Russia’s strategy is even more dangerous that it appears. Not only does it undermine democracy using the press but it actually gets the press to undermine itself. And there’s not much we can reasonably do about it, either.
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.
There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.
The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.
That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.
“Hacking and misinformation are the death knell,” Isabel, the journalism professor, says. “If we’re just constantly following and repeating information we get, then our credibility goes even lower.”
The worst part, though, is that there’s almost no way for the press to stop this. Reporters, for reasons we’ve discussed, have every reason to report on hacked disclosures. We can’t hold back on newsworthy information because of the hypothetical fear that one day Russia will end up spinning us into undermining ourselves.
There are checks the press can put up, of course: Be skeptical, don’t report things that seem mundane or too outlandish, verify with independent information whenever you can, and publish other pieces on Russia’s information warfare strategy. But it’s not at all clear that these tactics can counteract the damage hacking and misinformation can do to the credibility of both democracy and the press itself.
The only real, durable solution is to get Russia to knock it off: to somehow persuade the Russians to stop hacking American political actors and dumping their information to WikiLeaks. And that’s just not something the press is equipped to do.
as much as I've been critical of the (TV) news media for allowing Trump to dominate their airwaves, aggrandizing him during the primaries with the unwarranted gift of uncritical attention, I'm inclined to agree with the assessment that there's very little the press can do about Wikileaks data dumps, which are increasingly frequent.
In summary also, fuck Assange. Even if he goes down, a million other leak sites will pop up to replace Wikileaks, and it won't always be clear which are genuine and which are pushing some other sovereign nation's agenda.
I don't buy this argument. The press is not in a bind. Not unless they are reporting on everything the National Enquirer says too.
They can regard Wikileaks as what it is: a completely unreliable source, often influenced by Russian propaganda.
They are in a bind because a significant portion of the public still views them as a reliable source, and even if biased, unwilling to fake or distribute fake leaks.
As long as the public perception of WL is more trustworthy than the press considers them, there is an issue for them, though how big is another question.
Geez, and who could possibly tell the public they aren't a reliable source? If only there were someone who's job that was...
There needs to be a news expose/documentary, or several, on wikileaks and the russian connection thereof.
And it needs to be detailed, verifiable and damning as hell.
And lot of people will probably ignore it and keep on trusting the "independent little guy".
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Really if you're that curious about Ken Bone look up his comments after all this broke. He clarified some of the comments and admitted the issues with other of those comments and apologized for those.
I very much doubt any of us here couldn't have comments dug up from the internet that show us in an extremely poor light. I'm certain that none of us could escape click bait editing of our comments.
The criticism of ken bones posting history is probably one of the first times I've ever actually been 'wow, there is the liberal elite pretendingredients they are so wonderful. Goose them'
It's just disgusting to see someone being punished for civic engagement. Looks like Noone on these forums can ever go to a debate.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+6
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
It will be a bit significant if republicans in UT can send a signal to the rest of the GOP that they won't play ball with another pubescent, self-indulgent libertine of a vulgarian even when SCOTUS is at stake.
Come on, Romney and the Bushes. Help with the fatality.
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Denying EV's to Trump would be funny in a "humiliating defeat" way but it has no direct benefit to Clinton. If she doesent reach 270 it goes to the house and she loses.
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Denying EV's to Trump would be funny in a "humiliating defeat" way but it has no direct benefit to Clinton. If she doesent reach 270 it goes to the house and she loses.
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Denying EV's to Trump would be funny in a "humiliating defeat" way but it has no direct benefit to Clinton. If she doesent reach 270 it goes to the house and she loses.
You mean we get President Bernie Sanders!
Not unless he gets some electoral votes too. House has to pick from top three EV winners.
+1
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
You're right. Her or McMullin leading there now would be helpful since that would force the Trump campaign to spend money there or basically throw in the towel.
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Denying EV's to Trump would be funny in a "humiliating defeat" way but it has no direct benefit to Clinton. If she doesent reach 270 it goes to the house and she loses.
