Slashdot Mirror


To Disrupt America's 2020 Elections, Russian Internet Trolls Amplify Divisive Messages, Assemble 'Massive' Followings (time.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: Russian internet trolls appear to be shifting strategy in their efforts to disrupt the 2020 U.S. elections, promoting politically divisive messages through phony social media accounts instead of creating propaganda themselves, cybersecurity experts say. The Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency may be among those trying to circumvent protections put in place by companies including Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. to find and remove fake content that hackers created to sow division among the American electorate in the 2016 presidential campaign. "Instead of creating content themselves, we see them amplifying content," said John Hultquist, the director of intelligence analysis at FireEye Inc. "Then it's not necessarily inauthentic, and that creates an opportunity for them to hide behind somebody else."

Other hackers are breaking into computing devices and using them to open large numbers of social media accounts, according to Candid Wueest, a senior threat researcher at Symantec Corp. The hacked devices are used to create many legitimate-looking users as well as believable followers and likes for those fake users... Wueest said he observed a decrease in the creation of new content by fake accounts from 2017 to 2018 and a shift toward building massive followings that could be used as platforms for divisive messages in 2020.

Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy responded that policing foreign influence campaigns is "an incredibly hard balance" between the need to slow down bad actors while maintaining "meaningful public discussion."

42 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Quakeulf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live in Norway. Russia is my neighbour. I have been to both USA and Russia. I see both as friends, and none as enemies. I don't get why these allegations should result in nuclear war (it seems that this is the goal of those who want to drive Russia against USA). If someone is meddling with your election, you take steps to fix your election. Exploits will be exploits, regardless.

    1. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

      Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.

      Fact is that people are so busy fracturing society into groups by defining common enemies and lumping enough people in them through strawmen arguments to make it look like an issue to be concerned about...

      I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.

    2. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Quakeulf · · Score: 2
    3. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or perhaps the truth is that Russia really is meddling in the elections, or at least in public opinion. It's a time honoured tactic of many dictators aspiring to a larger role on the world stage (Erdogan employs similar tactics, for instance)

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by ilguido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english? I suppose that they are... mmh... doing stuff or something. Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"? Is Israel? What about corporations? Government agencies?

      It's McCarthy all over again.

    5. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      If someone is meddling with your election, you take steps to fix your election.

      The point is, the people who usually fix the elections didn't get their result last time around. They're mad as hell, and they're not taking it anymore.

    6. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Political parties who can't win elections due to their own low quality candidates.
      NGO's with a political view to spread looking for funding.
      NATO looking for funding.
      Clandestine services looking for larger budgets.
      Energy interests looking to block the flow of lower cost energy from Russia.
      People selling security products and services.
      Groups pushing for censorship and control over the internet.
      To position funny cartoons, comments as "fake accounts".
      People who now want a political test for art, jokes, cartoons, comments, accounts.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany... The goal is to weaken the west by taking advantage of our open and free societies where we try to give everyone a voice.

      The internet was supposed to enhance democracy by creating a more level playing field, a meritocracy of ideas. It doesn't work though, people in Russia whose job is to spend all day every day posting carefully designed messages and memes have a much louder, more influential voice than random citizens.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the meddling in the elections is less about hacking voting machines and creating fake results and more about exploiting social media to distort public opinion.

      As long as we have the toxic combination of mendacious for-profit social media companies, it will be trivial to disrupt public opinion. Both platforms make money from this and neither one wants to impose controls that limit user speech or cut ad revenue.

      There's no defense against that "exploit" unless Facebook or Twitter is forcefully regulated in some manner. The only regulation I can think of that would have a chance would be forcing Facebook to clearly and unambiguously identify all posts associated with politics and any kind of commercial profit by Facebook as political advertising.

      I also think there's some higher order synergism between Facebook and Twitter -- Twitter allows for easy widespread public outrage, while Facebook allows that outrage to be personalized for greater individual impact. I sometimes wonder if either would be less effective as a propaganda platform without the other.

      Mostly I don't think there's any defense against this.

