Stupid election backlash

[grinreaper]

You missed that the US Intel community said Russian Intelligence was the source of the election email hack, and I'm an idiot for not providing a link?

 

Do you want me to source out a link for who won the election too?

 

Try to have a dialog on the election hack. Respond with a baseless personal attack. Well played Chef well played.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

 

"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process."

 

Not exactly proof of anything except that you are capable of cherry picking.

Edited December 2, 2016 by grinreaper

[Deranged Rhino]

 

4mer--I appreciate all the thought in your post. Let me ask you this: Do you question the USIC statement that it's confident Russian intelligence, directed by its highest levels, did the hacking and release of the data?

 

 

 

Only the DNI and DHS have made those kinds of definitive statements -- and their statements weren't even definitive. They offered zero evidence, only rhetoric which pushes the narrative that's been building for years now. Despite the spin, not all of the 17 intelligence agencies agree with the DNI or DHS's assessment.

 

Assange denied it flatly before he was disappeared and did everything but come out and reveal his source(s) as having come from elements within the US Intelligence services.

 

Isn't it more important to understand the actual facts of the events before we gather the lynch mob?

 

The State Department is dying for a casus belli, facts be damned. Don't fall for it.

[4merper4mer]

 

***

4mer--I appreciate all the thought in your post. Let me ask you this: Do you question the USIC statement that it's confident Russian intelligence, directed by its highest levels, did the hacking and release of the data?

 

I agree with a lot of what you said, but to me, as I've said a lot of times, I find it troubling that a state actor hacked people on one side with an interest to monkey in our democratic process.

 

And of course it exposed a corrupt and bogus Hillary/DNC. Shocker. There was a huge value in that being exposed in terms of making our country stronger but it's totally beside the point I keep making.

 

 

I don't know enough about the USIC to agree or disagree on this specific incident, but I'll take it for granted for the sake of this discussion. I do have enough confidence in the assertion that Russia, China, and Iran actively try to hack US business and government interests on a regular basis. You can find it troubling , funny, an act of war or whatever you want to find it. It is not going to stop. If you find something troubling my assumption is that you'd prefer the troubles go away. I think we'd all agree on wanting them gone, but I'd also like cancer gone. Realistically the odds of curing cancer before eliminating the risk of cyber-spying are very high IMO.

 

What I find puzzling is that you are troubled by Republicans/Trump's reaction to it. What were they to do? How could they have made it better? Might they be doing something to protect the US against these types of things....even acting together as D/R behind the scenes....that might not be public? How should a run of the mill Republican react? Shout at their TV? Vote for Hillary as a show of solidarity?

 

I don't think we know the complete motivation of the Russian in this at all. Was it to help Trump? Just to hurt Clinton? Just to prove they could do something? Somehow revenge for something? The reason does not excuse the action but I'm sure there are many more moving parts than anyone, including even Clinton and Trump, know about. I find it odd that they went after Clinton because Russia is basically being run by old line commies and Hillary's roots are very left wing. You'd think they'd help her. This is why I don't pretend to know their motivations.

 

 

Like any invention ever, the influx of computing technology, data storage and networking in the last 50 years can be used for profound good or evil. It is no different than nuclear fission which can create energy that helps a lot of people, or create bombs capable of massive destruction. The real difference here is the rate of change. Technology has developed, and will continue to develop with a rapidity that far exceeds previous breakthroughs. In addition, it is much more personal. One person can impact far more things than one person has ever been able to impact before. This will bring so many good things to people, but will also bring the bad, and the inane...like Twitter....., Look at other inventions and tell me they didn't bring good bad and indifferent. Printing press, guns, cars, mass production lines, all the way back to the wheel. Even medicine.

 

So am I troubled that Russia hacked into the DNC? No. not really. I'm not happy about it but how can I be troubled by something that I can't control and that was inevitable? The real question is what can be done about it? To me, there isn't much. In this situation, nobody was in a good position to handle it "properly", whatever that might be. There is certainly no single person or group that can react in a holistic way to the problem.

