> actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.
I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.
I think this is the key.
Ever since Trump went after the Khan family it's been obvious that the general electorate does not like Trump going after private citizens.
Yet that's exactly what he did after the first debate with Alicia Machado and again after the second debate with the women who accused him of assault.
The first debate proved that the general electorate does not like him acting unpresidential.
Yet he keeps doing it and ended the first debate by calling Hillary "a nasty woman" and creating a completely unnecessary controversy by talking about contesting the election results.
All of his advisors would have told him these were bad ideas ahead of time and would cost him votes. And it's not like they asked him to memorize the constitution word-for-word, avoiding these controversies would have been trivial.
I honestly see two main possibilities for his behaviour:
1) Trump really does have a major deficiency, either comically low levels of self-control or he's living in a massive bubble and somehow thinks these are brilliant ideas.
2) Trump has no intention of winning the election and is just trying to preserve his fortune. He lost his TV show and realizes he's destroyed the mainstream appeal of his brand (possibly his biggest asset), so he's now trying to transform his new base into a market for TrumpTV.
Why is attacking the Hillary campaign a bad thing?
Because it's a one-sided effort driven by a rival power. Say Russia has pushed the polls by 1% to the Republicans by releasing DNC communications, they could have redirected their efforts the other way and done just as much, if not more.
An entity who sees you as the enemy is trying to manipulate into a certain course of action, don't you think it wise to resist that manipulation?
We now know they corrupted the democratic process in the primary to deliver her the nomination. And we know from the latest Wikileaks release that Clinton has been openly talking to Wall street about the fact that she's been routinely lying in public, saying what is necessary to get elected.
What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!
Why are you attacking someone for attacking this loathsome woman?
Because even if you were right that she was loathsome (she isn't, but your other wrong ideas take precedence), that doesn't mean the ends justify the means.
What happens when someone decides your favourite candidate is loathsome? Do you still think the Russian government is justified in hacking their internal communications and dumping them to the Internet to look for dirt? Do you want a political system where no one can have an honest discussion over email because a state-sponsored hacker might dump it and cause a scandal?
I even think that would be a more important goal, long term, than sacrificing literally every shred of dignity and concern for the truth and the future of our democracy just to stop some shock-jock version of George W. Bush (i.e. someone who is almost certain, at the end of the day, just a lazy puppet.)
This is basically what I take from your position:
Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!
Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!
Re "And how do you then get him out of the country?"
Like "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/József_Mindszenty" József Mindszenty , if you can get to a great embassy your safe.
"... he was freed in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and granted political asylum by the United States embassy in Budapest, where Mindszenty lived for the next fifteen years"
Having a person be fully protected in an embassy becomes a great political talking point and keeps the reason as to why in focus.
Great for Russia, not so much for Harold Martin.
Once he walks into that embassy the only way he's leaving is in a hearse or a police car.
You need a passport to stroll up to an embassy and claim asylum/defect?
Disingenuous of his defense to claim a lack of a passport diminishes flight risk. We're not complete idiots.
And how do you then get him out of the country? Is living out the rest of his life in an embassy really a preferable alternative to standing trial and spending some time in jail?
The bigger risk is a state actor (ie Russia) uses some real spy craft to sneak him out of the country and bring him to Moscow.
The onus is on him to show that his new technology is actually safer than human drivers. So far the only arguments I've seen from him are hand-wavy approximations.
This isn't a web app, you're dealing with people's lives, you can afford to publish some proper research to demonstrate how the AI compares to humans.
Take the initial fatal crash that caused all the uproar. It turned out the car couldn't see the white truck because of the sunlight and time of day. Is that a scenario they examined during testing? Why didn't the AI refuse to drive in those conditions?
But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
You've apparently never heard him judge women overwhelmingly based on their looks and sex appeal.
Or say that a Mexican judge wasn't fit to judge him explicitly because of his race.
Or repeatedly imply that all black people lived in the ghettos.
Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).
Or you know, campaign at all, including all of the subtler stuff he implies, but I won't mention because there's no point in arguing subtle implications with people who can't even admit his hair is fake.
