Clinton Responds To WikiLeaks During Debate, And Blames Russian Hackers (qz.com) 689
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:During Sunday night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, moderators asked a question based on WikiLeaks documents released Friday -- to which both candidates responded. The leaked emails had included excerpts from Hillary's paid speeches to Wall Street in which she reportedly said "You need both a public and a private position on certain issues."
Clinton said she had been describing the 2012 movie Lincoln, and that Lincoln's use of different arguments for different groups of people was "a great display of presidential leadership." Then, citing intelligence reports, she said "Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election...for Donald Trump."
Click through for a complete transcript of Clinton's remarks -- and Trump's response.
The question -- based on the WikiLeaks release -- was, "Is it okay for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues?"
Clinton said she had been describing the 2012 movie Lincoln, and that Lincoln's use of different arguments for different groups of people was "a great display of presidential leadership." Then, citing intelligence reports, she said "Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election...for Donald Trump."
Click through for a complete transcript of Clinton's remarks -- and Trump's response.
Hillary Clinton's response:
Right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln, after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called Lincoln. It was a master class, watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic. And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do, and you have to keep working at it. And yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people he used other arguments. That was a great -- I thought, a great display of presidential leadership.
But you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information -- we don't even know if it's accurate information -- and then they put it out. We have never, in the history of our country, been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.
Now maybe because he has praised Putin. Maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do. Maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow -- I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns, so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationship that he has with Russian and other foreign powers.
Donald Trump's response:
Well I think I should respond because -- so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming -- she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things -- WikiLeaks, that just came out. And you lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't heard. [Audience laughs] Okay, honest Abe. Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference.
But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia, because we could fight ISIS together, as an example -- but I don't know Putin. But I notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say, "The Russians are..." She doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia.
And the reason they blame is because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there, I have no businesses there, I have no loans from Russia.
I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the old post office between the White House and Congress -- chose me to do the old post office. One of the primary things, in fact perhaps the primary thing, was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well.
In order to get that development, I had to have -- now the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have -- first of all, I paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions -- Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money, that she can do many more commercials than me, gave or took massive deductions. I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, but -- but, as soon as my routine audit's finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to.
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's Russia's fault you did bad things? What are you going to tell us next, that you can see Russia from your back yard?
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
She sounds like the kid who got caught accusing the kid who told of tattling.
But at this point, if you believe Hillary is ever going to tell the trust when the truth might not paint her in as good of light as some convenient lie, you are either willfully ignorant or from another planet.
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
At least one suspects Hillary knows when she is lying, Trump frankly has contradicted himself so many times, to the point of denying saying things that are readily available for review, I suspect he puts no thought into his words, and therefore, cant remember his own words afterwards.
If it wasn't a US election, and this was the plot of a TV show, it would be great entertainment though.
I have a feeling the entire US population is trolling their own politicians, and come election day will reject Trump emphatically.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
How is rejecting Trump trolling? It's only trolling if we inflict him on Congress for 8 years. Trump 2016!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think he or hillary will survive the first four, and i'm not talking about assassination here.
They're just a bit too old, and being the POTUS do age you really quickly.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
EITHER of them would lose against anyone but the other one. Seriously, the other party could field a water cooler next term and it would win.
Re: (Score:3)
First off, Constitution only allows two terms as President. Obama has had his, and isn't eligible to be Pres again, even as a write-in.
Secondly, he's not as popular as all that. He might come in third as a write-in, it's extremely unlikely he'd come in first.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Great (Score:4, Funny)
Write in Eisenhower. Even as a decomposed corpse he's ten times the president than those two goons combined.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
And Gabriel walked into Gods office and said " I have the initial results of the Anti-Christ trial run."
"Oh good," said God, "please continue!"
"Well, as predicted, just invoking you or the kids name got most of the low intelligence and Evangelical crowd to fall in line, however the more secular and educated amongst them tended to fall in line with AC Mark II. We also noted an equally large percentage that didn't fall in line with either but are still expected to cast a vote for one or the other. And we do have a few outliers that went with that little soiree that Cthulhu and Lucifer likes to put on every four years, and they did get some pretty amusing hosts this year as well, after all we told them nobody reasonable this year for the trial run"
"Hmmm," said God, "perhaps it's still too early for the apocolypse, we'll just give em a four year taste of what's coming as a warning until we find a way to combine the Mark I and Mark II Anti-Christs into a single Mark III model."
"Do you mind if the Arch-Angel has a bit of fun with the debates and resulting chaos of the inaugeration?"
"Oh, not at all," replied God, "I wouldn't miss it for anything!"
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems as if mrs. Clinton is held to a different standard of decency and veracity. One that simply doesn't apply to Mr. Trump because he's so far off the scale all of the time.
Like mr Trump's constant tendency to say whatever sounds good at the time, no matter how misleading, counter-factual or how much it contradicts what he said earlier (Putin comes to mind: first he calls him his buddy, now he says he doesn't know).
Most Trump supporters overlook all of that all of the time. What they forget is that no-one else in the world will.
