Russian Troll Factory Paid US Activists To Fund Protests During Election (theguardian.com) 665
bestweasel writes: The Guardian reports on another story about Russian meddling, but interestingly, this one comes from a respected Russian news source, the RBC. From the report: "Russian trolls posing as Americans made payments to genuine activists in the U.S. to help fund protest movements on socially divisive issues. On Tuesday, the newspaper RBC published a major investigation into the work of a so-called Russian 'troll factory' since 2015, including during the period of the U.S. election campaign, disclosures that are likely to put further spotlight on alleged Russian meddling in the election. RBC said it had identified 118 accounts or groups in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter that were linked to the troll factory, all of which had been blocked in August and September this year as part of the U.S. investigation into Russian electoral meddling. Perhaps the most alarming element of the article was the claim that employees of the troll factory had contacted about 100 real U.S.-based activists to help with the organization of protests and events. RBC claimed the activists were contacted by Facebook group administrators hiding their Russian origin and were offered financial help to pay for transport or printing costs. About $80,000 was spent during a two-year period, according to the report."
$80k? Our politicians could learn something (Score:5, Insightful)
That's less than a 30 second TV advertisement for HOURS of news coverage.
The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that Hilary is a spring chicken herself but it took a fundamental breakdown over just about everything to make a guy who used to be a Simpson's joke our actual president.
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:4, Insightful)
May I point out that Hillary was also for Black Lives Matter and Blacktivist, the two groups being paid to protest?
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's how it works. You pay someone to participate in a protest and then have them do something that's really ugly and angers people.
For example, one paid Russian protester, a guy named "Jack Posobiec", would go to leftist rallies and hold up "Rape Melania" signs. Now this guy is an alt-right supporter of Trump, but he's not recognizable, so people think, "Man, those leftists are really horrible. Look, there's a "Rape Melania" sign."
Then, it gets the front-page treatment on Infowars, Breitbart, DailyStormer, and eventually ends up on Fox News. Total outlay for the sign is maybe a buck. Trump gets elected, and get this: "Jack Posobiec" becomes a "journalist" with White House credentials. So, not only does he get a little money on the front-end, but he gets rewarded by Trump on the back-end. Oh, and Posobiec was also one of the leading "Pizzagate" conspiracy theorists, which we now know was also a Russian op.
Here are the details:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.salon.com/2017/08/... [salon.com]
https://www.deathandtaxesmag.c... [deathandtaxesmag.com]
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
But the article says they were facebook accounts that offered financial help to organize pro-BLM protests.
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Informative)
And I pointed out that the same techniques were used more widely, as in the case of Jack Posobiec.
Each one of these disinfo attacks by itself seems small, but you have to remember there were multi-front attacks. I think the full scope of this is going to be a lot more clear when the Special Prosecutor presents his evidence to the grand jury. We shouldn't have to wait long now that Mueller has questioned or subpoenaed White House officials who are only once-removed from the President.
Like the Tea Party? (Score:3)
Here's how it works. You pay someone to participate in a protest and then have them do something that's really ugly and angers people.
Same thing happened at Tea Party rallies. Some random guy shows up with a racist sign, news media films him then asks rally organizers why they didn't toss the guy out.
Re: (Score:3)
Here are some that do not reference the buzzfeed article.
Did you even read those articles you linked? The second link absolutely does cite the Buzzfeed article -- and only that. The first link just cites the second link. And the third link doesn't say a word about the sign or claim that Posobeic held it up.
There is literally no source that would satisfy you, is there?
Indeed there is -- one that (a) actually states your claim; and (b) doesn't ultimately link back to a single article based on an anonymous source. That's the target, and it hasn't moved. It's not my fault you don't have a source like that.
It is your fault,
Re: (Score:3)
I would invite Slashdot readers to check out the sources I have cited in this thread and decide for themselves.
I have not a shred of doubt you would rather not have to actually quote the language from your sources you think proves your point. Going through that exercise (or trying to, anyway) would prove you to be the disingenuous troll you are.
Ironic, isn't it, that in the midst of a discussion about fraudulent information sources you choose to hang your hat on one and then bend over backwards trying to cover it up?
Re: (Score:2)
So... You use pro-Hillary propaganda to smear Trump, anti-Trump violence to smear Trump, and pro-Trump activists to smear Trump.
You've invented a scenario in which you and your team are never responsible for any of the legitimately shitty things you have done. You're trying to dodge responsibility for your humiliating loss, your violent fascism, your support of hate groups like BLM, and your Clinton/Russian bribery collusion. You think that pointing and shrieking at Trump will distract us. It won't.
You are a sniveling coward, an intellectual weakling, and a traitor deserving execution.
You are an Anonymous Coward in real life too aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
I think I remember this rant. Only back then it was bitching about Obama. And back further, it was bitching about Bush. The names change, but the technique is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:4, Funny)
May I point out that Hillary was also for Black Lives Matter and Blacktivist, the two groups being paid to protest?