    9. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh I'm sure that Russia is meddling in the elections here. Just like every non-American with Internet access and an opinion on Trump/Clinton chipped in their 2 cents. Just like the U.S. meddles in elections elsewhere. People talk to each other, it's a fact of life. And in the Internet age that means they'll talk across national boundaries, even about stuff that they're technically not supposed to be talking about.

      If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion, or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.

    10. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Facebook profits, more time spent on their site. YouTube profits, more time spent watching cranks instead of the real news.

      Russia profits of course, from a weaker West and NATO.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention close to half the ads in that "campaign" had nothing to do with the election or were released after the election. It was really just a grab bag of various online trolling by that organization "linked" to Putin.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    12. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by mlw4428 · · Score: 2

      The problem is a fundamental weakness in Democracy: people. With the expectation of a reasonable IQ, proof of education, and a nuance understanding of the issues facing a nation, the voters are at the mercy of others who they seek to summarize and highlight key issues that are deemed important to those voters. There's nothing wrong that, most people don't have the time/desire/energy/basic intelligence to dedicate themselves towards understanding the thousands of local, state, national, and geopolitical issues. They rely on news sources to condense that information. That's NOT bad. What's bad is a foreign power actively working to falsify information to attack that news source.

      "But the US does it." You're right. We do. Generally towards weak and unstable regions who may have regional influences, but nothing major. Russia is actively engaged in doing this to the EU, the UK, America, Canada, and the Nordic regions. This is meant to destabilize the Western powers entirely. Russia has an interest in causing chaos so that they can continue to annex and invade sovereign nations in their region. People will end up dying from this, civilians and those who wish to remain separate from Russia. And that's the difference. The US does this because the US's interests are more trade, less terrorism, or some combinations therein. It's selfish, sure, but nothing quite like destabilizing an entire hemisphere of geopolitical players simply so you can annex more shitholes in Eastern Europe.

    13. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

      As a Canadian, it makes me especially angry to see US media and law enforcement agencies talk about foreign election influencing. I wonder exactly how they would respond if Canadian law enforcement started issues extradition orders for the thousands of American media personalities who thought it prudent to comment on our last federal election (and whose messages get FAR more visibility than some Russian facebook ads)?

    14. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by greythax · · Score: 2

      It's important to remember that Russia only had to come up with the memes, and fake news. Those articles were snapped right up by the public at large and disseminated across platforms. Our people were more than happy to be part of the problem. And it is important to note that those ads show that they weren't just shilling for a candidate, but pushing any divisive issue they can find, on both sides of the political spectrum. What Russia wants from this is to be able to point at the west and laugh. They are after a propaganda point, something to show western democracies as "not all they are cracked up to be." A country that small knows they can't take over America from within, but pointing at a democracy in turmoil when trying to convince a country on your border to vote itself back in to a Russian empire can be very helpful.

    15. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by greythax · · Score: 2

      So, in your world view, the russians were running a million dollar a year troll farm completely for the benefit of a cabal of western businesses and clandestine organizations?

      You see how that sounds crazy, right?

    16. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate..
      Ah, I see: you believe Whitehouse press releases.

    17. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion, or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.

      You're focusing on paid advertisements, which is a fraction of the alleged interference. There were also the numerous fake accounts posting both pro and anti-BLM stuff, pushing memes, posting false or partisan articles, and the networks of bots and other fake accounts used to to amplify the visibility of those posts. This is all done without spending a cent on advertising. They probably spent a lot more on wages, developing bots, etc, but those would be hidden (to us) costs. The whole point was to drive up divisiveness and partisanship. And on that point it seems to have worked.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    18. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Paul+Pierce · · Score: 2

      This sounds like a post from CNN. A bunch of what-if's, followed by blaming the Russians. I'm open to the discussion but you have to somehow provide me 2 things to get me to even consider this scenario.

