|
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 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.
Honestly I think that the US just doesn't publicize it more than anything else.
Look at the fallout from the huge scandal of spying on our allies. What did we find out?
That the US has a tap on every European government. The US government didn't brag, or bluster. It tried to minimize it.
|
On November 07 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 06:32 Doodsmack wrote:On November 07 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:
He can't handle having access to his own twitter account. Tony Schwartz was so on point with his analysis of Trump's personality disorders. Dude is in a pit of depression right now. How can anyone aware of these facts consider making this man Commander in Chief? Donald J. Trump is not sleeping much these days.
Aboard his gold-plated jumbo jet, the Republican nominee does not like to rest or be alone with his thoughts, insisting that aides stay up and keep talking to him. He prefers the soothing, whispery voice of his son-in-law. I was reading up on the psych issues re trump, and felt this article was a good reasoned point on the topic (note the author is anti-trump): http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldenberg-trump-mental-health-20160823-snap-story.htmlthe tldr of it is the potential of mental illness isn't necessary or helpful to make the determination to vote against Trump it also discusses the reasons to be wary of any diagnosis.
blah blah can't diagnose from afar for scientific purity reasons, but we can still tell that Donald is a mental midget who is unfit for the job.
User was warned for this post
|
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.
In general, yes, for a lot of reasons.
The NSA is invested hardcore in storing information on US citizens, which makes a happy hack target. The FBI is anti-impediment to its operations, and views electronic security as a problem, not a safety measure. US media and culture is probably one of the most trend and social influenced in the world (while also being far more anti-authority and pro-freedom than, say, Japan or S. Korea), which allows for misinformation to spread easily.
I'd say the US is right in the sweet spot of competence and incompetence when it comes to cyber security. More technologically minded and there weaknesses would not be there (less centralized targets, less do-it-yourself security like the Clinton email, less underfunded IT in government organizations). Less technologically ahead and there wouldn't be any targets to hack (can't remotely access a folder and paper).
|
EDIT: Nevermind I misunderstood the post.
|
On November 07 2016 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
Honestly, even if I were more left-leaning than I am, I would not want the Green party to get funding. I think there's a desperate need for a political party that's further left of the Democrats, but the Green Party is not it.
The number of legitimate crazies in their ranks dilute their message and make it difficult for them to gain more widespread appeal. Ultimately, association with 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy theorists makes it harder for those with a more productive progressive agenda within the Green Party to advance their goals because the conspiracy theorists damage the Green Party name and make it hard for others to take them seriously.
|
Harder to prevent a cyber attack than it is to make one.
Like if the US sends Stuxnet to attack someone, they can make a copy and send it right back. There's nothing about American computers that makes them less vulnerable - you could just toss a USB drive in the office of someone who has access to an important network, and in all likelihood it will eventually work. And then, kaboom. And that's without going for a more involved approach of actually exploiting a hack in response to the original hack.
Malware attacks are shrouded in endless rumors and little in the way of hard proof (do we even have conclusive proof that the US made Stuxnet?) but I heard that this has happened before. Obviously governments would try their best not to report that someone hacked them that way, so there's no way to know.
|
I think it's right to say that Hillary has around a 66% chance of winning
|
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate.
|
The main reason to consider it is that he's lost control of his people to a big extent, look at all of the leaks happening all over the place. He needs to rapidly get his house in order
|
On November 07 2016 08:38 plasmidghost wrote:
I think it's right to say that Hillary has around a 66% chance of winning
I put it right at 60% chance of winning. Like holy hell I don't want Clinton. I just really don't want Trump. It feels like the entire nation is going to stand and say this in a couple nights.
What a shitshow of an election! Looking back it's shocking how much better of a candidate Sanders would have been.
|
On November 07 2016 08:46 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate.
Comey has looked less shitty than a lot of other people who deserve to get fired. Hillary Clinton first and foremost, for some rather severe impropriety in handling classified documents, but she isn't SoS anymore so there's not much we can do. Then Loretta Lynch the insane partisan. Then the House Oversight Committee for being utterly retarded about all of this. After that we can debate who deserves to get fired. Comey isn't even close to the top of that list.
|
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances
|
On November 07 2016 08:06 a_flayer wrote:
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.
