Now I dont like Putin or the rest of his cleptocracy either, but always pointing to Russia as the bad guys when it is convenient, instead of when it has been proven (or at least shown beyond reasonable doubt) will and already does lead to a desensitivization effect.
The more often it is claimed "Russia did X" without reasonable evidence, the less believeable it will become, until the day when they really do something monstrous and no one will belive it. See the myth about Germanys extermination camps in WWI vs. their actual extermination camps in WWII which were at first disbelieved by many when the first reports appeared.
Already here in Europe we see the first effects of this: Most people are more inclined to believe whatever RT (aka. the Ministry of RussianTruths) tells them instead of facts. Particularly when it comes to anything refugee or Ukraine related.
I think there's three parts to the case:
1) There are multiple attacks against many targets, meaning multiple talented individuals working together, suggestive of a state actor.
2) A lot of the tools had been used in other hacks, hacks which had a clear strategic benefit to Russia. (It's not clear how easy it would have been for other groups to have obtained these tools)
3) The half-hearted denials from Russia are kinda Putin's MO. Officially Russia has nothing to do with them, but he wants to make sure people know Russia has the capability.
There's one big doubt for me, and that's Guccifer 2.0. Putin having his intelligence service claim to be a guy from Romania who is carrying the mantle of a guy best known for guessing password reset questions... it's not exactly something that inspires awe. I'd expect the front to be something more bad-ass like a Russian equivalent to Anonymous.
Then again if Guccifer 2.0 was real he has some real technical chops. When looking at the original Guccifer I'd sooner expect him to spit in contempt and say "Ha! This is what a real hacker does!", not to pay homage by becoming his successor.
The majority of organizations that suffered a DDoS attack (53 percent) also experienced some form of additional compromise. Forty-six percent of breached organizations discovered a virus, malware was activated at 37 percent of breached organizations, and ransomware was encountered at 15 percent of breached organizations.
A DDos isn't a breach, and I'm not clear how a DDos would result in additional vulnerabilities unless the victimized organization did something unusual in their attempt to respond to it.
I could see an attacker using a DDos as a smokescreen to distract the IT dept while they're running their real attack... but more likely I wonder if admins are simply doing an audit because of the DDos and discovering unrelated attacks at a result.
Yes, its a distraction and smoke screen.
Also, systems under stress tend to become vulnerable to secondary infections, which is why sometimes it is right to take antibiotics when you have flu.
But how? I don't know how complex networks are managed but I'd assume it would run more or less the way it did previously, only slower.
There are only two real ways I can think of how a DDos would open vulnerabilities. First virus scanners may not be able to reach the systems they're supposed to scan (ie mailserver). And second, the regular secured systems might become inaccessible so people start using insecure workarounds instead.
The majority of organizations that suffered a DDoS attack (53 percent) also experienced some form of additional compromise. Forty-six percent of breached organizations discovered a virus, malware was activated at 37 percent of breached organizations, and ransomware was encountered at 15 percent of breached organizations.
A DDos isn't a breach, and I'm not clear how a DDos would result in additional vulnerabilities unless the victimized organization did something unusual in their attempt to respond to it.
I could see an attacker using a DDos as a smokescreen to distract the IT dept while they're running their real attack... but more likely I wonder if admins are simply doing an audit because of the DDos and discovering unrelated attacks at a result.
It doesn't quite work that way. If a private computer device, for whatever reason, gets "contaminated" with secure information, it becomes the property of the federal government, and must be immediately surrendered to the appropriate security officials. The government can keep it, or clean it, but that is their job, not the person that formerly owned the device.
Folks with security clearance are very careful to keep their private devices out of anywhere that might accidentally contaminate them with secure information. It is a real bother having to surrender the device, fill out all of the paper work, and then wait an indeterminate amount of time before it might come back. It is usually easier to just buy a new phone, laptop, etc... and forget about the contaminated device.
Perhaps, but at the time of the hardware wipes I think they legitimately thought there was no classified information on the server.
It's easy to understand why, classified intel was supposed to be clearly marked and on a completely separate system. No one was supposed to be emailing classified information to Clinton, even if it was a State Dept email address, and none of the few pieces of classified information on Clinton's server was clearly marked as classified.
It's not a ridiculous line of thinking from Clinton (and her lawyer's) perspective. "Oh crap, we weren't supposed to be using X because of security concerns? Well we'll give you what you need off of X for your investigation and the official archive, and then we'll destroy X so there's no more copies to worry about".