      1. Give me context. How many other countries 'meddle' in our election. If fake news and random facebook posts are attempts to 'hack' our election, then there is zero chance that only Russia was involved. Of course they are trying to influence our elections, virtually everyone is. If Saudi Arabia or France was trying to 'meddle' and posted facebook ads for team Clinton would we know? How many elections before has this happened. How many total 'fake news' or ads where there? If it's 1 ad per million than so what. I seriously need context and no one is added any to this discussion. 2 years and not once has CNN given any context to this. How many people in power worldwide know the Clinton's, she was Secretary of State if you didn't know that. How many contacts do they have in the US? How much did they tweet? Post? Call?

      2. Please explain to me exactly how the 10,000 people in Michigan that decided to not show up was directly related to Russians? I mean seriously. Was anyone physically threatened in the entire country by a Russian? Were there Trump vans blocking polls? The argument you seem to be making is that Americans are so dumb that Russia puts a fake ad on facebook so we believe it and therefore do not go and vote for a Clinton. The only way this works (because I'm not seeing actual 'hacking' being blamed) is if people are so easily persuaded in voting for the wrong person that anyone could do it. Of course this then begs the question of why doesn't everyone put out dumb ads? This falls flat on itself as no one is able to make a decision because we're so easily duped; or we're so stupid as a whole that we deserve whomever they want us to vote for.

      Whenever one side loses they look for reasons; CNN and the dems sat around a table and threw out ideas. Russia and Trump stuck enough and they ran with it, and ran with it, and pushed it, and ran with it, and ignored real news, and ignored context, and ran with it...

    19. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.

      Donald Trump and Brexit, two high-profile right wing success stories that have been achieved with the help of fabricated and fear mongering "alternative facts", from Russia, with Love:

      - US foreign policy is in shambles and the country is as divided as ever, because Trump is a divisive person.
      - Britain has been de-facto paralyzed for years and will weaken the EU as a whole by the exit.
      - Both of these weaken the relations and cooperation between the USA and Europe, the western democratic alliances that form NATO.
      - Putin is an ex-KGB agent whose mindset is entrenched in cold-war mentality. He has never gotten to terms with the fact that the west "won" the cold war - the Warsaw Pact crumbled and the great Soviet Union that defeated Nazi Germany degenerated into the fairly insignificant developing economy that Russia is today. Putin regards NATO as a threat to Russia - NATO has been expanding eastward without firing a single bullet. Sawing chaos among his great adversaries is his new cold war.

    20. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      A number of flaws in your analysis:
      (1) You are comparing figures spent in a specific venue to aggregate figures that include the total of all ad spending. That total includes (for example) TV ads which are much more expensive and arguable less effective.
      (2) Much of this is getting pushed by free social media accounts, not by ad purchases. Again, these are also more effective than ads, as they are presented as "authentic" and non-paid.
      (3) The Internet Research Agency isn't for hire to run anyone's election campaign. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Their sole purpose is to sow division and thus weakness. That can be done without endorsing any specific candidate. To them, Trump is a "useful idiot" - not a leader or even a client. (Money laundering for Russian oligarchs notwithstanding.) The troll farm may well endorse a loudmouth like Ocasio-Cortez to ensure the Dems have no effective leadership either.

      Point 3 sort of leads on to a whole 'noter post, about how the decay of American politics has already succeeded. Make no mistake, the seeds for that were planted already decades ago by red-blooded Americans. That is why Trump's election never surprised me. People view it as some kind of upset, but to me it's the logical conclusion of the decay.

  2. reddit editor by juan_two · · Score: 2

    cringe. this stuff needs to be kept in its containment site (reddit)

  3. Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.

    Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.

    Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Friends, Hannity, Pirro....

    1. Re:Fox news? by physicsphairy · · Score: 2

      The irony is that AC here may well be the Russian operative in the room.

      Always remember that Russia is not truly sided with or against any American party, political idea, or institution. What they are against is American and Western strength, and what they are for is anything which sabotages that strength and ability to act. Their goal is to be able to muscle in like they did in Ukraine and Syria and fill the vacuum that results from weakening global contenders.

