SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DNC serves WikiLeaks with lawsuit via Twitter
The Democratic National Committee on Friday officially served its lawsuit to WikiLeaks via Twitter, employing a rare method to serve its suit to the elusive group that has thus far been unresponsive.
As CBS News first reported last month, the DNC filed a motion with a federal court in Manhattan requesting permission to serve its complaint to WikiLeaks on Twitter, a platform the DNC argued the website uses regularly. The DNC filed a lawsuit in April against the Trump campaign, Russian government and WikiLeaks, alleging a massive conspiracy to tilt the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor.
All of the DNC's attempts to serve the lawsuit via email failed, the DNC said in last month's motion to the judge, which was ultimately approved.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador's London embassy for six years, is considering an offer to appear before a U.S. Senate committee to discuss alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, his lawyer said on Thursday.
WikiLeaks published a letter from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday which asked Assange to make himself available to testify in person at a closed hearing as part of its investigation into whether Moscow meddled to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. "The U.S. Senate Select Committee request confirms their interest in hearing from Mr Assange," lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in a statement.
Julian Assange 'seriously considering' request to meet US Senate committee
Lawyers for Julian Assange say they are "seriously considering" a request from a US Senate committee to interview the WikiLeaks founder as part of its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
The Senate select committee on intelligence has written to Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been living for more than six years.
[...] The chairman of the committee, Richard Burr, wrote: "As you are aware, the Senate select committee on intelligence is conducting a bipartisan inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. As part of that inquiry, the committee requests that you make yourself available for a closed interview with bipartisan committee staff at a mutually agreeable time and location."
The ultimate irony would involve Julian Assange avoiding Metropolitan Police arrest by somehow fleeing to the United States.
See also: Mueller subpoenas Randy Credico, who Roger Stone says was his WikiLeaks back channel
Previously: DNC's Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks is an Attack on Freedom of the Press
Related: Prominent Whistleblowers and Journalists Defend Julian Assange at Online Vigil
Ecuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:51AM (76 children)
Dear DNC,
You coronated Clinton over the will of the people during the primary. That's what a rigged election looks like. You knew HRC was hated by at least half the Democrats and virtually all Republicans. You made a boneheaded decision because the Clintons control a lot of money. As it turns out, even a billion dollars can't make a warpig like Hillary palatable enough to win. Accept it, move on, and quit trying to start a nuclear war over the fact you failed to snow enough people to win an election. In the future, you might try listening to the base rather than donors and Wall St. Sure, you don't have to do that but we also don't have to vote for you.
Sincerely,
Fuck You Very Much
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:56AM (1 child)
What happened regarding the attempt to become the "deep state" party?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html [wsws.org]
Any updates?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:16AM
Jews have lots of their own problems too. Sometimes they have to divert their attention away from meddling in American politics to focus on their own affairs.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:59AM (30 children)
Blame the voters too. She did win what counts for the popular vote in the democratic primary.
She was wildly unpopular on a national scale, but a lot of regular-ass voters bought the lie that she was "more electable" in the face of evidence that said the opposite.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GlennC on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:41AM (1 child)
Never mind the most of the "superdelegates" publicly backed Clinton in violation of Party rules.
Face it; the original intent was for Clinton to face only token resistance on her way to the White House.
https://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders [npr.org]
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-and-the-dnc-are-not-just-colluding----theyre-changing-the-rules-for-superdelegates_b_9876274.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:17PM
I mean we can get a lot of depth of what a lie the name "democratic" is with regards to party structure, but there's more than just the stupid-ass present to that, there's also a stupid-ass past to that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:51AM
I'm sure a lot of people were for Clinton, because Bernie proposed getting people back to work again.
You can get used to free money, even if it isn't much.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:16AM (18 children)
Did she really? Are you really sure of that?
Let's go back to the Iowa primaries. Six precincts tied. Each of those precincts was decided by a coin toss. And, Clinton won every coin toss. Odd, wasn't it? Iowa, with it's historical "magical" way of determining how "electable" a candidate might be. Of course, there was nothing fishy about those coin tosses if you happen to be a Clinton supporter, or if you're a die-hard partisan. But the rest of us look at that, and question the odds.
