Report: Russian Hackers Phished The DNC And Clinton Campaign Using Fake Gmail Forms (buzzfeed.com) 435
Citing a report from SecureWorks, BuzzFeed is reporting that Russian hackers "used emails disguised to look as Gmail security updates to hack into the computers of the Democratic National Committee and members of Hillary Clinton's top campaign staff":
The emails were sent to 108 members of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign and 20 people clicked on them, at least four people clicking more than once, Secureworks' research found. The emails were sent to another 16 people from the DNC and four people clicked on them, the report said.
Researchers found the emails by tracing the malicious URLs set up by [state-sponsored hacking group] Fancy Bear using Bitly, a link shortening service... "We were monitoring bit.ly and saw the accounts being created in real time," said Phil Burdette, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks, explaining how they stumbled upon the the URLs set up by Fancy Bear.
The URL apparently resolved to accounts-google.com (rather than accounts.google.com), and Burdette says "They did a great job with capturing the look and feel of Google."
Researchers found the emails by tracing the malicious URLs set up by [state-sponsored hacking group] Fancy Bear using Bitly, a link shortening service... "We were monitoring bit.ly and saw the accounts being created in real time," said Phil Burdette, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks, explaining how they stumbled upon the the URLs set up by Fancy Bear.
The URL apparently resolved to accounts-google.com (rather than accounts.google.com), and Burdette says "They did a great job with capturing the look and feel of Google."
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
A few points on this alleged story:
1. The Clinton campaign desperately trying to distract attention away from Hillary's fundamental dishonesty [battleswarmblog.com].
2. Maybe the story is true, and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.
3. Buzzfeed? Really?
4. Maybe they figure if they keep yelling "Trump is a Putin pawn!" enough we'll ignore the fact that Podesta is a registered lobbyist for Putin's bank [battleswarmblog.com].
There's one candidate in this race who has a proven record of taking money for favors from Russian sources, and it isn't Trump [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Odds of note (Score:2, Offtopic)
You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?
What will their odds be in 3 weeks?
That would be the odds of note.
Re: (Score:3)
666-1? (Score:2)
What will their odds be in 3 weeks?
That would be the odds of note.
While having 666-1 odds on Trump presidency may be of note, it will sure be too unsettling for most people to place such a bet.
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone firebombed the GOP office.
Was it even further right wing nutjobs?
Was it a false flag operation as they are getting desperate about losing NC?
Was it really really dumb left wingers?
Was it democrats?
Who knows. I hope they catch whoever did it.
Crazy people (Score:3)
Democrats fire-bombed a GOP office today.
Somebody firebombed a GOP office. Whether it was "Democrats" or not is as yet unknown. I would say it was almost certainly crazy people, which america (unfortunately) has plenty of, and who come (unfortunately) in all political persuasions.
At the moment, the Democrats are raising money to re-open the office. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/... [rawstory.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the first piece of civility I've seen this entire campaign. Well done Dems.
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else [twitter.com]". Who else do you think would have done it?
It was done by an insane person, neither party has a monopoly on insanity (if you doubt it, look at the leading candidate of each party).
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
So clearly orchestrated by the DNC? Stupid partisans believe any old shit that's fed up to them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> Note that the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack, probably because they know they bear some of the blame.
WTF are you talking about? You seem to be just making random shit up to conform to your "liberals are evil, and the extreme polarization in the US is all their fault" narrative.
I see the news story in plenty of places (including your so-called "liberal media"), and Hillary Clinton did not ignore the attack at all; in fact she condemned it.
E.g. see http://americablog.com/2016/
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Informative)
That, sir, is a lie, and you are a liar.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/... [cnn.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10... [nytimes.com]
http://abcnews.go.com/US/north... [go.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po... [cbsnews.com]
Re:LIARS (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously? You listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as sources of evidence?
No. He listed CNN, NY Times,GO, and CBS News as "liberal media" that did cover the story, showing that the statement "the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack" is false.
They are proven to be owned and or controlled by rich and powerful friends of Clinton.
In which case, his post shows that the original post was completely and totally false, doesn't it?
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Mexicans?
Woman?
blacks?
