Klobuchar, Microsoft's Smith Warn of Election Interference (axios.com) 186
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Microsoft President Brad Smith warned of ongoing election interference through technology on Thursday at an Axios virtual event on the Future of Employability. From a report: "It was four years ago at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia that our eyes were first opened to nation-state cyberattacks on candidates and campaigns ... Here we are again four years later ... We have stronger defenses ... but the threats are becoming more sophisticated," Smith said. "We are seeing attacks that are more likely to succeed than they were four years ago precisely because they are more numerous and more sophisticated," he added.
"I think we need to be doing more not only to protect candidates and campaigns and journalists and think tanks, but where I think we really need to focus our energy is continuing to fight misinformation and securing our voting systems," Smith urged. Klobuchar, who earlier in the year sought the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, said: "Last election was a dress rehearsal for what [Russia is] going to try now. There's every reason to believe they're going to do it again."
"I think we need to be doing more not only to protect candidates and campaigns and journalists and think tanks, but where I think we really need to focus our energy is continuing to fight misinformation and securing our voting systems," Smith urged. Klobuchar, who earlier in the year sought the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, said: "Last election was a dress rehearsal for what [Russia is] going to try now. There's every reason to believe they're going to do it again."
The enemy within (Score:2)
Bar none, the biggest sources of election interference are the MSM and Big Tech (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Those sources only put out what is being fed into them.
Who is putting the data into them that results in the interference?
Re: (Score:2)
Those sources only put out what is being fed into them.
Who is putting the data into them that results in the interference?
According to the scandalous leaks in 2016, mainly the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. B-)
Amazingly enough, you STILL don't hear much about that on the mainstream media. (I wonder why?)
Re: (Score:2)
you STILL don't hear much about that on the mainstream media. (I wonder why?)
Why would they publish new-fascist bullshit like that?
That's what Breitbart is for!
Re: The enemy within (Score:2)
Thats not true. Look at the George Zimmerman case. NBC literally altered to 911 tape to make it sound like he was calling martin a Coon. CNN even altered it further. It was chilly as shit that night and you can look at the video footage to see what he was wearing. Of course he complained it was cold, as the evidence later revealed. CNN never issued a retraction even though NBC did. NBC Admitted later to doctoring it. Zimmerman was a hispanic person. But the MSM was So goddamn determined to start a race war
Re: (Score:2)
This is the way the Democrats work, do something illegal, stupid and corrupt but then lie about it and keep lying and lying pretending you are right and just saying how stupid the other guy is. People still claim Hillary is innocent dispute bleach bit, hammers on hard drives and 30k emails which were subpoenaed being deleted. They were all about yoga etc of course. We k
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence of actual collusion, but there's certainly evidence of outside interference, and even no small amount of evidence that Trump welcomed it. Evidence alone does not mean actual guilt, of course... but the evidence is there, it is up to a court to determine innocence or guilt.
But this issue was not allowed to be brought before a court because the current supporting administration is under the impression that the president can be above the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I said exactly that, there was no evidence of collusion.
But there *is* evidence Russia interfered, and even evidence that Trump welcomed their interference. That doesn't mean he necessarily colluded with them, but it sure as hell doesn't mean he wasn't doing something wrong by indicating a desire for their interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump colluded with Russian's
At least you said something that is true, even if you don't know how to use an apostophe.
Russia is a minor player in election intereference (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You think that a citation from a highly partisan site constitutes some kind of support for your claim? Crawl back into your bubble and stay there, please.
Even if it were true, it's not "interference", it's the 1st Amendment in use.
Russia is no minor player in election intereferenc (Score:3)
The 1st Amendment applies to everyone, not just citizens. If its not interference for "the media", its not interference for Russia either.
The Russians broke into Democratic National Committee computers [techcrunch.com] .
Breaking into computers and stealing files is not protected by the first amendment.
In all the hubub about the election, people seem to forget that fact. No, the Russians didn't just buy facebook ads and circulate absurd rumors about Hillary. They broke into computers.
See:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26... [cnn.com]
https://themoscowproject.org/b... [themoscowproject.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I wish that every year someone would hack into both the RNC and DNC computers and dump all the info for the public. The shady dealings of political organizations should be exposed for all to see.
