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.
Wonder if faith in integrity of elections is all time low this time? Apart from Trump and his "I'll accept result if I win" and lots of Trump fans believing elections are rigged seems that according to Reuters almost half the democrats believe elections were rigged if Trump wins.
Is this much "if X then it's rigged election" belief common in USA?
tneva82 wrote: Wonder if faith in integrity of elections is all time low this time? Apart from Trump and his "I'll accept result if I win" and lots of Trump fans believing elections are rigged seems that according to Reuters almost half the democrats believe elections were rigged if Trump wins.
Is this much "if X then it's rigged election" belief common in USA?
I had a conversation that sheds light on this just the other day;
I live, go to school and work, in South Central Pennsylvania. It's a pretty red area. Up and down I81 you'll see Trump Pence signs. Driving through local neighborhoods you'll see even more. One of the guys I work with was saying that news media was stupid because they listed PA as polling in Clinton's favor, which if you drive around the area is "not true." Obviously, the news media lies. I explained to him that PA goes blue in presidential elections because Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and Harrisburg vote blue, and they drag the entire state that way because most of PA's population lives in and around those three cities. Illinois is a great example, as any election map of the state shows a sea of red with blue islands of Indianapolis and Chicago, often times pulling the full state blue in presidential elections. Cities and metro areas make up about 27% of the US land mass, but 76% of the US population, and states that have very large cities will often end up going the way the cities do (which is outside the South, usually blue). It had literally never occurred to this guy that in a democracy the most votes mattered and just because you don't have anyone who supports X in your immediate line of sight doesn't mean there's 10x as many people on the other side of a mountain who do.
He responded to my explanation by saying that Trump was right and the election is rigged.
FYI, this is what confirmation bias actually looks like.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/22 03:57:03
tneva82 wrote: Wonder if faith in integrity of elections is all time low this time? Apart from Trump and his "I'll accept result if I win" and lots of Trump fans believing elections are rigged seems that according to Reuters almost half the democrats believe elections were rigged if Trump wins.
Is this much "if X then it's rigged election" belief common in USA?
Usually, it's not something anybody even mentions. It isn't even on the radar. But in this election it just comes as a side dish with the delusion platter being wolfed down by Trump's muppets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/22 06:13:59
As for it being a matter no-one ever mentions, Republicans have been banging on about voter fraud for years, and introduced laws in various areas to enforce voter ID, known to discriminate against people likely to vote Democrat.
There are also concerns about how the electoral rolls are maintained going back several years, and there have been cases in which numbers of predominantly black people have been removed from the register.
Then, look at the recent case in Florida where the Republicans tried to stop the registration deadline from being extended after the hurricane chaos. It is known that late registrations are more likely to come from people more likely to vote Democrat.
In addition, the Russian government is thought to have been interfering in the election on behalf of Trump through cyber warfare. There are known concerns over the security of the electronic voting machines used in some areas. Finally, the Russians have stated their desire to send observers to check the fairness of the voting.
Clinton has a significant poll lead and currently is thought to have an 80%+ chance of winning.
All that being said said, the concerns of Democrats (which I believe are wrong) are perhaps understandable.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 07:28:37
In addition, the Russian government is thought to have been interfering in the election on behalf of Trump through cyber warfare. There are known concerns over the security of the electronic voting machines used in some areas. Finally, the Russians have stated their desire to send observers to check the fairness of the voting.
Well, it is thought by people who really want to hurtle headfirst into armed conflict with Russia.
It isn't at all a clear fact that the email servers were hacked by Russian state agents. Even the article you link hedges it as "allegedly" and that the US government "says". It could be Russian agents, it could be a mercenary group from anywhere in the world, it could be bored teens in Michigan.
The accusations levelled at Russia come from the DNC, who have by now solidly been revealed as a bunch of heartless cynics and are ruled by the Clintons, who believe that military action is an inherent good. Unless someone provides actual proof I am going to take this with a grain of salt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/22 11:46:29
Rosebuddy wrote: It isn't at all a clear fact that the email servers were hacked by Russian state agents. Even the article you link hedges it as "allegedly" and that the US government "says". It could be Russian agents, it could be a mercenary group from anywhere in the world, it could be bored teens in Michigan.