... and everything that the GOP, Trump and Bannon manage to screw up is actually clever sabotage funded by George Soros. Oh, and did you know that Soros is the leader of the Illuminati and a secret worshipper of Satan whose has been working in secret for decades to destroy Christian conservatism in the USA and replace it with Islam?
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:4, Insightful)
Ugh. Found the poor schmuck who buys what the orange moron is selling.
Trump supporters are dumber than cattle.
How is it acceptable to refer to President Trump as the "orange moron" yet it was totally unacceptable to refer to President Obama's skin color as though it mattered, or had anything to do with anything?
If you want sanity in politics, the first step is to eliminate the double standards and completely shun any who propagate them. Then something resembling a concern for actual issues might emerge. It also might not, but here's the thing: we keep trying things that don't work. It's time to try something that might work. What's the definition of insanity again?
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it acceptable to refer to President Trump as the "orange moron" yet it was totally unacceptable to refer to President Obama's skin color as though it mattered, or had anything to do with anything?
How about because Obama's skin color was his natural skin color and he has little personal control over that? I suppose technically he could have had it bleached or he could have darkened somewhat through tanning, but it doesn't appear he did either of those (just some regular sun exposure). It's possible he may have used some makeup for appearances, which wouldn't be that uncommon or unusual, but he wasn't trying to fool anyone.
Trump's skin color, on the other hand... Well, he also has little control over his natural skin color, but he certainly tries. Clearly he wants to look tanned, so he uses self-tanner. And he does it really, really badly. Badly enough that, from someone as obsessed with image as he is, it looks like appallingly bad personal derangement. Much like his "hair" and his ridiculous ties. And those shoulder pads... I remember for a little while during the election I was trying to figure out why his arms always looked so strange, sort of sunken into his body, then I realized that it's because he's wearing shoulder pads that are way too big. I mean, I know almost nothing about clothes and fashion, and even I can see this. Trump has sold or currently sells his own lines of men's clothing, so you would think that he would either recognize this, or at least get fashion advice from someone who does. I could be missing something though, it could be part of an attempt to disguise his weight and funny looking arms are just a tradeoff.
If you look at pictures of Obama, he mostly just seems to wear suits that fit, wear normal ties, doesn't seem to do outrageous things with his hair or his skin etc. Obama generally seems like he's pulling it off pretty effortlessly, while Trump looks like he's trying too hard and simultaneously failing at it. To be fair, Obama has the advantage of relative youth over Trump and he's also not bald like Trump, so he doesn't have to try as hard. Also, with Obama's hair, he only has one option for how to cut his hair and still look "presidential" (i.e. not _too_ black, although it's not like the racists don't notice anyway).
Also, there's the wives. Both men have attractive wives (you might not know it from all the howling about how ugly she is from a certain portion of the population who pathologically can't find a black woman attractive, but she's quite attractive by most objective racially unbiased standards). Although I don't think that Obama thinks of his wife as an ornament, they look good together. It's always possible that they're just putting on a show as a happily married couple, but they've done an amazing job of faking if so. They complement each other. Meanwhile, Melania is obviously a trophy wife. She was a professional model/escort. Yes, definitely an escort despite what her lawsuit claimed, bearing in mind that while the term escort is often a euphemism for prostitute, it doesn't actually have to mean paid sex. The actual definition is basically a woman paid to be arm candy for men at events. Considering that she and Donald met at exactly such an event, introduced by her manager who was, in fact, in the business of hiring out models for parties, and who went into business with Trump providing models for events intended to sell real estate, it seems like the term is likely to fit. She's also blatantly obviously a trophy wife as a model, married to a rich man 25 years older than her, and with his history with women and his history of public statements about women. Anyway Trump has made the classic mistake of rich mean acquiring a trophy wife who think that it will make themselves look good. And that's forgetting that standing next to a much younger, much more attractive woman, who also knows how to dress impeccably and who is frankly constantly posing for the camera in public, just makes him look like more of a slob.
Ever seen Hillary without makeup? (Score:3)
Yeesh. You think the face she puts on every morning is "natural"? Without makeup she looks like Palpatine.
Re: (Score:2)
No more evangelicals for the thrice divorced pussy grabber.THEN we talk about hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it acceptable to refer to President Trump as the "orange moron" yet it was totally unacceptable to refer to President Obama's skin color as though it mattered, or had anything to do with anything?
Trump wears fucking foundation/powder makeup. It looks fucking ridiculous. The fact that he does this should have made him fucking unelectable all by itself, ignoring all the psychotic moronic manchild shit.