I'm not disagreeing with you that Hillary should make a play for Utah if at all possible. But also Hillary has at no point in this campaign been projected to win Utah nor to need its 6 EVs to get to 270. It is not part of any path to victory for her, and she has plenty of paths to victory without it. I'm just saying, not winning Utah is not something the Hillary campaign is losing any sleep over.
Russia’s strategy is even more dangerous that it appears. Not only does it undermine democracy using the press but it actually gets the press to undermine itself. And there’s not much we can reasonably do about it, either.
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.
There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.
The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.
That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.
“Hacking and misinformation are the death knell,” Isabel, the journalism professor, says. “If we’re just constantly following and repeating information we get, then our credibility goes even lower.”
The worst part, though, is that there’s almost no way for the press to stop this. Reporters, for reasons we’ve discussed, have every reason to report on hacked disclosures. We can’t hold back on newsworthy information because of the hypothetical fear that one day Russia will end up spinning us into undermining ourselves.
There are checks the press can put up, of course: Be skeptical, don’t report things that seem mundane or too outlandish, verify with independent information whenever you can, and publish other pieces on Russia’s information warfare strategy. But it’s not at all clear that these tactics can counteract the damage hacking and misinformation can do to the credibility of both democracy and the press itself.
The only real, durable solution is to get Russia to knock it off: to somehow persuade the Russians to stop hacking American political actors and dumping their information to WikiLeaks. And that’s just not something the press is equipped to do.
as much as I've been critical of the (TV) news media for allowing Trump to dominate their airwaves, aggrandizing him during the primaries with the unwarranted gift of uncritical attention, I'm inclined to agree with the assessment that there's very little the press can do about Wikileaks data dumps, which are increasingly frequent.
In summary also, fuck Assange. Even if he goes down, a million other leak sites will pop up to replace Wikileaks, and it won't always be clear which are genuine and which are pushing some other sovereign nation's agenda.
I don't buy this argument. The press is not in a bind. Not unless they are reporting on everything the National Enquirer says too.
They can regard Wikileaks as what it is: a completely unreliable source, often influenced by Russian propaganda.
They are in a bind because a significant portion of the public still views them as a reliable source, and even if biased, unwilling to fake or distribute fake leaks.
As long as the public perception of WL is more trustworthy than the press considers them, there is an issue for them, though how big is another question.
Geez, and who could possibly tell the public they aren't a reliable source? If only there were someone who's job that was...
That was the entire point of what Hakkes posted, though: it is impossible to tell somebody they are unreliable when the fakes are not blatant smoking guns and one side has a vested interest in keeping them credible.
Just because we know WL is unreliable doesn't mean it is possible to magically convince the public of it when 40% of people benefit bigly from believing WL.
It's not impossible though. It's impossible to convince everyone but so what? Some people think the Daily Mail or Fox News are reliable. It's very possible to establish a mainstream narrative that Wikileaks is to be viewed the same way one of these sources is, if anyone wanted to actually try.
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Denying EV's to Trump would be funny in a "humiliating defeat" way but it has no direct benefit to Clinton. If she doesent reach 270 it goes to the house and she loses.
On the other hand it is a pretty effective hostage taking move in the internal GOP struggle. "Back away from the crazy fuck sticks or you never win the Presidency again" is a compelling point.
Though I would be so very amused if the reason the GOP pulls back from the brink is Utah.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
So we're one pussy-tape or the equivalent away from Utah, Georgia and maybe Alaska being in play. We need more Indiana and perhaps even Texas polling at this point. Heck, there was an Idaho poll with Trump +10 and that was before the accusers started coming out. The house is the real prize of course.
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
Denying EV's to Trump would be funny in a "humiliating defeat" way but it has no direct benefit to Clinton. If she doesent reach 270 it goes to the house and she loses.
On the other hand it is a pretty effective hostage taking move in the internal GOP struggle. "Back away from the crazy fuck sticks or you never win the Presidency again" is a compelling point.
Though I would be so very amused if the reason the GOP pulls back from the brink is Utah.
