|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 05:45 JW_DTLA wrote:On November 07 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 05:32 Plansix wrote:
And nothing, as expected. Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". GH, it's a presidential election. Not a date or something. You have spent a year jumping on every fake scandal the Republican made up with their suppositions and conspiracy theories. When you thought you had something you said "I KNEW IT" and when every time it happened to be nothing at all you said "yes but anyway she must be corrupt anyway because I have a bad feeling about her". My problem is that you treat information according to your feelings (that she is an addict or whatever), rather than the opposite. That's how the right wing proceeds and that's why they are utterly out of touch with facts and reality. You WANT Clinton to be corrupt because you don't like her. And that thing about her being an addict is ludicrous. Of course she is ambitious, and of course she wants power. Like everybody who gets there. You have to spend your life pursuing that dream to even have a chance, it needs to be the one most important thing for you and you must be ready to sacrifice a LOT. In what universe do you think making psychological assumption based on your vague gut feeling is helpful? Based on your characterization, I'll agree to disagree. I don't want her to be corrupt, I want her to do things like vocally and consistently stand with the water protectors for example. It's not some wild conspiracy or bitterness, or any of the other ridiculous stuff you all want to dismiss my problems with her as, it's who she is, what she does, and what she doesn't do. Her promoting her role in the 9/11 responders bill, with no one challenging her on her almost complete silence on it's renewal is another example. Like being an f-1 driver, Olympic wrestler, or many other occupations/hobbies addiction can often be a prerequisite (or at least helpful) for reaching the top. One easily accessible example of this would be when confronted on making 5 million in speaking fees Hillary suggested they were "dead broke" insinuating they "needed the money". They had just previously managed a $800,000+ cash down payment on a house a few weeks before she insists they were "dead broke". Another example might be when Hillary's staff had to drill into her the problem with paid speeches while running. That is textbook addict behavior.
Ok, let's agree on that, why not after all. She is an addict to power and money, reaaaally wants it and you agree that it's probably a prerequisite for being there.
You seem to finally also agree that she is not the horrible shady corrupt criminal the Republicans have tried to depict.
I would argue that the fact they haven't found anything actually properly bad while having access to all her email (through the intervention of a hostile country, by the way) is kind of remarkable. Under the scrutiny she has been on, and considering she has been around for 20 years, she seems to actually be actually quite clean. I don't know what would come up from most politicians subjected to the same treatment. It would be quite interesting.
Now, that's my last stand but let me ask you a question. All of that being consider, knowing who Trump is, are you really going to vote for Stein? I mean, would it be only for the supreme court it would already be crazy considering the horror conservative led SC has been and how many rights are on line.
But it's not only the SC. It's also not getting a completely unstable dude surrounded by absolute lunatics (what is Pierson gonna be? Secretary of State?) get to the highest office in the world because you think Clinton is not a saint or has acted questionably more than once in the quarter of century she's been under a microscope at the highest level of national politics.
And a question that would maybe make me understand you better, do you live in a swing state?
|
If there is anything I hate, it is Politicians with the ambition and skills necessary to organize their way to the top of American politics. I will only vote for the poorest, laziest, least talented, and unmotivated politicians for President. I am going to hold out for a candidate that literally has no one behind him and just barely makes it in.
|
On November 07 2016 05:42 xDaunt wrote:Though his announcement has nothing to do with the Foundation investigation, neither did his original letter. He has some explaining to do.
The Foundation is a totally separate investigation and there was never any suggestion from Comey these emails were related to it at all....Wasn't the only reason anyone thought that letter had to do with the Clinton Foundation vaugely conspiratorial non-logic and "sources close to the FBI" routing information through Giuliani that he later recanted?
|
On November 07 2016 04:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Hispanic voters could be poised to deliver a historic rebuke to Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
Early-vote statistics from battleground states with large Hispanic populations show record turnout among a bloc that has voted at a lower rate than whites or blacks in past elections. If, as some polls suggest, Hispanic voters are supporting Hillary Clinton by blowout margins, these numbers could sink Trump in a handful of states that are essential to his path to 270 electoral votes.
In Nevada, Latino turnout propelled Democrats in Clark County — the population center that's home to Las Vegas — to a record-breaking close on Friday, driving up the Democratic lead in early ballots cast to 72,000. That's enough, according to veteran Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston, to essentially tie a bow on the state for Clinton.
Four years earlier, when President Barack Obama won the state by 7 points, Democrats led Clark County in ballots cast by 71,000 at the end of early voting in 2012.
