New Russian Hacking Targeted Republican Groups, Microsoft Says

a reply to: dawnstar

The rigged primary was rigged, no matter if you say that they didn't break their own rules or not.

I don't care enough about it, because it ended up with the lesser of two evils, so maybe that was karma for the DNC.

My personal opinion would be to lose DNC and GOP and make individual candidates run on their own merits with their own fundraising so that this type of thing doesn't happen again, but I know that's a pipe dream.

As for Russia--they've been doing this for decades. Pretending that this is a new thing is utter insanity. I'm not saying that I like it, but we do it to them and other countries, too--it's standard MO across the board.

But to be fair, BOTH topics--the DNC rigging and the Russian meddling--just add fuel to the fire in making people think that our voting process is not as sacred as it should be. To people like me, it's just verification for what we all knew has been happening for...well, forever.

Both issues should be taken seriously. I get foreign countries meddling, as that's what most do, but when an American political party's own committee conspires to get one candidate elected over another, that's blatant bullsh*t no matter which way you slice it.

And for the record, I voted third part in the past two elections, for the reason that you cite.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

My personal opinion would be to lose DNC and GOP and make individual candidates run on their own merits with their own fundraising

In other words, a system where the wealthy purchase elections and the poor have no chance. I voted third party myself, by the way.

a reply to: vinifalou

He already admitted hundred of times that Russia tried to meddle the election.

Could you link to a video of him actually saying that? Here's what sticks in my mind:



But Hillary!

Also, the hacking started under Obama watch and he ordered to stand down...

Stand down? Really? Did he order the FBI and intelligence to stop their investigation of Russian interference, or did he order them to be discreet? Big difference.

a reply to: DJW001

Two simple google searches will show you both answers.

I won't do your homework for you.

But you can try "obama ordered to stand down" and "trump admitted russia collusion".

Lots of results.

But here you are again, denying facts and placing your biased opinion on the way.

a reply to: vinifalou

I won't do your homework for you.

In other words, all you have a right wingnut blogs.

a reply to: DJW001

Huffington Post

Yahoo

MSN

Good enough for ya, sir?

a reply to: DJW001

Not what I said at all, nor is it any different than what's happening now with the DNC and GOP involved.

I guess that I'm missing your logic in saying that losing these organizations would make things dramatically different.

If all individuals were not backed by a machine with tons of money ready to throw at a candidate with centralized power over the party, we might actually get some people in office who don't act like party robots.

Fundraising is a thing, and sure, the who-you-know aspect of running for office will always matter, I'd prefer that donations went straight to individual campaigns only and not some central party organizations. If we want to neuter the two-party system, my proposal is a step in that direction.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: DJW001

Huffington Post

Yahoo

MSN

Good enough for ya, sir?

So you admit that the intelligence community was correct, and that Russia was behind the hacks and disinfo campaign? Thank you. Here is why the cyber-warriors were told to "stand down," (in their words, not the president's):

As Obama and his top policymakers saw it, they were stuck with several dilemmas. Inform the public about the Russian attack without triggering widespread unease about the election system. Be pro-active without coming across as being partisan and bolstering Trump's claim the election was a sham.

Your own source. [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

ETA: He did not order them to "stand down" the investigation (which is continuing) he ordered them not to go public or launch a counter-attack. In other words "be discreet."

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I guess that I'm missing your logic in saying that losing these organizations would make things dramatically different.

It is now possible for people from poor communities to work their way up through local politics to the national level with the aid of established political parties. In their absence, only the wealthy could attain high office. We need more large political parties, not fewer.

a reply to: DJW001

Have you seen me admit any of these claims? Most likely you want me to admit so you can feel better.

You can't state for sure this was the reason they were told to stand down.

The only fact at this point is that Obama knew it about the Russians and did nothing.

Maybe he was the one colluding with them.

a reply to: vinifalou

Have you seen me admit any of these claims? Most likely you want me to admit so you can feel better.

You just did:

The only fact at this point is that Obama knew it about the Russians and did nothing.

By "it" you can only mean Russian cyber-warfare.

a reply to: DJW001

I see.

I was missing the logic because it was lacking. Got it.

Be all for "more large political parties," and I'll stick with the goal of keeping things like that out of politics---you know, because monopolies lead to corruption because they basically have absolute power.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: DJW001

I see.

I was missing the logic because it was lacking. Got it.

Be all for "more large political parties," and I'll stick with the goal of keeping things like that out of politics---you know, because monopolies lead to corruption because they basically have absolute power.

Apparently you do not know what the words "logic," and "monopoly" mean. "Logic" is a form of reasoning, in this case it is a posteriori; there have been numerous presidents and senators who rose from impoverished circumstances. A "monopoly" is when you don't have competition. More parties means more competition, and that means more choices than two aging white crooks.

a reply to: DJW001

And your reading comprehension is lacking, because there IS a monopoly on right-wing candidates by the GOP and on left-wing candidates by the DNC. What I actually said was that I want to see these abolished so that there isn't a pool of money and a forced ideology placed on candidates as a means to access said money pool.

Without those organizations, candidates could actually be individuals, which would be a good thing. Sometimes I leave a little for reading between the lines, but it is possible to figure out my point.

It's possible to have monopolies and still have competition in the form of opposing monopolies when the political products are different--elementary concept, really, but felt it needed pointed out since you felt the need to try and school me on what a monopoly is. To make it simple to understand, it's like having only one food truck for burgers and one for hot dogs--each has a monopoly on their product, even if they are both food services.

Understand?

As for logic, yes, I have a very good grasp on the topic--it has always been possible for people from poor origins to succeed in politics without the need for a centralized money bank. To claim otherwise is lacking logic, but I'm not going to cite examples because I shouldn't have to. But, with the modern political structure, run by these organizations, such stories are definitely becoming more scarce.

To each their own--I'm done with this line of discussion because logic would dictate that it's off-topic and against Ts&Cs.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And your reading comprehension is lacking, because there IS a monopoly on right-wing candidates by the GOP and on left-wing candidates by the DNC. What I actually said was that I want to see these abolished so that there isn't a pool of money and a forced ideology placed on candidates as a means to access said money pool.

What part of "the more competition the better" are you failing to grasp?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SlapMonkey


What part of "the more competition the better" are you failing to grasp?

Well...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: DJW001

To each their own--I'm done with this line of discussion because logic would dictate that it's off-topic and against Ts&Cs.

What part of that are you failing to grasp?

Best regards.

a reply to: DJW001

Oh, the GRU did it eh, and the proof of this outside of hearsay? Substantial, and actual evidence would give us reason for a new war with Russia and so far its not happening. Just because a person says something, doesn't mean the information is actually factual.