DHS, FBI say election systems in all 50 states were targeted in 2016

[Smoker1]

I just love how there was a Report of Russia indeed being involved with the Hacking.........but they did not do anything. So they just Hacked in for what?????? Shits and giggles????????? To see if they could do it????????

 

[Xzi]

I just love how there was a Report of Russia indeed being involved with the Hacking.........but they did not do anything. So they just Hacked in for what?????? Shits and giggles????????? To see if they could do it????????

The reports are that they were successful with their attempts to some extent in certain states, where in others they couldn't get past security measures. But yes, a lot of this is far more vague than I would prefer, likely because no federal organization wants to start a panic by stating outright, "yes, the Russians hacked our election, and yes, it was effective enough to change the result." That is my continued suspicion, however.

 

[Smoker1]

Like I said, if they Hacked in, they more that likely changed things. There are other things that have me wondering:
A former Russian General quoted as saying that we will Vote for Trump, or there will be War?????? Seriously????? So Russia decides who we Vote for?????

Slightly off Topic, but Trump and Hillary should have been Disqualified from running. Both had Investigations going on, and one of Hillary's People apparently rigged the System so Bernie Sanders would get the shaft during the Election. Hillary should have been held Responsible, and as punishment, her Votes should have went to Sanders. Even Trump said the System got Rigged against him.

 

[bodefuceta]

Can't you post where they said it directly rather than some terrible nonsense website linking to a paywall for lunatics?

 

[Smoker1]

Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.

 

[cots]

Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.

You mean those gossip sites masquerading as legitimate news organizations?

 

[Xzi]

Slightly off Topic, but Trump and Hillary should have been Disqualified from running. Both had Investigations going on, and one of Hillary's People apparently rigged the System so Bernie Sanders would get the shaft during the Election. Hillary should have been held Responsible, and as punishment, her Votes should have went to Sanders. Even Trump said the System got Rigged against him.

Actually that would've been the smart and cautious thing to do, make the runners-up the candidate for each party. Of course, that would've meant Bernie Sanders vs Ted Cruz (yikes), but I can't be held responsible for how Rs voted in the 2016 primary.

 

[smf]

But the plan back fired, time and time again it has been shown in studies that the person to get to most news coverage is the one that wins election.

Care to provide those studies? Are you saying the voters are dumb as shit?

 

[Foxi4]

Which is not how any news organization or reputable organization operates. If they're willing to lie about one thing, they're willing to lie about everything.

Any AG worth a damn doesn't make claims like those without evidence. Barr has lost all legitimate claim to impartiality in the eyes of the public as a result. And he has the nerve to make those comments before he's willing to release any part of the Mueller report to Congress or the public. Tsk tsk.

Oh, come off it. Deceptive practices have been a staple of investigative journalism for as long as the press existed, some of the best stories were written by journalists using false identities, setting up stings or straight-up going undercover. There are times when that's the only way to get the evidence you need, and the scoop often justifies the means. Journalists on both sides get people to bite their hooks by pretending to be somebody they're not, you're not seriously going to use that as an argument, are you?

 

[Xzi]

Oh, come off it. Deceptive practices have been a staple of investigative journalism for as long as the press existed, some of the best stories were written by journalists using false identities, setting up stings or straight-up going undercover. There are times when that's the only way to get the evidence you need, and the scoop often justifies the means. Journalists on both sides get people to bite their hooks by pretending to be somebody they're not, you're not seriously going to use that as an argument, are you?

Journalists don't go to other news organizations with fake stories in an attempt to discredit them. They either corroborate or dispute others' reporting with their own reporting, in a non-sensationalist manner. Veritas are nothing but clickbait jockeys for the right-wing.

 

[Foxi4]

Journalists don't go to other news organizations with fake stories in an attempt to discredit them. They either corroborate or dispute others' reporting with their own reporting, in a non-sensationalist manner. Veritas are nothing but clickbait jockeys for the right-wing.

It's actually a fairly simple test - you set the bait and check if your subject will bite or not. Is there a double-standard in reporting on republicans versus democrats? You won't know until you check. Seems like a sound strategy to me. I don't understand why you'd think that different news outlets wouldn't/shouldn't be antagonistic towards each other, they compete for readership on the market. You have a huge problem with this, but no problem at all with the fight between Fox and other outlet. AA day doesn't go by without someone criticising Fox, and vice versa - they constantly try to discredit the other side, are we talking about the same press? Not that any of this matters to Veritas, popularity is not exactly their end goal. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Xzi]

Is there a double-standard in reporting on republicans versus democrats? You won't know until you check.