      To that end, they are more than happy to be "caught" manipulating American elections. That makes them seem strong and America seem weak. And I doubt they care much at all whether Candidate A or Candidate B wins except they want whichever does win to be weakened by the infighting and the accusations of collaboration. They are also happy to have accusations bandied about who they support and who supports them. In all likelihood, they are the ones sponsoring them. Anything that points out a group of fellow Americans or Westerners as the "true enemy" is in Russia's interest to promote. If not, then it's just Americans doing their work for them.

      The best defense to Russia is to take it very seriously abroad and find ways to make Putin's grip on power the more difficult and tenuous. When it comes to domestic affairs, Russia can't mind control large groups of Americans, but it can spark existing tensions and promote paranoia, even of itself. The best recourse of the average citizen is to find common ground, build bridges with your political opponents, and call your congressperson to tell them you support follow though on the Magnitsky Act (which makes Putin's dictatorship far less palatable to the Russian elites) and ones like it and taking a hardline on Russia.

    2. Re:Fox news? by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Put down the Kool-Aid and walk away.

      You sure?

      If you wanted to divide, weaken, and destabilize the US you could hardly improve on AOC and Ilhan Omar.

      Bullshit, most of the people outraged at Ilhan Omar for pointing out that AIPAC uses money to **GHASP** lobby!!!! ... because it is supposedly anti-semitic to point out that jewish people are not above buying political influence with money like everybody else. However, the people most outraged over Omar's utterances are also the same people who have been deriding George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and other jewish people more liberal than themselves which they don't like for buying political influence with money. Of course that is a steaming pile of hypocrisy since that means that it's OK to sling around anti-Semitic tropes about jews and money if you are, white, Republican and a Trump supporter but not if you are a little brown woman in a Hijab.

    3. Re:Fox news? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.

      Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.

      Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Friends, Hannity, Pirro....

      Hillary was (thankfully) not elected due to her very real deficiencies. No fake news required.

      She was worse than a clown. Let that sink in.

      You all were so gobsmacked though that you had to come up with some crazy theory as to how she could have possibly lost.

  4. Future Stump Speech by mentil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    <Satire>My fellow Americans, this is why we need to eliminate the threat of Democracy. Once only the properly-educated are allowed to choose our great nation's leaders, will we be safe from the threat of Commie election interference! Do you want spies, illegal aliens, and godless heathens casting your vote for you?! This voting test will ensure that No True American will be ineligible to vote.</Satire>

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  5. Closed loops by dargaud · · Score: 2

    With some graph theory, shouldn't those (mostly) closed cycles of accounts be easy to individuate and cordon off ? Better than delete them, just hide their messages outside their own cycles, similar to -1 messages here on /.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  6. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Informative

    So was Hillary a Russian troll when she declared a quarter of America a "basket of deplorables"?

    She was trolling for the same people Mitt Romney was trolling for when he effectively called 47% of Americans a bunch of enitled moochers and his entire Republican audience clapped their approval. Hint: most of those 47% are dirt poor minimum wage workers who don’t pay income taxes because the tax code explicitly exempts them due to them being dirt poor. According to the Republicans these Walmart slaves are simply to lazy to be millionaires.

  7. Believe as much of this as you want... by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, it's entirely possible that certain Russian groups are having fun screwing with the US. I mean, the US has mucked around in other people's countries for decades, so why not?

    That said, it's pretty stupid to blame the Russians for the current, divisive politics in the US. The locals (I'm in Europe, so I'm not involved here)...the locals are doing a bang-up job all by themselves. Decades ago, conservatives didn't much approve of liberal opinions. Downright Puritan, sometimes. Then came the 60's and 70's, and the progressive movement was born and grew. Since roughly the 80's, the progressives have defined whole new levels of intolerance. If you disagree with them, you are not only wrong, you are evil. It's the reaction to this intolerance, not any sort of Russian hacking, that got Trump elected.

