Slashdot Mirror
Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election (theintercept.com)
Russian hacking groups played a larger role in the 2016 election than anyone realized, according to a highly-classified NSA document published today in The Intercept. The document reveals that a Russian intelligence operation sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials days before the election, which ran through a hack of a U.S. voting software supplier. The Russian cyber espionage operation was functional for months before the 2016 U.S. election. From the report: It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors ... executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. ... The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to ... launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations." This NSA summary judgment is sharply at odds with Russian President Vladimir Putin's denial last week that Russia had interfered in foreign elections: "We never engaged in that on a state level, and have no intention of doing so." Putin, who had previously issued blanket denials that any such Russian meddling occurred, for the first time floated the possibility that freelance Russian hackers with "patriotic leanings" may have been responsible. The NSA report, on the contrary, displays no doubt that the cyber assault was carried out by the GRU.
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
I'm betting zilch.
So, let's do nothing? Are you that worried it might delegitimize your guy? Is this where we're at, that we're so partisan we can't repel a foreign invader? That's straight out of the colonial playbook. Divide and conquer.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation. Next it will go from "It was the Russian government" to "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The attempted/failed wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 Presidential Campaign didn't change the outcome of that election either.
I guess we should have ignored all that stuff back then.
If the Russians actually hacked into the voting machines at the poles and flipped Hillary votes to Donald votes, then yes they hacked the election. Since I have yet to hear this pushed forward, it sounds like all they did was reveal more dirt on Hillary.
Russians may have swayed public opinion but that's no different then what our news media does every day. Heck, the news media likely lost Hillary the election because of those polls. Democrats stayed home because they figured, "we got this and I liked Bernie more anyway".
But sure, let's just keep saying they hacked our election. If they didn't change votes cast then they didn't hack the election.
And no, I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump or Hillary.
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
I'm betting zilch.
They use terms like 'played a larger role' to imply it without having to actually back it up.
The Rush Limbaugh theorem states that the media isn't an arm of the Democrat Party, rather, that the Democrat Party is an arm of the media. Think about it, which side is more organized and sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?
Life is not for the lazy.
The leaker is Reality Leigh Winner who was arrested by the FBI on June 3rd.
Their anonymous source was Reality Leigh Winner. Bernie supporter. Now she will be a felon (if convicted). Anyway, she will never work in a government position again.
One down. How many more to come?
So those are the only options you can see? Ignore it or nuke it?
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
If it were a different country, I bet that many here in the US would opine that they should hold a new election and call shenanigans if the ones in power refused. Then again, double standards is par for the course for 'Tis of Thee.
Well I knew that slashdot jumped the shark awhile back, but when most of the comments are defending the Russians, it's reached an all new low.
This is the second time Hillary failed to become “the inevitable president”. Did Russia sabotage her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)
Did Russia tell Hillary to rig the primaries to freeze our Sanders?
Did Russia get the DNC to provide Hillary the debate questions in advance? (She still did terrible anyway.)
Did Russia make Hillary collapse on their way to their car?
Did Russia encourage Bill to pardon Marc Rich, the billionaire donor to the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation?
Did Russia tell Hillary to be so confident that she could ignore the (previously Democratic) rust belt states in her campaign?
Did Russia tell Hillary to lie about dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia?
Did Russia tell Hillary, when she was a working attorney, to get a rapist a sweet plea deal and then laugh when questioned about it?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call Bill sexual accusers “bimbos”?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say to the bankers that she would ring China with defensive missiles?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have Huma Aberdeen as her aide, assistant editor of a publication that believes in Muslim Sharia Law?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say she would make a no-fly zone in Syria when Russia was already in Syria?
Did Russia tell Hillary to laugh demonically about “came, saw, and kill” Kaddafi?
Did Russia tell Hillary to take bribes on numerous occasions in the form of speaking fees?
Did Russia tell Hillary to use the personal unsecured server?
Did Russia tell Hillary to delete emails that were subpoenaed?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have a corrupt charity?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call 31 million voters deplorable irredeemable racist sexist homophobic bigots?
Did Russia murder Seth Rich, DNC’s Director of Voter Enhancement? He was the Sanders supporter who was shot 4 times while on the ground in a “botched robbery” in which nothing was taken.
Did Russia get the Clintons to accept a bribe on the Uranium One deal? Well, yes, they did do that one.
(||) Nehmo (||)
If anything, that she was arrested lends credibility to the document being real.
And it does not appear the 'spear phishing' campaign actually resulted in access and subsequent distribution of any information beyond what's already been well publicized.
Every worldwide election in recent memory that went or was in danger of going the populists' way has been singled out as being meddled with by the Russians, from Brexit to France.
No one's going to call for a new election because Russians posted stuff on facebook any more than they would've called for a new election after Obama flew to London to campaign against Brexit.
I guess it could potentially add to the momentum of a turn public opinion to make impeaching Trump a possibility.
what's funny here is the NSA is complaining about Russian spying... when the NSA has been violating the privacy of billions around the world for decades.
anonymous Ivan posting has become so tiresome lately. Can you move on to another country already?
Remember when the CIA planted logic flaws in some pipeline management software because they knew the Soviets would steal it? This led to the gigantic explosion of a Siberian pipeline:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Those people have suddenly become immensely skilled hackers?
lucm, indeed.
At this point: fuck that. Isn't this grounds for war?
I'm really terrified at the prospect of Trump trying to clash with the Russian government in order to save face.
Move back to paper.
what's funny here is the NSA is complaining about Russian spying... when the NSA has been violating the privacy of billions around the world for decades.
Yes and the pentagon would complain if the russians bombed us despite the pentagon bombing brown skinned people all over the world for decades.
Those people have suddenly become immensely skilled hackers?
Dude, the Soviets have been weaponising software for practically ever.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I guess it depends how long it takes for Trump to get impeached or otherwise unpresidented through a failed re-election. There is a reason the Trump administration is leaking like an open pipe (a sieve is not leaky enough for this metaphor). The distrust for this man goes beyond mere partisanship, and countless people are risking prison time to try to undo arguably the worst mistake in recent American history.
