Slashdot Mirror


Pretty Clear GRU's Goal Was To Weaken a Future Clinton Presidency, Former Facebook CSO Says (zdnet.com)

Speaking at the TechCrunch Disrupt tech conference this week, former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos reflected on his time dealing with fake news and Russian intelligence interference ahead and after the 2016 US presidential election. From a report: The former Facebook security head said "it [was] pretty clear the GRU's goal was to weaken a future Hillary presidency. Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."

"I think it was less about actually electing Trump," Stamos added. "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections."
What kind of attacks could we expect in the near future? Per Stamos, "Throwing an election one way or another is going to be very difficult for a foreign adversary but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."

345 comments

  1. Read another way... by Zorro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Install a weak president.

    1. Re:Read another way... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read another way... Install a weak president.

      No, help to make sure a weakened president was elected. Hillary Clinton getting elected was a foregone conclusion for everyone but a statistics guy inside the Trump campaign, maybe Ann Coulter, and a few others. Every foreign government was saying it out loud, every media outlet in the US was sure of it, every academic expert was convinced of it. The Russians were taking steps to turn her taking power into something more suited to their taste: make it as awful for her as possible, making her as ineffective (at blunting Putin's aspirations) as possible. Another hint that was the case: the Russian actions altered tone, pace, and targets the moment she lost. They didn't want Trump as president, they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton - someone whose family they had already enriched and who exhibited a taste for cashing in on Russian and similar engagement from other nasty types.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re: Read another way... by kenh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think this through - Putin & friends were able to thwart the election for abut $100K in ads, and Hillary with her $1BN budget couldn't overcome that influence/meddling?

      Serious question - what was the last US presidential election the Russians *didn't* meddle in?

      --
      Ken
    3. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand that everbody is working along the same line in this advertorial story: "Buy our advertising and rule the world" is a great sales pitch for Facebook.
      But if the foreign influence was "pretty clear" before the elections why exactly is this chief security officer not an accomplice of the GRU?

    4. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

    5. Re: Read another way... by will_die · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But in the past it was for the Democrats so it did not matter.

    6. Re: Read another way... by mrlinux11 · · Score: 1

      It appears that Hilary may have interfered with a Russian Election, so can you blame Putin from interfering in our election if we interfere with theirs ?

    7. Re:Read another way... by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think they wanted Clinton either. A lot of her actions as Secretary of State were quite opposed to what Russia was doing and it's likely that she would have been willing to step that up and increase U.S. intervention in Syria and the other proxy conflicts that the U.S. and Russia are engaged in. That isn't to say they liked Trump or wanted him to win. As you point out, they, like most others, were probably sure that wasn't a real possibility based on the data. I suspect that they were ambivalent about him, or perhaps they were indifferent towards him.

      I think that Trump also fits quite well into the known-to-be-corrupt, feckless category just as well as Clinton (or most other politicians for that matter) so they knew that they wouldn't have a problem dealing with Trump either. He's in real estate and has enough history prior to his foray into politics to leave them comfortable in that assessment.

      My guess is that if Clinton were elected, she would similarly beleaguered at this point in her presidency. As much as you might like to argue that the media would be on her side, they also like blood in the water.

    8. Re:Read another way... by avandesande · · Score: 4, Informative

      no shit- they are getting their money back in spades over the russian meddling hysteria/trump presidency

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    9. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No, more accurately, Trump won because of the majority of people, who disliked both candidates, a small fraction disliked Trump slightly less than they disliked Clinton.

      When elected, Trump was the most disliked president elect in history. If Clinton had been elected, she would also have been the most disliked president elect in history.

    10. Re:Read another way... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 3, Funny

      they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton

      Hey -- HEY!! Quit throwing around bad terms at people. You're going to taint feckless much worse than it really is.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    11. Re: Read another way... by XXongo · · Score: 5, Informative

      But if the foreign influence was "pretty clear" before the elections why exactly is this chief security officer not an accomplice of the GRU?

      If you read the actual article, he says that the extent of Russian interference was not clear until after the elections.

      In fact, the article itself is pretty interesting-- the speculation about Russian motivation is the least important part; the talk about what they did and how they did what they did is more interesting.

    12. Re: Read another way... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, please.

      Firstly, that's the ads that Facebook found. There may be far more that Facebook did not identify.

      But the ads were a tiny part of Russia's campaign. Russia used troll farms to influence people though cost-free posts.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin & the GOP, working together.

    14. Re: Read another way... by bestweasel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why do you minimize the Russian spend?

    15. Re: Read another way... by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why there are laws in electoral advertising.When you don't have to be transparent, advertising can be far more effective/manipulative.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    16. Re: Read another way... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Hello my Russian friend. You should declare your interest as a paid Kremlin sockpuppet before posting here. It's only fair.

      Said the AC who was afraid to reveal his own identity - and could be literally anyone.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    17. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hillary Clinton getting elected was a foregone conclusion to everyone except the millions of people who decided to vote for Trump well before he was even nominated. You know, the silent folks who work every day, who don't engage in narcissistic social media bullshit, who didn't put stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they didn't want their property vandalized by lawless unhinged leftists. THOSE people. The ones who matter. The ones who weren't influenced by low budget Russian Facebook ads because they don't give a crap about Facebook. The ones who arrogant twerps who just know what's best for everyone simply forgot about for decades, and who have finally had enough of city dwelling ignorant fucktards trying to tell the whole country what to do.

    18. Re: Read another way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If it's so easy to brainwash voters, why didn't Hillary win? She spent far more on propaganda than Trump did. She's so much smarter than Trump is. The DNC is so much smarter than the voters are. The media is so much smarter than the public. Etc.

    19. Re: Read another way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Because in comparison to Hillary's official spend, it IS minimal?

    20. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Occam's razor says "Hillary really was a shitty candidate" is an even simpler hypothesis than "Russians brainwashed everybody".

    21. Re: Read another way... by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      Hello my Anonymous Coward friend. You should declare your identity before posting here to improve on your credibility. It's only fair. Unless you prefer to be less credible, in which case, feel free to continue to hide your identity to avoid the slings and arrows of accountability. You are not alone.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the expense, it's the method as well. Manipulating social media isn't something that was being done by the candidates in the same manner as the Russians. Essentially they were spending their money in the wrong place, and you can expect that to change their strategy in the next election. The type of message probably matters too - it may be negativity spreads through social media faster than positivity and therefore it's easier to throw muck on an opponent so they lose than try to win an election.

    23. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't want Trump as president, they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton - someone whose family they had already enriched and who exhibited a taste for cashing in on Russian and similar engagement from other nasty types.

      How is it that shit like this gets modded up to +4 Insightful??? I mean, I know when I come back in a few hours to look, it will be modded down to a troll, but why the fuck do stupid comments like this instantly rocket up on this site?

      Dumb shit like this has driven most of the actual insightful commentators away from this site. It's a fucking shame. I used to come here for true insight, now I think it's just out of habit.

    24. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It appears that Hilary may have interfered with a Russian Election, so can you blame Putin from interfering in our election if we interfere with theirs ?

      Even if what `appears' were true: yes we can blame him. It is against the law. Period. End of Story.

      Why is this so difficult.

    25. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bogus comparison. A few thousand additional votes votes would have changed the result of the election. So the question is how many votes were changed by Russian troll campaign? Was it enough to change the outcome of the election.

    26. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only needed to âoebrainwashâ a comparatively small number of voters. Or discourage them from voting.

    27. Re: Read another way... by xjerky · · Score: 1

      Norm MacDonald jokes that people hated Hillary Clinton so much that they elected someone that they hated even more instead,

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    28. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's well known that Khrushchev hated JFK (may even have had him assassinated) so the Russians were probably betting on Nixon in 1960 (and 1968 and 1972).

    29. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of people voted for Clinton.

      Popular vote total
      Clinton 65,844,954 (48.2%)
      Trump 62,979,879 (46.1%)

    30. Re:Read another way... by Targon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary is universally hated by virtually every Republican, and disliked by a good percentage of the Democrats. Then you have those who are not in either party but tend to vote for one party over the other, and THOSE tended to dislike Hillary a lot as well. The best way to avoid foreign interference is to have candidates who people want to see as president, rather than candidates who are only seen as slightly better than the other(depending on your perspective). Clinton vs. Trump, neither one should have been allowed anywhere near the White House!

    31. Re: Read another way... by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hillary was torpedoed by Comey. Had that not happened the Russian interference would not have mattered except to elect more Republicans to congress perhaps. Which is what they wanted.

    32. Re: Read another way... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Living with Ivan or Hilary? I hate Vodka.

    33. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With the hapless democrats who simply cannot admit Hillary lost in a fair fight being the ones to play into Russian hands more than anybody else.

      Putin got what he wanted, even if he didn't get the president he expected.

    34. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The majority of people voted for Clinton.

      Popular vote total
      Clinton 65,844,954 (48.2%)
      Trump 62,979,879 (46.1%)

      So, in a soccer game, Hillary had control of the ball longer than Trump did?

      Cool story, brah.

    35. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello my Russian friend. You should declare your interest as a paid Kremlin sockpuppet before posting here. It's only fair.

      Said the AC who was afraid to reveal his own identity - and could be literally anyone.

      So why don't YOU post YOUR name and address RIGHT HERE, motherfucker ?

      Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

    36. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't like JFKs policies towards the USSR then Nixon would be an odd preferred choice.

    37. Re: Read another way... by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      You're looking at this entirely wrong. The Clinton campaign, and indeed political analysis experts globally, misunderstood the sheer power social media had/continues to have. The fake news websites weren't, in themselves, the worst issues. The hacking and releasing of information wasn't all THAT bad. It was the fake social media bots, the careful design of images and wording to encourage sharing, and the gullibility of the baby boomers to make devastating. The Dems (and mostly no one) had any idea how to fight this. The grasp isn't fully there yet, but campaigns are now getting careful and diligent about social media. Social media companies are now going to be looked at politically, which will drive them to act accordingly. Twitter will need to be careful to not piss off the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) by overtly looking the other way on manipulation. Information warfare has changed. We've demonstrated that you don't have to take out electrical grids or reprogram missiles or hack government networks. You simply have to hack the idiot and gullible boomers. If you do that, you can fuck America up for generations.

    38. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually when someone does a terrible analogy, it's car related. As you sound like an ignorant and dismissive 12 year old, maybe you failed that because you can't drive yet? I guess we're lucky it wasn't a terrible Minecraft or MLP analogy...

    39. Re: Read another way... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Think this through - Putin & friends were able to thwart the election for abut $100K in ads, and Hillary with her $1BN budget couldn't overcome that influence/meddling?

      The USA was able to completely overthrow a foreign government and install a selected dictator in their place for that money. Okay inflation adjusted more like $900k, but point is the same.

    40. Re: Read another way... by Deathlizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, there was probably a lot more money thrown around for Russian meddling, but thats beside the point.

      The main reason Hillary lost is because she was literally the worst candidate the DNC could've chose. Back when she announced her candidacy in 2015 I posted this which listed all of her past scandals, and that you had better choices, even on the democrat side

      After the Access Hollywood scandal, Trump should've been done. Period. Any other candidate would have been sunk, and Trump would've lost to any other candidate running against him. The difference is that he was running against Hillary, and all he had to do was divert people's attention away from the scandal by addressing the issue once, and then going back to his core voter issues while Hillary spun in circles trying to capitalize on the scandal instead of focusing on her core voter issues.

      From my experience in this election, I can tell you that Trump was resonating with voters. I live in the rust belt (More Specifically North East Ohio, Western PA) where there is a ton of Democrat support. Almost all of the people I knew that traditionally voted Democrat were voting Trump, including my Grandfather, who was a WWII vet, a Retired Union leader who worked in the Railroad Business, and Voted straight Democrat except for Eisenhower. When I asked him why, he said he was the first Candidate he saw in decades that gets that Free Trade and especially Steel Dumping is killing heavy industry in this country and he felt he was the only candidate to actually fix it instead of talking about fixing it. Most of the other voters had similar reasons. Here on Slashdot, it was the H1B issue drawing voters since he was against it (but as of this post still hasn't done anything about it, which is going to hurt him come November)

      Surprisingly, Almost no one I asked that went from voting Democrat to Trump voted for him because of Hillary Scandals or "Crooked Hillary" or any anti Hillary message that you commonly saw with these Russian troll ads. They voted for Trump cause They liked Trump's stance on issues (particularly anti free trade) vs Hillary. Many of them also like Sanders over Hillary because of the same issues and reasons, since many of Sanders issues were similar to Trump when it came to Jobs. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Sanders would be in the White House if he won the nomination.

