Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jreilly89 wrote:Oh god, so get rid of Trump, and we get Pence. Get rid of Pence, and we get Paul Ryan. At this point, I'd rather have Romney back. He's at least semi-competent and not completely crazy
I wasn't a big Romney fan, and I didn't vote for him. If Romney had won, I could have shrugged and said OK, I can try to support him. I may not have agreed with his policies but I feel pretty confident I'd never have reason to suspect he dabbled in some light treason.
I definitely voted for Obama over Romney. However, I thought he would've been a fine House Speaker, and at this point, I'd take him over the Orange Douche or Mr. Shock Therapy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 15:26:12
d-usa wrote: Quick thought on the whole "ISP selling your data" bill. Despite the actual content of the bill, isn't this exactly the kind of thing we usually crap on congress when they don't do it? Every time legislators complain about executive branch agencies having too much power to make regulations, it feels like our usual reply is to tell him "you gave them the power to regulate, you can fix it if they go to far".
My understanding is that the FCC introduced a regulation that was going to take effect in the future prohibiting the sale of this data, and in response to that the legislative branch introduced a bill to remove the power to regulate that particular issue. They didn't make it legal to sell, it's already been legal, they just stopped the regulation that would make it illegal in the future. They delegates regulatory power to the FCC, and then clarified that power.
At least that is my understanding.
I'm a proponent of clearer legislation and updates to existing legislation to address technological and social changes. Congress is far too political these days, with members happy to pass off responsibilities to Federal bureaucrats to avoid having to vote on legislation that could be used against them during campaigns. It also comes up a fair bit with SCotUS not taking cases or addressing Congress in their decisions to pass new laws to clarify the legal issue in questions rather than leaving SCotUS to try to decipher how outdated and vague legislation applies to a new situation.
Coal is a waste. We should be focusing on jobs for renewable energy sources, unless we're doubling down on Trump's "Kill the Planet" initiative
That reminds of yesterday's NYT The Daily podcast. They had a coal miner on that actually claimed that coal mining had never personally affected him, as you can literally hear the man struggle to breath from his advanced black lung (which he himself admits to having). Then the interviewer starts getting emotional because the miner said you can't judge the affect of coal as a fuel if you've never been to a coal power plant. What I wouldn't give to get that miner a full day in the middle of Beijing on a nice, smoggy day without a facemask. What a gak interview.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 15:40:30
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Dude, the US democratically (well, kinda) elected Donald Trump. The base is just as rotten as the political caste. You are screwed.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Dude, the US democratically (well, kinda) elected Donald Trump. The base is just as rotten as the political caste. You are screwed.
The idea is that may not be the case; if Russia skewed the election then it wasn't actually legitimate. Though another revolution is a bit far, I think.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Dude, the US democratically (well, kinda) elected Donald Trump. The base is just as rotten as the political caste. You are screwed.
The idea is that may not be the case; if Russia skewed the election then it wasn't actually legitimate. Though another revolution is a bit far, I think.
What is it that you think Russia did or may have done that would make the vote tallies illegitimate? No election official has claimed that ballots were tampered with and Obama even said that there was no evidence that the 2016 election was hacked or rigged.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Dude, the US democratically (well, kinda) elected Donald Trump. The base is just as rotten as the political caste. You are screwed.
The idea is that may not be the case; if Russia skewed the election then it wasn't actually legitimate. Though another revolution is a bit far, I think.
What is it that you think Russia did or may have done that would make the vote tallies illegitimate? No election official has claimed that ballots were tampered with and Obama even said that there was no evidence that the 2016 election was hacked or rigged.
I seriously doubt the tallies themselves were messed with, but as for Trump & co colluding with Russia to skew public opinion? That I could see.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Dude, the US democratically (well, kinda) elected Donald Trump. The base is just as rotten as the political caste. You are screwed.
The idea is that may not be the case; if Russia skewed the election then it wasn't actually legitimate. Though another revolution is a bit far, I think.
If we remove Russia from the equation, we still have a man launched himself into a campaign based upon a racist concept that Barack Obama was not a US citizen, and once there lied reflexively about matters large and small, bragged about sexually assaulting women, generalized Mexicans as rapists and criminals, made fun of a crippled reported, flirted with white supremacists, and so on. Once in office, this buffoon has managed to reveal he is absolutely out of his depth and content to spend all of his time playing golf and grifting the taxpayers for as much as he can.