In fact, many of us insist that there was nothing legitimate about Clinton's campaign. I'll go even further. There is nothing legitimate about Hillary - full stop. She's as queer as a three dollar bill. I can't define her queerness, but she's queer. (And, in this case, I mean "queer" as it was defined before it applied to gays.)
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:45AM (16 children)
I think you're talking about things related to the Electoral College. The popular vote was simply the total number of votes correct? They don't give the entire precincts votes away to the winner?
If the individual votes are what constitutes the popular, then what is being decided by a coin toss?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aebonyne on Sunday August 12 2018, @07:19AM (1 child)
Iowa has caucuses [wikipedia.org], not primaries. Wikipedia has a description of how it works [wikipedia.org]. The short version is that it sounds like it's a winner-take-all system per precinct and precincts are small enough that ties are not terribly unlikely, especially as in a caucus, only registered voters who manage to show up in person and on time vote, so they tend to have very low turnout.
Centralization breaks the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @07:41AM
The simplest explanation for this post is that its a bot. Its otherwise difficult to understand the lack of reading comprehension.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:03AM (13 children)
aebonyne follows my thinking (although I'm not sure he agrees with it). Iowa has a special status in the election cycle, in that they set the tone, or the trend, for voters around the country. Iowa is the "most watched", in large part because they start the voting season off. Call it a caucus or a primary, they are first, and many people take their lead from Iowa's results.
Half a dozen of those precincts in the caucus were decided by coin tosses, and they all went to Hillary.
Had Bernie won in Iowa, instead of Hillary, voting around the entire country *could have* been very, very different. 50/50 odds for a coin toss, right? Unless you're flipping a double headed coin.
Please note that there is no way to prove how things *might have* gone. What's done is done, and we can only speculate what the alternative results may have been. But the fact is, Hillary took the first round of voting with coin tosses, not by votes. And, I personally think it very suspicious that she won all six tosses - bing, bang, boom.
It all ties in with the corruption that was later exposed by the DNC. And, all of it put together may help to explain why I despise the DNC more than I despise the Republicans. The GOP fought their renegade candidate pretty hard, until it became obvious the voters were siding with Trump. At which point, the GOP finally threw their support behind Trump. The DNC, on the other hand, knew that the vote was rigged, and they were never going to throw support to Bernie. Their support remained squarely behind Hillary, DESPITE the voter's wishes.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:40PM (8 children)
Which still has nothing to do with the outcome of the popular vote that the person was talking about.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:03PM (7 children)
Please, scroll on down to hemocyanin's response, posted after your own response. His link explains much that you have apparently overlooked. The DNC's campaign was dirty from start to finish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:15PM (6 children)
That is still about delegates, not the popular vote (which is just adding up all the votes). Not sure why this is difficult for some people...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:38PM (5 children)
Popular vote, you say. And, then you dismiss the fact that Bernie had the popular vote. How does that work? Bernie led Hillary, time and time again with the vote, but Hillary got the delegates, and the "super" delegates were all hers anyway.
If the Democratic party had respected the popular vote, they would have run Bernie against our Orange Ape. And - BERNIE MAY HAVE WON!!
Once again, we can't know that. We can only speculate how that race would have gone. But, we don't need to speculate that the DNC stacked the deck in Hillary's favor, until the deck collapsed like every house of cards eventually does.
So, where do you want to go now? You want to reiterate that Trump didn't win the popular vote? Well - neither did Hillary. Do we go back and nullify the election, and ask Bernie to take the office? Will that assuage your angst?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:33PM (1 child)
I didn't dismiss the fact bernie had the popular vote anywhere. Im just pointing out people keep talking about delegates instead of the popular vote. That is all. Literally nothing else. You just want any excuse to push some sort of talking point. Wow.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 13 2018, @12:28AM
What everyone knows is that there are delegates and super-delegates. Super-delegates are the usual band of corporate/lobyist/pharma/insurance/wallStreet/MIC scum. A Super Delegate's single vote was worth something like 10,000 votes from peons like us. It's gross. The two parties have subsumed the electoral process but the Democrats like to play that they're a private party and get to do _whatever_ while at the same time using the public election resources -- my money, your money. It's like robbery so they can pick whoever they want in a cigar smoke filled back room and do it on the backs of all taxpayers. https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252 [medium.com]
What is extra ironic, the Republican primary was far more democratic -- their super delegates have to vote the way the people did. https://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year [bustle.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by aebonyne on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:39PM (2 children)
Here's the results of the Democratic primary [wikipedia.org]. The popular vote is listed as 16,914,722 for Clinton and 13,206,428 for Sanders. By those numbers, Clinton won the popular vote by 3.7 million votes or 12 percentage points. That's not even a close race. Clinton's delegate count possibly being slightly higher than expected by her proportion of the popular vote due to rules details is irrelevant to the final result.