Often times, when I hear someone ranting about the DNC hack and Russian interference I say "I heard a rumor that the RNC was hacked and the info is expected on Wikileaks any day." The glee on the faces of the people who were just ranting is pretty telling.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I wish that every year someone would hack into both the RNC and DNC computers and
And that is specifically what the Russians did not do.
Wish what you want, but when people say "the Russians didn't do anything illegal!", they are wrong.
Yes, that's illegal.
Re: Russia is no minor player in election interefe (Score:2)
Can we at least discuss what was found? Interference aside, what they found was pretty damning. And if you want to call falling for a fishing scam that happened to use the same pw as their dnc server, breaking in, well fuck, did they deserve to even compete at a national level? Fishing. FFS thats lame.
Re: Russia is no minor player in election interef (Score:2)
Good luck finding an unbiased law enforcement investigator. Comey was a shithead. He imagined himself another J Edgar Hoover, amassing blackmail and influence. Within the FBI you had some agents even referring to themselves as a shadow organization. But then comey got duped.. you know who Fusion GPS is and what they do? Opposition research is a fancy title for hacking, and actual physical breaking and entering to steal files. So Killary hires a law firm to hire Fusion GPS to engage a former british intellig
um... corrections are in order: (Score:2)
There is no actual evidence that the DNC was hacked by the Russians. It has long been acknowledged by many of the people involved UNDER OATH (as opposed to while speaking in interviews on CNN) that the FBI never even saw the DNC servers [thehill.com] and certainly did not directly investigate. Indeed, during Roger Stone's trial his lawyers demanded access to that evidence of Russian Hacking, which they insisted had not happened as part of their legal defense theory, and the FBI responded to the courts with a statement th
Re: (Score:2)
There is no actual evidence that the DNC was hacked by the Russians.
Oh, bullshit.
Go back to Moscow, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1st Amendment applies to everyone, not just citizens. If its not interference for "the media", its not interference for Russia either.
Today I learned the 1st amendment protects email hacking.
Re: Russia is a minor player in election interefer (Score:2)
Apparently expression is the same thing as speech. Burning a flag, hell why not indecent exposure? Its an expression. Next jerking off on the whitehouse lawn will be ruled a 1A issue by Ginsberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it'll be protected by armed grade school students!
Re: Russia is a minor player in election interefer (Score:2)
I dont think you understand what an amendment is. The constitution does not grant you rights. You have those rights regardless. The amendments prohibit the government from trampling your pre-existing rights. So many people these days think its a permission slip. Rights are not granted. They have always existed. These rules prevent the government from infringing on them. It is amazing how out indoctrinated educators failed to teach our young this important lesson.
Re: Russia is a minor player in election interefe (Score:2)
Read all the federalists papers drafted by Madison and Hamilton. SCOTUS uses these repeatedly when determining intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'proof' your link offers about the media is that it shows '150x more negative news about Trump'. It's a good thing all this anti-Trump media didn't start until June 1st of this year when the study began, otherwise they would have interfered Trump right out of the 2016 election!!
Re: Russia is a minor player in election interefer (Score:2)
Actually the media thought he was a easy to beat candidate. Fist the media wanted yet another goddamn clinton bush election. The colluded with hillary to limit debates and get her nominated. Read the book by the former DNC chair that outed the HRC campaign takover of the DNC during the primaries. Moderators were even caught leaking questions to hillary. And the fake hearing aid? So someone could whisper answers? Fucking please!! Then Jeb Floundered like.a wet fish. So they gave Trump FREE PRESS. Talked abo
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. So the media is big, mean, conniving, and powerful. They can bend elections to their whim in ways that Russia and China can only dream of! But they were defeated in the last election by some vaguely-defined sitcom-level incompetence, it's just a miracle that Trump's campaign survived it!
On that note, now that the mask-debate is largely over, aren't we about due for right-wing media to announce another round of enemies arriving in November to destroy America? What will it be? Plague-infested carava
Google, Facebook & Twitter are all US Companie (Score:2)
Re: Google, Facebook & Twitter are all US Comp (Score:2)
Technically so is a corp who dodges billions in US taxes by incorporating overseas. Sounds pretty foreign. Maybe we should put limitations on corporations have have a incorporated in any other country and ban them from any sort of political anything.
