Slashdot Mirror


Russia Reportedly Bought Thousands of Facebook Ads Sought To Stress Racial Divisions (thehill.com)

According to The Washington Post, Russia government actors bought Facebook advertisements during the 2016 election cycle that sought to exploit and divide based on hot-button racial issues. Some of the ads promoted civil rights groups such as Black Lives Matter, while others criticized them in an effort to sow division. The Hill reports: Facebook is handing over some 3,000 ads to congressional investigators as part of probes into the Kremlin's alleged effort to influence the outcome of last year's presidential election. Other ads allegedly highlighted Hillary Clinton's support among Muslim women and promoted anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant messages. Facebook didn't comment on the story, but did refer to a statement earlier this month from its chief privacy officer, Alex Stamos: "Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the idealogical spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights."

292 comments

  1. Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Donald Trump's son has already admitted to committing treason and colluding with Russia's attack on America.

    He was caught sending a clear as day email approving of Russian government help for the Trump campaign.

    Donald Trump publicly commits treason as he praises Vladimir Putin while refusing to even aknowledge the Russian attack on our country.

    1. Re: Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascinating.

      Citation, please?

    2. Re: Treason by BeauHD+(2) · · Score: 1

      Ya, you wonder who "bought" Slashdot lol. It wasnt Soros but you arent that far off.

    3. Re:Treason by thesupraman · · Score: 0

      I just want to know when being Hungarian-American made you a Russian?
      I mean, this is basically the Soros method in a nutshell, it practically a fingerprint.

      But no, it must be 'Russians' because after all, Facebook says so, and they are completely independent as we well know!
      After all, they are practically a religion now..

    4. Re: Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your opinion, Ivan.

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

      Your mom already admitted to heavily drinking while pregnant with yourself.

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

      This is the same Washington Post that used to run a "Russia beyond the headlines" PR column for the Kremlin, right?

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

      Ya, you wonder who "bought" Slashdot lol. It wasnt Soros but you arent that far off.

      Wasn't it some coke dealer, or was he fronting for someone?

    8. Re: Treason by BeauHD+(2) · · Score: 1

      BIZX has nothing to do with Coke. It just made it convenient to hide the guys that make the shots. Sense it is privately owned.

    9. Re: Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Everyone who disagrees with me is a Russian agent.

      Someone forgot to take their thorazine.

    10. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try Ivan
      I can see it's you trying to stir up hatred against our president, but even our dumbest lefties are on to your tricks now.
      We won't let you slander the great name of Trump any longer.

    11. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians screwing DemoRat progressives? Wonderful !! Mebby the letter said to butcher you out, Trotsky slut. That would be a USA patriotic action no matter who did it.

    12. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, traitor.

    13. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States is not currently at war with Russia and even the most hardened Liberal hesitates to label another state "the Enemy", which is what the charge of treason requires. That and two witnesses or a confession in open court, neither of which is forthcoming in this case. It seems to me that those on the left should be more careful with how they wield laws whose penalty includes death. I'm sure that there are many on the right who would love to name more "Enemies" and then charge sympathetic lefties with Treason and demand death as the punishment. Be careful what you wish for.

    14. Re:Treason by ilguido · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think that Russia needs to buy Facebook ads to sow hate and dissent in the USA: reading these comments, I think that you are terribly capable of sowing hate by yourself. I think that Trump is quite foolish, but the hate and belittling campaign against him is not a sign of rightful social activism, but another mean through which American institutions are weakened. This kind of social turmoil is nowadays quite common in all the Western world (anti-establishment movements are strong everywhere), no matter if you are conservative, liberal, socialist or whatever: the pretension of being some kind of sole paladin of justice is what is killing the democratic process in the USA and in Europe.

    15. Re: Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority are Putin's trolls, sowing discontent in a story about Putin's trolls sowing discontent. You have to admire the symmetry. The rest are 4Chan nihilists, ordinary trolls and a few real trump supporters.

    16. Re:Treason by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Maybe if politics wasn't so terribly corrupted by a handful of large donors, and instead represented the people, discontent wouldn't be so damn easy to sow.

    17. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you are a complete moron, and have no clue what you are talking about throwing around the word treason.

      There is and was no treason and there is no such law against so called collusion unless you are collaborating with an enemy that we are at war with and last time I looked we aren't even in a cold war with the Russians any longer.

      You need to go read the campaign laws. Receiving opposition research from any party, foreign or domestic, has never been considered by any court to be a prohibited contribution. Even when that opposition research was collected illegally (like Trump's tax returns that were published on the front page of the NYT), the courts have never held the campaigns responsible.

    18. Re: Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not convinced. Back to English skool.

    19. Re: Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treason is assisting an enemy during war-time.

    20. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the bribes, err speaking fees, that Bill and Hillary got from Russian in exchange for uranium mining rights?

  2. Russia is a terrible neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia kicked my dog.

    1. Re: Russia is a terrible neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the Reset Button was supposed to fix all the Russia Problems.

    2. Re: Russia is a terrible neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only button that will fix those particular problems is the ones that launches nukes at them. If the Russkies keep fucking around with us, they may just learn that to their peril.

      Wars have been started over far less.

    3. Re: Russia is a terrible neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wars have been started over far less.

      Like Russia kicking my dog.

    4. Re:Russia is a terrible neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is the number 1 evil aggressor in the world today, and needs to be destroyed.

      Death to Putin.

    5. Re:Russia is a terrible neighbor by mpercy · · Score: 1

      “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back becausethe Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

  3. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They couldn't exploit divisions that didn't already exist. The fact of the matter is that there are several separate "Americas" which are only held together and unified by our McDonalds and Walmart culture.

    1. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe just maybe a geopolitical rival sowing social discord in order to destabilize our country is something that we in the U.S. should be concerned about?

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote Mayor McCheese?

    3. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and maybe Facebook shouldn't have allowed Russia to buy all those pro-BLM ads, and maybe America's lefties should not be so eager to be divided from the rest of America.

  4. So by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Facebook is a willing participant in election fraud?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their only regret is not charging more money.

    2. Re:So by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

      Guardian proudly sponsors a campaign for foreigners to interfere in the 2004 election

      "I'm taking the liberty of asking you, a citizen of a country built upon the principles of democracy but whose very might is in danger of disenfranchising the rest of the world, to use your right to vote, and to vote with all your heart and your mind, in your own name but also in the name of all those millions of people who will be looking to your decision in two weeks' time."

      Translation: Think of us first, and the needs of your own country last. F off foreigners, stop trying to influence our votes. Oh, but it was OK when they did it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:So by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      No way. Adverts don't harm people, people harm people.

    4. Re:So by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell, the US news media does the same thing, they're no longer about informing, but about advocacy. What difference does it make if the source is foreign or domestic? They're all working to affect the vote. And, is foreign propaganda illegal? Do you think we don't do the same damn thing (Radio America as a simple example)?

      The proper response is an intelligent, informed electorate.

      The voter registration movements work against that. If someone can't figure out the how, and won't put the effort into registering on their own, there's no chance the'll expend the effort to make an informed choice. All those voter registration drives are simply attempts to get irrational sycophants to vote.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re: So by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Willing but maybe not knowingly. They can't use that excuse anymore. But future attacks could be different in execution if not in substance.

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

      What part of advertising is election fraud?

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

      What election fraud? In this country we have freedom of speech.

    8. Re:So by poity · · Score: 1

      KGB boss: Dmitry, SEO is not a skill, why you apply to KGB? You dumb son of potato, I only laugh. Go back to Siberia, come back after learn real programming.

      Dmitry: CYKA BLYAT I SHOW YOU HOLD MY VODKA!

      *two weeks later*

      CNN: "We project Trump will win the state of Michigan"

      KGB boss: Hyello everybody, this is our new department manager Dmitry.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    9. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: Think of us first, and the needs of your own country last. F off foreigners, stop trying to influence our votes. Oh, but it was OK when they did it.

      If US is doing the same, meddling with elections somewhere far, far away it is called Politics, and American Interests.
      If I as foreigner screw one American and we stay in bed whole election day that will be also "influencing elections" :-)

    10. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do you think we don't do the same damn thing (Radio America as a simple example)?

      Blow a goat.
      Its right there in the name America.
      Nobody is tricking anyone.

      > The voter registration movements work against that. If someone can't figure out the how, and won't put the effort into registering on their own, there's no chance the'll expend the effort to make an informed choice

      Hell, why not bring back literacy tests?

    11. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't understand the difference between openly stating that you would like Americans to vote differently, something which strongly risks them doing the opposite if they think you are working against their interests, and secretly manipulating them through unattributed adverts then you are the problem with the future of US democracy.

    12. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Guardian is a newspaper (with a US office then and a US edition now), wholly owned by a charitable trust, not beholden to a media baron.

      It's entitled to its opinion of US politics (in 2004 it was right, on balance, though John Kerry would have been a boring President).

      The Russia interference is a GOVERNMENT, meddling in your affairs, bribing and paying campaign officials, and assisting one campaign above others (with at least one obvious beneficial outcome; weakened GOP position on Ukraine).

      You seem capable of writing and complete sentences. But do you not understand the difference here? Seriously? Get your head out of your arse and understand that something significant and different is happening here, and your country will need to get its head around it.

      Just as we will need to get our heads around the reality that the Brexit result was bought and paid for by a reclusive GOP-backing billionnaire friend-of-Bannon.

    13. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't see a rebuttal because there's too much truth in what you say. It wouldn't surprise me if the Kremlin swayed the Brexit vote as well. That was a close result like the US one.

    14. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, you think Putin didn't study propaganda in his time at the KGB? His predecessors have been refining it for 100 years and you can see him down in the archives, stripped to the waist, avidly reading Beria's diaries.

    15. Re:So by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, fuck off Trump, Brexit is nothing to do with you. Stop trying to influence our votes with fake promises of golden trade deals that we know will turn to shit the moment we fall for your trap...

      Oh, wait... Fuck.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:So by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nope, the Washington post is a willing participant in fraud. Note the sneaky bit in the story, c'mon people, stop and think. Facebook delivers individual content to individual people, how that content is filtered and delivered is the Facebook system. So pay attention to that, so how does Facebook deliver ads, individually, not collectively. Each individual gets served an ad, so thousands of ads, get it, see, tricky fraudulent fuckers. They spend one hundred thousand dollars to sell some crap related to that, what where they selling, CLICK BAIT, they were advertising CLICK BAIT. Spread an inflammatory issue to get people to click it. Seriously have /.ers become that stupid. Facebook will sell any kind of crap ad for all kinds of shit and the bulk of it CLICK BAIT. For fuck sake your are letting yourself get sucked in by arts student morons, fucking hell.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  5. No, that would be rags like HuffPo and Salon... by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...who have used race baiting against working whites in the same way white supremacists attack black and latinos. It's an inversion of LBJ's famous observation about poor southern whites:

    "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

    Only instead of getting poor whites to resent minorities who have never done a thing to them, it's getting poor minorities to resent white people who have never done anything to them. And all the while, the fine folks at COINTELPRO are laughing their asses off as people ignore the deep state crony capitalists hiding behind the curtain.

    1. Re:No, that would be rags like HuffPo and Salon... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...who have used race baiting against working whites in the same way white supremacists attack black and latinos. It's an inversion of LBJ's famous observation about poor southern whites:

              "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

      Only instead of getting poor whites to resent minorities who have never done a thing to them, it's getting poor minorities to resent white people who have never done anything to them. And all the while, the fine folks at COINTELPRO are laughing their asses off as people ignore the deep state crony capitalists hiding behind the curtain.

      Alright, who are you and what have you done with the Uberbah that I've argued with on /. countless times over the years!? LOL!

      Damn man, I find myself agreeing with your posts a lot lately! Well said. It's all about 'divide & conquer' using propaganda and disinformation while simultaneously dumbing-down the population so they are unable to think critically or possess any knowledge of history. Evil Kabuki theater.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:No, that would be rags like HuffPo and Salon... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Look, racism is racism, no matter which way you point it; but white racism against blacks is different from black racism against whites because of the numbers involved. And white racism is relevant even when people never meet because of simple things like purchasing power. Where you spend your money is your most relevant vote (as rammed home by the story we're discussing right now) but how you actually vote is also important. And both where these racists spend their money and the way they vote are absolutely impacting black people.