This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
Here I agree, their opinions are wrong and stupid, but most everyone is wrong and stupid about something, and they should be free to express their dumb ideas without fear of getting fired.
The Melinda Gates idea was a bit odd since I'm not sure what she's done of significance other than marry Bill Gates. And I don't think that's a narrative that Hillary Clinton really wanted to introduce to the campaign. I take it as an indication that this was a very preliminary list.
The number of business people is surprising, I think they were worried that Trump would start coming across as competent and they're need someone richer to undercut the "rich business person knows how to fix economy" narrative.
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative
The concern trolling is adorable but misplaced.
All this shows is that one guy grouped people based on the obvious political signalling implications of each pick, which is pretty much the main effect of a VP pick in the general election. There's no reason they would have gone forward with an unqualified candidate based solely on gender (such as certain nominees named McCain).
I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:
I would hope I get a T-Rex for my birthday. I think I have a better than you.
Paul Ryan would choose his pick the same way every other nominee does, to balance the ticket and improve his general election chances. Qualifications matter only if they pass a minimum bar, after that no one really cares.
McCain chose Palin because he needed a wildcard to beat Obama (he forgot about making sure she was over the minimum bar).
Obama chose Biden to be a safe white guy with lots of experience to balance the cool black guy with relatively little experience.
Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).
Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.
In 2020 Ryan is liable to choose someone like Marco Rubio, a Hispanic who can repair some of the damage done by Trump and start flipping some culturally conservative Hispanics to the Republican column.
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I'd largely agree, with exceptions. I'd also point out it's ironic considering how much of a Trump fan Scott Adams is (ie, Trump's response to the women accusing him of assault).
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Was that on purpose?
I'll cite a source that says James O'Keefe makes videos that are lies after I cite a source that says the sky is blue. Both are extremely well established facts.
As for further reviews, I'm not going to bother analyzing manufactured evidence.
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.
Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!
If speech doesn't offend anyone, nobody will try to ban it. The only type of speech in need of protection is that which someone considers offensive and wants to ban. I consider hate speech a good thing because it's indicative of a free society. One of the first things to go in a society that isn't free is hate speech, a fact that has been documented throughout history. Regimes that aren't free tend to restrict speech, and we need to promote free thought and free speech. In a free society, you should speak against hate speech rather than attempt to ban it.
And speaking against speech is exactly what they're doing.
In specific, the creator of Pepe the Frog is trying to reclaim his creation from being a symbol of hate speech.
because that's how lefties think. They think politics descends from biology. Sure it's hella bigoted and racist, but that's how they roll.
Ironically your broad and infantilizing stereotype of "lefties" is wrong.
Minorities, particularly sexual minorities, will trend left. This is partially because conservatism tends to endorse cultural conformity, but also because large portions of conservatism are actively hostile towards minorities.
Thus gay conservatives are more than a little unusual.
But that's different from saying that "politics descends from biology", as I suspect the majority of the left understands.
Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.
Nobody cares about the content of those talks, least of all anybody at Goldman Sachs. She could have stood at the lectern and read Rod McKuen poems for all they care. The issue is that the money Goldman gave her for those "speeches" are in fact bribes paid on spec, against the contingency of her getting into the white house.
-jcr
You ever attend a professional sports game? Part of it is to watch the performance, part of it is see your heroes in person.
Now imagine you're a rich bank having a company event, spending a few hundred thousand dollars for an A-list politician to give a speech and even answer a few questions makes a lot of sense. Your employees are happier (better recruitment and retention) and it makes your company look that much more successful and prestigious (more business in the future).
Maybe I'm missing something, but if he's holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London, how is Ecuador the country that cuts off his internet? I thought that the only country that can is the UK
They changed the WIFI password and didn't tell him the new one?
From the article: "researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"
I know it fits the playbook to simply call them "Russian Hackers" but hey, maybe...journalism instead?
Did you read the rest of the article, and the buzzfeed article as well?