And pray tell, what good does it do to have a clearly biased, clearly partisan organization being the ones to "check" this?

Seems like a sound strategy to me. I don't understand why you'd think that different news outlets wouldn't/shouldn't be antagonistic towards each other, they compete for readership on the market. You have a huge problem with this, but no problem at all with the fight between Fox and other outlet. AA day doesn't go by without someone criticising Fox, and vice versa - they constantly try to discredit the other side, are we talking about the same press?

Of course I have a problem with Fox's attempt to smear other outlets while consistently running false stories that they don't issue retractions for. However, at least Fox is out in the open about their antagonism toward other outlets. They aren't trying to undermine their competition through indirect interference or other completely unethical, back-alley tactics. They're just playing up the network wars on-air for more ratings.

 

[Foxi4]

And pray tell, what good does it do to have a clearly biased, clearly partisan organization being the ones to "check" this?

Of course I have a problem with Fox's attempt to smear other outlets while consistently running false stories that they don't issue retractions for. However, at least Fox is out in the open about their antagonism toward other outlets. They aren't trying to undermine their competition through indirect interference or other completely unethical, back-alley tactics. They're just playing up the network wars on-air for more ratings.

I see that you live under the mistaken impression that other outlets are unbiased. That's fine, I suppose.

 

[SG854]

Care to provide those studies? Are you saying the voters are dumb as shit?

It backfired because News Media cares about ratings. They Normalized bad behavior because of the constant negative coverage on Trump and Hillary. They were both seen as bad candidates. So Trump doing bad was just another day and it was whatever. Its the News fault for constantly focusing on the negative.


Hillary got slightly more negative coverage then Trump. But both mostly got negative coverage overall. Even Fox News that is supposedly pro Trump had 73% negative coverage of Trump. There has been less focus on positivity and policy over the years. Which leaves people clueless on what they stand for, creates false equivalencies. Its all just scandals because that gets ratings. When you constantly negatively cover politics, it leaves less trust in the government which then reinforces the conservative talking points that Gov is bad for you, and helps them win votes. Trump also got 15% more coverage then Hillary. If you also just focus on negatives of Trump without embraces any positives even believe in crazy Conspiracy Theories like Russia Collusion even though evidence shows there is none, it makes you look like you have TDS, and that leaves with with as much credibility as the boy who cried wolf.


https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/



People around the world saw the Russia Collusion as a joke and are laughing at the U.S. for even believing this as Noam Chomsky says.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh, come off it. Deceptive practices have been a staple of investigative journalism for as long as the press existed, some of the best stories were written by journalists using false identities, setting up stings or straight-up going undercover. There are times when that's the only way to get the evidence you need, and the scoop often justifies the means. Journalists on both sides get people to bite their hooks by pretending to be somebody they're not, you're not seriously going to use that as an argument, are you?

Investigative Journalism died a while ago. It's all just churnalism now. They just get stories on Twitter and report what other News outlets say for quick money, and say without actually fact checking because thats the cheaper route. Sending someone to cover a story that can take months and in the end might not have anything news worthy to report is costly money wise. They say "what can I get out of this investigation if I do this, How would I benefit?"


It'll generate more revenue just to report a bunch of stories and make clickbait headlines on stuff they find on Twitter, then one story that takes months to investigate. This is why they get stories wrong a lot. Especially the Mueller Investigation. They are now in competition with independent journalists which is why this big shift happened and real journalism is taking a hit. They do put out good articles at times and its not all bad, but journalism is taking a hit with churnalism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.

CNN is getting sued for the covington case.

A lot of times they play it safe to avoid lawsuit. They say Anonymous Sources say, without actually have direct quotes or evidence. So that when a story turns out wrong they can say, well I didn't make any direct claims so you can't sue me, don't blame us because an anonymous source got it wrong. Its them trying to avoid any repercussions for putting out fake stories that haven't been verified. There's no point in putting out stories that haven't been verified, using anonymous sources without any direct source, that hearsay and bad journalism.

 

[smf]

They Normalized bad behavior because of the constant negative coverage on Trump and Hillary.

You're over thinking it, Trumps populist message was lapped up by people who think "hey you know what, those mexicans are all rapists and drug mules & I'm glad somebody is saying it."