Pompous asses (Score:3)
Most Americans can't even be bothered with the pompous presidential circus, so why would anyone else in the world be sufficiently interested to bother with it?
Sure.... (Score:3)
I think we need to be doing more not only to protect candidates and campaigns and journalists and think tanks
Yes its awful when the public learns what these people really believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Now imagine what would happen if the people actually realized why these things exist.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, Climategate 2.0: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Need to get poliyical shit ... (Score:2)
... out of social media or educate Americans that social media is an entertainment platfor,; not to be taken seriously.
The sheer hypocrisy of it all. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh FFS. There is no "foreign election interference". Listening to the media, you'd think a bunch of Russian spies were hacking voting machines or carting off ballots. "Election Interference" = some foreigners made some chat bots and sockpuppet accounts on social media and said "You should vote for X!". Russian interests bought Facebook ads. Oh God!
So what? That's not interference. That's attempting to exert an influence. As if every power in history hasn't tried to exert influence on the politics of its fr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh FFS. There is no "foreign election interference". Listening to the media, you'd think a bunch of Russian spies were hacking voting machines or carting off ballots.
Let's take a look...
The Intelligence Committee provided new details about conversations between the two men in 2016, including calls in late September and early October as chatter intensified about Russiaâ(TM)s operations and WikiLeaksâ(TM) plans. Ultimately, the site released hacked Democratic emails on Oct. 7, 2016, about an hour after the presidential race was upended by The Washington Postâ(TM)s publication of archived âoeAccess Hollywoodâ footage of Mr. Trump boasting about assaulting women.
Well I'm convinced! Quick everyone, let's go after the real threat to our election: college students getting fliers distributed by different foreign meanies!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the difference between "partisan interference", where a foreign state endorses or discourages a candidate publicly, or "process interference", where clandestine support or disapproval is used on the _process_ of the election. Creating botnets of trolls is process interference. The US usually engages in "partisan interference", as when the US has historically supported puppet governments like Manuel Noriega of Panama, the Shah of Iran, Fulgencio of Cuba, and at some points Sadam Hussein of Iraq. The
Re: (Score:2)
There's not much information online about "process interference". Do you have a good link that describes it?
Re: (Score:2)
The wikipedia article sums it up well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Source disclosure (Score:2)
I believe our laws require foreign institutions to disclose the source of ads. If the Russian gov't buys ads under the guise of Maryjane Sixpack, they are violating our laws.
Thus, yes they can legally buy ads, but they cannot lie about or hide the source.
Election Interference is VERY real and not new. (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact a recent documentary really digs into it. [bitchute.com] In fact, the journalists that created it got arrested as the documentary was first being seeded.
Don't just listen to the current cycle finger pointing, watch this and see how the sausage is made.
Re: (Score:3)
Your link goes to a QAnon conspiracy video. USA Today fact checked it:
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you linking to conspiracy sites like USAToday? Don't you know they qualify as mainstream media and are automatically full of propaganda. There current headlines on the main page look like bullet points from a DNC newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the first thing that came up when I googled "shadowgate", after some stuff about the old 90s video game.
huh (Score:2)
That 1. career bureaucrats are incompetent at securing systems is a separate issue from 2. why Democrats lost the last presidential election.
A whole industry has been built upon conflating the two.
Russia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wasn't the Russia thing proven wrong?
No; it was proven right.
There is no question that Russia interfered in the election. Read the Mueller report.
There is some remaining question about how much Trump campaign operatives assisted.
Russia seems to have played both sides. (Score:2)
The Mueller report found no collusion at all with Trump but nobody is motivated to give Russia a pass so they kept claiming that Russia is interfering. Barr will also claim that. It's all bullshit.
IMHO Russia's game was to play BOTH sides, amplifying every polarizing meme they found and seeding a few of their own, in a grand game of "Let's you and him fight!".\
They were trying to disrupt the US and get a war going between the major factions on the left and those on the right.