First the group has been going after Russia's enemies for years, including Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany. This suggests the group is very pro-Russian.
Second the group has used multiple zero-day exploits in its attacks, which strongly suggests a state actor. Not only because getting zero-day exploits is really hard, but zero day exploits are also very valuable, and the described hacks only really had significant value to the Russian government.
I'm not sure why SecureWorks is hedging so much, but the hacks being orchestrated by the Russian government seems extremely likely.
people will forgive Trump for daring to say "p***y" off the record. There's still another three weeks, and I think by then people will realize that no matter how outraged they are at Trump saying a "bad word"
No one gave a shit that Trump said pussy.
People cared that Trump bragged about being able to grab women's pussy without consent, aka sexual assault.
And then a bunch of came forward to say that for once Trump was telling the truth, and his habit of sexually assaulting women was very real.
The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen.
Only by people who are desperately trying to deny Russia's role.
First he wasn't that important a figure, there's no reason to think he would have had access to all of the docs that were leaked.
Second a fatal mugging where nothing is stolen actually makes a lot of sense. Mugger comes up, victim decides to make a run for it, the mugger panics, shoots, and runs like hell because running away from a murder rap is more important than grabbing a wallet.
Third, he was conscious and breathing when he was found. So you apparently think that not only did the hit squad leave him alive, but that he wasn't really interested in telling the cops about the hit squad who'd just assassinated him.
Frankly the whole conspiracy theory is disgusting. A person is murdered and jump with glee at the opportunity to hijack their memory for you dumbass conspiracy theory.
Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.
If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.
That's because the Bush administration treated the CIA as a lawyer instead of a scientist.
They should have been asking "tell us what you can discover about Iraq".
Instead they asked "give us the strongest case you can that shows Iraq has WMDs".
The understandably the CIA did exactly as requested, and created false evidence.
On the contrary, there's no huge political motivation to blame Russia, sure it's politically inconvenient for Trump, but lets be honest, no one is choosing who to vote for based on whether or not Russia is doing the leaking.
With this on the other hand, the publicly available evidence is pretty damning, there's no significant political pressure to skew the investigation, and most of the off-the-record stuff from analysts is more convinced than the public statements from the administration.
They could always be wrong, but I think it's really damn likely that Russia is behind the attacks.
They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.
Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.
If the NSA hacks a computer in Russia it's legal in the US but a crime in Russia.
If the GRU hacks a computer in the US it's legal in Russia but a crime in the US.
This is the exact reason that a spy can collect a pension in their home nation but get arrested if caught working abroad.
Now, do you think American's are allowed to collaborate with foreign spies working in the US?
If not, then why do you think Americans are allowed to collaborate with foreign intelligence agencies hacking computers in the US?
The whole, "The Russians did it!" is completely irrelevant. The hacks/leaks/whatever show that these people are complete slime and probably shouldn't be trusted to clean your toilet, let alone run your country. If the Russians have this information, it's safe to assume that *everyone* who wants this information has it. This entire crescendo of "The Russians!" is just a ploy to try to get people to ignore the horrible facts in these leaks and instead build up a bogeyman to redirect the peoples anger. It's grade A+ politics.
If a newspaper does investigative journalism that seems to hurt your candidate slightly more than their opponent you'll raise hell.
But when Russia sends their intelligence service to dig up every possible piece of dirt on the opponent... well that's completely fine!
Slashdot Mirror
> actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.
I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.
I think this is the key.
Ever since Trump went after the Khan family it's been obvious that the general electorate does not like Trump going after private citizens.
Yet that's exactly what he did after the first debate with Alicia Machado and again after the second debate with the women who accused him of assault.
The first debate proved that the general electorate does not like him acting unpresidential.
Yet he keeps doing it and ended the first debate by calling Hillary "a nasty woman" and creating a completely unnecessary controversy by talking about contesting the election results.
All of his advisors would have told him these were bad ideas ahead of time and would cost him votes. And it's not like they asked him to memorize the constitution word-for-word, avoiding these controversies would have been trivial.