The accusations levelled at Russia come from the DNC, who have by now solidly been revealed as a bunch of heartless cynics and are ruled by the Clintons, who believe that military action is an inherent good. Unless someone provides actual proof I am going to take this with a grain of salt.
Try again. The accusations aren't coming from the DNC, but the U.S. Intelligence community. This activity was spotted over a year ago.
Rosebuddy wrote: It isn't at all a clear fact that the email servers were hacked by Russian state agents. Even the article you link hedges it as "allegedly" and that the US government "says". It could be Russian agents, it could be a mercenary group from anywhere in the world, it could be bored teens in Michigan.
The accusations levelled at Russia come from the DNC, who have by now solidly been revealed as a bunch of heartless cynics and are ruled by the Clintons, who believe that military action is an inherent good. Unless someone provides actual proof I am going to take this with a grain of salt.
Try again. The accusations aren't coming from the DNC, but the U.S. Intelligence community. This activity was spotted over a year ago.
I just read that article and it says the DNC was hacked by the Russians, but it doesn't say which part of the Intelligence community came up with that assessment, and it went as far as to say that 8 Congressmen were briefed on it but yet again doesn't say WHO came up with the assessment. This article is rather flimsy.
With that said I don't doubt that the DNC was hacked by the Russians because I am sure our NSA is doing the same to the Russians as well. The difference is that the DNC is saying that the Russians are using that information to leak it to Wiki who then turns around it influences the election by showing how the DNC is corrupt as hell (Im sure the RNC is just as bad).
The only question that remains unanswered is who is feeding Wikileaks these hacked e-mails. I just read somewhere (and i'll try and look it up) that Wikileaks is actually receiving these e-mails from DNC insiders. How true that is i have no idea and I honestly cant remember who wrote the article. Regardless this entire campaign season has shown how little trust can be given to politicians, you might not like Trump but that Term limits idea is a solid one.
Rosebuddy wrote: It isn't at all a clear fact that the email servers were hacked by Russian state agents. Even the article you link hedges it as "allegedly" and that the US government "says". It could be Russian agents, it could be a mercenary group from anywhere in the world, it could be bored teens in Michigan.
The accusations levelled at Russia come from the DNC, who have by now solidly been revealed as a bunch of heartless cynics and are ruled by the Clintons, who believe that military action is an inherent good. Unless someone provides actual proof I am going to take this with a grain of salt.
Try again. The accusations aren't coming from the DNC, but the U.S. Intelligence community. This activity was spotted over a year ago.
I just read that article and it says the DNC was hacked by the Russians, but it doesn't say which part of the Intelligence community came up with that assessment, and it went as far as to say that 8 Congressmen were briefed on it but yet again doesn't say WHO came up with the assessment. This article is rather flimsy.
With that said I don't doubt that the DNC was hacked by the Russians because I am sure our NSA is doing the same to the Russians as well. The difference is that the DNC is saying that the Russians are using that information to leak it to Wiki who then turns around it influences the election by showing how the DNC is corrupt as hell (Im sure the RNC is just as bad).
The only question that remains unanswered is who is feeding Wikileaks these hacked e-mails. I just read somewhere (and i'll try and look it up) that Wikileaks is actually receiving these e-mails from DNC insiders. How true that is i have no idea and I honestly cant remember who wrote the article. Regardless this entire campaign season has shown how little trust can be given to politicians, you might not like Trump but that Term limits idea is a solid one.
Yeah. DNC insiders. You go with that. Or you could just find one of the many links to the offical statement by the DNI and DHS in regards to the hacking:
It really isn't that hard to find. Took 30 seconds in total.
Also, "Corrupt as hell". People keep saying that, but the one thing all the emails reveal is that almost entirely the DNC is just boring everyday people, with right wing sites having to take small snippets removed from all context to even *try* to spin the behavior as anything other than normal political party functions. There isn't an honest to goodness smoking gun in the whole thing, what's surprising is how clean everything is, considering that the right wing has accused the Clintons of countless murders and the DNC of massive unprecendent voter fraud, and yet in the emails, the worst that's come out is a bunch of mid-level bitching about him or her which *Everybody* does at some point, and a bunch of situations which *could* have been pay for play, but actually show no evidence that any such thing occurred. Considering the level of the documents revealed, the worst breach of political privacy since Watergate, the whole thing has been a whole lotta nothing, except inuendo that because the leaked emails exist, they therefore *Must* show the DNC is corrupt - and they just don't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/22 14:49:28
Then again we have just their word to go by. Apart from them having their own agenda and therefore not neutral by longshot there's still possibilities of error or real hacker having masked his location well enough it wasn't picked.