Most of Europe?
muslims?
a quick count puts the potential non democrat suspects at several billion. Hillary may well be devil spawn but that doesn't somehow make trump any less insane a choice.
The answer is: I don't know (Score:3, Interesting)
The building was vandalized with the phrase "Nazi Republicans Leave Town or Else [twitter.com]". Who else do you think would have done it?
The correct answer is: "I don't know, and you don't know either."
It's hard to believe it was the Democrats, since all the polls [msnbc.com] and all the indications show that they're winning. Why in the world would they want to change a winning game?
Throwing bombs isn't something you do if you're winning; it's what you do if you're losing.
But, with that said, I doubt it's the Trump campaign. I expect it was lunatic fanatic crazies.
Whether the lunatic fanatic crazies thought they were on Trump's side, or on Clinto
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
They're so invested in a two-party system, that they won't consider a 3rd party candidate, although both are more honest the the Democrat and Republican offerings. We deserve what we are getting, either way.
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Informative)
So let me get this straight. Don't trust Buzzfeed. Instead, trust "Battle Swam Blog". Got it.
Re, the "uranium deal" thing: false [politifact.com] and false [factcheck.org]. Meanwhile, Trump chose as his campaign manager Paul Manafort, a consultant to Yanukovitch (including being earmarked for over $12m in payments from a slush fund uncovered after Yanukovitch fled), his foreign policy advisor (Carter Page) works (present tense) for Gazprom, one of Trump's sons talked about his father having to focus on loans from Russia when he couldn't get them from the US, and how heavily they rely on Russian investment, Trump Soho turned out in court to be a money laundering organization for Russian criminals (Trump followed up by hiring its principal partner into the Trump organization), Trump bragged during a meeting in Russia that “Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room” just to meet with him, numerous Trump businesses have been financed by Russian oligarchs, Trump has repeatedly called Putin a great leader, both in isolation (without comparison to other US leaders), and in comparison to not only Obama, but Bush as well; Trump advisors intervened in the Republican Party platform on precisely one issue, that being to weaken references to supporting Ukraine; Trump claims that Russian troops aren't in Ukraine, and has endorsed Russia's Syria policy. Not to mention thinks NATO is obsolete. Oh, and whole "we don't know who did the hack, maybe it was China, maybe it was a 400 pound guy in his bedroom" line? He had already been given an intelligence briefing where US officials explicitly told him it was Russia. And then there's his knack for getting ahold of Russian propaganda faster than anyone else, like when he walked into a rally waving around a report on Clinton that had only been published (and later retracted) by Sputnik International.
For all your propaganda that's too bad even for Russian propaganda outlets to push, Trump has your back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OH SHIT. Politifact calls it false. If a Democrat newspaper pretending to be an impartial fact checker says so, then you know it must be true.
Remember Politifact labeling "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" the Lie of the Year? What they don't tell you is that they used to call it "true". Then they later changed it to "half true". Only after it became completely indefensible did they finally turn on it.
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Research led me far afield and I uncovered this gem from PolitiFact in its Pulitzer Prize-winning year of 2008. It rated as TRUE Obama's statement at the October 7, 2008, "If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it."
Five years later, only after Obama was safely elected and re-elected did PolitiFact name that claim the Lie of the Year of 2013 -- even though it dated back to 2008.
Before [politifact.com] and after [politifact.com]. Same journalist wrote both and no apology for the earlier, "fact check" or the about face on the claim.
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Politifact is saying that it hasn't been strictly proven that Clinton actually engaged in pay-for-play. There is no question that the Clinton foundation received the money while Clinton was SoS. I consider that deeply corrupt by itself. You're free to disagree.
Factcheck gets hung up on the fact that Trump said that the State Department had "veto power", which technically only the president has. They acknowledge that State Department approval was required. The fact that approval was required makes the charge of corruption even stronger, because the State Department didn't merely let the deal through through inaction, the State Department actively had to consider the deal and come to a decision. The fact that Factcheck gets this so wrong tells you only one thing: Factcheck's judgments cannot be trusted at all.
Personally, I don't trust anyone; I think for myself and check the facts. I suggest you start doing the same instead of rattling off a litany of talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
Their evidence is that Russian hackers have, in the past, built Gmail spoofing pages to spearphish people in Ukraine/etc. Because Russians have done a similar campaign before, they assume this is Russians again. They are moderately confident that it is Russian agents. (They leave it ambiguous whether it is state-sponsored or not).