Centralization breaks the internet.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 13 2018, @12:50AM (1 child)
Let me tell you why those numbers are crap. They don't include ALL the states.
WA is a caucus state. The DNC has never released the popular vote numbers from the WA caucus. There was also a primary ballot that was run by the WA SOS, but the DNC ignored that and decided to do a caucus process -- as a result any primary ballot numbers reported by the state of WA are meaningless -- it was an after the caucus straw poll and had no effect on the election, and everyone here knew that. The only numbers the DNC has ever released from the caucuses, are the precinct delegate results. Precinct caucuses are the lowest level -- that's where the individual votes are gathered and delegates to the county convention selected. Those delegates are pledged to vote for a specific candidate. The WA DNC has released the number of delegates from each precinct. Ah you think, we can just calculate the popular vote totals from that number and the number of voters. Wrong.
In my precinct, HRC got 14% of the popular vote and she was alloted 25% of the pledged delegates. The ONLY number WA DNC has ever published was the pledged delegate number. They know the actual vote, every precinct turned in a sheet with the tally, but they have never released it. This kind of rounding error in HRC's favor propagated all the way through the county and state caucuses.
At the end of the process, Bernie got 74 delegates to the national convention, HRC got 27, and 17 were uncommitted (yea right) (118 total). Ignoring uncommitted, the spread between Bernie and HRC was 47 delegates (30 if you presume those "uncommitted" would be voting for HRC). If delegates were apportioned by popular vote, and Bernie had 80-85% of that vote, the loss for Clinton would have been huge. 0.8 * 118=94; 0.2 * 118=24. The spread in this case would have been a whopping 70 delegates. In the end, Bernie probably got about 67% of what he deserved to get out the WA caucus, and Clinton got away with little damage.
So you see, the process from the precincts on up was designed to benefit HRC -- in fact, in previous years, her 14% popular vote in my precinct would not have been enough to get across the viability threshold. They changed that rule for the last election, for obvious reasons.
Anyway, I challenge you to find the CAUCUS (not the irrelevant primary) popular vote totals for WA. Until you can do that, there is no valid number for the popular primary vote because it omits places Bernie was most popular.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday August 15 2018, @10:27PM
You seem pretty informed on this. I thought there was a state that decided at the party level to just go with Hillary over Bernie. Was that Colorado? Whats the deal with that?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:41PM (3 children)
I don't normally look to twitter for good information, but this thread outlines how time and again during the primaries, Clinton got more delegates than the popular vote warranted, including states where despite winning the popular vote, Clinton won the delegate count (all due the anti-democratic practice of super-delegates): https://twitter.com/philosophrob/status/905118924311801864 [twitter.com]
Democrats complaining about election rigging is like Jeffry Dahmer complaining about how his steaks are cooked.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:58PM
correction:
this: despite winning the popular vote, Clinton won the delegate count
to this: despite BERNIE winning the popular vote, Clinton won the delegate count
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:22PM (1 child)
That thread is pretty nitpicky. Most of the percentages are slightly off, which unsurprising given that some voting inefficiency is inevitable in a districted system instead of a popular vote system. Without seeing a chart of all of the states, it's hard to tell if they're cherry-picking. Obviously Hillary won the primary in both delegates (not counting super-delegates which have never affected a Democratic primary since the current system of having the general population vote in a primary was instituted) and votes, so it's not like this actually helped her win the primary, as much as some news reports may have used it (like the super-delegates) as a way to exaggerate her already substantial lead.
