Obama Authorized a Secret Cyber Operation Against Russia, Says Report (engadget.com) 232
Jessica Conditt reports via Engadget: President Barack Obama learned of Russia's attempts to hack U.S. election systems in early August 2016, and as intelligence mounted over the following months, the White House deployed secrecy protocols it hadn't used since the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, according to a report by The Washington Post. Apparently, one of the covert programs Obama, the CIA, NSA and other intelligence groups eventually put together was a new kind of cyber operation that places remotely triggered "implants" in critical Russian networks, ready for the U.S. to deploy in the event of a pre-emptive attack. The downed Russian networks "would cause them pain and discomfort," a former U.S. official told The Post. The report says CIA director John Brennan, Obama and other officials had at least four "blunt" conversations with Russian officials about its cyber intrusions beginning August 4th. Obama confronted Vladimir Putin in person during a meeting of world leaders in China this past September, the report says, and his administration even sent Russia a warning through a secure channel originally designed to help the two countries avoid a nuclear strike. Moscow apparently responded one week later -- after the U.S. election -- denying the accusation.
Sabotage (Score:1, Informative)
Seems like Obama tried to start an incident with Russia. Naturally, the Russians aren't too fond of Democrats, so it's entirely possible that this spurred them on to try to ensure Trump won. Seems like Obama may be responsible for the Russians meddling in the election. Obama appears to have sabotaged the Democrats' chances of winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's action was a response to Russian meddling you dumb fuck.Too stupid to read or just one of those disinformants on Putin's or Trump's payroll?
"No serious person thinks..." (Score:1)
our elections could be hacked which is what he said. Was he lying?
Re:"No serious person thinks..." (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the same Obama who gave a painstakingly detailed explanation to Trump on why the elections could not be hacked - from it being the states that run elections to a lot of machines not being on the internet... Yet after the election, all Dems can do is weep 'Russia, Russia, Russia'
Re: (Score:1)
It's not hard to understand. Balloting machines were not hacked, and the actual vote registering and tallying process is different for each state, so there'd need to be 50+ different techniques, not one, to change actual votes. Russia is smarter and apparently can think in layers you can't grasp and instead took it upon themselves to target politicians they didn't like, as well as misinformation campaigns - to include astrotrufing - in support of their preferred candidate.
Did they "hack" the election; of
Re: (Score:2)
apparently can think in layers you can't grasp
Translation: I can't refute you on the point you made, so I'll pull something right out my ass and prove you wrong that way
The politician they supposedly didn't like was Hilary Clinton, not Russ Feingold or Evan Bayh or any other Dem candidate. And to topple her, they'd have had to rig the results in multiple battleground states - FL, OH, NC, IA, WI, MI and PA. So the Russians would have had to rig at least 6 of them for their supposed stooge.
Did they hack the election? That's the sob story that we
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't hack the election in technical terms by hacking voting machines or some such. They hacked the minds of the american people by digging for and releasing dirt on Hillary Clinton. A completely overblown email server affair that pales in comparison to the mountain of lies, conflicts of interest, shenangians and just sheer incompetency of Donald Trump, but what can I say.
A large portion of the American public are stupid, unfortunately. And conservative media giants like Fox News and their commentator
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fake News (Score:1, Informative)
Why should I believe any of this crap?
Obama had shown himself to be a lying weasel.
Trump isn't afraid to tell the truth.
The real story is... (Score:4, Interesting)
...if Russia hacked the election and they knew about it more than 6 months prior...
WHY DID THEY NOT TELL THE PUBLIC?
Think about that. If it was such a threat to our elections, why wouldn't you let us know? If this was Trump, the media would be ripping their hearts out and slapping them on the table while screaming "COLLUSION!" for not telling us.
Re:The real story is... (Score:5, Informative)
The report is that Obama would not go public unless Republican Senators would back him up, but they refused, warning him that they would attack him for playing politics with foreign affairs.
Either the evidence didn't convince them, or they didn't care about the attacks. You can decide for yourself which it is.
DNC rigs elections, not Russia (Score:1)
So Obama did nothing and its the Republican's fault?