Re: (Score:2)
"Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence."
More terms like "credibly sourced" and "plausible"?
Re: (Score:3)
My us vs. them thinking? My "us" is the commoners, and the "them" is the globalist elite. Which includes Hillary, and Jeb, and Kasich. Who the hell is your "us" and "them?"
The Donald isn't just my candidate. He's my weapon to expose and destroy the entire wretched, fetid, rotten to the core political system. If you're voting for Hillary you're voting for your continued and likely permanent enslavement. If you're not voting for Trump you're complicit. Would I like him to be a little better spoken? A little m
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:4, Funny)
Respected Avatar or NPC,
We notice that you are vigorously trying to overcorrect for your simulation's liberal bias. If you are unhappy in your simulation you can submit petition KB3035583 to request being moved to another simulation with a different bias.
Sincerely,
The Operators
Re: (Score:2)
CTU researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government
More wild guessing based off of limited information and guestimation.
Re: (Score:2)
A few points on this alleged story:
1. The Clinton campaign desperately trying to distract attention away from Hillary's fundamental dishonesty [battleswarmblog.com].
True, but so is Trump trying desperately trying to distrac this negative aspects. Desperately trying to distract is a key skill of all politicians.
2. Maybe the story is true, and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.
Not Clinton, the DNC. And yes they probably do just like the Republicans and Independents do too. Any sufficiently large organisation will have numpties among their numbers. even the CIA, KGB, NSA, DoD etc have numpties. This is not unusual.
3. Buzzfeed? Really?
Pass
4. Maybe they figure if they keep yelling "Trump is a Putin pawn!" enough we'll ignore the fact that Podesta is a registered lobbyist for Putin's bank [battleswarmblog.com].
There's one candidate in this race who has a proven record of taking money for favors from Russian sources, and it isn't Trump [nytimes.com].
Registered and disclosed. Do you see how it works now?
Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Clinton, the DNC
Doesn't Podesta work for Hillary, not the DNC? Were his emails stored with the DNC? I thought it was her campaign that was hacked/leaked also.
Registered and disclosed. Do you see how it works now?
No, I don't. What's different?
Also, how does that make it okay? We've got leaked Podesta emails yelling "Take the money!!!!" from people linked to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other awful places, funneled through properly registered and disclosed agents. How does being bought by fucking Saudi Arabia and Qatar become okay just because it's legal? I care about the "being bought by Saudi Arabia and Qatar" part. Whether it was done by legal accounting legerdemain or sacks of cash in a DC parking garage at 3am is irrelevant.
I would say we need to change the laws to make any money sourced from overseas illegal to be used in campaigning, but I don't think it would matter. Hillary breaks election and campaign finance laws with impunity and will never be prosecuted. We are in a post-legal state.
Link shortening is a horrible, horrible idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly I'm surprised we don't see this technique used more often.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if people checked URLs before clicking them, but...
Good web browsers should warn whenever a main URL is redirected to a different SLD, show the new URL, and require the user to check a box "Yes, I understand that this can be dangerous" and hit Continue before redirecting.
seriously (Score:2)
The most amusing bit about the democrats response isn't the fact they aren't screaming "LIES!" It's the fact that they are pointing at Russia and yelling "Those dicks did that!"
My guess is that if the defense is true - she pissed them off with the reset button!
http://www.theblaze.com/storie... [theblaze.com]
Or not.
According to that she was in bed with Putin.
that does ignore this book
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.... [penguinrandomhouse.com]
Which tells where the "reset button" was swiped from.
It amazes me that people forget that hillary reset rela
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Was she a complete failure back then? Or is she lying now?
What is "both"?
now tell me about what I win Alex!
Re: (Score:2)
The most amusing bit about the democrats response isn't the fact they aren't screaming "LIES!"
I know, right? The "hacks" have been astonishingly ineffective. They've not published lies, and they've not published any truths which are remotely damning. So... what's left.
It's the fact that they are pointing at Russia and yelling "Those dicks did that!"