She probably should never work in a government position again. She has proven herself untrustworthy. Government secrets are important enough where even well-intentioned leakers need to be punished. We can't have every leaker be protected by their good intentions, or else there would be no secrets anymore.
That said, uncontrollable leaking is one of the failsafes of our democracy, and this is what it looks like when the immune system of democracy is rejecting it's new idiot commander.
Look, I don't think any honest person can deny the Russians meddled in the election. The bigger question is, did they throw the American election?
That is hard (impossible?) to answer conclusively, but they likely did not. Clinton lost the election all by herself, IMHO.
The problem is that a) it appears that Russia did indeed meddle in US elections and b) there's an active investigation about collusion between the Trump administration and Russian officials. That is the story here.
How about understand exactly what happened, lock things down and educate people so it is at least harder to pull off next time? Or is that too common sense?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So, let's do nothing?
Pretty much yes, though "let's" is "let us", and I'm not an "us" from US. But still.
What I'm reading here is "Russia spammed some voters". So what? No really, so what? Even if the e-mails said "Candidate X eats babies", given the degree of spin and delusion that "legitimate" campaigning adverts are allowed to use, any voter needs to educate themselves. And if they don't, well, frankly it's not the Russians that are the problem. It's the voters.
When I hear that Russia bought votes, we can talk, but sending spam at voters? Meh.
"Oh no... he found the
If you cannot identify a problem then how can anyone propose a solution?
(tech) Hey boss, the reactor is about 10 minutes away from melt-down. (boss) Unless you have a solution don't come whining to me with your problems.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I'm sure the Russians are the only ones trying to hack elections.
We've moved from secretly hacking elections to directly stumping for candidates we like:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
I don't think Obama is a French citizen - why should he impose his opinion on the French people if for no other reason than to influence the outcome of that election?
So you would do what? Bomb Russia?
Oh, I don't know. How about not roll back the sanctions you placed on them for doing exactly this?
How about getting the President to listen to his own National Security Advisor, and Secretaries of State and Defence, and vocally support Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
How about the administration not try to hide communications with them from their own government?
How about quit fucking lying about having no contact with them? If they're no threat, and if it's no big deal, then why lie? That's a real question—why so much deception? It makes no sense.
How about quit treating the whole situation as utterly innocuous, and without indulging in dated anti-Soviet rhetoric or blowing it off as it's perfectly normal, come to grips with the fact that Russia is a strategic competitor, and is opposed to many American interests?
How about admitting that the Putin administration has a stake in deligitimising democratic norms and processes, because doing so helps him maintain a increasingly tight grip on the Russian population, and maybe, you know, not fucking help with that?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
1) The truth ALWAYS matters
2) There is an active investigation into possible collusion with Russia.
3) Trump could be impeached.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I call cyber bullshit on this cyber report ...
No, the question was rhetorical and rather uninformed. In peacetime, one obviously does not casually bomb a country for interfering in elections. And it’s perfectly appropriate not to play armchair diplomat and to instead rely on the executive (particularly, the Dept. of State) to come up with an appropriate response. There is a rather well-practised escalation procedure for such cases, and it does not start at “bomb”.
The Daily Caller as a news source? Really?
Oh Christ, spare us the chest thumping AC.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It looks like Russia's patsies are out in force to make sure we ignore Russia's attack on our country's democracy.
Russia wants us to ignore their attack on our election so they can keep doing it.
If we step back and notice that a foreign country attacked the USA, and that we need to immediately secure our voting system, basic patriotism would compel us to act to secure our elections against foreign attacks.
Don't count on Donald Trump securing our voting machines any time soon. Trump is on Russia's payroll and only acts in their interest.
Donald Trump will continue undermining NATO but he'll never fight to secure our voting machines against Russian hacking. Wonder why...
This continued media frenzy became tiresome some time ago. Can we move on to something new to be outraged about?
You seem to be conflating "important" and "entertaining".
Important stuff is often quite boring, at least at the outset before you understand what's going on.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I've been reading https://theintercept.com/2017/... for about a half an hour. There still is no "raw data". It's still, "Trust Us, We wouldn’t reach conclusions without real evidence!" I'm suspicious about the whole thing.
The Intercept (not Greenwald) did such a good job of protecting their source that she was busted _before_ the document was published? She is Reality Leigh Winner, 25. This idealistic kid wants to protect Hillary and the MSM? She works for Pluribus International Corporation in Georgia http://www.pluribusinternation... , yet she didn't cover her emails to the Intercept? She also didn't cover the act of "copying" the document? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/...
This is nothing more than the swamp's latest salvo.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Maybe that's what should've been done in the first place. Regardless of who may have done it, past or in the future, lax security is ultimately to blame and these things are completely avoidable.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The document is real alright. But it doesn't have any real conclusions. This time the accusations are more narrow, but that's about it.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Yea, they are not the only one. Oh wait. It didn't come from a legitimate news source like CNN, MSNBC, AP? The Intercept published the original article, multiple others picked up the arrest. DailyCaller, Heavy, etc...
And when they point to this, then YEAH IT HAPPENED.
One political party tried to eavesdrop on another political party.
In other news, Sam the goat is missing. Please help us find our mascot to our players can smash our opponents this Friday night.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Soviet "military intelligence" who normally did military spying tried to run a spy in the UK in the 1970's due to an accident of first contact.
.. "and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated"
It ended in failure as the Soviet staff did not have the decades of skill to work long term with a person in the UK and all the emotional issues that result.
The write up of Russia/the Soviet Union ever using "military intelligence" in the West for activity seems more of an older US fantasy than reality.
Russia knows what its "military intelligence" can do and should not do. It learned that by losing one of its more productive spies in the UK in the 1970's.
Losing a good spy does not get "military intelligence" a lot of other direct attempts at spying again.
Why would the US be talking about one of the one groups in Russia that would not be used for spying in the West?