Especially foreign powers. And that's dangerous because the US's strength has irrevocably decreased compared to the rest of the world. Therefore consistent policy and competent diplomacy is the only way to safeguard US interests ... and security. Mr. Trump's volatile character will ensure he'll scupper whatever policy framework his GOP aides erect. And this time, if he tries to bankrupt his way out of trouble again, it's the entire US that will be saddled with his debts.
Only a video tape with tacky (and in my opinion largely irrelevant because we already knew he's a nasty piece of work) locker room banter and a review of several years' worth of appearance on the Howard Stern show seem to be able to somehow get through to them where obvious deficiencies in competence and intelligence don't.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Wat?
I don't like Trump. I don't like Hillary. Trump says a lot of crap. He contradict himself. Throw some cheap lies. He seems like a pretty shitty president. He doesn't seem like a racist or anything like that though. Just a regular asshole.
Hillary gets hundred of thousands killed as secretary of the state. Lies in front of the facts. She seems like fucking, genuine pure evil.
For the debates I have watched so far, Hillary, always, a 100% of the time, tries to put Trump down with personal attacks. Trump eventually replies with his own personal attack. The whole thing is like watching 2 kids fight, which would be funny except for the implications this has. But I sure can tell which kid is bringing the other down and for what reason.
If you wanna "save America", short of another revolution that seems like a pretty hard task right now.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem I have with this election is that the ONLY argument to vote for Trump is Clinton, and the only reason to vote for Clinton is Trump.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Informative ++ (Score:5, Informative)
Mod-point sis1j informative!
You are not throwing your vote away if you vote third party. You are voting for a third party if you vote third party. It is just as legitimate a vote as any other vote.
It actually seems more like you are throwing your vote away if you vote Republican or Democrat. Neither of the two major parties seem to do what they promise, and neither of them seem to care about their voters, just their donors.
Vote third party so you don't throw your vote away.
Re: Great (Score:4, Insightful)
No.. A good reason to vote Trump is to give a big "fuck you" to the biased, overly-PC, manipulative media at CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, HuffPo, etc.
They think they own you. They think they say "dance" and you'll do a little jig.
For some of you, it might be true, but it isn't too late to change that.
Trump is a gross person. That's why I'm voting for him. Safe spaces and social justice agendas demand that the pendulum swing back a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They think they own you. They think they say "dance" and you'll do a little jig.
And that's what's happened, because you're not voting for a third party. They want you to vote for Clinton; barring that they want you to vote for Trump, anything but wake up and do something different.
Trump is a gross person. That's why I'm voting for him. Safe spaces and social justice agendas demand that the pendulum swing back a bit.
DANCE, MONKEY, DANCE
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to send a "fuck you" to the whole system, why the he'll are you voting for anyone running with an "R" or a "D" after their name?
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
You have two real choices: vote for the Supreme Court nominees that Trump has already listed for you, or vote for the ones that Clinton will seat, about which we have no details, though she's signaling lots (she wants people with no federal judicial experience who "know what people are facing," etc). The difference is stark. She wants to make and execute her policies through court activism. There are bones to pick with Trump's list, but by and large, it reflects a group of choices that actually understand and embrace the three-way checks and balances that the constitution established. That issue, right there, is the ONLY thing that this election is really about.
He's a buffoonish bro in his public manner, and she's a sociopathic, corrupt liar that would already be indicted if not in jail, were she anyone with less of a political machine protecting her. So he's distasteful at best, and she's practically a James Bond villain. You want to shake up "the system?" Vote for the one that "the system" definitely hates, but who will at least seat some justices more inclined to preserve the three co-equal branches of government in the roles they're supposed to play. He will have an adversarial congress and a sober court to counter his policy learning curve phase. She will have an adversarial congress and a lapdog activist liberal court anxious to pursue her agenda from the bench.
The repercussions will last for decades - long after we care in the least about either of their personalities, or whether or not the third party candidates can think their way out of a wet paper bag. No, I won't give a vote to a guy who isn't just ignorant of foreign affairs, but is willfully so and considers it a badge of phony Libertarian honor. And I wont' give a vote to a professionally trained medical doctor whose actively anti-science positions show her to be simply irrational right out of the gate - on the very types of topics that she, unlike normal politicians, should be held to the highest standard.
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
That's a gross oversimplification of the way presidential elections work in the USA.
If you live in a swing state, what you said is true. However, most American voters don't live in swing states, and indeed, they have no say in the contest between Democrats and Republicans. Their vote is effectively lost regardless of how they vote.
Unless they vote for a third party. You see, though the D/R contest is already settled in most states, there is another one in which these voters can still have a say: the fight for more money.
For your convenience:
Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.
Source [fec.gov].
So, in many ways, you're advocating for people to dutifully throw their votes away on statistically-impossible outcomes instead of actually casting them in a way that is considerably more likely to actually have a practical outcome. For a Californian, like it or not, their state is going for Clinton (99.9% probability as per Nate Silver's projections as of this writing), regardless of who they vote for. If their vote was somehow going to be the deciding factor in California, then virtually all other states would already be in the bag for Trump, and the contest would have already been decided anyway. The only way their vote can have any practical impact is by helping to push a third party past the 5% threshold, enabling the collection of partial public funding for the next election.