Of course, the Democrats chose to run their primary as a districted system instead of a popular vote system for similar reasons to why the United States originally chose to use the Electoral College: to make sure the election system chooses a candidate with broad support as opposed to strong support in a small number of areas. If Hillary consistently won more delegates than one would expect from her vote percentage, that means that districts that went for Bernie did so by larger margins than districts that went for Hillary. In other words, the results imply that Bernie had a concentrated base of excited supporters while Hillary had supporters everywhere. Which choice is the best for an electoral system is a matter for debate, but in this case Hillary won the popular vote of the primary as well by quite a bit, so it's not really an issue as both choices give the same winner.
(Obviously, the Democrats are in favor of the other choice for the general presidential election because they have trouble appealing to rural areas, but arguing to change the rules to ignore a constituency, even one that is a minority in population, seems like an undemocratic choice as opposed to changing their policies and messaging to actually represent as many people as possible. Bernie was a step in the other direction; Clinton at least had policies trying to help rural areas in her platform, although she clearly failed at messaging.)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 12 2018, @09:03PM
It isn't nitpicky -- you have states where HRC would get say 4% more than she deserved, which means Bernie got 4% LESS than he deserved -- that's an 8% spread. Then of course there are states where Bernie flat out won -- like Wyoming -- but Clinton won the delegate count. https://pics.me.me/dem-caucus-wyoming-18-delegates-bernie-sanders-democrat-56-dem-7732106.png [pics.me.me] Bernie won 56% of the vote to get 39% of the delegates. That's some democracy.
My own personal experience in the WA caucus was a real eyeopener -- while Bernie won WA, the HRCbots did everything possible to make the win worth less than its true value because they understood that spread is what is vitally important and with only a little extra thumb on the scale, democracy is irrelevant. Ultimately, the DNC rigged it so that where Bernie would win, he would either lose or not get the full benefit of his win, and where HRC won, she almost always got a little extra to boot.
That's not nitpicking -- that's pointing out how rigged it was. Bernie would have needed a super-majority in order to get the benefit of a mere simple majority.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday August 12 2018, @07:47PM
Crooked Hillary got VERY LUCKY with the coins. And it worked out tremendously for me -- I had so much fun running against her. But I would have beaten Bernie overwhelmingly. I'd love to run against Bernie, even if he’s in a wheelchair. Can you imagine, we're doing the Debates. And there I am, 6 foot 3. Debating a wheelchair guy. I could win without saying one word. Without a word. Who is going to run against me in 2020? Crooked Hillary? Pocahontas? High Crime Nancy Pelosi? Cancer Brain McCain? Oprah? Trust me, I have dirt on Oprah like you wouldn't believe.
I'll tell you, I got very lucky too. At the Cleveland convention. The Never Trumpers wanted to change the rules. So they could make their guy the nominee. And totally ignore the will of the American people, of the voters in the Primasies -- you know, just like the Democrat Party does all the time. Well, the chair made that one a voice vote. Where you say "aye" or "nay." And the Never Trumpers lost by a decibel. It's not a lot. Not a lot at all. They lost, I won. And the rest is history!!!!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:45AM (6 children)
How does that Russian Koolaid taste? Do you really like having the orange raciest in charge?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:06AM (4 children)
Oh, you're one of those idiots trying to deflect valid criticism with whataboutism.
What about this: in all the bad things Trump is doing, he's facing strong opposition, rendering him mostly harmless. The terrible environmental policies of his EPA cronies will be undone. His silly ban on Muslims entering the country already has. Just about anything he breaks can be fixed later. He's the lesser of two evils, and way more entertaining to boot. He turned the position of "most powerful man on Earth" into a reality TV show, which is fucking befitting for what your country has become.
But so far he hasn't started more wars and he even deescalated in the Korea conflict. I'm mostly critical of the USA due to their imperialistic foreign policy and constant destruction of real democracies and open societies if it befits their goals. All major conflicts of the 20th century had the USA meddling in them and most of them were started because of US intervention. US foreign policy killed countless millions and made life miserable for countless more and Hillary would have continued this tradition. She would not have faced any opposition because it's considered a matter of course in the US to fuck up the rest of the world to make a quick buck. Oh so exceptional you are...
