Ukraine Takes Down Massive Bot Farm, Seizes 150,000 SIM Cards (bleepingcomputer.com) 128
The Cyber Police Department of the National Police of Ukraine dismantled another massive bot farm, seizing computer equipment, mobile phones, and roughly 150,000 SIM cards of multiple mobile operators. BleepingComputer reports: The bots were used to push Russian propaganda justifying Russia's war in Ukraine, to disseminate illegal content and personal information, and in various other fraudulent activities. In a joint operation, the cyber police and units of the Ukrainian National Police executed 21 search operations in Vinnytsia, Zaporizhzhia, and Lvivand.
"The cyber police established that the attackers used special equipment and software to register thousands of bot accounts in various social networks and subsequently launch advertisements that violated the norms and legislation of Ukraine," a cyber police press release reads [machine translation]. "In addition to spreading hostile propaganda, the accounts were also used for unauthorized distribution of personal data of Ukrainian citizens on the Internet, in Internet fraud schemes, and for sending known false messages about threats to citizens' safety, destruction or damage to property." Cyber police in Ukraine have busted several pro-Russian bot farms in the last year, including one last month called "Botoferma" and another one late last year that was working for the Russian secret services. Ukraine also traced a Russian propaganda operation to a bot farm that was secretly operating in the country's own capital of Kyiv last August. "The farm operated more than 1 million bot accounts, which helped the propaganda operation build an audience of over 400,000 users on social media," reports PCMag.
"The cyber police established that the attackers used special equipment and software to register thousands of bot accounts in various social networks and subsequently launch advertisements that violated the norms and legislation of Ukraine," a cyber police press release reads [machine translation]. "In addition to spreading hostile propaganda, the accounts were also used for unauthorized distribution of personal data of Ukrainian citizens on the Internet, in Internet fraud schemes, and for sending known false messages about threats to citizens' safety, destruction or damage to property." Cyber police in Ukraine have busted several pro-Russian bot farms in the last year, including one last month called "Botoferma" and another one late last year that was working for the Russian secret services. Ukraine also traced a Russian propaganda operation to a bot farm that was secretly operating in the country's own capital of Kyiv last August. "The farm operated more than 1 million bot accounts, which helped the propaganda operation build an audience of over 400,000 users on social media," reports PCMag.
Cyber Police! (Score:2, Funny)
Watch out for the Cyber Police! They're coming to get you!
Re:Cyber Police! (Score:4, Funny)
Consequences will never be the same. You dun goofed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very sad story. Poor Jessi never had a chance with parents like that.
Fairly clever I guess. (Score:2, Informative)
Creating your bot farms inside the country you want to damage. Makes it easy to get inside the borders and then gives some sort of twisted cred about "Those bot farms weren't ours! Look at where they were! Must've been run by the other side!"
It's probably a shame that the proprietors won't shot on sight. Pity.
Re: Fairly clever I guess. (Score:3)
Re: Fairly clever I guess. (Score:2)
Or perhaps the Ukrainian government took steps to crush internal opposition and painted this action as somehow good. The fact that this possibility doesn't appear to have even registered in the slashdot mindset is terrifying. The fact is you don't know.
Re:Fairly clever I guess. (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. Those were the only useless possibilities you could think up? How about space monkeys?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Fairly clever I guess. (Score:3)
" Both sides suck and we don't belong in someone else's Asian land war. This is your Cold War warriors getting their last shot at the Russians"
That was a pro Russian troll, directly copied from RT, Russian state media. And you want people to believe that you're not pro-Russia? You're going to have to do a lot better than this shit.
Re: Fairly clever I guess. (Score:1)
If you "don't even know what RT is" you can't possibly be qualified to say many of the things you're saying, it's a bit like not being able to find the Black Sea on a map.
Re: (Score:3)
You're acting like an informed person on this and you dont even know what RT is? Russia Today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], it's Russia's main government run news network that has aired in many countries around the world including our own. It's basically Russia's main mouthpiece for its propaganda in its own country and around the world and kind of a hard name to have missed if you've been following the war.
Furthermore, I'll take the combined wisdom of every single NATO country's military leadership o
Re: (Score:2)
And because I don't read RT all those facts are dismissed?
Argument so good you have to put lies in my mouth to support it. I dismissed your points because of your ignorance of basic entities associated with this war that are referenced in countless news stories about the conflict, not because you dont read a news network.
Ukraine has already made plenty of strong advances against Russia so far and Russia's military has shown itself at every turn to be mostly incompetent and corrupt. You can pretend it's some far fetched fantasy that a well run military backed by th
Re: (Score:2)
> ... countless villages and towns turned to rubble.
Over the years, it's been sad and awful listening to more and more people push for ever more death and destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we just let Putin murder all those innocent people quickly so we can go back to thinking about something else?
Where are you from? What if you got everyone in your city to suicide? Maybe that would appease Putin? It's worth a shot. You're much more worthless than the Ukrainians currently dying.
Why are you being so violent, promoting murder of innocent people and disrespecting Ukrainians.
Re: (Score:2)
It's slashdot not my phd thesis.