I might be tempted to do that too, if I was as fucking grotesque as him, but I wouldn't expect to get elected into office despite it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep to first half. Nope to other, the other guy debunks it adequately (not political but commercial expense)
A couple trolls under the flag of 'All lives matter' were able to incite BLM to violence by merely showing up. This clearly showcased Hillary as supporting violent extremists; black supremacists who consider actual equality insufficient. It caused a lot of backlash - who the hell gets enraged by a slogan of "All lives matter"?
But for that to happen, the BLM protests had to be organized in the first pl
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
black supremacists.... who the hell gets enraged by a slogan of "All lives matter"?
People who understand what it means.
"Black lives matter" is saying that there is a specific problem with black people's lives being valued less than others, e.g. the way some cops have reacted inappropriately with deadly force.
"All lives matter" was is a rebuttal, saying that there is no particularly bad problem with black people being treated differently, and that the cops who kill unarmed black people are justified in doing so. To oppose it does not suggest you don't think that all lives matter, or that you are a black supremacist, it just means you understand why people are saying it, i.e. to undermine BLM.
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
For the general populace, to violently oppose "All lives matter" exactly suggests you think not all lives matter (or not all matter equally). No matter what you think, or imagine that means means, the general public gets your message, conveyed through violence, as "Black lives matter, others don't."
The correct reaction from BLM would be reaching out and asking ALM to join them: "We're fighting for the same cause. Your message is compatible with ours. Join our protest." Accept, embrace, include. You protest more general cause, we protest a specific instance of it, but we're united in the same fight. Take the message at face value, and accept it at face value, and if the *actual* value doesn't match, then you have exposed the lie and the counter-protesters lose face. And if they choose to play along, hey, a message of peace, love, unity, equality reaches the nation, your movement only benefits. Play their game, because it set you up in a win-win scenario. Just pick the challenge.
But noooo. You know better. You always assume the worst. They MUST be Evil, and Evil deserves Fist to the Face.
You chose to pick one specific interpretation of "All lives matter", specifically assuming ill intent, putting in the mouth of ALM protesters words they didn't say, Then you assaulted them. And completely regardless of what they actually meant, and what you meant, everyone outside got your message as "Black lives matter, others don't."
The only people who chose to read this according to your interpretation from moment one are already Hillary's stalwart supporters and that doesn't mean shit. The undecided Joe Average saw this as a solid confirmation of their lingering suspicion of BLM being supremacists, and decided "Trump is a better choice."
We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like - and to everyone "in the middle"/"undecided" it looked exactly like in my prior post. It was a horrible PR move that likely cost Hillary the victory, and put BLM under scrutiny about racist tendencies. The tiny moral victory of several bruises on the trolls' faces, at cost of losing the whole war - losing the elections.
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of calling it "all lives matter" instead of "shut up and stop complaining about cops murdering black people" is to trick people. Their movement is not compatible with BLM, they are explicitly opposed to the goals of BLM because they think that black people are more dangerous and it's their own fault when they get shot during a routine traffic stop.
Don't fall for their trick. Citizen's United aren't a coalition of ordinary citizens. People's Choice aren't really the people's choice. National socialism isn't really socialism. Look past the name.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI the statistics show that black and Latino people are far more likely to encounter physical violence from the police. It's not just about being killed, but unwarranted severe physical abuse which affects lives and livelihoods.
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Informative)
FBI statistics also indicate that black commit extremely disproportionately skewed numbers of murders & manslaughter (52.2% of all murder/manslaughter committed by blacks), rapes (31.3% of all rapes committed by blacks), robbery (56.4% of all robbery committed by blacks), assault (33.9% of all assaults committed by blacks). On the positive side, only 12.5% of DWI are committed by blacks.
As a part of the overall population, blacks are about 13.5% of the US population, but commit more than half of all homicides and robberies, and one-third of all rapes and assaults.
Also on the positive side, the FBI asserts that a hugely disproportionate number of those crimes attributed to blacks are largely concentrated within a few hundred thousand young men involved in gangs. And largely victimize other black people.
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:4, Informative)
[WaPo]
Police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29) — such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. —175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period, police have shot and killed 172 young white men, 18 of whom were unarmed. Once again, while in raw numbers there were similar totals of white and black victims, blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men, even though black men make up just 6 percent of the nation’s population.
About 13 percent of all black people who have been fatally shot by police since January 2015 were unarmed, compared with 7 percent of all white people.
[/WaPo]
According to FBI statistics, 52.2% of all murder/manslaughter was committed by blacks. Blacks are 13.5% of the population.
According to FBI statistics, 56.4% of all robbery was committed by blacks. Blacks are 13.5% of the population.
According to FBI statistics, 31.3% of all rape was committed by blacks. Blacks are 13.5% of the population.
According to FBI statistics, 33.9% of all aggravated assault was committed by blacks. Blacks are 13.5% of the population.
On the positive side, the FBI says many of those crimes are highly concentrated in a small fraction of the black population in criminal gangs, where they most often prey on each other. The larger black population is no more criminal than the rest of the populace.