So, Russia is hacking stuff to try to influence the US election and the fact that people are annoyed by that is amusing? I don't really understand your reasoni
incorrect (Score:2, Informative)
That's not "using fake emails to hack into the computers of the Democratic National Committee" That's "using hack emails to trick gullible staff members".
Without gullible staff members the computers would have been secure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Without gullible staff members there would be no democratic party leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
The emails were sent to 108 members of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign and 20 people clicked on them
and why the 88 non-clickers didn't warn the 20 clickers is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they thought that in 2016 it was common sense to not click random unsolicited links.
Scary (Score:3)
It's kind of scary that the people who want to be elected to run the branch of government that is in charge of implementing cyber security are such a bunch of damn clueless morons about it.
I mean there are high schoolers who would do better securing and safeguarding their emails than this crew...
Heh, who's the JV team?
What are PROBABLY Russians (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"
I know it fits the playbook to simply call them "Russian Hackers" but hey, maybe...journalism instead?
Re:What are PROBABLY Russians (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
"researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"
I know it fits the playbook to simply call them "Russian Hackers" but hey, maybe...journalism instead?
Did you read the rest of the article, and the buzzfeed article as well?
First the group has been going after Russia's enemies for years, including Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany. This suggests the group is very pro-Russian.
Second the group has used multiple zero-day exploits in its attacks, which strongly suggests a state actor. Not only because getting zero-day exploits is really hard, but zero day exploits are also very valuable, and the described hacks only really had significant value to the Russian government.
I'm not sure why SecureWorks is hedging so much, but the hacks being orchestrated by the Russian government seems extremely likely.
What a terrible source (Score:2)
The left-leaning Buzzfeed staff needs to stick to what they do best.....making videos about Britons eating American snacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has made it clear he'll be a tough anti-Putin leader. Trump knows Russia has invaded Crimeria, he knows that Crimeria is in Ukraine. Does crooked Hillary know that???
I know that Gary Johnson sure doesn't.
Another reason to use 2 facter auth (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another reason to use 2 facter auth (Score:4, Interesting)
It has one. It's called "Preview". How much did you pay for that 4-digit account, anyway?
Re: Another reason to use 2 facter auth (Score:3)
The mobile version of the website doesn't have a preview function, you nitwit.
I use accounts-google.com all the time (Score:3)
and have never had any security proble...Slashdot is decadent. Comrade, why not visit sunny Moscow and rub lucky chest of King Putin?
accounts-google.com was registered to Google 2013 (Score:2)
Why was Accounts-google.com registered to Google inc, 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway at least as far back as 2013? http://www.domainhistory.net/a... [domainhistory.net] and via MarkMonitor https://www.markmonitor.com/ [markmonitor.com] which "protects the leading brands". YAN has been laughing about this all day. Didn't anyone bother to check any of this??
Americans should cringe (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope all Americans realize that the rest of the world is dumbfounded that Clinton and Trump are supposedly the best candidates for the presidency of your great nation.
Surely not.
You are all lost!
Re: (Score:3)
Don't blame me. [youtube.com] I voted for Kodos. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope all Americans realize that the rest of the world is dumbfounded that Clinton and Trump are supposedly the best candidates for the presidency of your great nation.
A lot of us Americans share your disbelief. Personally, I could really go for a repeal of the twenty-second amendment right about now...
Re: (Score:3)
Obama isn't any better. Every one of his promises he has failed to live up to. And the ones that he has kept have been disastrous. He makes GWB look competent.
That, and to the GP post, the best candidates do not run, because of the trashing by the other party is pretty nasty. The " ______ kills kittens and eats babies" tactic works, unless you put up candidates like Hillary and Donald, which create their own versions which happen to be true, or close to being true, that we just are trying to avoid the worst
Still Confused .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still Confused .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shut up and stop making sense. Everybody knows that Russians did it because Russians are bad and they like Trump, therefore Trump and Russians are in league with each other to destroy America. That's all the evidence we need!
Sure, we laughed at Mitt Romney 4 years ago when he said Russia was our enemy, but then again we elected an inexperienced non-insider candidate then. Now we say that the country CAN'T have an inexperienced outsider candidate, because that's not what ours is. A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yes, because having a wall street endoresed 1 % is bad surely electing someone who belongs to said 1 % and has said: [theatlantic.com] “It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
Re:Still Confused .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shut up and stop making sense. Everybody knows that Russians did it because Russians are bad and they like Trump, therefore Trump and Russians are in league with each other to destroy America. That's all the evidence we need!