    41. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      this kind of shit is why president trump won. ^^^^^

      Its simply amazing how little money the russian actors spent on facebook and how effective it was in derailing the democrats. Clinton didnt even campaign in every state.

      So lets just focus on people posting with anon ids and call them non-credible while ignoring the reality that more Anti Trump Russia stories were anon-source based. The Trump resistance is so insulated by facebook-echoing that rickb928 can joiin a dog pile on any body NOT being anti Trump.

      this kind of shit is why president trump will win again

    42. Re: Read another way... by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

      No it is not a bogus comparison. Those couple of thousand people needed to be voting in a only a couple of swing states. Which means that the Russian ad money would have needed to been focused on those states and probably even at the county level within a state.

      I know for FACT I saw Russian advertising, and I am located in the deep south which is not swing state territory. So if the budget was only $100,000 then why was I seeing adverts and I'm not even close to Ohio?

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
    43. Re: Read another way... by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      Great leap there.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    44. Re: Read another way... by OYAHHH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Odd, I'm a baby boomer and Donald Trump is doing exactly what I wanted him to do when I voted for him.

      That's not gullibility. That is smart voting.

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
    45. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, more accurately, Trump won because of the majority of people, who disliked both candidates, a small fraction disliked Trump slightly less than they disliked Clinton.

      When elected, Trump was the most disliked president elect in history. If Clinton had been elected, she would also have been the most disliked president elect in history.

      No, actually, More Americans in the USA on a whole disliked Trump than disliked Clinton. It's just that more of the ones that disliked Clinton were in pivotal states, given our electoral college system.

      Popular vote: Trump 62,980,160, Clinton 65,845,063
      Electoral vote: Trump 304, Clinton 227

    46. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen so many trump stickers I find it hard to believe that you actually think they dont put those stickers on their cars.

    47. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elwood Blues
      1060 West Addison.

    48. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the "Giant Meteor for President" meme existed exactly because this was the situation for a lot of people, and Giant Meteor did receive write-in votes. The parties had poor candidates.

    49. Re:Read another way... by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      No, the real question is: why do you think that immediately resorting to juvenile ad hominem (without even touching a single bit of what was said) makes you sound like more than just a cowardly troll? The Clinton ARE corrupt. They were more than happy to pocket, directly hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian "speaking fees" while she was Secretary of State and making policy calls that impacted relations with that country in hundreds of ways. The Clintons became wealthy selling influence, period. They're multi-millionaires because of it, and that cash flow dried up the moment she lost her miserably run campaign. You know all of this, but of course can't bring yourself to comment on the substance of the matter because you're personally disappointed that the terrible candidate you preferred lost an election to someone whose style you hate. Have the intellectual courage to actually say that out loud, instead of posting your whines like a petulant tweenage girl.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    50. Re: Read another way... by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      Please cite your evidence that they only spent $100K.

      I suspect they spent *far* more than that, especially if you consider the Russian investments in Trump real estate and casino projects. Before you replay that this is a half baked conspiracy theory, read House of Trump, House of Putin.

      Even if you ignore that, your argument is fatally flawed. $100k spent on a cheating illegal effort is far more powerful than $100k legally spent. A good analogy would be a race car where a $100 part that adds horsepower against the rules (e.g. restricter plate) , shouldn't be considered a factor in fixing a race because the other cars spent lots of money but followed the rules..

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    51. Re: Read another way... by scrout · · Score: 0

      Oh for fuck's sake, she was not electable from get go, and it got worse as it got closer to the election. Obomber had over 200 people working social media in his last campaign. But that was for all those brilliant non gullible liberal boomers, right? Idiot. You and Hillary elected Trump.

    52. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hillary was torpedoed by Comey. Had that not happened the Russian interference would not have mattered except to elect more Republicans to congress perhaps. Which is what they wanted.

      Hilary was torpedoed by her own history, personality, health, and promises. Comey was a catalyst for an ongoing reaction. Had she been in good standing with the public view, Comey's actions would have given her a bump.

    53. Re: Read another way... by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      Laws have always been enforced through the state's monopoly of force.

      The U.S. Is quite capable of projecting it's force anywhere in the world, although they don't have a global monopoly (which is why there's no global government).

    54. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great response there.

      At least you have partners in up-voting crime.

    55. Re: Read another way... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hillary was torpedoed by Comey.

      What, like with a submarine or something?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    56. Re: Read another way... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't appear that way at all. Putin says it happened. He says it because there were protests, and because the US Government's media mouthpieces supported those protests.

      There were protests this year too. Did Trump cause them? Or better, Trump's secretary of state?

      A dictator who runs rigged elections blames popular protests on old-timey mortal enemy. News at fucking 11.

    57. Re: Read another way... by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      Really? I don't see any upvotes for my bits in this thread.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    58. Re: Read another way... by mlw4428 · · Score: 2

      So increasing the national deficit, alienating our allies, dismantling our educational institutions, and pissing away my generation's future is what you voted for. I'm glad to know as a boomer you worked to give my generation a better life than you had, as the previous generation did for you. Thank you for the increased degree requirements, wage stagnation, and the demands of increased productivity a lower starting salary ontop of massive college debt. I really enjoyed not having health insurance and I *REALLY* loved hearing how lazy I was working 2 jobs full time and 1 job part time. Oh and thank you for massively polluting the earth and raising the global temperatures and then fighting anyone asking us to like not do that. You're old, you'll die soon enough, you got yours, fuck me and mine...yes you've gotten everything you've ever wanted. And thank you for voting for a POTUS who worked to undermine the basic institutions of Democracy and gladly accepted Russian money and assistance to do whatever it took to win. It's not your nation you have to worry about as you head into your twilight years. Enjoy the social security your generation's leaders borrowed from and work to destroy/deny my generation while simultaneously requiring we work and pay into it for you.

      Just remember as you're shitting into your old fucking man diaper that the nurse you demand wipes your ass as you grab her tits makes way less than you did at her age in terms of buying power. You did that and I'm sure you're proud. Let's hope cancer or old age wipes your generation out as fast as it can.

    59. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...who don't engage in narcissistic social media bullshit"
      So they decided to elect a narcissist that spends all his time on social media or the golf course?

      Yep. Sounds exactly like the kind of logic I'd expect out of a modern day Conservative.
      Self-righteous hand-waiving deeply rooted in selfishness and fear.

      "...who didn't put stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they didn't want their property vandalized by lawless unhinged leftists."
      As opposed to the fanatics on the right that have literally murdered people in shooting sprees at churches, night clubs, or alt-right rally's?

      Rural votes have carried more weight than the city dwellers you blame for your own inadequacies for a lifetime; and yet even now, you have control of all three branches of government and you're still playing the victim. It's pathetic.

    60. Re: Read another way... by greythax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's only smart if what you "wanted him to do" is actually in your best interests. Otherwise we are back to gullibility.

    61. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The demographic of unicorns? There are probably a couple thousand of those types in all of America. It is rather well documented that most of Trump's support came directly from Facebook and Twitter bots.

    62. Re:Read another way... by greythax · · Score: 1

      I mean, sure, a russian oligarch gave Trump 50 million profit for a house ($13 million more than it was worth) , that he has never had inspected or stepped foot in, and is now to be demolished, but it was totally Clinton that was the one that was in Russia's pocket.

    63. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it ok for a judge to accept bribes if he ends up not modifying his sentencing decision after a guilty verdict?

      Then why would it be ok that a foreign government directly interfered in a US election so long as they didn't change the outcome?

    64. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. PT Barnum mentioned people like you; I currently make a LOT of money making up fake news to sell to people like you. Complete bullshit, but you idiots share it millions of times. I help fund antifa with the revenue.

    65. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making a free account with a nickname on a dying website lends your posts credibility...

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    66. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no they're not. the clintons took far more money than anyone from russian interests.

      and she can't pay any of it back now.

    67. Re: Read another way... by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      What, like with a submarine or something?

      Yeah like that. You don't know its there until its deadly strike is on its way or has actually impacted. That is what a submarine in warfare is all about.

      If you have having difficulty with the idea I would suggest you read FiveThirtyEight's analysis which makes the case pretty clearly.

    68. Re: Read another way... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      A lie costs nothing. Disproving costs millions, and isnt that effective anyway.

    69. Re: Read another way... by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

      maybe you are just an asshole.

    70. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks! for the one legislative action of any impact - cutting taxes without cutting spending, with projections of trillions of dollars more added to the debt we youth will have to pay interest on, after you have coasted off into death in your nicer retirement home.

    71. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, people who don't think like you are insane because they don't think like you.

      You'd make a perfectly lovely Fascist.

    72. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you sure showed us, didn't you cupcake?

    73. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know all of this, but of course can't bring yourself to comment on the substance of the matter because you're personally disappointed that the terrible candidate you preferred lost an election...

      Bernie was my preferred candidate, but you already knew that, right?

      ... to someone whose style you hate.

      Fuck that. It's the substance (and lack thereof) that I hate. He works to divide the US... It's why we have these endless, pointless battles on the internet. He lies non-stop, so I guess you could say I hate that style, if it could be called a "style".

      What I really hate though, is that whenever we talk about the sitting President, you guys always want to talk about someone/something else (Hillary, emails, everyone does it, look at the economy though). It's fucking tiring.

    74. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton"

      Ha ha. As opposed to the guy who had been laundering money through his properties that would have failed without it.

    75. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello my Anonymous Coward friend. You should declare your identity before posting here to improve on your credibility.

      And yet he still got modded up while many with usernames never get above 0.

    76. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laundering the Russians money, I meant. Left out the "their".

    77. Re:Read another way... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      This wishful thinking gone awry (ie "Russian got Trump elected because they were scared of Hillary") will backfire when you all of a sudden find out that you and everyone you know needs a license to speak.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    78. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched that election. I can clearly say Clinton torpedoed herself. She had basically 0 enthusiasm in the places it mattered. Trump was filling stadiums. She was sandbagging high school gyms. The only way she was getting people to show up is if there was some singer on stage with her. Meaning people were not there for her.

      Her message was very mixed and meandering. Trump was crystal clear on it. Hell one of her campaign messages was 'love trumps hate'. That can be read two different ways and mentioned by name her opponent. Love is a great idea but does not convey what she wanted to do. Bill Maher put it perfect "oh god its that bad". It was at that moment I knew he was probably going to win.

      She and her staff bungled the handover from sanders (who had a very enthused crowd for him). She came off looking wildly corrupt by 'stealing' the election from him openly.

      She then went on to call half the country 'deplorable'. Then walked it back.

      She was the mcain of the 2008 election. She lost that one too, she also lost to obama. Came up with the birther thing (which Trump ran with). Then in 2016 used the exact same method Obama used to lock her out. She was the "well I guess" vote. She had no actual enthusiasm until it was WELL too late. After the election was conducted.

      She came off terrible and mostly campaigned in California mostly where she basically had a lock in. She basically just skipped whole states she thought was 'no problem'. But the previous admins had been chasing off jobs. With a message of 'love the illegals'. Yeah people who have no job do not really care about that. Do they?

      It was hers to lose they 'picked' Donald Trump because they considered him the easiest to win against (from their own emails). Turns out he could complete against her and knew how to do it. He knew the right buttons to push to keep her off balance. Easy to do when you hung out with them a lot...

    79. Re:Read another way... by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      I think that they foremost wanted a divided country. The more internal turmoil western countries are engaged in the more the leave Russia alone to do what they want (say invade Ukraine). This is why Russia funds every single alt-right movement in Europe right now, not because they believe in the same things but because these groups create political turmoil in their home countries.

    80. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous cowards are just as credible here as they are as information sources for the news.

    81. Re: Read another way... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      It's much easier to spread hatred, intolerance, bigotry, racism, fear of the "other", than it is to promote rationality and understanding.

      If those numbers are correct, they sadly show just how much easier.

    82. Re: Read another way... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      You know, the silent folks who work every day, who don't engage in narcissistic social media bullshit, who didn't put stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they didn't want their property vandalized by lawless unhinged leftists.

      I'll just leave this here now.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/donald-trump-signs.html

    83. Re: Read another way... by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      There's no accounting for taste.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    84. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're going to need your real name, address, phone number, email, tax id # and job history for that statement.

