Bipartisan Senate Report Calls For Sweeping Effort To Prevent Russian Interference in 2020 Election (washingtonpost.com) 330
A bipartisan panel of U.S. senators Tuesday called for sweeping action by Congress, the White House and Silicon Valley to ensure social media sites aren't used to interfere in the coming presidential election, delivering a sobering assessment about the weaknesses that Russian operatives exploited in the 2016 campaign. From a report: The Senate Intelligence Committee, a Republican-led panel that has been investigating foreign electoral interference for more than two and a half years, said in blunt language that Russians worked to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton while bolstering Republican Donald Trump -- and made clear that fresh rounds of interference are likely ahead of the 2020 vote. "Russia is waging an information warfare campaign against the U.S. that didn't start and didn't end with the 2016 election," said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee's chairman. "Their goal is broader: to sow societal discord and erode public confidence in the machinery of government. By flooding social media with false reports, conspiracy theories, and trolls, and by exploiting existing divisions, Russia is trying to breed distrust of our democratic institutions and our fellow Americans." Though the 85-page report itself had extensive redactions, in the visible sections lawmakers urged their peers in Congress to act, including through the potential adoption of new regulations that would make who bought an ad more transparent. The report also called on the White House and the executive branch to adopt a more forceful, public role, warning Americans about the ways in which dangerous misinformation can spread while creating new teams within the U.S. government to monitor for threats and share intelligence with industry.
Bipartisan, huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah I'm sure Trump is going to be all for this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it involves voter ID, he absolutely would. Most other countries have some form of voter ID, and we should too. The only reason to be against voter ID, is the intent to screw with the election process.
Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the problem with Voter ID, is that it screws with the election process by excluding people who are unable to get a drivers license, or in general unable to get past the bureaucracy needed to get it.
Like all things it is about implementation. If the Voter ID worked like the Census and made sure people who are able to vote get the ID with enough time to use it. But most proposed implementations of Voter ID is actually targeted to make it difficult for minority groups and people who are poor to obtain it, thus mess with the free election process by finding a way to exclude citizens from voting, or make it difficult enough to many to choose not to vote.
There hasn't been any reports of major voting problems where non-citizens are voting. As the current voter registration process (I have experience in NY State), at least has you go state your name and sign next to your name. If people were going and abusing the system, I expect you would see a lot of people complaining that someone already signed their name.
Voter ID is a good idea. However it needs to be thoughtfully and fairly implemented so all voters can use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Who is unable to get an ID? How are they able to function in modern society without an ID?
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing I can't do with a school ID is buy beer, but since my liver is failing that's less of a bug and more of a feature.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you also never rented a car (or much of anything else), never opened a bank account, never cashed a check, don't have any credit cards, never boarded an airplane...
An old college ID card is going to be one hell of a stretch (interestingly enough though, it does work as a form of ID for the I-9 form...)
Re: (Score:3)
Many people do not have bank accounts.
Perhaps you should take your failure to understand as an indicator of what you do not know.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect you to actually read this article:
But there is a third impact that has received less attention: the cost of obtaining an ID. Individuals bearing these costs are disproportionately likely to be either young or old or impoverished or both, since these are the people least likely to have a driver’s license that could satisfy the law. [theregreview.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wait - an ID card costs around $50 or so in a coastal state, and lasts for like 7-10 years, depending, with renewal costing far less. $50 is barely more than an average monthly bill for a cheap smartphone plan, and far less expensive than a new outfit. Pretty sure that unless you're homeless and jobless, it's not going to be that big and nasty of an imposition. Considering that you need one to get into a club/bar, buy certain adult products, get a bank account, a credit card, purchase a firearm, get a job..
Re: (Score:3)
The kicker is, many states subsidize ID cards if you are impoverished (many giving them to you for free!)
If they make it easy to get the card, and give it to you for free, and also give you copies of any documents you need to get it for free, then you can have Voter ID without unfair discrimination against the poor. Do any states do all of that?
Re: (Score:3)
The kicker is, many states subsidize ID cards if you are impoverished (many giving them to you for free!)
They subsidize the card. They do not subsidize the documentation required to get a card.
If I need a new certified copy of my birth certificate I have the option of showing up in-person for a free copy, or I have to pay $50 to get a copy through the mail. I live about 2500 miles from the county registrar's office, so "show up in person" isn't exactly a free option.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a regular Joe or Jane who drives a car, cashes checks, flies a few times an year, goes abroad, etc. none, because you already have an ID. I have a driver license, a US government issued contractor ID, a Green Card, a passport, etc. Obviously, I do not vote, but if I were a citizen, all but the Green Card would do.