Sure, we laughed at Mitt Romney 4 years ago when he said Russia was our enemy, but then again we elected an inexperienced non-insider candidate then. Now we say that the country CAN'T have an inexperienced outsider candidate, because that's not what ours is. A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.
Are you kidding me? Both are Wall Street endorsed, lol. Trump is connected to Wall Street as is Hillary. To think that Trump does not rub elbows with the same people as hillary is naive in the extreme. You do not get to both of their levels in our society with out this happening, do you actually think there are different entities interacting with politicians based on how they emerged? Nope. They are the same, one is cold and a liar (Hillary) and one is a sociopath and a lies more than the other (Trump) and is a sexual pervert, but both coordinate with Wall Street.
As for the hacking, Russia has been on our top 2 threat list to our country for over a decade; in this day in age most countries are trying to hack others (even friends). Shit, our own CIA spied on our own Senate. This is not a false flag by the Clinton campaign in coordination with our government, this is Julian Assange coordinating with Russia (to what degree, who knows). In my opinion Julian is scared, he is running out of time since the current Ecuadorian president does not plan to run again (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/23/ecuador-correa-wont-run-again-in-2017/) and that pretty much is his last friend. He hates Hillary and she hates him, so he is probably hoping that Trump will either ignore him, or pardon him.
Again, this is my $0.02 but Hillary has supported President Obama's intention to bring Snowden and Assange to trial here in the US. And again my $0.02 a Trump presidency is a presidency built on arrogance and incompetence and that is easily exploitable by Putin, in addition, a Trump presidency means that congress and the administration will be at odds, again four years of getting nothing done, so that is great for Russia too.
Putin plays the long game, we tend to play the short game here which is why we are fucked.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm still not sure how this points to the Russians... How do we not know that it isn't some dude sitting on the beach in Tahiti and bouncing it off a server or VPN in Russia?
Because they weren't simply working with SRC and DST packets, Donald. They did actual analysis [vice.com], and found that the intrusion tools were the same as those used, among other things, to hack the German Bundestag (Parliament). They found Russian language bits mistakenly left in the leaked materials—which disappeared and never emerged again once their presence was pointed out. A shared SSL certificate also implicated the Russians.
Re:Still Confused .... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Still Confused .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never seen so many Americans rush to defend Russias[sic] honor
People are talking about starting a war over this with Russia. The evidence better be clear and conclusive before something dumb like that happens.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care about Russia's honor. I just know that the last time the government gave me UNDENIABLE CONCLUSIVE PROOF of malicious enemy state action to justify a war it was a complete lie, hundreds of thousands or more people died, trillions of dollars were wasted, the reputation of the united states was forever tarnished. So before we go to war with Russia I'd like something a little bit better than "trust us, we're the US government, would we lie to you?"
And no, you can't say "but we're not talking about
Re: Still Confused .... (Score:4)
I've never seen so many Americans rush to defend Russias honor
If more Americans had questioned the evidence that Iraq was stocked with WMDs and ready to use them, maybe we would have never gotten in that war. Let's question evidence that Russia is involved in espionage before we decide to go to war with them, okay?
Re: Still Confused .... (Score:4, Informative)
Not to point out the obvious but, were I the NSA or other three letter agency and wanted to provide " proof " that the $pickabadguy were behind this, I would simply instruct the coders to " accidentally " leave behind bits of $language in the code for the world to find.
To be fun, were I a Russian hacker, I would create another Stuxnet and leave a giant American Flag in ascii buried in the code somewhere just to prove that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still Confused .... (Score:5, Informative)
> if not a majority, are still running broken Windows XP and even piratated Windows 3.1.
This is simply not true. We (not me personaly because I'm a Linux user) pirate any modern staff (MS products, Adobe, etc) very fast, partly because a lot of cracking teams are from xUSSR.
> Since these people do not use credit cards online, they do not care about security.
Well, it's actually simpler to use cards in Russia then in U.S to make a transfer to your buddy. But I agree about lot's of infected machines.