      Eh? This isn't some commentary based on "reverse racism" or whatever you were going with here. It's how elites manipulate the electorate to fight among themselves rather than uniting against the elite. We can look at two examples, from the same person, that cover both sides thanks to the wonderful Hillary Clinton:

      When she was running around defending the draconian Clinton crime bill in the 90's, calling [minority] kids Superpredators. Playing up racist white resentment as well as any Dixiecrat. And then twenty years later on the flip side, her sycophants smeared Bernie Sanders as having a problem with minorities in the most brazen case of Swiftboating since the Bush Administration (almost entirely staffed with warmongering draft dodgers) smeared John Kerry as a coward for his Vietnam tours.

    3. Re:No, that would be rags like HuffPo and Salon... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Alright, who are you and what have you done with the Uberbah that I've argued with on /. countless times over the years!? LOL!

      Damn man, I find myself agreeing with your posts a lot lately! Well said. It's all about 'divide & conquer' using propaganda and disinformation while simultaneously dumbing-down the population so they are unable to think critically or possess any knowledge of history. Evil Kabuki theater.

      Looks like we even broke Slashdot for a few days. :) My druthers would be to send Bush and Obama to the Hague, end illegal spying & civil forfeiture, then we can go argue amongst ourselves about the merits of capitalism and workers owning the means of production. Cheers.

    4. Re:No, that would be rags like HuffPo and Salon... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Looks like we even broke Slashdot for a few days. :) My druthers would be to send Bush and Obama to the Hague, end illegal spying & civil forfeiture, then we can go argue amongst ourselves about the merits of capitalism and workers owning the means of production. Cheers.

      Agreed, except for sending them to the Hague. Heck, the EUrocrats might put them in charge, since some of the largest EU nations are '5-eyes' members!

      Leavenworth and/or possibly a firing-squad sounds better to me. Have a good weekend.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  6. Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

    I grew up with these types of stories since the cold wars days. But were told that it was all cia propaganda and that they would never do anything like that.

    1. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the definition of "whataboutism" the textbook example of the Soviet Union countering Western propaganda was "don't you still lynch black people over there?"

    2. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Back then, you could actually find literate, well-informed conservatives who would defend their views or change them according to the facts. These days, most conservatives are a pack of proudly-ignorant morons who desperately hate anybody smarter than them (which encompasses most of the population), and who dismiss proved facts that refute their noxious views.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is CIA propaganda. The Republicans hate Communists so they constantly make-up lies like this about Russia and China.

    4. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only communists left in Russia are kept in a zoo.

      University social science departments is where you want to go these days. Careful, they haven't raised the limit to one yet.

    5. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...and ridiculous beliefs like this are why the Right will be in power for the next 50 years. It's not the facts of the situation, it's the fact that to you, they are The Other. And you'd rather do anything than tolerate The Other.

      The conservatives I know have a realistic understanding of human nature (i.e., it is fundamentally flawed) and set expectations accordingly; i.e., there will never be a Utopia.

      It is the leftists who believe that human nature is basically good, and that people do bad things because of external forces (e.g., their living conditions); Therefore the goal of arranging those external forces so they no longer cause people to do bad things becomes the greatest moral imperative.

      So, on one hand we have people who believe that Utopia is impossible, and on the other we have people who believe that creating Utopia is the highest (perhaps only) moral priority. The first group believes the second group is deluded in their belief that Utopia is possible; the second group believes the first group is immoral for opposing their efforts to create one at any cost.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re: Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Alas, "proudly ignorant" seems to describe both sides of contemporary American political discourse.

    7. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is a good summary of it. It's why we work best together. The Left pushing some new ideas and the Right keeping us grounded and practical. We can neither afford to stagnate as a people, nor can we afford reckless experimentation based solely off of feelings. Both trains of thought are critical. Tilting too far in either direction dooms us.

    8. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...and ridiculous beliefs like this are why the Right will be in power for the next 50 years. It's not the facts of the situation, it's the fact that to you, they are The Other. And you'd rather do anything than tolerate The Other.

      The conservatives I know have a realistic understanding of human nature (i.e., it is fundamentally flawed) and set expectations accordingly; i.e., there will never be a Utopia.

      It is the leftists who believe that human nature is basically good, and that people do bad things because of external forces (e.g., their living conditions); Therefore the goal of arranging those external forces so they no longer cause people to do bad things becomes the greatest moral imperative.

      So, on one hand we have people who believe that Utopia is impossible, and on the other we have people who believe that creating Utopia is the highest (perhaps only) moral priority. The first group believes the second group is deluded in their belief that Utopia is possible; the second group believes the first group is immoral for opposing their efforts to create one at any cost.

      Hitler very successfully made the very same arguments. He even quoted Darwin. IMO it all comes down to whether or not humans can rise above the fundamental urges that lead to tribal manifestations of these urges. A majority of the German population fell under this spell and we know it lead to WW11. It seems that America right now is undergoing the very same shift to an idiotic pseudo Darwin concept of survival of the meanest bastards, this is happening on a financial basis as well as a political one.

      Tsar Putin is no dumb ass cookie. He knows that by putting small amounts of intel dollars into the already volatile American political system his sponsorship of the oligarchs and up and coming Russian elite will help him stay in power. Why you ask? Because the already established organized crime institutions in the US are ripe for take over and this is what is happening. Although Castro is dead and his brother still sorta runs the show there are still a great many who would like to have Cuba turn into a free for all of organized crime that sucks dollars from the US and this now includes the new up and coming Russian Mafia kingpins not just the native American ones.

      Sadly the governments of both the US and Russia are now under the control of organized crime. What the Russians are doing in no different than the CIA secretly backing drug lord dictators while turning a blind eye to the Mafia king pin Santo Trafficane and his French connection heroine trade all the way back to Laos during the De Gaulle era in Indo China. And what is going on to this very day with the internal corruption of the so called "war on drugs". This secret economy and political actions of a key part of the US government has created a serious risk of division by corruption of the entire US political system. Left and Right, conservative and democrat in reality have nothing to do with it. We are all being taken for a ride by those who seek only to have a free ride at the public trough and rule by division and deception and could in reality, care less about the populace they have sworn to serve.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    9. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up with these types of stories since the cold wars days.

      Except during the Cold War we didn't whine and cry about it when we lost a round. Both sides fought dirty, made no apologies and politely kept it mostly out of the public eye because it was easier to accomplish objectives that way.

      But were told that it was all cia propaganda and that they would never do anything like that.

      What would the CIA have to gain by airing dirty laundry? They worked very hard to keep a lid on the more unpleasant parts of the intelligence game because well, it's bad for business.

    10. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The lesson of all this is actually "don't underestimate Russia"...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    11. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many elections has the US interfered with, sometimes for simple economic concerns rather than issues of national security? How many dictatorships has the US propped up? Remember when Saddam was our guy? And Bin Laden was fighting the good fight against the communists? The current regime in Iran is the direct result of toppling Mosaddegh and installing the brutal Shah - which backfired spectacularly.

      How the fuck do you think the world works? As if Russia, the first nation to launch a satellite into orbit, rapidly redeveloping its technological base, and still feeling a perceived betrayal during perestroika, isn't going to fuck with the US to its advantage. It's a nation that cannot be threatened militarily, and they know it. And they're going to do what they can to put a favourable candidate in the white house. Get used to it. If the NSA can do it, you can bet the Russians can do it to.

    12. Re: Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conservatives I know have a realistic understanding of human nature (i.e., it is fundamentally flawed) and set expectations accordingly; i.e., there will never be a Utopia.

      You have an unrealistic view of conservatives, and treat them as flawless, and set your position accordingly.

      It is, of course, wrong, since anybody who wasn't a blind partisan shill would be able to spot the faltering nature of right-wing modality, and actually be distressed over it.

      There is a reason you have a tirade-screaming petty tyrant as the GOP standard-bearer. And why all of their ability to govern is so faulty.

      Nothing but hysteria and hypocrisy abounds.

    13. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad you have that 100% backwards. Conservatives believe in a utopia in which charity covers all the needs of the needy, while Liberals believe that you have to legislate helping them, because history has shown that the conservatives (who are holding all the money) will not actually spend enough of their money on charity to make a noticeable difference unless forced. That's why the natural order is to keep cycling back to torches and pitchforks. Liberals know that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, while conservatives think it's a buck-oh-five.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WW11 ? Did I miss sometjhing ? What happened to the other 9 ?

    15. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's much simpler than that. Conservatives like the way things are, because even if they are unfair it benefits them or suits their "traditional" beliefs. The left finds that they can't get married or get an abortion, or at least cares enough that someone else can't, and see that it's because of some fairy tale or tradition or simple bigotry and wants to change it.

      I'm not sure where you get the "at any cost" bit from.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Xyrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that's bullshit. The left doesn't believe in "Utopia". Why the fuck do you think they're supposedly the party of "evil" laws and regulations the right likes to demonize? It's the CONSERVATIVES who think we need less regulation. They're the ones who want to remove environmental protections. They're the ones that want to remove business regulations. They're the ones who want to remove the FDA. They're the ones that want to remove consumer protections. So on and so forth.

      The CONSERVATIVES are the ones who believe in this ridiculous notion of Utopia. We'd all be happy if we just got rid of all these pesky rules and regulations! That's utter bullshit.

      --
      ~X~
    17. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      history has shown that the conservatives (who are holding all the money)

      If you're going to use suck a laughably counter-factual meme as a foundational part of your thesis, be prepared to be laughed at.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you live in an alternate universe where Bernie Sanders didn't nearly get the nomination on a platform of free everything and the rest of the party isn't trying to push free health care for everyone even though every state that's tried to implement it has abandoned the idea because they have no way to pay for it. But it will be totally different if we do it federally guys!

      All the "de-regulation" complaints are just nonsense talking points without specifics. But hey, it's good for rallying the base! Some regulations are good, some are bad. Conservatives vary on how much regulation they want. I suggest you investigate their reasoning behind their actions before assuming they're all horrible corrupt people.

    19. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by multi+io · · Score: 1

      So, on one hand we have people who believe that Utopia is impossible, and on the other we have people who believe that creating Utopia is the highest (perhaps only) moral priority. The first group believes the second group is deluded in their belief that Utopia is possible; the second group believes the first group is immoral for opposing their efforts to create one at any cost.

      Last time I checked, conservatives (at least those in Congress and in the WH) believed that a health care system that's twice as expensive per capita as every other civilised country's and failed to insure a large group of people was the best thing you can have, and they believed that increased defense spending and further tax cuts for the rich, starting from a historically low base, would lower the national debt.

      So who is into Utopias here?

    20. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that human nature is fundamentally flawed is essentially just original sin recycled. 10 brazillion people could drive peacefully along a road but if 1 decides to run somebody over . . . OMG people are fundamentally flawed!

    21. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Nice straw man argument you have there. Better make sure it doesn't get wet and soggy.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    22. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, my friend, for saying it a lot better than I would have.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    23. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      history has shown that the conservatives (who are holding all the money)

      If you're going to use suck a laughably counter-factual meme as a foundational part of your thesis, be prepared to be laughed at.

      Suck my balls, you ignoranus. You literally could not be more wrong. I notice also that you failed to provide a statistic, which makes sense, since you fail at every other conversational gambit as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you live in an alternate universe where Bernie Sanders didn't nearly get the nomination on a platform of free everything

      Ah, the "free" everything meme. Tell me, did you listen to what he said or just make it up like usual?

      and the rest of the party isn't trying to push free health care for everyone even though every state that's tried to implement it has abandoned the idea because they have no way to pay for it.

      As mentioned already, the US health care system is much more expensive per capita, doesn't everybody, and the vast majority of civilized nations actually have implemented such a system, and it's working fine.

      But it will be totally different if we do it federally guys!

      Oh? You mean the US is that incompetent?

      All the "de-regulation" complaints are just nonsense talking points without specifics. But hey, it's good for rallying the base! Some regulations are good, some are bad. Conservatives vary on how much regulation they want. I suggest you investigate their reasoning behind their actions before assuming they're all horrible corrupt people.

      All the "regulation complaints are just nonsense talking points without specifics. But hey, it's good for rallying the base. Many regulations are good, few are bad. Conservatives regularly denounce regulation in a blind manner, though they do seem to incessantly demand more and more regulation of things they don't like. I suggest you investigate their reasoning before you let their actions be enacted since so many of them are horribly corrupt people.

    25. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I thought 'The American Conservative' ( http://www.theamericanconserva... ) was started just because they who called themselves paleoconservatives felt they were being squeezed out of the discourse. So together with some libertarians I consider them well informed , but unfortunately in the current context , fringe.

    26. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The political Right, keeping us grounded and practical? They're the most hysterical, emotion driven, and reckless folks around.