    The progressives just cannot imagine that half of the country actually disagrees with them. It's so much easier to find some external enemy to blame - it's not that the progs are wrong, or that they've alienated half the country - it's those damned Ruskies.

    A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance. Sadly, the idea that the progressives themselves have become the intolerant ones - that differing opinions can legitimately exist - this seems to be beyond their comprehension. Which means that the way forward is likely to be increasingly vicious and even violent.

    It ain't the Russians driving this, it's the progressive agenda, and the intolerant people who support it.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Believe as much of this as you want... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance

      Yeah, I thought so, too. I remember when Trump won the NH primary and HuffPo's headline was all caps "NEW HAMPSHIRE GOES RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC!" I thought Trump was going to win since about a month after he started campaigning, and I wondered, "when Trump wins, will the media and the libs on my FaceBook feed reflect and say 'Ohhhh...NH didn't vote for racism and sexism and homophobia...they just want somebody to do something about the opioid crisis that's killing their families and neighbors! Silly us, 60+ million Americans didn't suddenly become Nazis!'" Nope. They just got even more delusional, and concocted elaborate fantasies that Russians spending a few thousand dollars on FaceBook ads convinced their countrymen to become Nazis.

      It's delusional, deranged, and there is no end in sight.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  8. Re:We don't need this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the post-truth narrative: everyone lies all the time about everything so believe whatever you want.

    It's dangerous because it's basically giving up on democracy and trying to make things better, and instead voting for stupid reasons like pissing off liberals or trying to disrupt the establishment by voting for even more established candidates.

    Worst of all it makes people think that their opinions are the most valid and ignore all advice from people who do actually understand the issues. Brexit is basically 25% of the population of the UK experiencing a Dunning-Kruger moment.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Don't just talk about it, expose the messages by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

    Just saying the Russians are spreading messages is not helpful, the correct course of action is to figure out the messages and let people know. What people don't realize is that they are playing both sides of the fence, however it seems the news only talks about the right-wing disinfo campaigns. We know for a fact that they do the same thing to galvanize left-wing partisans as well, so why don't we expose that? It would do a lot to ensure people on the right that this isn't just about silencing their views, and would help convince them of the problem. Making it a one-party issue only makes it easier for the trolls to defend.

    Myself I became a believer after I encountered a few online who were trying to promote ethnostatism in stilted English while posing as "Americans", in a sports forum of all places. From what I've read stirring up racial animosity seems to be a big part of the plan, including things like drumming up support for BLM while at the same time marshaling forces against it.

  10. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're a US citizen, and graduated high school, then you should sue your school system for not having taught you the basics of the US Constitution.

    If you're not a US citizen then:

    There were huge debates at the Constitutional Convention at how best to deal with unequal sized states. (For example large states such as France and Germany in the EU and small states such as Luxembourg and Cyprus.) The solution was to give Electoral Votes close to the size of the state population and then make it a winner take all scenario for each state. The purpose for this was to prevent a candidate from racking up the votes in a large state and thus swamping, and making irrelevant, the wishes of the small state.

    Imagine you lived in a union where you joined for common defense; had a common currency, open borders internally, and no internal tariffs - but just about everything else left to the states. Imagine there were huge social and economic differences between these states in which there was little to no common ground.

    In the 1780s the main point of contentions were slavery and agriculture v merchant trading policies.
    Today we have other issues.

    This is why the electoral system helps keep peace. A large part of our current discord comes from trying to make a multi-cultural, continent-wide country have one-size fits all laws. That doesn't work - and it surely doesn't work when it's unequally enforced.

    Here's an example we have the crazy scenario where it's close to illegal for one person to transport his legally owned firearms to another (and zero exception for people who make an honest mistake in how they transport these items). Furthermore a resident of a state (say NY) can't buy, own, and keep a firearm in another state. WTF is this? A law that prevents you from legal actions elsewhere. This is like a state making drugs illegal in its state and preventing its citizens from using drugs in another.