      Or you're just a hypocrite.

      You're just a hypocrite...

    85. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parent really named you rickb928?

      numbnuts

    86. Re: Read another way... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      No. It says revenge.
      And Russia acting in the US if the US try to mess with Russia is fair and make sense.

      Just as US agencies figure when the assume all the foreign companies have foreign governments demanding they build in flaws and backdoors in their products.

    87. Re: Read another way... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      They can't vote right in a false society.
      Just look at us here in Sweden.
      Beyond whom you can vote for already predetermined of you lie to and withhold information from the voters how can they then make the right choice?

    88. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more reason not to believe any of it. Blame the voters for running with bullshit they want to hear. Nothing to do with "Russians".

    89. Re:Read another way... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Re: polls. I invite you to actually read the polls during the last week after Comey dumped his October Surprise on Hillary.
      Aside from Rasmussen, ALL said Hillary by 2-5%.
      She won the vote by 2.2%, well inside the MOE.

    90. Re:Read another way... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Lost by 2.86 million more votes at that!
      Oh, wait.....
      In a fair fight, all votes are equally counted like the 14th Amendment REQUIRES.

    91. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right.

    92. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was 7 to 9 points ahead until Comey spoke up. She would have won if he hadn't said anything.

    93. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep bleating about the popular vote sheep.

      All votes were counted and Trump won the majority of the votes for President, those are the votes cast by the States. People don't pick the President, the States do as the job of President is to be the primary spokesperson for the sovereign States.

    94. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many butthurt Russians ....

      Not going well for you is it?
      The GOP will be demolished in Nov and Trump will be neutered.
      The only people now who don't believe Russia interfered in the election are some Trump voters and Russians.
      Even more know that Russia invades other countries, downs airliners and kills opponents.
      Your propaganda worked two years ago but folks are wise to your tricks now.
      You can't even take a vacation in Turkey in case you're on a list.

    95. Re: Read another way... by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not suggesting that comparing Hillary's official spend with Russia's official spend is a sensible comparison.

    96. Re: Read another way... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Russia used troll farms to influence people though cost-free posts.

      Trolls need to be fed, housed, and provided with connectivity and hardware. Low-cost, but not cost-free.

      If I were being cost-conscious, I'd use the police's data to "feel the collar" of multiple hackers involved in card fraud, spam selling, spear-phishing, etc, then require them to develop troll-running tools, strategies for identifying "hot button" topics etc, and to direct their thefts at desired targets on demand. Let them decide who is the most effective troll breeder, and pay him. Penalty for non-compliance : 5 years in Siberia. Somewhere that would make you have sweaty dreams of the fleshpots of Norilsk.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    97. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one got more than 50.000000%, so in an election on popular vote there would be a second round!

    98. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can continue to deny that all the suffering is self inflicted. The choice is yours...

    99. Re:Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping in mind that the Republican establishment has been demonizing her since 1992. It's impossible to know the difference between the rhetoric that they've been pumping out for 26 years and how bad she may really be.

    100. Re: Read another way... by diaz · · Score: 1

      While she's not without blame for how she ran her campaign, keep in mind that the Republican establishment has been demonizing her since 1992. It's impossible to know the difference between the rhetoric that they've been pumping out for 26 years and how bad she may really be.

    101. Re: Read another way... by diaz · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that 80% of Americans are in favor of what Trump said he wanted to do: increase trade, better national security, more jobs, more people with better health insurance for less. The problem is that he either doesn't know how to deliver on these promises, some of them simply can't be done, or he was outright lying. The people that didn't like Hillary but still voted for her could see through his thin veil of bullshit.

    102. Re: Read another way... by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      If she hadn't run her own email server for official business, and then unilaterally deleted thousands of emails when found out, there wouldn't have been any general reason for Comey to be involved in the first place.

      The specific reason for Comey's last-minute investigation was that sensitive emails were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner (known for his weiner pics). He was the husband of Huma Abadin, Hillary's personal assistant. An irdinary American would've been jailed like Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    103. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that falsifies the point that she would have won if he hadn't said anything.

    104. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was nine points ahead two weeks before the election, until Comey spoke up.

    105. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A notorious Russian "troll factory" had a $1.25 million [monthly] budget in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to interfere in the US political system, according to charges filed by the Department of Justice.

      http://uk.businessinsider.com/russian-troll-farm-spent-millions-on-election-interference-2018-2

      Of course US dollars go a lot further in Russia.

    106. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply because the Russians don't have to follow the rules legitimate campaigns do which gives them a huge advantage.

    107. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At -1 now. Comments which out trolls have to be hidden.

    108. Re: Read another way... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Think this through - Putin & friends were able to thwart the election for abut $100K in ads, and Hillary with her $1BN budget couldn't overcome that influence/meddling?

      Was that by thwarting the election with Hillary's dirty laundry? The DNC hack was the only thing I found interesting but I don't get news from the various internet social sites. Getting it second hand is bad enough.

      I expect clamping down on social media will do more damage than the election shenanigans. The media has steered elections forever and now they have another tool and excuse.

    109. Re:Read another way... by ivano · · Score: 1

      They didn't want Trump as president...

      You mean a guy that actual launders money for Putin and his oligarchs? A man who sold his name for "look I'm rich"-money and is now just a figure-head for Saudi and Russian investors.

    110. Re: Read another way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Of course not, but the clowns keep bringing up RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
      So because they demand it, I will always point out that Hillary spent astronomically more, and even the Russians spent more for Hillary than they did for Trump.

  2. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Per Stamos, "Throwing an election one way or another is going to be very difficult for a foreign adversary but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."

    Just ask Facebook and other âoenewsâ outlets. It seems they have experience with this.

  3. Clinton Meddling by ebonum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?

    1. Re:Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has America ever intefered in the elections or politics of other countries? Why would they stop now?

    2. Re:Clinton Meddling by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it was George Clinton. P-Funk was behind it all along.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    3. Re:Clinton Meddling by DogDude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why would that matter one way or the other?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re: Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turnabout is fair play? Unless you dream of cuddling with Hillary of course.

    5. Re:Clinton Meddling by avandesande · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does the concept of 'blowback' matter, ie that the USA might actually be responsible for some of the bad things that happen to it? Would Hillary have been a stronger candidate if she had not taken part in globalist 'nation-building' activities?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:Clinton Meddling by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because when you fuck with people, they often have the desire to fuck with you right back. Preferably in the exact same way you did to them. This is typically known as "the cycle of violence".

      For example, did you know the US meddled in the 1996 Russian election to get Yeltsin re-elected? It's absolutely true, a lot of people were proud of it at the time and it wasn't a secret. He was in fifth place with ratings in the single digits before the Americans got involved. This was disastrous for Russia, as the oligarchs and Western neo-liberal economists made a mess of things. This started the chain of events that led directly to Putin seizing power four years later. Action, reaction.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Clinton Meddling by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Informative
    8. Re:Clinton Meddling by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Why would that matter one way or the other?

      Translation: What an obnoxious question. It illustrates a point that doesn't jibe with the spin this "issue" has been given on the idiotbox(es) and I'm not at all prepared to go there. What can I do to derail this conversation??"

    9. Re: Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you dream of cuddling with Hillary of course.

      Thanksalot. You owe me gallons of brain bleach to get that image out of my head.

    10. Re:Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suuuure, because if the Kremlin says something, it is always true. Sorry, more evidence needed.

    11. Re:Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?

      Oh, much worse, from Russia's perspective.

      Remember "Fuck the EU"?

      Basically, the US helped foment a coup/revolution/pick-your-term in Ukraine that replaced a Russia-friendly government with one that was not-so-friendly.

      Commentary from the article linked above:

      The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.

      and

      An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.

      The EU didn't want to do that:

      Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.

      The EU didn't want to do that because Russia had made it clear it regarded overthrowing the then-current Ukrainian government as an act of war.

      But Barack Obama (and Hillary?) knew better....

      So now we have a de facto Russia/Ukraine war, and a pissed-off Russia seizing portions of Ukraine (Crimea - which, BTW, is historically Russian and not Ukrainian...) it deems necessary for military reasons.

      Imagine, say, if Hawaii with its US military bases became owned by Canada by administrative fiat (like how the Soviet Union made Crimea part of the Ukrainian SSR...) but Canada had a friendly government that allowed the US continued use of its bases there as if nothing had changed. Then Russia comes along and foments a coup/revolution to replace the pro-US Canadian government with a pro-Russian one.

      Yeah, that's what Barack Obama did to Russia. Yeah, that was a "reset", but not the one Obama sold to the US.

      Damn right the EU was wary of doing that, and Putin wound up pissed.

    12. Re:Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would that matter one way or the other?

      Tit-for-tat: "You fuck with me, I fuck with you."

      Pour encourager les autres. From fucking with you in the future.

    13. Re:Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't matter whether Clinton meddled in his election, why would it matter whether Putin meddled in hers? Is it okay for one side, but not the other?

    14. Re:Clinton Meddling by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?

      There are two broad categories of states, functioning Democracies where the leaders can be booted out by the public, and countries where you're going to need a revolution to change leadership.

      I'm actually fine with a policy where you should leave the functioning Democracies as is but you're free to screw around with the other countries to make them functioning Democracies since the common thread is you're trying to make the leadership of those countries accountable to the people.

      Therefore I'll happily condemn Russian meddling in US elections but encourage US meddling in the Russian theatre productions they call elections. The US meddling in Ukraine is a bit more ambiguous, they were a semi-functioning Democracy but with a leader trying very hard to entrench himself for life. The Ukrainian revolution actually made them a lot closer to a functioning Democracy, which as it turns out was a great motive for Russia to invade them and steal some territory.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    15. Re:Clinton Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course not. People only do bad things to the USA because "they hate our freedoms". When we interfere in their affairs, it's only because we're bringing them the gift of democracy.

    16. Re:Clinton Meddling by mukinrestak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, for those who may not actually know about it, the US government (and in some cases also corporations!) has meddled in the elections of every single country in Central and South America. Every last one. They've also off the top of my head meddled in German, Iranian, French, and pretty much all of the Soviet bloc states elections.

      So did they meddle in Russia? You bet your sweet caboose they did. I'd be willing to bet there isn't a country on earth whose elections the US hasn't meddled in, unless of course it's one that has no elections with which to meddle.

    17. Re:Clinton Meddling by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Not across borders. Nations reserve the right to internally bitch and moan about what happened to them regardless if it is blowback or not. That is how things work on two different sides of a fence. It just happens to work better when you're fully in control of the media too.

    18. Re:Clinton Meddling by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      By the definition used by democratic party today, they didn't meddle.

      By a reasonable definition, in which Russia didn't in fact meddle in any significant way beyond the minor "divide them and make them fight" unless you're counting the whole Bezmenov issue as "Russian meddling" and give it significant weight as the primary reason for rise of the far left forces in governing structures of US, US meddled at the very least in the second Yeltsin election. It was blatantly open on that one, because Yeltsin was utterly unpopular due to his effective surrender of the country after the collapse of USSR to the Western elites. Essentially almost all of the productive industry went for grabs for foreign investment, including even defence related technologies and oil fields (see for example how Lockheed Martin bought VTOL tech for F-35B from Yakovlev bureau and why Khodorovsky was actually nailed in the end). There were probably attempts to do the same in the following elections, but Putin got far too popular for at least 2000s and early 2010s. The next election is going to be interesting because this is clearly Putin's last presidency, judging by the fact that he's pushing through the reforms that his country genuinely needs that are deeply unpopular, like raising pension age to the level comparable to EU average.

      It's going to be an interesting contest to see who comes after him, and if US didn't meddle in that election, CIA would need to be broken down and disbanded, because they'd be in dereliction of their primary duty if they didn't attempt to influence the outcome, just as they did in the second Yeltsin election. A better question is going to be, how will the meddling go? Will they go for the same strategy that was used toward the end of 1990s of just maximum damage to the target state, or will they actually have a candidate they'll support as they did in the middle of 1990s?

    19. Re:Clinton Meddling by superwiz · · Score: 1

      It's not a fair question. It's a related question. But it assumes the premise of the stated argument (that Russia influenced the election). It's an attempt to drive past the sale. Mexico, England, and to some degree France, exerted most of the foreign influence in the past election cycle.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  4. Well duh by AlanObject · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It was obvious from the get go that Putin had major dislike for Hillary and her foreign policies. If she were president there is no way that the pressure over Magnitsky and Crimea would let up.