      I think you've been caught up too much in a false narrative, as the Right, despite its pretensions, is neither logical or rational, they are quite dedicated to their story on that, but they're no Vulcans.

    27. Re:Haven't they been doing this stuff forever? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't unmarried people get equal rights to those that are married?

  7. This is not what was intially reported by ebonum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ads were initially reported to be pro Trump. It seems Facebook itself reported false information to seed decent.

    1. Re:This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dissent*

    2. Re:This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Err.. no, they weren't. The initial report was:

      Most of the ads and accounts didn't have to explicitly do with the election or either of the then-candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Instead, they were focused on divisive political topics, including LGBT issues, immigration and gun rights.

      If you read that as "pro-Trump", that's on you. Don't go crying "false information".

    3. Re:This is not what was intially reported by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      I don't know if FB reported false information, as much as the news media presumed that anything funded by Russia must be pro-Trump. Most news organizations are searching with a microscope for anything tying Russia to Trump, and they tend to get a bit giddy when they think something has been found. According to the article, there isn't much of a smoking gun here, and in fact there may not have been anything illegal as far as the "foreign nationals can't influence elections" laws. In the past these laws were primarily investigated in relation to foreigners providing direct campaign contributions to candidates. The main problem is that laws of this sort must enforceable. If someone offers me a $100 to put a bumper sticker on my vehicle for a specific candidate, how would I be able to determine whether or not those funds came from a foreign national? I purchase ads from Facebook for various projects. How could Facebook know if my ad was attempting to influence an election, and then whether or not my funds (payed for via credit card) had originally come from some foreign government?

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re:This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Promoting fear == "vote republican"

    5. Re: This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the update, Vlad.

    6. Re:This is not what was intially reported by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      They were pro-Trump in that they helped his campaign. Inflaming racial tensions also keeps Americans focused on problems at home while the Russians are out pulling all kind of stunts up to and including annexing territory from sovereign states. Electing trump was just a side effect. I get the feeling most of the Russian contacts with his campaign weren't even serious attempts to collude with him. They just wanted to leave a concrete trail of contacts that would make a further circus, paralyzing the us government that much longer.

    7. Re:This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see.... "War on women", "deport all immigrants", "killing the elderly", "racist", "bigots", "gay bashers", etc. Me thinks it's the Left that tries to instill fear in to every minority group to keep them in the Democrat vote column. They don't actually offer any solutions or help. Just FUD.

    8. Re:This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wish I could mod this to +6.

      This has been pretty evident from the get go.

      Doesn't it seem strange that Russia constantly leaks evidence of their collusion with Trump? Why would they leak this if they were colluding? They would disappear anyone who leaked it.

      They are "leaking" their "collusion" to inflame the left and cause turmoil.

      They would have done something to a similar effect had Hillary won. I guarantee it.

    9. Re: This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The libz is gonna take are gunz!" "Socialists wants ta take away mah medicare!" "Kenyan Obama is bringin' Shariah to America!"

      Seems like the right ia just as gullible band guilty as the Left.

    10. Re:This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it's half and half from what you said. There have been suspicious deaths in Russia, mostly suspected to be related to the Steele report. This may have more to do with protecting Russian intelligence than Trump, though. Don't forget the sanctions though-It does seems that Russia has been trying to leverage their influence. As I see it, Trump was not the plan, and they tried to use him, but he and the Republicans are too incompetent to use. The plan as I see it was to narrow Hillary's win, and stoke up the Republican obstruction to new heights, possibly with a side of Nazi militia violence to help keep Hillary focused on domestic issues so Russia could annex Ukraine and whoever else is on the menu.

    11. Re: This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Socialists wants ta take away mah medicare!" That's a left wing fear. Medicare is socialized medicine, why would socialists take away socialized medicine? At least try to make an accusation that makes sense.
      The first one is happening in CA and NY states.
      Anyone calling President Obama a Kenyen is a nujtob not a conservative.

    12. Re: This is not what was intially reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you, admitting Donald Trump is a nut job.

  8. "According to the Washington Post." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So one propaganda arm claims another propaganda arm was used by the propaganda arm of another country to influence an election.

    At least they didn't drop weapons or invade or prop up terrorists unlike what we do.

    1. Re:"According to the Washington Post." by knightghost · · Score: 1, Troll

      Have you ever heard of a country named "Ukraine"? Off down the rabbit hole you go...

    2. Re: "According to the Washington Post." by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Nobody has heard of Ukraine and they might just disappear from the map entirely before too long. Turn on the news today and you will hear about the president yelling about football on twitter. The operation was a total successk

    3. Re: "According to the Washington Post." by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Am American journalist visiting Ukraine just after the war - in the interstitial period of peace & cooperation between WW2 and the Cold War - described that land as "the Texas of Russia".

      Something to think about.

    4. Re: "According to the Washington Post." by sysrammer · · Score: 2

      Pedant here. It's spelled "successky".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    5. Re: "According to the Washington Post." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and for sure, it has nothing to do with that law signed by obama a couple? years ago allowing the use of propaganda for domestic audiences...

  9. Gee they should have hired Obama by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Troll

    Just looking around they have nothing on what a true professional was able to accomplish.

    1. Re:Gee they should have hired Obama by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...elsewhere in the world when they find a politician is a sexual predator they throw them out of government , in the US you elect them.

    2. Re:Gee they should have hired Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 2 terms no less.

    3. Re:Gee they should have hired Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only throw them out of government? Weiner got 21 months in prison.

    4. Re:Gee they should have hired Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, we almost elected his wife too.

    5. Re:Gee they should have hired Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. I'd expect dipshits like you on Yahoo, but on Slashdot?!? I'm quite surprised. Listen, dumbass. Obama isn't responsible for racial division in any way other than simply being a black president. Lots of racists who previously stayed under the radar had a thermonuclear meltdown once a nigga got into the White House. They were always there. Like a rash that never went away. Now, get off Slashdot before I stick a lit TIKI torch up your gay ass.

  10. So the Russians were colluding with the Dems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow! This development really flips the investigation on its head!

  11. Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before the election

    Dec. 10, 2015
    Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

    Late 2015
    British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).

    March 19, 2016
    Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).

    March 21
    During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).

    March 28
    Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could "greatly benefit the Putin Government." His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

    April 27
    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

    June
    At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).

    June 9
    Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort and son-in-law Jared Kushner meet at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-connected attorney named Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya's efforts to reverse a law passed in 2012 sanctioning Russians suspected of human rights violations at some point drew the attention of the FBI. The meeting was not initially reported to the government by Kushner as required when he took a position with the administration (Times, July 8, 2017). After the meeting was originally reported, Trump, Jr. admitted that the pretext for the conversation was that he believed Veselnitskaya to have information incriminating Hillary Clinton (Times, July 9, 2017).

    June 15
    A hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0" releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

    July
    At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).

    July 7
    Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track Pageâs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).

    July 11 or 12
    Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

    July 18
    At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).

    Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's "Lock her up!" chant. "If I, a guy who knows this business, if I

    1. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try being less of a dumbfuck when you read.

      The cited articles come from all of the reputable news sources in America!

    2. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is you refuse to acknowledge reality even when it's staring you in the face.

    3. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      That's because you are a fucking idiot.

    4. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that the point of the actual linked article is that the Russians objective is to sow disconnect and divide Americans. Then you go on to post a bunch of loosely connected and out of context examples to help feed a very partisan and divisive narrative. Currently those on the Left are actually doing exactly what the Russians want them to do. They're creating disconnect and trying to destroy American unity and faith in our democratic process. The left, unknowingly, are the ones colluding and doing the work the Russians want done. Try some introspection and realize you've been played and are part of the problem dividing us and weakening us as a nation.

    5. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Some stories based on out of context reports. Others based on a discredited dosier (sourced from a foreign government which is what he's accusing Trump of doing). Other stories that use as their source the other stories listed. There are nearly no facts in any of those. It's all innuendo. You should take your head out of your ass so you can actually see the difference between reality and shilled political theatre.

    6. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the AC you're replying to with this cut n paste hack job.

      Nothing in this says what you said. Where is the treason? Where did Kushner break any laws much less commit treason?

      I won't even attack your sources. Let's just assume all this crap is exactly true as presented. It still doesn't back your Kushner Traitor contention.

      It's shit may fly on dailykos and other lefty echo chamber sites. But here you're going to be challenged.

    7. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just as I suspected, I laid out the evidence of treason right in front of you and you have simply chosen to ignore it.

      June 9
      Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort and son-in-law Jared Kushner meet at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-connected attorney named Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya's efforts to reverse a law passed in 2012 sanctioning Russians suspected of human rights violations at some point drew the attention of the FBI. The meeting was not initially reported to the government by Kushner as required when he took a position with the administration (Times, July 8, 2017). After the meeting was originally reported, Trump, Jr. admitted that the pretext for the conversation was that he believed Veselnitskaya to have information incriminating Hillary Clinton (Times, July 9, 2017).

    8. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The left is standing up to Russia while the right wing embraces Russia's attack on our country.

    9. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, I know "treason" is a really fun word to say and all, but it has an actual definition. It's right there in the constitution, in fact. And meeting with random lobbyists to get political dirt or having a routine meeting with the Russian Ambassador isn't "treason".

    10. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got most of the way through that before realizing I hadn't read a single thing that was unethical or illegal and giving up. I swear they think if they just Tourette's "Russia!!" enough they can bend reality to their whim.

    11. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice wallotext, Comrade Wang. The Party will be pleased with your hard work.

    12. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The left is standing up to Russia while the right wing embraces Russia's attack on our country.

      No kidding. The GOP's approval ratings of Putin have increased nearly 4x since the trump infection colonized their party. Saint Reagan is going to bring the fire and brimstone for you traitors.

    13. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go. Trump won't need to build any wall with you around.

    14. Re: Timeline of Treason by Sultan+Of+Smut · · Score: 1

      "sourced from a foreign government" Why didn't you mention which foreign government it was? Oh right because you'd look like a twat and wouldn't be able to draw the comparison between Great Britain (an ally that shares intelligence back and forth) and Russia.

    15. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a fucking idiot but very likely a troll paid by the Russian state, like 75% of the comments so far. You can tell which are the trolls because they never admit to the possibility of Russian interference. Even the comments which apparently argue with each other avoid the subject (show me the evidence, MSM lies, misdirect, obscure, quibble).

      Why is that, do you think? Why are so many trying to discredit the idea? Slashdot is overrun with these puppets. They can't build a decent society because their rulers (whom they either worship or are in fear of) are incompetent and violent and corrupt so they want to pull our societies down because they set a better example.

      Destruction's our delight
      Delight our greatest sorrow
      The US fades tonight
      The EU dies tomorrow

    16. Re:Timeline of Treason by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      Both sides are fairly retarded, so maybe this propaganda effort was successful. Are there no reasonable, halfway educated center-right or center-left people left in the US?

    17. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The left is standing up to Russia while the right wing embraces Russia's attack on our country.

      The right is mostly saying wtf are you talking about to the left. While the left is playing right in to the goal to sow division. The "standing up" is actually doing Putin's bidding. The irony is completely missed by ivory tower moral crusaders.

    18. Re:Timeline of Treason by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice summary of the unthinkable collusion that has been going on between the Trump team and Putin's Russia.

      But I'm afraid the far-right (alt-right?) Republican camp has been padded so thoroughly against investigative journalism (fake news) and real facts (with -alternative facts-) that all of this evidence of collusion and treason will simply bounce right off them. It's amazing and scary thoroughly this group of people has been shielded from reason. It seems practically like brainwashing.
      All it takes is propaganda and a "great", charismatic leader that talks loudly.
      Now everybody should understand how Nazi Germany could happen.

    19. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The pushed accusation is that it is illegal to get campaign opposition research from a foreign government. Last time I checked, we have not been under British rule since 1776. We're not at war with Russia. They may be a geo-political opponent, but that's the extent. There is no difference between speaking to Russians and to Britons from a legal point of view.

    20. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides are fairly retarded

      Both hamburgers and polonium are unhealthy to eat.

    21. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the contrary, the left is doing what Russia wants -- as usual.

    22. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, the tin-foil companies much be making a killing these days!

    23. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coluding with a foreign government for electoral purposes is treason. You twit.

    24. Re:Timeline of Treason by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Again, but from someplace credible.

      What, like the mouth of trump?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    25. Re: Timeline of Treason by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      You can tell which are the trolls because they never admit to the possibility of Russian interference.