Note that any smart politician, no matter how clean, would be wise to leave as little a paper trail as possible.
If the goal is to be at least as good as people....well, it happens. It just needs to be able to quickly realize it made a mistake and correct.
If there's one place computers still have a long way to go it's the ability to do open-ended learning. And that includes the ability to learn they've made a mistake.
At first the immunity deal for Combetta was for destruction, to get him to talk to the FBI after using BleachBit on the server. This is unusual, because he could already have been prosecuted for this since an order was issued which doesn't allow for this. Clinton and her people asked him to do this, which means they could also be prosecuted.
There's another interpretation of events. The law says you have to turn over all the official emails (personal are exempt) and then destroy the devices (so no one is digging hard drives out of landfills). And this is exactly what they did (or tried to do since they job of separating wasn't done properly).
Whether they also destroyed evidence depends on what they were told by the FBI at the time and how much the lawyers were involved (I suspect you're lawyer telling you X is ok gives you a lot of cover).
Furthermore, I'm genuinely confused why the other 4 immunity deals were offered. Were the 4 others granted immunity because they had a hand in the private server, or were they offered because the DOJ was looking out for them?
Because the FBI is only interested in Clinton.
The best way to get everyone else to talk without fear of self-incrimination is to just give them immunity.
I'm also confused why they fucking include a provision to destroy laptops (that apparently weren't subpoenaed or seized via warrant like in every other case) as intense scrutiny of this case is going on and Congress is attempting to force further investigation even though the DOJ and FBI are trying to stonewall it.
There's just too much smoke here for anyone to claim that there isn't a fire.
I'd like to hear what the FBI or legal experts have to say first, the sources of the story (Fox news and Republican legislators) aren't exactly impartial actors.
I haven't noticed a pro-Trump stance from Slashdot stories (and commentors). However I have definitely noticed a very strong anti-Hillary tone here at Slashdot, which at first was very surprising. However, I think that stems from the fact that the typical Slashdotter better understands the ramifications and details of the whole email server thing than the general populace. Most of the strong political opinions I'm seeing here are in that regard, and seem to originate from the private email server.
So any pro-Trump leaning is really anti-Hillary. Which is pretty much how this election is working out in general - who hates which candidate the least.
Possibly, though I think the better explanation might have to do with Hillary's self-identification as a feminist. Just read any post regarding feminism and see all the people railing against "SJWs". I think gender is still very relevant for a lot of people.
Gotta push Trump. Slashdot is owned by Dice.com which has numerous ties to the Trump business empire. Just another in a long line of Clinton hit pieces pushed by slashdot and many other sites.
Any evidence for this? I've noticed/. has had a weirdly pro-Trump anti-Clinton stream of stories but I assumed that was due to Assange fanboyism and Trump supporters hammering the submission queue.
What makes the concerns and fears of that group any less relevant than your own or those that you list above? Just because you don't rub elbows with them as you plunk down your $5 for a double wide venti latte with truffles on top doesn't mean their voices are irrelevant or "deplorable."
Ok, what are these fears and concerns that will directly affect their personal lives? And do note that the average core Trump supporter is actually doing pretty well economically.
I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet, but I'm leaning towards the arrogant ass versus the demonstrable corrupt politician who's been feeding off of and perpetuating the broken system that exists today for decades.
How is Clinton demonstrable corrupt? The strongest corruption accusation I've heard is approving a uranium deal involving Russians that was also OK'd by multiple other agencies.
Trump on the other hand is demonstrably corrupt, there are multiple recorded instances of him using money to try and influence politicians.
A bad comment but she seemed to be referring to the party itself, and not the voters.
She doubled down and said many of them were "deplorable", "irredeemable" and "not America".
She apologized (unlike Trump's offensive comments). She was also right, about half of Trump's supporters are racist or sexist..
If I have to choose between my government hurting others or hurting me
Did Obama hurt you? The fact is that neither candidate it likely to have much impact on the lives of middle class whites.
And why do blacks, Hispanics, and so many other people get a pass for supporting a candidate who so obviously hates many of their fellow Americans?
Because that candidate obviously doesn't hate many of their fellow Americans.
She's clearly frustrated with a lot Trump's core supporters, everyone is at least frustrated with some portion of the US electorate. But I see no evidence that she actually "hates" them.
I wouldn't necessarily say Trump "hates" any demographic, even if his policies would be extremely harmful and discriminatory to them.