Despite all this, he's still only lost like what, 4% of the deplorable vote?
Yeah, we deserve Trump and whatever we get.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 16:43:22
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Dude, the US democratically (well, kinda) elected Donald Trump. The base is just as rotten as the political caste. You are screwed.
The idea is that may not be the case; if Russia skewed the election then it wasn't actually legitimate. Though another revolution is a bit far, I think.
If we remove Russia from the equation, we still have a man who lied reflexively about matters large and small, bragged about sexually assaulting women, made fun of a crippled reported, flirted with white supremacists, and so on. Once in office, this buffoon has managed to reveal he is absolutely out of his depth and content to spend all of his time playing golf and grifting the taxpayers for as much as he can.
Despite all this, he's still only lost like what, 4% of the deplorable vote?
Yeah, we deserve Trump and whatever we get.
Ouze, you'd think that alone would've been enough to disqualify him, but the amount of people I saw shouting BUT HER EMAILS was staggering. America deserved what it got, and I hope everyone who voted for Trump looks on in horror.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 16:43:54
If Trump did collude with the Russians to skew opinion (something no evidence has indicated happened), how would that be worse than the Clinton campaign colluding with members of the media to influence the election (something for which there IS evidence)?
Who do you think influences the American public more, our own media, or the Russians?
I'm gonna guess our own media has MUCH greater sway over the public.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: If Trump did collude with the Russians to skew opinion (something no evidence has indicated happened), how would that be worse than the Clinton campaign colluding with members of the media to influence the election (something for which there IS evidence)?
And again, this is why we totally deserve Trump: an otherwise smart guy claiming there isn't any real difference between a campaign staffer improperly passing information between a media outlet, and possible collusion between a campaign and a hostile foreign power attempting to weaken our democracy in the pursuit of installing a puppet who will loosen sanctions on them.
Good job, America!
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
NinthMusketeer wrote: The idea is that may not be the case; if Russia skewed the election then it wasn't actually legitimate.
Never said it was legitimate. Just said you got enough people willingly putting a “Trump” vote into the ballot to get him elected. That's a new low.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
NinthMusketeer wrote: The idea is that may not be the case; if Russia skewed the election then it wasn't actually legitimate.
Never said it was legitimate. Just said you got enough people willingly putting a “Trump” vote into the ballot to get him elected. That's a new low.
I agree with this sentiment, but I still feel its important to remember that Trump/GOP supporters are not only a minority of the population, but a shrinking one. If every American showed up to vote, Repiblicans would get crushed. However like others have said even disregarding any influence by Russia many people felt the election just wasn't important enough to spend a day of their lives participating in, so...
Ouze wrote: Yeah, we deserve Trump and whatever we get.
...we have not the President that we need, but the one that we deserve.
CptJake wrote: If Trump did collude with the Russians to skew opinion (something no evidence has indicated happened), how would that be worse than the Clinton campaign colluding with members of the media to influence the election (something for which there IS evidence)?
Who do you think influences the American public more, our own media, or the Russians?
I'm gonna guess our own media has MUCH greater sway over the public.
Clinton has prior knowledge of debate questions via a staffer = Clinton campaign has colluded with members of the media.
Numerous members of Trump's team have relationships with Russia both in person and financially, members of Trump's team have resigned over their relationship with Russia, there is an active investigation by the FBI (who you loved so very much when they were investigating Clinton's emails), Flynn now offering to testify in exchange for immunity = No evidence.
CptJake wrote: If Trump did collude with the Russians to skew opinion (something no evidence has indicated happened), how would that be worse than the Clinton campaign colluding with members of the media to influence the election (something for which there IS evidence)?
Who do you think influences the American public more, our own media, or the Russians?
I'm gonna guess our own media has MUCH greater sway over the public.
Clinton has prior knowledge of debate questions via a staffer = Clinton campaign has colluded with members of the media.