Worked like a charm, didn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all internal strife is secretly manipulated by Putin in his 5 dimensional chess. It's the kind of theory which can never be proven wrong.
The actual chain of events, origin of Steele dossier, framing of Flynn and Carter Page, is now documented. It counts as proof. It's being discussed in this recent interview with Matt Taibbi: https://original.antiwar.com/s... [antiwar.com] . There are a few holes but they get filled in by other people.
The real motivation was let's get Trump and the Russians at the same time. And co
So is Trump (Score:2)
POTUS is also warning of election interference - but with mail in voting. So apparently, trumpeting warnings of election interference is now a bipartisan game of fear-mongering.
You know the drill - vote for your favorite candidate, and if they don't win, claim it was election interference, and question the validity of the outcome.
A totally innocent news item (Score:2)
In other news there is this tiny item I saw on Reuters today:
https://uk.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
crybaby (Score:3)
So the USA is worried about foreign interference in their politics and elections.
The same country that is openly... ...backing an illegitimate counter-president in Venezuela (no matter what you think of Guaido, the mandate he constructed for himself under the emergency rules has long since run out and there's no legal grounds according to which he's president) ...declaring that it would like to see various foreign governments overthrown (Iran, et al) ...participating in the overthrow of various democratically elected governments and their replacement with dictators (South America) ...involved in countless interferences such as the Arab Spring. ...economic warfare with the stated purpose of overthrowing governments or destabilizing them or their local presence (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc.) ...backing US-friendly candidates in allied nations (e.g. Germany)
Few nations so deeply interfere with the politics and elections of other countries as the USA. So stop crying.
Re: (Score:2)
As a US citizen, I prioritize the defense of the US. Fairly often, I really don't like US foreign policy, and you've highlighted stuff I really really don't like, but that's second.
So, while foreign policy is very often hypocritical (and that applies to other countries as well), I do want to stop foreign interference in US affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the sentiment.
I'm just saying that if you regularily prank other people, don't expect much sympathy when you're complaining about being pranked.
What a distraction. (Score:2)
We're all supposed to get worked-up about the Russians spending tens of thousands of dollars on Facebook ads in 2016... and completely forget that Google has a far higher impact on elections simply by deciding what we all see in response to any search - and Google was co-founded by Mr Brinn who was born in Moscow. The company also employs countless foreign citizens, as does Microsoft who controls another big search engine, Bing.
I'm not xenophobic about all this stuff, but I want some intellectual consistenc
Re:Microsoft Interference? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a pretty ridiculous assumption seeing how the GOP led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence already identified Russia as the culprit last election, and trump and associates as the colluders
Are you just trying to confuse people?
Re:Microsoft Interference? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think the current President who made a campaign slogan of "Lock Her Up" who during the first 2 years of office had control of all branches of the federal government, as well currently having control of the Justice Department, and the FBI. Would be able to legally expose Clinton for all these seemingly illegal activities.
However she is still not in jail. But a lot of Trumps campaign guys are. A huge team of motivated and powerful individuals just seem to not get enough evidence to lock her up. Perhaps you are being fed misinformation or at least out of context information, in order to try to convince you that Democrats are this set of EVIL People. Where they are just a group of people with a different vision on how America should go.
I mean discussing the topics and problems at hand, is boring and dry. But to say the other guy is actively trying to stop the think you like. Well that is easy and gets your attention.
Congratulations you have been brainwashed! You are now part of the problem and not the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
You are convincing no one of nothing. We all know USA politics is corrupt as can be, no matter the high level corruption exposed, no prosecution takes place. Pick the worst Trump or Clinton, good luck with that. Biden is a joke candidate, clearly the corporate DNC did not care who one the election as long as Sanders and Gabbard were excluded, pretty bloody obvious that, senile old fool will now drag the corporate DNC down with him.
Now how to make it hard to cheat elections. Ballot papers and pencil, with a
Re:Microsoft Interference? (Score:5, Informative)
This [documentcloud.org] is a link to the official report. It is 952 pages long, but if you go to page 948, you will find the following:
(U) It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the
Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process and
Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of
the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era.