Every other spy agency in the world would notice that glaring mistake too and be wondering why the most simple lack of understanding of Russian's intelligence structure would be allowed to be presented as "news"?
The report does not "show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based".
"cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion"
Read down further and find the part about "not involved in vote tallying"
From not changing votes what ever happened did not even work well "unknown whether"
So some "spear-phishing" did not change the votes and did not seem to even get many other results.
Thats using some "military intelligence".
The quality of the effort was "“medium sophistication,” one that “practically any hacker can pull off.”" Note the use of the term "hacker".
"The actual voting machines aren’t going to be networked"
Finally any issues got talked about as been the everyday issues of "between the setup of the computers and the poll workers using them."
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
No, get your horses straight. Hillary did that.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Agree with most of you points but...
That's a real question—why so much deception? It makes no sense.
Not really... it makes perfect sense from the perspective that the Trump administration lies about goddamn everything, compulsively. So them lying about this doesn't actually stick out. Just yet another piss-on-our-face-and-tell-us-it's-raining move.
Someone had to do it.
Don't worry, he'll just order a strike of a ridiculous number of missiles on a strip of concrete and it will be repaired the same afternoon.
Yes and wouldn't all technology people in this country be laughing if companies paid what they needed to up front for security.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why not? Oliver North did. If treason is no barrier then why should this be?
When I hear that Russia bought votes, we can talk, but sending spam at voters?
No, not just voters, phishing attacks against voting hardware/software vendors and election officials. Basically, anyone who might have access into the equipment and procedures which manage the electoral process.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The attempted/failed wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 Presidential Campaign didn't change the outcome of that election either.
We could definitely do with another round of Church and Pike committee investigations.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Intent + action where the action was ineffective can indeed be a crime. Attempted murder, attempted robbery, attempted hijacking, etc.
Yes PLEASE let us have another election. I'm so ready to do my part again to kick Hillary's butt!
Caution: Contents under pressure
If it were a different country, I bet that many here in the US would opine that they should hold a new election and call shenanigans if the ones in power refused.
There is precedent. Generally speaking, this is a matter for the appropriate court of disputed returns, which I assume in this case is the US Supreme Court. And presumably they can only act if there is an actual controversy.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The problem is that results like 2016 don't have any single cause. There are many things that had they been different could have changed the outcome.
Blame isn't like a hot potato: there's plenty for everyone. Clinton has her share of the blame. Her weak and passive messaging, and her over-reliance on dubious analytics in the face of clear field intelligence were both mistakes. Absent either of them and she would have won -- it was only a matter of swinging 100,000 strategically placed votes, about 1/100th of 1% of the votes cast.
This doesn't mean other things didn't cause her loss too, but the bottom line was that she was facing Donald Trump, a boorish reality TV clown and easily the stupidest and most ignorant man ever to win the presidency. She should have blown the doors of the election far beyond the reach of a few unlucky breaks or marginal meddling to matter.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
which side is more organized and sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?
Is that a trick question? I don't know. Until recently I would have said the Republican party - excluding the president, they still have much higher party discipline than the Democrats. Including the president, who has no discipline, it's more ambiguous. (See what I did there? Two different definitions of the word discipline? I made a joke at Trump's expense, I'll bet I'm the first one to do that.)
Also: Rush Limbaugh is saying that the democratic party is one of his arms? That seems more delusional than usual for him.
Oliver North was acting under the orders of the Commander in Chief. He resigned his commission from the Marines Corp after he was convicted, but the charges were dropped on appeal as the original judge did not ensure his congressional testimony could not be used against him. That is not treason. He took the heat for a bad decision which the President (Reagan) decided was a viable way to skirt Congressional ban on supporting Nicaragua rebels.
From the Intercept article linked:
"While the document provides a rare window into the NSAâ(TM)s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying âoerawâ intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."
If one reads other articles by the Intercept, one finds that Glenn Greenwald, who works as editor at the Intercept and helped publicize the Snowden leaks, is of the informed opinion that Russia did not manipulate the US election, and that the whole claim was manufactured by the US intelligence, and that both political sides saw it easier to treat this well-established lie as if it was true than to publicly confront it.
Just look for the articles by Glenn Greenwald in Intercept. He has stated this explicitly a good time before Putin said the same thing (but in Putin's mouth, it was subtle pressure against the US intelligence community to stop attacking Russia).
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
When did he or a court say that?
Also, even if that was true, isn't the deal to serve the country and not a King?
What part of giving classified anti-tank weapons to a terrorist group that had killed more than a hundred US Marines less than a year earlier is about serving the country?
Fucking hang him for war crimes, and then we don't have to go through any of this mess. It's an open and shut case.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Which part of ignoring 600 requests for improved security, going back to bed once the attack started, then lying about it (although emailing your non-cleared daughter the truth in plain text) has anything to do with the benefit of the country?
So Reality Leigh Winner, Oliver North and Hillary Clinton are all the same person?
Wow, that explains a lot!
Good luck with the new meds.
The doc is indeed legit: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u...
I didn't see that in any of her hacked emails...
So you are saying that.... things can't be 2 things?
This seems like a lot of crying and hang wringing over standard operating procedures.
Did Russia try to penetrate our voting systems? Probably.
Did the US plant stuxnet in Iranian nuke plants? Probably
Did the US hack North Korean missile tests? Probably
Did the US capture German and UK government communications? Yes
Does the US try to penetrate Russian systems and generally hack every government and military computer on the planet 24x7? YES!
This is the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked. It is naive and dangerous to think otherwise.
Our best response is to harden our systems and go on with life. Complete nothing burger.
People like that only listen when there is a catastrophe they can't cover up. So let it come out.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No matter how paranoid you feel, you can stop worrying. Your driveway is safe from the evile Trumpeter.
You misread my meaning... I'm saying that it's not like they would suddenly turn around and change the ruling government over this, and in that sense, it doesn't really matter.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Media", be defined as the old guard; of which Rush is not a part of. But yes, defining who is and isn't part of the "Media" is a bit ambiguous. At the very least, that would be New Yorker, Slate, NY Times, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, NBC News, Time Magazine, Politico just to name a few.