> Russia cannot produce a single PC, notebook, or even a smartphone.
That's correct. Government can't but people is another story.
> I would not believe that it has got supernatural powers to enter firewalled hardened US government servers.
No supernatural powers of course, but Russia is known for IT outsourcing. A lot of Russians move to U.S. to work in companies like Microsoft, Amazon and so on. The world known debugging tool IDA pro (used for cracking) is also made by Russians.
Re: Trumps America (Score:3, Interesting)
It is certainly best for Clintons campaign ito fix blame on "the Russians". It would be better for Trumps campaign if he could blame China. Ergo if the Russians actually did it they would have false flagged China. That is if Russia cares.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pronounced Zhongguo, actually.
Asshole Trolls (Score:3)
I appreciate how Slashdot posters have largely stayed out of the shit fest that is this campaign. Thank you.
But recently, more and more assholes like the AC at the top are spamming Slashdot with political bullshit.
I think that the majority of the Slashdot community would appreciate it if you cock suckers stayed in the designated cesspools that support your candidate and stay the fuck away from Slashdot.
Re: Trumps America (Score:4, Funny)
You mean of a community made up of what is probably -- when you add together CIA, NSA, military intelligence and contractors -- tens of thousands of people, many of them old, "at least a dozen" have died in the past three months?
A little more perspective (Score:2)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... [fivethirtyeight.com]
From that fivethirtyeight article some months ago:
So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get3 if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet.4 Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.
People have to remember that Nate Silver is using statistics based on assumptions, and those assumptions may or may not be valid.
The particular assumption in the link you quoted, is that his chances will not change in the next two weeks.
Let's see what tomorrow may bring [breitbart.com], shall we?
Re: (Score:2)
And he's also using statistics based on data and there is a whole lot more (and much much better) data during a national general election than there is of the individual parties state-by-state.
I bet if you think about it, you'll figure out how the general and the primaries can't really be compared.
Anyway, we also have assumptions made by Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpol [realclearpolitics.com]
Re:A little more perspective (Score:4, Informative)
Even if Hillary *is* a lesbian, what of it?
This is supposed to make up for the fact that no man who actually cared about his daughter would leave her alone with Trump?
More false equivalence from the RWNJ lobby.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A little perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
What I get from that map is that, despite a clear majority of states voting for Trump, their model still for some reason "predicts" a Clinton win. Almost as if the election has been rigged. Somehow.
Every election is rigged by design, because of the electoral college system. If you're just now figuring out that the elections are rigged, you slept through civics and should probably refrain from contributing to political conversations.
Re:A little perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.
If anyone has a beef with the electoral college, take it up with the Founding Fathers.
Re:A little perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.
The EC has disagreed with the popular vote only four times in history and one of those was a Bush presidency. Tell me again how great it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was great. I'm just pointing out that it isn't an evil conspiracy hatched by George Soros and Saul Alinsky.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say it was great. I'm just pointing out that it isn't an evil conspiracy hatched by George Soros and Saul Alinsky.
Right. It's an evil conspiracy hatched by the rich white male founding fathers, who wanted to retain control of the nation. What, you thought they were fucking angels?
I do not believe that the United States would even exist without the electoral college. Why would Rhode Island want to participate in a popular presidential election when they have basically no say over who is elected? At least they're guaranteed 2 electoral votes through their senate seats. All of the little states could band together and have their voice heard through the electoral college. The five most populous states contain almost half the US population and would therefore dominate elections. It w
Re: (Score:2)
The Electoral College is the best thing in all of human history. Knowledge of it has saved me from so many disasters I have lost count. I do agree that it is confusing to people who have no understanding of history, but please know you mess with it at peril of your very soul.
Re: (Score:2)
They also created the 2nd amendment to put the fear of God into the political establishment so they wouldn't be so inclined to try and bilk an entire nation for all that it is worth. Is it irony that the very same establishment is trying to do away with that special little "check"? I think so.
Also read up on faithless elector laws. Any sort of attempt at using this to throw an election against Trump would lead to a civil war. The establishment knows it's on thin ice.
Re: (Score:3)
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.