It's ironic that the pychopatic, racist orange baboon now at the helm turns out to be an envoy of relative peace. But it's a welcome change. I'll root for Trump again next election, he's the president you deserve.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:22PM (3 children)
Mostly harmless?
I can't actually think of a bone-headed and/or evil idea of his that he hasn't been allowed to implement besides the stupid wall.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:46PM (2 children)
One of the biggest things that Trump has done this presidency is stop the US funding of Syrian rebels and white helmets allowing the situation to deescalate. There are some pros and cons that people will care about depending on their political affiliation
Pros
Assad wasn't actually that bad. Look at the stats for women education, religious freedom, violence, as far as dictators go he was doing pretty well.
Assad as a strongman kept the region in check
Assad destabilized allowed ISIS and other "bad" groups to really take hold, this is bad for us
Cons
Israel doesn't like him
Can't make money selling weapons if the world isn't at war.
I think keeping the US from getting bogged down in another Syrian state more than it already was would have been a huge mistake, somehow managing to avoid that is one of the best things he has done.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 13 2018, @05:21PM (1 child)
Do you mean "*Letting* the US get bogged down..." would have been a huge mistake?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday August 13 2018, @05:35PM
That last sentence of mine was a complete mess.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:14AM
Presuming that your question isn't merely rhetorical (which it surely is) - relatively few people "like" the Orange Monkeyman. But, many people are very sure that he was the lesser of the two evils offered.
You may continue with your meaningless rhetoric now.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:35PM
The whole Democratic primary seemed pretty fucked to me. Hillary should have done well with older voters who want a more safe conservative bet, Sanders should have done well with young voters who aren't smart enough to think for themselves and want the world handed to them on a plate. In Louisiana Sanders did better than Hillary on the paper ballots, but somehow got so many more electronic votes that it helped her carry the state. There is no way paper can be +1 Sanders and electronic +7 Hillary. There was fraud in the primary in favor of Clinton.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:24AM (17 children)
So you're OK with a major political party aiding and benefiting from coordinated attacks against our voting systems by a foreign government? Or using said foreign government as a tool to commit hacking and phishing attacks against political opponents?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:34AM
What attack against a voting system? And what defense against actual hacking has been implemented?
From what Ive read the voting systems have only gotten more shady. Eg: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=27019&page=1&cid=719186#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:43AM (9 children)
No,
AMERICA is okay with governments using coordinated attacks on governments.
AMERICA is okay with commiting hacking and phishing attacks against political opponents.
AMERICA does it ALL the time with foreign elections, but GOD FUCKING FORBID it happens to them!
Harumph harumph, this is the U the S of the fucking A! You can't do that! Amuricah!
Americans need to sit the fuck down and look at themselves: how many of their and the world's problems are because THEY interfere where they shouldn't.
America needs to go sit in the corner with a dunce cap on until they can get their shit together and be a good little country.
Read on,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.94583b48d11e [washingtonpost.com]
But, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:47AM (3 children)
Well there is a disconnect, and it starts with the word "classified".
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:52AM (1 child)
Good non answer.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @07:14AM
transparency, the people don't actually know what is being done by their country
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 13 2018, @12:56AM
I've got a few grams of sulfur you could pretend is yellowcake if you want.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:22AM (1 child)
But when Daniel Ortega and the Communists were voted out of office in Nicaragua, the US gave Ortega's opponent vast sums of campaign financing.
I'd like to see that outlawed - donations to foreign campaigns.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:49PM
Would be nice if that were true. It is what Article 1 says. But it is not what SCOTUS says. PACS can take foreign money and they don't have to disclose doners. Public corporations act in the feduciary interest of stockholders, which are multinational in most cases. And they get to donate directly to politicians.
So while Article 1 says they can't accept foreign money. SCOTUS has said, for all practical purposes, they can. But hey, that isn't the only part of the document that is regularly used for judicial toilet paper. So don't let it spoil your mood.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:27AM
Ottoman empire, Israel, Iran (repeatedly), Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, every banana republic in the western hemisphere, the list goes on and on.
I might point out that some of that meddling was in response to the Soviet manipulating us like an old whore might manipulate a teenage boy raging with hormones.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:51AM (1 child)
Regardless, if a foreign country attacked the voting infrastructure and interfered that way, it constitutes an act of war IMO. We should take it seriously, regardless of how shitty we've been in the past, because we actually do need to move forward. Either that, or America is going to splinter and/or morph into something decidedly diverged from our American principles we started with.
