GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
The Russian companies have been sanctioned by Washington over their alleged engagement in nuclear proliferation activity with Iran, North Korea and Syria.
Paul Graig Robers, former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury, talks to RT on the issue.
There you have it. It is necessary to keep 'feeding the Beast', other wise the big bad Russians or anyone else will jump from under your bed and kill you until you die. They should just come out and say it at this point, its too profitable to not feed the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about.
Who surveilled whom, when and why? If the Obama administration did indeed “wiretap” Team Trump before, during and after the election, will we ever learn the truth?
I just wonder how many months or years it will be that these people refuse to accept that: Hillary Lost!
Didn't that r-e-d election map speak volumes? Most states did not use "paperless" methods. Hillary didn't lose because Russians tampered with the vote: she lost because the majority of States didn't want her!
But let this be a lesson that elections must be highly redundant and extremely auditable ... that means, paper.
Although it really isn't credible to say that "those big, bad, Russians (of course ...)" hacked anything, we were all very foolish to deploy any system that could not be audited, and about which "allegations of hacking from any distance-away at all" could even appear plausible to anyone. (With or without a dollop of "Russia sauce.")
I think that it should be a Federal law that all election systems, whether or not they use automation to reduce errors ("hanging chads," "double marks," etc.) and/or to post results more quickly, must be paper-based and auditable. The law should also stipulate other best-practices about how the systems should be run and how the ballots must be handled, stored and eventually destroyed or recycled. This fiasco – even the allegation of tampering – the fact that tampering could be alleged – was "a shot across the bow" and we should learn from it.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-29-2017 at 08:56 AM.
I just wonder how many months or years it will be that these people refuse to accept that: Hillary Lost!
I say many years, and probably see some form of revisionism or some other twisted logic - 'she meant to lose' - either way something devoid of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Didn't that r-e-d election map speak volumes? Most states did not use "paperless" methods. Hillary didn't lose because Russians tampered with the vote: she lost because the majority of States didn't want her!
All that red, I am sure Russia had something to do with it! Though seriously, she failed to campaign in key states because she thought she would win, and probably thought they owed HER votes. I am not even bringing up her health, she was apparently a bit too ill to campaign much anyways - compared to The Don that went to as many states as he could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
But let this be a lesson that elections must be highly redundant and extremely auditable ... that means, paper.
Also campaigning 101 - do not assume you already have the vote in the 'bag' for states that are traditionally 'yours' - in this case democratic states. After all hard blue states in the mid-west changed to a shade of red, and PA a democratic stronghold for the past 30 years, went red!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Although it really isn't credible to say that "those big, bad, Russians (of course ...)" hacked anything, we were all very foolish to deploy any system that could not be audited, and about which "allegations of hacking from any distance-away at all" could even appear plausible to anyone. (With or without a dollop of "Russia sauce.")
They (the DNC) needs someone to take the blame for their humiliation, and to justify to their corporate masters I mean uh, donors - how Hillary could outspend The Don 2:1 (over a BILLION) - and lose spectacularly. Again, when she runs in 2020 - who will be the next country if (more like when) she loses again? Also yes, traditional means of counting election results should not be thrown away, 'it is more efficient' with a computer is not a good enough argument. When it comes to something as important as this, redundancy is very important, and not total reliance on a single method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
I think that it should be a Federal law that all election systems, whether or not they use automation to reduce errors ("hanging chads," "double marks," etc.) and/or to post results more quickly, must be paper-based and auditable. The law should also stipulate other best-practices about how the systems should be run and how the ballots must be handled, stored and eventually destroyed or recycled. This fiasco – even the allegation of tampering – the fact that tampering could be alleged – was "a shot across the bow" and we should learn from it.
I thought tampering with elections were already a federal crime, but I guess I am wrong? There are a lot of things that need to be improved of our own political process. Not just how votes are carried out, but we should really have a campaign finance reform - one person per donation - and cap of how much people with more money can donate, but that is a pipe dream. The DNC even now shoots down anyone like Sam Ronan (who should have been head of the DNC, not Perez) - Jimmy Dore and others who bring that up as being 'divisive' - the DNC are using the same strategy, and again if Hillary 2020 is confirmed, then this time as I stated many times I WILL cast my vote for The Don. Corporate money will help them win this time right? Its not like they haven't tried this strategy before....