    What they were most likely aiming for is a Hillary presidency which everyone figured would happen anyway, but a Republican congress that would obstruct anything and everything in pursuit of their donor-classes' interests and right-wing ideology (i.e. Tea Party). In other words what Obama had to deal with. That's the formula for the weakest America.

    I am sure their team had no idea their ops would work as well as it did and Trump eked out a popular vote loss and an EC victory. What they learned is what Barnum said: "Nobody ever went broke overestimated the stupidity of the American public."

    1. Re: Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as a popular vote. Journalists can go out and collect dissimilar numbers to add up, but the total is not some 'popular vote.' That's similar to trying to add up 'interception recoveries' to determine the winner of a football game.

    2. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just changed their name

    3. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is strange that you do not seem to know that the modern republican party is not right wing. Center right maybe. A lot of the resistance to Trump is coming from republicans on the center right coalition.

      Are you also saying that only the republicans have donor class interests? Maybe you should spend time reviewing large monied interests that donate to the democratic party. Many of them are not human beings but corporations.

      And finally the P.T. Barnum quote is wrong. It was attributed H.L. Mencken, and you did not even get it right. You could have looked it up, but you didn't.

    4. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tea Party has been dead for awhile. You really that ignorant? Must suck to be such a pin headed bigot like yourself now doesn't it.

      The Koch Bros. are the Tea Party; the rest are just camp followers.

    5. Re:Well duh by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They were co-opted by the religious nuts and the organization became worse than useless. Pretty much SOP for popular R movements.

      Of course, the people are still out there.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tea Party did it's job of letting you bury your head in the sand during the Great Recession and pretend that you hated Bush just as much as you hated Obama. By Obama's second term, you'd all forgotten about Bush's bullshit and you were full Republicans again I just wonder what you'll call yourselves to hide from the Trump fallout.

  5. chaos? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."

    "Chaos"?

    First of all, we would know that how, lol? Aren't they all chaos?

    In any case, real elections are "chaos" ... in real elections there's real potential for the voters to actually choose something different, whether the elites like it or not.

    That feels like "chaos" to the people who think that only one party should rule and that any other parties are to be kept around only for appearances sake.

    1. Re:chaos? by Lucas123 · · Score: 3

      I totally agree.

      The Russian "involvement" in the 2016 election is being overplayed. We act is if the U.S. and other nations don't try to affect the outcome of elections around the world, and that the fake news on Facebook/Twitter in our last election somehow influenced a large swatch of the electorate -- people other than died-in-the-wool conservative. It's not as if moderates were suddenly believing Pizzagate was real and Hillary Clinton and top Democratic operatives are running an underground and possibly satanic child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant in Washington D.C.

      I think it would be interesting to see the results of an objective poll or some other study showing just how much influence fake news had in the election. To date, all we have is a narrative being pushed by sore losers.

    2. Re:chaos? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether the fake news actually flipped a vote. I think I agree with you that it's unlikely it did.
      But what it did do, just based on my own observations and interactions with my more "conservative" friends and family, is convince the... dimmer... of those people that the news was true. IE, it didn't make them any more likely to vote for Trump, but it did make them more likely to think any criticism of Trump is a conspiracy to overthrow this company and turn it into the Soviet Union.

      Which I think was the actual goal anyway- that's far more valuable than flipping votes.

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

      It seems statistically highly implausabible nobody was flipped, but more importantly: it is the meddling that is important, not the result.

      If somebody tries to kill somebody else and fails, he still a criminal.

  6. What's a GRU? by eepok · · Score: 2

    Was I the only one that had to look up "GRU" and "IRA Troll Farm" because neither the article nor summary explained it?

    From Wiki: The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russia... and still commonly known by its previous abbreviation GRU... is the foreign military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation ... whose heads report directly to the president of Russia.

    The Internet Research Agency... is a Russian company, based in Saint Petersburg, engaged in online influence operations on behalf of Russian business and political interests.

    1. Re:What's a GRU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wow. And I thought it was despicable me. :D

    2. Re:What's a GRU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty clear that "Troll Farm" was a reference to a new MMORPG with a Farmville/WoW crossover.

    3. Re:What's a GRU? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      GRU often get listed in the US media as some entity that gets its cyber "methods" discovered in real time by the US media. Its the wrong intelligence service to be listing.
      Any actions by the GRU that the US gov knows about would be fully classified for decades and decades.
      No information about what the USA knows about the GRU would be given to the US media in real time if it was true.
      The US would never talk of its methods re GRU in real time to the media.
      The "Armed Forces" part should be a hint that its all fake US domestic party political news. Its not that kind of spy, cyber spy part of the military.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Gru by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 0

    Pretty Clear GRU's Goal Was To Weaken a Future Clinton Presidency

    Did he do it himself or did he let his minions do it?

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Gru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each minion gets a vote, so I'm sure they were part of it too.

    2. Re:Gru by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Just don't cross Putin or you'll get eaten by the GRU, as several of his enemies and critics have learned.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Gru by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Everyone's so scared of the big, bad GRU now.

      PERCEPTION: invincible super-spies who can find anybody, kill anybody and hack anything on a whim.

      REALITY: barely-competent two-bit thugs, who continually blow their operations and cause problems for their leadership through incompetence, mindless aggression and poor judgement. Scumbags who, if they weren't working for Putin, would be extorting shopkeepers and raping hookers in St Petersburg.

    4. Re:Gru by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Russian geopolitics are pitch black.

  8. the worst, unreconstructed CCCP-Russian influences by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

    Agents of Chaos Fakebook, Wapo/CIA/Amazon, NYeT, SillyCon tech giants, the CNNMSNBCCBS hydra Actually our Left, Red diaper babies, academics are leftovers from the Soviets

  9. Trump was a bad presidential candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russia has a somewhat competent analysis of USA electoral politics. Trump was a bad candidate for president. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, matched the standard political calculus for a presidential candidate. Obama was also a good candidate.

  10. Turn off the fake news! by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    Our fearless, super-intelligent, undeniably attractive, and mega-stable leader tells us that he won the election because he was a better candidate and no other reason. He tells us that if not for mountains of illegal voting he would have won even biggerer. Facebook is clearly a tool of the lamestream media, the enemies of the people! Turn them off and read only twitter for news!

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  11. CSO.... by Luthair · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not diplomat or political scientist, meaning Stamos opinion on why Russia is about as good as yours.

    Personally I think Russia would have been sowing discord regardless Clinton, Trumps behaviour, narcissism and lack of diplomacy make him a particularly good stooge for attempting to create turmoil in western nations. See also brexit.

  12. only after clinton stole from Bernie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Either way its THE SYSTEM that's at fault. EITHER ONE WAS DESTINED TO BE THE WORST PRESIDENT OF THE USA.

    You elect Clinton she will go onto be a pig at the trough of the military industrial complex. You elect trump he will go onto be a pig at the trough of the military industrial complex.

    Russia is unimportant to the outcome of the election. Mountains of collusion with Cambridge Analytics, Israel, Oligarchs in the USA like Robert Mercer. Facebook is subservient to the US military industrial complex now anyway, a few meme's here and there don't swing an election its utter bulls**t.

    Then that empirically pales in comparison to a president (Obama) that did nothing for the middle class except destroy it with junk economics after the GFC in 2008. Lethargic voters who voted obama 2 times and got nothing didnt bother to turn up on election day there's the empirical cause effect of trump winning.

  13. Re:WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who do you imagine sponsored hacking Hillary's email server?
    The only valid reason, that I can come up with at least, not to have prosecuted her by now for mishandling sensitive information, classified or otherwise, is that it would have jeopardized another ongoing investigation deemed higher priority.

    https://xkcd.com/966/

  14. Being FB "security head" gives you access to GRU by MrNJ · · Score: 1, Troll

    ... policy documents

    The crazy Left is frustrated that their crazy theories keep failing so they keep coming up with even crazier ones.
    And then they trot out unqualified opinion by random, yet important-sounding person.
    And use that opinion as "smoking gun" proving their crazy theories.

    Hint: there's no evidence or allegations that FB security was breached by GRU or other Russian agencies. The ads were bought fair and square.
    Therefore the transactions are wholly outside of the "security head" domain. So who cares what he thinks on the issue.

    --
    I don't respond to or upvote ACs
  15. Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Remember the debates? Hillary was firm in wanting a no-fly zone in Syria. This would have led to direct conflict between USAF and Russian AF. It could have easily broken out into a big shooting war. Heck, I get the idea that a lot of people in DC (the unelected government, so-called deep state) would have greatly desired that. World War II hero and former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) once observed, in a different context: "There exists a shadowy government with ... its own fundraising mechanism."

    Also remember, just before the inauguration, that US armored brigade landed and the jokes wrote themselves? Obama just sent tanks into Poland, that sort of thing. They then traveled to the Russian border? That was Hillary's big stick. Plant a bunch of troops near them and then start shit in Syria. But she wasn't elected, and they just did some training and then left. Peace broke out instead.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peace broke out in Syria?

    2. Re: Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comrade please! Shut the fuck up with this Putin apologia. Have you no shame?

    3. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Plant a bunch of troops near them and then start shit in Syria. But she wasn't elected, and they just did some training and then left. Peace broke out instead.

      If 46,000+ dead (per Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) and 900,000 registered refugees(UNHCR) since January 2017, and 700,000 internally displaced in the first half of 2017 alone (Pew research) is "peace", I would really hate to see war.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I would really hate to see war.

      Agreed.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Peace between America and Russia.

      I have no idea why it was so vitally important for us to get involved in Syria. It was obvious from day 1 that the only winners of the civil war were going to be those who sat it out. Instead, we started spending billions and arming Islamist headchoppers like al-Nusra. You know, the same Islamists who were blowing up our troops in Iraq. What are we doing in Syria?

      A quick reminder: the Bush administration's central justification for the Iraq war was the belief that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could transfer them to al-Qaeda. The same al-Qaeda that was a mortal enemy of Saddam's Baathist regime. No such weapons were found after the invasion.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re: Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people don't get that we were on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. They live in their own little bubbles of information that filters out real facts, and constantly get fed propaganda.

    7. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radical syrian rebels (de facto AQ) and IS didn't want to give up the fight, while US, Israel and allies continued arming them to prolong the war due to their interests (take over the country snd putting it under the western umbrella). This prolonged the war and forced military solution by Russia instead of making some kind of deal to end the war. Anyway, I pick Assad over those radical lunatics any day.

    8. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would really hate to see war.

      He was talking about at the Russian border.
      Just in case you missed missed the memo...the entire Syrian conflict was orchestrated by the CIA.
      That's the irony/hypocrisy about this whole Russian meddling thing. The US government routinely meddles in elections, stages coups, funds terrorists (sorry, rebels) and overthrows democratically elected governments. That's what they do. That's what they've been doing for more than 100 years.
      The Russian thing is a joke. A distraction. The American election system is absolutely and totally broken...by design! Without preferential voting (where you put a sequence of numbers next to the candidates rather than just a tick, so if the person you put your 1 next to is eliminated your vote then goes towards your 2nd preference and so on) you'll be stuck with the two party system where everyone is scared to waste their vote on a third party so you're stuck with the choice between a turd burger and a shit sandwich.

    9. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syrian Observatory for Human Rights:

      Location: Coventry, UK
      Owner: Rami Abdulrahman (aka Osama Suleiman)
      Founded: May 2006
      Staff: One person (Rami Abdulrahman)

      The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is one of the biggest jokes that's been played on the few people still trying to follow that conflict.

    10. Re:Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, someone should make this into a book/movie about how the world was spared a nuclear WW3 by the Russians!?!?!

  16. 2 years later... by TimMD909 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... And there's still a ridiculous amount of derangement. Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked. She was caught meddling in her own party's process to boot Bernie. She tried pretending that destroying evidence on her personal email server was an innocent mistake. Worst of all, she pretended to be a saint when she is definitely not. That wolf in sheeps clothing never sat well with me. Look up Hitchens thoughts on her for more things to be unsettled about. Now 2 years later, uncountable hours have gone into trying to shift the blame. When will the Dems admit it was a mistake to have her as the candidate?

    1. Re:2 years later... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked.

      What on Earth are you talking about? Clinton was loved by Centrists and the Establishment Right. It was everyone to the left of that, moderate to "far" (is there such a thing in the US?) left, that wanted a better candidate.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:2 years later... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clinton was loved by Centrists and the Establishment Right.