However, more and more it simply looked like we got played, and handed them all the ammunition and weapons on silver platters. We gave all of our information to Facebook, unloaded all our pettiness, ugliness, and weaknesses on Twitter, used the Internet to treat each other like shit.
They took that and played us against each other like a fiddle. We're still dancing, and we're still getting played.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:04AM
I dont like how this post morphs in to talking about "we" and "us".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:21AM (2 children)
I am far more comfortable with a foreign attack against our voting system, than I am with domestic attacks. Any attack by Russia, real or imagined, is far less dangerous to our system than the DNC's attacks from within.
Have you ever read any war stories? Do you have any idea how complicated war is? Or, not even a whole war, just a campaign within the war. You have enemies outside your perimeter, and everyone is primed to deal with those enemies. But, what about the spy within, who is sabotaging your efforts? How do you defend against that damned spy? It's tough. One spy can do more damage than thousands of enemies on the battlefield. An internal traitor has access to assets that none of those external enemies can possibly use.
Are YOU comfortable with traitors and internal enemies manipulating our voting system?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fadrian on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:06PM (1 child)
I am far more comfortable with a foreign attack against our voting system, than I am with domestic attacks. Any attack by Russia, real or imagined, is far less dangerous to our system than the DNC's attacks from within.
Then you are a fool. The Russians are much more dangerous than the clowns who run the DNC. And frankly, siding with a bunch of oligarchic Republicans and Russians over a bunch of oligarchic Democrats never sounded like a great strategy anyway. Within twenty years it will all be over anyway - either the demographic shifts will occur that will ensure that the Republican party is a permanent minority party or the US will turn into an apartheid state where minority rule triumphs and no one with a conscience will actually want to live. I now know which one you wish for.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:02PM
Why do you hate the Russians so much? The Soviet was my enemy. The Russian people were never my enemy. You sound vaguely like Ethanol Fueled, with your undying hatred of a people. I have an exercise for you, that might help cure, or at least dull, your hatred. Find a nice big blackboard, like we used to have in schoolrooms. You know, wall-to-wall slate. It doesn't have to be black, but black is best. Dark-gree-almost-black is good, and dark-blue-almost-black is good. Don't settle for some bullshit imitation white-board though. It's got to be a blackboard. You're going to write out, 100 times, "Soviet bad, Russkie good."
Repeat the exercise twice a day for the next 365 days, or longer if necesary. And, no, there is no need to shake before exercising. Just have a single beer after the exercise, and go on about your business.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:53AM
I don't care how the DNC emails were obtained, since they should have been released anyway. The People have a right to know about corruption. I wish the same would happen to the RNC.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:34PM (1 child)
Israel has been doing that left, right, center, inside, and outside to the USA for decades, with no such outcry whatsoever. Their lobby, AIPAC, is universally rated as the third most powerful in America, behind the AARP and the NRA. Where are the breathless pundits hyperventilating over the threat to American democracy that that is? They have their hooks into so many levels of our society, and evenbrazenly stole our nuclear technology and used it to build 200 nuclear weapons, but we haven't nuked them off the face of the planet. Why is that?
People puffing and moaning about "Russian interference" in US elections in the form of $100K in Facebook ads need to ponder those questions and promptly shut the hell up, unless they begin militating against Israel's foreign meddling in American elections with equal or greater fervor.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:37PM
Sorry, if you ask for any consistency or prioritization its called "whataboutism" to these people.
On the good side, the lack of any application of rational thought is why these organizations they (supposedly) support or are financed by are dying.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Gaaark on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:28AM (9 children)
Yup.
America doesn't mind interfering in other countries elections, but wtf, Russkies?....
America uses election systems that are WIDE OPEN to hacking or fraud, then cry when there is possible evidence of hacking or fraud....
And the DNC watch as Hillary fucks Bernie yet STILL put her out as an acceptable candidate....
But wilileaks is the bad guy.