If you have no ID, and have long ago lost your birth certificate (or never had it) if you do not have a car, and live in a place without regular public transportation... it may be bot
Re: (Score:2)
I bet it has to be a valid ID. If your license gets suspended you might have an ID but it wouldn't be valid. It is quite easy to get your license suspended in the US. I think in a lot of places unpaid parking tickets are enough. Poor voters would probably have this sort of problem more than rich ones. So I would think Democrats would be the ones most against it.
Re: Bipartisan, huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Who is unable to get an ID?
Those who shouldn't be able to vote??
Re: Bipartisan, huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
How backwards is it that "someone might lose their docs, so we shouldn't secure the ballot"
Not at all.
compared to "someone might lose their docs and have a hard time replacing them, so let's fix that, and maintain the integrity of our elections"
The fact is that voter ID is unnecessary to maintain the integrity of our elections [constitutioncenter.org]. You are presenting a false dichotomy.
Re: (Score:3)
I moved from Colorado to New York, and went to apply for a driver's license. I started with my valid Colorado license, and official copy of my birth certificate (from California), along with some of the proof-of-residency documentation the DMV web site said I needed.
It took me 9 attempts. Each time the clerk arbitrarily excluded a different set of documents. What was valid on attempt #5 was suddenly invalid on attempt #6.
Now, I happened to work for a place where "I'm gonna go spend the next 3 hours at th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a driver's license - a state ID card would work.
True
I mean, I guess you can live without that
True, many people do.
and have no way of getting a job (State issued ID required for an I-9)
Not true. The list of allowable ID documents for an I-9 is long, and includes things like student ID card, school record or report card, clinic, doctor or hospital record or day-care or nursery school record.
In addition, not all ways of making a living require filing an I-9, only formal jobs. Informal work and self-employment don't.
renting anything
"anything" is a bit too broad, but yeah, lots of people never rent anything.
buying alcohol
Not true. You don't need ID to buy alcohol unless you're young. Yes, man
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. The list of allowable ID documents for an I-9 is long, and includes things like student ID card, school record or report card, clinic, doctor or hospital record or day-care or nursery school record.
Ahhh, a lie by omission!. Those are only allowed with another, Government issued ID [uscis.gov] confirming who you are. As far as flying, TSA requires you to produce an ID or to provide enough information to confirm your identity [tsa.gov] before passing through security. Meaning you have a Government-issued ID somewhere in the system that the details can be validated.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. The list of allowable ID documents for an I-9 is long, and includes things like student ID card, school record or report card, clinic, doctor or hospital record or day-care or nursery school record.
Ahhh, a lie by omission!. Those are only allowed with another, Government issued ID [uscis.gov] confirming who you are.
That's not what your link says, OP's list are all list b documents that establish identity and it's stated in big red letters so it should be easy to spot if you'd consider reading it https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-cent... [uscis.gov] (and in the case of I-9 must be used in conjuction with any type c document establishing employment authorization).
Make voting mandatory (Score:3)
Re: Bipartisan, huh. (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but 'poll tests' [wikipedia.org] have been outlawed for decades, do your research
Re: (Score:3)
In practice, whoever writes the questions can win the election (or at least sway it heavily in their direction).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even the citizens who are downtrodden and indigent are citizens and as such have just as much of a right to vote as you or I.
The percentage of truely illegal votes, even in Chicago, is something like 1/10,000th of 1%. It statistically barely budges the needle - and that's in states with no ID laws. But, for some reason, one group would like to screw over another group that doesn't "whatever" like them - look, act, smell, behave.
Paper ballots - chads, fill in the dot, make an x, whatever.
Off-line ballot re
Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score:5, Informative)
The reason we don't have a Voter ID is because of all the stipulations (mainly) Republicans placed on having them. Here's the whole list of them...
https://www.aclu.org/other/opp... [aclu.org]
In a nutshell: "A recent study found that, since 2000, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – during a period of time in which over 1 billion ballots were cast."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you're saying people who are not legal citizens, who probably already have fake green cards, are going to risk getting caught just so they can vote illegally?
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Re: Bipartisan, huh. (Score:2)
So you're saying people who are not legal citizens, who probably already have fake green cards, are going to risk getting caught just so they can vote illegally?
Yeah.
Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score:5, Informative)
There is a huge amount of effort to find illegal aliens voting. If even ONE case were found, do you honestly expect us to believe that Republicans would ever cease crowing about it? We're not that ignorant.
If you have evidence for any of the claims you make, why are you not contacting Fox News RIGHT NOW so they can tell the world? You have nothing except for a wild imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
It happens all the time. Here's just one single case that led to 19 arrests: https://www.ice.gov/news/relea... [ice.gov]
1. Once is the opposite of "all the time".
2. Any convictions?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're thinking of the alt right. Almost all terrorist actions on US soil have been from far right nutjobs, not anyone on the left. But then again, psychological projection is also a hallmark of the sociopathic right wing.
Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.texasattorneygener... [texasattorneygeneral.gov]
Actually, Texas backed off of that relatively quickly. Seems all of those 95,000 people were actually citizens. There was some problems with voter registration, at least some of them were not American Citizens when they registered, but were expected to be naturalized before the next election. This is legal, just as it is legal for a 17 year old to register to vote before they are 18, if they will be 18 before the next election. If you had bothered to look at the followup stories, you would know this.
Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of effort was put into it. One of the first things Trump did in early 2017 was to start an investigation into "all the illegals voting" in Democratic states. You never heard the outcome of that investigation? I wonder why.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how, even with the Republicans looking for vot3r fraud with a fine toothed comb, they have not been able to find much at all. And Identity Theft style fraud is the least common of all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because you don't want the people who are suffering the most from an abusive government to vote for an alternative change.
Re:I AM A RUSSIAN. (Score:5)
To be honest, it seems to me that the Russians aren't the problem, but rather the American mind(less)set that's the problem. How easily they believe what they want to be true...
Re: (Score:2)
Those were the days that still denied women the right to vote even when they did own land.
Re: (Score:3)
First, you need to provide evidence for your claims.
Second, you need to provide an argument as to why your remedy (women should not be making social policy) is a workable solution, why it is the right workable solution, and how it won't cause more problems than it solves.
I don't think your argument holds weight but you haven't provided enough substance to respond to.
Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score:4, Funny)
Moscow Mitch already said we are secure enough!
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not a party.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trump is not a party.
I hate to tell you this, but Trump IS the party, and the party, for all intents and purposes, IS Trump. It's become a cult of personality.
What brakes or moderating influences have the GOP or the Republicans put on Trump? Zero, zilch, nada, nothing.
They slavishly support everything he does, although a couple of them may go "tut tut" occasionally. Aside from that, show me anything they've done to actually oppose any of his policies or a time they've prevented him from doing anything.
Put kids in cages? Sure, n
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not a party.
When the republicans in congress stop lining up to suck Trump's cock, maybe we'll buy that shit. Not now.
Why are they doing this? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the president, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a foreign agent doing something that might help one particular candidate succeed in the next election.
So it seems that unless and until the current president faces some sort of consequence for openly asking for such from the Ukraine, it seems pretty pointless to be doing anything else about it, because the president has basically explicitly sanctioned it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because China is getting into the game. And they are going to want to push for someone other than Trump.
When there is a problem what goes unopposed without repercussions even if it benefits you, chances are the other side will use those underhanded tactics against you too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to the president, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a foreign agent doing something that might help one particular candidate succeed in the next election.
So it seems that unless and until the current president faces some sort of consequence for openly asking for such from the Ukraine, it seems pretty pointless to be doing anything else about it, because the president has basically explicitly sanctioned it.
If you want to make this argument, beware of unintended consequences. There is a whole raft of democrats who did what you are claiming Trump did, only we have PROOF of it. It's been in the news, covered by reporters and even involved Ukraine. Your effort to bring down Trump *will* bring multiple democrats along for the ride, Schiff chief among them if you press this too far.
Read the transcript of the call in question. I dare you. Show me where Trump is doing what you think he did. https://www.politico. [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are numerous documents at this time that show or corroborate what he said, and in fact he even publicly admitted to doing it on national television.
The point is that Trump doesn't see anything wrong with asking a foreign entity to do something that could help him win the election when it conveniently happens to be something that otherwise would be perfectly legal. However well intentioned, that he is asking for assistance in an investigation into corruption of the Bidens is irrelevant. It is stil
Re: (Score:3)
Admitted to doing what exactly? What are you alleging here? Using foreign sources of information as opposition research?