Life is not for the lazy.
Intent != crime.
Generally speaking breaking into someone else's system and sending a spear phishing email would get you well into illegal.
Quoting form the NPR's article at: http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/...
VR Systems, a Florida-based election systems provider referenced in the material, said in a statement:
"When a customer alerted us to an obviously fraudulent email purporting to come from VR Systems, we immediately notified all our customers and advised them not to click on the attachment. We are only aware of a handful of our customers who actually received the fraudulent email and of those, we have no indication that any of them clicked on the attachment or were compromised as a result."
Now we can argue on if it impacted the results of the election. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question, but it now appears the question of if there was an attempt by someone to infiltrate the electoral system is pretty solidly answered.
Attribution is a trickier problem, but I'll buy that the NSA has pretty good resources at its fingers for that, and they seem pretty conclusive in the documents provided by the Intercept.
It'll be interesting to see how this comes out, but I'm now convinced that a crime occurred, since VR Systems has confirmed such and any vested interest they have in the matter would be to deny rather then confirm, as it'll undoubtedly damage them commercially going forward.
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
I would consider Trump a catastrophe.
I don't see the name Hillary mentioned anywhere.
You didn't even know about said phishing campaign until now, and only because the NSA told you so, but you're confident that you know all the effects and whether or not they were successful.
Umm, he did not come up with the plan to sell the arms to Iran for hostages. But here is pretty good article behind the reasoning.
he (North) had been diverting funds from the arms sales to the Contras, with the full knowledge of National Security Adviser Admiral John Poindexter and with the unspoken blessing, he assumed, of President Reagan.
North had nothing to do with the arms sales. With that in mind he was following the orders of the President who previously stated "Do anything to help the Contras defeat the Cuban-backed Sandanistas".
This was not a fun party in that administration as half the cabinet opposed the whole thing, yet the President supported it.
I never said it was fine, I said that it wouldn't make any real difference, now... the election's long since over, and at this point, nothing is going to change any sooner than November, 2020.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Really? The publication which was created for the purpose of publishing Snowden's leaks is now getting material from NSA? Because NSA is what? Masochistic?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I don't know why you even bother with this AC. I recognize his style from previous threads. It usually incorporates some kind of gay fantasy.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Of course it's a real document, but is it based on reality or something someone wanted released? My guess, she's a pawn and someone left it out for her to find knowing her political opinions. If someone were to leak a document saying Elon Musk achieved cold fusion in the 3rd floor men's bathroom at Tesla's corporate office, a bunch of people would believe it because they want to believe it. It doesn't make a load of crap any more true.
The portrait CNN is painting is that she is an idealistic and nice girl working for an intelligence contractor that leaked this one document because .... why? She believed the NSA was hiding the truth of Russian hacking, and she wanted the people to know? She was a closet Hillary supporter who wanted her idol vindicated?
She also left an obvious trail that included direct emails to the Intercept.
(||) Nehmo (||)
How about getting the President to listen
Ha!
Oh, very good.
Ask Manning how that turned out for him/her?
American interests
blows whistle
False collectivism. The simple fact is this: most interests that are called "Americans interests" are actually exploitative to the vast majority of American citizens. There is a failure of the government to serve its people which you have many terrible examples of, including mass surveillance, the federal reserve system, the disrespect of the Constitution....I could go on....
Russia is not our main problem by a long shot. It's the exploiter class that was born and raised here.
So maybe you should stop fucking with other countries before you whine about your own (alleged) fucking, least it be pointed out you're a hard charging tough guy.....who pissed himself when he heard a loud noise. Six blocks away.
Ah - a quote! What are you quoting? Have you seen some top secret orders that never made it to court or are you making it up?
The entire situation was infamous because he could not prove he was following orders - especially with the embezzlement for his own personal use. The only person that went to jail over the entire thing was the guy who took stolen money from North and built a fence for him. (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/06/opinion/oliver-north-fortunate-felon.html)
If the NSA report is accurate we owe the hacking to relatively naive and inept election officials ... They had to facilitate, unwittingly, the attempts. If they show this naivety on email spear phishing, what other security issues exist that have been exploited???
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Yeah, but back then, there was a coverup where a bunch of people working for the White House lied about stuff, and then the President fired the guy running the investigation...
Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
... and countless people are risking prison time to try to undo arguably the worst mistake in recent American history.
That would be not nominating Bernie for the win?
I am a fucking libertarian that phone banked for a socialist named Bernie Sanders. You don't need to tell me. But I was referring to the 2016 election as a whole. In the general election I told people in swing states to vote for Hillary Clinton, and I fucking hate Hillary Clinton. But as much as I hate Hillary Clinton, I recognize the real possibility that having a childish bully idiot as president will lead to some real catastrophes beyond what we are normally used to. I honestly felt Bernie had a much better chance of beating Trump, and I still think he would have won the general election. That said, I am now hoping Trump is impeached and Mike Pence becomes the new president. I also hate Mike Pence, but like Hillary Clinton, I'm not worried he will start a nuclear war on accident.
I'm sure there is a funny joke in there somewhere...
...and he's damn hard to cover up! Whenever his lackeys try, Trump twitters something that directly contradicts them.
Oh, I don't know. How about not roll back the sanctions you placed on them for doing exactly this?
Remind me why we have sanctions on them again?
When has Russia ever attacked us?
Why does the media and the powers that be want to make Russia the enemy so bad?
Is Putin a "good guy"? No, of course not, but why the hell do we care?
How about quit fucking lying about having no contact with them? If they're no threat, and if it's no big deal, then why lie? That's a real questionâ"why so much deception? It makes no sense.
Because having back-channel comms doesn't work if they are public...
Frankly, I want our government to have back-channel comms to the other major nuclear power on Earth, Trump or Clinton... whoever is in power should have an easy path to directly communicate off-the-record to the other country on Earth with 5,000 nuclear weapons...