That's surprisingly direct. What they failed to do, is charge him with a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the
Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process and
Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity
That is a conclusion, said there were "facts". I've read the report, I haven't seen any facts that weren't contradicted by Mueller's 2+ year investigation / report.
Yes, I've read both.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I've read both.
No you haven't. You might have read some of the Mueller report, but the first section about colluding with Russia was heavily redacted. The sections about Trump in particular. We only have Muller's reasoning for Trump Jr. and co., not for Trump himself. Everyone has just been assuming that the reasoning is the same, that Mueller's team didn't want to prosecute because they didn't feel that they could prove that Trump knew what he was doing was illegal, but you are not one of the few people who have read the
Senate Report [Re:Microsoft Interference?] (Score:5, Informative)
That is a pretty ridiculous assumption seeing how the GOP led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence already identified Russia as the culprit last election, and trump and associates as the colluders
Really? You wanna go there? You never mentioned Hillary paying for FSB fake Dossier from a Foriegn spy to rig an investigation and and and
This is what's called a "tu quoque" [thoughtco.com] argument, otherwise known as "whataboutism". [merriam-webster.com] Saying "but but but... whatabout something else!" in reply to an accusation does not in any way clear up the original accusation. it's just avoiding the question. Yes, as you don't deny, the (GOP led) senate investigation committee just confirmed that Russia did try to meddle in the election, and that GOP operatives which the listed by name did try to work with them.
But, since you ask, OK, I'll go there. "Hillary" did not "pay for FSB fake dossier." In fact, a Republican think tank, one of the "never Trump" movement (remember them? There used to be Republicans opposed to Trump) paid for opposition research against a primary candidate they didn't like. When the never-Trump movement lost to Trump the Republican presidential candidate, the Democratic campaign bought the report from the same corporation (which, by the way, was a US corporation.). Of the many pieces of opposition research, one piece was the Steele dossier, which was put together by a foreign (British) operative.Turns out that they mostly decided it wasn't credible.
The FBI also used that dossier as one but not the only reason that they needed to investigate. You know what? It's their job to investigate shit like that. Yes, sometimes tips phoned in to the cops are fake. They investigate anyway. And... they found out that the Russians were breaking into computers to try to influence the election.
That was all in the news. You should have paid attention to it.
...Lastly I want the link to the official report that you claim exists that states Trump Colluded with Russia.
The one being referred to by the original poster was the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on 2016 Russian interference, Volume 5. [cbsnews.com] You can find it here [senate.gov].
It reports that members of the Trump campaign attempted to collude with Russia. My assumption is that Donald Trump personally didn't.
He did, however, personally solicit the Russians to hack into Democratic computers [usatoday.com], which is illegal. But he said he was joking, so some people say it's ok. (He does that a lot: say something in all seriousness, and then when he gets bad press for what he said, claims he was joking.)
Re: (Score:2)
Only a loser millennial uses the word whataboutism. T
Really? I thought it was more of a geezer word.
Re: (Score:2)
That one's called "ad hominem [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]": you don't have a response to the substance of the argument, so instead you just insult the person who made it.
The grandparent post hardly looks like "bitching" to me. Are you arguing that XXongo shouldn't h
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone calling each other Ivan.
Everyone complaining about interference from the other side.
Everyone saying they can't vote when they can.
Everyone calling news they don't like fake news.
Facts checkers that bend over backwards to come to the preferred conclusions.
What a fucking Shit Show.
Benjamin Franklin would call all of you fucking assholes and just tell you the Republic is lost.
Re: (Score:2)
fraud by mail in voting is 1000x worse.
Good thing that there isn't any!
Re:Why just Russia? (Score:5, Interesting)
You've obviously forgotten Trump also has a pretty good record for appeasing the Chinese. In fact, it's pretty hard to find a dictator anywhere on the planet Trump hasn't fawned over.
Re:Why just Russia? (Score:5, Informative)
"Tell Vladimir that I'll have a lot more flexibility after the election"
Re: Why just Russia? (Score:3)
Re:Why just Russia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Buttering up dictators personally is different than policies that hurt them. Can you name policies that benefit Xi or Putin? All I see is economic sanctions and troop movements closer to their borders. Hardly fawning.