READ the transcript. What you are thinking is there, isn't. Trump has not admitted to doing what you claim in any appearance I've seen. He HAS claimed to be doing his job, in perusing criminal investigations in honor of international law and a specific treaty with Ukraine and looking into the 2016 election interference and past corrupt behavior within Ukraine. Nothing at all wrong or i
Re: (Score:3)
So, this "investigate a political opponent" was wrong for Trump, even though law enforcement is literally part of his constitutional job description, but OK for Clinton and the DNC to go to the same places and PAY corrupt government officials for such information?
I ask you, can members of Congress do this then? Can they say go to Ukraine and try to get dirt on their political opponents? Does Congress have any limits here or do these limits only apply the the President?
Again, the problem here is standards
Re: Why are they doing this? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they swing votes. Don't be a child.
They created and commandeered entire fake US Facebook groups, pretending to be black activists, US military veterans, and god-fearing midwesterners. They infiltrated existed groups, made "friends", and aggressively astroturfed online forums, probably Slashdot included.
When a person's community appears to support something, the person is vastly more likely to support it. Russian trolls effectively simulated community support for Trump on the right, hatred of Hillary on the left, and mistrust of the voting process among black Americans. They created fake news websites to for their fake citizens to cite during the arguments they instigated.
They created real-world activism events that people actually attended in the US.
They promoted, and may even have created the Seth Rich conspiracy - a farce that ran for months on Fox News. Fox News spent months accusing Hillary Clinton and the DNC of murder. Months, laundering Russian disinformation to the American plublic. You don't think that matters?
Here's a Wikipedia article about it, since you're too lazy to google one of the most important events of the 21st century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No one voted for Trump because of "Seth Rich". Normal people don't even follow that nonsense.
Re: Why are they doing this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they swing votes. Don't be a child.
They created and commandeered entire fake US Facebook groups, pretending to be black activists, US military veterans, and god-fearing midwesterners. They infiltrated existed groups, made "friends", and aggressively astroturfed online forums, probably Slashdot included.
When a person's community appears to support something, the person is vastly more likely to support it. Russian trolls effectively simulated community support for Trump on the right, hatred of Hillary on the left, and mistrust of the voting process among black Americans. They created fake news websites to for their fake citizens to cite during the arguments they instigated.
They created real-world activism events that people actually attended in the US.
They promoted, and may even have created the Seth Rich conspiracy - a farce that ran for months on Fox News. Fox News spent months accusing Hillary Clinton and the DNC of murder. Months, laundering Russian disinformation to the American plublic. You don't think that matters?
Here's a Wikipedia article about it, since you're too lazy to google one of the most important events of the 21st century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And? You do realize that Americans can, and do, post whatever crap they want on Facebook, right? You do realize that Americans - including left wing Americans - create and promote nutty conspiracy theories, right?
If people are making political decisions based on Facebook, that's the problem. But it's not one that a non-totalitarian government can solve.
The first step is to Ban Trump. (Score:2, Insightful)
He's the source of most of the misinformation these days.
He latches onto whatever conspiracy theory that seems to point to him not being guilty of treason.
Acting to aid Russia is Treason, if you're having problems following that.
This latest BackStab of our allies against ISIS is the most recent obvious; no one benefits from this but America's Enemies.
Asking for dirt on Biden from foreign countries is just the topping on the Treason Cake.
This will get worse before it gets better; wait until he starts telling
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary must be the nominee for 2020 now that we know 2016 was stolen from her! Right?
Good God no! Hillary would be as divisive as Trump!
We really just need a non-controversial, non-ego based President to let us heal. Someone who doesn't see themselves as above the law. Hillary won't do.
Re: (Score:2)
We really just need a non-controversial, non-ego based President to let us heal.
A president who doesn't do anything won't help us heal.
You can't be non-controversial while addressing important issues like health care or climate change.
What we actually need is a president who cares more about solving problems than getting re-elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you donny? (Score:2)
I like that you had to post that as AC; not enough balls to speak openly. :)
And yet, Republicans defend obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the Senate, controlled by Republicans, agrees with this report that Russia is still interfering in our elections, why would they be so dismissive of an investigation into why our so-called president was asking Russia to commit espionage against a U.S. citizen, or why he was so hellbent on obstructing other aspects of the investigation?
Shouldn't they have been curious why this was so and why there was obstruction? Shouldn't the facts, as they like to say, be known and based on those facts a determination made? Why have Republicans been determined to prevent any attempt at examining the crimes committed?
Further, if they agree Russia is still interfering, why have they refused, until recently, to even contemplate strengthening security of our voting machines through such simple acts as having a verifiable paper trail?
