|
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. |
Meanwhile, the harsh reality of our aging infrastructure starts to take hold. Infrastructure built during economic boom, higher taxes and with a functional legislature.
|
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other.
|
On June 21 2017 23:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 22:54 chocorush wrote:
I don't get why people believe there is a causative relationship between money spent on elections and winning elections. We even had two recent large elections where the larger spender lost (sanders-clinton, clinton-trump) for those that are inclined to take anecdotal experience as proof. because there is a causative, though not definitive, relationship. it doesn't guarantee victory, it does help. I'm not sure what the positive correlation is, but I'm sure it's been looked at.
Pretty much every major election, money spent is beyond the point where the causative effect of money spent is measurable. There is a point where throwing money at the election doesn't get you a measurable amount of votes and you have other factors that are determining the election.
There is definitely a positive correlation. More popular candidates generate more money, and being more popular has a much greater effect on the vote than having more money. But it's the popularity that is winning the election, not the money. I feel like there are so many studies of the effect of money on the margin, and everyone is just doing themselves a disservice to continue to blame campaign financing for the reason why bad politicians win elections.
|
People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday.
Samuel Liles, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting director of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Cyber Division, said vote tallying mechanisms were unaffected, and the hackers appeared to be scanning for vulnerabilities — which Liles likened to walking down the street and looking at homes to see who might be inside.
But hackers successfully exploited a “small number” of networks, Liles said, likening the act to making it through a home’s front door.
Liles was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and his remarks add some clarity to the breadth of the Kremlin’s cyber mischief. Officials in Arizona and Illinois had previously confirmed that hackers targeted their voter registration system, though news reports suggested the Russian effort was much broader.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Russian hackers “hit” systems in 39 states, and The Intercept, citing a classified intelligence document, reported that Russian military intelligence “executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.”
In a separate hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that Russia’s meddling was “unprecedented, the scale and the scope of what we saw them doing.”
In addition to scanning voting systems for vulnerabilities, U.S. intelligence committees have said Russian hackers hacked and engineered the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Homeland Security official: Russian government actors potentially tried to hack election systems in 21 states
|
The troubling part is that they don’t want to change the votes, but just delete voting registries right before the election. Or making voting machines fail. They don’t care who wins, they just want the process to be as much of a dumpster fire as possible.
|
On June 21 2017 23:47 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 23:29 zlefin wrote:On June 21 2017 22:54 chocorush wrote:
I don't get why people believe there is a causative relationship between money spent on elections and winning elections. We even had two recent large elections where the larger spender lost (sanders-clinton, clinton-trump) for those that are inclined to take anecdotal experience as proof. because there is a causative, though not definitive, relationship. it doesn't guarantee victory, it does help. I'm not sure what the positive correlation is, but I'm sure it's been looked at. Pretty much every major election, money spent is beyond the point where the causative effect of money spent is measurable. There is a point where throwing money at the election doesn't get you a measurable amount of votes and you have other factors that are determining the election. There is definitely a positive correlation. More popular candidates generate more money, and being more popular has a much greater effect on the vote than having more money. But it's the popularity that is winning the election, not the money. I feel like there are so many studies of the effect of money on the margin, and everyone is just doing themselves a disservice to continue to blame campaign financing for the reason why bad politicians win elections.
I haven't read the studies in detail, so I dunno.
it's certainly the case that people often hold beliefs that aren't notably true, yet they're widely accepted.
As was said previously, money makes the biggest difference in the smaller elections. I agree presidential elections (at least past the primaries) are so significant that money is far less relevant. bad politicians win because people vote for them; the campaign financing just means that those politicians also owe favors to people, and that they have to put in a lot of time fund-raising rather than doing their jobs.
I'm pretty sure if the politicians themselves thought they could win more by spending less time fund-raising, they'd do that, as they have every incentive to.
what's your source study for "There is a point where throwing money at the election doesn't get you a measurable amount of votes and you have other factors that are determining the election." I'd like to read it if you remember the source.
|
On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other.
I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in.
But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness.
On June 21 2017 23:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday.
Samuel Liles, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting director of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Cyber Division, said vote tallying mechanisms were unaffected, and the hackers appeared to be scanning for vulnerabilities — which Liles likened to walking down the street and looking at homes to see who might be inside.
But hackers successfully exploited a “small number” of networks, Liles said, likening the act to making it through a home’s front door.
Liles was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and his remarks add some clarity to the breadth of the Kremlin’s cyber mischief. Officials in Arizona and Illinois had previously confirmed that hackers targeted their voter registration system, though news reports suggested the Russian effort was much broader.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Russian hackers “hit” systems in 39 states, and The Intercept, citing a classified intelligence document, reported that Russian military intelligence “executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.”