I mean have you seen evidence that isn't "another person said so"? I haven't. Ergo i don't assume to know what really happened
Then again we have just their word to go by. Apart from them having their own agenda and therefore not neutral by longshot there's still possibilities of error or real hacker having masked his location well enough it wasn't picked.
I mean have you seen evidence that isn't "another person said so"? I haven't. Ergo i don't assume to know what really happened
i won't C&P it across due to some of the language and terms.
.. this is where we are now then is it ?
Really ?
it's odd how things are different when it's more personal eh ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Then again we have just their word to go by. Apart from them having their own agenda and therefore not neutral by longshot there's still possibilities of error or real hacker having masked his location well enough it wasn't picked.
I mean have you seen evidence that isn't "another person said so"? I haven't. Ergo i don't assume to know what really happened
This shows the original information back in June, relating specifically to the DNC hack.
"Moderate confidence" is not "clear fact". Moderate confidence may be enough for IT security (such as it is) to adjust their tactics but it certainly isn't enough to go blustering on the world stage. I'm not keen on deep state wonks drumming up anti-Russian sentiment so they can launch WW3. If you think nobody could be that stupid and disconnected consider the first world war.
Also, "Corrupt as hell". People keep saying that, but the one thing all the emails reveal is that almost entirely the DNC is just boring everyday people, with right wing sites having to take small snippets removed from all context to even *try* to spin the behavior as anything other than normal political party functions. There isn't an honest to goodness smoking gun in the whole thing, what's surprising is how clean everything is, considering that the right wing has accused the Clintons of countless murders and the DNC of massive unprecendent voter fraud, and yet in the emails, the worst that's come out is a bunch of mid-level bitching about him or her which *Everybody* does at some point, and a bunch of situations which *could* have been pay for play, but actually show no evidence that any such thing occurred. Considering the level of the documents revealed, the worst breach of political privacy since Watergate, the whole thing has been a whole lotta nothing, except inuendo that because the leaked emails exist, they therefore *Must* show the DNC is corrupt - and they just don't.
Yes, the standard dismissal of "this is so boring, everyone already knew this and it isn't a big deal anyway".
i won't C&P it across due to some of the language and terms.
.. this is where we are now then is it ?
Really ?
it's odd how things are different when it's more personal eh ?
Spoiler:
It's interesting that the people who complain about "social justice warriors" or the like always seem to be the most thin skinned when the attacks turn on them.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
It's interesting that the people who complain about "social justice warriors" or the like always seem to be the most thin skinned when the attacks turn on them.
It's more interesting that "Sad Puppies" is held up as sticking it to the SJWs, when the whole reason people seem to hate SJWs is because they go around parading an agenda and ambiguously "ruining everything."
Much like "safe spaces" "SJW" has become nothing but a code word used to identify political leanings, one that is opposed in a completely hypocritical manner.
I think may be arguable to say that Iran has a stronger democratic culture than America does at this point.
I don't know why people are so shocked by all of the love and acceptance of Putin and Russia by deep right in the US. About 10 years ago I went through a period of pants on head crazy right wing (ish) conspiracy belief (I got better). One thing that always remained odd to me was that every conspiracy author and conspiracy nut, held Putin and Russia up to be the last saviors of Earth. I think Putin has been courting US right wing for a while (can't entirely escape conspiracy theories).
Makes some small sense, he was in the era of Soviet targeting of American far left wing, which was largely unsuccessful due to thefar left wing not having much support in the US. What does have a lot of support is right wing. The US is mostly right of center at the macro scale anyways.
There is my daily dose of spicy unprovable speculation.
BrotherGecko wrote: I don't know why people are so shocked by all of the love and acceptance of Putin and Russia by deep right in the US. About 10 years ago I went through a period of pants on head crazy right wing (ish) conspiracy belief (I got better). One thing that always remained odd to me was that every conspiracy author and conspiracy nut, held Putin and Russia up to be the last saviors of Earth. I think Putin has been courting US right wing for a while (can't entirely escape conspiracy theories).