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:5, Informative)
If you READ the actually data [fbi.gov] It simply says ARRESTS, not convictions or that they actually committed the crime. don't confuse the two.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, it's definitely helping Trump get the votes. It also helps Russia in dividing America and gaining influence. It's helping the police in maintaining power. It helps the business of firearms manufacturers. It sells news stories.
Your definition of "everybody" is very narrow.
And BLM behaving violently at the merest hint of disagreement is definitely not helping their case.
Re: (Score:3)
Almost. Currently, all they need is to shell out some pocket money to leaders of the commies to get the commies to smash stuff all on their own.
The Russians didn't *fake* anything for the elections. They just gave the opponents a small nudge to get them to reveal their true face.
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:4, Informative)
supporters point to a 2013 Stanford study that found that Michigan charter-school students are learning at a faster rate in reading and math than their public-school peers — seeing an additional two months of gains in each subject. Gains for Detroit charter-school students were greater, at three months.
The only downside it lists is in some mismanaged of expenses (as if Public schools had none of those) and the source for that is Detroit Free Press -- an unapologetically Communist (by their own admission) newspaper.
Care to list some other cherry-picked bull shit to show that the system which has consistently produced better education outcomes should somehow be denied to blacks? That's your evidence for "humane" treatment of blacks by the Democrats, right? I'd call you an idiot, but I don't want to be that generous. I doubt you don't get it. You just can't sell the truth, so you pander lies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Care to list some other cherry-picked bull shit to show that the system which has consistently produced better education outcomes
Its kind of funny you complain about cherry-picking. Because that's what you did by focusing on the one item in the entire article which the authors literally spell out is the single statistic that the charter school supporters like to cite while ignoring all the others like:
Notably, the state’s charter schools scored worse on that test than their traditional public-school counterparts, according to an analysis of federal data.
Critics say Michigan’s laissez-faire attitude about charter-school regulation has led to marginal and, in some cases, terrible schools in the state’s poorest communities as part of a system dominated by for-profit operators.
The results in Michigan are so disappointing that even some supporters of school choice are critical of the state’s policies.
The summary is that charter schools in rich areas work out great just like public schools in rich areas work out great because being rich is great. But charter schools in poor areas work out worse than public schools in poor areas. A
Re: (Score:2)
DAILYCALLER? VRWC echo chamber DAILYCALLER?
Now, try again, with a real source.
Here's a joke for you (Score:2)
Not that Hilary is a spring chicken herself but it took a fundamental breakdown over just about everything to make a guy who used to be a Simpson's joke our actual president.
Here's a joke for you:
Q: How many reasons does Hillary have for not winning the election?
A: 43 [foxnews.com]
Not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
1. Arrogance. She didn't think she had to campaign in the swing states. She actually believed in that "blue firewall" nonsense.
2. Trump's billions of dollars in free media coverage. Nobody in the press would denounce him because they were getting too many hits.
3. Russia. Russia. Russia. (insert Brady Bunch joke here). We had an ex-KGB pro with the full backing of his nation throw his hat in the ring for Trump.
4. Her health. She really was too old for this shit.
5. 30 years of bad press. Not just the emails. Everything. The Republicans knew she was going to run for president at some point. They have a multi-billion dollar media machine dedicated to their cause (Fox, Beitbart, all of Koch media, etc, etc). They've been hammering away at her since her husband left office.
6. TPP. Crap deal for everyone except the ruling class. In an election about jobs that hurt a lot.
7. Warmongering. In an effort to show everyone that a woman could be "strong" she went around the world pissing off our allies. A lot of folks figured she'd get us in a war. Meanwhile Trump was saying he wouldn't do that. Jokes on them, he's already got us on the brink of two new wars (to add to the 7 we're already fighting, look it up).
That's about it. Folks mostly agreed with her on everything except the TPP because most Americans are genuinely conservative. e.g. they don't want much change except maybe some more help from the government (for them only of course, not those lazy Blacks^X Welfare slobs). She's a right of center moderate. Exactly what most voters wanted.
Re:Not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
4. Her health. She really was too old for this shit.
Seriously? Hillary is 69 and Trump is 71 - and he's pretty out of shape.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trump isn't cancelling interviews because he stubbed his toe. Nor is he getting chucked into a van like a side of beef. Or spacing out in mini-seizures.
Like it or not, Trump's in far, far better condition than Clinton.
Re:Not exactly (Score:5, Funny)
Trump isn't cancelling interviews because he stubbed his toe. Nor is he getting chucked into a van like a side of beef. Or spacing out in mini-seizures.
Explain covfefe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Arrogance. She didn't think she had to campaign in the swing states. She actually believed in that "blue firewall" nonsense.
This is 99% of it. Not campaigning in swing states is pretty amateur stuff.