Too many questions, not enough answers. One has to wonder whose side Republicans are on if they keep defending crimes they way they have been.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the "interference" mentioned has anything at all to do with actual voting or the machines. I do support all measures to tighten that up via cleaning up the voter rolls, ID, etc. You?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the Senate, controlled by Republicans, agrees with this report that Russia is still interfering in our elections, why would they be so dismissive of an investigation into why our so-called president was asking Russia to commit espionage against a U.S. citizen, or why he was so hellbent on obstructing other aspects of the investigation?
Because... politics.
Anything that Democrats try to do is automatically bad according to Republicans.
Anything that Republicans try to do is automatically bad according to Democrats.
I hate the party system where candidates express loyalty to their party rather than their country, or following their own conscience. Washington was against political parties- and he was right!
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, I was raised Republican and have only crossed the isle due to GOP malfeasance
Re: (Score:2)
By admitting there's a problem they're giving legitimacy to their panel. And by doing so they can slowly twist the narrative to fit whatever they want.
It's called Theater. (Score:5, Informative)
Look like you're doing something, while continuing to Obfusticate, Deny, Deflect, Gaslight, and provide Whataboutism.
If it weren't theater, someone would notice that Trump's kids are doing everything they are accusing Biden's son of, in a much shadier manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the Senate, controlled by Republicans, agrees with this report that Russia is still interfering in our elections, why would they be so dismissive of an investigation into why our so-called president was asking Russia to commit espionage against a U.S. citizen, or why he was so hellbent on obstructing other aspects of the investigation?
They know Trump is working for Putin, and what traitors they will look like when that comes out.
Re: (Score:2)
The so-called Republicans remember what happened after Nixon went down and they are terrified. Trump may go down much harder. If Nixon exploded, Trump may have the potential to completely implode. Create a black hole and suck the GOP down with him?
If Trump has nothing to hide, then what's with hiding his tax returns and most recently with the discovery that he's been hiding "diplomatic discussions" on the codeword server? Actually, in terms of hiding stuff, it's just et cetera, et cetera.
Re: (Score:2)
If the criminal Reagan was never prosecuted, despite all the laws he broke, I can't see Trump ever seeing the inside of a court.
Re:And yet, Republicans defend obstruction of just (Score:4, Insightful)
And worse, people believe in the Big Lies [wikipedia.org] they spew with the MSM as the party mouth-piece.
Oh for the good old days of Slashdot where "citation needed" actually meant something.
Re: (Score:3)
I could cite the entire MSM, but then I'd need to spool up a server to host an index of it all.
Slick way to avoid having to provide evidence; claim that it's too extensive to provide.
Trump should probably try this one with Congress: "Sorry, I can't respond to your subpoena for information that implicates me in criminal actions because there aren't enough trucks in the DC metro area to haul it up the street."
How dare they! (Score:2)
"Russia is trying to breed distrust of our democratic institutions and our fellow Americans"
That's the Republicans and Democrats job! Damn Russians, stealing hard(ly) working American jobs!
Expect stupid (Score:2)
Seems damn simple to me. People just need to be less stupid. Our parties have enjoyed being able to sway large subsets of stupid people for decades. Now the problem seems to be that somebody else did a better job.
So-And-So advocates compulsory sterilization of white people. -Random fb post
So-And-So advocates compulsory sterilization of white people. -I'm candidate sleazebag, and I approve this message.
Pretty specific and simple fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. When has lying or misleading to the public in order to win elections been illegal?
another show of how useless the senate is (Score:2)
They should come up with a law or other amazing sweeping reform that makes it a crime for individual citizens to be stupid. If I tried my hardest to convince you that the sky was green and you end up believing that the sky was green then the problem is with you. Sure I am a real sleaze for lying, but at the heart of the matter is that the sky is blue.
Re: (Score:2)
If I tried my hardest to convince you that the sky was green and you end up believing that the sky was green then the problem is with you. Sure I am a real sleaze for lying, but at the heart of the matter is that the sky is blue.
I'm colour blind you insensitive clod!
Good thing slashdot isn't bigger! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I am a Russian troll. Are you telling me I have been wasting my time posting here? Comrade!
A teardrop in the ocean. (Score:2)
Given the discord and divisiveness the Left and Right wings of the Republicratic Party has sown, I'm not particularly worried about whatever minor effect the Russians may create.
Whichever side wins, the average American citizen loses, as usual.
Slashdot should be happy (Score:2)
to ensure social media sites aren't used to interfere in the coming presidential election,
Surely this means social media sites will be shut down!
