Politics | 2016 | This thread is insulting to life

might be wrong but heard something the dude actually asking IT if the alert was legit and got the go ahead to click

IT dude was probably browsing GAF at the time and couldn't be bothered

The story of that Phaze is a typo: Podesta's IT guy meant to say NOT to click it.

By KingGondo Go To PostI was sick of even thinking about Trump like two months ago.

Next four years might require a drug habit.

Start cleansing yourself of the negativity not with drugs but assisting those around you and creating a safe haven for folks to just come chill and not deal with the shit of the next 4 years. People are gonna need more support than ever.

Here it is!

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions
in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber
Incident Attribution

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence
Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to
WikiLeaks.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

such a contrast to trump hogwash statement

As close as to a Manchurian Candidate we'll ever get.

....if they're not quantifying impact then thanks for what we already know?

Everyone intends to impact everyone else's politics. Wikileaks has been a playground for bullshit for years too.

We assess the Russian intelligence services would have seen their election influence campaign as at least a qualified success because of their perceived ability to impact public discussion

yeah this is a pamphlet. not even worth the read as is. people are gonna have a blast with it either way though

Clinton was a flawed candidate, but fucking hell if you listened to right wing media you'd think she posed an existential threat to the country.

I don't think people really understand how bad it can get. Dubya is considered experienced and moderate compared to Trump, and that got us two protracted wars, horrible regressive tax policy, Katrina, and on and on. And Trump appears to be completely amoral and is surrounded by residents of the GOP Island of Misfit Toys. People who were considered to be too extreme for Fox News or mainstream talk radio.

The policies we know Trump is going to go for (tax cuts, the wall, etc.) will be bad enough. Things have a chance to get really out of control and scary when unexpected events or crises happen.

By Tea Go To PostStart cleansing yourself of the negativity not with drugs but assisting those around you and creating a safe haven for folks to just come chill and not deal with the shit of the next 4 years. People are gonna need more support than ever.

I was being facetious, I've been sober for a while and plan on staying that way. :)

I plan on doing all I can in my community to make it a welcoming place for people of all backgrounds.

I'm glad that cyb sec is going to get the spotlight it deserves after all this

By livefromkyoto Go To PostBecause in the end, Trump won through sheer dumb luck of electoral college vote placement. He got trounced in the popular vote and should have gone the way of Romney, who also got a ton of the white vote. That history will record him as having won is to obscure the fact that the most Americans didn't believe in him. Ongoing demographic and philosophical shifts mean going for a broader appeal is still the way to go; giving up that huge block of natural voters would be insane. Especially because Trump's disinformation act is going to wear thin instantaneously now that he actually has to produce results; I wouldn't expect him to get the same traction in 4 years, if he's not impeached by then.

And beyond that, it's easy to see electioneering as cynical politicking divorced from ethics or policy. And it's easy to look at the Obama administration's powerlessness to root out entrenched state-level problems with policing and the penal system as a broad lack of interest in doing so among democratic policy makers. But the fact is the rank & file of the party, the ones who donate, volunteer and show up to conventions, are the true believers. They're there because they really believe in messages of acceptance, diversity and responsibility for shared standards of living. The party would fracture if they actually tried to run the cynical white status-insecurity route - not least of which because there are still millions of white Americans who want nothing to do with it. Trump wound up with 58% of the white vote, not 100. It was far from unanimous.

I don't subscribe to "dumb electoral luck" when it is a very old game.

The popular vote discrepancy is overshadowed by the majority republican congress. I do not forsee a demographic shift where the 58% white vote diminishes. Ain't nobody moving to Wyoming, etc.

Well, we're not having this conversation if Bernie wins over Hillary in the primaries. Or if Warren runs instead so, good talk!

By Phoenix RISING Go To PostI don't subscribe to "dumb electoral luck" when it is a very old game.

The popular vote discrepancy is overshadowed by the majority republican congress. I do not forsee a demographic shift where the 58% white vote diminishes. Ain't nobody moving to Wyoming, etc.

Well, we're not having this conversation if Bernie wins over Hillary in the primaries. Or if Warren runs instead so, good talk!

It has happened exactly five times in the history of the US.. and only two times in the modern era. I also wouldn't call it luck, I would call it a better ran campaign. I mean they did the math and went after the states that they felt they could turn.. and did just that while Clinton took the same states for granted and assumed they would vote as they always did.. But it is rare and if it was an old game the GOP would just never lose.. so yeah there is some luck to it

By KingGondo Go To PostI don't think people really understand how bad it can get. Dubya is considered experienced and moderate compared to Trump, and that got us two protracted wars, horrible regressive tax policy, Katrina, and on and on.

Shit on Trump and Bush all you like, but Obama and the fed did as much for the recent flooding in South Louisiana as Bush and the Fed did for Katrina.

Down here, we assume no one nationally cares about us if NOLA isn't involved.

By Dark PhaZe Go To PostI'm glad that cyb sec is going to get the spotlight it deserves after all this

Bad thing is that the ones who still don't understand it are going to be the ones who make the policies to face this "new" reality.

By Kibner Go To PostShit on Trump and Bush all you like, but Obama and the fed did as much for the recent flooding in South Louisiana as Bush and the Fed did for Katrina.

Down here, we assume no one nationally cares about us if NOLA isn't involved.

Agreed 100%. I have friends living in LA down south (because most of the country thinks LA = Los Angles and not a state) salty that the world didn't give a fuck about them AGAIN.

By blackace Go To PostIt has happened exactly five times in the history of the US.. and only two times in the modern era. I also wouldn't call it luck, I would call it a better ran campaign. I mean they did the math and went after the states that they felt they could turn.. and did just that while Clinton took the same states for granted and assumed they would vote as they always did.. But it is rare and if it was an old game the GOP would just never lose.. so yeah there is some luck to it

Double post, but by "two times in the modern era" you mean in this century, which is only 16 years, both times being a republican win. To me, that's not luck, but understanding how the game works. So yes, "better ran campaign" indeed.

2017: http://slaent.com/thread/973014/