Nice... Was the GOP's fault that the DNC did questionable fund-raising taking money from down ticket candidates to give it to Hillary?
Did the GOP force the WaPo and NYT to run stories by Hillary's campaign manager before printing them?
Did the GOP tell Boston Herald what days to run anti-Sanders stories so Hillary had a better chance of winning a primary?
Did the GOP feed Hillary debate questions before the debate?
We have ACTUAL evidence of election fraud,
Re: (Score:2)
There arent many things significantly worse than Republicans, but fuck... Democrats are
Re: (Score:2)
Obama did respond to the attacks, he just didn't do it publicly. Whether he should have gone public without Republican backing, I don't know. But he didn't turn his back on his own country, like Mitch McConnell did.
Re: (Score:2)
And before I get a "You mean what the Dems are complaining about right now?!?", the hacking that Obama kept hidden didn't help his party.
Re: (Score:3)
...if Russia hacked the election and they knew about it more than 6 months prior...
WHY DID THEY NOT TELL THE PUBLIC?
Because telling the public would have undermined the democratic process.
When the election is very close, it's far more important for democracy that people have confidence in the accuracy of the election result than that it actually be accurate. That may seem like a bizarre thing to say, but think about it. If the election is very close, it's because the electorate does not have a clear preference. This isn't to say that individual voters don't have clear preferences, but the electorate as a whole, under t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case, there was zero probability that the election would reflect the will of the people. The will of the people was for both Trump and Clinton to be as far away from power as possible. I also completely disagree that people should have fake belief in the integrity of elections. Of course, even if Russia were behind the Podesta leaks, that doesn't actually undermine the integrity of our elections, as they were only providing transparency towards a de facto part of the government.
The Americ
Re: (Score:2)
Trump got 304 electoral votes and Clinton got 232. Not very close at all.
Your numbers are wrong; it's 304 to 227. However, that is an extremely close election. Oh, the numbers look different enough, but only because the Electoral College tends to amplify margins.
Re: (Score:1)
The answer to your question is laughably simple.
At the time they expected Hillary Clinton to cruise to a landslide victory over the Cheeto Jesus. People have such short memories, and forget that every poll -- and these highly regarded polls have such high reputation and accuracy that nobody ever doubted them -- were forecasting a huge Clinton victory for months. I don't recall a single poll that did not have Clinton on top in the last 3-4 months.
So, you see, there could not be, ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that it
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't have to go public with everything they know, say, or do.
I am all for transparency, but honestly the government has a job to do. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out.
I have a very firm belief that when someone becomes President, they learn a whole lot of things that they didn't know before. Things that they cannot divulge. That changes them. They may have promised XYZ during the campaign process, but as soon as they get into office I am sure they learn so much that they realize they ha
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize that the election was over more than 6 months ago, right? It's quite odd to say they were trying not to "interfere" with an election that was already over...
WTF are you talking about? Did you not read the summary? It was in August, the election had 3 more months to go.
How the hell did you get modded up, at least twice for being informative when you didn't even accurately repeat the contents of the freakin summary?
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring the GP post, which talks about not telling us about this sooner, you know, during the six months or so they've been telling us stories about Russian hacking post-election. Saying that they couldn't tell us before the election says nothing about why they couldn't tell us until just now, or why they had to leak this anonymously.
But even if I go with your moving the goal posts to only pre-election activities, despite that never being the original topic at all, why did Obama assure us that the
Re: (Score:2)
None of that explains why they waited until Trump had been in for 6 months to tell us. None of that explains why they waited until Trump called them out on Twitter to make something up to explain this. None of that explains why anonymous sources always magically tell you whatever you want to hear.
"Damage to our democracy"? Really? So they think that telling us that we're being hacked is more damage than, allegedly, electing a Russian Manchurian candidate? They're sure not worried about that now, nor ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
How many fucking Russian trolls are working this site?! 24 troll posts from anons before anyone gets a word in edgewise has to be a new record.
Putting two comments together... (Score:3)
Wait, so are you implying that it's the Russians who hate systemd?