2. Trump's billions of dollars in free media coverage. Nobody in the press would denounce him because they were getting too many hits.
He got denounced plenty, but the stupid vote doesn't care for such things.
3. Russia. Russia. Russia. (insert Brady Bunch joke here). We had an ex-KGB pro with the full backing of his nation throw his hat in the ring for Trump.
This is less a Hillary thing and more a general threat that still isn't getting the coverage it deserves. Russia has been playing this game for decades. I recall a thing I saw years ago how the Soviets were pumping millions into the hippy protests in the 60's in an effort to disrupt and divide. This will continue way past this election unless something is done.
Re: (Score:3)
2. Trump's billions of dollars in free media coverage. Nobody in the press would denounce him because they were getting too many hits.
Which press were you reading?
The mainstream press portrayed him as some sort of wacky clown, when they weren't portraying him as some kind of sinister mastermind. He was denounced so often that you'd think they would sprain their denouncers.
Sure, they enjoyed the hits, but the hits were (they thought) for "what crazy evil thing did he do now"?
Re:Here's a joke for you (Score:5, Funny)
Hillary was asked if Harvey Weinstein's behavior reminded her of her husband. She said "close but no cigar".
I'll let myself out now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's because you (and the general public) doesn't seem to grok the Russian's actual goals here.
Really? So was this not a problem before the election? The full damage that the Clintons had done to the US interests was known. Why did the fact that it was Russians who participated in buying of Clintons only become a story after Clinton lost the election? I don't know how you come to the conclusion that only one side is aware of something. Both D's and R's are claiming Russian interference in the elections. Neither side is offering anything sinister which occurred in secret (buying ads and paying s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue of non-assimilation has nothing to do with this issue, nice try at straw man.
It's not a straw man. The muslim minorities which refuse to allow assimilation are the main reason for destabilization of Western European societies. Trying to blame any of it on Russia is just a misdirection.
Re: (Score:3)
Come to Stockholm, and ride the subway 4-5 stops, any line. You're almost certain to hear Russian being spoken. Here in my suburb we have a block known as "Little Moscow" because nearly all the people living there are Russian.
That's not refusing to assimilate. New York is a motley of ethnic neighborhoods. Most people of 3rd generation or so still know where their grandparents came from. But they are all assimilated. They are all American in every way. They all speak English and they are more likely to be familiar with English-language writers than with writers of countries from which their grandparents came from. If they follow any sports, it's more likely that they follow American sports. It's not any one detail that def
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently you have stopped reading after the first half of the sentence. Here in Germany about 3% of the population are Russians. Studies repeatedly have shown that they are among the best integrated foreigners, far better integrated than, for example, the Turks. Matter of fact, many Russians in Germany think that there are far too many foreigners here, especially from Muslim countries, who simply are unwilling to be assimilated.
Re: (Score:2)
85% of the Clinton Foundation was spent on doing charity work
Well, either you are lying or most of the news sources are. I'll go ahead and assume it's you.
spending that money running charitable programs themselves
That is they spent that money on their family activities? Got it. Your evidence that I am wrong is to agree with me. Clintons were broke when BIll left office. And then he somehow magically had enough money to spend millions on his daughter's wedding. That's his personal money -- not government picking up his bills (as it did when he was President). I am sure a billion dollars in donations from state actors
Re:The key is not getting caught (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
Jesus. Read this sentence 3 times and then think about whether anyone who is paying attention would actually believe this kind of bullshit. "Programming expenses"? What's the drill down? How much of it on private-jet fuel?
Trump's cabinet is doing stupid things like making energy more expensive by pushing coal and nuclear energy, the EPA is allowing more pollution
aha. It's why India has signed a deal to build 10 nuclear plants. Because it's looking to waste money. Nuclear has the cheapest per kW generation and coal has the cheapest booster per kW generation. "Renewables" only have cheapest generation during excess production times.
I voted for Bush in 2000.
You want me to take the word of a criminal-supporter such as yourself on your voting record? Pass. Although if you did vote for Bush, you might be in a better position to claim that you are just an idiot rather than an apologist for criminals. I just don't think you are that stupid.
if the Democratic party wants to win in...
Yeah, I hope they do exactly what you suggest. I won't give any hints on what they should do. I would rather see this vile scumbags dethroned and all the criminals among them jailed before they get to be heard again. There is a new path the country should take, but for now it is the Republicans who still have to act like they have something to prove. So it is the Republicans who are more years from becoming corrupt than the Democrats (who are already there).
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why India is building more power plants,
Maybe you didn't. But you do now. Because per-kW generation is cheapest with nuclear.
Toshiba filed for bankruptcy after buying Westinghouse because of cost overruns in Georgia and SC.
Most likely because of regulatory hurdles put in the way of new construction by the previous administration.