Except that in this case Trump doesn't get the popular vote - he's at 42.5%. Clinton has 49.3%.
Also, electoral votes being a representation of the will and the number of the people in each state - they tend to vote in accord to the popular vote.
I mean... last time popular vote winner lost the election was in 2000 - back when Gore lost to Bush by less than 1% of the electoral vote, while wining the popular vote by 0.5%.
Last time before that... you'd have to go back to the '80s. 1880s. [wikipedia.org] Before women could vote
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.
But I agree with you that the Constitution is a living document.
Re: A little perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to revisit the Constitution based on the fact that "technology has changed", we can do that. But beware. Some of your most hallowed Amendments might go by the wayside.
Rat, this is a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.
"A living Constitution" is shorthand for the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal friends shouldn't be bound by the actual words in the Constitution, but by (her interpretation of) the intent of the Constitution, which coincidentally always lines up with liberal policy preferences.
"Living Constitution" advocates are making laws and rulings against the plain text of the Second Amendment NOW, with that amendment still in place.
Changing
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who gave himself away by specifying his favourite amendment, smart guy.
Re:A little perspective (Score:4, Funny)
What I get from that map is that, despite a clear majority of states voting for Trump, their model still for some reason "predicts" a Clinton win. Almost as if the election has been rigged. Somehow.
The astute reader will notice that 22 states on that map are colored red or pink. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Re:A little perspective (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but the map clearly shows the majority of the land area of the country is colored red. And everybody knows that the only fair way to conduct an election is for each square mile of the country's landmass to get exactly one vote.
Re:A little perspective (Score:4, Informative)
What I get from that map is that, despite a clear majority of states voting for Trump, their model still for some reason "predicts" a Clinton win.
You're either not American or you slept through civics class in high school.
The number of states doesn't matter. The populations of those states (and thus the number of electoral votes each one has) are negligible compared to those in the Clinton column. In fact, the only populous state that's likely to go for Trump is Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Taking the side that the candidate up by six points should be losing.
The candidate winning by six points SHOULD be losing, if ethics mattered as much as her supporters claim they do.
The candidate losing by six points SHOULD be losing, if being hypocritical mattered, like they claim it should.
The real question is, why are EITHER of them winning when both shouldn't even be close to winning? If everyone who doesn't like either candidate, and is holding their noses why swallowing the poison of their vote actually voted their conscience, NEITHER Trump nor Clinton would win.
Re:Education (Score:5, Interesting)
Education and training is always the weakest link.
No, human trust is the weakest link.
I doubt that you can convert a single human being from "trust by default" to "distrust by default" through education. And training can only help with specific and narrow threats, and once attackers change their tactics, those who trust by default are just as vulnerable again.
It's a mindset, not knowledge. If you don't have healthy paranoia, you're always going to be prey.
Re:Education (Score:5, Interesting)
Paranoia is never "healthy". *Awareness*, however, is always a damned good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Awareness only works in retrospect - you have have something defined to be aware of. Faced with new ideas, it's useless.
Healthy paranoia and skepticism is what stops what people aren't aware of.
Same ole tactic, different day (Score:3, Informative)
Explaining virtually every spear phishing plan ever run on people for the last 20 years proves nothing. Who-is data for the domain they claim responsible is registered in France, not Russia. Registered to one "sacko.fatou17@yahoo.fr". Domain created 22FEB2012 and expires on 22FEB17. I'll paste more below just in case, but neither the name or the address of the registrant relate to Russia. Fatou [wikipedia.org] is an older family name in France. You want to convince me it's Russian they need to do better than common k
Re: (Score:2)
As if a Russian or a Frenchman acting on the Russian's behalf couldn't register a domain in France?
*That's* the best you can come up with?
Re: (Score:2)
They make it sound like copying a Google page is hard, when in fact it's as simple as "save-as" and downloading a couple of pictures from the same source.
Yeah lol, to be honest I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.
Re: (Score:2)
If Hillary is elected it is clear she'll be impeached in record time as the only people who like her are misogynistic dictators and theocrats who like people who accept naked bribes to sell out the American citizens.
Probably not......would you rather have Kaine? The guy has the intelligence of a koala and the clarity of mind of a guinea hen.
Republicans don't like Hillary, but she's someone they can work with.