Numerous members of Trump's team have relationships with Russia both in person and financially, members of Trump's team have resigned over their relationship with Russia, there is an active investigation by the FBI (who you loved so very much when they were investigating Clinton's emails), Flynn now offering to testify in exchange for immunity = No evidence.
Both candidates had financial ties to Russia and both candidates had staffers with financial ties to Russia. The key issue is if Trump's ties to Russia were connected to nefarious Russian activity to sway the election. What nefarious actions did the Russians commit that could potentially be connected to Trump? The worst case scenario I can imagine is that Russia really was behind the DNC hacks, which showed the public the inner workings of the DNC and potentially could have contributed to low voter turnout for Hillary, and Russia being behind the manipulation of the /r/the_donald thread, Reddit being the 4th most trafficked website in the US and the Trump thread getting far more prominence and activity than it's user base could generate organically. While both of those things are bad I think it's a stretch to say that they caused Hillary to lose the election.
d-usa wrote: Quick thought on the whole "ISP selling your data" bill. Despite the actual content of the bill, isn't this exactly the kind of thing we usually crap on congress when they don't do it? Every time legislators complain about executive branch agencies having too much power to make regulations, it feels like our usual reply is to tell him "you gave them the power to regulate, you can fix it if they go to far".
My understanding is that the FCC introduced a regulation that was going to take effect in the future prohibiting the sale of this data, and in response to that the legislative branch introduced a bill to remove the power to regulate that particular issue. They didn't make it legal to sell, it's already been legal, they just stopped the regulation that would make it illegal in the future. They delegates regulatory power to the FCC, and then clarified that power.
At least that is my understanding.
I'm a proponent of clearer legislation and updates to existing legislation to address technological and social changes. Congress is far too political these days, with members happy to pass off responsibilities to Federal bureaucrats to avoid having to vote on legislation that could be used against them during campaigns. It also comes up a fair bit with SCotUS not taking cases or addressing Congress in their decisions to pass new laws to clarify the legal issue in questions rather than leaving SCotUS to try to decipher how outdated and vague legislation applies to a new situation.
Yeah, I don't like the particular result of these actions and I think the pending regulation was a good idea.
But we always tell congress to clear up their own laws if they don't like the interpretation by agencies of those laws.
I also prefer permanent, or more permanent, regulations established by law (even if I don't like it) over the current situation where all regulations for everything can change every 4 years. At some point there is a benefit to stability.
cuda1179 wrote: On the other hand, how much utter crap must a source have in its history before being labeled as unworthy? There are several sources still considered viable even after scandals, intentionally lying to their readers, supporting the anti-vax movement, trying to help rig an election, or being vaguely racist.
Well it's a judgement call, I guess. Exactly what the line is between an organisation that is normally pretty good but messed up a couple of times, and an organisation isn't reliable isn't always clear.
Hey, if debates here really did come down to everyone trying their level best to to honestly determine if a source is worth considering as part of the debate, even if we didn't necessarily agree on every source, well it'd still be a vastly better debate than the one we've got right now.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
At this point, anyone who cast their vote for Trump for reasons other than "let's watch the world burn" or "feth you libtard" has gotta be feeling pretty cheated.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
cuda1179 wrote: Not a loaded question at all. I'm actually serious. How much crud does a news source need to spit out before someone will claim the whole thing can't be trusted. Fox News will occasionally sound a tad misogynistic and insensitive to minorities, Rolling Stone kept reporting false rape accusations, and CNN employees were both fairly open about their bias and slipped Clinton debate questions. Even entities such as Huffington Post, NBC, and even the BBC have quoted a statistic that Politifacts gave three Pinocchios to.
To go through your sources, BBC is a fine source. This doesn't mean anything on it should be taken as gospel, but it does mean we can assume it is almost certainly factual, and probably contains an answer that broadly represents all elements of the issue.
Huffington Post does some good stuff, but there is a deliberate political edge to their reporting. If it is your only source then people need to check it out, and if it looks bad after some quick review dump it.
CNN is just bad. Not because of any bias, but because they're an utterly inane pile of nonsense. There is no insight, no researched material, nothing to be gained from using them as a source.
FOX News has the issues of both HuffPo and CNN combined. They are intentionally biased in their coverage, and also inane. Leave it alone, and salt the ground behind you so the FOXbeast cannot follow you.