If you cannot identify a problem then how can anyone propose a solution?
(tech) Hey boss, the reactor is about 10 minutes away from melt-down. (boss) Unless you have a solution don't come whining to me with your problems.
Also sounds like we have 10 minutes I might just grab a coffee!
I had the opposite experience in the bay area. The local liberal ideology in Santa Cruz had latched onto electronic voting machines being all bad all the time. Very few people understood that the 'bad' was mostly a matter of poor implementation rather than the tech.
The kneejerk reaction of dismissing any suggestion of election meddling to "looking for excuses" for Clinton's loss is less than useful. Clinton lost. It's over. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be extremely concerned about the implications of some of the allegations. One of the better articles I found on this subject is here: https://www.pastemagazine.com/...
There is some very, very elementary moral principle that you and apparently also many Trump supporters in this thread don't understand: Two evils don't make a good.
Security agencies raised several alarms about this before the election.
What did Obama do to stop it?
I guess after the US attacking democracy in so many other countries, one finally managed to return the favor.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
So those are the only options you can see? Ignore it or nuke it?
You really don't have a lot of other options, this is not Iraq, it is Russia... you know, that other nation with 5,000 nuclear weapons...
If they came out tomorrow and said "yea, we did it, so what are you going to do about it?"...
Nothing would happen... because it can't, there isn't anything to be done...
The kneejerk reaction of dismissing any suggestion of election meddling to "looking for excuses" for Clinton's loss is less than useful. Clinton lost. It's over. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be extremely concerned about the implications of some of the allegations.
The allegations are concerning as much as they matter regarding the explanation of the results of the presidential election. If the outcome of the presidential election was not influenced by the alleged hacks, the alleged hacks are of little concern. Consequently, and above all, those alleged hacks do not help to explain why Trump won.
One of the better articles I found on this subject is here: https://www.pastemagazine.com/...
I'd like to see the worst ones, then. That article is full of rants, but the author seems to be unable to give them weight. When the author tries to give facts, he fails, e.g.: the first accusation is that Trump is followed by an army of bots on social media, but that obvioulsy does not mean anything if you do not know how many bots are usually among the followers of famous people. In fact, in 2016 we knew that "More Than a Third of Trump’s and Clinton’s Twitter Followers Are Reportedly Fake", but the author seems to ignore that, or perhaps he is just blinded by his own hate.
So, you want him to ACTUALLY attack a nuclear power in a direct military strike?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Criticism without presenting solutions is just whining.
"Don't mention problems unless you already know how to fix them."
Painfully fucking stupid point.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
educate people
Good luck with that. You can't educate people who already know everything.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
*should know that this is a joke by now.
That was the only mistake you found in your post? lol.
The dark hand of the liberal arts people is everywhere, is it not? Haha
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Mentions of H Clinton in post you're replying to: 0.
"But her emails.."
You realise even partisan democrats are saying put Pence in charge? Not Hilary. Pence. Now's the time for your spastic to show why Trump is better than Pence. Is it his manchild-esque behaviour that sets him apart? Shitty memory, barely functioning brain, overwhelming narcissism, borderline illiteracy... What is it?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Hillary may not have been pure as snow, but your understanding of reality is purely fucked.
The mental gymnastics required to feel OK about a russian fucking mole in the white house are truly epic. Hillary always comes riding to the rescue, often with emails in tow.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Oh, I don't know. How about not roll back the sanctions you placed on them for doing exactly this?
Is Putin a "good guy"? No, of course not, but why the hell do we care?
They're running rings around you, they're laughing their fucking asses off at you. But why should you care. Your institutions are undermined and you have utterly incompetent leadership. Don't bother caring, the Russians are your friends. Putin and his lovely brand of kleptocracy are your friends. lol.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
That's the advantage of having your mind made up ahead of time. When the contrary evidence comes you're already primed to dismiss it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
but I do give a good god-fucking-damnit about whether some Russian military assholes
Why dont you want to investigate the Mexican military involvement in our elections?
..and before you say that nobody has ever claimed Mexican interference in our elections, the claim was made before our current President took office, when he suggested that literally millions of Mexican nationals illegally voted for Hillary.
This was before the "russia russia russia!" stance... this was during the "fake news! fake news! fake news!" stance. The DNC told the public about the NSA's findings months before the NSA did. Let that sink in.
Either the DNC released State Secrets to the public, or the NSA didn't tell the American public about this otherwise very important thing that wasn't a State Secret.
No matter what angle you look at this shit from, Hillary and the DNC are colluding with the NSA. Maybe there is a Russian story in here somewhere, but fuck... the big news is that if you take what the NSA and DNC have been saying at face value, then the NSA and DNC colluded together to fuck you over.
Let it sink it. Either they are honest and tried (past tense) to fuck you over, or they are dishonest and are trying (future tense) to fucking you over.
I'm as worried about Russian nationals as I am Mexican nationals. You, however, clearly have a bias. A bit of racism I detect? Why do you hate the Slavic race so much?
"His name was James Damore."
It can only really happen when the Republicans see that Trump is such an unbelievable liability that they have to replace him with Pence. It's a testament to their lack of character that this hasn't already happened. Once his approval dips below a certain point they'll probably have to pull the trigger. Pence is an odious cunt, of that there can be little doubt - white christian america, women as a slave class, etc - but even Democrats are saying put him in charge. That gives you an idea of what a disaster Trump is for the US. Every day that goes by, it gets weaker and its strategic enemies get stronger.
They can keep him if they want, I don't give that much of a fuck either way. Self-inflicted injuries are the most entertaining.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You think Bush actually thought there were WMDs in Iraq? Cute.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Without providing any evidence, their bare assertions are useless. They have at least as many reasons to misrepresent te truth as they do to provide accurate information. Remember the baseless justifications for invading Iraq?
