What about the US Media? They "'Developed a Clear Preference' For Hilary.
So, did Russia really hack things, or did Russia just even the playing field?
I voted for neither Hillary or Trump. Neither were good candidates. But the media was obnoxiously anti-Trump and pro-Hilary. The media were so overly pro-Hilary that the fact that she didn't win by a landslide is embarrassing for her.