I had no idea for the longest time that Rolling Stone even did non-entertainment journalism. It just used to be a magazine that wrote insufferable music reviews and celebrity pieces. I only found out it did stuff like the rape on campus story when I found it did the rape on campus story pretty badly. Probably not a good sign for that publication.
NBC I don't actually know that much about. I never come across their on-line stuff, and I don't watch their nightly news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Wealth inequality is a big concern but It doesn't matter what party you vote for. They will both lead this country to ruin. Just pick your poison.
People keep thinking the rise in wealth inequality has been created by some deliberate choice made by political parties. This is wrong.
Plain reality is that most parts of the economy are simply out of the control of politicians. They can try a bunch of policies that can help in one area or another, but most things will happen while politicians look on just as helpless as the rest of us. And this means sometimes new economic problems, such as a return to wealth inequality, will just naturally develop out of cultural and technological conditions.
There are things politicians can do about that, and on that level its clear one party, the Democrats, at least has some recognition of the problem, and some vague ideas on how to start addressing the issue. In contrast, Republicans actually want to reduce taxes on the very rich, making the problem even worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: This is the kind of irresponsible political nihilism that gave us Trump.
I thought the one positive that would come out of the Trump/Republican disaster is that people would drop the nonsense about everyone being the same. They'd gain an appreciation for centrist parties that muddle along, when they realise how much harm an actually bad party can do.
While it's hard to understand how the last couple of months of endless cockups wouldn't have convinced everyone of that lesson, I guess there's still another few years for people to start getting it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 17:41:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Prestor Jon wrote: Both candidates had financial ties to Russia and both candidates had staffers with financial ties to Russia. The key issue is if Trump's ties to Russia were connected to nefarious Russian activity to sway the election. What nefarious actions did the Russians commit that could potentially be connected to Trump? The worst case scenario I can imagine is that Russia really was behind the DNC hacks, which showed the public the inner workings of the DNC and potentially could have contributed to low voter turnout for Hillary, and Russia being behind the manipulation of the /r/the_donald thread, Reddit being the 4th most trafficked website in the US and the Trump thread getting far more prominence and activity than it's user base could generate organically. While both of those things are bad I think it's a stretch to say that they caused Hillary to lose the election.
I don't know what, if anything, Russia did to influence the election or how much impact it had. But given the evidence we have I'd say there is a fair chance that at least portions of the Trump team worked with Russia to skew the election in Trump's favor, with or without Trump himself knowing. And given how close the election was I would say that even a minor impact could have been enough to flip the outcome. As for exactly what Russia/Trump/Trump's team did or didn't do I'm not sure, I'll wait and see what the various inquiries and investigations come up with.
jreilly89 wrote: So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump? Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
It depends on his testimony. It depends on Yates testimony. It depends on what the FBI has.
At this point all we really know is that Trump and co have lied a lot, and a bunch of Republicans have played a lot of interference to distract or delay investigations in to the Russian connection. Exactly what they're all working to cover up is unknown at this point, and possibly won't be revealed by Yates and Flynn's testimonies. Likely all they'll do is confirm that Trump and co were telling a whole bunch of lies about the whole thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Depends entirely upon what Flynn actually says. I don't think it's likely that Flynn can produce testimony and evidence that will convince the Republican majority in the House to impeach a Republican president but it's possible.
I agree it's unlikely. Very unlikely even. But don't just consider what is revealed, also consider the Republican political position. There's already been signs of concern about 2018. Trump is currently polling at or below 40%, for a president so early in his term, with a healthy economy that's an amazingly bad figure. If testimony comes out that makes Trump's position even worse, well then it's possible that Republicans won't want a Trump albatross around their neck.
Also consider if another reform goes down in flames like AHCA did. Or if Trump does actually take a shot at Ryan, or the Freedom Caucus.
Again though, I agree it is all very unlikely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If a man or woman is asking for immunity, then there is a mountain of beans to spill
People keep saying this, but it isn't necessarily true. Thing about testimony is that there's a whole lot of stuff you can do wrong, miss complete disclosure one time and they can nail you, disclose too much another time and they can nail you on that too. Even if they don't make their case you get stuck in courts for years fighting it out, with your career now in the toilet.