All political parties everywhere have dirty secrets or (equivalently) things that can be made to look like dirty secrets. We're all familiar with the line "give me six lines from the hand of the most honest of men, and I will find something in them to hang him," and it's even easier to hang people in the court of public opinion, but let's take an example:
The government gives a billion dollar aerospace contract to Boeing. There is a bidding process, but the requirements are such that only Boeing can meet them (including e.g. having a history of similar successful contracts). Is this corporate welfare, or is the government simply being diligent in making sure that they spend public money wisely?
The answer is whatever you want to make it look like. Politics is messy by nature, and even if you are the lone moral politician, it makes very little difference to your public perception.
The part that bothers me is not that the Dems were hacked, or that Trump was elected, or that Russia is succeeding in their plan to destabilize the US. The part that bothers me is that now other countries have seen that you can monkey with the American electoral process with impunity. That's not exactly going to deter people from trying. I'm sure that we would all have a fun time when (e.g.) China hacks party A in response to Russia hacking party B, but I'm not sure that democracy is best when foreign powers treat the American electorate as a football.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
In the wake of what Mr. Snowden did, show of hands by anyone who believes that a current NSA document was ' leaked ' by accident ?
Or do you think it might have been leaked to further the common narrative going around about those darned evil Russians :|
If the former, we shouldn't bother with classification ratings anymore as they appear to be a waste of time since we can find the information on the evening news.
I, however, am betting on the latter.
Well, members of our intelligence community don't want that. Say what you want, but I'm willing to trust people who have been working in the surveillance community when it comes to what's good for communication and national security.
Now, I don't know a ton but I do know back channels are relatively normal for certain types of communication. What's indefensible, as a U.S. citizen, is using that strictly to avoid FBI surveillance. Maybe it's innocent, but it sure as heck looks shady. The attempted cover-up once this starting making headlines sure doesn't paint a pretty picture. But, hey, I thought all those e-mail and Benghazi people would understand that type of thinking.
I don't think it's the Slashdot users that you need to be worried about convincing. To borrow a joke, maybe we should put that on some KFC buckets for a while.
What is wrong with letting us see what our candidates are doing?
So, you won't mind if we keep digging to really find out what happened with this whole Trump team and Russia thing, right?
I guess someone has firm belief, that everyone should believe a lie if it's repeated multiple times. To add credibility, they call it "secret" report (available to everyone without request) and put the well trusted NSA label. We all trust NSA, don't we? The guys so paranoid, they installed surveillance bug into your Samsung Smart TV.
I think they abused the trust of people so many times, that blaming "Russian hackers" became the fastest way to lose credibility. Personally, I stop reading or listening once "Russia" is blamed, as I don't find it comfortable when journalist or politician thinks he can treat me like an idiot.
No, did not Manning spend 4 years in prison, actually closer to 7 as the arrest in Iraq happened in 2010.
I guess it depends how long it takes for Trump to get impeached or otherwise unpresidented through a failed re-election. There is a reason the Trump administration is leaking like an open pipe (a sieve is not leaky enough for this metaphor). The distrust for this man goes beyond mere partisanship, and countless people are risking prison time to try to undo arguably the worst mistake in recent American history.
I still think Trump right now has a greater than 50% chance of getting re-elected and I'll further predict that he won't be impeached. Here's why.
1) Short term demographics favor him and the Republican Party. The people that elected him are very likely in 4 years to still have the numbers to put him back in office. The Democrats will eventually get the majority of voters behind them, but right now too many blacks and young people aren't voting at all, and as both groups skew heavily Democratic, this hurts the Democrats badly.
2) Since 1900, incumbent presidents have almost always won re-election. The few who didn't were presidents in times of great economic distress. Even hugely unpopular presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama won re-election. Think about that.
3) Trump isn't going to get impeached. There's no evidence that he has done anything to warrant that. And we don't want go down that path of "I'm going to impeach the president if he's with the other party every time my party gains control of Congress".
4) The Democrats seem unlikely to me to take the Senate in 2018 given how most of the seats up for election are held by them. Right now I'm guessing that holding 49 seats is probably a best case outcome.
5) As they've got even more ground to make up in the House, they're also unlikely to regain control there. The House is always going to be much harder to take than the Senate.
6) If they somehow do gain control of one or both houses of Congress, Trump will simply blame everything on the Democrats and Republican voters will buy it.
7) I've got lots of conservative friends and their attitudes towards Trump range from absolutely giddy that he won (still) to, at worst, slightly disappointed in a few things. And I'm not sure that if this very ill conceived replacement of Obamacare passes and harms tens of millions of people that it will make any difference in the votes.
8) He may yet do some things that elevate his standing with the voters in general. Solving the North Korea problem permanently in a way that doesn't end up killing millions of people would be one way to do it.
They raised her to become a person who'd, though only 9 or 10 when 9.11. happened, pick up Pashto, Farsi and Dari languages and join US Air Force as a linguist, where she served for 6 years.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06...
Not to mention the whole thing where they raised her to speak out about issues of public interest.
Such as evidence of attacks on the USA by a foreign government, while said attacks are denied by both the said foreign government - and the current USA administration which has landed the job in part thanks to said attacks.
At the expense of own liberty, job, future...
Some people really take that oath thing about "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" seriously.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
WTF are you smoking? There are massive amounts of Russian troops on Ukrainian territory as we speak, not even Russia denies that, because the evidence is overwhelming, so there is absolutely no doubt at all whether Russia invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. They did, according to existing and ratified international law. Whether the government of Ukraine was legitimate or not at the time the crisis started is a completely different question. Maybe that's what you mean? That Russia's intervention was somehow legitimate? Again, that's a totally different question.
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
When informed that we intended to go ahead with this story, the NSA requested a number of redactions.
The Intercept agreed to some of the redaction requests after determining that the disclosure of that material was not clearly in the public interest.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
What fucking horseshit. The Clinton Foundation is NOT an incredibly efficient charity. They take in tons of money, and they fly the Clintons and all of their key POLITICAL PEOPLE around the world at zero cost to those people with money DONATED FOR CHARITY. And when it comes time to actually do charity work, they dole SOME money out to have other ACTUAL charitable organizations do the ACTUAL charity work. Basically all they do is pass donated money on to other charities while taking a commission for doing so. Take off your partisan glasses. The Clinton Foundation is a free rewards machine for the Clintons and their inner circle.