The battle of two very different narratives define Washington politics: On the one hand, the Russians did it, and on the other, the outgoing Obama administration did everything possible to undermine the new Trump presidency. Both narratives are polarizing – will one prevail over the other? CrossTalking with Rob Taub, Ray McGovern, and H. A. Goodman.
"The Two-Party System, Inc." is the real fog-horn here. They launch two so-called "competing" brands – Red, and Blue – but they really don't have any idea what the American public wants; neither do they particularly care.
Donald Trump won the election from the moment that he announced his candidacy – and he won because he is neither Republican nor Democrat: "he is Donald Trump." If "2PS, Inc." had not allowed him to run as a Republican, he would have run as an Independent and beaten both brands. (And that would have been a serious blow to "2PS, Inc.'s" social and political power.)
It was insanity to put forth a candidate who, in a very real sense, had already been President for eight years. Eight years during which, for example, the NAFTA treaty was enacted and non-immigrant visas first began to be available. Everyone plainly knew that, no matter what she said, she would do basically what she had done when her husband sat in the hot-seat and she pulled his strings. This was the opposite of what the public wanted – and, still wants.
Just like Romney before her, she expected to win – because she had surrounded herself with people who assured her that she would, and because she coveted the position so very much. How could it possibly be denied her?
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-29-2017 at 10:28 AM.
"The Two-Party System, Inc." is the real fog-horn here. They launch two so-called "competing" brands – Red, and Blue – but they really don't have any idea what the American public wants; neither do they particularly care.
They just don't care, I think we can all agree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Donald Trump won the election from the moment that he announced his candidacy – and he won because he is neither Republican nor Democrat: "he is Donald Trump." If "2PS, Inc." had not allowed him to run as a Republican, he would have run as an Independent and beaten both brands. (And that would have been a serious blow to "2PS, Inc.'s" social and political power.)
I have to disagree on that. Had he run as an independent he may have ended up losing like Ross Perot. Granted both parties were already hostile towards him from the start, and it is not like the Republicans are lining up to get behind him in any real meaningful way - let alone the Speaker of The House Paul Ryan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
It was insanity to put forth a candidate who, in a very real sense, had already been President for eight years. Eight years during which, for example, the NAFTA treaty was enacted and non-immigrant visas first began to be available. Everyone plainly knew that, no matter what she said, she would do basically what she had done when her husband sat in the hot-seat and she pulled his strings. This was the opposite of what the public wanted – and, still wants.
That is true, near the end of the campaigning she changed her tune and would 'oppose TPP' - but we all knew if Madame Cyberhack did get into the White House she would sign up to it anyways, and anyone who criticises is sexist, just like anyone who brought up legitimate criticism of Obama was racist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Just like Romney before her, she expected to win – because she had surrounded herself with people who assured her that she would, and because she coveted the position so very much. How could it possibly be denied her?
Well she 'assured' her donors that the amount of money given to her campaign would do the trick, and this is why I keep bringing the DNC up - they are going with the same strategy again - Ok, go for it - how'd that work out last time?
My answer to that rhetorical question - no - again we are now in a post-truth era and the truth is just not convenient. Gotta keep pushing the Russia narrative.
#Vault7: WikiLeaks reveals ‘Marble’ tool could mask CIA hacks with Russian, Chinese, Arabic
WikiLeaks’ latest batch of documents, named ‘Marble’, details CIA hacking tactics and how they can hamper forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the spy agency . The tool was in use as recently as 2016.
I still want to know how the zombies will still try to convince us at this point that it was all Russia when this is yet more proof that it wasn't Russia.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
Hillary Lost! 
Though seriously, she failed to campaign in key states because she thought she would win, and probably thought they owed HER votes. I am not even bringing up her health, she was apparently a bit too ill to campaign much anyways - compared to The Don that went to as many states as he could.