Oh no, I think this is exactly what your PhD thesis would look like if you ever attempted one.
Interesting (Score:2)
One of the first things the Russian army did was to destroy cell towers.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the first things the Russian army did was to destroy cell towers.
Yup. And as a result, the Russian military couldn't communicate because their encrypted communication system relied on, wait for it, cell towers [inews.co.uk].
As a direct result, Ukraine has been able to eavesdrop on the highest levels of communication within the Russian military and use it to take out approximately a dozen generals [businessinsider.com] and multiple dozen other high ranking officers.
Maybe we should stop and think this through. (Score:2)
I'll admit, when I first read this summary, my first thought was "Oh, OK, good for Ukraine". After all, I support Ukraine in this conflict, and I have no doubt whatsoever that Putin is a sociopathic tyrant.
Then I realized: Wait a minute. A state-run agency just arrested a bunch of guys for "spreading disinformation".
Disinformation is bad. But a police force that "fights disinformation" by arresting those who spread it is far, far worse... and it doesn't matter one bit who is running that police force, or
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly nothing to do with "disinformation"
"to disseminate illegal content and personal information, and in various other fraudulent activities."
Fraud is disinformation. Should that be allowed too? Should we stop fighting fraud, and just let people "defend themselves" against it?
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly nothing to do with "disinformation"
"to disseminate illegal content and personal information, and in various other fraudulent activities."
Fraud is disinformation. Should that be allowed too? Should we stop fighting fraud, and just let people "defend themselves" against it?
"Fraud" is a specific legal term for "intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or deprive a victim of a legal right". Fraud is indeed misinformation, but most misinformation is not fraud. If I publish (for example) an article stating that Putin is a national hero and that Zelensky is a robot being controlled by Nazis from outer space, this is of course misinformation, but it is not "fraud" in the legal sense.
The United States already has an existing body of law which defines different type
Re: (Score:2)
Because encouraging people to walk into an active, mined warzone by sending them messages telling them it's a safe area they need to evacuate to is less "wrong" than copying a credit card number off the internet?
Yes, we don't know. But disinformation in a war isn't just propaganda. Especially with someone like Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Arresting people for spreading misinformation during wartime is not an unusual step for a Democracy to take. Here in the US we've done that plenty of times during major wars. It's not my favorite thing but just as martial law is sometimes necessary in desperate times so is stopping the spread of misinformation.
Now if they were to keep doing this after the war is over, that would be a problem. These people are currently fighting for their survival though and they dont need misinformation directly from their
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, certain presidents have done this during wartime efforts (eg WW1 and WW2) but they have been unceremoniously been smacked down as this is against the principles of free speech. Hence why the US eventually got protested out of Vietnam and left it to the predations of some of the worst dictators in history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is a line between personal freedom of speech and acting as a foreign agent. Operating a bot farm to run what are essentially psyops for a foreign power you are at war with crosses that line. A operation that most likely was funded and directed by said foreign government.
Essentially what you are saying is this: if a hostile foreign power paid you to say it, and/or directed the content of what you are saying, then it's illegal speech and it's OK to use the force of law to shut it down.
Does this mean that if Putin's foreign minister publishes an editorial defending his views in an American newspaper, the newspaper is guilty of publishing "illegal content" and the police should descend on their editorial offices?
Or does it only become illegal content if the foreign minister pr
Re: Maybe we should stop and think this through. (Score:3)
Quite frankly the fact you either donâ(TM)t understand this or are pretending not to makes me question your sincerity here.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly the fact you either donâ(TM)t understand this or are pretending not to makes me question your sincerity here.
Nope, I'm quite sincere. I deliberately asked a series of difficult questions about how a "anti-propaganda" law might function, based on a series of specific scenarios (both real and hypothetical). It turns out that many of the questions I asked have been debated by the legal profession as well-- the answers to these questions are not obvious.
So instead of asking these questions on slashdot, I decided to look up the answers. The main piece of law that seems to apply here is the Foreign Agents Registratio
Re: (Score:1)
Disinformation is bad. But a police force that "fights disinformation" by arresting those who spread it is far, far worse... and it doesn't matter one bit who is running that police force, or how noble their intentions may be.
Literally every government will do this, and they should. Spreading disinformation is illegal even in peacetime and even in countries which value free speech, because it harms people. In wartime, it is always directly actionable.
Given a choice between these two evils, I'll pick the lesser of the two.
What we're talking about are people being paid to spread propaganda of an aggressor. They are either foreign operatives, or traitors. Either way, you're here for them. Tell us again about how you oppose Putin. Also tell us how much Russia is paying you.
Re: (Score:2)
They are either foreign operatives, or traitors. Either way, you're here for them. Tell us again about how you oppose Putin. Also tell us how much Russia is paying you.
Dude, I've been posting on Slashdot for 20 years now. If you view my posting history you will conclude that I am either 1) exactly who I claim to be, or 2) some kind of next-level sleeper agent who has been in deep cover for two decades.
And if it's the latter, well, how did Walter White put it? "It might be best to tread... lightly..."