      Here's my problem. Who gives a shit? Of course they tried to influence it. Just like America and everywhere else tries to influence the election of other countries to get the best situation for them. It's nothing new apart from Trump whining and crying about it now it's started to work against him. Mother fucker needs to grow up and, well I would say get on with the job but has he actually started? As far as I can tell it's all golf and tweets.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    26. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of this timeline is nonsense, so I'll limit my reply to the more pertinent points.

      Dec. 10, 2015
      Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

      And the Clintons received millions from Russia in uranium deals and "speeches".

      March 28
      Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could "greatly benefit the Putin Government." His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

      Oh no, someone, once upon a time, worked with someone else that was pro-Russia... and?

      April 27
      Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

      "May have met", I love it. You know that senators often meet with foreign leaders in their official capacity? Sessions was on the Armed Service Committee, and he reportedly shook hands and "met" more than a 100 foreign officials in that exhibition hall that day in front of hundreds of witnesses.

      June 9
      Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort and son-in-law Jared Kushner meet at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-connected attorney named Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya's efforts to reverse a law passed in 2012 sanctioning Russians suspected of human rights violations at some point drew the attention of the FBI. The meeting was not initially reported to the government by Kushner as required when he took a position with the administration (Times, July 8, 2017). After the meeting was originally reported, Trump, Jr. admitted that the pretext for the conversation was that he believed Veselnitskaya to have information incriminating Hillary Clinton (Times, July 9, 2017).

      Someone claims to have dirt on your political opponent, and then it turns out she doesn't and you leave within 5 minutes. I can see how this could be considered negligible because nothing happened. Also, she might have ties with the Obama administration as she was invited to several house hearings during his presidency. There are also reports that she was in the country illegally at that point and was possibly allowed in by the previous administration because of her ties with it.

      June 15
      A hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0" releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

      And later leaks (Vault 7) revealed that the CIA has hacking tools that can spoof other nation's hacking style. Also, others report that the DNC "hacks" weren't actually hacked, but that the data was removed from the building via USB memory stick, possibly by Seth Rich, who was later found dead in a "robbery gone wrong" with his wallet and phone still on him.

      July 11 or 12
      Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

    27. Re:Timeline of Treason by dave420 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just turning up to meet the lawyer was illegal, whether they had any information or not. It doesn't matter what happened at the meeting or afterwards - the very act of trying to get the information instead of reporting the offer is illegal. That's it. That's the only piece the wall of text needed to include, and it's damning.

      I don't know how you see a Russian-government paid lawyer trying to give information on an opponent in an election as not a foreign country intervening in said election.

    28. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you only read Breitbart, on account of how you're a stupid cunt.

    29. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice summary of the unthinkable collusion that has been going on between the Trump team and Putin's Russia.

      But I'm afraid the far-right (alt-right?) Republican camp has been padded so thoroughly against investigative journalism (fake news) and real facts (with -alternative facts-) that all of this evidence of collusion and treason will simply bounce right off them. It's amazing and scary thoroughly this group of people has been shielded from reason. It seems practically like brainwashing.
      All it takes is propaganda and a "great", charismatic leader that talks loudly.
      Now everybody should understand how Nazi Germany could happen.

      But if Hillary had won, wouldn't be reading reams of information on what the Clinton Foundation was doing pulling in big money?

    30. Re: Timeline of Treason by Maritz · · Score: 1

      America may well be 'trying' to do it, but the russians are running fucking rings around you. They're good at this stuff, and you are not. Think you can influence who gets 'elected' in Russia? lol.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    31. Re:Timeline of Treason by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The left stands for nothing. Literally.

      lol. That's one of the most pathetic comebacks I've ever seen. Well done you.

      Go and crawl back up Trump/Dear Leader Putin's arsehole where you belong.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    32. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Russians also shitted in your pants just now. They are everywhere man!

    33. Re: Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump was elected by American people, Hillary did not. That's all to it; she had failed on her own shortcomings. Saying that Americans did not see how great she is just because of Russians throwing sand in their eyes is really really insulting to the American people and American democracy.

    34. Re:Timeline of Treason by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      As someone on the right who agrees with you, I'm wondering if you're not falling into the same trap they want us all to drop into. Look at the huge number of ACs here and all most of them are doing is partisan name calling. I, for one, will continue to ignore the ACs.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    35. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just turning up to meet the lawyer was illegal, whether they had any information or not. It doesn't matter what happened at the meeting or afterwards - the very act of trying to get the information instead of reporting the offer is illegal. That's it. That's the only piece the wall of text needed to include, and it's damning.

      I don't know how you see a Russian-government paid lawyer trying to give information on an opponent in an election as not a foreign country intervening in said election.

      How is meeting someone with information potentially relevant to your campaign illegal? I'd meet with anyone that claims to have dirt on my political opponents, irrespective of their nationality. If they're foreign and they represent their government in a deal then it's collusion if I make a deal with them, otherwise it's just a person acting in their own self interest, which is what everyone does.

    36. Re:Timeline of Treason by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Just turning up to meet the lawyer was illegal, whether they had any information or not. It doesn't matter what happened at the meeting or afterwards - the very act of trying to get the information instead of reporting the offer is illegal. That's it. That's the only piece the wall of text needed to include, and it's damning.

      I don't know how you see a Russian-government paid lawyer trying to give information on an opponent in an election as not a foreign country intervening in said election.

      Can you please cite what law that breaks?

      And one more question...had it been an American citizen would it have been legal? I'm asking because campaigns put a lot of effort into digging up dirt, so I'm wondering why it matters what the source of that dirt is.

      FWIW, I'm a Cold War vet, I'm very much against any Russian interference. And let's remember that their goal is to divide us, and it appears to be working.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    37. Re: Timeline of Treason by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Who's better at it is beside the point.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    38. Re:Timeline of Treason by mpercy · · Score: 1

      The NY Times described it thusly: "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"

      "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."

      "Uranium investors' efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's office was involved with approving the Russian bid.

      SEPTEMBER 2005 Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

      2006 Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

      JUNE 2008 Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

      2008-2010 Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.

      2010-2011 Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

      JUNE 2010 Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

      JUNE 29, 2010 Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.

      OCTOBER 2010 Rosatom's majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

    39. Re:Timeline of Treason by mpercy · · Score: 2

      Remember when Mitt Romney sai Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the US? Remember how he was mocked mercilessly for his views?

      President Barack Obama, among others, mocked the Republican candidate: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the cold war’s been over for 20 years”.

      Vice President Joe Biden opined that Romney belonged to “a small group of Cold War holdovers.”

      John Kerry said “Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV,’”

      Rachel Maddow: “He read about Reagan’s private, outside-the-CIA cabal of team-B zealots who were telling him that Russia had all the stuff they didn’t have so he could justify a giant defense budget,”

      Chris Matthews: “I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in. Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”

      And then, of course, we have President Obama telling the Russian President that if he (Obama) was re-elected, he'd be able to cut more deals with Russia... 'I'll have more flexibility after election' President Barack Obama was caught on microphone telling Dmitry Medvedev.

      The about-face by Democrats may have caused them whiplash...

    40. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when Mitt Romney sai Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the US? Remember how he was mocked mercilessly for his views?

      Remember when Mitt Romeny was treating their threat as nuclear, military, and communists, not that they were dictators, and corrupt oligarchs?,

      President Barack Obama, among others, mocked the Republican candidate: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the cold war’s been over for 20 years”

      Remember when Mitt Romney was insisting on building a 600-ship Navy, a vast Air Force, and spending billions on Reagan's science fiction dreams?

      .

      Vice President Joe Biden opined that Romney belonged to “a small group of Cold War holdovers.”

      True. Remember what Mitt said about the size of the Navy? It was like he wanted to reactivate the IOWA class.

      Nothing but vague associations with historical numbers.

      John Kerry said “Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV,’”

      It's true. He should have watched Raging Bull, or Ont he Waterfront.

      Rachel Maddow: “He read about Reagan’s private, outside-the-CIA cabal of team-B zealots who were telling him that Russia had all the stuff they didn’t have so he could justify a giant defense budget,”

      Yep. Spend Spend Spend on big Giant Things was the Romney mantra. Just like Trump's wall.

      Chris Matthews: “I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in. Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”

      He sure tried to echo the Gipper.

      And then, of course, we have President Obama telling the Russian President that if he (Obama) was re-elected, he'd be able to cut more deals with Russia... 'I'll have more flexibility after election' President Barack Obama was caught on microphone telling Dmitry Medvedev.

      Horrors, the President admitting the truth, that before an election, if he does anything, the opposition will turn on him, regardless of what it is, and that's the story you don't want to admit.

      The about-face by Democrats may have caused them whiplash...

      You're the one aghast that the Russians are a corrupt, shiftless, tyrannical bunch.

      Oh wait, you aren't, you're in LOVE with them now.

    41. Re:Timeline of Treason by hey! · · Score: 1

      Then you go on to post a bunch of loosely connected and out of context examples to help feed a very partisan and divisive narrative.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      Dividing the nation along race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion is to promote irrational behavior. Dividing a nation along political lines... well that's what parties are for. Generating an alternative narrative is their function, and it's not irrational as long as you stick to facts.

      That these are selected facts goes without saying. You are completely free to construct a contradictory narrative from other facts, if you have them.

      If I point out there's smoke pouring out of your house windows, one possible correct response is, "Well I'm cooking a brisket and things got a little smoky." Saying, "You're constructing a narrative that construes fire from smoke," is simply stating the obvious.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    42. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lie much? WP and Beast as sources, you forgot to call Trump a nazi. Useless Media Matters paid operative.

    43. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides are fairly retarded, so maybe this propaganda effort was successful. Are there no reasonable, halfway educated center-right or center-left people left in the US?

      The same?

      More fuck'n propaganda.

      Let's see now, if the right get's its way, the KKK and nazi's running the show with lynchings and death camps.

      If antifa get's its way, no more nazis...

      Don't want to be assaulted by antifa-don't be a nazi.

      Don't want to be murdered by the KKK/nazis, don't be black.

      And it's pretty fuck'n easy to not be a nazi, being a nazi actually takes effort.

      Being black, kinda hard to change that.

    44. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antifa - This group is no different than the countries largest neo-Nazi supporters. They both advocate hate to solve conflicts. But all this aside what exactly are these meatheads trying to achieve and what methods will they use to do so?

      What's the end result of an Antifa win vs a nazi win? There's the difference.

    45. Re:Timeline of Treason by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      Can you please cite what law that breaks?

      Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

      And one more question...had it been an American citizen would it have been legal?

      As long as that citizen was not acting as an agent of a foreign government.

      I'm asking because campaigns put a lot of effort into digging up dirt, so I'm wondering why it matters what the source of that dirt is.

      Because you're free to collude with any American to bring around a political shift in the United States, but the second you start doing that with agents of a foreign government, you're treading very close to what, in many countries of the world, is called treason.

      Hypothetically speaking, say Hillary were going to win. Say Russian interference secured the win for Donald. The US government would have been overthrown by the Russian government. Non-violently, of course, but the end result the same.
      Americans are allowed to non-violently overthrow our government. It's our job every election cycle. Foreign governments are not. That's an act of war.
      Fortunately for Russia- just like all the countries we have done the same thing to, nobody can *really* physically make good on the consequences of them committing an act of war.

      FWIW, I'm a Cold War vet, I'm very much against any Russian interference

      Then you should fucking know better, sir.

      And let's remember that their goal is to divide us, and it appears to be working.

      Can't argue there. But I can say you are not helping by attempting to weasel out of the criminal element for sake of Party.

    46. Re:Timeline of Treason by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your answer. It was enlightening, not because I was trying to weasel out of anything, but because I didn't know, which is why I asked the question.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    47. Re:Timeline of Treason by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Then let me apologize for the accusation.

      To me, not really being partisan about it, I see a bunch of people trying to defend their side's malpractice and skirting some very serious laws, that have absolutely been skirted in the past by members of every political organization in this country. That does not however justify it, and it should be condemned *wherever* it happens, regardless of who's team did it.

      If that's not you- forgive my haste in calling you out.

    48. Re:Timeline of Treason by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      No problem. If you broke the law, he needs to pay the price, and that's that. While I lean conservative, I'm I'm not going to stand up for someone just because of that similar belief. Just like this HHS secretary needs to pay back his travel expenses, and be fired, and possibly more.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    49. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry...I meant "If he broke..."

  12. Putin Sought To Stress Racial Divisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Charles Manson would be proud.