      What? Centrists, sure, but the right? You're off your nut. Big Pharma loved her, centrists, and the near left, but everyone else disliked her. That's why polls showed that Sanders could beat Trump, but Clinton couldn't. The DNC chose to run Clinton when it was clear that democrat voters preferred Sanders, and that is the primary reason we have president Trump right now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:2 years later... by Shaix · · Score: 1

      Huh??? No republican wanted Clinton.... You mean she was loved by corporate democrats, and that's about it. Left wanted Bernie, and Right wanted Trump. Maybe you could say "centrist" neoliberal corporate democrats wanted Clinton, but no one on the Right wanted anything to do with Clinton and despised her intensely, probably just as much as Democrats are despising Trump now.

    4. Re:2 years later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody loved that ugly bitch. She never had a chance of winning.

    5. Re:2 years later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... And there's still a ridiculous amount of derangement. Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked. She was caught meddling in her own party's process to boot Bernie. She tried pretending that destroying evidence on her personal email server was an innocent mistake.

      Worst of all, she pretended to be a saint when she is definitely not. That wolf in sheeps clothing never sat well with me. Look up Hitchens thoughts on her for more things to be unsettled about.

      Now 2 years later, uncountable hours have gone into trying to shift the blame. When will the Dems admit it was a mistake to have her as the candidate?

      Well, I'd say no one actually LIKES Hillary. (Certainly not the far left, especially after she horse-fucked Bernie with a strap-on telephone pole.)

      And THAT is why an unlikable blowhard utter ASSHOLE like Trump could beat her.

    6. Re:2 years later... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Go to sleep Bill, you're drunk again.,

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:2 years later... by benjfowler · · Score: 2

      Mindless hatred of Clinton is a surefire "tell" of Russians and Russophiles.

      It's fascinating and tragic to see how the Ivans have managed to work themselves up into such an insane frenzy of mindless hatred against that woman.

    8. Re:2 years later... by phayes · · Score: 1

      The only people that "loved" Hillary were the Democratic party establishment. Minorities that had massively voted for Obama stayed home, the American far left preferred Bernie and centrists just preferred Hillary over Trump.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    9. Re:2 years later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The polls showed Clinton easily beating any Rep. candidate. Bernie had a higher percentage beating Trump, but only Trump, because they were targeting very similar voting blocks, but no polls showed Trump beating Hillary.

    10. Re:2 years later... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      ... And there's still a ridiculous amount of derangement.

      When there is evidence of foreign interference and it's all leaning one way then it's not a matter of psychology. At this point, it's the people like you who are denying the possibility of interference by claiming other people suffer from "derangement" (and that our national security apparatus is plotting against their favored candidate, no doubt conspiring with multiple social media platforms) who are in a psychologically questionable state.

      It is ridiculous but not in the way that you believe.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:2 years later... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      ... And there's still a ridiculous amount of derangement.

      Definitely.

      Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked.

      Hilldog?

      She was a crappy candidate in the sense she sucked at campaigning. But her base wasn't the far left, it was policy wonks.

      She was caught meddling in her own party's process to boot Bernie. She tried pretending that destroying evidence on her personal email server was an innocent mistake.

      The private server was a screw up the violated department regs, but that's all.

      And for deleting emails she did exactly what she was supposed to do according to regs, turn over the emails her team deemed work related and then securely delete the server.

      The screw up was the IT guy not deleting when the original request was given, but instead deleting when the subpoena came in and he realized "oh crap! I was supposed to delete those months ago!". But there's no evidence that anyone buy the IT guy made that decision (and he got immunity, so he certainly had reason to talk).

      Now 2 years later, uncountable hours have gone into trying to shift the blame. When will the Dems admit it was a mistake to have her as the candidate?

      Yeah, she was below average as a candidate, to the extent the party encouraged the field to clear out to smooth her nomination it was a major mistake.

      But 2 years later you're still whining about Hillary's deficiencies as some sort of excuse for electing the most absurdly awful candidate in history. The rest of the planet is still baffled as to what the hell your country was thinking, Trump as President is barely believable in a script for a slapstick comedy.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:2 years later... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      The DNC chose to run Clinton

      The DNC didn't choose anything. It was the feckless democratic primary voters who voted for Hillary when they really wanted Bernie because they thought she had a better chance of winning in the general among other stupid reasons.

    13. Re:2 years later... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Clinton was loved by Centrists and the Establishment Right

      Loved by RINO's and neocons, sure. Certainly not by textbook conservatives.

    14. Re:2 years later... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You're regurgitating Hannity talking points, stop it.

      The "far left" (really, fuckstick?) hated Hillary bad enough to throw the election to a fucking moron over it.
      Hillary is an unremarkable center-right politician of the Third Way Democrat vein. Since you're too politically ignorant to really grasp what at's play here, just think of her as a 1950s Republican.

    15. Re:2 years later... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Then maybe you should complain to your Party when the nomination process is about as rigged as a Politburo election?

      --
      -Styopa
    16. Re:2 years later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's compare with Hitler.
      It's as if you were telling us that only Jews hate Hitler.
      Shut the fuck up already.

    17. Re:2 years later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I live in Australia and I know more about how the DNC fucked Bernie than you do.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa4G32M7Bc

    18. Re:2 years later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please put down the crack pipe and READ.

      "
      At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent....Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win,
      .
      .
      .
      Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates.
      "

    19. Re: 2 years later... by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that Trump got elected by the far left and far right, since everyone else voted for Hillary? Care to show any evidence how far left supported Trump?

    20. Re:2 years later... by ivano · · Score: 1

      who few outside the far left liked

      You mean the center-right candidate Hillary?

    21. Re: 2 years later... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Straw man, non sequitur, math fail. Respectively.

    22. Re:2 years later... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Mindless hatred of Clinton is a surefire "tell" of Russians and Russophiles.

      A noun, a verb, and Russia. Well, facts didn't get in the way of the first group of McCarthyites, so I don't expect dumbfuck Russiagaters will stop any time soon.

    23. Re:2 years later... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You mean the center-right candidate Hillary?

      Far right. This is the freak show that called the TPP the "gold standard" on trade treaties and campaigned on starting WWIII (shooting down Russian aircraft over Syria).

  17. No shit. That was the point all along. by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    The press pushed and promoted a landslide Hillary victory and they convinced everyone. I know this will be modded down, but the Democrats are doing exactly what the Russians wanted better than the Russians could imagine.

  18. Re: WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary's email server was hacker by China.

  19. Re:WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these Clinton shitheads keep talking about Russian meddling but the only fucking evidence they've been able to produce after two years of investigation is that some Russians were able to shitpost TRUE stories that weren't even inaccurate or misleading. Show us the fucking meddling before you keep talking about it you fucking morons.

    You mean how Traitor Trump asked them to hack the DNC on national TV, and they did?

  20. Re: WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sry, Russian phone make many mistypes, should read hackered.

  21. Yes, you are alone :) by gDLL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like saying "what's this CIA abbreviation?"........ this is why the americans get called ignorant :)

    1. Re:Yes, you are alone :) by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      It's like saying "what's this CIA abbreviation?"

      Yes, it is. And I would expect a well-written news article about it to explain CIA stands for "Central Intelligence Agency" and give a short description of what it is. I may already know these things, but the article should not make such assumptions.

    2. Re:Yes, you are alone :) by Littleman_TAMU · · Score: 1

      And yet, good writing explains acronyms the first time they're used. Brand Americans all you like as ignorant. Only elitists throw acronyms around to keep their insular community elite. People who want to be understood make efforts to ensure that they are. If your job is writing and it takes seconds to make sure your audience understands what you're talking about (i.e. explaining an acronym), and you don't do that, you're objectively bad at your job. I searched for "nytimes cia" and the first google result that's an article (the actual first result is the category listing all NYT CIA articles) literally spells out "Central Intelligence Agency" as its first three words (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/politics/gina-haspel-cia-director-influence-campaign.html). It's not hard to do. I've seen similar articles that even give a brief description of what the CIA is because it takes a sentence or two, and, again, if your _job_ is making sure people understand what you're saying, you do it.

    3. Re:Yes, you are alone :) by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I am not American and will happily shit on them as much as any foreigner, but on an American news site one would expect people to know the American country and not the acronym of a former name of an intelligence agency whose acronym in english doesn't even make up the current or former translation.

  22. Thank you by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Skimmed the article and still had no idea. Journalism fail at all levels. Maybe I'm old but when I see IRA I think about assholes in England planting bombs.

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

      When you hear "Irish Republican Army", you think of assholes in England??!

    2. Re:Thank you by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      When you hear "Irish Republican Army", you think of assholes in England??!

      That was my thought. If you really wanted to rile up the IRA, just tell them they're in England not Ireland.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Thank you by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What do you expect? Fucking Brits.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Thank you by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Weren't most of the bombs built by the IRA set in England?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    5. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't most of the bombs built by the IRA set in England?

      United Kingdom. Northern Ireland to be specific. Not Great Britain, and definitely not England.

      Think of it as: Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. just like Alaska is part of the U.S.A., Great Britain is like the 48 contiguous U.S. states, and England is comparable to the original 13 colonies of the U.S.A. Canada is like Puerto Rico, strangely enough.

  23. Re: WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC is 100% right you know. There is no Russian collusion or meddling. None. Man I would throw some F bombs out because I am so sick of this shit that's not true. How many times does the left have to whine and complain when they loose. This is the biggest tantrum the world has ever seen when they lost. Wonder what there going to do when they lose big in 2018 and then again in 2020.

  24. Cue the carrier photo op by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    So..the Russians wanted to make sure that the US elected a president that the majority of the country would hate. Guess they can still claim "mission accomplished".

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Cue the carrier photo op by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely Russia had little to nothing to do with the election at all, but it eating up all of the attention and paranoia that they did.

  25. A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trump by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Both sides spent roughly a billion dollars on their campaigns.

    The closer an election is, the more a small effect will tip the result. The 2016 election turned out to tilt on 80,000 votes in three states, a very small margin in an election in which 57.6 million people voted.

    The Russian campaign contributions had a significant advantage; they didn't even have a need to pretend to truth or accuracy or morality. They were aiming for disruption of America by any means necessary, with no concern for collateral damage.

    (and note that your figure of "$100K in ads" is the documented part of the advertising budget for their interference-- we don't have any idea of the full extent of it, but that is only the barest tip of the iceberg, not even including the money spent on trolls and fake grass-roots organizations. The full extent was a lot higher than that, and we have no idea how much higher.)

  26. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, no. She doubled Trump up. Even if you add money for Russian interference.

  27. It is dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are likely to be eaten by a GRU.

  28. They don't have elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Literally places with 98% turnout voting 98% for Putin, there is no "election", no real vote as such, and so no, USA does not interfere in Russian "elections".

    It did not bribe opposition candidates either with promises of lucrative deals to save their cash flow problems and over leveraged debt.... essentially because the only real opposition candidate was locked up during the election and banned from standing.

    They did not hack Putin's email and selectively leak them, because Putin uses typewriters.

    They didn't conspire with opposition press to publish those leaks because Russia does not have free press.

    1. Re:They don't have elections by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      " Putin uses typewriters."

      Like that's secure...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:They don't have elections by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Second Yeltsin election. Explain that away.

  29. Facebook and Twitter are towing the line now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both companies are falling all over themselves to recite the same tale of Russian interference as they have been told to do. They both make a big fuss and remove accounts and promise to clean up their act. Guess what? It is as much Facebook's and Twitter's fault as the Russians. Where's the sanctions on them?

  30. Does funding of the IRA by the IRA affect my IRA? by XXongo · · Score: 1

    Yes, I read "IRA" as meaning either "Individual Retirement Account" or "Irish Republican Army". https://acronyms.thefreedictio...

  31. Clinton was already weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She never has had much success running and her own baggage of incompetence as Secretary of State was what made her weak.

  32. Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russians want a weak and divided US. Putin couldn't care less about who is running the nation. Did they interfere with our election? Maybe. Did illegals criminally vote in our elections after Obama asked them to? Did the Clintons and the DNC pay millions for the so-called research that led to Russia dossier? Yes. Did Clinton have her billionaire foreign friends funding her campaign? Yes. But I guess direct foreign interference doesn't count if the Democrats were behind it. I think Democrats need to understand that people are starting to notice all the BS they are preaching. You can't have it both ways....unless your a Democrat. People got tired of that and elected a clown over a corrupt political cult of blatant liars and criminals. Normal people don't like SJW types, hypocrites and habitually outraged race baiters. At some point you start to notice how they flood social media and every forum with their trash propaganda. Even slashdot seems to get hit constantly.