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, so are you implying that it's the Russians who hate systemd?
No, it's way more diabolical than that, the Russians wrote systemd ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so are you implying that it's the Russians who hate systemd?
And everyone else. Everyone knows Redhat is a corporation and shouldn't have free speech. Debian had an election, but the Germans rigged it. Now we're stuck with an orange-haired init system.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think its russians.
I think its those whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they've slipped into the upside-down and fully believe the narrative the russians have been pushing. The russians didn't do it all by themselves, they just capitalized on all the groundwork previously laid by people busily making a fortune by selling conspiracy to those who prefer bias-confirming conspiracies over reality's "well-known bias."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think its russians.
I think its those whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they've slipped into the upside-down and fully believe the narrative the russians have been pushing. The russians didn't do it all by themselves, they just capitalized on all the groundwork previously laid by people busily making a fortune by selling conspiracy to those who prefer bias-confirming conspiracies over reality's "well-known bias."
Why do you pose this as though it's an either/or proposition, when you cite good reason to think it's a bit of both?
Would have given you a "+1, Interesting" even so, but I've already posted to this discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
I just don't think slashdot is relevant enough anymore to be worth the cost of sending the troll army here. 15 years ago I would have agreed, maybe even 10 years ago. But the bang-for-buck on social media has got to be sky-high now, and a has-been glorified blog just doesn't rate. Stuff posted here has a really short half-life since there is no automatic way to forward it on to anyone else, it can't "go viral." So the audience is too limited proportional to the effort expended.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. We're talking full-time trolls using software that automates most of the work. Since we can post anonymously they don't even need to maintain accounts. Total time spent posting each message is maybe a minute or two, which would mean posting 30 posts would cost, what, $10? Not much if you have a budget big enough to pay for a full team of people to do the work.
On the other side, part of the point of all of this FUD is that it needs to be everywhere you look. Social media is certainly the bes
Re: (Score:2)
What makes it really interesting is that the election was over nearly 9 months ago, and they're still at it.
(Anything about this sound familiar?)
Re: (Score:2)
In America trolls troll trolls.
In Russia it's the other way around.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, we noticed that plenty of Americans favor dictators over presidents. It's possible to vote the destruction of your democracy. You guys will prove it because you can't stand its weaknesses.
Re: (Score:1)
Just because we want a government so weak we could drown in in the bathtub does not mean we want to drown it in the bathtub.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody will do it.
Putin got implants? (Score:2)
Comey testified many of these reports are wrong (Score:1)
I don't know if this story is true or if it's fake news, but just because a newspaper prints it doesn't mean it's definitely true. In Comey's testimony under oath, he said "There have been many, many stories purportedly based on classified information about — well, about lots of stuff, but especially about Russia, that are just dead wrong."
Russian networks? (Score:1)
"The intelligence captured
Why would anyone interesting risk talking over any insecure network?
Who talks on the phone or sends interesting orders down a network the USA sold another nation? Or any network that is at risk by the GCHQ, NSA or CIA?
"Hackers with ties to
What ties? The data walked out thanks to a domestic staff member.
"To guard against leaks, subsequ
Stop falling for the Washington Post (Score:1, Insightful)
Jesus Christ. How many times does the WaPo have to put up some breathless "Anonymous sources say that Trump is secretly Putin's bitch, we got him this time guys really!" story before we stop believing this crap?
Podesta. Works. For. The. WaPo. You know, this Podesta? [wikileaks.org] Hillary's Campaign Chair?
These articles are DNC Cointelpro. The Liberal version of Fox News and Breitbart. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop giving them attention.
Re:Stop falling for the Washington Post (Score:5, Insightful)
So the same newspaper that broke Watergate, the same one that has won hundreds of Pulitzer, is somehow now become completely untrustworthy because they hired a columnists who happened to work for the DNC? Sorry but it doesn't work like that. If you really think they are lying about the facts, you need to show a systematic history of them misrepresenting reality. They have been around for over 100 years and you'd be hard pressed to find a dozen articles that are factually incorrect.