  13. Re:Russian's STILL supporting Demunist party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Demunist Paperback – March 20, 2015
    by Brandon Lipka

    Tycoon Alton Barr, in pursuit of his life's great plateau, partakes in a relentless and great adventure to develop an ideal. This first book, titled The Demunist and set in the not-so-distant future, is an account in three parts, The Development of Flores, The Inhabitation of Flores and Alton Barr and Corvo, respectfully, of Alton's idealistic, unprecedented pursuit. The first part examines the developmental stages, where Alton's developer, Stockton Hughes, encounters a handful of complications during development. Meanwhile, Alton is engaged in a separate voyage across the globe. Part two commences with the Inhabitation, a glimpse within the ideal. Lastly, Alton Barr's pursuit heats up in great detail. Love and lust, wit and humor, euphoria and estrangement, etc. etc. compel this gripping tale, which is sure to expand the mind.

    https://www.amazon.com/Demunist-Brandon-Lipka/dp/1508739374

    Or were you influenced by your diminutive organ of cognition?

  14. Did they buy the adds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the Kremlin credit card? Just seems weird for the Ruskies to pay for something the MSM has been doing for a long time. Every news show is the same: bring two sides to one stupid story so we can get riled up at the other 'bad' guy and go hurah when our guy puts them in there place. They seek to divide us on race, identity politics, and now recently with this past election, gender. Its almost as if they are trying to distract us all from something. Maybe the fact that politicians have been screwing us all, White, Black, Latino, Male, Female, Republican, Democrat, poor, middle class, upper 1%...err maybe not that last one.

    1. Re:Did they buy the adds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I buy my adds with a plus sign. When I buy more than one I use the multiply sign.

      I don't often buy ads, but when I do, I pay cash, to cover my tracks.

      Are you the same nitwit that wrote a few posts back "... to seed decent" ?

      The word you're looking for is dissent. Come back when you can pass fifth grade spelling.

    2. Re: Did they buy the adds by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Dr Pedant, for your learned and enlightening commentary.

  15. RUSSIANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electronic racist russians! Blame them!

    captcha: nonsense
    See even it knows.

  16. Propaganda by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I grew up with these types of stories since the cold wars days. But were told that it was all cia propaganda and that they would never do anything like that.

    Yes, propaganda is a very real part of everyday life, both state-sponsored and corporate-sponsored, throughout the developed world. Many newspaper articles are heavily influenced by it even when someone writing a story doesn't realize it, because fundamentally reporters have very little time to spend on each story. Most of this propaganda has political objectives.

    That doesn't make it okay. It is something that causes harm and that there should be both protection from and defenses for. A foreign government that uses propaganda to destabilize a country should be treated as a kind of attack and an appropriate proportional response (although it may be of a different kind) should be employed until you are able to negotiate a de-escalation. Here, the evidence appears to show that there have been propaganda and electronic attacks on the United States and it should respond intelligently.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:Propaganda by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Remember when Obama tried to alter the result of the Brexit vote? What retaliation should Britain be pursuing for that blatant foreign meddling?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know who *really* illegally influenced the Brexit vote, you twit? Richard Mercer. He's on your side, does that make it OK?

    3. Re:Propaganda by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      Anybody is entitled to their opinion, including Obama and Putin, let alone Trump who certainly doesn't hold back. Voicing your opinion as a head of state is not propaganda, it's your duty as a president. You're right that it's sometimes considered inappropriate insofar as foreign elections are concerned, but not for the reasons you suggest. It's sometimes considered unwise because it can create a diplomatic problem when the other party than the one you've supported is elected. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with voicing public opinions and endorsements and every government does that in one form or another. That's not the problem with Russia's attempts to influence the US election - these attempts where based on electronic attacks, botnets and sneaky, secret ad campaigns. There is a lot wrong with that. The difference is whether the means are overt, clearly attributable to the respective government, or covert and stealthy.

    4. Re: Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's 'meddling' was out in the open, not hidden like that of you and your countrymen, Ivan DNSovitch.

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

      See also Netanyahu, who lobbied hard in the US against the deal with Iran. The Dems grumbled, but Netanyahu was riding the line, and we all knew who he was and what he represented. It would have been a significantly bigger deal if Netanyahu was using the kind of tactics at hand here.

    6. Re:Propaganda by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Maybe listen to this guy?

  17. buy votes? by js290 · · Score: 1

    But, did they buy any votes? Because the easiest way to influence an election is to buy actual votes.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  18. United We Stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russia was pushing exactly the same kinds of things that the DNC is pushing. Racial and identity politics that divide the country. Look at the NFL to see how far it the division campaign has gone.

    We are playing right into Russia's hands. We need to unite and stop judging people by their skin color. We need to stop calling Trump the orange one, we need to respect our country, and we need to balance the bad things in this country with all the good things and all the progress we have made to right the wrongs.

    United States, we need to unite.

    P.S. Why is it OK for Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos and Rupert Murdoch to have undue influence over major news outlets? They have a lot more influence than a small Russian ad buy, and 2 of the 3 are foreigners. Russia should just buy a bank that buys a newspaper.

    1. Re:United We Stand by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Why is it OK for Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos and Rupert Murdoch to have undue influence over major news outlets? They have a lot more influence than a small Russian ad buy, and 2 of the 3 are foreigners. Russia should just buy a bank that buys a newspaper.

      You can take Conrad Black from Canada if you want some real diversity in your press LOL. Funny but on several occasions when Nixon secretly ordered the bugging of reporters the US public could care less, but when the NSA did it to Angela Merkel the republican hypocrites attacking Obama had a field day. If Obama actually knew it was happening is up for debate though considering the NSA is essentially a branch of the Republican party! Fortunately largely because of today's technology national security through secrecy is becoming a bit of an oxymoron the same as military intelligence was during the Vietnam War.

      Russia is using poor US info security and technology to stir up shit in the US, so what's new? The real question is why is Putin trying so hard to destabilize the US.

      For one, first and foremost Putin wants to deflect criticism away from his dictatorship, for two he does not want to increase the levels of suppression of his people unless it becomes absolutely necessary to stay in power. Going back to soviet style purges is not his style and more importantly he would lose style points with his supporters. His style is more to use discrete political assassinations, a trick he learned from largely from the American mafia. He has also invested heavily in keeping the shit pot stirred in the middle east were a bunch of his friends make their money and it could still easily back fire on him with Iran and the countries just to the north of Iran. He has to keep a large part of his military on alert to deal with the southern portion of Russia and the portions that can easily turn against Moscow the same as all Russian leader have had to do for centuries.

      In short destabilizing America politically plays very much into his interests in as much as it deflects the eyes of the world off his slow reconquest and suppression of the lost soviet states. He would dearly love to re-annex the Ukraine but the US would not yet stand for it. His next step no doubt will be shit disturbance and possibly assassinations of Ukraine politicians. Basically the same things he is doing in the US but to a much greater extent and much more covert.

      How China might react to his antics is a different story they might not be so easy for him to deal with if he decides that Russian interests are in expansionism into more easterly fertile territory.

      He is a typical dictator who wants to stir up shit and see what he can get away with, no different than Hitler, Stalin and the list goes on. No unless Trump manages to do the same shit as Putin and set up an oligarchy with him as dictator the US will prevail but again not until assholes like Putin and their ilk are finally ousted by a truly democratic Russia. However the unfortunate part is Russia seems to like to have a dictator the same as it once had a tsar and in truth is as yet incapable of real democratic elections without bloodshed. Let us just hope the expansionist assholes and dictators of this world never decide that dropping the bomb can help them stay in power. If they do the only hope we have is either divine intervention or the aliens stepping in and taking over the show. Because we as a species are simply not capable of real democratic government quite yet. #we_need_alien_intervention_now

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    2. Re:United We Stand by hord · · Score: 1

      The 1% is united. Now watch the roller coaster.

  19. Education Education Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not bother investigating Russia. Spend that money educating the American voter, Then American advertisers suck up as much money as Russia wants to spend.
    WIN - WIN

    1. Re:Education Education Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will always be a large percentage that are not educable. Inevitably, someone will figure that out, incite them, and take advantage of them to get elected. Wait...

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

      And it would have worked too, if it weren't for those meddling Russians!

  20. Bell-Pottinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russia should have hired the experts. Bell-Pottinger from the UK would have done a strapping good job, old boy.

  21. We need some guts and a law about political ads by mattr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Net media must stop either micro-targeted ads (not likely for FB or Google) or political ads (since micro-targeted political ads are death to society). It only took big data science and social media to deliver the most hideous election in U.S. history and assist the ascendancy of white supremacism in what had been a nation of immigrants.

    All FB would have to do is hire human beings to turn down political ads, and the guts to pass up the money. Though broadcast TV takes the opposite path, at least TV does not intentionally try to fool the watcher into thinking everybody on that channel sees the same ads. The next step is to get money out of elections (every candidate gets the same budget for ads and buying supporters) and out of politics (flat dead impossible unless someone other than politicians makes the law).

    1. Re:We need some guts and a law about political ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you decide what qualifies as political speech? -PCP

    2. Re:We need some guts and a law about political ads by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It only took big data science and social media to deliver the most hideous election in U.S. history

      Yeah, that and Facebook didn't cause Hillary to lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. You know what did? Ignoring the plight of real Americans who are really hurting. Telling them off and letting them know you absolutely refuse to represent their interests in the government. But continue smashing powerless people in the face with the whole "UR WHYTE SUPREMCST" thing. It feels good to speak truth to powerless, right?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:We need some guts and a law about political ads by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that and Facebook didn't cause Hillary to lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. You know what did? Ignoring the plight of real Americans who are really hurting. Telling them off and letting them know you absolutely refuse to represent their interests in the government.

      The most successful trick Trump pulled during his campaign was convincing these people that he, a millionaire cosmopolitan and a 'globalist' in every sense of the word, would represent their interests, or that he cares about them in any sense. He doesn't. He's now been in office for 8 months and done very little, and his attempts are focused on giving out tax-breaks to the wealthiest segment of the US - his co-millionaires - at the cost of the very poorest.

      This is the main problem currently faced by all western democracies: there's a segment of poorly educated poorly employed people who do not understand why their jobs are gone and won't be coming back except as automated factories, and these people will vote for anyone who tells them that he'll get their jobs back and make everything better. Put another way: the people most negatively affected by the current economic development are also the ones with the least understanding of it, making them easy targets to manipulate into voting against their own interests.

      Hillary's main problem has always been that she's not really a charismatic figure in any way, nor is she a great speaker, put simply: she's way too boring and unenthusiastic. Trump isn't an orator either and seems to be running on a vocabulary of a 9 year-old, but what he has over Hillary is emotion: like any good salesman, he's able to deliver an enthusiastic pitch that gets people interested, it gets them listening. He's a superior showman and knows his crowd, but it doesn't make him a competent politician, that he's clearly not.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    4. Re:We need some guts and a law about political ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to agree with you on a lot of that but... saying Trump is not an orator?

      I think it's hard to deny that he is a MASTER orator.

  22. Re:Russian's STILL supporting Demunist party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't care about one party or the other. They want us to destroy ourselves from within. They're sour about the cold war and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Even more sour about the lack of respect we gave them afterwards. They just want to see us fail and for them to ascend to have more global influence than us. If they can help us lose faith in our government, we as a nation lose resolve and focus on the global stage. That's how they win.

  23. There are many Comrades here... by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    I can't help but notice the number of clearly fake comments on this page, all trying to either blame Clinton and Obama or deliver that old, "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along." message.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re: There are many Comrades here... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      You're just sour 'cuz the rooskies were pushing the same social destabilization propaganda that running dog "progressives" like to push. Of course there is a small difference - the rooskie were trying to ruin someone else's country...

    2. Re: There are many Comrades here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't help but notice that other Americans disagree with you wholeheartedly but the concept and possibility is so alien to you, you can only see Russian boogeymen everywhere rather than the other half of the country that thinks you're an echo chamber dwelling raving lunatic.

      Occam's Razor: fellow citizens disagree with you or ITS THE RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!

    3. Re:There are many Comrades here... by poity · · Score: 1

      >7 digit user accusing 6 digit users of being shills

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    4. Re: There are many Comrades here... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not American. I'm looking in from the outside, and Trump's lip prints are all over Putin's dick.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    5. Re:There are many Comrades here... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Anonymous Coward has been a member here forever.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re: There are many Comrades here... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm not American. I'm looking in from the outside, and Trump's lip prints are all over Putin's dick.

      No, angry-at-losing-despite-what-they-spent lefty news outlets have their prints all over the narrative you've chosen to explain why the wildly unlikable, robotically sociopathic, serially lying, fantasically corrupt Hillary Clinton lost an election despite a couple billion dollars having been spent to guarantee her coronation.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re: There are many Comrades here... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Angry? ROFL! I'm sitting up here north of a border far too long to fence, and our only worry is how many Americans are crossing over to seek asylum and decent health care.