State GOP Chairman Michael McDonald responded to the sudden electoral tremors Saturday by suggesting there were shady dealings behind the surge, referring to “a certain group.”
“Last night, in Clark County, they kept a poll open till 10 o’clock at night so a certain group could vote,” said McDonald at a Trump rally in Reno. “It wasn’t in an area that normally has high transition. The polls are supposed to close at 7. This was kept open till 10. Yeah, you feel free right now? Think this is a free or easy election?”
In his speech following those remarks, Trump suggested there might be wrongdoing at "certain key Democratic polling locations in Clark County."
"Folks, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged system. And we're going to beat it," he said.
In Florida, which tracks turnout by race and ethnicity, Hispanics have so far cast about 14 percent of the 5.7 million early and absentee ballots cast. That puts Hispanics far ahead of where they were in casting early ballots relative to 2012.
That follows Florida Democratic strategist Steve Schale's analysis, which notes that, through Wednesday alone, Hispanic turnout in 2016 had already exceeded — by 170,000 ballots — Hispanic early voting in the entire 2012 cycle. And Schale noted that many of them are first-time voters, who Democrats see as crucial targets in the early-voting period.
Similar signs suggest Democrats are seeing robust Hispanic turnout in Arizona as well. And even Texas, considered out of reach for Democrats, is seeing a surge across the state's most populous counties.
Latino turnout has historically lagged that of most other races and ethnicities — even among those eligible to cast ballots. In 2012, 62 percent of all U.S. citizens voted in the presidential election — but only 48 percent of Hispanic citizens did. Meanwhile, higher percentages of white citizens (62 percent) and black citizens (66 percent) participated. Source
State GOP Chairman Michael McDonald responded to the sudden electoral tremors Saturday by suggesting there were shady dealings behind the surge, referring to “a certain group.”
“Last night, in Clark County, they kept a poll open till 10 o’clock at night so a certain group could vote,” said McDonald at a Trump rally in Reno. “It wasn’t in an area that normally has high transition. The polls are supposed to close at 7. This was kept open till 10. Yeah, you feel free right now? Think this is a free or easy election?”
Boy, if you want to allege that the election is unfair then you shouldn't highlight the work being done to make sure everyone gets to vote. That sounds like the opposite of unfair to me.
|
On November 07 2016 06:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 05:45 JW_DTLA wrote:On November 07 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". GH, it's a presidential election. Not a date or something. You have spent a year jumping on every fake scandal the Republican made up with their suppositions and conspiracy theories. When you thought you had something you said "I KNEW IT" and when every time it happened to be nothing at all you said "yes but anyway she must be corrupt anyway because I have a bad feeling about her". My problem is that you treat information according to your feelings (that she is an addict or whatever), rather than the opposite. That's how the right wing proceeds and that's why they are utterly out of touch with facts and reality. You WANT Clinton to be corrupt because you don't like her. And that thing about her being an addict is ludicrous. Of course she is ambitious, and of course she wants power. Like everybody who gets there. You have to spend your life pursuing that dream to even have a chance, it needs to be the one most important thing for you and you must be ready to sacrifice a LOT. In what universe do you think making psychological assumption based on your vague gut feeling is helpful? Based on your characterization, I'll agree to disagree. I don't want her to be corrupt, I want her to do things like vocally and consistently stand with the water protectors for example. It's not some wild conspiracy or bitterness, or any of the other ridiculous stuff you all want to dismiss my problems with her as, it's who she is, what she does, and what she doesn't do. Her promoting her role in the 9/11 responders bill, with no one challenging her on her almost complete silence on it's renewal is another example. Like being an f-1 driver, Olympic wrestler, or many other occupations/hobbies addiction can often be a prerequisite (or at least helpful) for reaching the top. One easily accessible example of this would be when confronted on making 5 million in speaking fees Hillary suggested they were "dead broke" insinuating they "needed the money". They had just previously managed a $800,000+ cash down payment on a house a few weeks before she insists they were "dead broke". Another example might be when Hillary's staff had to drill into her the problem with paid speeches while running. That is textbook addict behavior. Ok, let's agree on that, why not after all. She is an addict to power and money, reaaaally wants it and you agree that it's probably a prerequisite for being there. You seem to finally also agree that she is not the horrible shady corrupt criminal the Republicans have tried to depict. I would argue that the fact they haven't found anything actually properly bad while having access to all her email (through the intervention of a hostile country, by the way) is kind of remarkable. Under the scrutiny she has been on, and considering she has been around for 20 years, she seems to actually be actually quite clean. I don't know what would come up from most politicians subjected to the same treatment. It would be quite interesting. Now, that's my last stand but let me ask you a question. All of that being consider, knowing who Trump is, are you really going to vote for Stein? I mean, would it be only for the supreme court it would already be crazy considering the horror conservative led SC has been and how many rights are on line. But it's not only the SC. It's also not getting a completely unstable dude surrounded by absolute lunatics (what is Pierson gonna be? Secretary of State?) get to the highest office in the world because you think Clinton is not a saint or has acted questionably more than once in the quarter of century she's been under a microscope at the highest level of national politics. And a question that would maybe make me understand you better, do you live in a swing state?