I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.
You won't get racially profiled, called the enemy, threatened with deportation, or have your country attacked on a whim.
Much more likely you're white (and probably male), and as bad as Trump is the worst consequence you're likely to personally experience is a drop in your purchasing power due to the recession.
In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house.
The development comes on the same day Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers that 18 states have asked for help in warding off cyberattacks on their electronic voting systems.
This is one of those phrases that should result in people instantly being fired but, for some reason, never does.
How long ago did the first Diebold issues come out? And this is still a thing?
I'm almost terrified to ask but these "cyber" attacks they're worried... that wouldn't be a reference to internet based attacks, would it? Did some psychopath finally decide that that best way to fix electronic voting machines was to connect them to the internet in any setup that didn't involve an air gap?
Here's what I'd do if I were Russia and I wanted to screw with the election.
Hack the voting machines and state websites for tabulating and reporting results, and have them all go Trump by a few points.
Of course people will realize something is screwy from the exit polls and the voting patterns. They'll audit, figure out what's going on, and the real results will get out, it might take a few hours or a few days but it will get settled and they'll figure out Hillary won.
But do you really expect Trump to just step aside at that point? He'll refuse to concede, insist he won, claim they're cheating and stealing the election from him, and a lot of his supporters will go along for the ride.
It will be like birtherism x10, your already dysfunctional political system will go even further downhill and Russia will have that much more leeway to throw its weight around the neighbourhood.
If we assume that all races of people are equally good at basketball, how can it be explained that 74.4% of basketball players are African American but African Americans only make up 13.2% of the population? The chances that there is no discrimination is way lower than 1 in a billion.
Basketball makes up a bigger part of African American culture, generating an excess amount of talent. This is also why there's so many more elite Canadian hockey players. It also explains why volleyball players are disproportionately white (despite a similar height bias).
And yes, there may also be a difference in athleticism, similar to how East Africans are great distance runners and West Africans great sprinters.
However, you can still have discrimination even when the two populations have different talent distributions. One way is by controlling for the talent of the people of each race. If equally talented black basketball players got favoured over white counterparts that would be evidence of discrimination.
Just like equally talented white applicants were being favoured over their Asian counterparts at Palantir.
Crimea was generously "given" to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev - who, oddly enough, was himself from Ukraine - in an impulsive act which was probably illegal under Soviet law.
Lots of things were probably illegal under Soviet law, like forced mass starvation and mass deportations of Tartars from Crimea.
Ukraine proclaimed itself an independent nation in 1991.
And Crimea promptly decided they wanted to be Ukrainian.
Please understand clearly that this was the very first time in the whole of history that a Ukrainian nation had existed. The name "Ukraine", itself, means "borderland" - that is, the borderland of Russia. For many centuries, long before the USA existed, Russians spoke about "Great Russia" (which became modern Russia, based on Moscow), "White Russia" (which is still known as Belarus today), and "Little Russia" (the Eastern part of Ukraine).
I wonder how my ancestors emigrated Ukraine ~120 years ago? Were they time travellers or does the question of what an independent nation is get very confusing once you start going back through history?
After the violent, illegal coup d'etat which overthrew the legally elected Ukrainian government in 2014
If you don't want a forced resignation don't open fire on protesters.
- of which George Friedman, founder and CEO of Stratfor (https://www.stratfor.com/), said: “It really was the most blatant coup in history"
A coup followed by an open election which the coup leaders lost.
the Kiev regime instigated extreme violence against Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
As exclusively shown on Russia Today (and I mean exclusively).
The population of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia again
"Do you want to join Russia? a) Yes I want to join Russia. b) No, I understand you're not really asking. c) Are you even going to bother counting this or do you already have the results typed up?"
and the Russian government agreed.
How generous of them.
Putin did NOT "annexe" Crimea. He allowed the people of Crimea to become part of Russia again, after a relatively brief period in which they were subjected to a freshly-created foreign power by a series of administrative freak events.
Like Putin sending in Russian troops to take over Crimea, installing a former mobster from a fringe party as a puppet Prime Minister, and then holding a fake vote vote to join Russia.
in scientific research. For example, what is this "hide the decline" all about?
Figuring out how to present data in a way that doesn't mislead readers in sections where the data gives misleading results.
Why would scientists want to hide their data? Why wouldn't the CRU (Climate Research Unit at UEA) release their data sets as required by reputable journals such as "Nature."
Because (if I recall correctly) of a lot of the data was proprietary data they weren't allowed to release.