      I've got the popcorn out and I'm watching real Americans trying to fight back against the slobbering, racist morons of the alt-right. It's like a hockey game...I'm pulling for one side, but if it loses, I just shrug, open another beer, and wait to welcome more American friends into the greatest country in the world. Up here in the Great White North, we're doing just fine, thanks! For example, ROSS Intelligence is opening a major R&D centre in Toronto. More are on the way, too.

      One thing I don't quite understand: the woman you hate so much got far more votes than the clown in the White House, yet she lost. Please explain again how you live in "the greatest democracy in the world"? (snicker)

      It's looking like at least some decent Americans have grown tired of serving as hosts for Red State parasites. Welcome, my friends! Breathe deep again in the new Land of the Free! By the way, we've got the only leader in history to go into a boxing ring (for charity) and face a heavily-favoured neo-conservative with MMA training. The PM beath the living crap out of him.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    8. Re: There are many Comrades here... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Please explain again how you live in "the greatest democracy in the world"?

      Yes, you DO need an explanation, since you're deliberately ignorant on the matter. We don't live in a Democracy (thank you, founding fathers and the brilliant constitution they wrote). That works fine for town councils and garden clubs. We, instead, live in a constitutional republic, made up of fifty separate states, with considerable power left to those states, on purpose. We organize the national elections that impact the things those states do together around the fact that we don't want the smug, condescending hipster residents in just two cities to be able to do things like ruling the lives of, say, the farmers that feed them even as they sneer at them and refuse (a la Clinton) to even set foot in their states to hear from them or dirty themselves talking to mere workers as they demand the office they're told they deserve. Mob rule is unacceptable in a complex, sprawling federation of fifty different states. It's why we have an electoral college and a series of checks and balances to make sure that people as uninformed as you don't run the show.

      Enjoy your existence in Canada. Your economy couldn't exist without having the US people as customers for the trees you cut down and the minerals and carbon fuels you dig out. Your mischaracterization of illegal aliens relocating to avoid prosecution and deportation for their cheating as somehow being "Americans seeking asylum" is laughable. Even more amusing is how you're sugar coating your government's ACTUAL position on this. Your immigration minister, Ahmed Hussen, issued a warning to people who seem to think that Canada presents a friendlier environment as they look to relocate there having first entered the US after leaving their own countries: "It’s not something that we want people to do. We want people to claim asylum in the first country that they’re in, which in this case is the U.S.” Your own man in charge of immigration has said out loud that he doesn't want people coming in from via the US. And of course Canada doesn't consider any actual US citizens to be in any way in need of asylum in Canada - there's no mechanism for relocation to Canada on those grounds. All of which you know, but are pretending you don't so you can crank out some phony smugness. How Canadian of you.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re: There are many Comrades here... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Your quarrel is with all the Americans who describe their country in exactly the terms I used.

      Yap at them, little doggie, not at your betters.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  24. Two questions by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Remember when Obama tried to alter the result of the Brexit vote? What retaliation should Britain be pursuing for that blatant foreign meddling?

    Q1: How does Facebook know with any certainty that these are Russian *government* actors. The implication being that the Russian government acted with intent to sow dissent during our elections.

    How does Facebook know that these are not separate, individual Russian citizens without ties to the Russian government?

    If one actor took out ads highlighting both sides of an issue, then yes... that would be intent to sow dissent.

    But if the different sides were taken by different actors, a simpler explanation is that people in Russia are also divided on an issue, of American politics.

    Almost as if people in Russia have, I don't know, relatives in America or something.

    Q2: How does Facebook know that ads highlighting both sides of an issue were taken by the *same* actor, and not different actors with legitimate different opinions?

    I'd be really interested to know how Facebook determines both of these bits of meta-information.

    1. Re:Two questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when Obama tried to alter the result of the Brexit vote? What retaliation should Britain be pursuing for that blatant foreign meddling?

      Q1: How does Facebook know with any certainty that these are Russian *government* actors. The implication being that the Russian government acted with intent to sow dissent during our elections.

      Facebook is a very big, very powerful company with no doubt a great deal of digital forensics skills. I've little doubt that they have the skills to draw reasonable conclusions from their data. Also, some of it just shows up because of the anomaly. Random citizens in Russia suddenly supporting Trump? Really? Isn't that curious, when the rest of the world thinks he is scum.

      How does Facebook know that these are not separate, individual Russian citizens without ties to the Russian government?

      If one actor took out ads highlighting both sides of an issue, then yes... that would be intent to sow dissent.

      But if the different sides were taken by different actors, a simpler explanation is that people in Russia are also divided on an issue, of American politics.

      Almost as if people in Russia have, I don't know, relatives in America or something.

      Q2: How does Facebook know that ads highlighting both sides of an issue were taken by the *same* actor, and not different actors with legitimate different opinions?

      I'd be really interested to know how Facebook determines both of these bits of meta-information.

      With a large enough writing sample you could do statistical analysis on the writing, but even without you could correlate various things. IP addresses would be almost definitive, but those can be varied. Still if the early parts match, it leads to more suspicion. Basically you need to look at the data as a collective, and determine aggregate statistics from the collection. If those aggregate statistics sufficiently then you have probably determined something.

      Basically you can either believe the vast preponderance of the evidence, or you can believe in a fantasy.

      Personally I'm more likely to believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that global warming is a chinese plot than to believe all the incredible stuff you would have to to believe that our elections weren't effectively attacked, by messing with the voters and what they saw.

    2. Re:Two questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      honestly you can't be this stupid

    3. Re:Two questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does Facebook know with any certainty that these are Russian *government* actors.

      They read your cancelled check stubs.

  25. An inconvenient truth by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well, it seems the most harmful, divisive acts that a malevolent foreign power could come up with were the same ones so enthusiastically engaged in for free by the Left. It seems this evil foreign country thinks that sowing racial discord with Black Lives Matter is a good idea. Well, this is certainly inconvenient. I have complete faith in our media to tell the truth: by completely overlooking this niggling detail and trying to discredit anyone who points it out.

    And there has got to be the burn of doing for free what the Kremlin would have paid you for. Doing work and not getting paid for it? I thought that was for suckers. All you had to do was show up and collect your rubles. In fact you'd have been more valuable than any KGB spy, as an established American your material would be worth far more to them and qualified for a high rate of pay. That has to sting.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  26. Re: We need some guts and a law about political ad by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Great idea, Li Feng! Then if we could just build some sort of "great internet firewall" to keep all the badthink out...

  27. Huh? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    where you and me watching different campaigns. Racial divides were a big part of it. The tough hombres & rapists comments come to mind right off the bat. One of his chief advisors, Steve Bannon, made his mark first and foremost playing to that shtick. And let's face it, there was a lot of resentment over having a black president for 8 years that brought a lot of folks to the polls.

    I'm not saying it was the only that got Trump elected, I'm just saying he wouldn't have been without it. Hell, he wouldn't have made it through the primaries.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wouldn't have won without Hillary either ;)

      It's as if each party is trying to outdo the other in terms of unelectable candidates.

      Of course, they have that luxury since there is no real pressure to represent their constituencies so long as they demonize each other.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is literally the birther-in-chief.
      That's the single issue that got him entrance into the GOP in the first place.
      Anyone who says white supremacy isn't the foundation of this campaign is snowblind.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purposeful misstatement of Trump's illegal alien comment (leaving out the "good people" part) and many efforts on CNN and MSNBC finding guests to call Trump a racist to drive the black vote played just as much of a role. Interesting how you think it only happened on one side.

    4. Re:Huh? by houghi · · Score: 2

      where you and me watching different campaigns.

      Most likely, yes. That is what they can do. Remember when the ad companies told us it would be great to have personalized ads? This is it.

      And no, you are not immune to it, neither am I. Even if you are not on Facebook, people around you will have opinions and that will also influence you. (Yes, it will.)

      There are a lot of ways you could influence people. Say you tell them that candidate A is sure to win, there will be some people that won't bother to go and vote, because their candidate already won. That will not be enough, but when you to a lot of it and it is already close, then it might just be the drop that overflows the bucket.

      This is not "Vote MY candidate" or "Do not vote the other candidate". This is more somebody saying he heard of a very nice pizza place during the morning meeting and pizza is ordered for the next lunch meeting.

      So yes, most likely you watched different campaigns, because that is the point of personalized advertisement.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Huh? by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Except that Hillary's 08 campaign created the claim.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    6. Re:Huh? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This only works as propaganda to the extent that people already believe it enough to have it reinforce their own perceptions.

      If this is a Russian "campaign", it's only a campaign to exploit the gap between the false narrative official discourse and the everyday reality of most Americans. The false narrative of official discourse is that Americans are racist -- uniformly biased against non-whites -- and the problems of African Americans are almost exclusively the result of this racism and not of any widespread social problems they contribute to.

      The every day reality is that most Americans aren't uniformly racist against all races. If they were, millions of marginally literate, marginally English capable Mexicans wouldn't have had fantastic success in getting hired for jobs, millions of South Asians couldn't have been imported into Corporate American to staff IT departments, and people like Satya Nadella couldn't wind up in charge of one of the largest corporations in America and the world. The level of active "globalism" in the US just wouldn't work if the people making decisions were racist and the employees they had to work with were racist.

      Americans do hold racial biases towards African Americans specifically, but this is largely not the cause it's given credit for, but an effect of their everyday interactions in most cities with the large plurality of poor and criminally inclined African Americans. And you can't talk about that reality without blaming white racism for it and freeing African Americans from most all responsibility for it.

      As long as we continue to push the phony narrative of "racism" rather than "Americans don't like many African Americans", the propaganda will work. Once we acknowledge that white Americans are generally racially tolerant EXCEPT for African Americans, we will start to acknowledge the specific problems African Americans have (many of which are structural but not racist) and possibly get around to helping them. Once that happens, then the propaganda of racism won't really work.

    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that she didn't. Stop swallowing Dotard45's jizz.

      The likeliest point of origin we’ve been able to find was a post on conservative message board FreeRepublic.com dated 1 March 2008 (which, according to a report in The Telegraph, was at least a month before Clinton supporters got on the e-mail bandwagon):

      Did Clinton Supporters Start the 'Birther' Movement?

    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Hillary's 08 campaign created the claim.

      Except they didn't, but even if they did, Hillary did not make Trump spend half a dozen years shouting about it.

      Sorry, but no matter how much Trump tries to deflect responsibility, we know what he did, why he did it, and how he did so.

    9. Re:Huh? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The tough hombres & rapists comments come to mind

      Surely you're not yet another person who thinks that "MS-13" and "rapist" are races?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever it takes to vilify Trump and anyone not explicitly supporting the DNC in every conversation.

    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be burned at the stake for saying that, but it's entirely true. First, you can't get around hard statistics. Violent crimes are disproportionately committed by African-Americans. Doesn't matter why, whether you want to (correct but incomplete) blame poverty or (incorrectly) blame white men, it remains a fact that it's a *massive* difference. 10x moreso when you talk about crimes where the perpetrator and victim are different races. And no matter how much you scream about how racist 'The Bell Curve' is, it doesn't erase the fact that there is in fact a large IQ disparity between blacks and all other races, nor the fact that transracial adoption studies show it's *not* due to environment (the disparity persists for those raised by rich white people). Intelligence doesn't make someone a better or worse person in itself, but it strongly correlates with things that do increase violence and criminality.

      And I'll share my story, which is quite similar to a large number of my friends.

      I was raised by very liberal parents, in an all white area. So I grew up believing hard that racism was wrong and black people are no different from anyone else. All through highschool was like this; we had one black guy in our school, and he was a total cool nerd in the gifted then AP classes with me growing up.

      In college, most of my friends weren't white. I hung out with Indians mostly... beyond just being friends, they accepted me as one of their own, talking me into joining the Indian Students Association, and the craziest fun thing was being this lone white guy up on stage in a whole stadium full of exclusively Indian people for a Bhangra dance competition. Basically, I was as far from racist as you can possibly get.

      But it was a large college in a large city. So for the first time, I started meeting a lot of African Americans. This was a highly regarded top 20 private university, and already cracks in my tolerance were appearing. For every one like my cool childhood friend (who, incidentally, was adopted and raised from infancy by white parents), I met 5 who were inexplicably rude and aggressive. And my first semester roomate, holy shit, dude was out all night every night, and only every came to our dorm to sleep and take drugs in or out of the ceiling, and completely ignored me. But I kept on, it wasn't *that* bad, I figured I just had some bad luck or it was my fault for thinking there was anything different in a bad way about their behavior.