The problem with free speech is that it assumes that people will listen and think logically, but Trumps entire message is like crystal meth.

Russia also ran a successful facebook campaign to destabilise the election, we know that for sure. The US is a laughing stock around the world, but not for the reason that americans think.

 

[Foxi4]

Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.

Defamation law is exceedingly complicated and it's extremely hard to win a case against a news organisation, more often than not it's decided that they "made a mistake", all you you get is a correction on page 20, in small print, under the McDonald's ad. It's also very hard to prove defamation, it has several requirements - you need to prove that the lie was spread with malicious intent, it was done knowingly and, most importantly, caused damage. The worst thing regarding defamation by the press is the fact that defamation law does not treat a public figure the same way as a private individual, and since you're fighting with the press, they have effectively made you a public figure. Long story short, you have to prove that the reporters knew they were printing a falsehood, they did it maliciously and they caused some form of financial damage to you - good luck with that. Cases of defamation of public figures you read about in the papers are usually settled outside of court in exchange for some set amount of damages plus a retraction, that's the best you can get in most states, although it does differ from state to state. Since Donald Trump is from New York, his chances for winning a defamation case are exceedingly low. In fact, he successfully defended himself against Stormy Daniels' defamation suit recently and received his well-deserved attorney's fees, not to mention the sanctions. I suggest you look into it.

You're over thinking it, Trumps populist message was lapped up by people who think "hey you know what, those mexicans are all rapists and drug mules & I'm glad somebody is saying it."

The problem with free speech is that it assumes that people will listen and think logically, but Trumps entire message is like crystal meth.

Russia also ran a successful facebook campaign to destabilise the election, we know that for sure. The US is a laughing stock around the world, but not for the reason that americans think.

There are no problems with Free Speech. If you hear a bunch of bullshit, use your speech to correct it. Speech is, by definition, self-regulated. As for the Russian campaign, they spent all of $100,000 on Facebook ads according to Facebook's accountants as far as I remember, most corporations spend more for the average ad campaign.

 

[Xzi]

I see that you live under the mistaken impression that other outlets are unbiased. That's fine, I suppose.

Well, there are obviously differing degrees of bias, and Veritas is on that "riding the Koch brothers' nuts" level. I literally can't even think of an equivalent to Veritas on the left. Fox and other right-wing media do a great job of embroiling themselves in their own scandals without anybody else's help.

 

[Subtle Demise]

There's no evidence to support either of these ridiculous claims. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a decent margin, so when Democrats get their people to show up to elections, plus enough to overcome gerrymandering and other underhanded tactics, they win. It's really that simple.

The only recent documented case of large-scale election fraud was committed by the Republican candidate in North Carolina. He literally hired people to stuff absentee ballot boxes with fake votes.

Hey it was just a thing I saw floating around. It was meant to come off a little more sarcastically, but that's aspergers for you. I'm with @Foxi4 in saying that voter fraud happens all the time. Did dead people vote for Hilary? Probably (they probably also voted for Trump). Did Russia attempt to access the election systems? Probably, but you can bet China and many others have done the same thing too. Our government meddles in elections all the time. You have to expect that others would do the same to us. To quote an old movie: "They follow us, we follow them. It's a sort of understanding we have." Either way, the Electoral College mitigates those statistical anomalies.

I still think the presidential elections are just a big show. Doesn't matter who gets elected, everything either stays the same or gets more authoritarian.

 

[Xzi]

Did Russia attempt to access the election systems? Probably, but you can bet China and many others have done the same thing too.

Firstly, no, we've never had a foreign country attack our election on this scale before, individual hackers aren't the same thing. Secondly, whataboutism is not an excuse to do nothing about it. If people can't have faith in our elections systems any more, then for all intents and purposes we're a third-world Banana Republic. Or a "shithole country," as Trump refers to them.

 

[Subtle Demise]

Firstly, no, we've never had a foreign country attack our election on this scale before, individual hackers aren't the same thing. Secondly, whataboutism is not an excuse to do nothing about it. If people can't have faith in our elections systems any more, then for all intents and purposes we're a third-world Banana Republic.

I'm not saying do nothing about it. One has to wonder how the hell these systems are even accessible from outside a very small network of trusted machines in the first place. Beef up the security, find out who's responsible and don't let it happen again. Do you really think large scale attacks haven't been attempted in every major election? The Russians may have been the first to succeed, but still even if they did I don't think they did as much damage as it would seem.