I'm not voting for Hillary, I may vote for Stein, but it would more be for the Green party as an idea/to get funding as she can't actually win, so what she would do individually as president is somewhat irrelevant. I've admitted before, that if I lived in a swing state it would be a much harder decision.
To me voting for either Trump or Hillary is an endorsement of FP I refuse to take responsibility for. When we drop a bomb killing innocent children, sell bombs/guns used to kill innocent children, leave cache's of weapons to whoever is strong enough to capture them, or send a kid back into danger they risked their lives escaping to send a message to their parents, etc... I don't want those victims families to be able to rightfully hold me accountable for supporting the person responsible for those choices. I already have to have Obama's drones,deportations, etc on my conscience, I'm not biting that bullet for Hillary (and at least Obama fooled the Nobel people too).
On November 07 2016 06:57 JW_DTLA wrote:
If there is anything I hate, it is Politicians with the ambition and skills necessary to organize their way to the top of American politics. I will only vote for the poorest, laziest, least talented, and unmotivated politicians for President. I am going to hold out for a candidate that literally has no one behind him and just barely makes it in.
I know you're just shitposting, but I'm not suggesting I couldn't support an addict, I'd just prefer they at least knew they had an addiction.
|
On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means: Show nested quote +Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy
In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.
The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.
Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]
But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.
Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source
That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now.
Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn.
Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two.
|
This is new, but I'm not surprised.
|
On November 07 2016 07:10 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means: Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy
In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.
The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.
Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]
But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.
Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now. Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn. Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two.
I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not.
Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage.
|
On November 07 2016 07:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 07:10 Probe1 wrote:On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means: Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy
In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.
The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.
Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]
But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.
Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now. Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn. Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two. I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not. Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage.
The way it appears in the media you would get the idea that the US sucks at cyber warfare. Is the US that bad at it in reality? I at least have never heard anything about US "enemies" getting hacked or sensitive information getting leaked from like Russia or China.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 07 2016 07:29 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 07:14 zlefin wrote:On November 07 2016 07:10 Probe1 wrote:On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means: Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy
In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.
The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.
Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]
But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.
Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now. Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn. Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two. I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not. Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage. The way it appears in the media you would get the idea that the US sucks at cyber warfare. Is the US that bad at it in reality? I at least have never heard anything about US "enemies" getting hacked or sensitive information getting leaked from like Russia or China.
Without going into who is good and bad at it, it's clear that if the US went after any targets of significance in cyber warfare, they would be plenty capable of retaliating. For example, hack a Russian bank, and Russia will hack back and cost someone billions of dollars (or destabilize the financial system). Nation-states are significantly more capable of exploiting cyber weaknesses than individuals who like hacking, and the MAD aspect of that keeps states from doing to each other what essentially amounts to an act of war that can be retaliated against.
|
On November 07 2016 07:29 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 07:14 zlefin wrote:On November 07 2016 07:10 Probe1 wrote:On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means: Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy
In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.
The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.
Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]
But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.
Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now. Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn. Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two. I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not. Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage. The way it appears in the media you would get the idea that the US sucks at cyber warfare. Is the US that bad at it in reality? I at least have never heard anything about US "enemies" getting hacked or sensitive information getting leaked from like Russia or China.
Stuxnet and Flame?
If those email leaks are what you consider the pinnacle of cyber warfare, you simply missed a lot..
|
Why is Hillary having a ton of rallies in Democratic leaning states, are her internal polls showing that she's actually not as favored as sites like HuffPo and 538 are saying, or is she just making sure that she does win those states?
|
On November 07 2016 07:51 plasmidghost wrote:
Why is Hillary having a ton of rallies in Democratic leaning states, are her internal polls showing that she's actually not as favored as sites like HuffPo and 538 are saying, or is she just making sure that she does win those states?
If she wins those states, it's really really hard for her to lose, especially if you believe that Nevada is basically locked in Democratic from early voting.