You know this reminds me of my readings on the American Communist Party, which was way back when way more defined by a distrust of the United States Federal Government and market institutions than a firm belief in communism. Stalin and the USSR were held up as politically and socially enlightened, and superior to the dogmatic and corrupt US. Particularly of concern was atomic weapons, which members of the ACP held up as the greatest of America's evils. At least until the USSR detonated its first atomic bomb. Then the ACP died almost over night (the previous incarnation anyway, the party was revived into a cohesive group in 1989).
There is my daily dose of spicy unprovable speculation.
It might be speculation, but take heart in my opinion that it actually makes a lot of sense There's always been defining undercurrent of distrust for the US government and economic institutions in this country. When the ACP died in 1958, many of it's most prominent and well known members went on to lay the ground work for the New Left of the 1960s. Hippies, the Weathermen, the Scarlet Stockings, can all trace their lineage in some way to the migration of American left wing radicals out of the American Communist movement. It's one of the kernals of truth that allowed the emerging New Right to associate everyone on the left as communists/socialists. It's not that far fetched that this undercurrent can continue today on the right, and that they too have switched to holding up Putin and Russia as an ideal in the same way
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/22 17:32:20
This shows the original information back in June, relating specifically to the DNC hack.
And that's evidence that Russian were it that isn't level of "because we say so"...how?
Still don't see anything I could use myself to verify it. Just them saying "Russians did it".
Now while I agree it's extremely likely they did it(wouldn't be surprised if other countries were trying as well) I still haven't seen any clear evidence. Especially one that isn't "because we say so" from side that has even political agenda that is helped if they were.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/22 17:34:53
Rosebuddy wrote: It isn't at all a clear fact that the email servers were hacked by Russian state agents. Even the article you link hedges it as "allegedly" and that the US government "says". It could be Russian agents, it could be a mercenary group from anywhere in the world, it could be bored teens in Michigan.
The accusations levelled at Russia come from the DNC, who have by now solidly been revealed as a bunch of heartless cynics and are ruled by the Clintons, who believe that military action is an inherent good. Unless someone provides actual proof I am going to take this with a grain of salt.
Try again. The accusations aren't coming from the DNC, but the U.S. Intelligence community. This activity was spotted over a year ago.
I just read that article and it says the DNC was hacked by the Russians, but it doesn't say which part of the Intelligence community came up with that assessment, and it went as far as to say that 8 Congressmen were briefed on it but yet again doesn't say WHO came up with the assessment. This article is rather flimsy.
With that said I don't doubt that the DNC was hacked by the Russians because I am sure our NSA is doing the same to the Russians as well. The difference is that the DNC is saying that the Russians are using that information to leak it to Wiki who then turns around it influences the election by showing how the DNC is corrupt as hell (Im sure the RNC is just as bad).
The only question that remains unanswered is who is feeding Wikileaks these hacked e-mails. I just read somewhere (and i'll try and look it up) that Wikileaks is actually receiving these e-mails from DNC insiders. How true that is i have no idea and I honestly cant remember who wrote the article. Regardless this entire campaign season has shown how little trust can be given to politicians, you might not like Trump but that Term limits idea is a solid one.
Wow! You mean the intelligence community didn't come out and spell out all the who, how and where they accumulated the data? Covert intelligence gathering mechanisms not revealing themselves? That's crazy! What's next? That's your determining factor for it being flimsy? Both candidates already briefed on the situation. Yeah, sorry, you're alone on this.
I love your mentioning that one of Trump's ideas "is a solid one". Unfortunately, it hardly comes close to deflecting the sheer heinous nature of the man. It's like pointing to a broken watch, at one of the two times a day when it's correct, and saying "See, what an accurate time piece."
To be absolutely fair, I don't buy into all the conspiracies about how the CIA runs the world, but it's not really that hard to understand why no one will take American intelligence organizations at their word here.
I mean, these are the same organizations that assured us Saddam had nuclear weapons, which turned out not to be true (not only turned out not to be true, but turned out to be verifiable as false when we were being told it was true). Come on. The CIA gets caught spying on Congress illegally at least once a decade. Plus PRISM.