  33. Re:No shit. That was the point all along. by XXongo · · Score: 1

    It's not per se that the media "promoted" a landslide Clinton victory; it's more that they assumed a landslide Clinton victory. In fact, what they did was give Donald Trump tons of free media coverage-- about five billion dollars worth, by some estimates.
    http://www.mediaquant.net/2016/11/a-media-post-mortem-on-the-2016-presidential-election/
    https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/12/assessing-a-clinton-argument-that-the-media-helped-to-elect-trump/

  34. Re: WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't she in jail?

  35. Fusion GPS memos say false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    They were supposed to install Trump, when it looked like they hadn't done enough, Kremlin said he should claim the election was rigged, which he duly did, claiming the election was rigged.

    Trump Oct 17: "The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places - SAD"

    The aim was

    a) Get sanctions lifted on Russia, attempted and sort of failed, but he has blocked some sanctions.
    b) Hand Syria over to Russia, that's mostly done
    c) Hand back the spies who offered the property deals, done.
    d) Get Russia back into the G7+1, didn't happen, he did try.
    e) Get Russia intelligence access, he tried, remember his "cyber protection alliance with Russia to secure US cyber space" thing?
    f) 5 eyes access, he put Flynn in, who put a dodgy person over the NSA, but pressure from Republicans ejected him. Current a no??? or Maybe?
    g) Recognition of the annexed countries as Russian. The Republicans have blocked recognition of Crimea as Russian, he's put in a signing statement saying he can recognize the Crimea as Russian. So far no.

    I don't think they realized what a clown Trump is, they just had their wishlist of things, and he has his debt problems, and the two could do a deal.

  36. Trump launders money for Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin is the wealthiest person alive, most of it obtained illegally, and he launders it through Trump properties. That is the âoedirtâ he has on Trump.

    1. Re:Trump launders money for Putin by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Quadafee was also fucking insanely rich. Didn't help when it came time for the knife enema.

      At that level they measure wealth in 'power'. But if they lose, they die.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  37. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, can't tell if you're repeating fake propaganda because you believe it or being paid for it.

    The lies and misreporting from the left and the deep state continues to show what a bad state of affairs America was/is in.

  38. National turmoil by MikeMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're not only creating election turmoil, they're amplifying and exploiting the issues we have in this country. I believe they are partly to blame for all the left-right anger and hate.

    1. Re:National turmoil by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Yes, promoting xenophobia and nationalism has been working spades for them in Ukraine, as well, from what I've read. It isn't exactly a new trick, promoting internecine conflict has been a tactic since ancient Persia and Greece.

    2. Re:National turmoil by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Amen. They don't care about Trump, and have actually gotten annoyed with him, because he is too erratic and unreliable to deliver sanctions relief.

      The Russian game is to stir up conflict and chaos, to weaken the West, to set us at war continually with ourselves. They think they can destroy the West from within, and then step into the void.

      From here on in, anybody in Western politics and media who are still actively fomenting hatred, hyper-partisanship and division, given what we know now about Russia stoking chaos, should be scrutinised very heavily.

    3. Re:National turmoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's why the supported the most extreme civil rights groups in the 1960s. Terrorism, riots - the Soviets loved that shit. They didn't give a damn of how blacks were actually treated (take a look at how the USSR treated minorities). However, it was useful to cause trouble in the US for PR.

      " "! - "But you lynch blacks!"

    4. Re:National turmoil by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      "Blame the foreigner"? Seriously? That's the oldest trick in the book. We have met the enemy, and she is us.

      The Left has been doing a great job of dividing us to fight with each other themselves. This essay does a very persuasive job arguing this point, and the results are clear and visible in our society every day. The real enemy is Western civilization and specifically white people. Because the Western Right's outgroup is people who aren't Westerners. BUT the Western Left's outgroup is the Right. This is the best explanation I've ever heard at this link. A bit long but worth reading every word because it answers SO many questions.

      For example, when Osama bin Laden was killed by US Navy Seals, America held spontaneous celebrations and the Left looked down their nose at it. "Don't celebrate the death of a person, no matter who it is," was the attitude. Then, a while later, Margaret Thatcher died.

      The Left exploded in hate. They even held hate parades, with paper-maiche heads and everything. How was it that celebrating Osama's death was bad, but Thatcher's death was good? Because Osama was the enemy of my enemy, but Thatcher was just a plain enemy."

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

      It couldn't be that the borderline criminally insane have commandeered the Democratic party just like the Tea Party did to the Republicans a decade ago. It's one thing to want more rights for working Americans, but when you start forcing people to allow men into women's restrooms, and using Title IX to deny due process to men, you're going to have a bad day at the polls. As long as this is a culture war the freaks are going to lose.

    6. Re:National turmoil by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      The real enemy is Western civilization and specifically white people.

      Given the political climate in the US, I'd be considered on the Left here. I don't believe that. None of my many friends on the Left believe this.

      For example, when Osama bin Laden was killed by US Navy Seals, America held spontaneous celebrations and the Left looked down their nose at it.

      Again, I'm on the Left. I don't look down on that. I relish the deaths of all murderous authoritarians be they Nazis, Communists (not the people who see value in social programs "communists" - actual Communists) and people who want to establish theocratic Islamic (or other) societies.

      It is apparent that you are using a logical fallacy where you cherry pick all the worst qualities you can find in the Left and conclude that those qualities must define all people from that group. Now consider, what if you gave me the same latitude in defining what it was to be on the Right? How badly do you think I could make your side look?

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    7. Re:National turmoil by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's not cherry picking. Studies have confirmed that when faced with questions such as "One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" or "Justice is the most important requirement for a society," liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.

      Jonathan Haidt's experiments ask liberals and conservatives to fill out questionnaires about their values, then to predict how someone from the opposite tribe would fill out the questionnaire. He finds that conservatives are able to predict liberals' answers just fine and seem to have a pretty good understanding of their worldviews, but that liberals have *no idea* how conservatives think or what they value. http://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/

      Smugness has alienated the left from much of the public, and handicapped leftists' ability to truly understand what drives people on the right. One of Haidt's most telling discoveries was that conservatives tend to be curious about what liberals think and why, while liberals see conservatives as inferior "other," alien and inherently incapable of thought.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:National turmoil by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      American Exceptionalist: racist drug wars, police & COINTELPRO weren't problems....Russia pointing those things out was the problem.

    9. Re:National turmoil by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Swiftboating. Russia gave Ukraine a low-interest loan and a cheap gas deal so the country wouldn't have to eviscerate itself for the IMF. The capitalist class really wanted that IMF loan so they could buy up public assets at firesale prices - but they couldn't win at the ballot box. So they overthrew the elected government in a violent coup with core support from literal neo-Nazis.

      Russia isn't the problem here - your government is.

  39. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by sexconker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both sides spent roughly a billion dollars on their campaigns.

    False. Hillary's campaign cost about double what Trump's did. And that ignores all the backdoor bullshit with the media, the DNC, and the Clinton Foundation.

  40. Great Success! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    {{Borat thumbs up}}

  41. Russian troll farm hacked, payroll data now public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're baiting people to talk about the electoral college because you make more money and you have a bunch of cribbed responses ready.
    Have you considered what will happen when the troll farms are hacked or someone leaks payroll data? It won't be a good time to have good metrics I tell you what I wouldn't want to be at the top of that list any way the data could be sorted.

  42. Why are Dems helping Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If Russia is after "discord" and a "weakened president" why are all of the #Resistance types so eager to help them accomplish those goals?

    Michael Moore showed up at one of the Russian rallies, we have "art" of celebrities with President Trump's severed head, some crazy dude crashed into Fox news the other day screaming about "treason," another crazy dude tried to shoot up a Republican Congressional baseball game, Ron Paul was assaulted by his neighbor.

    Why is the entire mainstream media and Democratic party working to help Russia's goals, instead of trying to work with him to find things we can agree on or reasonable compromises?

    1. Re: Why are Dems helping Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except half of your examples are disengious. Fox crash dude crashed into a Fox affiliate building and was shouting about treason, but he was talking about the police, so mental health not politics. The female comedian who did the art was criticized and retracted. The rand Paul attack was probably just because he was a dickhead neighbor, not political. Softball game, I haven't seen any material on if shooter was just targeting repubs or if it was politicians in general. Bit let's talk about abortion facility, church killings, and our dear friend Pepe. All lefy wing violence in your eyes?

    2. Re: Why are Dems helping Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that Hodgkinson had a list of GOP lawmakers names in his pocket, not a list with both Dem and GOP, it's a pretty fair bet he was only targeting Republicans.

  43. Russian troll farm hacked, Payroll data now public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you considered what will happen when everyone knows who you are?
    You guys were sloppier when you started out, but the data is still out there. Remember, only a few people in your org need to flip before your name and address show up on wikileaks.
    Maybe you should quit while you still have a head.

  44. Never forget her time as Sec o' State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We came, we saw, he died. Mwahahaha!"

    Any sane world leader would oppose that skeleton hoarder as Commander-in-Chief. It's amazing how the Jew media has convinced so many good people on the left that opposing bad people is a bad thing.

  45. Russian Trolls Hacked, payroll CSV on pastebin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon the troll farms will be hacked or someone in the organization will leak the data. It's a foregone conclusion at this point and you guys were very sloppy when you started out.

  46. Your campaign has entered a dark room by jmcwork · · Score: 1

    It is likely to eaten by a GRU(e)

    1. Re:Your campaign has entered a dark room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most underrated comment on this story.

  47. Iran would like a word with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since y'know your CIA installed and backed a murderous psychopath as leader of their country for 25 years.

  48. Re: Americans Are Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is true no matter how you cut it

  49. Re: WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Same reason Cheney isn't. The DNC and RNC have 'mutually assured destruction' level dirt on each other.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  50. Re:WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Trump asked them for copies of Hillary's emails. A server that was already down at the time.

    They didn't deliver. If the Ruskys wanted Trump elected, they would have delivered all the emails.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  51. Russian sock-puppets by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Putinist sock-puppets are all over Slashdot like flies on shit.

    Fairly sure of it, because normal geeks normally don't have strong opinions on things that Putin's Russia hates.

    When I'm foolish enough to try and state some home truths, it gets really, REALLY obvious. I've been called "pidar", "urod", and "CIA spy and shill" repeatedly, if I challenge the pro-Putin narrative hard enough it's ridiculous. I've seen enough Russian false-equivalency, whataboutism and outright lies to melt a normal person's brain.

    I know that Slashdot leans technolibertarian -- and it's known that technolibertarians have been targeted hard by the Putinist propagandists in their efforts to smear and discredit the NSA and normal spycraft in general (but of course, Russia and China gets a free pass).

    While issues around liberty and privacy ought to be taken seriously -- don't take anything you read about teh ebil NSA at face value. Malevolent actors are TRYING to turn you us against ourselves.

    1. Re: Russian sock-puppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yes they are. Do you want my list?

  52. What weakened Clinton? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Was anything released incorrect? Were the emails false, for instance? Was her insulting a sizable portion of the country Russia's doing? Was Russia behind her corrupting the DNC primary process?

    Is Russia's biggest crime, in fact, that it did the job the media might have done in past generations? Today's media was all about helping Clinton to the presidency by almost any means necessary, and let me tell you; ironically that hurt Clinton more than it helped.

    Trump just happened to be in the right place at the right time, with the right attitude to get the job ( loud, amoral and full of shit ).

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  53. Re: Iran gets to pick your leader? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? Fair turnabout for the Shah's murderous American-backed regime right?

    WHORE

  54. Re:No shit. That was the point all along. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Constant attacks are worth five billion?

    People must hate 'the media' more than I thought.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  55. Nate Silver is terrible at predicting elections... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He just benefits from ethnic nepotism.

  56. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you counting all the free advertising Trump got for just "being Trump"?

  57. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by merky1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the callousness in which you treat the general population is quite amazing. If the two candidates where identical, you might be right. But this was black vs. white. There was no common ground between the two. If you are saying that 100K of advertising is all it takes to tip someone from black to white, then our "election" process is beyond repair. Really, people made the opinion early on, and disregarded information based on their bias.

    This fantasy world that people live in where obviously the Russians are the ONLY reason Trump is president is amazing. Admitting Hillary was a flawed candidate would really help the democrats swing centrists, but instead they prefer to go off the rails.