      But during the summers, and in the year or two after college, I became involved in a lifestyle that exposed me to large numbers of African Americans from the general poor population. That's when it all went over the edge. They spewed ugly vitriol nonstop, and were so likely to be physically violent I was terrified all the time. And it wasn't poverty, because all my life I've known far more white people every bit as poor. But my personal experience was that while maybe 1 in 10 of the poor white people I knew were aggressive violent thugs (and never met anyone like that from any other race), 8 in 10 African Americans were like that. In my situation, both races were thieves and drug abusers in equal numbers, but the aggression and violence were far from equal, and fearing for your physical safety is far far more serious a situation.

      Black people worked extremely hard to turn this liberal into someone who presumes certain things because of race, and are absolutely the only race where that's happened, despite exposure to all the others. I'm far from alone in experiences like this, and I recall a study that found that best predictor of racist attitudes towards blacks was exposure to them, which was not true for any other race.

      That's reality, and no amount of telling people how we're all the same and black people aren't like that is going to convince people who've lived it. It's a simple fact of life that they're more aggressive and violent in general (sorry, exceptions to stereotypes doesn't mean that the stereotype itself isn't generally accurate for th

  28. Did you RTFA? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Informative

    they targeted BLM ads to people likely to oppose the movement in order to rile them up. They did the same thing with ads showing Hilary was popular among Muslim women. They were shitposting on an epic scale. What's more they weren't just trying to divide the American people, they were trying to rile up a very specific group of voters (angry white men) in order to get them to oppose a very specific, left wing agenda. That in turn helped Trump win, which is almost certainly the intended purpose.

    They were basically trying to get a whole bunch of folks who normally stay home to show up at the polls and without thinking about individual issues, vote their feelings. Worked too.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only the set up.

      The real goal is to sow discord and anger after the election by tainting it. This way they can paralyze the Americans.

      They would have done this had Hillary won also.

    2. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same logic used by both sides. Clinton was playing up Trump's 'unacceptability' while Trump played on emotions all the time (immigrants, evil bankers, the powerful vs the working man).

      If Russia really did that, it wasn't out of the norm in terms of what was already being done. If you want, you can add the amount spent to Trump's total campaign budget.

      If Russia's involvement upsets you, how do you feel about the US playing dirty in other countries elections all over the world?

      Russia, China, and the US play dirty. Although we don't like it, we shouldn't act like someone else's actions are beyond the pale.

    3. Re:Did you RTFA? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TIME magazine in 1996 bragging about how we interfered in the Russian election.

      The outcome was by no means inevitable. Last winter Yeltsin's approval ratings were in the single digits. There are many reasons for his change in fortune, but a crucial one has remained a secret. For four months, a group of American political consultants clandestinely participated in guiding Yeltsin's campaign.

      For two days the supersecretive Yeltsin high command avoided Dresner, and none of the team ever actually met the President. "There are too many factions and too many leaks to risk your dealing with him directly," Braynin explained to Dresner. "You are our biggest secret."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this all so what? Don't we believe in freedom of speech? Don't Russians have the freedom to say what they want on the interent? Doesn't everybody? Isn't that the inherrent nature of democracy? What exactly are you saying Hillary? That if a foreigner shares with you his political ideology that should be illegal? As far as I'm concerned, even if the KGB made it public on their website that Hillary is corrupt and you shouldn't vote for her and we're gonna spam the internet all day every day with a million and one reasons why you shouldn't vote for her, that's fair game.

      Fuck dude, that's democracy.

    5. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the US is known to have interfered in multiple other countries' elections over the years does come up in these discussions about the Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. Not quite sure what the point is: it's bad when we do it, too. The countries we've meddled in are certainly not happy when they find out. And I've never encountered someone claiming to even support the US in those matters, even if it did advance US interests (in practice, all of those instances I've heard of backfired spectacularly, so that certainly doesn't help).

    6. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were basically trying to get a whole bunch of folks who normally stay home to show up at the polls and without thinking about individual issues, vote their feelings. Worked too.

      On like what, 4 people?

      Reportedly Facebook received 50-100k for political ads from possibly Russia-linked accounts in the 18 months before the election. To put that into perspective, Hillary and Trump spent 770 and 410 million dollars on their campaigns, respectively. I highly doubt that 50k on ads is enough to tip the election in any meaningful way compared to that kind of spending and all the news coverage.

      On top of that, in a similar timeframe Facebook's US advertising revenue was over 26.8 billion, with 900 million of that being political. Face it, that 100k was nothing more than a (small) drop in the bucket compared to those numbers.

    7. Re: Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeltsin invited the US consultants. It would only be the same if Trump secretly invited the Russians to help, and no one's suggesting that are they?

    8. Re:Did you RTFA? by houghi · · Score: 1

      And they probably also tried to keep others home by saying Clinton already had won or let them vote third party.

      And people ALWAYS vote with their feelings. In Belgium we have a gazillion political parties. We have websites where you can answer questions to see what party is closest to your ideas. You can put weight on these answers. No matter the answer, people will still vote their party because reasons.

      On TV there once was a politician who filled it out and his ideas where better aligned with a different party. He still decided to stay at that party, even if changing parties is not that uncommon.

      The fact that the US has a "winner takes all" as well as a de facto two party system (because of it) makes it all a bit easier. You just need to fool some of the people some of the time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they were trying to rile up a very specific group of voters (angry white men)

      This would be why Trump got a smaller fraction of the white vote than the previous Republican candidate (Romney), and a larger fraction of the black, hispanic and asian votes?

      Media hatred of white males aside, the facts just don't support this racialized narrative.

    10. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you RTFA? [...] they targeted BLM ads to people likely to oppose the movement in order to rile them up.

      I did read the article, and it didn't say this anywhere.

    11. Re:Did you RTFA? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And I've never encountered someone claiming to even support the US in those matters, even if it did advance US interests (in practice, all of those instances I've heard of backfired spectacularly, so that certainly doesn't help).

      They only backfired spectacularly if you mistakenly attribute benevolence to the decision-makers. Sure, sometimes they fuck up, but most of those times, they knew what they were doing. Chaos is the goal, not a side effect or drawback.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      usa messing with moscow local elections a few weeks ago:

      http://thesaker.is/the-lucy-stein-gang-rides-into-moscow/

    13. Re:Did you RTFA? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Informative

      And they probably also tried to keep others home by saying Clinton already had won

      No, that was Clinton herself, her very rich supporters, and the vast majority of academia and the press who all supporter and considered her the presumptive winner a year before the election. Clinton was so sure she had already won that she bought the house next door for the Secret Service to use (you know, we can't have them in HER house, those peasants), and couldn't even trouble herself to set foot ONCE in states like Wisconsin, because she assumed they were going to follow her royal edicts and vote for her as demanded. She and her party fell for their own lies about her appeal as a candidate, and got exactly what they deserved.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The countries we've meddled in are certainly not happy when they find out.

      This point should be front and center. Every time the CIA has suborned a local politician to do their will, once the local populace finds out the reaction makes the whole operation a spectacular failure. For example, the Iranian revolution.

      So anyone who thinks they are enjoying the taste of liberal tears with the help of the russians should beware. History says that karma isn't just a bitch, she's the raging black goddess of destruction who will rain down hellfire on you and your allies.

  29. Trump Jr Treason Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    citation provided

    Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential

    Good morning
    Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
    The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
    This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
    What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
    I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
    Best
    Rob Goldstone

    == Donald Trump Jr's Treasonous Response ==

    Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential

    Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
    Best,
    Don

    1. Re: Trump Jr Treason Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

      What you posted isn't even close to being treason.

  30. So what you're really saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All of this "rage" over the last 3 years is completely manufactured? That "hands up don't shoot" didn't actually happen the way that the media said it did? That LGBTXYZ isn't that pervasive, and frankly, most people don't care about who goes to the bathroom where? That racism is actually quite rare in the USA, and cop violence is actually very rare relative to the population size of 330 million?

    That all this self-styled "resistance" is just a bunch of whiny babies trying to feel self-important, rather than admit that their candidate sucked? And sucked so bad that even after having the DNC throw the primary, having the FBI fake a Russian dossier to justify wiretapping the opposition campaign manager, and frankly having the election in the bag... so bad that she lost it without any interference whatsoever?

    That all this anger and blame towards each other would be better off spent in introspection, asking what life choices did we make that led us to our own predicaments? Why did we spend so much on our degrees? Why do we keep complaining about gender instead of actually looking at statistics that men and women really are different?

    1. Re:So what you're really saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913625/Billionaire-George-Soros-spent-33MILLION-bankrolling-Ferguson-demonstrators-create-echo-chamber-drive-national-protests.html

      do you even have to ask?

    2. Re:So what you're really saying is... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Nyet nyet, tovarishch.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  31. Lets just assume the allegations are true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FACT: The left spent about 10 times the amount of money the right spent

    FACT: Facebook was showing SIGNIFICANTLY MORE anti-Trump propaganda during the per-election period

    So basically, the anti-Trump guys are complaining about the fact that the (so called) Russian interference was more effective than the fake propaganda they spent $$$ millions pushing on Facebook.

  32. well ... by Hugh+Jorgen · · Score: 0

    The last few POTUS Administrations have done a pretty decent job at dividing the country economically and racially.

  33. shock me you bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody bought divisive advertising in the USA. So fucking what.

    Who's so desperate for something to be mad about that this gets a headline on a site for geeks? I'd genuinely like to know. Did Billary buy this slashvertisement?

  34. Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like a couple thousand dollars worth of foreign ads tipped the balance against a billion dollar campaign run by a powerful well-connected establishment.

    ... and I can't even get a 2% clickthrough rate on my adwords

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like a couple thousand dollars worth of foreign ads tipped the balance against a billion dollar campaign run by a powerful well-connected establishment.

      ... and I can't even get a 2% clickthrough rate on my adwords

      you are the digital version of the sharecropper, forever beholden, barely scraping by

    2. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Given how close the election was, even small things might have changed the outcome.

    3. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by sysrammer · · Score: 2

      From TFA, fwiw: "According to Facebook, fraudulent accounts, which have now been closed, paid $100,000 for the ads." Still, point taken. Tip of the iceberg, though.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that -

      Given that it was the Electoral College that gave Trump the presidency, it means:

      A) This is all propaganda and bullshit

      B) The Electoral College is pwned by Russia

      Let me go out on a limb and pick: A

    5. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple thousand dollars of ad spending supported by an unknowable value of work by the SVR (Or whoever the Russian department of skulduggery is these days).

      Not to mention that, independent of Russia, the supposedly liberal media was carrying water for Trump in the name of ratings. Trump's many and varied campaign scandals were immediately followed and countered with "her emails", regardless of being far worse than things which scoured Democratic candidates from the field ("I killed my enemies" by Webb in the 2016 debates, the Dean Scream in 04 weighed against "I like people who weren't captured" in reference to McCain and flailing around to mock a reporter)

      And if you really want to continue with the liberal media narrative, I invite you to explain why a liberal media would cut away from a Sanders speech in progress to show a half-hour plus of empty Trump podium.

    6. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ... and I can't even get a 2% clickthrough rate on my adwords

      Not all goals are created equal. Getting Americans to vote against their own interests is about as difficult as making teenagers depressed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Getting Americans to vote against their own interests

      Putting the wildly corrupt Clintons back into the power they demanded so they could continue to enrich themselves selling access ... THAT would have been against Americans' own interests. Giving Hillary Clinton the power to nominate Supreme Court justices when she came right out and told us that she was going to use that power as a foil against a not-liking-her-agenda legislature that she knew wouldn't follow her demands ... THAT would have been voting against Americans' own interests.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Impressive ultra efficient Russian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has a point, though. As long as you have a two-party system, it's pretty easy to make people vote against their own interests. Just make sure that both candidates are horrible choices.

  35. $100,000? That is a thing now? by SlovakWakko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    $100,000? Like, really? The Clinton+Trump campaigns have spent together over $200,000,000 on their campaigns. Either the Russians are absolute geniuses and light years ahead of everybody else when it comes to effective political ads, or this is just another inflated sensationalist article trying to get views for WaPo using a hot topic.
    Also, I'm somehow missing the connection to Russia in the article - it's once again presented as a certainty, but it is not explained how the authors managed to do the attribution to the Russian government. If this is considered a serious article in the US, I'm not surprised that "fake news" is a thing there. How about some critical thinking?
    Really, guys, to the rest of the world this histeria is beyond awkward and facepalming. Trump is your creature, born out of the swamp that is the 2-party scam, not some foreign plant. Reform your political system, and these things won't happen. Until you do so, according to the article everybody who has $100,000 to burn will be able to elect your president for you...