Point is, there's a lot spiteful people in Washington, and if they want to get you, then they'll prob find something in your testimony to nail you on. So people who know they might make some enemies, or already have some enemies, want immunity, even if they know what they're about to say doesn't implicate them in any real legal breaches.
During the IRS thing there was a constant call made that people were given immunity to testify, so there must be something really bad going on. There wasn't. They just wanted immunity in case someone decided to nail them out of spite.
We just got to wait until we actually hear what Flynn has to say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stevefamine wrote: As a Trump supporter, I can't be fully blind. There is easily a extremely small chance he does get impeached. He did have a 99% chance to lose the election from established polls and flipped the table and won against HRC.
No, the polls don't show anything like that. All the polls show is how many said Clinton or Trump. That doesn't lead to a probability.
That requires statistical models, and none of the good ones said anything close to 99%. The bad ones did, and for some strange reason people focused on the bad models, over the models like 538 with proven records that were saying something more like 65-35.
I don't think it was Trump specifically, but I'd say there is a chance that at least one member has something major going on with Russia.
I think if it was just one Trump affiliate acting by himself then he would have been cut loose already. Hell, they've already cut Manafort, Page and Flynn loose. Instead you have Sessions, Nunes, and Trump himself all running distract and delay operations... that isn't to cover for some random staffer.
That doesn't mean we'll ever actually know what is really at the bottom of all this. Maybe all we'll ever get is some random falling on his sword, admitting it was all him, and copping jail time (that will get pardoned by Trump on his way out of office). But there's no way that's all there is here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The worst case scenario I can imagine is that Russia really was behind the DNC hacks, which showed the public the inner workings of the DNC
The US intelligence community as a whole has stated Russia was behind the hack, so I guess we can consider it a possilibty... jesus fething christ man.
and potentially could have contributed to low voter turnout for Hillary
This is actually the part you are right to call a stretch. It's a given that Russia didn't just run their hacking operation to harm Clinton, they also created a huge amount of anti-Clinton, pro-Trump fake news through their misinformation operations. The connections between the Trump campaign and Russia are similarly plain to see. Page, Flynn and Manafort have all been stood down from their roles because of revealed connections with Russia. Similarly obvious is the influence Russia has had on Trump, the Trump team forced a change to the RNC platform to now oppose Ukraine in fighting rebels.
But in terms of Russia's operations actually helping Trump, I think the case is pretty weak. It as certainly meant to help Trump, but in a campaign where both candidates were buried in scandal, real and otherwise, with voters almost universally burned out on the whole disaster, what was one more bunch of email leaks? It was certainly nothing compared to the email nonsense, even before Comey's late email blunder. In that environment, with voters dismayed at the whole process, well then Republicans show greater discipline and get out and vote no matter how horrible their candidate is. Democrats don't.
That doesn't make what the Trump campaign probably did okay, not in the slightest. When you cheat and probably would have won anyway, it still needs to be uncovered, and as many of the guilty as possible punished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: At this point, anyone who cast their vote for Trump for reasons other than "let's watch the world burn" or "feth you libtard" has gotta be feeling pretty cheated.
Polls show 3% of Trump voters regret their vote. So it seems like 97% of Republican voters were either "let's watch the world burn", or "feth you libtard". Which feels about right.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 18:30:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Those expecting outright vote rigging are ignoring how Russian operations work. The email hack and subsequent fallout for the DNC is a classic example, as would be funding someone disruptive like Trump. The goal is to destabilize systems, undermine legitimate authority, and create scenarios where the populace has difficulty distinguishing facts.
Trump has been a useful idiot, but the question is whether he or his minions have been working more directly. Manafort, Flynn, etc. indicate that Russia has worked directly through people close to Trump. Combine that with soft influence through Trump Tower and his other finances, and it should be very clear how strong an influence Russia is.
But even if Putin was directly handing Trump $100 bills and sending directives from Moscow, nothing would come of it. The Republicans may distance themselves, but they will not let him be completely incinerated. Especially to the degree that he continues to be useful for policies benefitting the donor class.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Dude, the US democratically (well, kinda) elected Donald Trump. The base is just as rotten as the political caste. You are screwed.