In a separate hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that Russia’s meddling was “unprecedented, the scale and the scope of what we saw them doing.”
In addition to scanning voting systems for vulnerabilities, U.S. intelligence committees have said Russian hackers hacked and engineered the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Homeland Security official: Russian government actors potentially tried to hack election systems in 21 states
Broken clock and all, but this is amusing considering that yesterday this was brought up as the "dumb shit democrats believed".
|
United States44170 Posts
On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 23:56 farvacola wrote:People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday.
Samuel Liles, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting director of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Cyber Division, said vote tallying mechanisms were unaffected, and the hackers appeared to be scanning for vulnerabilities — which Liles likened to walking down the street and looking at homes to see who might be inside.
But hackers successfully exploited a “small number” of networks, Liles said, likening the act to making it through a home’s front door.
Liles was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and his remarks add some clarity to the breadth of the Kremlin’s cyber mischief. Officials in Arizona and Illinois had previously confirmed that hackers targeted their voter registration system, though news reports suggested the Russian effort was much broader.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Russian hackers “hit” systems in 39 states, and The Intercept, citing a classified intelligence document, reported that Russian military intelligence “executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.”
In a separate hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that Russia’s meddling was “unprecedented, the scale and the scope of what we saw them doing.”
In addition to scanning voting systems for vulnerabilities, U.S. intelligence committees have said Russian hackers hacked and engineered the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Homeland Security official: Russian government actors potentially tried to hack election systems in 21 states Broken clock and all, but this is amusing considering that yesterday this was brought up as the "dumb shit democrats believed".
Because they influenced people to change the the candidate they voted for rather than altering the ballots. There is no evidence to suggest the ballots or the count of the ballots were tampered with.
|
On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 23:56 farvacola wrote:People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday.
Samuel Liles, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting director of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Cyber Division, said vote tallying mechanisms were unaffected, and the hackers appeared to be scanning for vulnerabilities — which Liles likened to walking down the street and looking at homes to see who might be inside.
But hackers successfully exploited a “small number” of networks, Liles said, likening the act to making it through a home’s front door.
Liles was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and his remarks add some clarity to the breadth of the Kremlin’s cyber mischief. Officials in Arizona and Illinois had previously confirmed that hackers targeted their voter registration system, though news reports suggested the Russian effort was much broader.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Russian hackers “hit” systems in 39 states, and The Intercept, citing a classified intelligence document, reported that Russian military intelligence “executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.”
In a separate hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that Russia’s meddling was “unprecedented, the scale and the scope of what we saw them doing.”
In addition to scanning voting systems for vulnerabilities, U.S. intelligence committees have said Russian hackers hacked and engineered the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Homeland Security official: Russian government actors potentially tried to hack election systems in 21 states Broken clock and all, but this is amusing considering that yesterday this was brought up as the "dumb shit democrats believed".
Officially the DNC is a neutral arbiter. That's one reason to assume it will be just that.
|
On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness.
It is a result of both parties wanting it both ways. They want an open party and primary so they can gain as many supporters as possible, but also are not ready to deal with insurgent candidates that might rock the boat or straight up run for things that would harm other member’s chance of re-election. They need to be more honest about this stuff and get away from the “we all stand for the same things all the time” thing the democrats have been selling. And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders and it won’t work in the midterms with whatever incumbent people want to primary.
On June 22 2017 00:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. On June 21 2017 23:56 farvacola wrote:People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday.
Samuel Liles, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting director of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Cyber Division, said vote tallying mechanisms were unaffected, and the hackers appeared to be scanning for vulnerabilities — which Liles likened to walking down the street and looking at homes to see who might be inside.
But hackers successfully exploited a “small number” of networks, Liles said, likening the act to making it through a home’s front door.
Liles was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and his remarks add some clarity to the breadth of the Kremlin’s cyber mischief. Officials in Arizona and Illinois had previously confirmed that hackers targeted their voter registration system, though news reports suggested the Russian effort was much broader.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Russian hackers “hit” systems in 39 states, and The Intercept, citing a classified intelligence document, reported that Russian military intelligence “executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.”
In a separate hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that Russia’s meddling was “unprecedented, the scale and the scope of what we saw them doing.”
In addition to scanning voting systems for vulnerabilities, U.S. intelligence committees have said Russian hackers hacked and engineered the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Homeland Security official: Russian government actors potentially tried to hack election systems in 21 states Broken clock and all, but this is amusing considering that yesterday this was brought up as the "dumb shit democrats believed". Officially the DNC is a neutral arbiter. That's one reason to assume it will be just that.