    --
    --WooooHoooo--
  58. Re: WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by benjfowler · · Score: 0

    How's the weather today? I hear St Petersburg is lovely at this time of year.

  59. Fake news sharing In US is a rightwing thing .. by najajomo · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Fake news sharing In US is a rightwing thing .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That shit study again. They almost exclusively looked at conservative sites, omitted the most notorious left-wing clusterfucks and arbitrarily applied their own rules to determine "fakeness".

    2. Re:Fake news sharing In US is a rightwing thing .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. Read the paper directly. Read who wrote it, their background, the purpose of the project, and the methodology.

      Then note this is a memo, not even submitted for peer review.

  60. Re:Being FB "security head" gives you access to GR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you mean the "FBI"? That was never alleged. Instead, it was the State Dept. (Clinton) and the Clinton campaign that were hacked, for which we have plenty of evidence.

  61. Nate Silver? by skaralic · · Score: 1

    "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections."

    Nate Silver likely never left his basement and the pollsters that collected his data likely didn't venture past the local Starbucks anywhere they went... or just did some bullshit sentiment analysis on social media...

    I find it unlikely that they would know anything about what actual people think.

  62. Re:WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by will_die · · Score: 1

    Then Hillary leaked that the russians had time travel, so that trumps request could be accomplished. She has since twice other claimed that the Russians had time travel.
    Then you had the progressives claiming that the Koch brothers had cheap matter transporters that could move oil over 1000 miles at a cheap price.
    And you have liberal environmentalists claiming that motor companies are holding back fully electric vehicles, perpetual motion home generators, and other similar things that would totally remove the need of fossil fuels.

    What we need to for corry booker to take a stand and release all this hiddle classified stuff him and his followers exist. He has already played Sparticus for a fund raising video why can't he release material that actually be useful to have?

  63. FTFY by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    No, more accurately, Trump won because of the majority of people, who disliked both candidates, a LARGER fraction disliked Trump slightly less than they disliked Clinton. But you know, that whole electoral college BS thing. When elected, Trump was the most disliked president elect in history. If Clinton had been elected, she would also have been the most disliked president elect in history.

  64. Re: WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because everyone knew she was using a clintonmail address for official business instead of a .gov
    It was allowed to slide, and everyone who allowed it to slide would be guilty too.

  65. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you counting all the free advertising Trump got for just "being Trump"?

    Are you counting the free advertising Hillary gets for having the last name of "Clinton" and having been married to a past president?

  66. Re:Jews' goal for non-jews IS turmoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see you are just pissed because the doctor botched your epispasm. Antisemitism is a curse and is plagued with revisionist history, I strongly suggest you go to work for David Duke he could use your help.

    What a bunch of fucking assholes the human race has become when any goofass with a computer can sit back and spew hatred based on what is obviously historical racial prejudice. Yes Ben Franklin was also a racist asshole but that was in vogue at the time and was not always confined to back room politics. There is no room for racism in the world and anyone that embraces a Nazi style penchant justifying it is in truth less than worth the sperm and eggs needed to create a primitive minded racist cretin. I suspect that you are a reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels your rant is largely based upon 1930's nazi propaganda that is still at work and has yet to be been completely exposed for what it really is. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GAS CHAMBERS.

    I put more credence in Nazi racial phrenology than using historical sources to justify racist bullshit the way you have in this cut and paste rant. You sir are a cretin of historic proportions and deserve to be published only to expose the truth about how divisive and poisonous racism really is! I take it that you are a Trump supporter your rant sounds stupid enough for you to be one.

  67. Five billion [Re:No shit. That was the point] by XXongo · · Score: 1

    ...In fact, what they did was give Donald Trump tons of free media coverage-- about five billion dollars worth, by some estimates. http://www.mediaquant.net/2016/11/a-media-post-mortem-on-the-2016-presidential-election/
    https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    Constant attacks are worth five billion?

    Getting his name in the media, the media covering his speeches, the media covering his campaign rallies (while ignoring the comparable events from other candidates), the media covering his talking points-- yep, turns out to be worth about five billion dollars worth of free publicity.

    The media covered him because he was outrageous. And he used that.

    He seems to be following the model of George M. Cohan: "I don't care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right."

    Or, to quote another luminary, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

    1. Re:Five billion [Re:No shit. That was the point] by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Bullshit. They kept up the attacks, all day long, now they claim it helped him. Whatever gets them through the long nights.

      'No bad publicity' is when you are looking for name recognition. Both the clowns in the election already had that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  68. Re:No shit. That was the point all along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclaimer I do not watch the 24 7 news cycle. In my opinion what the media generally did was promote Trump through he primaries, ignoring or even patting him on the back for the stupid cr@p he was doing and saying. They wanted hem to be the one to run against Clinton. The free press the media gave him after the primaries was about 98% negative and I mean downright nasty stuff, this was supposed to ensure Clinton would take her place in history. But as some drunk huckster once said, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." and Trump may have won in part because the media could not stop talking about what an a$$ he was.

  69. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by ilguido · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On top of that the vast majority of the media companies endorsed Hillary Clinton. 500 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 28 endorsed Trump and an additional 30 newspapers, including USA Today, were outright against Trump.

    But the big question is: why did the GRU know where to spend their (up to) $100,000 (including post electoral expenditures), while Hillary Clinton and her staff did not? Probably because it is all an excuse for a very poor performance, after all the money she spent and all the media support she gained.

  70. Official statement from DNC and Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    remember in all the papers when trump had a zero percent chance of winning the election?

    Did you believe that?

    So if you didnt think for yourself, you'd be in a world where the russians spent 50 grand at facebook and thwarted the 2016 election that WAS predicted as zero chance of winning.... hrm..

    And at the same time, providing the FBI and Clinton operatives with a bogus dossier and dead-end honey pots for 'clinton dirt' .

    So by the democrat logic, any day now they will declair themselves victims of the russian meddling through the bogus opposition research.

    "Really we are just as sorry as the american people, that Russians would sink so low as providing bogus kompromat which triggered such a national crisis. signed Hillary Clinton and the DNC"

  71. NSA database ABUSE is the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Admiral Rodgers busted Fusion GPS doing DB queries without investigations attached to them in April 2016. 85% of the queries were unauthorized.
    Its likely Fusion GPS was selling opp research derived from NSA DB queries to anybody throughout 2015.
    To avoid jail time, the conspirators fabricated the collusion frame job. This would authorize the past queries.
    Every angle of the collusion story has roots in this bogus oppo research. Every.Last.Part.
    The fact that the dossier had the WRONG MICHAEL COHEN is evidence that the NSA collection system was used.
    When NSA rodgers removed access, the conspirators used informant Stefan Halper to invite targets over seas.

    Things you were NEVER supposed to know....
    1) FBI never investigated the alleged actors providing Clinton dirt.
    2) Carter Page was an FBI asset in May of 2016, cooperating in the prosecution of Russians.
    3) A FISA warrant was granted on 2 or more Campaign members and there was a Trump investigation. not even oversight was notified.
    4) Text messages of Key DoJ employees providing illuminating back-story to the unfolding drama.
    5) FISA system was abused with 85% queries illegal during 2015 to april 2016.
    6) Intel Asset Stefan Halper paid big bucks, thrust into the spotlight, Iran contra unindicted co-conspirator.

    There really isnt anyone left in the Democrat party who has not allowed blind rage and hatred remove their ability to reason and gauge the nature of the FISA system being abused for political purposes.

    Now allow me to set up a help-desk ticket system for the inevitable response to this post.
    Im a Russian [ * ] on the left.
    Im a stupid American [ * ] on the right.
    Those who think FISA abuse is irrelevant in the middle.

    Now serving Trolls, shills cry-bullys, and ignorant know-it-all shut-you-ups.
    P.S. you lose

  72. It's not really that hard by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    A lot of Canadian veterans succeeded in getting rid of the last PM and his MPs, and will do it again if need be.

    Of course, that's not a foreign attack on another nation, but using techniques we learned in counter-terrorism ops and our local knowledge, and it's all perfectly legal.

    You don't have to hack things to change them. Hacking is what you do when you're not connected to the systems already.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  73. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reality is not the tipping of black to white but the nagging to get somebody to vote.

  74. Re:Jews' goal for non-jews IS turmoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wouldn't want to know who posts this. I happen to know because there was a time (this is a recurring rant) where I found a clue in or around the rant.
    I have to warn the GRU service members reading our oh so important comments : you can try finding out who it is but this would be a waste of time.

  75. Oligarch money flowed through NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    And are you accounting for the oligarch money that flowed through the traitorous NRA leadership? Notice I say leadership and not membership?

  76. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You mean the media colluding with the Clinton campaign to promote a pied piper that they thought was the weakest candidate so that Clinton would continue with the coronation unimpeded?

  77. Pulling up the ladder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Both my parents voted for Trump and both are starting to cognitively decline. When asked to explain how the values they instilled in me can be reconciled with Trump, there is no rational answer. However, they both like the idea of removing welfare and lowering their taxes without realizing or caring that they are pulling up the ladder after themselves. The good school funding they enjoyed in their youth is a shambles now. How can this be described as anything other than pulling up the ladder?

  78. Yes. (Source: Washington Post) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it, that people here still don't know, that Putin was put in (heh) power by Boris Yeltsin. Who himself was put in power by the CIA through funneling $500 million to his campaign, saying if his opponent ($3 million) comes back, the Gulag comes back, and doing childish things like canceling his hotel reservations.

    Conspiracy theory?
    No. The CIA openly bragging about in the Washington Post.

    So, yet again, if you believe that Putin manipulated your elections and gave you cancer^WTrump... I'll let you finish that thought. ^^

    (Yet again, because the same thing of propping up an evil regime, with it then backfiring, conveniently requiring more military budget, happened with the IS, Saddam, the Taliban, Iran, ... just to name the most prominent.)

    (Oh, and I still don't hate the USA. Because I'm not a prejudiced child. In fact I'm more siding with the American people, than they themselves side with themselves. :/)

  79. Multiple goals by Thad+Boyd · · Score: 1

    There was more than one goal to the Russian interference. Undermine Clinton, help Trump, sow FUD, test weaknesses that can be exploited again in the future...those are a few off the top of my head.

  80. Re: No shit. That was the point all along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much free media coverage did they give Hillary, and how much of it was positive vs Trump?

  81. I'm German. Nobody knows GRU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pitch black.

    You're about to be eaten by a GRU.

    1. Re:I'm German. Nobody knows GRU. by gDLL · · Score: 1

      What is "German", can you put a short explanation in parenthesis pls? :) I'm guessing you are either young or west-german. Ever heard of STASI btw ? No ? I don't expect every time CPU is written on slashdot a (CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT). News for nerds or news for newbs ? Make up your mind....

  82. Re:No shit. That was the point all along. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    If you're modded down, it will be because you're stupid, not because people don't like what your'e saying.

    The press didn't promote a landslide, the statistics favored an electoral landslide for Hillary. The error margins were concerning in the midwestern states that ultimately cost her the election, but there was a reasonable assumption that that not *every single one of those states* would fall to the R side of the error bars.
    That would be like the Cubs winning the World Series. Possible, but extremely unlikely.

    But hey, guess what happened.
    The unlikely happened in both cases that year. No one was pushing a narrative, you just don't fucking understand statistics.

  83. Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those evil Russians sure do love thwarting Hillary's plans when they're not busy donating hundreds of millions of dollars directly to her as well as to her slush fund charity.

  84. Isn't this similar to why Obama got elected? by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    People were so fed up with Bush Jr. they were even willing to elect the candidate most different from Bush Jr.

  85. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

    The hysteria is almost palpable.

    And here are not only more unsubstantiated claims against Russia, but also more unsubstantiated claims within unsubstantiated claims :

    "The former Facebook security head said "it [was] pretty clear the GRU's goal was to weaken a future Hillary presidency. Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."

  86. Zero evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russiagate conspiracy is a conspiracy rather than a news story because there is no evidence.

    There is, however, a drone from every media source (including Slashdot) self-affirming the truth of the claims.

    Can anyone point to a credible report detailing evidence of "fake" news created by the Russians that has not been retracted?

    Slashdot should stop being party to this propaganda campaign.

    Don't forget that corporate sensorship in a corporate state (America) is state censorship. And it will be used against you by billionaire silicon valley ologachs to further their agenda.