Re:Why just Russia? (Score:5, Informative)
So all you see is economic sanctions and aggressive troop movements? Your vision seems to be rather selective, leading you to ask what Trump has done for China.
Well, for starters:
1. Withdrawal from Trans-Pacific Partnership.
2. Talk of removing troops from South Korea and cancelling of annual joint military exercises.
3. Escalating trade tensions with Japan.
All of these measures have served to diminish US influence in Asia while giving China free rein to step into the vaccuum...which it has done enthusiastically.
4. Cosmetic trade war with China while maintaining a $370 billion trade deficit. Most Americans fail to understand that the majority of Trump's tariff fury has fallen on exports produced/marketed not by China but by Taiwanese, South Korean and US companies that use Chinese labour. I can provide details about how this situation winds up leading to an even bigger deficit for the US than shows on the books, but it's boring and doesn't add much to the conversation.
5. Partnering with China to fast-track approval of trademarks owned by Ivanka Trump.
6. Joint development projects in Indonesia involving the Trump Organization and Beijing.
7. Sucking up to Chinese client state North Korea and turning a blind eye while they continue to build their nuclear arsenal and develop long-range missiles necessary to deliver a nuclear payload to US territory.
As for Russia...I don't think I have to do much more than mention how Trump shrugged and turned his back when Putin put a bounty on US soldiers. And Trump abandoned America's Kurdish allies to be slaughtered by Russian-backed militias. There's more, of course, but frankly I'm so disgusted by those two examples I don't really feel like continuing to bathe in that particular sewer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Withdrawal from Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Fuck the TPP. I don't want even more of our morally bankrupt IP regimes and empowerment of corporations to challenge legitimate elected government bullshit exported to the rest of the world. They could have developed an actual trade deal but no they wanted to sit around and circle jerk so fuck them. They should have thought about China before drafting unacceptable bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and if that were the reason Trump withdrew from it, it would be a credit to him.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't think the US could have made the TPP into whatever it wanted? Trump walked away because he's too incompetent to draft an agreement that would have used American economic clout to make the US the biggest dog on that porch. Ask any country in the region whether they'd rather have the US in control or China.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you must be against the new NAFTA, where those policies reappeared.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Russia...I don't think I have to do much more than mention how Trump shrugged and turned his back when Putin put a bounty on US soldiers.
And the correct response from POTUS to an at-best inconclusive claim of Russian Bounties on US soldiers would be what? A shooting war with Russia? Have a stern talk with Putin? A heated press conference? This is something that intelligence agencies disagreed on, then the politicians leaked it to the press, and faulted Trump for not doing "something" (without ever specifying what that something would be) about it.
Seriously, do the Afghan rebels really need a bounty to encourage them to attack US Soldiers?
Ima
Re: (Score:2)
Get your mouth back on those conservative cocks, boy. Did we give you permission to stop sucking?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's hotels providing birthplace tourism to wealthy Russion nationals?
Helping wealthy Russians move their money to America does not help Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's just that you guys don't do shit in good faith and just like to scream about Al Gore
They do change their underwear once in a decade or so, now it's HRC. Except for the really smelly guys with wet brain. They still go after Gore.
Re: (Score:3)
1) National Counterintelligence and Security Center reports to the DNI and is not "the state department"
2) That's not what the report said about China. They said China would "prefer" Biden, not that are "hard at work" in support of him, and that it was "expanding its influence" over policy debates.
3) They flat out said Russia was actively trashing Biden.
Re: Why just Russia? (Score:2)
Pretty sure the crackdown on tikok is a direct countermeasure to prevent chinese ads. Not excusing russia but im sure china is involved. You need to understand their mindset. They cannot NOT be involved. They feel its their ordained right pick the Dali Lama (bodi sapha), to choose who is the grand master of certain family martial arts which is entirely a family affair, they never stop meddling and they never will. The symbols for china literally translate to Center Kingdom. They honestly think the universe
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the TikTok issue was US user data being sent to/thru Chinese servers? That's why US ownership is the goal...