. . . . . .sadly the truth is disappointing.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
They did all three - sow chaos, damage Clinton, and bolster Trump.
Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures: Part Two
https://www.lawfareblog.com/se... [lawfareblog.com]
"1. (U) The committee found that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donal Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that was done which harmed Hillary Clinton was to reveal true politically damaging information. Sorry but that isn't part of what we should be upset with Russia for or anything we should deter at all. Revealing the truth is something I welcome no matter the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Revealing the truth is something I welcome no matter the source.
The truth about Trump is a lot worse than the truth about Clinton. The Russians know the truth about Trump because they're in bed with him — partly literally, but mostly in terms of them being his only remaining lenders now that even douche bank won't help him any more, and they effectively own him. But they only shared the truth about Clinton. That's deliberate and obvious manipulation.
Re: (Score:2)
"The truth about Trump is a lot worse than the truth about Clinton."
I don't see how. Any truth about Trump prior to the election would have been something about Trump. The truth about Clinton was major corruption within one of the two major parties that represent our democracy. Clinton could be a child molester and serial killer and it objectively would be far less of a big deal.
"The Russians know the truth about Trump because they're in bed with him — partly literally, but mostly in terms of them bei
Re: No (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?
No, but they do throw your ass in prison for attempted murder or attempted robbery.
See the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK, they didn't have to. There have been multiple reports and articles which detail the kind of interference the Russians engaged in. They primarily trolled conservatives with liberal messaging intended to galvanize their asses straight to the polls.
Re: (Score:2)
They trolled both sides not just conservatives. The only thing specifically damaging to Hillary were dumps of true information that ultimately revealed the DNC scandal and private mail server. Who do you think has been galvanizing liberals over immigration and identify politics issues? Russia doesn't care about Hillary OR Trump they care about weakening the United States. Just keep pushing everyones buttons and triggers until we destroy each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia doesn't care about Hillary OR Trump they care about weakening the United States.
Trump has done nothing to harm Russia, he's placed some meaningless tariffs and that's it. But Clinton would have done things which would have harmed Russia. So no, you are wrong here in every way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
$400m in arms to Ukraine doesn't harm Russia?
"But Clinton would have done things which would have harmed Russia."
If they weren't the highest bidder then sure but Clinton would have aided China which is a much bigger issue. If anything we need an alliance with Russia to deal with the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea that people were somehow "galvanized" by the Russians to vote for Trump is idiotic.
Trump voters are idiots, so story checks out
Re: (Score:2)
0. Working to Trump's advantage would be entirely well described as fostering instability; upending the prevailing paradigm as it wer.
1. It's increasingly difficult to discern comedy from parody from reality on this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
"1. It's increasingly difficult to discern comedy from parody from reality on this topic."
That's because the Russians were and continue to be successful.
In a world where someone responding to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is engaged in a debate about how wrong they are and a series of changing messages about what it really means rather than an embrace, agreement, and merger into a unified front they definitely succeeded. It's sad, two groups of protesters here in DFW did just that and literal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is really sad to see how many of them are supporting that old DNC guard in the form of Biden and failing to recognize that Bernie is the one had all the ideas that make basis for the platform across the board. Why would you support someone who borrowed his bandwagon to run against him? At least Warren supported his ideas BEFORE his last run. But she didn't support him during his last run due to identity politics and got caught up in "me too" which is alarming. "Triggering" isn't exactly a Presidential tr
Re: No (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Lying was never illegal before.
Who told you that? Deliberately lying for manipulation and/or gain is called fraud, and it has "always" been illegal (as in, it's a basic tenet of the common law.) Common-law fraud [journalofaccountancy.com] requires "a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victim's reliance on the statement[,] and damages." The standard is actually more complicated in the USA [mitchell-attorneys.com], but it does boil down to essentially the same thing.
TL;DR: Bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. It is not criminal at all. What you are referring to in your links is something completely different. I can post lies all I want on the Internet. Are you telling me that if I tell you that you are smart I can be arrested? It sounds to me that the two ruling parties want to reign in free speech on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. It is not criminal at all. What you are referring to in your links is something completely different.
On what basis?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. While the Russian interference is certainly a problem, I can't imagine a scenario where the government could stop it without creating a system that is *extremely* tempting to abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is this is the master plan and that is why there is some bipartisan support.
Re: (Score:2)
obvious troll is obvious
Re: (Score:3)
You mean Faux News, the GOP Ministry of Truth?