    1. Re:$100,000? That is a thing now? by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you're comment will be buried under load of rubbish, evil Russian comments / It's Putin's fault, because it just is not fun otherwise.

    2. Re:$100,000? That is a thing now? by SlovakWakko · · Score: 1

      I know... and I guess it's not a problem, it's all just theatre for the masses anyway. The US need a boogeyman to justify a crazy $700bln military budget, Russia needs one to justify its autocratic system of government - and we have something to argue about :)

    3. Re:$100,000? That is a thing now? by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      $100,000? Like, really? The Clinton+Trump campaigns have spent together over $200,000,000 [bloomberg.com] on their campaigns. Either the Russians are absolute geniuses and light years ahead of everybody else when it comes to effective political ads, or this is just another inflated sensationalist article trying to get views for WaPo using a hot topic.

      You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Yes, the Russians are well ahead of the curve. They've been doing this for a LONG time. Our allies warned us that they've been doing for a long time. They warned us that we were going to be targeted. Putin isn't fucking stupid. He caught on to how powerful (and cheap) using social media was as a tool. You get something to go viral even just once, and it's already paid back a thousand fold.

      And that's what happened. Not just here, but also in Europe. More to the point, it was extremely successful.

      --
      ~X~
    4. Re:$100,000? That is a thing now? by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      $100k spend unethically can have a much bigger impact than $100k spent ethically (not that either Trump or Clinton are ethical people, but they have to deal with the consequences of unethical behavior being discovered and blamed on them, unlike Russia).

      Also, the election just happened to be extremely close, which is how a small push to one side could put them over the edge.

    5. Re:$100,000? That is a thing now? by SlovakWakko · · Score: 1

      You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Yes, the Russians are well ahead of the curve. They've been doing this for a LONG time. Our allies warned us that they've been doing for a long time. They warned us that we were going to be targeted. Putin isn't fucking stupid. He caught on to how powerful (and cheap) using social media was as a tool. You get something to go viral even just once, and it's already paid back a thousand fold.

      And that's what happened. Not just here, but also in Europe. More to the point, it was extremely successful.

      I've been paying attention for a long time now, and what I see is the same old thing - using Russia as a boogeyman. Before, it was the USSR's massive tank formations, submarines and nuclear weapons which everybody had to fear. Now, since their tank formations are just an outdated shadow of their former glory, their submarine fleet is tiny compared to the US' one, and the nuclear weapons are regulated by treaties, we need to fear something else they're oh-so-good at, right?
      And where exactly in Europe have they been doing it? Because I've seen frontpage articles on CNN, in NY Times and elsewhere saying how it seems that Russians are targeting French and German elections. Weeks or months later I've read reports - which somehow didn't get frontpage attention - that French security services ruled out Russian involvement in their elections, and no hacking or something similar has happened in German elections. So who is not paying attention?
      Compare these two articles: The NSA Confirms It: Russia Hacked French Election ‘Infrastructure’ and The Latest: France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron. Who is lying? Is it the French themselves, or is it maybe Rogers just riding the wave to get more funding for NSA? And this one is hilarious - NY Times going existential over missing Russian hackers in German elections in an article, where they cite their previous article on how Macron's campaign got hacked by Russians (from May) even though by now it is known that no such thing has happened. Am I the only one who sees a massive number of various interests riding the very, very old wave of russophobia in order to get more money, more readers, more views, more attention? It is all a theatre, keeping us occupied and entertained so we part with our money more easily.

    6. Re:$100,000? That is a thing now? by SlovakWakko · · Score: 1

      There is nothing ethical about any political campaign - especially in an election where $200mil get spent on electing somebody as Trump. If you want to get rid of unethical conduct in US presidential elections, get rid of the electoral college as a start. But even that won't help much IMO. As an outsider, I see Trump as the candidate of the horrible income inequality that exists in the US. Fix that, and frauds like Trump won't stand a chance. Keep the people who voted for him poor, uneducated and desperate, and next time they'll give you somebody even worse (not possible? just wait). Pointing the finger to measly $100,000 in face of all this is... either irresponsible sensationalism or an outright attempt at evading the real issues that got Trump into the WH.

  36. Trump's son support Black Lives Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > ... Donald Trump's son has already admitted to committing treason and colluding with Russia's attack on America

    Yes, Donald Trump's son has colluded with Russia by paying Facebook for online advertisement in support of Black Lives Matter

    We must charge, indict and put that traitor to jail now !!

  37. Putin: "All your base are belong to us" by millertym · · Score: 1

    I'm starting to think Putin probably dances to that classic youtube sensation every night before bed. His government spy agencies have manipulated the US population through our permeation with big tech beyond what I would have thought possible a couple of years ago.

    1. Re:Putin: "All your base are belong to us" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All base are belong to me: from sea to sea, root to seed, bee to be. Computers make it hard to see, but there is a rending to set apart those lacking heart.

  38. FYI, BLM is not a civil rights organization by LaughingRadish · · Score: 0

    FYI, Black Lives Matter is not a civil rights organization, though it pretends to be one. If it was, it would not be built on a foundation of lies.

  39. Russia bought into the Frankfurt School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BLM, Antifa, Black Panthers, LGBTQ, Marxism, Socialism, hedonism, criminality, single parenthood, drug use, and Atheism were the division. You can't pretend to care now that Drumpf won.

  40. Umm by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Every time I see a "Russia perpetrated X heinous act against the people", I see "We (your government) perpetrated X heinous act against the people."

    1. Re: Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you're Russian, where it's true.

  41. Re: No, that would be rags like HuffPo and Salon.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uberbah is a Russian troll. Look at his post history, always toeing the Kremline.

  42. Re: Russian's STILL supporting Demunist party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Demunist? You think that's clever but it just makes you look like a twat.

  43. The young are easily fooled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sneaky Europeans and the old divide ad conquer technique, been doing it in Africa and Asia for hundreds of years (at least...)

  44. Much to do about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soros is a big influence in our elections, Obama tried very hard to influence Israel elections so who cares? I am sure Russia has been doing this for many elections. Just that the snowflakes lost so they are bitter about it. I am sure China has also had some influence as well. Big deal, so Russia bought some ads on Facebook. I never saw Zucker complain about taking their money?

  45. Zapad by hord · · Score: 1

    Is this news? Or is having a week-long war game named "Zapad" or "West" news?

  46. What a wonderfully unbiased newspaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not like they have Podesta on the staff or anything.

  47. Reducing our oil consumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the easiest way to punish Russia.

    1. Re:Reducing our oil consumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we buy so many billions of barrels of oil from Russia

      (in case you don't get it ... USA does not buy any oil from Russia).

  48. The authoritarian/thug concept of 'information sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians have been doing this shit since 1917. What's different now, is that the Internet gives them vastly more powerful and cheap ways to attack and victimise free socities.

    Unfree shitholes like Russia and China have a vastly different notion of "information security" than we do. To them, the free exchange of ideas is a threat, which is why they invest so much money in controlling their citizens' access to information. Unfortuately, we'll have to adapt to this new reality by finding ways to keep Chinese and Russian information-war filth out of our societies -- up to and including breaking up the internet and censoring enemy propaganda and talking points. The Russia-lovers and "libertarians" are doing to go nuts, but increasingly, in the face of Russian information- and political aggression, this appears to be the price of freedom these days.

  49. So? by jonr · · Score: 1

    Does it matter now for what purpose whoever buys ads?

  50. dvide et mpera by lowkeyknight · · Score: 1

    Oldest trick in the book. And behold; a nation divided.

  51. more anonymous evidence-less claims by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

    Anonymous claims published with no evidence by the Washington Post -- the same paper that gave us the "Prop or Not?" debacle.

    Did some trolls buy ads during the election? Almost certainly. Were some of them Russian? Probably. Did the average Russian on the street prefer Trump to Clinton? Of course -- Clinton backed a coup in their neighboring country Ukraine, a coup that put in place a government that stepped up repression of ethnic Russians, while Trump talked about normalizing relations.

    Were these ads part of a coordinated plan by Putin, acting in collusion with Trump? Extraordinary claims requirry extraordinary evidence. "Anonymous sources tell us that they think X" is not evidence for X.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  52. Joke is on Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual fraud here is on Silicon Valley. They actually convinced Russia that digital ads matter.

    1. Re:Joke is on Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DAM ... yes they do, you inconsiderate racist twit.

    2. Re:Joke is on Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logo looks like a sideways vagina.

  53. Another Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    found online, not vouching for its accuracy

    Independent verification of FBI Anon claims

    1995: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Izaac Herzog, and an unidentified Israeli representative meet to discuss the possibility of Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for Rich funding the PLO, a Muslim terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

    Qatar would buy a stake in Marc Rich's company Glencore after his death, and Qatar and Glencore would operate in concert afterwards.

    2000: Marc Rich associate Michael Steinhardt controls the DLC and Progressive Policy Institute.
    http://www.deepcapture.com/200...

    2003: George Soros and Morton Halperin placed John Podesta as founding head of the Center for American Progress.
    http://www.discoverthenetworks... https://archive.is/Gb2FV

    Under Podesta's watch, unknown persons placed accused Hamas fundraiser Faiz Shakir as Vice President of the Center for American Progress and chief editor of Think Progress. In 2011 Faiz Shakir and Wajahat Ali produced the report "Fear Inc." smearing national security analysts and political activists who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, including liberal Muslims.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp... https://archive.is/tOxwC

    Online rumors have attempted to connect the art trading of John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta with Qatari art purchases of works by Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons who have been hosted by Qatar Museums.
    http://qz.com/764975/qatars-oi...

    The Podesta Group lobbyied for Qatar Petroleum in 2013.
    https://www.desmogblog.com/201...

    2004: The Awan brothers begin employment in the US Congress and will work under Robert Wexler, Xavier Becerra, Gregory Meeks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others before they are exposed as a spy ring in 2017.
    http://www.politico.com/story/...

    2005: Unknown persons placed Emad Shahin and Juliette Kayyem in the Dubai Initiative which produced propaganda to promote the Muslim Brotherhood using the name and reputation of Harvard University.
    http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
    Emad Shahin was convincted in absentia of aiding Hamas and Iran to overthrow the Egyptian government.
    http://emadshahin.com/?p=1839
    https://news.vice.com/article/...
    Juliette Kayyem advocated for Qatari state television network Al-Jazeera and wrote "The War On Terror Is Over" to discourage continued resistance to al-Qaeda.
    https://www.boston.com/bostong...
    https://www.boston.com/bostong...

    2005: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal paid Georgetown University $20 million to continue hosting John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which was originally founded in 1993 with a grant from PLO board member Hasib Sabagh

  54. russia also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ate my homework

    (in cartman voice) im telling you guys, they are out of control

  55. Russian Trolls: Put up your keyboards! by shanen · · Score: 1

    Anyone else speculating that the downtime was a Russian hacker response to the nasty topic?

    Would the paid Russian trolls please raise their keyboards so we can take a count?

    Actually I had a substantive response when I discovered the down-state of Slashdot. Let me see if I can recover those notes...

    [...] I just stopped by [this other system] because Slashdot is down and I was looking for possible explanations. Now I'm wondering if the invalid certificate might have been part of an attack that has mostly shutdown the website (to "offline" mode, whatever that is). One possible scenario: Attackers triggered a revocation of the valid certificate to exploit a vulnerability of the obsolete one? Or perhaps to access a vulnerability using a new faked certificate? Or perhaps the fake new certificate came first, and what we are seeing now is due to Slashdot's successful revocation of the fake?

    So I obviously have no real idea about means or opportunity, but I can speculate farther on motivation. One of the hot stories on Slashdot was about Russians hacking the election. (I wanted to add a comment about "Will the paid Russian trolls please raise their keyboards so we can get a count?")

    Oh yeah, the real punchline. I actually found out Slashdot was down because I was trying to visit Slashdot to look up an old comment I wrote about ways to improve Slashdot. Or should I add the meta-joke that the same ancient idea is still visible on [this other system]... The tail-eating snake has reached his own neck?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  56. The term is BullSH!T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WMD propaganda machine in full swing again, ITS RUSSIA is nauseatingly bad story.

    The Democratic Republic of Russia is the bad guy you know!!! Squirrel!!!!