When she had a ~5 point lead, it was realistic to campaign outside her firewall for senate races and overall vote share, but when she's down to around 3 it's no longer as safe a strategy, and she's doing an ad blitz in the swing states/sending surrogates (e.g. Obama in North Carolina on Wednesday).
|
On November 07 2016 07:29 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 07:14 zlefin wrote:On November 07 2016 07:10 Probe1 wrote:On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means: Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy
In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.
The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.
Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]
But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.
Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now. Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn. Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two. I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not. Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage. The way it appears in the media you would get the idea that the US sucks at cyber warfare. Is the US that bad at it in reality? I at least have never heard anything about US "enemies" getting hacked or sensitive information getting leaked from like Russia or China.
The US isn't completely terrible at it; and many believe the Stuxnet virus which took down a bunch of the iranian centrifuges was done partly by the US.
If a place like Russia or China was hacked, they might not admit to it, and the press their wouldn't try to report it, and the US wouldn't report that they successfully got info, so you'd be less likely to hear about it in general.
It's important to distinguish between having a few groups that can conduct strong offensive cyberoperations, with having most of your systems having good cybersecurity.
I'm sure the US has some good offensive hacking capabilites; many parts of the government, including most notably the department of State, are rather unimpressive with cybersecurity, and there have been some notably bad hacks as a result. US in general due to its richness, and being less paranoid/repressive, is likely to not have as tight security, and to have more things to be hit.
My point was that it's not a battlefield where our comparative advantage is high, and as per battle tactics/sun tzu, not a battlefield on which we wish to engage.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 03:17 IgnE wrote:
Yeah I'd bet my life on Clinton in exchange for like $50k. Pretty confident. Hmm, let's poll this? Poll: Fair odds of a Clinton victory?80-95% (17) 49% 60-79.9% (15) 43% >95% (2) 6% 50-59.9% (1) 3% <50% (0) 0% 35 total votes Your vote: Fair odds of a Clinton victory? (Vote): >95%
(Vote): 80-95%
(Vote): 60-79.9%
(Vote): 50-59.9%
(Vote): <50%
So, this has gone on long enough to judge it. Most of us agree that fair odds of a Clinton win are perhaps more than 538, but certainly not overwhelming and a Hillary win is far from assured. It makes the criticism towards Nate Silver right now quite questionable.
|
United States41991 Posts
On November 07 2016 07:42 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 07:29 Slaughter wrote:On November 07 2016 07:14 zlefin wrote:On November 07 2016 07:10 Probe1 wrote:On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means: Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy
In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.
The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.
Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]
But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.
Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now. Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn. Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two. I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not. Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage. The way it appears in the media you would get the idea that the US sucks at cyber warfare. Is the US that bad at it in reality? I at least have never heard anything about US "enemies" getting hacked or sensitive information getting leaked from like Russia or China. Stuxnet and Flame? If those email leaks are what you consider the pinnacle of cyber warfare, you simply missed a lot..
This. The US is behind the only cyber attacks which had physical consequences. Crazy clever shit with the centrifuges.
|
On November 07 2016 07:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 07:51 plasmidghost wrote:
Why is Hillary having a ton of rallies in Democratic leaning states, are her internal polls showing that she's actually not as favored as sites like HuffPo and 538 are saying, or is she just making sure that she does win those states? If she wins those states, it's really really hard for her to lose, especially if you believe that Nevada is basically locked in Democratic from early voting. When she had a ~5 point lead, it was realistic to campaign outside her firewall for senate races and overall vote share, but when she's down to around 3 it's no longer as safe a strategy, and she's doing an ad blitz in the swing states/sending surrogates (e.g. Obama in North Carolina on Wednesday).
Specifically she holds large events near and around polling places if there is early voting. If not, they hand out information on where to go to vote. The goal isn't to play to huge crowds, but to deliver whatever crowd she is in front of to the polls.
|
Zlefin how about just cutting up multinationals? Could that be a good first step? Kek.
I'm just randomly continuing the conversation from like ages ago btw.
Obviously if you limit corporations to a single country, that could cause some issues for things like transport. So maybe only companies of a certain kind should be limited in that way (mining? what else should be as such). Would certainly give people in Africa and stuff a chance of seeing some of the wealth of their resources. It would have to be combined with some anarcho-syndicalism system to prevent from warlords just having the wealth though.
|
It looks like if Trump can pull out wins in Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and 2-3 of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Virginia, he'll secure the victory, but the odds of that happening are going to be pretty low, I'd say around 5-10%
|
God bless these fact checkers, who are going to try to hunt down the bullshit claims we will all hear on election day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
