|
if someone created a new political party called The International Association for the Advancement of Pussy Eaters it'd win in all 50 states, and the territories. how far we've cum.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:to be clear: the FBI was absolutely digging for dirt and imploring MLK to kill himself before he was killed by a white nationalist (fascinating coincidence, that) Willie Tomg posted:if someone created a new political party called The International Association for the Advancement of Pussy Eaters it'd win in all 50 states, and the territories. how far we've cum. Let's do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
IAAPE
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Why isn't there a good R word that means 'organization' or 'group'?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
taqueso posted:The coincidence just seems like the way things would go down. Did you expect the killer to be a black person that was fighting for civil rights? That doesn't mean there can't be a conspiracy, of course. Yeah, I would be totally unsurprised by either FBI involvement in the assassination or none at all. On the other hand we all know the FBI conspired with Elijah Muhammad to ice Malcolm X.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Dept 22 1979. Now that we know Israel has nukes in large numbers is it a verifiable fact that the double flash was a test?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Just stop closing your threads without notice. I closed my thread because I was probated after responding to a troll comment with another troll comment. Someone posted "Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed", and I posted "Keep grinding, you might level up". It was perhaps not my most thoughtful comment, but there were pages of trolls, I got probated for responding to them, and the moderators, who seem to want this place to be LF 2.0, weren't moderating the thread to make sure that people were posting things that were "interesting, informative, or funny" in any way. Since I couldn't respond and keep my thread on topic, and the moderators weren't going to moderate the poo poo posts (either because they believe in the same ideology, or because shitposting is lulztastic, or because they have no ideology beyond the lulztastic, I don't know and I don't care), I closed the thread. I put a lot of effort into that thread. Effort isn't important here. Getting internet points is important here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
As you probably remember, George Nader helped set up the Seychelles meeting. He later turned informer to the OSC, although nothing in The Mueller report seemed to have borne out much information about that, although the Seychelles meeting might have been the subject of one of the 14 known "spun off" investigations. At the time, it was known that George Nader had a past history with child pornography, and perhaps other sex offenses. Today, he was arrested based on a 13-month old sealed indictment. Apparently, while searching his iPhone for matters related to that meeting, they also found some child pornography. He was only arrested today, meaning apparently that they had this sealed indictment for 13 months and were holding it while he was doing interviews for the OSC. It is hard to know what to make of this. But yeah, I am going to say that in most normal terms, an envoy for the president who was arranging secret meetings with hostile actors getting arrested for child pornography would be a big story. But here we are, it is just one more disgrace that we have become numb to. So, to reiterate: there will be no point when these investigations are over. There will be no point where any smart person around Trump will breathe easily, and where people will say "that is all settled up". Since I last posted that, Stephen Calk was indicted for trying to bribe himself to the ambassadorship to Luxembourg, George Nader was arrested for child pornography, and Paul Manafort is going to Riker's Island in preparation for a New York State trial. Who knows which clowns around Trump will be next? Will it lead to anything? I don't know. But things will continue to come out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
taqueso posted:Why isn't there a good R word that means 'organization' or 'group'? Ring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
The FBI had sockpuppets posting on 8chan The hashed ID on one of their accounts was 8f812    It spent most of its time trying to get 8channers riled up about motherfucking russiagate   it did not work. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jun 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Robert Mueller to Testify Before House Committees https://nyti.ms/2ZLk5xk
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Hey guys, I know this may be hard to believe, but Trumpers may be extremely loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Yeah Michael Hastings is the one the Clintons actually did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
I was thinking about Spiro Agnew. Spiro Agnew is kind of a footnote to history. Without Watergate, Spiro Agnew resigning from the vice-presidency and nolo contendre to bribery would have been an important story. What is interesting to me is that Agnew's actions were totally unrelated to Watergate, or to Nixon's other domestic spying or money laundering or Nixonery. I think in the consciousness of even a well-informed person, we kind of put Agnew in the same general category as Watergate. He was another member of the Nixon administration brought down by corruption and arrogance. So that is pretty much Watergate, even though it isn't. Okay, so what I was really thinking about was William Barr and Alex Acosta, and Barr's decision to not recuse himself from the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, and Alex Acosta's generous plea deal with Epstein years earlier. When books are written about the Trump administration, will Barr's decision to not recuse himself from the OSC investigation, and Barr's decision to not recuse himself from the Epstein investigation, be on the same page? Will one be a footnote to the other? Will they both be seen as examples of Barr just being without scruples, or as coordinated moves in an effort to protect Trump? Did the decision to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein come from information that came out of any of the Trump investigations, such as through the AMI investigation, or is it just a coincidence? These are things I don't know. The only thing I know is that future historians probably won't write: "William Barr was a principled institutionalist who defended not Trump, but the office of the presidency".