Why would they deny FOIA requests and conspire to find a way around them?
Because they knew people would go quote-mining for things like "hide the decline". Not perfect behaviour but understandable.
I'm not going to go into the rest because it doesn't matter. You've seen the answers before and you'll see them again, you don't care because those facts don't fit your conclusion to global warming being a fraud.
Cushy ambassadorships go to prominent donors (or their kids). Fishy though far from a "price list", and it's also a standard practice for every administration. It's unfortunate but hardly a revelation, especially since I remember this stuff from 2009.
If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.
The POTUS using a pseudonym to communicate via email is hardly a scandal, more of an extra layer of security in case someone does get their hands on classified emails (and possibly a way to make finding records more difficult).
And without knowing his email setup it doesn't prove that he knew her actual email address, only that someone in the White House IT Dept knew it and configured his client to handle it.
If they are behind the leaks of the DNC emails that showed Sanders was never going to be allowed to run that's something every registered Democrat had a right to know.
Are you thinking of a different batch of emails?
I saw some emails suggesting that the DNC really preferred Clinton (duh) but didn't really do anything pro-Clinton other than try to influence some reporters on stories that also involved the DNC.
If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.
This I have not heard of.
Then there is the price list for all the government posts that were handed out.
Yeah... I follow this stuff pretty closely and I don't even know what fact you're trying to twist.
"Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
WTF? There's no reason for the 'intelligence officials' to get involved with this, it's perfectly legal behaviour for a candidate. That it is being sprayed about is a measure of desperation of some people to stop Trump. Whilst I have sympathy with their purpose, their behaviour is deeply wrong.
And if the talks included a quid pro quo about Russia disrupting the US election to help Trump win?
Hell, even if they didn't include include subtle mentions of Russia manipulating the elections what other reason would Trump's campaign have to secretly talk to Russia during the campaign? If Trump wins the election he's got 2 months to set up his transition, certainly that's more than enough time to have discussions with Russia as the President elect.
Secretly telling a rival power, who is already accused of disrupting the elections, that you're going to be their best friend is really damn suspicious.
"We're confident that there wasn't any material impact on our journalism from these issues
Daily Kos (aka Vox) was always a blog, it has nothing to do with journalism.
I'm not sure why you talked about Daily Kos except for the fact that they're both left online news resources.
They're completely different outfits.
As for Vox, I've been reading it a decent amount and I'd consider them journalism. They're not investigative journalism, they don't send reporters digging through old court records to dig up scandals, but it's still journalism.
They mostly do analysis, interviews, and long-form essays. It definitely comes with a wonkish highly progressive centre-left viewpoint (ie, they're big Clinton fans), but it's a valuable resource for understanding the world.
There are slightly bloggy aspects as well, but I don't think that's a bad thing (as you imply). The weakness in traditional journalism is it gets myopic by focusing on what just happened and losing the larger context. Vox's objective seems to be tracking issues long term while adding context and analysis.
First, they assume her lifetime spent as an political class insider means that she is highly competent, so even if she's making dumb policy, they assume it is great, but beyond their understanding.
She has a reputation in Washington as a policy wonk, and has strong academic and professional credentials prior to becoming a first lady.
That she's competent shouldn't be a partisan question.
I'll readily acknowledge that Ted Cruz is highly competent, though as a president I think he'd be almost as awful as Donald Trump.
Second, they're really uncomfortable around white men. Hillary is consistent in her rhetoric and governance, that she opposes white male participation in society.
So at this point I'm kinda assuming you're making deliberately bad arguments.
Putting stupid motivations in other people's minds really makes me feel secure in my intellectual superiority.
On the contrary I was sincerely trying to give Trump supporters non-stupid motivations.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I dont like Putin or the rest of his cleptocracy either, but always pointing to Russia as the bad guys when it is convenient, instead of when it has been proven (or at least shown beyond reasonable doubt) will and already does lead to a desensitivization effect.
The more often it is claimed "Russia did X" without reasonable evidence, the less believeable it will become, until the day when they really do something monstrous and no one will belive it. See the myth about Germanys extermination camps in WWI vs. their actual extermination camps in WWII which were at first disbelieved by many when the first reports appeared.
Already here in Europe we see the first effects of this: Most people are more inclined to believe whatever RT (aka. the Ministry of RussianTruths) tells them instead of facts. Particularly when it comes to anything refugee or Ukraine related.