  87. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $100,000 over a period of 2 years, on approximately 3000 ads. Of those 3000 approximately 50 were related to the election, and there was no targeting towards swing States. The Facebook ads are nothing, even if you assume they spent 4x that on other methods, such as promoting things on Twitter it's still nil. I'm honestly surprised there wasn't more found, I kind of assume this type of thing goes on all the time between countries.

  88. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Official documentation provided by both campaigns proves you wrong. That doesn't even account for the hundreds of millions spent in hush money to various porn stars and families of young children Trump had sex with.

  89. Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to Bernie Sanders. It's been proven that candidates were targeted equally, one of these days people will accept that Hillary was just a terrible, terrible prospect. According to non Facebook, non-Russian, regular old polls, she would *still* lose to Trump today, and that is no mean feat.

  90. Gotta prove it was Russia first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nobody has done that - just made claims.

    what we really have here is distraction from Hillary should be in Prison for her activity, including ISIS as a state department regime tool issue.

  91. Hmmm seems like Facebook is meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the US elections as we speak.

    Bringing back spurious tales of Facebook's Russian collusion right before the 2018 midterms.
    I wonder if any stockholders/investors in Facebook are Russians?
    I think we need an independent investigation of Facebook and its corporate officers.
    Too bad Mueller is tied up at the moment.
    Guess we'll just have to bring back Zuckerberg to testify UNDER OATH this time.

    I think a paraphrase from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy says it best:

    Facebook's Corporate Officers
        A bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

  92. yeah whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More blah blah blah russia bullshit.

  93. It is the new Antisemitism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the ADL are doing, or the anti-racists. It's one more reason to be tired about these rants.
    These "Russian" stories, unsubstantiated, all are the same. It's the fault of those insidious, devious, snarky, conspiratorial, treacherous, manipulative, secretive < INSERT NATIONALITY HERE > and they're out there to ruin our society / demean our values / threaten our republic / conspire against us / kill us.

    Politics has completely jumped the shark now, we could see this already with the Jewish nazis ruling Israel, the poisoning affairs in UK, the holier-than-you countries that punish non-existing chemical weapons and demand you rally to their holiness or else (so that they keep Western politics and media on a leash).

    I can't decide if the worst is :
    - that they've re-purposed antisemitism against their geopolitical enemy, while not renouncing the honors and righteousness of championing anti-antisemitism
    - the same elites who designed and abuse this new antisemitism have decreed they'll now establish what is legitimate news and what is illegitimate news

  94. just more "guerilla marketing" fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smoke and mirrors and handwaving to inflate a mere correlation.

  95. Re:WHAT FUCKING MEDDLING?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need to for corry booker to take a stand and release all this hiddle classified stuff him and his followers exist. He has already played Sparticus for a fund raising video why can't he release material that actually be useful to have?

    More like Flaccidicus.... what a loser....

  96. Fair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheated the primaries, had the media singing her praises the entire time, had controlled opposition in the FBI to ensure that she wouldn't be indicted. Just how could it have been any more one sided.

  97. That shit response again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are the "most notorious left-wing clusterfucks?" I need new viewing material. From what I can find, the only truly liberal/progressive news outlet is The Young Turks. I'd hardly call them a clusterfuck, unless calling out people's bullshit is a "clusterfuck".

    The right-wing clusterfucks abound though- Alex Jones/Infowars, Brietbart, Rush Limbaugh, The Examiner, damned new every news website with "patriot" in the name, The Drudge Report, the Motley Fool, literally RightWingNews.com, Free Republic, The Blaze, oh jayzus I can keep going...Memorandum, Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, The American Thinker, The Washington Examiner, World News Daily, I'm getting really tired of typing so I'll stop.

    So whar muh libtards at?

  98. Nerd analogy by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Like in Star Trek III The Search for Spock when the Klingon gunner is ordered to shoot to disable but accidentally destroys the Federation vessel

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  99. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    How do you know she was media endorsed, they only said she had IIRC 95% chance of winning the EC.

  100. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    All this conjecture about something you have no direct knowledge about. Seems disingenuous, and pardon my bluntness, and ignorant.

    Show us the ads. Simple, easy, honest, the right thing to do.

    And yet, no one who has access will do it. And no one who is really invested telling everyone they know the facts will show their work.

    Funny, if it walks like bullshit, and talks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit itâ(TM)s the first thing you want to wallow in and throw at everyone else.

    If the press was doing their job they would get the whole list and publish it. If Congress was doing their job they wouldnâ(TM)t require it be made public. If Facebook were doing their job they would post links to it on their site and make us watch ads to see it and track all of our behavior before, during, and after we read any of it.

    If The People were doing their job they would demand to see them. So curious that no one is doing their job, and no one is talking about it. What the fuck is wrong with everyone?

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  101. Re:No shit. That was the point all along. by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    The press didn't promote a landslide, the statistics favored an electoral landslide for Hillary. The error margins were concerning in the midwestern states that ultimately cost her the election, but there was a reasonable assumption that that not *every single one of those states* would fall to the R side of the error bars.

    That would be like the Cubs winning the World Series. Possible, but extremely unlikely.

    But hey, guess what happened.

    The unlikely happened in both cases that year. No one was pushing a narrative, you just don't fucking understand statistics.

    You are delusional. If you think the press didn't promote a Hillary landslide then you are the only person to think that. All of them did. If your memory needs refreshing, head over to youtube and watch the early results on election night.

    The only errors in the midwestern states were Hillary believing the hype. The overwhelming MSM declaring a Hillary landslide is what kept Hillary from campaigning in those states. That and her extremely poor health. Oh, which the MSM help cover up as well. Hillary was convinced by her own political machine that the blue wall was going to stay blue. So she went light on the campaigning. She's won the election already so being out there in public can only hurt her. Don't forget that she, like Trump, is an extremely polarizing figure. You know as well as I do that if the press & the polls were honest with Hillary and told her that she was in a dogfight, she would have campaigned more. Some states she NEVER visited because they were solidly blue and they polled solidly blue. How did they poll solidly blue? That's the press helping burying some things and promoting others. The press wanted Trump voters to think there was no way Trump could win so stay home.

    Trump, on the other hand, campaigned his ass off. He flew to multiple SRO campaign rallies in different states daily. He worked for votes.

    Don't forget the Bush tape that somehow was stored for 10 years but suddenly found it's way from NBC to Hillary's campaign. Yeah, tell me more how the MSM didn't push her election.

    You speak of the election like it was a statistical anomaly, but it wasn't. Hillary had no clue why she wanted to be president. She provided the same answer Ted Kennedy did and it cost him as well. Trump, while just as polarizing as Hillary, made a connection with the voters, campaigned on good issues, and campaigned his ass off.

  102. Putin's Puppet is cheaper than an ICBM by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

    Why should Russia wage a conventional war with the USA, when it's considerable safer and cheaper to elect a puppet like Trump?

  103. Re: the worst, unreconstructed CCCP-Russian influe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even Google translate chokes on this.

  104. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    why did the GRU know where to spend their (up to) $100,000?

    Enter Cambridge Analytica, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.

  105. Re:No shit. That was the point all along. by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    It's not per se that the media "promoted" a landslide Clinton victory; it's more that they assumed a landslide Clinton victory. In fact, what they did was give Donald Trump tons of free media coverage-- about five billion dollars worth, by some estimates.

    You know why they gave Trump tons of media coverage? Because they wanted him to be the face of the Republicans. The media wanted Trump to be the nominee. Then they could swoop in with the Bush tape and secure the election.

    The media ran every story they could promoting Hillary. The squashed every story they could that would hurt her. The MSM were active partisan participants in the elections.

  106. Re:No shit. That was the point all along. by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    Constant attacks are worth five billion?

    People must hate 'the media' more than I thought.

    The attacks didn't start until Trump was the nominee. The trouble is the media are a bunch of elitist snobs who have no personal connection with the voters.

    Look at illegal immigrants
    The media "Trump is an unhinged xenophobe and he hates immigrants. We're going to blast his position 24/7 to show what a bigot he is."
    The public "Trump is right about illegal immigration."

    Look at the wall
    The media "Trump hates brown people and he wants to build a wall along the border. East Germany had a Berlin wall. Let's blast his position 24/7 to show what a bigot he is."
    The public "Trump is right about the wall. We need to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling."

    Look at trade
    The media "Trump is greedy and what to steal from poor people across the globe."
    The public "Trump is right. We need to negotiate trade agreements that benefit both parties."

    And so on.

  107. What a load of crap by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    No such thing. They thought she'd win and even contributed heavily for her. They owned her already. Remember the Uranium one deal? Look it up. Remember how they contributed at least 500K to her? Goes on and on. Obama even told Putin he would help him after the election, remember that too? Democrats have been working with the Russians for decades. That's well known and fact.

  108. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    The Russian campaign contributions had a significant advantage; [...] They were aiming for disruption of America by any means necessary, with no concern for collateral damage.

    In regard of one sovereign power attempting to disrupt the internal structures of another foreign power, what would "collateral damage" look like? I mean, if it is damage somewhere in the target power (or in it's foreign relations, alliances, etc), then it's still damage, and in the direction intended.

    I suppose that accidentally causing expensive damage - eg, an infrastructure hack causing some Sierra Nevada dams to be dumped, and San Francisco/ Silicon Valley flooded to complete destruction of prototypes and records - could qualify. But that's more of an equipment hack than trying to manipulate the target's politics.

    I'm still wondering how much the GRU have spent on their attempt to break up the EU - again, it's being a spectacularly effective leveraging of investment. Got to give them their dues : they know how to manipulate people better than our own politicians and marketing professionals. Which should cause much soul-searching in both professions - as well as necromantic rites, to bring the souls back from the dungeons to which they've been consigned after being traded to the Elder Gods for power over humans.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  109. Re: the worst, unreconstructed CCCP-Russian influe by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Yes, transliteration/translation partly relys on phonics and partly on IQ to follow the humor...

  110. Some observations by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    Alex Stamos, Berkeley graduate, liberal politics. Computer security specialist. His views on Putin’s motivations are speculative. Putin attacked Trump as well as Hillary. The Steele Dossier was likely, in my opinion, produced by Russian government operatives. We know the agents working with Steele were Russian insiders. So the extrapolation is similar to what US Intelligence agencies came to understand. Putin’s goals weren’t anti-Hillary. They were to spread FUD ... and the liberals bought in hook line and sinker. Russia wants the focus turned away from them. Away from their internal and imperialistic actions. And so far it’s working. Both parties are point8ng fingers. The election rhetoric is so decisive and the atmosphere so charged that the work of running America is slowed ... Kavanaugh is a great example. Unanimously approved as a nominated federal judge. Sure, that’s not a Supreme Court Justice. But unanimous. Now the chairperson of the committee got three words into the opening statement and interrupted. And dozens of interruptions to the proceedings.

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  111. Russian Trollski Caution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consumer warning regarding this thread. There is a lot of Russian troll activity and misinformation. Please read with caution.

  112. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by vandamme · · Score: 1

    >There was no common ground between the two.

    They both sucked.

  113. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump sucked? So you've seen the tape? And I thought Aceveda had it bad when Mackie found out.

  114. Austin Powers by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    First off, Russiagate is the dumbest conspiracy theory of all time. The bulk of it rests on the idea that Putin stole an election by....revealing factual details on how Hillary stole an election (democratic primary). The rest is generally so bad it is dispositive, like pointing to Twitter trolls that spent a few thousand dollars in a $9 billion election, including some of their ads that were placed after Trump was president elect.

    They're not only creating election turmoil, they're amplifying and exploiting the issues we have in this country. I believe they are partly to blame for all the left-right anger and hate.

    Except this would play out just like that scene in Austin Powers. Dr. Evil Putin, or DEP for short, tells his minions about his new evil schemes, only for his henchmen to cough and tell him it's already happened:

    • DEP: "hack information on Hillary from the democrats, so the public will think she is a dishonest, corrupt politician."

      Henchmen: "Ah, DEP, that has already happened. Americans, even members of her own party, think she is untrustworthy."

      DEP: "Ok, lets spend a few thousand dollars on Tweets to sow discord."

      Henchmen: "I don't know how to say this, sir....but have you been living under a rock? You've never heard of Rodney King? Republicans claim that the Clintons ran a heroin empire in Arkansas and ordered mob hits? Teabaggers that hung mannequins of Obama and burned him in effegy. America is DROWNING in discord, we don't have to lift a finger."