Emphasis added for people with short attention spans.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to send a "fuck you" to the whole system, why the he'll are you voting for anyone running with an "R" or a "D" after their name?
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
This reminds me of a popular anecdote at Georgia Tech. The question was "when is it ok to leave class if the professor hasn't shown up?" and the (comic) answer was "you should only leave if 15% of the class has already left." Of course, this implies that if everyone followed this rule, nobody would ever leave. Sound familiar?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump is a gross person. That's why I'm voting for him. Safe spaces and social justice agendas demand that the pendulum swing back a bit.
That's one thing that cracks me up, the Progressive Liberal SJW piss and moan so much about Safe-Places and freedom from micro-aggressions, but they don't think twice about using a hot-mic conversation from the bathroom or the locker-room; as a Male WASP, the men's john is about the only safe-place left for us.
Yeah, there ought to be SOMEWHERE we can still talk about using our power to take advantage of or sexually assault women without fear of repercussions... Geez, what has the world come to??? (sigh)
but in a different way from Clinton, who does too (Score:4, Interesting)
> When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction
I don't think that in itself is a distinction - everything Clinton says is also carefully crafted PR. Hers is crafted by a team of professionals based on polls; his is more of a natural talent. Both are full of shit. He says whatever crosses his mind that will get attention, she says whatever today's polls indicate the particular audience wants to hear.
Both are bad in different ways. With Trump, you have a pretty good idea of what he's actually thinking, that's good as a someone who is supposed to represent you, bad as chief diplomat. Clinton is better at lying to Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and us.
Clinton said it herself, did you forget yesterday? (Score:3)
If you'd like *watch* Clinton say one thing, then the opposite, then a week later deny she said either, hop on Youtube and type in "Clinton flip-flops", "Hillary lies" or any other relevant search and you can watch her do it for hours, on issue after issue. PR spin and saying what people want to hear is perhaps her biggest strength, prete
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might want to look at some poll numbers there, chief. Yes, Trump is still doing fine in strongly red states. That's because in those states, you could nominate a turnip truck and it would receive the majority of the votes.
The problem is, Trump not only needs to win every single state that Romney won in 2012, he needs to win several battleground states, and that's not happening.
His ground game is non-existent. He has a minuscule presence in Florida, which is one of the most important battleground states.
Re: (Score:3)
It's been my observation that Russians are somewhat less likely to make errors in English grammar than Americans are.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's Russia's fault you did bad things? What are you going to tell us next, that you can see Russia from your back yard?
No, she was just saying that Russia seems to be on Trump's side (which would presumably encourage people to vote for her).
Whether you agree or not, I believe that's all there was to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My bet would be that he is using tax avoidance measures to such an extreme level - secret Swiss bank accounts, shell companies in Ireland, whatever it takes - that he fears even the people would find it distasteful.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes and presidential powers (Score:3)
Another possibility is that his tax reporting says he hasn't made the money back yet. But he has. Because that's the mode most wealthy people and corporations use the tax system when making money -- bury and de-emphasize profits, emphasize and exaggerate losses. Make X$? purchase something "for the company" that is $X, viola, "no profit." Nice jet, though. Move the money out of the country. Etc.
I don't know -- nobody knows, becaus
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly did they reveal? (Score:3)
So it's Russia's fault you did bad things? What are you going to tell us next, that you can see Russia from your back yard?
What exactly did they reveal? from where I'm sitting nothing, except maybe that she mentioned that "politicians sometimes needs to have a public and a private opinion", which taken out of context sounds sketchy -- in reality no doubt necessary and perfectly fine -- politicians should negotiate compromises on behalf of the people they represent, that sometimes means putting your private positions aside.
It could also be contrived as two-faced, which is bad. The argument Hillary made, namely that politicians
Re: (Score:3)
She's been trying to play down the way that she and her husband have become very, very wealthy while not ever actually producing anyt
"we don't even know if it's accurate information" (Score:5, Insightful)
"we don't even know if it's accurate information"...right after a weird anecdote about Abe Lincoln clarifying what she meant in that transcript, the one that may or may not be accurate.
She's right - we don't know if they're accurate, but she does, and it sure sounded like that particular transcript was accurate. How about the rest of them?
Re:"we don't even know if it's accurate informatio (Score:5, Insightful)
clarifying what she meant in that transcript
Can anyone explain what the controversy is about?
First, every politician does have a public and private position on issues. That's a given, unless you think everyone just honestly shares their actual private beliefs during campaigns?
Second, it is perfectly acceptable -- e.g., "I am going to help pass the law legalizing X as promised to voters, but personally I think X should remain banned"
Re:"we don't even know if it's accurate informatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Public position: I'm against TPP now guys
Private position: Bring on the TPP
Public position: I will not take away 2nd ammendment rights
Private position: plans to use executive order to institute gun control measures
Public position: need to rebuild the middle class
Private position: wants open trade and open border hemisphere
DNC public position: vote for your nominee
DNC private position: ok, how can we give this to Hillary
Re: (Score:3)
while touting the job creation aspects of the legislation/position to the general public
Name one proposal of Clinton's that has anything to do with Private Sector Job creation, that doesn't have the hand of Big Government (crony capitalism) all over it.