You don't need to cherry pick data because you're obviously starting with the conclusion
Conclusion? There are multiple
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary never really managed to coalesce her voter base around anything quite as rousing. The best thing she had going for her was that she wasn't Trump. She needed a miracle, not some protesters staying home.
She didn't need a miracle, she already had the popular vote so she just had to distribute her effort more evenly. She just needed to get out of her echo chamber to the swing states in the heartland. I find it astounding that she thought she could win the swing states without even showing up.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump won because there are a lot of foolish Americans who bought up the line of shit Trump was selling.
Really, Trump was just able to take advantage of the atmosphere created by the right-wing media over many years. Trump was simply the first guy to put down the dog whistle and pick up a megaphone, thus taking the party away from the more squeamish Republicans. This is what Trump does - he makes money by slapping his name on other people’s work.
Because of the shameless right-wing media, we have a large portion of the electorate living in an alternate reality. Many years of Fox News and right-wing radio
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure that resonated well with the younger, white, straight, male voters,
I'm sure it did, but if it were only them, then Trump would not have won. He won because he had support from non-white and non-male voters.
You're trying to spin his win as something that is only possible because of racist and sexist voters by pointing out "white, male" only, when in fact millions of female and/or non-white people voted for him.
His win wasn't due to sexism, or racism. It was due to a sense of entitlement from the other candidate. People hate that shit. HRC was basically trying to slide in o
Re: The key is not getting caught (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them *did* learn. Ever heard of President Trump?
$80k is indeed nothing for media buys. (Score:2, Insightful)
Russiagate is becoming ever more desperate and obvious. The previous Russiagate lie had a slightly higher figure spent on Facebook ($100k) and even that amount is laughable; the corporate parties spend orders of magnitude more on media buys to get the public's attention and steer American voters toward voting for their electors. $80k spent doesn't deserve anything but a laugh at someone's attempt to excuse Hillary Clinton from her horrible politics, twice-demonstrated incompetence at heading a political cam
Re: (Score:2)
What should politicians learn? That they should lie more in order to reel in the idiots?
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium Scandal, Comey and the FBI (Score:2, Informative)
These are the 2 big stories regarding Russia today, and explains a lot of what went down, and the concentrated effort (and we do know it was a Clinton campaign effort thanks to wikileaks) to link Trump to Russia during the campaign in order to take the heat off herself.
http://thehill.com/policy/nati... [thehill.com]
http://www.newsweek.com/james-... [newsweek.com]
It's Comey and the Obama DOJ that needs to be investigated for obstruction of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the 2 big stories regarding Russia today, and explains a lot of what went down, and the concentrated effort (and we do know it was a Clinton campaign effort thanks to wikileaks) to link Trump to Russia during the campaign in order to take the heat off herself.
http://thehill.com/policy/nati... [thehill.com]
http://www.newsweek.com/james-... [newsweek.com]
It's Comey and the Obama DOJ that needs to be investigated for obstruction of justice.
No they need to investigate these guys [youtube.com] named as DEVO for the suppressed secret information.
What is Slashdot coming to? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Quite sadly we don't have much independent, honest, and unbiased news outlets any more. CNN is the scariest and most deceiving, but Fox and MSNBC are close to it. Washington Post is now a complete joke, a platform for the neocons and liberals to trash the Trump administration. When I want to see what goes on in the world, I gotta watch BBC or Al Jazeera (and the funny thing is that these two state owned tv networks deliver certainly far more truth than American cable news or papers).
United we stand, divided we fall (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of protests? (Score:2, Insightful)
I've always wondered what the point of protests are. Unless something dramatic happens (e.g., someone getting killed), no one remembers the protest a week later. Its as if it never happened. If the point of protests is to get people on their side, that often backfires. Where I live there were a lot of protests after Trump was elected. They would block roads and highways at rush hour which made everyone's commutes longer. That didn't exactly engender sympathy towards their cause. If that point is to get the
Fruit of the poison tree (Score:2)
The Russians were funding the protests. It all makes sense now.
I don't think people have quite realized the impact this new revelation has.
True or false, big [effect] or little, this revelation will taint all future protests.
The protests have just lost a fuckton of credibility, because now this will be raised as the reason people are protesting.
For all future protests.
And some previous protestors will come to examine their beliefs, saying "did I really believe that, or was I egged on"?
Future protests will be painted "fruit of the poison tree" with this new revelation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only protests. Now when I read something in a forum that is divisive I think, "Russian Troll Farm for sure". How would anyone prove that they really aren't working for a Russian Troll Farm?
Re: (Score:3)
People remember the anti-Trump protests just after he was elected. Along with the lies about the size of his inauguration crowd, they became iconic and the hallmarks of his election victory. They really were exceptional - there is always some dissent when new presidents come in, but the shear scale of those protests and the fact that they dwarfed the inauguration itself will always be remembered.