 

The party with the most power was the DNC themselves IMO. They should have responded by saying, you know what? We effed up. We need to examine how we do things and make a lot of changes, but clearly we should not be feeding questions to candidates and inciting riots. Every organization has it troubles and we have ours. We pledge to work hard to resolve them and we will regularly report our progress in these areas to the people whose votes we seek. CNN could have done a little something like that too. Maybe the R's could have said something like "We don't like what is being reported and are disappointed that a free press would align with a political party but we are also disturbed that Russia has....and we will work together with D's to combat it". But all of that is tertiary and dependent on at least some factors that are out of their control.

[Maury Ballstein]

He was at the rally dude. He knows more than you.

 

Katy Perry sang a tune about Putin's hacker friend Yulia Kravchenko.

 

If you listen to the lyrics you would know Russia has souped up Tandy's that have infinite reach.

[Benjamin Franklin]

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process."Not exactly proof of anything except that you are capable of cherry picking.

Your quote doesn't refute anything I said. It's directed at hacking the state election systems, which was not part of this discussion about hacking private people and organizations. There's no definitive linkage between state election systems and Russian government.

 

Seriously, do you read what you post?

[KD in CA]

 

Guess I'm funny this way: I don't want a state actor hacking private emails and publishing one-side of those emails in order to affect our democratic process. That's my point. It's really that simple.

Every email is one sided. If the senior Democrats are too !@#$ stupid to not recognize a simple phishing scam than thank God they won't be running the country for the next four years.

 

I think what's far more outrageous is that the MSM and a majority of the public completely ignored/dismissed/didn't care about all the jaw dropping stuff in those emails. If we're so worried about democracy being subverted, let's start with an examination of the country's largest political party rigging it's own primary for the highest bidder!

 

 

I give a rat's ass who the person was who got wiped out in the hacking. It would have been wrong if it was Trump, Clinton, or Jill Stein who got targeted by Russian intelligence. Does anyone think there aren't a bazillions crappy emails floating around the Trump campaign? Of course there are. But we didn't see them.

You really think there are Trump emails worse than stuff Trump said right out in public? I find that hard to believe.

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by KD in CA

[bbb]

Good point!

[Benjamin Franklin]

You really think there are Trump emails worse than stuff Trump said right out in public? I find that hard to believe.

 

You make a damn solid counter but the single behind the scenes insight we have on Trump nearly derailed his run.

[grinreaper]

Your quote doesn't refute anything I said. It's directed at hacking the state election systems, which was not part of this discussion about hacking private people and organizations. There's no definitive linkage between state election systems and Russian government.

 

Seriously, do you read what you post?

My post came from your link and while you didn't prove your premise, you did prove that you are adept at cherry picking.

[Doc]

It's sad that (allegedly) Russia has to do the job the MSM once did.

[B-Man]

More Election Backlash..................

 

North Side beer bar drops MillerCoors over Trump

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/drink/beer/ct-north-side-beer-bar-drops-millercoors-over-trump-20161201-story.html

 

 

POST-ELECTION VANDALISM, INTIMIDATION, PROTESTS AND RECOUNT: Seems a competent FBI would ask if there are connections…

 

 

 

“Kristin Davis rocked a ‘Love Trumps Hate’ button on Election Day. The ‘Sex and the City’ star hasn’t exactly lived up to that sentiment since then:”

 

 

 

CNN CREW JOKES ABOUT TRUMP PLANE CRASHING BEFORE CARRIER SPEECH.

 

 

 

ROGER SIMON: ‘Panic in Progressive Park’ — What If Trump Is Actually Good?

 

“Reason for the panic — the dawning realization, repressed and often unrecognized though it may be, that Donald Trump may even a be a good president. Then what?” He certainly seems to be off to a strong start. And the Mattis pick is inspired.

 

And I was briefly in DC this week, and noticed a palpable reduction in smugness among its denizens compared to the last time (pre-election) I was there. . . .

Edited December 2, 2016 by B-Man

[Deranged Rhino]

It's sad that (allegedly) Russia has to do the job the MSM once did.

 

Just a refresher from 2014 and some things that most people overlooked at the time, namely that "Fake News" has been the State Department's (and the Five Eyes') MO since the internet became a consistent presence in our personal lives:

 

 

 

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

 

(snip)

 

But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

 

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.