Everything I've seen is "Government jobs" and Crony Capitalism. If you're a Bernie fan, you ought to pay close attention to Hillary's Wall Street Cred. They are a big fan of hers, and I have no doubt why. They will be rewarded when she is elected.
Re:"we don't even know if it's accurate informatio (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"we don't even know if it's accurate informatio (Score:5, Informative)
If we accept the Wikileaks transcript [wikileaks.org] is taken as being accurate, then Clinton's "weird anecdote" is nothing less than a completely accurate statement of what she actually said. Does no one here bother to check facts?
CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]
Hacking Vs. The Mouth (Score:5, Funny)
This has turned into a foot race between Assange & friend's hacking, and Mr. Trump's own mouth.
Re:Hacking Vs. The Mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hacking Vs. The Mouth (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, a foot-in-mouth race.
Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Hillary really answered the question. Then again, there were a lot of questions during the debate that neither candidate really answered. The amount of deflection from both sides was pretty shameful.
In terms of a public and a private position on issues, I understand that being successful in Washington means going along with some things you don't agree with, supporting legislation you don't like, and reacting to changing situations. I think it's okay to say that something goes against your ideals, but you're doing it because it's the right thing to do at the time. Being pragmatic is usually a good thing. Compromise often leads to a good result, too. But that's not what Clinton said.
I understand making different arguments to different people to support the same position. It's completely reasonable to tailor your message to different audiences in order to make the same point different ways. It's also reasonable to emphasize one part of your message for some people and a different part for others. Different people care about different issues and respond to different types of arguments. That's what Lincoln did, but that's what Clinton is doing, either.
I also understand that sometimes it's important to not release information publicly while negotiations are going on in private. That's a good policy when there's a situation in which not all the facts are known. It's also useful when trying to negotiate agreements, to not release potential terms until the agreement is agreed to in principle. For example, it's totally reasonable when negotiating an agreement with a foreign leader to not publicly disclose the terms of the agreement until you're ready to take it to Congress for approval. The public reaction could cause an agreement to fall through, when the negotiation is in progress. But that's not what Clinton is defending, either.
This is about whether it's fair to make mutually exclusive promises to different groups. That's being two-faced, which is what Clinton is accused of. It's dishonest, but her answer seems to dodge the question. There's absolutely no way I'm voting for Trump, but I don't like Clinton's response. I've concluded that winning the presidential debates is about who can make the best use of logical fallacies.
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
My public position is that I'm for women's rights. My private position is that I will ruthlessly crush anything that threatens my political power, even multiple accusations of rape by my husband from people willing to identify themselves.
Re: Good answer (Score:3)
If she had shown disapproval or even only passive support for her husband you might have some kind of point. She actively worked to crush and discredit the women claiming rape, which means she accepts culpability for her husbands actions.
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like CNN is a DNC/Hillary front [youtube.com]. Right? Gotta love those "undeclared voters" being coached on what to say.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
Real, conclusive evidence?
No.
Stuff that suggests someone WANTS us to blame the Russians? Yes.
The evidence that "it was the Russians" is essentially attacks that came from Russian IP addresses (that were associated with VPNs so that means nothing) and the presence of Cyrillic characters is code "left" by the hackers (but why would the hackers leave anything behind?).
What I got out of the debate is that, if we elect Hillary Clinton as president, we will be going to war with Russia. That terrifies me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how they can possibly have established state sponsors attacks unless they have managed to catch and interrogate one of the hackers,
When Russian researchers discovered the Stuxnet worm, it soon became apparent that, call it terrorism or an act of war, it was state sponsored.
But I don't see any evidence that the attack on the DNC was remotely as sophisticated.
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. For some reason there's a Neo-McCarthy era going on right now about Russia. I hope we aren't really buying this crap. Everyone intelligent I've talked to takes these claims as nothing more than fearmongering until some evidence shows up.
This isn't the 1980s any more, and the Russians aren't out to get us, and our ideologies are more similar than they are different. If we'd stop sanctioning them we'd probably get along pretty well at this point...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the Russians aren't out to get us, and our ideologies are more similar than they are different.
There are some differences:
1. In Syria, America and Russia support factions that are ideologically at least several centimeters apart.
2. In Ukraine, Russia supported the democratically elected government, while America supported the military coup.
3. In Crimea, Russia only had the support of 90% of the people, while America supported (with words but not actions) the other 10%.
4. In America, Russians tell American voters the truths that American politicians were trying to hide.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at what happened in Iraq. The country was under the control of a brutal, oppressive dictator. America marched in, took out his regime, executed him, and celebrated at the introduction of freedom and democracy - and then it all went to hell, as it turned out the country was full of violently opposed factions and Saddam's brutal oppression was the only thing keeping them from turning on each other. So Shia-v-Sunni terror attacks became so commonplace they didn't even make the news after a while, and eventually Islamic State were able to form and rapidly recruit.