As for the point, it's not just to change people's minds. It's to demonstrate that the other narrative, in that c
Russia has been doing this for decades (Score:2)
This is nothing new. Russia has had a habit of starting politically-motivated dissent and riots in other countries since the 1920s. They're not interested in who wins. They just want to cause chaos and to control whoever is left standing.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has had a habit o
Wow, another slashdot "Russia expert" whose basis of expertise is based only on very basic stereotypes and memes?. Why don't you learn something before posting this drivel on a public forum?
For one, there was no such county in the 1920s, and in fact until 1991. There was USSR.
They're not interested in who wins. They just want to cause chaos and to control whoever is left standing.
Second, USSR sponsored specifically communist and socialist dissent in many countries specifically for t
Re: (Score:2)
Calling a hot dog a sausage doesn't make any difference in the flavour.
Get in line (Score:3, Funny)
What, they outbid Israel?
Curiously... (Score:4, Interesting)
...none of them had an agenda to support Trump.
One might almost believe that narrative was...fake news?
The Guardian article mentions that basically their efforts were to show division, not particularly meddle in the election. Their funding supported mainly Texas independence (ludicrous), gun rights, and racial issues, particularly black lives matter protests. This is pretty much what Russian Intel has done for years; the history of kgb funding for anti American, labor, and leftist movements in Europe and the USA has been well documented historically.
The notion that they put $80k into this just suggests how little they expected of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly, they probably appreciate Ms Clinton's campaign giving theirs far greater reach and staying power in the media dialogue. Ha ha...irony.
Re: (Score:2)
I had thought that $80k was fairly minor, too. But for small operations it makes an op possible. Still, I'm thinking this is the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:3)
It was all in support of Trump. Trump stood on a platform of blame (the political elite, immigrants, the Chinese etc.) and was supported by the growing alt-right movement. Creating dissent helped Trump, because his campaign was built on those feelings.
Oh here we go again, let me point this out (Score:2, Troll)
Key things to note in the headline:
**Russian** Troll Factory Paid US Activists To Fund Protests During Election (***theguardian.com***) ----
That's all you need to know.
Before you say it, I'm not right wing, I'm not even American.
The slant from theguardian and several others media outlets has gone full tilt left, not just slightly left, which for the most part I agree with but just left to the point of ridiculousness.
I love how one of the arguments of the election was "hacking! the Russians hacked, the whole
even if you buy the premise (Score:2, Troll)
0.002% (Score:3)
The 0.002% of lobbyists.
Okay, so $80,000 versus $3.15 billion dollars in lobbying money. Oh, that is just the official amount expended lobbying Congress. We're not even addressing the billions expended lobbying the American public on a multitude of issues.
Contemplate that...
Oh, and $80,000 expended on divisive issues. Is it possible that maybe Russians who do business in the U.S. have feelings on issues? Maybe a Russian is pro-2nd Amendment. Who knows.
But this is such a miniscule drop in the bucket it is laughable.
Laws are for little people (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are we even talking about a couple of Facebook ads when today's breaking news is the Obama administration was investigating Russian infiltration of the US nuclear material transport trucking company in 2009, by none other than Mueller of the FBI. It eventually led to corruption, money laundering, kickbacks and extortion charges. Yet somehow at the same time, a $500k speaking fee to Bill Clinton and $145mil being donated to the Clinton Foundation, with Hillary Clinton as sec of state let the same Russian group by Uranium One and 20% of the US uranium supply. Obama himself said that there was nothing to be concerned about, but we know now the investigation was blocked by none other than Comey, and Dept of Justice Holder And the Russian involved had a plea deal and covered it up in 2014.
Dearie, don't you understand? Laws are for little people.
James Comey can admit to leaking, and gets to write a book about it [politico.com].
Reality Winner can admit to leaking, and gets to sit in prison, denied bail [wikipedia.org].
Re:Slashdot moderation is best moderation! (Score:5, Informative)
> (Clinton Uranium deal investigated by the FBI,
No. And shame on you for lying about it.
It was not the "clinton uranium deal" that was investigated. It was a bunch of russians doing kickbacks and money laundering, going as far back as 2004. As for Clinton's involvement, this is what the article says: [thehill.com]
Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation,
The millions went to a company that also worked with the clinton foundation, but note that the article explicitly avoids saying the millions were passed through to the foundation rather than being spent elsewhere, like aforementioned kickbacks to russians.
Furthermore, whenever the Uranium One deal is mentiond, everybody should remember this key fact: Russia was never given an export license, thus the uranium could never leave the US (and in fact barely any of it even left the ground because importing uranium from abroad is cheaper than mining it here). Here's the official statement from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency: [archive.org]
Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
> and Comey wrote the Hillary conclusion months before interviewing Hillary.)