You could make a case that the cultural cores of the GOP are based in Utah (Mormonism), Georgia (the effective capital of the deep South), and Texas, while its electoral key remains Ohio. Each are at least somewhat in play
So has there been any actual confirmation that Assange's internet was cut due to him soliciting a minor/related? There seems to be a lot of buzz about his "state actor" statements.
I think we don't have any information at all. It would be beautiful if it were actually just Verizon or whoever fucking up.
The leading ISP in the U.K. is BT - British Telecom. I imagine they are the "state actor", the Ecuadorian embassy didn't pay it's bills, and this is Wikileak's usual self-aggrandization over nothing.
BT is a state owned company in the same way BP is - it once was but is now entirely privately owned (and that the initials don't officially stand for anything).
They are really shit though, so that's probably it.
Really if you're that curious about Ken Bone look up his comments after all this broke. He clarified some of the comments and admitted the issues with other of those comments and apologized for those.
I very much doubt any of us here couldn't have comments dug up from the internet that show us in an extremely poor light. I'm certain that none of us could escape click bait editing of our comments.
The criticism of ken bones posting history is probably one of the first times I've ever actually been 'wow, there is the liberal elite pretendingredients they are so wonderful. Goose them'
It's just disgusting to see someone being punished for civic engagement. Looks like Noone on these forums can ever go to a debate.
I agree, but why are surprised by this? This is what the press do with anything pertaining to a scandal with celebrities. We had Joe the Plumber before this, too.
Really if you're that curious about Ken Bone look up his comments after all this broke. He clarified some of the comments and admitted the issues with other of those comments and apologized for those.
I very much doubt any of us here couldn't have comments dug up from the internet that show us in an extremely poor light. I'm certain that none of us could escape click bait editing of our comments.
The criticism of ken bones posting history is probably one of the first times I've ever actually been 'wow, there is the liberal elite pretendingredients they are so wonderful. Goose them'
It's just disgusting to see someone being punished for civic engagement. Looks like Noone on these forums can ever go to a debate.
I agree, but why are surprised by this? This is what the press do with anything pertaining to a scandal with celebrities. We had Joe the Plumber before this, too.
If all of the people who are acting so righteous about Ken Bone's post history also had Gizmodo review the complete history of their internet activity and post it in an unwarranted "expose" piece, they probably wouldn't be looking so hot either, most of them. Still can't believe this shit.
The internet has simultaneously made everything better and worse.
Russia’s strategy is even more dangerous that it appears. Not only does it undermine democracy using the press but it actually gets the press to undermine itself. And there’s not much we can reasonably do about it, either.
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.
There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.
The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.
That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.
“Hacking and misinformation are the death knell,” Isabel, the journalism professor, says. “If we’re just constantly following and repeating information we get, then our credibility goes even lower.”
The worst part, though, is that there’s almost no way for the press to stop this. Reporters, for reasons we’ve discussed, have every reason to report on hacked disclosures. We can’t hold back on newsworthy information because of the hypothetical fear that one day Russia will end up spinning us into undermining ourselves.
There are checks the press can put up, of course: Be skeptical, don’t report things that seem mundane or too outlandish, verify with independent information whenever you can, and publish other pieces on Russia’s information warfare strategy. But it’s not at all clear that these tactics can counteract the damage hacking and misinformation can do to the credibility of both democracy and the press itself.
The only real, durable solution is to get Russia to knock it off: to somehow persuade the Russians to stop hacking American political actors and dumping their information to WikiLeaks. And that’s just not something the press is equipped to do.
as much as I've been critical of the (TV) news media for allowing Trump to dominate their airwaves, aggrandizing him during the primaries with the unwarranted gift of uncritical attention, I'm inclined to agree with the assessment that there's very little the press can do about Wikileaks data dumps, which are increasingly frequent.
In summary also, fuck Assange. Even if he goes down, a million other leak sites will pop up to replace Wikileaks, and it won't always be clear which are genuine and which are pushing some other sovereign nation's agenda.
I don't buy this argument. The press is not in a bind. Not unless they are reporting on everything the National Enquirer says too.