Go ahead, I dare you. Because if attacking a single contributing political columnist, is the best you've got you've only made me trust them more. If you really think they have a poor track record, try and prove it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the same paper that held a clandestine fund raiser with the DNC after their own lawyers told them not to [wikileaks.org] [1]. It's stories rely heavily on anonymous stories and undisclosed facts, and the people who own it are not the same any more.
Top Obama officials and intelligence agencies have told me that their sources are nonsense. Who are you to question them?
[1] To spare you trying to decode the HTML email:
Re:Stop falling for the Washington Post (Score:5, Insightful)
You cling to that like its a security blanket. But as was the case with so many other conspiracies built on the wikileaks DNC emails, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. The Post's lawyers didn't tell them not to give the DNC any freebie tickets, they told them not to sell them any tickets.
The DNC getting freebie tickets to yet another DC cocktail party and handing them out to VIP donors isn't proof of a "cladestine fundraiser" its proof of the kind of utterly banal schmoozing that goes on all the time. Its the DC equivalent of the swag bags that celebrities get when they go to industry parties in hollywood.
Not that explaining this will make any difference at all to you. The conspiracy confirms your bias, the pedestrian reality would set you adrift. Much more pleasant to cling to the security blanket of conspiracy, even if its made of whole-cloth.
Re: (Score:2)
The tickets weren't for the DNC, they were for DNC donors and couldn't be put on a price list because that would be a donation to the DNC.
Instead, they just do everything with a wink and a nod...
Re: (Score:2)
> They weren't on a price list because they were free.
You have a weird definition of "free." Donors paid the DNC to get "free" tickets from the WaPo. The price sheet was just showing how much you have to give the DNC before you qualify to go to the WaPo party. Nothing you wrote explains why the DNC lawyers forbade it, either...
The WaPo effectively donated however much those DNC donors paid for that level of access.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't completely untrustworthy (even the most crooked news sources tend to be reliable on a subject or two, but few are trustworthy all around), but their ownership changed, and they've shown themselves as far from being politically neutral since. They famously ran 16 anti-Sanders articles in 16 hours.
Yes, WaPo had established a great deal of credibility. That's what makes buying them so useful to a propagandist.
Re: (Score:3)
At the bottom of the WaPo story, you will find:
"There were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts."
So for all the angst and hand-wringing of the headline and opening paragraphs AND summary, we find the article itself states there IS NO EVIDENCE. But hey, it's the WaPo, so it has to be correct! But in this case, WHICH statement is correct - the attack-dog headline or the conclusion? They are diametrically opposed, so only one can be correct...
Re: (Score:1)
Or you could consider the third option: you're too dim to understand that a hostile party has other means to swing an election to one candidate other than "hacking" voting machines.
Re: (Score:2)
The same paper that is owned by a guy with a $600 million contract with the CIA, twice what the paper is worth. The paper that never, ever mentions this conflict of interest. Anyone who believes the WaPo or the Russia hysteria is dumber than a person who's lost their life savings to a Nigerian Prince. A dozen separate times.
so wapo is just plain trolling now? (Score:2)
Systematic interference (Score:1)
There is certainly enough evidence out now to conclude that the Russians made a coordinated attempt to influence the outcome of a US election. That included a massive disinformation campaign, that may have involved coordination with one or more right wing news outlets, and infiltration of at least some state, county and local voting systems. There is growing evidence that the Russians may have moved, or at least attempted to move, ground operatives into the country under temporary tech visas. There is a gro
all square? (Score:1)
It also means that instead of trying to prevent further damage by technical and organisational measures we invest in revenge. The fact that leaks for instance would not be so damaging for Clinton if she were honest and less corrupt is just another thing that is being missed.
This is OT but if main powers have not been engaged in acts of sabotage or at least espionage yet then the current authorization to do so ag
CIA implants (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it did. Whatever the outcome.
I don't think Putin's goal was the election of a specific candidate as it was to destroy confidence in the election process. He's succeeded at that.
Re: (Score:2)
But that happens every four years, at least according to a portion of the country...
