Re: Sand, Ass, no dif
 

Significantly better - actually deals with some of the evidence. Some of.

For example, part of the rationale for identifying Cozy Bear as Russian is based on the full scope of the 1800 identified hacks in 2015: if you look at those 1800 parties, you find a whole lot of folks who are military personnel (especially NATO) or defense contractors or journalists who have particular interests in Russia or the Ukraine and who generally are not alligned with the Russian state itself. You may want to look at some of what Matt Tait, for example, has written (yes, including his tweeted analysis) for what some of the deeply immersed infosec people think on this stuff.

That's just one point he's ignoring. There are others.

On the other hand, he says some absolutely redickulous stuff in there. Like saying it's unusual to get information on hacks from private security firms hired by the hacked parties. WTF? There is a whole fucking industry that is focused on this. And it's a big industry. Huh?

Also, remember, there are a lot of people who have seen more of the evidence we're not seeing (and, yes, I'm completely on board with more of this data becoming public, preferably in the context of hearings and testimony where some intelligent people can drill down on them), including Graham and McCain. Likewise, while it looks like the FBI relied heavily on Crowdstrike for info, it also looks like they saw a ton more Crowdstrike data than we've seen.

But I'm glad you've found some non-Breitbart hacks to get your "news" from.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

That's not actually true, since his people also exposed faux email as if they were true. But that's a quibble, and there's no point in quibbling over the facts with you because they're irrelevant. What you're doing is trolling. "Sure, Russia did some hacking and influenced the election, but it's Hillary's fault that she lost because she was a crappy candidate." The rest of us live in a world where things can have more than one cause. Maybe Hillary lost because she did things wrong AND because the media did a shitty job AND because James Comey is an ass AND because Russia was doing what it could to get a friend elected. The margin was super-close -- all of these things could have been material, and probably were.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This is total horseshit. Show me the single worst WaPo news article which could not be distinguished from its opinion pages. Just one.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I would like to win the lottery, and I might buy a ticket, but that doesn't mean I can take the money. I don't think you responded to my post yesterday: the DNC was full of establishment Hillary fans, but that doesn't mean that it made a difference. Do you think it made a difference? How?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Read the part about how Bernie was given every opportunity, including quite a few more primary debates than normal.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Perhaps most relevant, there are other elections going on in the world where pretty much the same type of hacking appears to be happening. Maybe it is a good idea to discourage that?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

I blame 538 more than anything because the 3rd party voters felt safe. Hil had it anyway, so they were safe.

But then someone (maybe Less whom I met in November, being in SF as someone from Michigan, man we got called out (not by less) and had to talk about what happened) said there is no showing that 3rd party voters would break more for Hil than Trump. That strikes me as crazy talk.

Question- can you say who you would have voted for between the two?

Question- have you been out of state since the election, in a blue state? You get questioned?

edit- and I'm not dogging on you. seriously interested

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Wow. As a former civil servant, I can say that this is awful.

eta: Just to expand on that, it's not just a problem that Congress can decide to essentially fire civil servants for doing their jobs. The political appointees in the executive branch can't really protect them. Suppose that you are a staff lawyer at DOJ, and you bring a case that your bosses in DOJ, including the political appointees, want you to bring. A Congressman doesn't like it, and persuades his colleagues to reduce your compensation to $1. What can the AG and the other political appointees do? As a practical matter, nothing. This gives Congress way too much control over what the Administration does.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Seems akin to a bill of attainder.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Given up?

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Fair point.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

https://cdn-business2.discourse.org/...c285d3e45f.gif

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Congress has the power of the purse. If it wants to stop paying for something going forward, it can.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Timing.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...ce=CSAMedition

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Sure, but "no funds for climate research" seems different than "no salary for Ty (because he did climate research)." Perhaps not in a constitutionally meaningful way, though (quick google did not show any litigation over the Holman Rule).