There's still no evidence the Russians were even involved. This is what really irritates me - not that it may or may not have been Russians, but that with zero conclusive evidence you've already made up your mind that you know who the bad guy is. What this says to me is that you're a proponent of the far left, which is just as bad if not worse than the far right. You have your head so far up your own ass that you're trying to use hyperbole as facts.
Did the Russians hack, or at the very least attempt to hack the election? It's possible, but we don't really know. Even if we had something conclusive in that direction we don't know what the motive was, or if it was government sponsored or just some guys doing it for the lulz. We have some IPs and a time of day but any junior network technician can tell you that isn't really actionable evidence because it's possible to proxy yourself around the world in order to hide your true origin. The only thing we've got right now is a potential lead. If you're truly interested in facts then you have to stop letting emotion dictate your conclusion and start allowing the collected intelligence tell you the story. Right now, the story barely fits in a paragraph.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Okay, so let's say they hacked a 100 election officials. What are the odds it would of swayed the election?
Zero, zip, nada. Let's be honest, that's a drop in the bucket. A small city like New Haven, CT may have 100 election officials. The nation has thousands upon thousands of local election officials.
If anything this sounds like a hacker group, sent out thousands of spear fishing emails. And about a 100 recipients happened to be local officials, poll workers, etc.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
If there was collusion or if interference affected outcome, I say we have a special election this november and hit reset. Yes, we could remove him from office, but as far as I am concerned, removing a cheater from office and installing his party who cheated their way in is equally invalid. Let the people decide!
sidenote: remember right before election day when Trump said that if he lost, then the system really was rigged? What did he mean by that? Given this information, it sounds like he knew Russia was interfering to the point that if he lost, something bigger must have rigged it against him
I was afraid the Russians had infected Hillary Clinton and her team with mind-control technology that caused them to write a lot of incriminating emails and store them on an insecure server. It's a relief to know that all they did was execute a phishing campaign.
You can suggest that all you like, but It's not realistically likely. The us constitution describes the positions held by those in line of succession, and unless something were to happen to * everyone* in that list, a federal election sooner than otherwise scheduled would be legally problematic.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I thought that was already known. They were spreading propaganda. To what extent this propaganda actually determined the outcome of the election is something inherently unprovable, so I expect nothing will actually change
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
In 2010, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, was one of nine federal agency heads (Did all nine get massive bribes?) to sign off on Russia’s purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One, an international mining company headquartered in Canada with operations in several U.S. states. It was part of a regular process for approving international deals involving strategic assets, such as uranium, that could have implications for national security. Uranium One’s U.S. mines produced about 11 percent of the country’s total uranium production in 2014, according to Oilprice.com.
But even with its control of Uranium One, Russia cannot export the material from the United States. Russia was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer.
Please show us the records of this huge deposit of cash to the Clinton Foundation that resulted in the State Department's approval. On what grounds could the State Department have refused approval, bear in mind that the courts would have become involved.
You might want to talk to Congress about those requests to improve embassy security. Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, has routinely slashed the State Department's requests for funding to increase embassy security for over 50 years. But yeah it was all Hillary's fault.
First, if the intelligence community knows everything then, well, the investigation would be over. Benghazi got about 9 hearings, so I think we should let at least 1 investigation play out here.
Second, this isn't about verifying the election results or whether there was propaganda. Frankly, a lot of people are sick and tired of that canard. This is about collusion. If there isn't any, I'm fine with that. If there is, well, that's kind of a big thing.
The cost is negligible. You can secure most of these organizations with less than 10% of their IT budget.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Exactly, the complete over-ness of the election means that anybody patriotic would want to investigate the accusations. There is no practical benefit for trying to sweep them under the rug other than to protect whoever helped.
I find it sad that so many regular people are eager to help in a coverup, even if it is just by repeating nonsense. However, the middle covers most of the country, even when things are otherwise partisan. Investigation will happen, we're not just going to leave our nation's pants down because some idiots think the Russians were helping their side.
Assuming that the people they hire at the price they are paying are capable of knowing what needs to be done. Often the problem is that the admins are being paid $5 a day and they only know how to keep the lights on but what is needed are specialists at $50/hour.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Stupid? Man. He got Donald Trump elected for president. FUCKING DONALD TRUMP. He outsmarted everyone
Interesting you should mention that. I just finish Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jersusalem, about the trial of the notorious SS officer. It turns out that many Nazis made exactly the argument you make here. They believed Hitler had to have been a genius because he started out as an army corporal and ended up Chancellor. But if you look at what Hitler did after he become chancellor you can only conclude that he was a fool. He made blunder after blunder, ending in total ruin for the country and suicide for himself.
How do you reconcile the fact he was a fool with his success as a politician? Well, like anyone who reaches the top spot, he had a few lucky breaks. In the economic chaos of a worldwide depression, a lot of voters were looking for someone to shake things up. Even so he wasn't really in a position to win the chancellorship, in fact support for the Nazis was declining. But business interests, convinced Hitler was just a populist clown, convinced President Hindenburg that Hitler would be a useful tool. That was a huge mistake. They underestimated, not his brilliance, but his ruthless disregard for legal constraint.
So political success is no guarantee a man is not a fool. History has shown that repeatedly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1) Short term demographics favor him and the Republican Party. The people that elected him are very likely in 4 years to still have the numbers to put him back in office. The Democrats will eventually get the majority of voters behind them, but right now too many blacks and young people aren't voting at all, and as both groups skew heavily Democratic, this hurts the Democrats badly.
I don't know what numbers you are looking at, but I'm seeing republicans barely winning elections in districts that Trump carried by 20+ points a few months ago. So far those are the only hard facts beyond public opinion polling. I would probably agree with you if Trump was just a normal Republican president.