That's the Syria situation. How many rebel groups do they have now? Fighting each other half the time. Even a brutal dictator is better than anarchy.
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)
It needed careful management. Instead we had Rumsfeld and similar wastes of space calling the shots. He picked a side arbitrarily without having the least clue what he was doing.
Sometimes it's hard to be sure, and besides, it's rarely true anarchy anyway since there are existing power structures that can step in. For example, it's no accident that Egypt ended up with an Islamic government, the religious groups were the only ones that had been allowed to meet and organise because political assemblies had been banned for years. All other groups had to start from tiny secret cells or from zero while the people in the religious political groups had been meeting for years.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Looks like the Kremlin has hacked your account. Might want to change your password there mate.
Re:@Russians aren't out to get us (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever Putin is, he is Machiavellian. Russia's actual military and economic position in incredibly weak. It has a GDP less than the UK's, and the long period of low energy prices has wreaked havoc with its economy. So he's playing the West against itself. Whether it's inciting disunity within the EU (like Brexit), or encouraging a dangerous and delusional figure like Trump, it doesn't even have to be any kind of direct relationship, but simply using timed releases of information, Internet astroturfing and the like to create at least some level of chaos among his enemies.
It's almost certain to fail in the United States, where other than Trump's most dedicated supporters, there's little doubt Clinton will win, and it might even see enough downticket Republican Senate races get screwed by Trump's collapsing campaign. But the EU is in trouble, with Britain leaving and countries like Hungary and Poland becoming increasingly right-wing authoritarian.
The real object is, of course, NATO, and with Turkey becoming an increasingly erratic and and unreliable member, he may at the very least cost NATO one member before he's done. I don't think Putin will succeed in the long run, and I think Russia's long-term decline is inevitable, but he's done a pretty admirable job with the limited tools at his disposal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are vastly underestimating Russia, especially their military, no it isn't equal to the US but it is huge and relatively well equipped and in some areas like fighter jets even superior to the US. The economic position has also strengthened considerably since oil prices made a come back, something the press doesn't talk about much now as at around $50 a barrel we are at now they have a healthy income again (not as good as $100 a barrel, but not the disastrous $30 a barrel either). Personally I wou
Re: (Score:3)
Time zone, daytime working hours in Russia.
The ip range, someone had a staging server with an expected Russian ip range.
Thats basically it for information thats in public.
The other aspect is well understood code thats always found by contractors and then the media is told about.
The code samples and log litter is given the name "Bear"
So the public is to understand that another nation can enter the US at will, collect
Re: Serious question (Score:5, Informative)
The hacker (Guccifer 2.0) who has claimed credit for the hacking says he's Romanian, but he could only give canned responses in fluent Romanian. When he was interviewed by a Romanian speaker, and had to give off-the-cuff answers, his Romanian (a Romance language) was full of errors that someone who spoke a slavic language (like Russian) would be likely to make. There's more evidence than you suggest.
Re: (Score:3)
If I was to give an interview in German, French or Italian, I'd do my best to add a few grammatical errors here and there, too, since I would want you to believe that I'm lying to you about my whereabouts. That way I can stay where I am, give an interview in a language I speak reasonably well (and hence can concentrate on what words I use instead of concentrating on getting the message across) and still keep you guessing about my origin.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Serious question (Score:4, Informative)
Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow--the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/... [dhs.gov]
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any actual evidence that "the scary russians" are to blame for this?
Disregard everything else. Is there any evidence?
Yup [vice.com]. The main points are:
1. In this case it is possible to tell that the same group (or groups, there seem to be two Russia agencies at work) had committed previous hacks. They often used the same tools, the same control IP, and even the same encryption keys.
2. These other hacks included attacks on the German parliament, as well as a French TV station. Things that make more sense for Russia.
3. When they hacked the French TV station they claimed to be ISIS [vice.com].
4. Guccifer 2.0 looks a lot like a committee. He claims to be Romanian but can't really speak Romanian (only Russian) and he's fluent in English when talking politics but not technology.
Is it absolute proof? No. But it's a pretty damn convincing case.
Who wants either of them in power (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who wants either of them in power (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton - lies, kills, schemes, physically sick and potentially sociopath (she does pretend that she cares about people)
Trumps - lies, assaults women, cheats, psychologically not stable
Who do you want more?
Let me just leave this right here. [slashdot.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who wants either of them in power (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just the media. His own party hates him - just witness all the establishment Republicans that refuse to back him. (Yes, they're using the Access Hollywood tape as an excuse, but let's be honest: they never supported him and they're using that as a "safe" way to back out from having to support him.)
With Trump, anything he wants to do will be an uphill battle with Congress. He won't get a rubber stamp in Congress. Roadblocks will be placed everywhere. He'll have to work with Congress to get anything done.
With Hillary? Not so much.
Combined with the fact that the next President is going to appoint at least one Supreme Court judge, and the decision is simple: the nation can't afford a third Obama term. Trump may not have been who I'd like to see in the Oval Office, but he is - by far - the lesser of two evils.