I think there's three parts to the case:
1) There are multiple attacks against many targets, meaning multiple talented individuals working together, suggestive of a state actor.
2) A lot of the tools had been used in other hacks, hacks which had a clear strategic benefit to Russia. (It's not clear how easy it would have been for other groups to have obtained these tools)
3) The half-hearted denials from Russia are kinda Putin's MO. Officially Russia has nothing to do with them, but he wants to make sure people know Russia has the capability.
There's one big doubt for me, and that's Guccifer 2.0. Putin having his intelligence service claim to be a guy from Romania who is carrying the mantle of a guy best known for guessing password reset questions... it's not exactly something that inspires awe. I'd expect the front to be something more bad-ass like a Russian equivalent to Anonymous.
Then again if Guccifer 2.0 was real he has some real technical chops. When looking at the original Guccifer I'd sooner expect him to spit in contempt and say "Ha! This is what a real hacker does!", not to pay homage by becoming his successor.
The majority of organizations that suffered a DDoS attack (53 percent) also experienced some form of additional compromise. Forty-six percent of breached organizations discovered a virus, malware was activated at 37 percent of breached organizations, and ransomware was encountered at 15 percent of breached organizations.
A DDos isn't a breach, and I'm not clear how a DDos would result in additional vulnerabilities unless the victimized organization did something unusual in their attempt to respond to it.
I could see an attacker using a DDos as a smokescreen to distract the IT dept while they're running their real attack... but more likely I wonder if admins are simply doing an audit because of the DDos and discovering unrelated attacks at a result.
Yes, its a distraction and smoke screen.
Also, systems under stress tend to become vulnerable to secondary infections, which is why sometimes it is right to take antibiotics when you have flu.
But how? I don't know how complex networks are managed but I'd assume it would run more or less the way it did previously, only slower.
There are only two real ways I can think of how a DDos would open vulnerabilities. First virus scanners may not be able to reach the systems they're supposed to scan (ie mailserver). And second, the regular secured systems might become inaccessible so people start using insecure workarounds instead.
The majority of organizations that suffered a DDoS attack (53 percent) also experienced some form of additional compromise. Forty-six percent of breached organizations discovered a virus, malware was activated at 37 percent of breached organizations, and ransomware was encountered at 15 percent of breached organizations.
A DDos isn't a breach, and I'm not clear how a DDos would result in additional vulnerabilities unless the victimized organization did something unusual in their attempt to respond to it.
I could see an attacker using a DDos as a smokescreen to distract the IT dept while they're running their real attack... but more likely I wonder if admins are simply doing an audit because of the DDos and discovering unrelated attacks at a result.
It doesn't quite work that way. If a private computer device, for whatever reason, gets "contaminated" with secure information, it becomes the property of the federal government, and must be immediately surrendered to the appropriate security officials. The government can keep it, or clean it, but that is their job, not the person that formerly owned the device.
Folks with security clearance are very careful to keep their private devices out of anywhere that might accidentally contaminate them with secure information. It is a real bother having to surrender the device, fill out all of the paper work, and then wait an indeterminate amount of time before it might come back. It is usually easier to just buy a new phone, laptop, etc... and forget about the contaminated device.
Perhaps, but at the time of the hardware wipes I think they legitimately thought there was no classified information on the server.
It's easy to understand why, classified intel was supposed to be clearly marked and on a completely separate system. No one was supposed to be emailing classified information to Clinton, even if it was a State Dept email address, and none of the few pieces of classified information on Clinton's server was clearly marked as classified.
By law?? Can you cite that law?? You can't because there is no such law.
I couldn't find a specific law but according to this article she was quite justified in destroying the Blackberrys and I could see the same reasoning being applied to the servers. Information is supposed to be archived and then the device deleted/destroyed as thoroughly as possible.
It's not a ridiculous line of thinking from Clinton (and her lawyer's) perspective. "Oh crap, we weren't supposed to be using X because of security concerns? Well we'll give you what you need off of X for your investigation and the official archive, and then we'll destroy X so there's no more copies to worry about".
Note that any smart politician, no matter how clean, would be wise to leave as little a paper trail as possible.
If the goal is to be at least as good as people....well, it happens. It just needs to be able to quickly realize it made a mistake and correct.
If there's one place computers still have a long way to go it's the ability to do open-ended learning. And that includes the ability to learn they've made a mistake.