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, but this time it's the part that fucking matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Horse shit! (Score:2, Insightful)
The US had two choices for President. One of those with the D in front of their name was propped up by a corrupt Democratic party, and media outlets like the biased gossip rag sourced in TFA. WaPo, as with NYT, NBC, CNN, and countless other media outlets (sorry, I refuse to call them "news" since they aren't) stated flat out that they were going to "destroy Trump". That campaign started right after he was announced as the R candidate. Now source all of the "leaks", media coverage, and talking points of
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Putin had little reason to prefer one over the other. In the case the Dems won, their policy wasn't gonna change from the last 8 years, when they had Clinton & Kerry running the foreign policy. The Russians would still get what they wanted - the US refusing to do anything about Syria, the US selling uranium to Russia, the Iran deal and so on.
With the Republicans, yeah, it's true that Trump said good things about Putin (in response to Putin praising Trump). But policy wise, Trump didn't
Re:Obviously it didn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, at least some good will come out of this. People need to know how corrupt the election process actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
The smart reaction to this would be to go back to paper ballots with standardized incremental backups for voter rolls. So of course this is precisely what isn't going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think Putin's goal was the election of a specific candidate "
Why do you think that?
Re: (Score:1)
Because he isn't engaged in a campaign to de-legitimatize the elected President??
Re:Obviously it didn't work (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it did. Whatever the outcome.
I don't think Putin's goal was the election of a specific candidate as it was to destroy confidence in the election process. He's succeeded at that.
1/ Russia is an oil and gas economy with little else as relevant. As an example, the Saudi price war on oil has hit them very hard. A climate change denier in the White House is good for their business.
2/ Putin began his move into politics railing against Bill Clinton and the US military actions in Europe that he ordered. He still brings those up from time to time. He's ranted a lot about Hillary when she was Secretary of State. It's kind of looking personal - he appears to have actively hated Hillary for decades.
3/ Instability - a President that "shakes things up" means that the US government is so distracted that Russia can get away with actions in the surrounding countries that would normally draw US attention. As an extreme example, if Putin invaded Ukraine tomorrow (he going for slow and sure so not going to happen) it's very unlikely that there would be a timely response of any kind, not even sanctions.
4/ Flattery will get you everywhere - as the Saudis showed with turning Trump against our best ally in the Middle East, Qatar, flatter the guy enough and you can play him like a flute. Putin has done that sort of thing before and recognizes someone he can manipulate in Trump.
So Trump was the guy for Putin to back even if you ignore the bank loans and everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
3/ Instability - a President that "shakes things up" means that the US government is so distracted that Russia can get away with actions in the surrounding countries that would normally draw US attention. As an extreme example, if Putin invaded Ukraine tomorrow (he going for slow and sure so not going to happen) it's very unlikely that there would be a timely response of any kind, not even sanctions.
Somewhat off-topic, but even if Trump wasn't President I doubt there would be swift action against Russia for invading a Baltic State (far more likely than the Ukraine right now). The international community doesn't seem to move swiftly about anything anymore except posturing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that, given that Obama did nothing other than impose sanctions that were actually driven by the EU, the Russians had more to gain had Hilary won. Just as Obama did nothing about Russia annexing Crimea or invading Donbass, Clinton would have done nothing had Russia gone in full force and annexed Donbass
On dbillIII's point #1 above, if having a Climate Denier is what they want, why would Russia itself be a signatory to the Paris accord? Right now, only Syria refused to sign it, while Nicaragua w
Re: Obviously it didn't work (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on now - be serious.
It's getting very easy to spot people who have Putin in their backchannel now.
The fun thing will be watching them do a sudden shift from hate of solar electricity generation to cheering because Trump made a comment about a solar wall.
That base was running the same afternoon - Trump made a "gesture", which recent events has shown has been ignored.
Far side of crazy (Score:2)
Seriously?
Then why didn't it happen when she was Secretary of State?
Get back on the meds! (Score:2)
How?
A time machine?