(Of course I don't live in a swing state so I can safely vote third party. Which I'll be doing. But if you live in a place where your vote might matter, you owe it to America to save our country from the disaster that would be a Hillary presidency.)
Re:Who wants either of them in power (Score:5, Insightful)
I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.
Three things.
First, I think Trump thrives on attacks from the media. He loves having an excuse to vilify them and energize his base.
Second, it is congress, not the media, that impeaches a president.
And third, congress didn't hesitate to impeach Bill Clinton, rightly or wrongly. So, I don't think being a Clinton is a shield against impeachment.
Re:Who wants either of them in power (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard you out. Please do the same.
I was an "anyone but Hillary" guy from before Bill left office but Trump is the only thing I've seen that can put me alongside her (with McCain, Schwartzenegger, ...) That's in part because I don't believe that Trump thinks that his ass can be nailed to the wall. Now think on everything he has said as a candidate, things that would have crushed the campaign of anyone else. What makes you think that electing him president would moderate him in the least?
Re:Who wants either of them in power (Score:5, Insightful)
At every turn Trump's supporters keep saying "After this point, he'll start behaving properly," and every time that point is reached, he continues behaving erratically, obnoxiously, and ultimately in a self-defeating way. Even his commitment to throw Clinton in jail tonight is absurd, almost as if he doesn't actually understand how the justice system works. He clearly seems to think the Oval Office is some sort of throne from which an Emperor shall reign.
Re: (Score:3)
At every turn Trump's supporters keep saying "After this point, he'll start behaving properly," and every time that point is reached, he continues behaving erratically, obnoxiously, and ultimately in a self-defeating way. Even his commitment to throw Clinton in jail tonight is absurd, almost as if he doesn't actually understand how the justice system works. He clearly seems to think the Oval Office is some sort of throne from which an Emperor shall reign.
I think they're assuming he won't be allowed to President without adult supervision.
Re:Who wants either of them in power (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting post. I'll assume the knave is clinton and the fool is trump for this post.
One of the reasons I would prefer trump is accountability. Hear me out.
I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.
I heard you out and I disagree; Trump has ZERO personal accountability, he airs some weak apologies and his body language demonstrates he does not believe what he is apologizing for. His opinions are based on his ego and very loose connection to reality (47% of the time, 53% some made up reality). Trump dragged out Bill's sexual encounters and wanted to put them in his family box until he was told no and they will be escorted out. He has been married _three_ times and has a worst history of being a sexual predator than Bill Clinton (who quite frankly, has been accused of rape, but not proven and has proven to cheat on his wife and use his position to influence women to sleep with him and Trump steps in to an even worse category...). He has a history of Miss. Universe contestants complaining he would show up unannounced in their dressing rooms while they were changing and often naked. He calls women fat pigs, he calls entire religions untrustworthy, he makes blanket claims he is the best at everything even when his own prior hired employees contradict him on these claims.
Trump to paraphrase when talking about our system wants to "Rip it out" and start again; he told Clinton he would have gotten more done last night if he were a senator than her and will make all these broad sweeping changes as president, which in itself seems like he thinks he is going to turn our country in to the Trump dynasty and make former President Bushes, "I am the decider" seem modest in comparison. He has ZERO idea of the cost of his proposals, ripping it out _is_expensive and he has yet to even provide a shred of supportable academic evidence that he is a) a great businessman, b) his proposals would actually help the country. He has ZERO idea the cost of his tax proposals and the lower-end of the spectrum families will actually see an increase in their tax burden and we will increase the deficit. He thinks when he is president that he is going to somehow make Clinton end up in jail (your papers please?) which is a pretty bold statement which has basically no basis in reality. He talks about Aleppo as if he is an expert and quite frankly I would this debate full of fluff, none of the moderators questioned Trump or Clinton on even basis demographics about Aleppo to gauge whether they even prepared for this debate. Trump still hangs on the claim that the Obama Administration created ISIS or allowed it to grow, when in fact ISIS has an organization grew out of the ashes of Iraq and the prior administrations invasion, which also made claims of, "All you gotta do, is introduce democracy to these countries and watch them flourish." Trump has taken that simply down to, "All you gotta do is elect me President and I will destroy ISIS."
You also may know damn well that the Media would nail his ass if he made a mistake? Sure okay, like President Bush? He got a free pass _alot_ from both congress and the media. Look at what Obama has had to endure? Hell, look at what Clinton has had to endure for some mistakes that were repeats of the previous administration basically, she got dragged _over_ the coals by the media and the congress. No, Trump will use his executive privilege if he were elected to hide his mistakes, it would make the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations look like a glass house, everything apparent and open to the public.
Trump is a disgusting individual -- Hillary is cold and an unapologetic liar but she also has a history of getting things done and actually helping "the little people" whereas Trump has a history of screwing over the little people and with an unapologetic response, "It's business, I am a good businessman." which is a very good indicatio
Re:Who wants either of them in power (Score:4, Interesting)
At most, she has more political baggage than Trump simply because he has never held political office.