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
eke out posted:holy poo poo this story is flying under the radar because of the trump bullshit but
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100609/1616099761.shtml Old as poo poo but remember Alvin Green, the odd candidate who came out of nowhere during the Dem primaries in SC? Any chance his win was an early attempt of someone fooling around with the voting machines which is much more in the news now? Also, Mr Green is a Trump supporter because of course he is. https://www.postandcourier.com/poli...ecda709038.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I was thinking about Spiro Agnew. I was thinkin of this old post you made in January: quote:19. What if Robert Mueller is going to find a way to "sweep things under the rug" to protect the Republican Party? Seems the ol' razor is getting a bit dull.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
“It wasn’t a single attempt,” he said. “They’re doing it as we sit here”
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Well I'm convinced. Its not like a high level career FBI spook would ever lie or exaggerate or mislead or even simply being delusional about the Russians causing domestic strife. Sure he's part of an institution where lying to the public comes more naturally than breathing and yeah he has a very sketchy career in that institution and of course the official FBI position has tended to be that everything from civil rights to the anti-war movement was actually a Russian plot but you know maybe this time Liberals should just uncritically worship at the altar of the security state even though every concrete piece of evidence purporting to show meaningful or efficacious examples of Russian interference has been manifestly ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well I'm convinced. Its not like a high level career FBI spook would ever lie or exaggerate or mislead or even simply being delusional about the Russians causing domestic strife. Sure he's part of an institution where lying to the public comes more naturally than breathing and yeah he has a very sketchy career in that institution and of course the official FBI position has tended to be that everything from civil rights to the anti-war movement was actually a Russian plot but you know maybe this time Liberals should just uncritically worship at the altar of the security state even though every concrete piece of evidence purporting to show meaningful or efficacious examples of Russian interference has been manifestly ridiculous. Sir, this is a Sonic drive-in. Also would you care to explain why it's bad to oppose hypercapitalist governments with conservative social values? Serious Q. Perhaps you could explain what's great about enacting the wet dreams of Thatcher and Reagan combined?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well I'm convinced. Its not like a high level career FBI spook would ever lie or exaggerate or mislead or even simply being delusional about the Russians causing domestic strife. Sure he's part of an institution where lying to the public comes more naturally than breathing and yeah he has a very sketchy career in that institution and of course the official FBI position has tended to be that everything from civil rights to the anti-war movement was actually a Russian plot but you know maybe this time Liberals should just uncritically worship at the altar of the security state even though every concrete piece of evidence purporting to show meaningful or efficacious examples of Russian interference has been manifestly ridiculous. Yeah the report is being suppressed and concealed for no reason and it's actually a good thing to not investigate problems because if the investigator isn't a pure angel then there's no way their investigation could find anything accurate
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Sir, this is a Sonic drive-in. That's a pretty easy question to answer: it isn't. Somfin posted:Yeah the report is being suppressed and concealed for no reason and it's actually a good thing to not investigate problems because if the investigator isn't a pure angel then there's no way their investigation could find anything accurate We already had the investigation, and everyone in the previous version of this thread couldn't shut up about what a meticulous and dedicated and principled man Mueller was and how it was clear that he was developing an iron clad case of criminal conspiracy against the President. After the results of the report first came out everyone kinda went through this phase of quiet embarrassment and didn't say much but now enough time has past that suddenly I'm reading posts like this one where you are talking as though the report hasn't already come out. Or in this case it came out and was a huge disappointment but only because the hidden bombshell has somehow been "suppressed". By the way here's another memorable quote from Robert "isn't a pure angel" Mueller: "Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion." But hey that was like almost two decades ago, who the gently caress has a memory that long? The fact this guy's entire career is built on lying to the public and hyping up imagined foreign threats that inflate the need for an all powerful security apparatus is totally irrelevant to his comments on Russia and only a Putin shill would expect people to be naturally skeptical toward such a trust worthy source. After all you can only pick one bad thing to oppose at a time which means if you don't like Trump you're obliged to love and trust anyone who is critical of him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Yeah the report is being suppressed and concealed for no reason It's free to read online yet still became a bestselling book. There are redactions, and the FBI is the agency who did them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