Re: Why just Russia? (Score:2)
A small fraction. He who control social media, controls the election. Its mindless GroupThink sheep that will do whatever their handheld device convinces them to do. Consider the actual mechanisms russia used in 2016. Yes they hacked the dnc email server and exposed them for being completely fucked up, but how was the information distributed? Via fake social media accounts. A rumor mill of sorts. Very few actually went to Wikileaks to read the email themselves. No there were a bunch of websites created to a
Russia has been the most effective (Score:3)
It's sort of like why all houses matter [duckduckgo.com]. You focus first where the fire's at.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
From your NY Times link:
Like the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government — a fact that Republicans seized on to argue that there was “no collusion.”
Got that, "no conspiracy."
But the report showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin — including a longstanding associate of the onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom the report identified as a “Russian intelligence officer.”
So what? "Contacts" but no "coordinated conspiracy" is not "documented evidence of collusion" between Trump Administration and Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Russia is a much more serious threat. It already has decades of experience at infiltrating US society, institutions, and systems, using both cyberattacks and traditional spycraft [wikipedia.org] in a coordinated manner.
There is evidence [techcrunch.com] that China and Iran have started attempting to duplicate Russia's success, but there is no evidence yet that they've succeeded.
Experience matters. When Cozy Bear stuck its paws into the 2016 US election, it had been operating for over a decade and had a long track record of succe
Re: Why just Russia? (Score:2)
Dont turn your back on china. This lack of a watchful eye will be your undoing. As bad as russia is as a country, china is even worse. There is not one single chinese national i would trust in my employment. Not unless they could prove every family member they ever had was either dead or living here. Even a chinese national that will badmouth china will never do it publicly and NEVER when someone of asian appearance is within earshot. Think 1984, the book.
Re: Why just Russia? (Score:2)
IMO everyone is a fucking hypocrite. We get all butt hurt with foreign money being poured into our federal elections, but say nothing of state elections. When people in NY and California pump millions if not billions to get a Senator, Governor, or Congressman elected in not-their-state, the CA and NY, IS RUSSIA in this case. NY, specifically Soros or Bloomberg has no fucking business interfering in elections in other states. But ohhh theyre rich Democrats, lets give them a free pass. Complain about the Coke
Re: (Score:2)
Complain about the Coke brothers
That's Koch brothers...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you should have logged in for that comment. It is a very valid point, but IMHO only if you're honest enough to agree that it happens (a lot) on both sides of the aisle. Each side just have different points to raise fear on to try to rile up their base. For example...
Republicans: They're going to take your assault rifles!
Democrats: One of them is going to kill your children with their assault rifles!
I have to say I'm with the Democrats on this one, though I am not on the Democrats' side on a lot of i
Re: (Score:2)
given the impending (or is it ongoing at this point?) societal collapse; you should be wary of any call to curtail firearm ownership. There is a very, very good reason gun and ammo sales have been at record levels all year.
Let's create a situation where you are going to have to defend yourself due to
>defunding police
>nationwide section 8
>mass unemployment
>social isolation and alienation due to the lockdown
But then also try remove your ability to do so. What on earth could possibly go wrong?
That
Re: (Score:2)
And now we're back to the "Be extremely afraid!" comments that both sides make. I wouldn't say your points are invalid. Exaggerated (and exactly how much is definitely debatable), but not invalid. Having said that, things in the US are definitely scarier this year than they were last year.
I'm "for" responsible gun ownership. My dad started teaching me to shoot when I was 4 (properly supervised for that age, of course), and I did very well on the ROTC rifle team. I'm fine with guns, but I am still dead set a
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget NYC and it's no cash bail policy - everyone is released after being arrested for many/most crimes because offering cash bail is racist, keeping poor people in jail.
https://gothamist.com/news/wha... [gothamist.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In my experience, anytime you see Democrats bitching and moaning about something it is because they're doing it and want to deflect blame.
Funny, I believe the exact same thing about the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is what projection looks like (Score:2)
Heh. Your support of right-wing stereotypes by projecting your projection is appreciated. I'd add you to my Christmas List, but I don't think I have enough time for the USPS to get you a card by XMAS.
Re: What Like Diebold tyring to get certified.. (Score:2)
If the result is that Jo Jorgensen gets elected it might be a breakup of the stalemate between D and R.
Nothing can unite two enemies like a new contender on the field.