At first the immunity deal for Combetta was for destruction, to get him to talk to the FBI after using BleachBit on the server. This is unusual, because he could already have been prosecuted for this since an order was issued which doesn't allow for this. Clinton and her people asked him to do this, which means they could also be prosecuted.
There's another interpretation of events. The law says you have to turn over all the official emails (personal are exempt) and then destroy the devices (so no one is digging hard drives out of landfills). And this is exactly what they did (or tried to do since they job of separating wasn't done properly).
Whether they also destroyed evidence depends on what they were told by the FBI at the time and how much the lawyers were involved (I suspect you're lawyer telling you X is ok gives you a lot of cover).
Furthermore, I'm genuinely confused why the other 4 immunity deals were offered. Were the 4 others granted immunity because they had a hand in the private server, or were they offered because the DOJ was looking out for them?
Because the FBI is only interested in Clinton.
The best way to get everyone else to talk without fear of self-incrimination is to just give them immunity.
I'm also confused why they fucking include a provision to destroy laptops (that apparently weren't subpoenaed or seized via warrant like in every other case) as intense scrutiny of this case is going on and Congress is attempting to force further investigation even though the DOJ and FBI are trying to stonewall it.
There's just too much smoke here for anyone to claim that there isn't a fire.
I'd like to hear what the FBI or legal experts have to say first, the sources of the story (Fox news and Republican legislators) aren't exactly impartial actors.
I haven't noticed a pro-Trump stance from Slashdot stories (and commentors). However I have definitely noticed a very strong anti-Hillary tone here at Slashdot, which at first was very surprising. However, I think that stems from the fact that the typical Slashdotter better understands the ramifications and details of the whole email server thing than the general populace. Most of the strong political opinions I'm seeing here are in that regard, and seem to originate from the private email server.
So any pro-Trump leaning is really anti-Hillary. Which is pretty much how this election is working out in general - who hates which candidate the least.
Possibly, though I think the better explanation might have to do with Hillary's self-identification as a feminist. Just read any post regarding feminism and see all the people railing against "SJWs". I think gender is still very relevant for a lot of people.
Gotta push Trump. Slashdot is owned by Dice.com which has numerous ties to the Trump business empire. Just another in a long line of Clinton hit pieces pushed by slashdot and many other sites.
Any evidence for this? I've noticed /. has had a weirdly pro-Trump anti-Clinton stream of stories but I assumed that was due to Assange fanboyism and Trump supporters hammering the submission queue.
What makes the concerns and fears of that group any less relevant than your own or those that you list above? Just because you don't rub elbows with them as you plunk down your $5 for a double wide venti latte with truffles on top doesn't mean their voices are irrelevant or "deplorable."
Ok, what are these fears and concerns that will directly affect their personal lives? And do note that the average core Trump supporter is actually doing pretty well economically.
I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet, but I'm leaning towards the arrogant ass versus the demonstrable corrupt politician who's been feeding off of and perpetuating the broken system that exists today for decades.
How is Clinton demonstrable corrupt? The strongest corruption accusation I've heard is approving a uranium deal involving Russians that was also OK'd by multiple other agencies.
Trump on the other hand is demonstrably corrupt, there are multiple recorded instances of him using money to try and influence politicians.
Hillary already called almost half the voters "enemies".
A bad comment but she seemed to be referring to the party itself, and not the voters.
She doubled down and said many of them were "deplorable", "irredeemable" and "not America".
She apologized (unlike Trump's offensive comments). She was also right, about half of Trump's supporters are racist or sexist..
If I have to choose between my government hurting others or hurting me
Did Obama hurt you? The fact is that neither candidate it likely to have much impact on the lives of middle class whites.
And why do blacks, Hispanics, and so many other people get a pass for supporting a candidate who so obviously hates many of their fellow Americans?
Because that candidate obviously doesn't hate many of their fellow Americans.
She's clearly frustrated with a lot Trump's core supporters, everyone is at least frustrated with some portion of the US electorate. But I see no evidence that she actually "hates" them.
I wouldn't necessarily say Trump "hates" any demographic, even if his policies would be extremely harmful and discriminatory to them.
Burn the system down. Burn it all down.
I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.
You won't get racially profiled, called the enemy, threatened with deportation, or have your country attacked on a whim.
Much more likely you're white (and probably male), and as bad as Trump is the worst consequence you're likely to personally experience is a drop in your purchasing power due to the recession.
In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house.
If Hillary becomes president, then it's pointless.
Not really, even if it's a great idea there's bound to be some negative consequence at some point.