Seperate from that discussion, what's the narrative devolping in the news. I haven't really been able to read or listen today, other than the one article this morning that came from. Cause what happens now will probably define the way the story is perceived.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That's a pretty easy question to answer: it isn't. So then why are you so angry about Russians being investigated and found guilty?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Seperate from that discussion, what's the narrative devolping in the news. I haven't really been able to read or listen today, other than the one article this morning that came from. Cause what happens now will probably define the way the story is perceived. People pretty much saw what they wanted to see, or at least as much as they could with the Republican panel saying whatever they drat well felt like and Mueller saying "read the report" like a mantra every time he was prompted for a sound bite. Pelosi is not even actively whipping the caucus anymore, saying she won't support impeachment for all the old reasons but if members need to then at some point they're going to have to go back to their districts and face the public and actually try to win an election next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So then why are you so angry about Russians being investigated and found guilty? I'm not. Though, given your reputation on these forums as an aggravating world class pedant I'm genuinely a bit surprised and disappointed that you'd mistake indictments for convictions. I thought your whole thing was exhausting people with endless rounds of technically correct but actually irrelevant disputes over terminology. That would at least be interesting but instead you're just being performatively stupid and expecting me to somehow be upset or unnerved that you've intentionally read my argument poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not. Though, given your reputation on these forums as an aggravating world class pedant I'm genuinely a bit surprised and disappointed that you'd mistake indictments for convictions. I thought your whole thing was exhausting people with endless rounds of technically correct but actually irrelevant disputes over terminology. That would at least be interesting but instead you're just being performatively stupid and expecting me to somehow be upset or unnerved that you've intentionally read my argument poorly. Answer the question, you're clearly quite against the Russian investigations in a way that, say, you wouldn't be against investigations into ones involving Canadians or the Germans. Like read your post again: Helsing posted:Well I'm convinced. Its not like a high level career FBI spook would ever lie or exaggerate or mislead or even simply being delusional about the Russians causing domestic strife. Sure he's part of an institution where lying to the public comes more naturally than breathing and yeah he has a very sketchy career in that institution and of course the official FBI position has tended to be that everything from civil rights to the anti-war movement was actually a Russian plot but you know maybe this time Liberals should just uncritically worship at the altar of the security state even though every concrete piece of evidence purporting to show meaningful or efficacious examples of Russian interference has been manifestly ridiculous. You are clearly vehemently against continuing to investigate Russian criminals who were clearly involved with all sorts of different crimes. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
The bad news is that McCarthyism is back. The good news is that it's the libs that are doing it this time and they are too incompetent to actually bring anyone down lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:The bad news is that McCarthyism is back. Spoken truly like someone who doesn't know what either McCarthyism or libs are
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Boy nothing gets past you, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:Boy nothing gets past you, huh? Did you want to go back and edit a joke into your shitpost, or this really all you're bringing to the table?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Russian Hack of Elections System Was Far-Reaching, Report Finds https://nyti.ms/2y91NdI
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:The bad news is that McCarthyism is back. McCarthyism was ideological, this is just two empires trying to hack each other's dicks off with rusty machetes, hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Russian Hack of Elections System Was Far-Reaching, Report Finds https://nyti.ms/2y91NdI quote:It concluded that while there was no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so. So, the senate was shocked to discover that our election systems are vulnerable to hacking. It’s something they should’ve realized a decade ago but I guess better late than never Otherwise there is still no evidence that russia had any worthwhile influence on the 2016 election
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
It's been proven that Russia mind-controlled John Podesta into ordering volunteers on the road to Michigan to turn around so they could bluff Trump into not campaigning there (he was campaigning there anyway)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Russian Hack of Elections System Was Far-Reaching, Report Finds https://nyti.ms/2y91NdI Brandor I think you are genuinely trying to make sense of this situation and are approaching this from a good faith perspective, but I implore you to please consider the way a lot of your posting in this thread comes off. You and I have both been posting in various iterations of the Russia-gate thread for going on two years and I've genuinely tried to follow your thinking here and yet for the life of me I really cannot pin down exactly what you actually belief or what exactly you think the significance of all these random tweets and news headlines is supposed to be. That's a problem. You can say what you want about my opinions on this matter but I've tried to at least lay them out clearly and back up my positions. I feel as though you at times are (maybe not purposefully) being strategically vague about what you do or do not believe and that makes it a lot harder to actually have a meaningful dialogue. Almost invariably you'll post a very alarmist headline and not even bother to quote the article or even tell us what your actual thoughts about it are. Which is frustrating because typically when you actually read the story its nothing like what the headline would lead you to believe. In this particular case the very sinister sounding headline which is blatantly designed to plug directly into people's anxieties about the 2016 election "hack" sounds vastly more frightening and dangerous than what actually follows in the body of the article, which turns out to be a fairly mundane (and already known) story about how Russia performs the same kinds of digital probing on American infrastructure that the Americans brag about doing to rival powers. It's not ideal and in a different context it might be a good starting point for a discussion on the need for much stronger cyber security, but as I'll explain below its seems likethat the real concern motivating the article is less cyber security and more the need to constantly be publicizing stories that keep people focused on foreign threats to democracy rather than the much more serious domestic ones. It's particularly grating because there is an extremely simply solution to this problem: all elections should be done on paper ballots, hand counted in public view, with registered scrutineers and other observers present, and all ballots physically preserved for the event of a recount. Provided you have a workable civil society, it's a more or less unhackable system (at a larger scale, though obviously individual ballot boxes can be stuffed if your civil society is sufficiently corrupt or dysfunctional) with centuries of best practices built in and yet amidst all the concern trolling about Russian election hacking I've yet to see a single major elite media figure or politician even mention that issue let alone advocate for it. Which really ought to tell you that the concern here isn't that Russians are hacking election machines and changing voting outcomes (though I guarantee you the editor was well aware that many people would read the headline and interpret it htat way, and that indeed that false impression was almost certainly a feature and not a bug) is not particularly genuine. As a general rule of thumb when people only want to talk about the problem and won't even mention the obvious solution that ought to be a red flag that their real agenda is something else. Given your concerns about disinformation and a breakdown in dialogue I ask that maybe you start actually unpacking and discussing the articles you post instead of just dropping them off and waiting for other people to comment on them. Whether you realize it or not your just posting in a way that will invite everyone to project their pre-existing biases onto the headline at a time when anyone ostensibly feared about a breakdown in our ability to talk to each other ought to be rowing hard against that current. And the best way to do that is to actually explicitly articulate an argument instead of relying on alarmist media headlines to rile people up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's particularly grating because there is an extremely simply solution to this problem: all elections should be done on paper ballots, hand counted in public view, with registered scrutineers and other observers present, and all ballots physically preserved for the event of a recount. Provided you have a workable civil society, it's a more or less unhackable system (at a larger scale, though obviously individual ballot boxes can be stuffed if your civil society is sufficiently corrupt or dysfunctional) with centuries of best practices built in and yet amidst all the concern trolling about Russian election hacking I've yet to see a single major elite media figure or politician even mention that issue let alone advocate for it. Which really ought to tell you that the concern here isn't that Russians are hacking election machines and changing voting outcomes (though I guarantee you the editor was well aware that many people would read the headline and interpret it htat way, and that indeed that false impression was almost certainly a feature and not a bug) is not particularly genuine. As a general rule of thumb when people only want to talk about the problem and won't even mention the obvious solution that ought to be a red flag that their real agenda is something else. I mean, Democrats are at least trying to get election security laws passed, even if they aren't using your specific proposal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I mean, Democrats are at least trying to get election security laws passed, even if they aren't using your specific proposal. Yeah, from what I've seen they want to give three quarters of a billion dollars to the states over the next two years so that this money can be given to the private companies that run the election infrastructure in the hope that they'll use it to somehow beef up security. So lets be prudently cynical here since this is America: its a giant handout to the states so that whoever is in office can reward whoever donated to their campaign with a nice fat subsidized contract to do something that no healthy democracy would ever dream of outsourcing. There's something in there about voting machines not being connected to the internet but that just raises the question of why the gently caress you'd want to have digital voting machines at all when paper ballots are by far the most reliable system for recounting and by far the hardest system to illegally influence. Oh but that's right it wouldn't be very profitable to give your college roommate's company a contract for running a paper ballot system would it? Well, I guess we better stick with those idiotic voting machines and then give him even more cash so he can pretend to fix the made up problem that wouldn't exist if this poo poo was actually done properly in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
The Schumer bill apparently calls for more stringent use of paper ballots (some systems don't have a physical trail at all, which is nuts). The database security issue is also something that needs to be looked into, as there are advantages to running an electronic system (protects against more likely forms of fraud and Revenge of the Hanging Chad). It's dismaying to read about penetration of these databases using predictable methods being executed by Russian script kiddies. The technology and policy proposals exist to protect the databases. No need to go full Luddite and have Tammany Hall count the votes for a week every November. Pretty much the only thing going for the electoral system in terms of security is that it is actually fifty different systems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:39
|
|