I doubt that would actually help anything. it also makes everyone poorer most likely by cutting down on the modern efficiency of international supply chains; also probably bad for peace, heavily international supply chains cut down on war incentive, as loss of trading becomes more expensive.
people in africa already see some of the wealth from their resources. The problem is high corruption keeps it from filtering down well to the common folk. the notion that something like anarcho-syndicalism would work in africa seems questionable.
|
On November 07 2016 08:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 08:46 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate. Comey has looked less shitty than a lot of other people who deserve to get fired. Hillary Clinton first and foremost, for some rather severe impropriety in handling classified documents, but she isn't SoS anymore so there's not much we can do. Then Loretta Lynch the insane partisan. Then the House Oversight Committee for being utterly retarded about all of this. After that we can debate who deserves to get fired. Comey isn't even close to the top of that list.
I'm curious, what did Lynch do to deserve getting fired? She recognized herself as potentially partisan and withdraw herself.
To me that sounds exactly like how it should go, so why should she get fired?
|
The best thing for Africa is peace. Look at the countries with good track records for internal stability: Botswana, Ghana, Namibia, etc. They do well (they do have high GINIs but laughably not much worse than in the US) because they have enough stability to attract foreign investment and actually be able to set up well-run industries to take advantage of their natural resources.
What they DONT need is yet another revolution to set up something like anarcho-syndicalism that will just end in another corrupt leader taking over necessitating another revolution to depose him
|
On November 07 2016 09:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 08:59 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 08:46 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate. Comey has looked less shitty than a lot of other people who deserve to get fired. Hillary Clinton first and foremost, for some rather severe impropriety in handling classified documents, but she isn't SoS anymore so there's not much we can do. Then Loretta Lynch the insane partisan. Then the House Oversight Committee for being utterly retarded about all of this. After that we can debate who deserves to get fired. Comey isn't even close to the top of that list. I'm curious, what did Lynch do to deserve getting fired? She recognized herself as potentially partisan and withdraw herself. To me that sounds exactly like how it should go, so why should she get fired?
Nothing that you could explicitly pin on her, perhaps. But I remember watching that House Oversight Committee hearing on her and I could see that she lawyered up not just like someone who didn't want to self-incriminate, but in a way that guilty people would do. That's not proof of anything but a suspicion of wrongdoing that is significant enough for me to be convinced that there has been impropriety in her conduct as Attorney General.
I suppose if we want any explicit evidence of wrongdoing, the best spot to watch is the DoJ-FBI issue that developed since the FBI's odd release. We will see if anything comes of that, but at this point I myself am quite convinced of impropriety.
|
On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances
So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours?
|
On November 07 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2016 08:59 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 08:46 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate. Comey has looked less shitty than a lot of other people who deserve to get fired. Hillary Clinton first and foremost, for some rather severe impropriety in handling classified documents, but she isn't SoS anymore so there's not much we can do. Then Loretta Lynch the insane partisan. Then the House Oversight Committee for being utterly retarded about all of this. After that we can debate who deserves to get fired. Comey isn't even close to the top of that list. I'm curious, what did Lynch do to deserve getting fired? She recognized herself as potentially partisan and withdraw herself. To me that sounds exactly like how it should go, so why should she get fired? Nothing that you could explicitly pin on her, perhaps. But I remember watching that House Oversight Committee hearing on her and I could see that she lawyered up not just like someone who didn't want to self-incriminate, but in a way that guilty people would do. That's not proof of anything but a suspicion of wrongdoing that is significant enough for me to be convinced that there has been impropriety in her conduct as Attorney General. I suppose if we want any explicit evidence of wrongdoing, the best spot to watch is the DoJ-FBI issue that developed since the FBI's odd release. We will see if anything comes of that, but at this point I myself am quite convinced of impropriety.
Right, so we should fire her based on your gut feeling.
I'm sorry but its hard to have discussions when the answer to why? is almost always "I have no evidence but it feels this way".
How about we don't fire Attorney General based on your hunch.
|
On November 07 2016 09:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours?
Lol no, I mean the media picks up new info that influences enough voters so that she doesn't win
|
On November 07 2016 09:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours?
It works for discussion the internet. I can see why he'd think it works that way in real life.
On November 07 2016 09:20 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:18 Mohdoo wrote:On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours? Lol no, I mean the media picks up new info that influences enough voters so that she doesn't win
You're mistaking the media going on about something as a convincing argument. Historically, most voters have made up their minds during the debates in October. It would have to be a truly shocking revelation to convince someone that the entire previous year they were wrong and they should vote for a different candidate.
A bunch of emails, as the Republicans have found, are not that shocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