That is really rather simplistic. Many people didn't vote for Trump (many didn't vote at all) and out of those that did vote for him, not all are 100% supporters of his. Hold back on the misanthropy.
jmurph wrote: Those expecting outright vote rigging are ignoring how Russian operations work. The email hack and subsequent fallout for the DNC is a classic example, as would be funding someone disruptive like Trump. The goal is to destabilize systems, undermine legitimate authority, and create scenarios where the populace has difficulty distinguishing facts.
Trump has been a useful idiot, but the question is whether he or his minions have been working more directly. Manafort, Flynn, etc. indicate that Russia has worked directly through people close to Trump. Combine that with soft influence through Trump Tower and his other finances, and it should be very clear how strong an influence Russia is.
But even if Putin was directly handing Trump $100 bills and sending directives from Moscow, nothing would come of it. The Republicans may distance themselves, but they will not let him be completely incinerated. Especially to the degree that he continues to be useful for policies benefitting the donor class.
Firm Hired By DNC & Relied On By FBI To Prove Russia Hacking Forced To Withdraw Anti-Russian Report
Reported in January, the FBI based its decision that it was the Russians that hacked into the DNC computers on a report commissioned by the DNC and generated by a company called CrowdStrike (the FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server). The VOA recently caught CrowdStrike creating a bogus and unrelated hacking charge against Russia, and making up the facts to prove its veracity.
To make their determination that the Democrats were hacked by Russia, the FBI relied exclusively on information from private digital forensics company Crowdstrike. It wasn’t the FBI’s fault the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI to look a their servers for the hacking investigation, instead forced them to use the Crowdstrike report paid for by the Party.
At the time a senior FBI law enforcement official told Wired,
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated.”
The FBI did substantiate that it relied on data from Crowdstrike in their investigation, but they blamed the Party for not looking at the servers themselves, according to the FBI official who spoke to wired:
The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third-party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier,”
Ten weeks after the above report CrowdStrike’s reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and has been caught lying about a report to make a claim about Russian hacking damaging Ukrainian technology.
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year’s American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has stated that the combat losses and hacking never happened.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by “Fancy Bear,” a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike’s claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine’s artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.
The company who the DNC and FBI relied on not only made up a problem that didn’t exist, but then blamed it on Putin’s Russia. Shouldn’t that call into question the entire premise that it was the Russians who hacked into the DNC?
Even before the Democrats were using the Russian hack story in a lame attempt damage the nascent Trump presidency, they were using the tale as a tool to deflect from the Clinton scandals–before Wikileaks started publishing the Podesta emails. They took a joke made by the future president and turned it into a scandal, and when Wikileaks began publishing the Podesta emails, they simply added it to the Putin charges.
Now I am not suggesting that Putin is a boy scout, he is a despicable tyrant.. Was the report commissioned purely for campaign purposes? Based on the fact that the company has close ties to the Obama team, is friends with Hillary Clinton, and is connected closely to Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk (another friend of the DNC) can we really believe the report was done without DNC input, or did members of the party the campaign direct Crowdstrike toward the Russians, which the company already has a beef with? If everything was above board—well why didn’t the DNC allow the government intelligence sources to look at their server?
But most importantly, why is the FBI relying on this report, and why isn’t the House or Senate Committees investigating the Crowdstrike report?
My question... a private firm was permitted by the DNC to conduct the analysis on their compromised servers. Why did the US government then adopted as its own? Seems dubious man... I mean, if the government is going to expend resources of this magnitude, you'd think they'd verify GROUND ZERO of this even (aka the DNC servers).
FWIW: it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Russians (or proxy) did do the hacking deed...
I'll say this to whembly and every other dakka member: the Western world is going through a gakstorm right now.
Trump in 1600, Brexit talks going off the rails before they've even started, trouble in the Middle East as always, climate change, unrest, and so on...
Ordinary folk like us need to batten down the hatches for 5 years, and hopefully, If we're lucky, we'll come out in one piece at the end of it...
I'm reading about the Battle of the Somme right now.
The attack started at 7:30am and by 8:30am, the British had suffered 30,000 casulties...
Did they die in vain? I think the sad answer to that is yes...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
~1.5k