I honestly see two main possibilities for his behaviour:
1) Trump really does have a major deficiency, either comically low levels of self-control or he's living in a massive bubble and somehow thinks these are brilliant ideas.
2) Trump has no intention of winning the election and is just trying to preserve his fortune. He lost his TV show and realizes he's destroyed the mainstream appeal of his brand (possibly his biggest asset), so he's now trying to transform his new base into a market for TrumpTV.
Why is attacking the Hillary campaign a bad thing?
Because it's a one-sided effort driven by a rival power. Say Russia has pushed the polls by 1% to the Republicans by releasing DNC communications, they could have redirected their efforts the other way and done just as much, if not more.
An entity who sees you as the enemy is trying to manipulate into a certain course of action, don't you think it wise to resist that manipulation?
We now know they corrupted the democratic process in the primary to deliver her the nomination. And we know from the latest Wikileaks release that Clinton has been openly talking to Wall street about the fact that she's been routinely lying in public, saying what is necessary to get elected.
What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!
Why are you attacking someone for attacking this loathsome woman?
Because even if you were right that she was loathsome (she isn't, but your other wrong ideas take precedence), that doesn't mean the ends justify the means.
What happens when someone decides your favourite candidate is loathsome? Do you still think the Russian government is justified in hacking their internal communications and dumping them to the Internet to look for dirt? Do you want a political system where no one can have an honest discussion over email because a state-sponsored hacker might dump it and cause a scandal?
I even think that would be a more important goal, long term, than sacrificing literally every shred of dignity and concern for the truth and the future of our democracy just to stop some shock-jock version of George W. Bush (i.e. someone who is almost certain, at the end of the day, just a lazy puppet.)
This is basically what I take from your position:
Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!
Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!
Re "And how do you then get him out of the country?"
Like "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/József_Mindszenty" József Mindszenty , if you can get to a great embassy your safe.
"... he was freed in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and granted political asylum by the United States embassy in Budapest, where Mindszenty lived for the next fifteen years"
Having a person be fully protected in an embassy becomes a great political talking point and keeps the reason as to why in focus.
Great for Russia, not so much for Harold Martin.
Once he walks into that embassy the only way he's leaving is in a hearse or a police car.
You need a passport to stroll up to an embassy and claim asylum/defect?
Disingenuous of his defense to claim a lack of a passport diminishes flight risk. We're not complete idiots.
And how do you then get him out of the country? Is living out the rest of his life in an embassy really a preferable alternative to standing trial and spending some time in jail?
The bigger risk is a state actor (ie Russia) uses some real spy craft to sneak him out of the country and bring him to Moscow.
The onus is on him to show that his new technology is actually safer than human drivers. So far the only arguments I've seen from him are hand-wavy approximations.
This isn't a web app, you're dealing with people's lives, you can afford to publish some proper research to demonstrate how the AI compares to humans.
Take the initial fatal crash that caused all the uproar. It turned out the car couldn't see the white truck because of the sunlight and time of day. Is that a scenario they examined during testing? Why didn't the AI refuse to drive in those conditions?
Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).
Idiots like you probably think Iranians and Arabs are the same race because they both wear turbans sometimes. They're not.
You are of course, completely wrong in your understanding of my beliefs.
I wonder, will your wrongness cause you to re-evaluate your own beliefs?
But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
You've apparently never heard him judge women overwhelmingly based on their looks and sex appeal.
Or say that a Mexican judge wasn't fit to judge him explicitly because of his race.
Or repeatedly imply that all black people lived in the ghettos.
Or promise to keep ban Muslim immigration (race and religion are well correlated).
Or you know, campaign at all, including all of the subtler stuff he implies, but I won't mention because there's no point in arguing subtle implications with people who can't even admit his hair is fake.
This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
Here I agree, their opinions are wrong and stupid, but most everyone is wrong and stupid about something, and they should be free to express their dumb ideas without fear of getting fired.
The Melinda Gates idea was a bit odd since I'm not sure what she's done of significance other than marry Bill Gates. And I don't think that's a narrative that Hillary Clinton really wanted to introduce to the campaign. I take it as an indication that this was a very preliminary list.