Yeahhhhhh....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:03AM (7 children)
The funny thing about the alleged interference is that no fraud was required. And so far, hacking has been alleged but not proven. There are plausible alternative explanations how the information could have gotten out, like a whistleblower. A hack by Russians sounds a whole lot like the kind of decoy FUD story HRC would use for damage control. Wasn't there something about her government infosec malpractice to sweep under the rug too? Hmmm....
And excuse me while I recalibrate my sarcasm detector, but how the fuck is it "interference" to just expose the truth [about the DNC]? It's what any "legacy" journalist worth their salt would have done, had the information been given to them. If we consider the whistleblower theory, would it still be interference?
If we exclude the uncertainties, like the hacking accusations and purported sponsored social media trolls, neither of which can be proven nor attributed to Russia, all that's left is an online ad campaign paid for by Russians. LOL if that is all it takes to render kaputt the greatest democracy in the world!
Want to see how real election meddling looks like? Just ask Hillary herself, she gladly used it on other countries, not least Syria, during her tenure as a secretary of state. Things like fomenting armed rebellions of religious crazies and supplying them with weapons is the Hillary way, and she is upset with those evil Russians merely trolling her with words? The same Hillary who wouldn't mind nuclear war? Bitch puhleeze! :D
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:51AM (4 children)
The actually funny thing here is that there wasn't any point in the Russians rigging the election as the DNC did an extremely effective job of ensuring that the eventual GOP nominee would win the election. The only reason that the DNC was able to win the popular vote was that they chose the least qualified, most hated woman possible to run in the general election. And even that was only sufficient to win the popular vote due to the worst possible GOP candidate being the nominee, she couldn't even be bothered to give the voters a reason to vote for her or turn up in key states.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:06PM (1 child)
I have a theory that the DNC intentionally lost the election, because they knew that economic disaster was heading right towards us, and they didn't want to be blamed. They just didn't imagine that the Republicans would also be trying to lose the election, so both sides picked candidates as repulsive as possible. I think everyone was surprised at every step along the way, that Trump won. And if they'd realized what they were getting into ahead of time, they'd have done *something* different. Perhaps support Romney under the table or something.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @07:08PM
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but everything points to the Dems actually believing in Hillary having been their best shot. First woman in office, rooted deeply in the political network of favours and blackmails that enables the continuation of the established client politics defining the status quo, appealing to both hawks and hippies.... I can guarantee that's what they got sold on, or bullied and blackmailed into accepting. Hillary was convinced that it was her turn, that she had an inalienable right to the throne. Hell she had already sold her pay to play tickets. Wonder if she refunded that shit. Anyway, she'll have moved heaven and hell and curried every owed favour to get the party fully behind her and make. it. happen. No way were they trying to lose, because had Hillary found out, she'd have utterly destroyed those responsible. And she's pretty fucking scary.
But nice conspiracy theory.
Here's another one: there never was any hacking, but someone in the DNC grew a conscience and passed those files under the guise of a "hacker" so noone, especially not Hillary, would suspect a staffer. Because see above.