Yeah, claiming to be something they are not and never have been. And they got rocked by Sanders doing the smart thing and running as a democrat, rather than a third party.
|
On June 22 2017 00:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. It is a result of both parties wanting it both ways. They want an open party and primary so they can gain as many supporters as possible, but also are not ready to deal with insurgent candidates that might rock the boat or straight up run for things that would harm other member’s chance of re-election. They need to be more honest about this stuff and get away from the “we all stand for the same things all the time” thing the democrats have been selling. And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders and it won’t work in the midterms with whatever incumbent people want to primary.
I'm not sure what you mean by this part:
"And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders "
could you clarify your point?
I may be having trouble getting your point since the extent to which sanders was even in the party is only light (and somewhat variable).
|
On June 22 2017 00:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 23:47 chocorush wrote:On June 21 2017 23:29 zlefin wrote:On June 21 2017 22:54 chocorush wrote:
I don't get why people believe there is a causative relationship between money spent on elections and winning elections. We even had two recent large elections where the larger spender lost (sanders-clinton, clinton-trump) for those that are inclined to take anecdotal experience as proof. because there is a causative, though not definitive, relationship. it doesn't guarantee victory, it does help. I'm not sure what the positive correlation is, but I'm sure it's been looked at. Pretty much every major election, money spent is beyond the point where the causative effect of money spent is measurable. There is a point where throwing money at the election doesn't get you a measurable amount of votes and you have other factors that are determining the election. There is definitely a positive correlation. More popular candidates generate more money, and being more popular has a much greater effect on the vote than having more money. But it's the popularity that is winning the election, not the money. I feel like there are so many studies of the effect of money on the margin, and everyone is just doing themselves a disservice to continue to blame campaign financing for the reason why bad politicians win elections. I haven't read the studies in detail, so I dunno. it's certainly the case that people often hold beliefs that aren't notably true, yet they're widely accepted. As was said previously, money makes the biggest difference in the smaller elections. I agree presidential elections (at least past the primaries) are so significant that money is far less relevant. bad politicians win because people vote for them; the campaign financing just means that those politicians also owe favors to people, and that they have to put in a lot of time fund-raising rather than doing their jobs. I'm pretty sure if the politicians themselves thought they could win more by spending less time fund-raising, they'd do that, as they have every incentive to. what's your source study for "There is a point where throwing money at the election doesn't get you a measurable amount of votes and you have other factors that are determining the election." I'd like to read it if you remember the source.
I was in one of Levitt's classes when I was in undergrad, so I remember hearing quite a bit about campaign finances.
Just doing a quick google search, there are more modern resources linked here, which also includes Levitt's paper.
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/
|
On June 22 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 00:45 Plansix wrote:On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. It is a result of both parties wanting it both ways. They want an open party and primary so they can gain as many supporters as possible, but also are not ready to deal with insurgent candidates that might rock the boat or straight up run for things that would harm other member’s chance of re-election. They need to be more honest about this stuff and get away from the “we all stand for the same things all the time” thing the democrats have been selling. And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders and it won’t work in the midterms with whatever incumbent people want to primary. I'm not sure what you mean by this part: "And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders " since the extent to which sanders was even in the party is only light (and somewhat variable). could you clarify your point?
He ran as a democrat. He is part of the party when he does that. Do you know what you need to be a democrat? Say you are a democrat now. That is the cost of entry of any political party in current politics. Trump became a Republican the instant he said “I’m running on the republican ticket.” There is no test to become a democrat or requirement for approval any more. Because of that, it is impossible to kick people out of the party.
To be clear: that does not mean there no political costs for jumping on the ticket after years of being independent or a member of the other party. I think we saw and are seeing those right now. But those problems were created by the parties wanting the most open process possible.
|
On June 22 2017 00:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. On June 21 2017 23:56 farvacola wrote:People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday.
Samuel Liles, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting director of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Cyber Division, said vote tallying mechanisms were unaffected, and the hackers appeared to be scanning for vulnerabilities — which Liles likened to walking down the street and looking at homes to see who might be inside.
But hackers successfully exploited a “small number” of networks, Liles said, likening the act to making it through a home’s front door.
Liles was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and his remarks add some clarity to the breadth of the Kremlin’s cyber mischief. Officials in Arizona and Illinois had previously confirmed that hackers targeted their voter registration system, though news reports suggested the Russian effort was much broader.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Russian hackers “hit” systems in 39 states, and The Intercept, citing a classified intelligence document, reported that Russian military intelligence “executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.”
In a separate hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that Russia’s meddling was “unprecedented, the scale and the scope of what we saw them doing.”