Re: (Score:2)
1] Defence and aerospace industry are very relevant in Russia, as well as mining and other sectors. The Saudi oil price war is on shale oil, not on Russian oil, and it is a lost war. At this point a climate change denier could be quite good for coal miners, but nothing more: we are decades away from being oil independent.
2] The Clintons had economic ties with Russians. The fact is that the reckless political positions of H Clinton (Arab Spring, eastern Europe) were
Re: (Score:2)
Put him down as uninformed about the most important US base in the Middle East then.
It's what you get when you cut the military out of your decision loop and one of your "allies" Saudi Arabia, is already undermining you, but you are lapping up their flattery and going along with them.
The consequence is an incredibly stupid action even if somehow Trump is not that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. war on Serbia was sold on lies, one of it's top generals wanted to attack Russian forces approaching an airfield, and Clinton spent much of the 90's expanding NATO right after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, a naked move of aggression.
So what you call "ranting" could more appropriately be described as "not having his head up his ass".
Re: (Score:2)
Do tell - what did she do there?
Funny how the guy Reagan had a good reason to attack is cast as a good guy now just because it's a chance to make a Democrat look bad.
This tribalism is ridiculous.
The Manning leaks showed Hillary was unfit to be President but that does not somehow make The Manchurian Candidate (with Putin in his backchannel) a win for the country.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're that ignorant of current events, why do you comment on current events?
The Reagan who had thousands of people murdered in South America with CIA-backed death squads? Reagan who sold weapons to Iran to support those death squads? Why would you bring up Reagan wanting to attack someone as evidence of anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely! Qatar, like Pakistan, is notorious for playing double games. They have in their country citizens who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah et al, and who fund those organizations as well. During the Bush years, there was an occasion when they could have hunted down Osama, except that a member of the al Thani royal family was w/ him, and would have gotten killed as collateral damage. Bush was a cretin to have made Qatar the Centcom headquarters in the region: he should have
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it did. Whatever the outcome.
I don't think Putin's goal was the election of a specific candidate as it was to destroy confidence in the election process. He's succeeded at that.
Well if he did it was a Pyrrhic victory. I don't think this will end up achieving anything other than making people in the US and Europe more defiant and hostile towards Russia. For one thing, If the US public has any kind of sense, it will punish the Republicans in 2018/2020 if they are shown to drag their feet on reacting to this attack on US democracy. Having said that, I expect that finding out (too late as usual) how repealing Obamacare and replacing it with Trumpcare affects them and their sick and ag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reason the Democrats are blaming Putin is to destroy confidence in the election process.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
From the cited article, buried farther down, below the breathless Obama worship: "There were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts."
Also, Obama CIA Director Brennan, cited in the story as the person who reported the information to Obama is quoted under oath as stating in regards to potential Trump involvement there is "No evidence of collusion to interfere in the U.S. presi
Re: (Score:3)
YOU THERE!
Yes, YOU!
Stop with your use of facts and halt your reading of the actual article. This is Slashdot, we have no use for logic and reason and truth when there could be a good Trump-bash going on!
Re: (Score:2)
And ultimately, the telling point was what did Obama do? "He went to some sort of summit and told Putin to stop it!"
Wow, Obama really give Putin the full bore of American might.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of new staff drive out all over the USA and apply for election work?
The FBI would have noticed all the new people of interest.
Strangers counting votes next to existing workers and observers?
In the USA AC votes still get added up with some oversight before they get presented all over the USA.
Hacking an election from outside the USA is not going to work AC.
Re: (Score:2)
(she won the popular vote, so most people agree she deserves it)
As much as I detest Trump this shows a clear lack of understanding of how are government works. We are a union of States, not a people's republic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
See, you're not failing at this because the overblown sarcasm is missed on us. It's not the outrageous opinions that give it away either. The real reason it's obvious to all the regulars that you're a paid Russian shill is that backwoods rednecks with these types of outrageously overblown misunderstandings about reality DON'T HANG OUT ON SLASHDOT you pathetic barbarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well she certainly represents a segment of the large US population.
Or largely represents a segment of the US population.
Or a segment of the US population at large.