Faith in the intelligence community is quite reasonably not at an all time high.
Then again we have just their word to go by. Apart from them having their own agenda and therefore not neutral by longshot there's still possibilities of error or real hacker having masked his location well enough it wasn't picked.
I mean have you seen evidence that isn't "another person said so"? I haven't. Ergo i don't assume to know what really happened
This shows the original information back in June, relating specifically to the DNC hack.
"Moderate confidence" is not "clear fact". Moderate confidence may be enough for IT security (such as it is) to adjust their tactics but it certainly isn't enough to go blustering on the world stage. I'm not keen on deep state wonks drumming up anti-Russian sentiment so they can launch WW3. If you think nobody could be that stupid and disconnected consider the first world war.
Also, "Corrupt as hell". People keep saying that, but the one thing all the emails reveal is that almost entirely the DNC is just boring everyday people, with right wing sites having to take small snippets removed from all context to even *try* to spin the behavior as anything other than normal political party functions. There isn't an honest to goodness smoking gun in the whole thing, what's surprising is how clean everything is, considering that the right wing has accused the Clintons of countless murders and the DNC of massive unprecendent voter fraud, and yet in the emails, the worst that's come out is a bunch of mid-level bitching about him or her which *Everybody* does at some point, and a bunch of situations which *could* have been pay for play, but actually show no evidence that any such thing occurred. Considering the level of the documents revealed, the worst breach of political privacy since Watergate, the whole thing has been a whole lotta nothing, except inuendo that because the leaked emails exist, they therefore *Must* show the DNC is corrupt - and they just don't.
Yes, the standard dismissal of "this is so boring, everyone already knew this and it isn't a big deal anyway".
Except that is it is boring and known and not really that up for debate anymore except by those whose conspiracy-addled minds think there's always something else going on...
"Here's the data."(multiple, repeated presentatons of proof/data)
"Nope, I still don't believe it."
Of course you don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: To be absolutely fair, I don't buy into all the conspiracies about how the CIA runs the world, but it's not really that hard to understand why no one will take American intelligence organizations at their word here.
I mean, these are the same organizations that assured us Saddam had nuclear weapons, which turned out not to be true (not only turned out not to be true, but turned out to be verifiable as false when we were being told it was true). Come on. The CIA gets caught spying on Congress illegally at least once a decade. Plus PRISM.
Faith in the intelligence community is quite reasonably not at an all time high.
There's grain of salt acceptance of intel and then there's just belligerence in the face of repeated evidence. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm probably not going to keep saying it's a chicken just to suit my conspiracy theory. Others, however, seem to favor that tack.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 19:47:51
BigWaaagh wrote: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm probably not going to keep saying it's a chicken just to suit my conspiracy theory. Others, however, seem to favor that tack.
Tneva is not peddling conspiracy so much as being very skeptical. I think he's wrong, but I don't think you have to be crazy or a conspiracy theorist to reach his conclusion.
skyth wrote: The problem is that I don't think there's any evidence that he would accept.
Maybe but quoting from the linked threat assessment;
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.
Click on "moderate confidence" and you get;
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.
So basically "we're kind of sure, but hey we could be wrong."
And that's kind of the whole body of evidence that Russia is behind the hack. Kind of sure, but could be wrong. Maybe there's information that hasn't been publicly released (well there's no maybe about that there's certainly information about it that isn't public). We should never presume that "kind of sure" = absolute certainty even if we fall into the "kind of sure" camp ourselves. "Kind of sure could be wrong" leaves a lot of room for one to reasonably disbelieve without requiring willful ignorance or crazy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/22 18:34:32
3000
4000 
There's always been defining undercurrent of distrust for the US government and economic institutions in this country. When the ACP died in 1958, many of it's most prominent and well known members went on to lay the ground work for the New Left of the 1960s. Hippies, the Weathermen, the Scarlet Stockings, can all trace their lineage in some way to the migration of American left wing radicals out of the American Communist movement. It's one of the kernals of truth that allowed the emerging New Right to associate everyone on the left as communists/socialists. It's not that far fetched that this undercurrent can continue today on the right, and that they too have switched to holding up Putin and Russia as an ideal in the same way