Another half-truth that is a full lie. Interviewing her was basically a formality, especially if you believe the narrative that she's a master manipulator. The FBI investigation began no later than August the year before, 9 months before Comey began drafting the statement. [usatoday.com] All of the evidence gathered by then was already exculpatory that the writing was already on the wall.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html [cnn.com]
A person familiar with the matter pushed back on the notion that Comey had already reached a conclusion that affected the investigation.
The person said back in spring 2016, agents and Justice Department officials were talking about how the investigation would end and there was a belief that the evidence was going in a direction to not support bringing charges. This individual said by April 2016 the FBI had reviewed most of the evidence and didn't find evidence suggesting that Clinton had violated federal law. The person said the FBI wanted to interview her but didn't believe it was going to change the outcome.
The source also said Comey was not involved in the day-to-day steps of the investigation, so even if he reached a conclusion it wouldn't have affected the result of the investigation.
A second person familiar with the matter told CNN that Comey had not already made up his mind, and that it did not influence the investigation. The second source says the FBI had already reviewed much of the evidence by spring and it was becoming more clear that it was not likely to support bringing charges.
> If we can't abide the truth, then we're no different from the media talking heads.
You are different from the media talking heads. You are an unabashedly hyperpartisan liar, they are just poorly informed. You, on the other hand, know the whole truth because it takes exceptional discipline to write out all the parts that don't support your ideology of idiocy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill."
Re:Slashdot moderation is best moderation! (Score:4, Interesting)
Call it off topic but there's a little PAC by the name of 'Correct The Record' that the Clinton Campaign tried to use to 'correct the record' by hiring paid shills to basically troll and disrupt pro Trump social media campaigns. Supposedly the spent an even $1,000,000 on trying to do this.
But remember, be really upset that someone in the Russian Federal dropped $80K.
Re: (Score:2)
As I post this, there are three topically relevant and accurate stories modded down to 0 or -1.
What do those posts have to do with the Russian interference in US elections? That is the topic.
This one (and the others) are perfectly legitimate
If they are legitimate then please submit a story citing a reputable source. They sound like stories that would leave a trail for investigative journalists to follow but all that's being posted are intangible conspiracy theories.
Timeline of Treason (Score:5, Informative)
Before the Election
Dec. 10, 2015
Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).
Late 2015
British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).
March 19, 2016
Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).
March 21
During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).
March 28
Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could "greatly benefit the Putin Government." His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)
April 27
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).
June
At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).
June 9
Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort and son-in-law Jared Kushner meet at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-connected attorney named Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya's efforts to reverse a law passed in 2012 sanctioning Russians suspected of human rights violations at some point drew the attention of the FBI. The meeting was not initially reported to the government by Kushner as required when he took a position with the administration (Times, July 8, 2017). After the meeting was originally reported, Trump, Jr. admitted that the pretext for the conversation was that he believed Veselnitskaya to have information incriminating Hillary Clinton (Times, July 9, 2017).
June 15
A hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0" releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).
July
At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).
July 7
Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).
July 11 or 12
Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).
July 18
At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).
Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's "Lock her up!" chant. "If I, a guy who knows this business, if I
A cry for help? (Score:2, Troll)
What sort of idiot wastes their time with this, given that *none* of it is in any way incriminating nor does it show *any* evidence of actual collusion?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, thanks, I think that answers my question.
Re: (Score:2)
Treason? Most of this looks like routine diplomatic communication, lobbing, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"Treason? Most of this looks like routine diplomatic communication, lobbing, etc."
It's only 'diplomacy' if you're already elected, before, its also a crime, albeit still another different one than treason.
Thanks for the spam (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Al Franken used to be a fine comedian. Now he's a Senator, but I don't hold that against him.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On June 3 last year, Donald Trump Jr. received an email offering him "official documents" containing what was described as "very high level and sensitive information" from Russia's chief prosecutor that would "incriminate" Hillary Clinton and which was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Trump Jr.'s response: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Days later, the now famous meeting in Trump Tower followed.
What is plain as day from Trump Jr.'s own words is t
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should have voted for someone instead of reality TV star.
Re: (Score:2)
Let both of these asses be set to grinding corn.
Re: (Score:2)
They're "genuine" because they were for hate groups the left likes.
Re: (Score:2)
There does seem to be a bit of circular reasoning behind this story.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like you have no idea about Russian sources of news. Why don't you learn something before spewing ignorant russophibic drivel?
Russia has far more freedom of speech than say China and it has a few very respected news sources. The way it works in Russia, if say under 2% of population reads the source, Putin's administration usually does not consider it as a threat and leaves it alone. They did shut down or take over any big independent TV channels and newspapers.
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA they were not targeting "leftists", just anyone they thought might be divisive. That includes the Texas independence movement, and of course the California succession one (#calexit). And of course we know that they were supporting the Republican campaign at the time.
When you try to tie it to "leftists" it makes me wonder if you are a paid Russian troll trying to seed dissent.
Re: (Score:2)