They can regard Wikileaks as what it is: a completely unreliable source, often influenced by Russian propaganda.
They are in a bind because a significant portion of the public still views them as a reliable source, and even if biased, unwilling to fake or distribute fake leaks.
As long as the public perception of WL is more trustworthy than the press considers them, there is an issue for them, though how big is another question.
Geez, and who could possibly tell the public they aren't a reliable source? If only there were someone who's job that was...
That was the entire point of what Hakkes posted, though: it is impossible to tell somebody they are unreliable when the fakes are not blatant smoking guns and one side has a vested interest in keeping them credible.
Just because we know WL is unreliable doesn't mean it is possible to magically convince the public of it when 40% of people benefit bigly from believing WL.
It's not impossible though. It's impossible to convince everyone but so what? Some people think the Daily Mail or Fox News are reliable. It's very possible to establish a mainstream narrative that Wikileaks is to be viewed the same way one of these sources is, if anyone wanted to actually try.
Again, Wikileaks simply being viewed as biased would not be enough, because unlike Fox News they actually produce primary documentation. You would have to convince people they are willing to disseminate false documents, which is much harder.
Also is anybody non ironically being mad at Ken Bone? I have seen a couple sites try and get pilloried but I see more complaining about being mean to him than people actually being mean to him.
I ate an engineer
+5
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Subjects that are now considered off topic:
Ken Bone
The NC attack
Drop bears
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
I thought about that, but it doesn't gain her anything. The only time those EVs matter is if Trump would win otherwise and you send it to the House, which would be a total poopshow but I have to think Trump wins there in the end.
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
The GOP isn't stopping the talk about a rigged election so that they can use it to oppose hillary's policies for the next 4 years, "she stole the election" etc
They didn't really need an excuse, it's not like they've had one for the past 8 years, but sure it's as good as any other.
Third and final debate is Wednesday evening, hosted by Chris Wallace. Topics are:
Benghazi
Deleted Emails
Bill Clintons Affairs and why that's Hillary's fault
Benghazi
Adjusted that for Wallce
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Russia’s strategy is even more dangerous that it appears. Not only does it undermine democracy using the press but it actually gets the press to undermine itself. And there’s not much we can reasonably do about it, either.
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.
There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.
The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.
That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.
“Hacking and misinformation are the death knell,” Isabel, the journalism professor, says. “If we’re just constantly following and repeating information we get, then our credibility goes even lower.”
The worst part, though, is that there’s almost no way for the press to stop this. Reporters, for reasons we’ve discussed, have every reason to report on hacked disclosures. We can’t hold back on newsworthy information because of the hypothetical fear that one day Russia will end up spinning us into undermining ourselves.
There are checks the press can put up, of course: Be skeptical, don’t report things that seem mundane or too outlandish, verify with independent information whenever you can, and publish other pieces on Russia’s information warfare strategy. But it’s not at all clear that these tactics can counteract the damage hacking and misinformation can do to the credibility of both democracy and the press itself.
The only real, durable solution is to get Russia to knock it off: to somehow persuade the Russians to stop hacking American political actors and dumping their information to WikiLeaks. And that’s just not something the press is equipped to do.
as much as I've been critical of the (TV) news media for allowing Trump to dominate their airwaves, aggrandizing him during the primaries with the unwarranted gift of uncritical attention, I'm inclined to agree with the assessment that there's very little the press can do about Wikileaks data dumps, which are increasingly frequent.
In summary also, fuck Assange. Even if he goes down, a million other leak sites will pop up to replace Wikileaks, and it won't always be clear which are genuine and which are pushing some other sovereign nation's agenda.
I don't buy this argument. The press is not in a bind. Not unless they are reporting on everything the National Enquirer says too.
They can regard Wikileaks as what it is: a completely unreliable source, often influenced by Russian propaganda.
They are in a bind because a significant portion of the public still views them as a reliable source, and even if biased, unwilling to fake or distribute fake leaks.
As long as the public perception of WL is more trustworthy than the press considers them, there is an issue for them, though how big is another question.