It's kinda funny that he is threatening to try to jail Clinton if he wins. She could easily make the same threat about his dodgy business dealings, like the Trump University scam or his tax affairs. A prosecutor could certainly get hold of his tax records.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence Trump "assaults women". Running mouth between friends is not "assault" (yet). He also seems pretty darn stable to me. Sure as heck more stable than Clinton, who is known to have a bad temper and suggested an assassination of Assange.
Re: (Score:3)
Kills?
You forget your audience. Sure, Slashdot has become an Official Hillary Shitpost Site, but it's still not part of the far right circle jerk.
So basically you're saying (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump is more honest because he admits to being unable to actually tell anything like a consistent truth?
That's like saying magma is less hot than fire because it's more self aware.
A momentary look of genuine anger from Hillary (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the time Hillary's emotions look totally fake to me - especially the smiles and laughs.
But, when Trump seemed to be suggesting that everyone remaining in Aleppo was a rebel - and therefore ISIS - and that the Assad dictatorship and Russia should therefore be allowed to annihilate them, for a brief moment she looked genuinely angry.
Maybe her attention was just wondering back to the personal insults at the beginning of the date. But, for just a moment, I was able to imagine that she genuinely cared about something other than her own personal glory, and I had this fleeting thought that she was almost someone I could vote for.
yayo (Score:5, Funny)
I think they should postpone the election until they can figure out why Donald Trump sniff's constantly when he's talking. It's a serious problem. A news outlet counted ninety-two times tonight, which is 30% up from the last debate.
He also chewed his lips several times (play the tape). Now I'm not saying the dude is doing rails in the limo on the way to the debates but if he's didn't have a snoot full of flake, he's got to see an ear, nose and throat doctor, stat. Maybe they can adapt Hillary's anti-coughing machine to stop Donald's incessant sniveling, because I find it very distracting, and I'm keen to hear every red pill truth bomb Trump drops.
Maybe the TLAs are lending her a hand (Score:3, Interesting)
For all we know her friends at the CIA and NSA may be the ones behind the hacks. She's definitely pissed off enough people there with her security "lapses".
Plus, a lot of the "evidence" is pretty dumb. "Oh, there was Russian metadata in some of the changed files." "They used a server located in Russia." Well duh, don't you think that shit would be sterilized if a real agency was in charge?
It would be the height of comedy if the other investigating agencies were so incompetent that they actually believe that Russia was behind it but it was done by our TLAs.
Its Russia's Fault Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
We want that pipeline from the middle east through Syria to Eastern Europe so we can destroy GAZPROM, and any Russian influence in EU energy planning.
I am not kidding. We are on the verge of going to war with Russia in Syria over a stupid oil pipeline.
This has nothing to do with Assad other than the fact he said NO to the pipeline.
We are comfortable with other Dictators we call friends but somehow Assad is a really bad man.
What crap.
Re:Its Russia's Fault Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny thing here is that if they just approved and opened up the Keystone Pipeline, they'd have achieved the same goal of bankrupting GAZPROM, w/o going to war in the Mid East.
One thing I liked in the debate was Trump bluntly disagreeing w/ Mike Pence on Russia. First of all, there are no good parties there. Hilary mentioned the Kurdish Peshmerga, but they are in Iraq, not Syria, and the Syrian Kurdish group that regained Kobani, Turkey supports ISIS b'cos they oppose this Kurdish group. Turkey hates the idea of any Kurdish nation, be it in Iraq, Syria or Iran, b'cos then, the eastern half of their country is ripe for secession. Ergo, the US can't support the Kurds directly, and in the meantime, they let Saudi Arabia and Qatar do whatever they like in Syria, w/ the end result being the entire eastern half of that country going to ISIS.
So regardless of whether it's ISIS that Russia is fighting or not, the US has no business making Moscow its adversary in Syria. Instead, it's a better idea to join hands w/ Russia instead of some motley Islamic group that no one has ever heard of. Yeah, yeah, we've seen those award winning photos from Aleppo (who the heck cares that Gary Johnson doesn't know what that is?), but open up your hearts and you'll have a situation like in Germany where they go on a rape rampage. So spare me the John Doone quote, and just team up w/ Russia and help destroy anything in Syria. Just make some of US enemies a part of the target - like Hizbullah and Iranian Quds militias, and it'll be complete.
My thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
This became more evident that once Trump showed the slightest decline in his campaign, even his own party (Republicans) are trying to abandon him (at least the Establishment on the Republican side). So who is the real problem in this election year?
I believe it is not the Democrat or the Republican parties as a whole, it is the Establishment member that are causing the problems. After this election is over, I will be taking note on the upcoming House and Senate elections that will be coming and decide which side of the line the candidates are on. Establishment or the constituents.
If any of them had any pro Establishment support, then they will be disqualified from my vote.
Just my opinion, if I lived in Wisconsin that scumbag Ryan would be the first to be removed from office.