The number of business people is surprising, I think they were worried that Trump would start coming across as competent and they're need someone richer to undercut the "rich business person knows how to fix economy" narrative.
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
So I read more of the link for context and was surprised to see Adams acknowledge that Trump was guilty.
It doesn't change the validity of disputing the account of an extremely dishonest source like James O'Keefe.
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative
The concern trolling is adorable but misplaced.
All this shows is that one guy grouped people based on the obvious political signalling implications of each pick, which is pretty much the main effect of a VP pick in the general election. There's no reason they would have gone forward with an unqualified candidate based solely on gender (such as certain nominees named McCain).
I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:
Legistlative Experience
Executive Experience (govt)
Executive Experience (private sector)
Foreign Policy Experience
I would hope I get a T-Rex for my birthday. I think I have a better than you.
Paul Ryan would choose his pick the same way every other nominee does, to balance the ticket and improve his general election chances. Qualifications matter only if they pass a minimum bar, after that no one really cares.
McCain chose Palin because he needed a wildcard to beat Obama (he forgot about making sure she was over the minimum bar).
Obama chose Biden to be a safe white guy with lots of experience to balance the cool black guy with relatively little experience.
Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).
Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.
In 2020 Ryan is liable to choose someone like Marco Rubio, a Hispanic who can repair some of the damage done by Trump and start flipping some culturally conservative Hispanics to the Republican column.
Huh.
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I'd largely agree, with exceptions. I'd also point out it's ironic considering how much of a Trump fan Scott Adams is (ie, Trump's response to the women accusing him of assault).
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Was that on purpose?
I'll cite a source that says James O'Keefe makes videos that are lies after I cite a source that says the sky is blue. Both are extremely well established facts.
As for further reviews, I'm not going to bother analyzing manufactured evidence.
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
Because the evidence is junk.
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.
Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!
If speech doesn't offend anyone, nobody will try to ban it. The only type of speech in need of protection is that which someone considers offensive and wants to ban. I consider hate speech a good thing because it's indicative of a free society. One of the first things to go in a society that isn't free is hate speech, a fact that has been documented throughout history. Regimes that aren't free tend to restrict speech, and we need to promote free thought and free speech. In a free society, you should speak against hate speech rather than attempt to ban it.
And speaking against speech is exactly what they're doing.
In specific, the creator of Pepe the Frog is trying to reclaim his creation from being a symbol of hate speech.
because that's how lefties think. They think politics descends from biology. Sure it's hella bigoted and racist, but that's how they roll.
Ironically your broad and infantilizing stereotype of "lefties" is wrong.
Minorities, particularly sexual minorities, will trend left. This is partially because conservatism tends to endorse cultural conformity, but also because large portions of conservatism are actively hostile towards minorities.
Thus gay conservatives are more than a little unusual.
But that's different from saying that "politics descends from biology", as I suspect the majority of the left understands.
He does have sex with men, but he isn't part of the culture. It's disingenuous to call him gay.
Since when does a sexual orientation require you becoming part of a particular culture?
Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.
Yes, they're not measured and rational like Trump's long time friend and advisor Roger Stone who thinks Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are literal demons.
Nobody cares about the content of those talks, least of all anybody at Goldman Sachs. She could have stood at the lectern and read Rod McKuen poems for all they care. The issue is that the money Goldman gave her for those "speeches" are in fact bribes paid on spec, against the contingency of her getting into the white house.
-jcr
You ever attend a professional sports game? Part of it is to watch the performance, part of it is see your heroes in person.
Now imagine you're a rich bank having a company event, spending a few hundred thousand dollars for an A-list politician to give a speech and even answer a few questions makes a lot of sense. Your employees are happier (better recruitment and retention) and it makes your company look that much more successful and prestigious (more business in the future).
Oh, and if you think the Clinton speeches were bribes, then why people bribing Donald Trump in 2006 and 2007? Because Trump made a hell of a lot more than Clinton.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if he's holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London, how is Ecuador the country that cuts off his internet? I thought that the only country that can is the UK
They changed the WIFI password and didn't tell him the new one?