Geez, and who could possibly tell the public they aren't a reliable source? If only there were someone who's job that was...
There needs to be a news expose/documentary, or several, on wikileaks and the russian connection thereof.
And it needs to be detailed, verifiable and damning as hell.
And lot of people will probably ignore it and keep on trusting the "independent little guy".
The far-right thing is basically a religion by now. No statements or verifiable facts can possibly shake the foundations of this conviction, there are true believers that would die for it and they now have a real-world incarnate to project their worship on.
The governors that win in 2017 and 2018 are the ones who’ll be in office to approve the maps for the 2022 elections, put together by the state legislators who’ll be elected along with them. The NDRC plans to hold regular meetings of Democratic groups and allies, building collaborative strategies on recruitment, ad spending, get out the vote and other efforts to maximize resources and impact. House campaigns would then work with state senate and assembly campaigns, unions, progressive organizations and others in high opportunity areas, hoping to push up their numbers as much as possible ahead of the 2020 census.
“How does the work that we’re going to be doing anyway in House races, how can that trickle down to state legislative races—are there places where you get more bang for your buck?” said Lapp, whose super PAC boosts House Democrats in competitive races.
The group is planning to hire staff starting by December, though it will still rely on groups like the DGA and House Majority PAC for some of the legwork.
“We’re developing a comprehensive, unified plan that represents tactically the way we increase Democratic power in the next redistricting that’s state specific,” said Mark Schauer, a former Michigan congressman and failed 2014 candidate for governor who’s serving as a senior adviser to the group. “By 2017, we’ll speak with one voice under the auspices of the NDRC to big donors around the country, pointing them to the best ways to impact redistricting.”
Godbless for doing what the DNC just won't
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
So has there been any actual confirmation that Assange's internet was cut due to him soliciting a minor/related? There seems to be a lot of buzz about his "state actor" statements.
I think we don't have any information at all. It would be beautiful if it were actually just Verizon or whoever fucking up.
The leading ISP in the U.K. is BT - British Telecom. I imagine they are the "state actor", the Ecuadorian embassy didn't pay it's bills, and this is Wikileak's usual self-aggrandization over nothing.
BT is a state owned company in the same way BP is - it once was but is now entirely privately owned (and that the initials don't officially stand for anything).
They are really shit though, so that's probably it.
I know they are, my point was that the 'state owned' thing was probably a really tenuous piece of goose shit such as painting BT as "state-owned".
Trump 30
McMullin 29
Clinton: 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Johnson, be a bro and endorse. Hell, if her internals don't look too hot in about a week I think Clinton should tell democrats in Utah "So, if you want to deny Trump those EVs then cueball over there is closer than I am." If she's extra clever she can say "If your birthday is between the 1st and 7th of a month, vote McMuffin. Otherwise for me."
I thought about that, but it doesn't gain her anything. The only time those EVs matter is if Trump would win otherwise and you send it to the House, which would be a total poopshow but I have to think Trump wins there in the end.
Utah is irrelevant to the election, but it's fun to talk about. It a) shows how far Trump is plummeting and b) shows an interesting effect of one particular demographic group, the Mormons. In particular, the fact that Utah is a three way tie bodes well for Nevada and Arizona, both of which are swing states with decent Mormon minorities.
Edit: Looks like there might also be a Texas ad buy as well, but right now all I've seen is a tweet about an unsubstantiated rumor from an aide, so let's not get too excited yet. It'd make sense though--both of the Texas polls from October give Trump a single digit lead.
Solomaxwell6 on
+41
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Russia’s strategy is even more dangerous that it appears. Not only does it undermine democracy using the press but it actually gets the press to undermine itself. And there’s not much we can reasonably do about it, either.
Every cybersecurity researcher I spoke to warned that the next step in Russia’s strategy is forgeries: that the Russians will give WikiLeaks a lot of hacked information and include in it some fake emails with seemingly damning information. Because this is private correspondence, it’s very difficult for reporters to identify as being false. The people who are hacked can deny it, but WikiLeaks will insist it’s genuine, creating a kind of “he said, she said” situation where you can’t really know who’s telling the truth.