If Obama is the one that did it then that mini-scandal is politically useless.
But if it's delayed till after the election then Hillary has to own the decision, and it becomes a talking point for the next election cycle.
The development comes on the same day Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers that 18 states have asked for help in warding off cyberattacks on their electronic voting systems.
This is one of those phrases that should result in people instantly being fired but, for some reason, never does.
How long ago did the first Diebold issues come out? And this is still a thing?
I'm almost terrified to ask but these "cyber" attacks they're worried... that wouldn't be a reference to internet based attacks, would it? Did some psychopath finally decide that that best way to fix electronic voting machines was to connect them to the internet in any setup that didn't involve an air gap?
Here's what I'd do if I were Russia and I wanted to screw with the election.
Hack the voting machines and state websites for tabulating and reporting results, and have them all go Trump by a few points.
Of course people will realize something is screwy from the exit polls and the voting patterns. They'll audit, figure out what's going on, and the real results will get out, it might take a few hours or a few days but it will get settled and they'll figure out Hillary won.
But do you really expect Trump to just step aside at that point? He'll refuse to concede, insist he won, claim they're cheating and stealing the election from him, and a lot of his supporters will go along for the ride.
It will be like birtherism x10, your already dysfunctional political system will go even further downhill and Russia will have that much more leeway to throw its weight around the neighbourhood.
If we assume that all races of people are equally good at basketball, how can it be explained that 74.4% of basketball players are African American but African Americans only make up 13.2% of the population? The chances that there is no discrimination is way lower than 1 in a billion.
Basketball makes up a bigger part of African American culture, generating an excess amount of talent. This is also why there's so many more elite Canadian hockey players. It also explains why volleyball players are disproportionately white (despite a similar height bias).
And yes, there may also be a difference in athleticism, similar to how East Africans are great distance runners and West Africans great sprinters.
However, you can still have discrimination even when the two populations have different talent distributions. One way is by controlling for the talent of the people of each race. If equally talented black basketball players got favoured over white counterparts that would be evidence of discrimination.
Just like equally talented white applicants were being favoured over their Asian counterparts at Palantir.
Crimea was generously "given" to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev - who, oddly enough, was himself from Ukraine - in an impulsive act which was probably illegal under Soviet law.
Lots of things were probably illegal under Soviet law, like forced mass starvation and mass deportations of Tartars from Crimea.
Ukraine proclaimed itself an independent nation in 1991.
And Crimea promptly decided they wanted to be Ukrainian.
Please understand clearly that this was the very first time in the whole of history that a Ukrainian nation had existed. The name "Ukraine", itself, means "borderland" - that is, the borderland of Russia. For many centuries, long before the USA existed, Russians spoke about "Great Russia" (which became modern Russia, based on Moscow), "White Russia" (which is still known as Belarus today), and "Little Russia" (the Eastern part of Ukraine).
I wonder how my ancestors emigrated Ukraine ~120 years ago? Were they time travellers or does the question of what an independent nation is get very confusing once you start going back through history?
After the violent, illegal coup d'etat which overthrew the legally elected Ukrainian government in 2014
If you don't want a forced resignation don't open fire on protesters.
- of which George Friedman, founder and CEO of Stratfor (https://www.stratfor.com/), said: “It really was the most blatant coup in history"
A coup followed by an open election which the coup leaders lost.
the Kiev regime instigated extreme violence against Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
As exclusively shown on Russia Today (and I mean exclusively).
The population of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia again
"Do you want to join Russia?
a) Yes I want to join Russia.
b) No, I understand you're not really asking.
c) Are you even going to bother counting this or do you already have the results typed up?"
and the Russian government agreed.
How generous of them.
Putin did NOT "annexe" Crimea. He allowed the people of Crimea to become part of Russia again, after a relatively brief period in which they were subjected to a freshly-created foreign power by a series of administrative freak events.
Like Putin sending in Russian troops to take over Crimea, installing a former mobster from a fringe party as a puppet Prime Minister, and then holding a fake vote vote to join Russia.
in scientific research. For example, what is this "hide the decline" all about?
Figuring out how to present data in a way that doesn't mislead readers in sections where the data gives misleading results.
Why would scientists want to hide their data? Why wouldn't the CRU (Climate Research Unit at UEA) release their data sets as required by reputable journals such as "Nature."
Because (if I recall correctly) of a lot of the data was proprietary data they weren't allowed to release.