From the article:
"researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"
I know it fits the playbook to simply call them "Russian Hackers" but hey, maybe...journalism instead?
Did you read the rest of the article, and the buzzfeed article as well?
First the group has been going after Russia's enemies for years, including Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany. This suggests the group is very pro-Russian.
Second the group has used multiple zero-day exploits in its attacks, which strongly suggests a state actor. Not only because getting zero-day exploits is really hard, but zero day exploits are also very valuable, and the described hacks only really had significant value to the Russian government.
I'm not sure why SecureWorks is hedging so much, but the hacks being orchestrated by the Russian government seems extremely likely.
people will forgive Trump for daring to say "p***y" off the record. There's still another three weeks, and I think by then people will realize that no matter how outraged they are at Trump saying a "bad word"
No one gave a shit that Trump said pussy.
People cared that Trump bragged about being able to grab women's pussy without consent, aka sexual assault.
And then a bunch of came forward to say that for once Trump was telling the truth, and his habit of sexually assaulting women was very real.
Of course if they ever do get bored they can start talking about how he's telling his followers that they have to watch out or minorities are going to steal the election. I'm actually wondering at this point, is he deliberately trying to cause election day violence?
The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen.
Only by people who are desperately trying to deny Russia's role.
First he wasn't that important a figure, there's no reason to think he would have had access to all of the docs that were leaked.
Second a fatal mugging where nothing is stolen actually makes a lot of sense. Mugger comes up, victim decides to make a run for it, the mugger panics, shoots, and runs like hell because running away from a murder rap is more important than grabbing a wallet.
Third, he was conscious and breathing when he was found. So you apparently think that not only did the hit squad leave him alive, but that he wasn't really interested in telling the cops about the hit squad who'd just assassinated him.
Frankly the whole conspiracy theory is disgusting. A person is murdered and jump with glee at the opportunity to hijack their memory for you dumbass conspiracy theory.
Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.
If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.
That's because the Bush administration treated the CIA as a lawyer instead of a scientist.
They should have been asking "tell us what you can discover about Iraq".
Instead they asked "give us the strongest case you can that shows Iraq has WMDs".
The understandably the CIA did exactly as requested, and created false evidence.
On the contrary, there's no huge political motivation to blame Russia, sure it's politically inconvenient for Trump, but lets be honest, no one is choosing who to vote for based on whether or not Russia is doing the leaking.
With this on the other hand, the publicly available evidence is pretty damning, there's no significant political pressure to skew the investigation, and most of the off-the-record stuff from analysts is more convinced than the public statements from the administration.
They could always be wrong, but I think it's really damn likely that Russia is behind the attacks.
The Trump crowd is at play
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html
Don't bother, terrorist plots are only major news if they're done by Muslims.
Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...
illegal Russian efforts to affect our election
They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.
Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.
If the NSA hacks a computer in Russia it's legal in the US but a crime in Russia.
If the GRU hacks a computer in the US it's legal in Russia but a crime in the US.
This is the exact reason that a spy can collect a pension in their home nation but get arrested if caught working abroad.
Now, do you think American's are allowed to collaborate with foreign spies working in the US?
If not, then why do you think Americans are allowed to collaborate with foreign intelligence agencies hacking computers in the US?
The whole, "The Russians did it!" is completely irrelevant. The hacks/leaks/whatever show that these people are complete slime and probably shouldn't be trusted to clean your toilet, let alone run your country. If the Russians have this information, it's safe to assume that *everyone* who wants this information has it. This entire crescendo of "The Russians!" is just a ploy to try to get people to ignore the horrible facts in these leaks and instead build up a bogeyman to redirect the peoples anger. It's grade A+ politics.
If a newspaper does investigative journalism that seems to hurt your candidate slightly more than their opponent you'll raise hell.
But when Russia sends their intelligence service to dig up every possible piece of dirt on the opponent... well that's completely fine!