The establishment vs us (Score:3, Insightful)
After seeing all the Republicans willing to drop Trump, or even in some cases, endorse Hitlery, I'm more convinced than ever that you're right. I mean, we had Bill Clinton as a president - the entire saga w/ Monica and the stories about Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning and Juanita Broderick, and we're now questioning Trump's qualifications for that office for something he said, not did 11 years ago? Had Trump been a Democrat and this all came out, the Dems would be busy closing ranks around him. Just
Comment removed (Score:3)
Political Science Nobel Pize for WikiLeaks (Score:3)
WikiLeaks did more in political science than generations of academic researchers. It is a revolution in political science, a new brave world.
Dougla's Adams said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
-So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Watching this election from the outside has been one of the most absurd experiences in my life thus far. The fact that these 2, both of whom are massively hated, are what the american version of 'democracy' (quotes because if this election doesn't showcase the huge issues with the primary-system I don't know what will) produces is just baffling to me.
And the fact that somehow Trump is seen as an outsider makes this even more twisted: he's not an outsider, he comes from the funding class itself, the same class of people that people hate Hillary for being in bed with. He gets his money from a whole host of different sources than Hillary, but nothing I have seen or read about him makes me believe he's capable of any integrity, or in fact that he has any principles at all. I mean look at his so called 'tax plan', it's cuts to the very richest of the rich, meaning himself, the Kochs, the Waltons, etc. But somehow this is the guy who stands for change and for the little guy moreso than Hillary? On what basis?
Honestly about the only sensible opinion I've heard him say is his opposition to the trade agreements, but given his tendency to openly lie about what he said 5 minutes ago on tape and deny he ever said such a thing I have not got high hopes that he would stick to that either if elected.
Facts stopped mattering a long time ago in this race on Trump's side because he's a known liar and on Hillary's side because the same is true for he and on top of that no-one trusts the establishment. So this has become a weird pseudo-election in which it's not about the policies, it's not about the current state of affairs, it's not about factual argumentation, it's mainly about making sure the other side is perceived as the wrong lizard. It's reality tv masquerading as politics, which is why I guess Trump has gotten as far as he has.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: please change the election system towards something that better allows multiple parties to gain power and redo the laws on political funding. The proper reaction when you see that an establishment talking head and a clown are racing for the presidency is not to elect the clown out of protest, because giving a clown the
*This* is your best? (Score:4, Insightful)
The CYBER ELEPHANT in the room is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Russian server operator says, "[October 2] If the FBI asks, we are ready to supply the IP addresses, the logs." However, he says, "Nobody is asking⦠Itâ(TM)s like nobody wants to sort this out." [rt.com]. Now oh best beloved, this is NOT because the NSA has taps on all traffic within Russia. They don't,and as all you IT folk know, there is nothing as useful as logs from the server itself (if it was just used a reflector) or other network devices within the provider.
But the FBI seems content to let this attack be originating from Russia. The same FBI who is 100% behind Clinton, who wants to start Cold-then-Hot war 2.0. You're being played, folks.
What is most astonishing is that the FBI could have feigned interest, sent people over there to meet with this fellow and gather all available evidence,and then just pretended not to find any. Corroborating with the operator of a compromised server is chapter-one stuff. So damned obvious it hurts.
Which illuminates the most disturbing aspect of all. We are not merely dealing with conspiratorial bias, and laziness. There is a big measure of stupidity mixed in.
Please don't vote for stupid.
Didn't ANYBODY Check Wikileaks?! (Score:5, Informative)
Amazingly, nearly 400 posts on this thus far, and nobody has posted or linked to the actual Wikileaks dump on Clinton's comment. I know this is /. but checking facts before bloviating does have its merits.
Here is is: [wikileaks.org]
CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]
So Clinton's characterization of her remarks in the debate last night are completely accurate, and the out-of-text paraphrase (not an actual quote) that is usually repeated is an intentional misrepresentation about what she really said.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if The Donald is a foreign power. There's an old saying about making one's bed...?
In any case, I'm thinking about writing in Stoya--why not have a *sophisticated, good-looking, and competent* cocksucker in the White House, for a change?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just that, they have to fish out something he said 11 years ago, and establishment Republicans have a collective hemorrhage - barring a few honorable exceptions, like Rudy, Newt, Hannity, Pirro...
Ironically, by doing this, Clinton just made Kathy Sheldon fair game, as well as the other ex Clinton women that she helped trash as first 'lady' of both AR and the US
Re:Influence the election (Score:4, Informative)
You know Clinton didn't release the tape, right?
His current attitude toward women is quite poor, and this tape just demonstrates that he thinks his money makes sexual assault okay. Even his supporters, I think it was Giuliani on the radio this morning, didn't try to defend what he said. Instead the angle was that he has changed, gone from billionaire playboy to presidential candidate and he wouldn't do that stuff now, even though he describes his own daughter as a "piece of ass".
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to read up what Liberal means, I think you ... what? Oh, "liberal" as defined by the US. Ok. Carry on.
Re: (Score:3)
No, she simply stated with 100% accuracy what she actually said in the speech that has been hyped by a false paraphrase.
And no, the "uranium scandal" has been thoroughly debunked. Do try to keep up AC.