There’s no evidence Russia has done this in any of the election dumps — yet. But it has before: Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll has a good write-up of how documents stolen from philanthropist George Soros’s foundation included one note showing Soros’s group shoveling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. The email was a fake, one designed to discredit Navalny by making him look like a foreign plant.
The Soros email was a poor forgery and was easily caught. But there’s no guarantee the Kremlin remains this incompetent in the future.
That’s what’s so scary for the press. If future docu-dumps contain potentially falsified information, which can’t well be verified, we end up in a post-truth world where it’s impossible to trust information online. The press may end up unintentionally propagating false information, even if it reports denials by the targets alongside the fake revelations. That undermines its role as societal truth teller and thus the public’s already damaged faith in the press’s honesty.
“Hacking and misinformation are the death knell,” Isabel, the journalism professor, says. “If we’re just constantly following and repeating information we get, then our credibility goes even lower.”
The worst part, though, is that there’s almost no way for the press to stop this. Reporters, for reasons we’ve discussed, have every reason to report on hacked disclosures. We can’t hold back on newsworthy information because of the hypothetical fear that one day Russia will end up spinning us into undermining ourselves.
There are checks the press can put up, of course: Be skeptical, don’t report things that seem mundane or too outlandish, verify with independent information whenever you can, and publish other pieces on Russia’s information warfare strategy. But it’s not at all clear that these tactics can counteract the damage hacking and misinformation can do to the credibility of both democracy and the press itself.
The only real, durable solution is to get Russia to knock it off: to somehow persuade the Russians to stop hacking American political actors and dumping their information to WikiLeaks. And that’s just not something the press is equipped to do.
as much as I've been critical of the (TV) news media for allowing Trump to dominate their airwaves, aggrandizing him during the primaries with the unwarranted gift of uncritical attention, I'm inclined to agree with the assessment that there's very little the press can do about Wikileaks data dumps, which are increasingly frequent.
In summary also, fuck Assange. Even if he goes down, a million other leak sites will pop up to replace Wikileaks, and it won't always be clear which are genuine and which are pushing some other sovereign nation's agenda.
I don't buy this argument. The press is not in a bind. Not unless they are reporting on everything the National Enquirer says too.
They can regard Wikileaks as what it is: a completely unreliable source, often influenced by Russian propaganda.
They are in a bind because a significant portion of the public still views them as a reliable source, and even if biased, unwilling to fake or distribute fake leaks.
As long as the public perception of WL is more trustworthy than the press considers them, there is an issue for them, though how big is another question.
Geez, and who could possibly tell the public they aren't a reliable source? If only there were someone who's job that was...
That was the entire point of what Hakkes posted, though: it is impossible to tell somebody they are unreliable when the fakes are not blatant smoking guns and one side has a vested interest in keeping them credible.
Just because we know WL is unreliable doesn't mean it is possible to magically convince the public of it when 40% of people benefit bigly from believing WL.
The number of anti-clinton leftists I know who take WL's word as gospel is fuckin astonishing.
Third and final debate is Wednesday evening, hosted by Chris Wallace. Topics are:
Benghazi
Deleted Emails
Bill Clintons Affairs and why that's Hillary's fault
Benghazi
Third and final debate is Wednesday evening, hosted by Chris Wallace. Topics are:
Benghazi
Deleted Emails
Bill Clintons Affairs and why that's Hillary's fault
Benghazi
Adjusted that for Wallce
Ben Ghazi is a popular fellow, huh.
i don't know about that. sure folks like talking about him, but no one seems to care enough to really get to know him.
Posts
There needs to be a news expose/documentary, or several, on wikileaks and the russian connection thereof.
And it needs to be detailed, verifiable and damning as hell.
And lot of people will probably ignore it and keep on trusting the "independent little guy".
The criticism of ken bones posting history is probably one of the first times I've ever actually been 'wow, there is the liberal elite pretendingredients they are so wonderful. Goose them'
It's just disgusting to see someone being punished for civic engagement. Looks like Noone on these forums can ever go to a debate.