    The electoral system is there to prevent the large states from stomping on the small states. If not for the electoral college and separation of powers there cannot be a stable union. Take a look at the collapse of the EU.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  11. Re:We don't need this by AHuxley · · Score: 3

    The UK existed long before a France and Germany planned an "EU".
    Lots of art, trade, science, culture spread around the world from the UK well before the EU :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by greythax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also a key point, at that same Constitutional Convention, it was decided that nothing laid down in that document should not be subject to change by the will of the people, because the founding fathers were wise enough to know they couldn't predict the future, nor lay down a perfect plan to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the people it would protect.

  13. Re:We don't need this by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

    "Post-truth narrative" is just some stupid buzzword; nothing has changed from the past, we're just seeing a new generation formulate the opinion that politicians lie and/or shouldn't be trusted. It amazes me this ever started to go away. I have to laugh at the constant accusation Donald Trump has told a lie - when did you ever look to politicians as truth tellers, trustable, or even someone who would know the facts on any subject????

    Politics and politicians were never supposed to be about laying out all the facts and making "scientifically correct" decisions. Nothing at that level is black and white, and everything has pros and cons. The only thing that's getting worse (and perfectly evidenced by your DK comment), is that each side thinks the other side has completely lost it, just doesn't "understand all the facts", and is so stupid their views are not even worthy of respect.

  14. Is the GOP annoyed? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

    I mean, the GOP's main strategy is cultivating a divisive climate on hot button topics & in/out-group labelling. They're spending a lot of money on this & are also getting considerable support & amplification from traditional corporate media. Are they annoyed that Russia is spending a fraction of what they are on it & getting all the credit?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  15. Not exactly by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    the purpose was to shift power from the populous cities (which were full of working class citizens) and to rural areas where the wealthy lived and had their plantations and a tight control on the voting electorate.

    But they don't teach you that in school because it doesn't fit the desired narrative. Anyway, go read a book called "A People's History of the United States" for starters. We are one hell of a fucked up country.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  16. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by Ksevio · · Score: 2

    All you need to vote is a driver's license, and illegals have those.

    You know how I can tell you've never registered to vote?

    The greatest presidential landside in US history was won by 17 million votes. There are, at least, 22 million illegals, and they practically all vote democrat. Do the maths.

    You'd think with 22 million cases of voter fraud, the Republican would be able to find at least one case of it. Still waiting on that.

  17. Even posts on Slashdot by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 2

    So many posts on places even like Slashdot are designed to create vitriol between different schools of thought, political parties, you name it. I don't know how many are pure trolls and how many might just be pissed off at "the other side", but the best way to get past this stuff is to take a step back and evaluate all this stuff pushing our hate buttons. Don't let the trolls control your emotions. Hating everything and everybody is not the best way to go through life. And the headlines of people doing stupid and hate-worthy things do not represent the majority of any subset of people.

    If everybody would post a useful/positive post every time they saw a troll post, it would go a long way to getting rid of the unneeded hate bandwagon going around the internet these days.

  18. Re:It was never Russia. by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They always demonized republicans, called them racists, ever since LBJ lost the Civil Rights Act battle to them.

    Um....you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes. And LBJ was instrumental in lobbying FOR the bill.

    Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment". In 1964, many Southerns were still so pissed off at Lincoln that they refused to join the Republican party. So the political division in the US at the time was not Democrat vs Republican, it was Western Republican + Southern Democrat vs Northern Republican + Western Democrat. Even this is an oversimplification, in that skillful politicians gathered a bloc of other politicians and frequently voted together, regardless of party lines.

    The Civil Rights Act was the thing that broke this pattern, because it was so abhorrent to those Southern Democrats that they switched to the Republican party. And as a result of the ensuing party shift, many Northern Republicans became Democrats. This is called the Southern Realignment, and it is one of the major reasons why US politics is where it is today, instead of where it was in the 1930s to 1950s.

    This is also the end of the process where the Democratic and Republican parties flipped who was Left and Right. And why you'll hear lots of Republicans falsely talking about how Republicans are all about civil rights - the parties are not in the same political positions as they used to be.