I've just read the Mueller indictment [justice.gov] and they have nothing. No concrete dates for anything, even those events that would be easy to forensically nail down had they really happend. Just a collection of fuzzy hand-wringing accusations but wholly without substance, I could have written a better crime novel in 4th grade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13 2018, @02:03AM (1 child)
I think you mean despite having a hated candidate the DNC still won the popular vote.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday August 13 2018, @05:40PM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/17/without-california-trump-would-won-14-million-more-votes-than-clinton-n2261014 [townhall.com]
If California wants to take her as governor thats totally up to them. But California doesn't get to decide the President for the US on their own. Fortunately we are a Republic and our founders put an electoral college in to keep one state from having too much power over the others.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:52PM (1 child)
A good article on this topic with the following 5 sections: https://steemit.com/russia/@caitlinjohnstone/five-things-that-would-make-the-cia-cnn-russia-narrative-more-believable [steemit.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:09PM
FWIW, I consider the Russian meddling to be unwarranted and unacceptable, but I also consider the corporate meddling to unwarranted and unacceptable. And multiple actions of the FBI.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:58AM
God...wake up and smell the napalm. Your brain has been hacked and you don't have a fucking clue.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilPapa on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:48AM (11 children)
Trump was able to convince 304 delegates to the electoral college to vote for him. Don't make it sound like actual people chose him. The people wanted something else.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday August 12 2018, @02:20AM (2 children)
And he's doing a damn-fine job protecting the White heiritage of Am
erica from the scourge of third-world filth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @05:04AM
Well that kinda says it all don't it. Get a clue dude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:02PM
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:42AM
"Something else" wasn't on offer, thanks to your so-called two-party "democracy" where both parties are being controlled by the same entities pretty much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:43PM
Roughly 42% of the eligible population didn't even vote. Hillary may have got more votes overall but there's plenty left going unused that could have crushed both candidates if they felt like someone was worth voting for.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:54PM (5 children)
If Hiillary didn't know how the EC worked, yeah, she failed to snow enough people that her her corporatist surveillance state program of war and destruction at the expense of working people was a good idea, and deserved to lose.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday August 12 2018, @08:59PM (4 children)
Well, thank god Trump won and now the corporatist surveillance state program of war and destruction at the expense of working people has been defeated. Right, you stupid sonofabitch?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 13 2018, @12:16AM (3 children)
What is interesting, is that with Trump elected there is pushback on these policies -- at least rhetorically though perhaps not when it comes to funding the MIC. With HRC in office, it would have been like Obama's term -- silence. So the irony is, peace and goodwill seem to be more protected when the GOP is in office, and sacrificed without a peep when a Democrat is in office. In a weird way, that makes Trump the lesser evil -- not because HE is less evil, but because Democrats ONLY oppose evil policies when the GOP does it, never when they do it.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday August 13 2018, @12:32AM (2 children)
Having what you call "pushback" from the administration while only funding more surveillance might be a greater evil, because the lip service makes people think something is happening, when really the evil is just accelerating. People like you.
Instead of the corporatism of Clinton, we have the far more corrupt crony corporatism of Trump, where you don't know if you're in or out from day to day, depending on what he saw on TV that morning. Meanwhile, we have a president who gets marching orders direct from oligarchs. No, Hilary was a lesser evil. She would have lasted one term and then we could have an actual discussion. Instead, we have nazis being escorted to the White House by DC police to keep them safe. I'm glad my dad isn't around to see a day when the president gives cover to nazis and white supremacists and law enforcement forms a human shield around them.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 13 2018, @01:07AM (1 child)
HRC would be a lesser evil in the same way Obama was, you know, expanding GWB's due process free detention based on secret legal memos (Gitmo) to include due process free execution based on secret legal memos, expanding the wars, selling out healthcare to the insurance industry, coddling Wall St. and banksters, making the GWB tax cuts (at least 82% of them) permanent. And Obama ran campaigns pretending to be progressive and anti-war. Clinton basically promised war with Syria (and a shooting match between Russian and American warplanes) and she could barely bring herself to even think about policies that help the working class and offer empty platitudes only after being dragged kicking and screaming from some Wall St. cock.
Christ, if that's the lesser evil, ho-ly fuck.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday August 15 2018, @10:35PM
The number one thing I am thankful for with Trump is that his corruption has to do with building hotels and selling more of his products at home and abroad. It is a whole lot easier for him to make money if the US is not involved in tons of wars/conflicts overseas. If it costs the US a couple million to build Trump the "Kim and Moon Peace and Prosperity Trump International Hotel" in Pyongyang then its a damn good deal. If It costs us the price of a hotel in Tehran to get peace between the two countries then its a damn good deal. If it means Trump gets to sell his families products in Cuba, Russia, etc and in exchange we get peace than its a damn good deal.
Trump offers us peace in exchange for him and his family getting rich. The other candidates offer us war in exchange for them and their families getting rich. I would prefer get fucked by the one who is okay with peace than the one who wants war.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday August 12 2018, @03:05AM (1 child)
Word on the street is that you could serve your complaint on Twitter.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 12 2018, @06:12PM
IIUC, you have to first try to use a process server, and then several other approaches, and also to demonstrate that the group you want to sue regularly uses Twitter before you can serve them that way. Oh, yes, and also get a judge to approve that method of service ahead of time.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @04:42AM
How does that Russian Koolaid taste? Do you really like having the orange raciest in charge?