 

 

(snip)

 

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes.

 

(snip)

 

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.”

 

(snip)

 

Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

 

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

 

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends.

 

 

 

Much, much more in the link: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

[boyst]

 

Just a refresher from 2014 and some things that most people overlooked at the time, namely that "Fake News" has been the State Department's (and the Five Eyes') MO since the internet became a consistent presence in our personal lives:

 

 

 

 

Much, much more in the link: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

these tactics have weakened anonymooses bite a lot. Anonamiss isn't on the sites like they used to be where they could really influence their followers. They have gone back to their hidings and in doing so are more dangerous then ever

[Deranged Rhino]

these tactics have weakened anonymooses bite a lot. Anonamiss isn't on the sites like they used to be where they could really influence their followers. They have gone back to their hidings and in doing so are more dangerous then ever

 

I can see that, though I personally am suspect about Anonymous's true colors. They tend to toe the line more often than not and have been used more for disinformation campaigns than anything else. If they're not a cut-out, they're more than likely a creation of one of the five eyes -- but that's speculation of course.

 

These tactics have been used for years and are continuing to be used aggressively by multiple federal agencies. The State Department, like every other major power in the world, efforts to control the narrative not just in the media but online as well... and when they lose control of the narrative, they have built in boogeymen at the ready who are designed to distract, discredit, and eventually trash anyone (journalists and private citizens alike) who dares to question the narrative being force-fed to the general public. I've seen this being implemented in real time.

 

That creates an echo chamber and dangerously infringes on our abilities as private citizens to inform ourselves on the realities of the world, not just the version of reality being sold to us by State. The war on "false news" is nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissent and free speech and maintain control of the narrative.

 

It won't work ultimately. It's going to backfire in a big way because too many people are waking up.

[boyst]

 

I can see that, though I personally am suspect about Anonymous's true colors. They tend to toe the line more often than not and have been used more for disinformation campaigns than anything else. If they're not a cut-out, they're more than likely a creation of one of the five eyes -- but that's speculation of course.

 

These tactics have been used for years and are continuing to be used aggressively by multiple federal agencies. The State Department, like every other major power in the world, efforts to control the narrative not just in the media but online as well... and when they lose control of the narrative, they have built in boogeymen at the ready who are designed to distract, discredit, and eventually trash anyone (journalists and private citizens alike) who dares to question the narrative being force-fed to the general public. I've seen this being implemented in real time.

 

That creates an echo chamber and dangerously infringes on our abilities as private citizens to inform ourselves on the realities of the world, not just the version of reality being sold to us by State. The war on "false news" is nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissent and free speech and maintain control of the narrative.

 

It won't work ultimately. It's going to backfire in a big way because too many people are waking up.

I follow anonyhouse on Facebook for laughs. Its become a truly hysterical shell of what it was in 2009/2010 when I would actually do little bits of nonsense involving their crap. Their articles released now parrot major sources of news more son than ever which makes me wonder, is the news now reporting on the things they never used or are then articles note streamlined due to group think.

 

A great example of group think, targeted oppression and continued denegrating of sects of people happened in the McKnight thread. More than a few times the immediate snap to judgement that he "dindu nuffin" resulted in an uproar why the guy wasn't immediately beheaded for shooting him. The reactionary discourse desired by modern social activism is getting dangerous.

 

The thoughts contained that the south must be a different place than any other place because people have guns was incredible. The back handed or subtle pokes atthe south denegtrating them to ssimple and primitive folk is laughable.

 

Then of course, you had people believing the constitution was outdated. In wont even begin to discuss this matter. Its !@#$ing stupid.

 

But, most importantly it was the group think that because the alleged and self appointed enlightened person boldly states that a man didn't deserved to die. Maybe he did. Maybe he attacked someone. Maybe he was out of line. Maybe we can wait and actually find out. The rush to judgement, as I even pointed out does no favors and recent media has shown this. Again, I pointed this out and people than called George Zimmerman a kitty with a gun who had no business following trayvon martin. If he didn't have a gun he never would have followed him. Well, we all know how that worked out. And we all know that justice won. Stupidity lost. But more and more, as groups continue to press their issue stupidity wins.