Why would they deny FOIA requests and conspire to find a way around them?
Because they knew people would go quote-mining for things like "hide the decline". Not perfect behaviour but understandable.
I'm not going to go into the rest because it doesn't matter. You've seen the answers before and you'll see them again, you don't care because those facts don't fit your conclusion to global warming being a fraud.
http://www.whatreallyhappened....
A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly
Caused By Global Warming
You mean there is a massive list of things that would be affected by a changing climate?
What an entirely obvious idea!
Physicist Hal Lewis; Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara:
There are 1.7 million post-secondary teachers in the US. Certainly a few hundred thousand full professors in the sciences.
The fact that one 87 year old retired professor called it a scam a year before he died is hardly an effective appeal to authority.
(and yes, I read his actual reasoning, it doesn't hold up)
Cost to get a government appointment
https://www.google.com/search?...
Cushy ambassadorships go to prominent donors (or their kids). Fishy though far from a "price list", and it's also a standard practice for every administration. It's unfortunate but hardly a revelation, especially since I remember this stuff from 2009.
It was part of a Friday document dump... you weren't supposed to hear about it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
The POTUS using a pseudonym to communicate via email is hardly a scandal, more of an extra layer of security in case someone does get their hands on classified emails (and possibly a way to make finding records more difficult).
And without knowing his email setup it doesn't prove that he knew her actual email address, only that someone in the White House IT Dept knew it and configured his client to handle it.
If they are behind the leaks of the DNC emails that showed Sanders was never going to be allowed to run that's something every registered Democrat had a right to know.
Are you thinking of a different batch of emails?
I saw some emails suggesting that the DNC really preferred Clinton (duh) but didn't really do anything pro-Clinton other than try to influence some reporters on stories that also involved the DNC.
If they are behind the release of the fact Obama used a pseudonym to email hillary, despite the fact he denied having any knowledge of her private email. That's good to know too.
This I have not heard of.
Then there is the price list for all the government posts that were handed out.
Yeah... I follow this stuff pretty closely and I don't even know what fact you're trying to twist.
"Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly investigating whether Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
WTF? There's no reason for the 'intelligence officials' to get involved with this, it's perfectly legal behaviour for a candidate. That it is being sprayed about is a measure of desperation of some people to stop Trump. Whilst I have sympathy with their purpose, their behaviour is deeply wrong.
And if the talks included a quid pro quo about Russia disrupting the US election to help Trump win?
Hell, even if they didn't include include subtle mentions of Russia manipulating the elections what other reason would Trump's campaign have to secretly talk to Russia during the campaign? If Trump wins the election he's got 2 months to set up his transition, certainly that's more than enough time to have discussions with Russia as the President elect.
Secretly telling a rival power, who is already accused of disrupting the elections, that you're going to be their best friend is really damn suspicious.
"We're confident that there wasn't any material impact on our journalism from these issues
Daily Kos (aka Vox) was always a blog, it has nothing to do with journalism.
I'm not sure why you talked about Daily Kos except for the fact that they're both left online news resources.
They're completely different outfits.
As for Vox, I've been reading it a decent amount and I'd consider them journalism. They're not investigative journalism, they don't send reporters digging through old court records to dig up scandals, but it's still journalism.
They mostly do analysis, interviews, and long-form essays. It definitely comes with a wonkish highly progressive centre-left viewpoint (ie, they're big Clinton fans), but it's a valuable resource for understanding the world.
There are slightly bloggy aspects as well, but I don't think that's a bad thing (as you imply). The weakness in traditional journalism is it gets myopic by focusing on what just happened and losing the larger context. Vox's objective seems to be tracking issues long term while adding context and analysis.
They're backing Hillary for two reasons.
First, they assume her lifetime spent as an political class insider means that she is highly competent, so even if she's making dumb policy, they assume it is great, but beyond their understanding.
She has a reputation in Washington as a policy wonk, and has strong academic and professional credentials prior to becoming a first lady.
That she's competent shouldn't be a partisan question.
I'll readily acknowledge that Ted Cruz is highly competent, though as a president I think he'd be almost as awful as Donald Trump.
Second, they're really uncomfortable around white men. Hillary is consistent in her rhetoric and governance, that she opposes white male participation in society.
So at this point I'm kinda assuming you're making deliberately bad arguments.
Putting stupid motivations in other people's minds really makes me feel secure in my intellectual superiority.
On the contrary I was sincerely trying to give Trump supporters non-stupid motivations.