Come on, Romney and the Bushes. Help with the fatality.
who knows gary who knows
Denying EV's to Trump would be funny in a "humiliating defeat" way but it has no direct benefit to Clinton. If she doesent reach 270 it goes to the house and she loses.
Not unless he gets some electoral votes too. House has to pick from top three EV winners.
I'm not disagreeing with you that Hillary should make a play for Utah if at all possible. But also Hillary has at no point in this campaign been projected to win Utah nor to need its 6 EVs to get to 270. It is not part of any path to victory for her, and she has plenty of paths to victory without it. I'm just saying, not winning Utah is not something the Hillary campaign is losing any sleep over.
It's not impossible though. It's impossible to convince everyone but so what? Some people think the Daily Mail or Fox News are reliable. It's very possible to establish a mainstream narrative that Wikileaks is to be viewed the same way one of these sources is, if anyone wanted to actually try.
On the other hand it is a pretty effective hostage taking move in the internal GOP struggle. "Back away from the crazy fuck sticks or you never win the Presidency again" is a compelling point.
Though I would be so very amused if the reason the GOP pulls back from the brink is Utah.
You could make a case that the cultural cores of the GOP are based in Utah (Mormonism), Georgia (the effective capital of the deep South), and Texas, while its electoral key remains Ohio. Each are at least somewhat in play
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
BT is a state owned company in the same way BP is - it once was but is now entirely privately owned (and that the initials don't officially stand for anything).
They are really shit though, so that's probably it.
I agree, but why are surprised by this? This is what the press do with anything pertaining to a scandal with celebrities. We had Joe the Plumber before this, too.
If all of the people who are acting so righteous about Ken Bone's post history also had Gizmodo review the complete history of their internet activity and post it in an unwarranted "expose" piece, they probably wouldn't be looking so hot either, most of them. Still can't believe this shit.
The internet has simultaneously made everything better and worse.
Again, Wikileaks simply being viewed as biased would not be enough, because unlike Fox News they actually produce primary documentation. You would have to convince people they are willing to disseminate false documents, which is much harder.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/03/heres-how-rare-in-person-voter-fraud-is/?0p19G=e
Ken Bone
The NC attack
Drop bears
*deletes 500 word post*
so then, when's the next debate?
Time for another GST I suppose.
Wednesday, if I'm not mistaken.
Third and final debate is Wednesday evening, hosted by Chris Wallace. Topics are:
Debt and entitlements
Immigration
Economy
Supreme Court
Foreign hot spots
Fitness to be President
Wednesday.
Also we will all just have to fear the Australian scourge in silence.
Usually the typos are corrected by an iPhone in fewer than 3 hours...
I thought about that, but it doesn't gain her anything. The only time those EVs matter is if Trump would win otherwise and you send it to the House, which would be a total poopshow but I have to think Trump wins there in the end.
They didn't really need an excuse, it's not like they've had one for the past 8 years, but sure it's as good as any other.
Adjusted that for Wallce
pleasepaypreacher.net
Godbless for doing what the DNC just won't
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I know they are, my point was that the 'state owned' thing was probably a really tenuous piece of goose shit such as painting BT as "state-owned".
Steam: adamjnet
Al Gore: Hey, guys. What are we talking about?
Utah is irrelevant to the election, but it's fun to talk about. It a) shows how far Trump is plummeting and b) shows an interesting effect of one particular demographic group, the Mormons. In particular, the fact that Utah is a three way tie bodes well for Nevada and Arizona, both of which are swing states with decent Mormon minorities.
Edit: Looks like there might also be a Texas ad buy as well, but right now all I've seen is a tweet about an unsubstantiated rumor from an aide, so let's not get too excited yet. It'd make sense though--both of the Texas polls from October give Trump a single digit lead.
The number of anti-clinton leftists I know who take WL's word as gospel is fuckin astonishing.
Ben Ghazi is a popular fellow, huh.
i don't know about that. sure folks like talking about him, but no one seems to care enough to really get to know him.