2) Since 1900, incumbent presidents have almost always won re-election. The few who didn't were presidents in times of great economic distress. Even hugely unpopular presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama won re-election. Think about that.
That's a sample size of 3. And like I said, this is not a normal president. I have faith in him to create enough enemies to lose an election even if he somehow manages to avoid an economic crisis, although his idiocy is certainly capable of causing on of those as well.
3) Trump isn't going to get impeached. There's no evidence that he has done anything to warrant that. And we don't want go down that path of "I'm going to impeach the president if he's with the other party every time my party gains control of Congress".
Impeachments are not about evidence. They are not legal. They are political. No we don't want to go down the road of impeaching a president every time the congress is controlled by the opposing party. There are some serious disincentives to push for impeachment of a president, and usually not much benefit, which is why it doesn't happen very often. Even if successful, the people fighting for impeachment will end up with president Mike Pence. That fact actually makes it more likely to get bipartisan support. And even though evidence of illegality is not really necessary, we might get it anyway with the current ongoing investigations. The best hope for impeachment will be democrats getting majorities in congress ASAP.
4) The Democrats seem unlikely to me to take the Senate in 2018 given how most of the seats up for election are held by them. Right now I'm guessing that holding 49 seats is probably a best case outcome.
Nixon wasn't going to get impeached until his second term. So I don't expect this to happen quickly. Investigations take time, and building coalitions takes time. But I have faith in Trump to do his part and give Republican congressmen and his own staff every reason imaginable to defect against him.
5) As they've got even more ground to make up in the House, they're also unlikely to regain control there. The House is always going to be much harder to take than the Senate.
We'll see. It looks like Republicans in the House are behaving in a way that indicates they are feeling pretty desperate. And if you want to look at past trends (which I am willing to discount in these abnormal times), you will see that the opposition party winning control of congress 2 years after a new president is elected is pretty strong.
6) If they somehow do gain control of one or both houses of Congress, Trump will simply blame everything on the Democrats and Republican voters will buy it.
Some will. Even if his entire base buys it (~30%?), that's not enough. He's not running against Hillary Clinton anymore. He is the most unpopular candidate in recent history, and he was running against the second most unpopular candidate in recent history, and he got less votes than her. And his popularity has been declining ever since. He barely won the 2016 election. If the democrats run someone even remotely likeable, I don't see how they can lose.
Could you explain why you think it is such a big thing if it can't be proven to have changed the outcome of the election?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Again, I don't care about the election results or changing them. I said that quite clearly.
You didn't even know about said phishing campaign until now, and only because the NSA told you so, but you're confident that you know all the effects and whether or not they were successful.
The whole premise is that the hackers publicly released info they obtained via their hacks to affect the election. Nothing released 1) is a strong indicator they didn't get anything (or anything of value) and 2) means there was no impact on anyone's vote decision.
I wasn't suggesting that you did... I asked why you think it is a big thing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There is not enough money to properly secure enough voting machines for everyone to vote.
Seriously. Why are we throwing money at this. Paper ballots are auditable and have been good enough for hundreds of years. Quit trying to fix EVERYTHING with technology.
I've always though the solution was *incredibly simple. Have an electronic voting machine that *also prints out a paper copy of the voter's selections.
The voter verifies the paper ballot and drops in a slot at the machine to register the vote.
So you now have complete paper ballots and complete electronic ballots.
Randomly check some number of precincts in every election to verify the counts match.
If there's a discrepancy then count the paper from all the precincts and use that total.
So now you've gained ~85% of the benefit offered by electronic voting (speed, accuracy, etc. etc) and lost none of the accountability.
This seems incredibly simple and workable.
Which is probably why it will never happen.
Tired and cranky last night - missed that.
To your question about why it's a big thing if people colluded with Russia to change our election... well, the only argument I see here is one of hypocrisy for the U.S. considering we love meddling. Even then, there are laws about this kind of thing, but I don't know how that isn't common knowledge at this point.
Your argument is sinking.
First off the mexican military aren't the same thing as mexican nationals. Second, Trump says a LOT of things that aren't remotely associated with what really happened.
The DNC told the public about the NSA's findings months before the NSA did.
You see absolutely no difference between accusations and reality do you? The DNC pointed the finger at Russia. That's different than the publishing NSA's secret information. But to you, if Trump accuses mexicans, that's it, it must be true. IF the DNC accuses Russia, that's it, they must have colluded with the NSA.
You're a complete nut that's disconnected from reality. Props to you for getting an accurate representative government. That's... actually quite the feat.
You raise a good point. If anyone wants to know why the investigations are moving so slowly just ask yourself this: if you knew it all culminated in having to watch the presidential pee video, would you not also slow-walk things?
Someone had to do it.
Sanctions, and don't give them back their US spying headquarters for nothing in return. And subsidize vodka and oil from everywhere else but Russia.
From what time in history do you refer to that Russia doesn't have blood on their hands? Hint, they killed more in ww2 than the nukes in Japan by the Americans.
You expect him to report "his word against mine" allegation against the President? Are you high or just naive?
This is probably her Twitter https://twitter.com/Reezlie under the similar name, Sara Winners. http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
She's 25. That's legally an adult, but contrasted with my own 63, she's a kid. I used the term loosely.
It's a staged "whistleblow". It even had (of has) Snowden fooled. (I don't know if he's realized it yet.)
(||) Nehmo (||)
Mindread much?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
If the CIA doesn't want it, then I do...
Do you really think a trained spymaster like Putin would just roll his eyes and smile sheepishly and tell Kelly, "Aw, shucks! You nailed me, fair and square!" But it seems a chorus of Republican and conservative pundits are all-out to back up this narcissist, paranoid, megalomaniac no matter what all the investigations find. In the age-old response of every politician to bad news: throw up a smokescreen of counter accusations and diversionary activities to delay and deflect. Hopefully, these information wars will make everyone stronger and smarter, and less likely to be confused by demagogues and would-be petty dictators and their supporting cronies.
PlaynBass