 

Groups that undermined the mass media neglecfion of truth and honest report in are now being deemed at right,white socialist, hate groups, tterrorists, etc. Anonymous was one of the last truly effective groups that could.mobilize, empower and inform youths. That ability has been lost and we are weaker for it.

[B-Man]

[Deranged Rhino]

Good article for BF:

 

 

 

THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

 

But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess. “To be honest, it looks like a pretty amateur attempt,” Eliot Higgins, a well-respected researcher who has investigated Russian fake-news stories on his Web site, Bellingcat, for years, told me. “I think it should have never been an article on any news site of any note.”

 

(snip)

 

The list is so broad that it can reveal absolutely nothing about the structure or pervasiveness of Russian propaganda. “It’s so incredibly scattershot,” Higgins told me. “If you’ve ever posted a pro-Russian post on your site, ever, you’re Russian propaganda.” In a scathing takedown on The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot “embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist.”

 

By overplaying the influence of Russia’s disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat. “Think about RT and Sputnik’s goals, how they report their success to Putin,” Vasily Gatov, a Russian media analyst and a visiting fellow at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, told me. “Their success is that they have penetrated their agenda, that they have become an issue for the West. And this is exactly what happened.”

 

(snip)

 

Another major issue with PropOrNot is that its members insist on anonymity. If one aims to cut through a disinformation campaign, transparency is paramount. Otherwise you just stoke further paranoia.The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia.

 

(snip)

 

Bogus news stories, which overwhelmingly favored Trump, did flood social media throughout the campaign, and the hack of the Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s e-mail seems likely to have been the work of Russian intelligence services. But, as harmful as these phenomena might be, the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier. Vasily Gatov told me, “To blame internal social effects on external perpetrators is very Putinistic.”

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda?intcid=mod-latest

[B-Man]

Liberals Mock Victims of Wildfire in Tennessee Because They Voted for Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

Liberal Pop-Culture Has Officially Outlived Its Usefulness in Politics.

 

“During the campaign, the vote-shaming social media blitzes and testimonials we were bombarded with by Hillary’s celebrifriends seemed grating and tacky. Now their smugness is tangible evidence of a larger problem within the Democratic Party: Its image is controlled and marketed by a very narrow group of corporate interests, tech libertarians and affluent celebrities. A few years ago we’d have called them the 1 percent.

 

The actual Democratic establishment’s agenda has often felt too absurd to articulate, so the party has chosen no identity over a bad one. So of course they had a marketing problem.”

Edited December 4, 2016 by B-Man

[Prickly Pete]

 

 

Liberal Pop-Culture Has Officially Outlived Its Usefulness in Politics.

 

“During the campaign, the vote-shaming social media blitzes and testimonials we were bombarded with by Hillary’s celebrifriends seemed grating and tacky. Now their smugness is tangible evidence of a larger problem within the Democratic Party: Its image is controlled and marketed by a very narrow group of corporate interests, tech libertarians and affluent celebrities. A few years ago we’d have called them the 1 percent.

 

The actual Democratic establishment’s agenda has often felt too absurd to articulate, so the party has chosen no identity over a bad one. So of course they had a marketing problem.”

 

I mentioned this way back. Seeing Colbert drop the facade on election night was the air farting out of the HumorNews balloon.

 

I hope I never hear Trevor Noah's voice again.

Edited December 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[B-Man]

Comey’s FBI Needs to Investigate Violent Democratic Tantrums

by Austin Bay

 

Original Article

 

It’s time for the FBI to conduct a detailed investigation into the violence and political thuggery that continue to mar the presidential election’s aftermath. A thorough probe of the protests—to include possible ties to organizations demanding vote recounts—will give the Bureau’s integrity-challenged director, James Comey, a chance to sandblast his sullied badge. Director Comey must also include “elector intimidation” on his post-election investigation list. Reports that members of the Electoral College are being harassed and threatened by angry, vicious (and likely Democratic Party) malcontents require Comey’s quick and systematic attention.