In addition to scanning voting systems for vulnerabilities, U.S. intelligence committees have said Russian hackers hacked and engineered the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Homeland Security official: Russian government actors potentially tried to hack election systems in 21 states Broken clock and all, but this is amusing considering that yesterday this was brought up as the "dumb shit democrats believed". Officially the DNC is a neutral arbiter. That's one reason to assume it will be just that.
"Officially" where? Granted, I only took a cursory glance at the Democrats.org site and a "DNC neutral arbiter" Google search, but I didn't see anything like that.
Even their charter, though full of legalese, basically says the DNC will work for the interests of the "Democratic Party", for whatever interpretation that leads to.
|
On June 22 2017 00:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:On June 22 2017 00:45 Plansix wrote:On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. It is a result of both parties wanting it both ways. They want an open party and primary so they can gain as many supporters as possible, but also are not ready to deal with insurgent candidates that might rock the boat or straight up run for things that would harm other member’s chance of re-election. They need to be more honest about this stuff and get away from the “we all stand for the same things all the time” thing the democrats have been selling. And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders and it won’t work in the midterms with whatever incumbent people want to primary. I'm not sure what you mean by this part: "And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders " since the extent to which sanders was even in the party is only light (and somewhat variable). could you clarify your point? He ran as a democrat. He is part of the party when he does that. Do you know what you need to be a democrat? Say you are a democrat now. That is the cost of entry of any political party in current politics. Trump became a Republican the instant he said “I’m running on the republican ticket.” There is no test to become a democrat or requirement for approval any more. Because of that, it is impossible to kick people out of the party. To be clear: that does not mean there no political costs for jumping on the ticket after years of being independent or a member of the other party. I think we saw and are seeing those right now. But those problems were created by the parties wanting the most open process possible.
ah, ok. but in what sense were they trying to kick someone out of the party?
|
What is wrong with people?
|
I think the real kicker is the name of the person who killed her - Darwin.
|
On June 22 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:
What is wrong with people?
It's that damn violent left up to their old tricks again.
Idk, the saddest thing is it's not surprising anymore.
|
On June 22 2017 01:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 00:54 Plansix wrote:On June 22 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:On June 22 2017 00:45 Plansix wrote:On June 22 2017 00:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2017 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
With the kind of campaign that Sanders ran, it's not exactly a surprise that he lost. While I wanted him to win, it was hard to deny that he seemed a little off his rocker, he made some large strategic blunders throughout, and I could certainly respect why people would choose Clinton over him.
But the DNC problem isn't just about whether or not they took the victory from him. It's about a case of clear cronyism and favoritism within a supposedly neutral arbiter of the primary campaign. And they got ratted out by the Russians in a way that really personified why people hate Clinton. It's not really about what actually tipped the election one way or the other. I still don't understand why people think the DNC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. Political parties are built on politicians with joint and common ground, not a forced coalition of whoever people vote in. But, I suppose attitudes are drastically different when the two party system is so ingrained into social consciousness. It is a result of both parties wanting it both ways. They want an open party and primary so they can gain as many supporters as possible, but also are not ready to deal with insurgent candidates that might rock the boat or straight up run for things that would harm other member’s chance of re-election. They need to be more honest about this stuff and get away from the “we all stand for the same things all the time” thing the democrats have been selling. And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders and it won’t work in the midterms with whatever incumbent people want to primary. I'm not sure what you mean by this part: "And stamp out the concept that they can kick someone out of the party, because that does not work. It didn’t work last election with Sanders " since the extent to which sanders was even in the party is only light (and somewhat variable). could you clarify your point? He ran as a democrat. He is part of the party when he does that. Do you know what you need to be a democrat? Say you are a democrat now. That is the cost of entry of any political party in current politics. Trump became a Republican the instant he said “I’m running on the republican ticket.” There is no test to become a democrat or requirement for approval any more. Because of that, it is impossible to kick people out of the party. To be clear: that does not mean there no political costs for jumping on the ticket after years of being independent or a member of the other party. I think we saw and are seeing those right now. But those problems were created by the parties wanting the most open process possible. ah, ok. but in what sense were they trying to kick someone out of the party?
There were clear efforts to favor Clinton by people who felt he was bad for the party or shouldn’t be involved. Which is expected, since hostile take overs are met with hostility. From early on when they denied Sanders group access data bases because of some error by a staffer and so on.
But the larger context of my statement is that peoples push remove people from politics through primaries or other means will be met with failure. And it will harm their efforts to push their agenda forward, because people will not want to deal with them. It doesn’t matter if it is the presidential primaries or a West Virginia senate race.
|
Not offending the party leadership versus not offending the voterbase that you are tempted to take for granted because their candidate of choice was opposed in favor of a crony. Well it's a choice, but don't be surprised when people jump ship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