This post tests for Russian bots here on Slashdot (Score:2)
Remember when I told you guys this was happening then was modded down to negative 1billion, over and over again?
Re:Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:5, Informative)
Conservative here...
I applaud Ukraine's resourcefulness, and their ability to take down this bot farm. I wish them ultimate success in their war.
Oh, and those "conservatives" you mention who are seeing conspiracies everywhere? They aren't actually conservatives. There's a difference between a Trump follower and a conservative. The former follows a person, the latter follows principle. It's not possible to do both.
Re: Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:4, Insightful)
I like you and applaud you for highlighting the difference. I'm more liberal now but was raised in a conservative family. What seems "neo" conservative views in the era of Trump is a farce and I'm sure many traditional conservatives are disgusted by the division it has created within the party and ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when the election comes around, most conservatives will vote for Trump anyway. It's basically a binary choice and most conservatives will vote for whoever the Republicans select, regardless of who they are.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trump follower here...
I too applaud Ukraine's resourcefulness, and wish to remind you, that while Trump was in office, Putin kept quiet. Because Trump:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You missed "Tried to extort Ukraine to get political favors" and "Admires Putin"
Re:Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. The prosecutor was fired because he wasn't prosecuting and the U.S. was pissed about that. So Biden was dispatched to see if he could get Ukraine to fire the corrupt prosecutor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We do not know why. We do know, Biden insisted on his being fired as a condition for Ukraine getting American aid [realclearpolitics.com].
Ah, but he was! He was prosecuting the natural gas company, which was paying Hunter tens of thousands of dollars per month — despite the guy having no knowledge of Ukrainian (nor Russian) language, and neither legal nor gas-extraction background.
They also laid him off as soon as his daddy lost his position of influence.
Now, maybe
Re: (Score:2)
You haven’t followed the news in the last few months I see. At least one Burisma exec has come forward and said he paid for those ‘favors’. There are now e-mails that detail that the Biden crime family got paid well by Burisma for getting the prosecutor fired.
Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky paid them millions of dollars in exchange for their help in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired.
Burisma said they "hired Hunter Biden ‘to protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems.’"
You haven't actually been reading the news in the last few months I see.
Someone (supposedly credible) made allegations to the FBI that they knew about this second hand, and the FBI (still headed by a Trump appointee) investigated and didn't see reason to proceed further.
You can't just wave your hand and turn unproven allegations into fact.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that these ‘allegations’ only recently surfaced after whistleblowers said they existed, I’m not sure that during the Trump presidency these things were even known yet. We do know that during the Trump presidency, agents of the FBI actively worked against their boss in collaboration with the DNC.
Just because someone is a Trump appointee doesn’t mean anything, appointing someone to an office requires a bipartisan consensus, according to most people on Slashdot, Trump was really b
Re: (Score:2)
Given that these ‘allegations’ only recently surfaced after whistleblowers said they existed, I’m not sure that during the Trump presidency these things were even known yet.
The FBI knew about them.
We do know that during the Trump presidency, agents of the FBI actively worked against their boss in collaboration with the DNC.
I'm not actually sure we do know that.
Just because someone is a Trump appointee doesn’t mean anything,
I can just imagine the screams of conspiracy if the FBI director had been appointed by Biden.
appointing someone to an office requires a bipartisan consensus, according to most people on Slashdot, Trump was really bad at his job and everyone in his circle was incompetent okay, let’s go with that, he appointed an incompetent company man, that’s been proven thus far.
Uhh, not quite.
For the most part his political appointees were incompetent political hacks.
For "important" positions, like the military and justice department, even the GOP Senate insisted on someone competent.
For the main job of Attorney General killing the Russian investigation was important enough to Trump that they let him appoint a competent AG who w
Re: (Score:1)
We got to know about it during election season, at which point the deep state minions at the FBI instructed the media that the Hunter laptop story was a fake, which we now know it wasn’t. Remember, a group of high ranking officials signed onto a letter that it was bearing all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
The Trump DOJ didn’t want to give the impression they were going after a political opponent during an election. However, we are now 3 years further, when Biden’s DOJ took over t
Re: (Score:3)
Best they can do is charge him with owning a gun while doing coke. Why aren't republicans standing up for his second amendment right being infringed? Nothing in the constitution says you can't snort cocaine and own a gun.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
No such "extortion" took place. Criminal prosecution of an actual bribe-taker — who actually extorted Ukraine — is not extortion [princeton.edu], it is doing the job. President, you surely remember, is the nation's top law-enforcer.
He does consider Putin smarter than Biden, and I certainly agree with that. That's no admiration, though...
But good to see, you had nothing — zilch — on the items I did list.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you might need to google the name "Paul Manafort", son.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't "find nothing". The found nothing that could be prosecuted. They did find the former alleged president was Putin's bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for confirming, that — after lying for years [bostonherald.com], that "non-circumstantial" evidence exists — they found nothing.
Bitch, please... The unimpeachable facts I listed earlier prove the exact opposite...
Re: (Score:1)
Well that's certainly what your echo chamber tells you, and fascists are all about repeating the same lies over and over. Repetition, repetition, repetition.
Doesn't work on me though. I have a brain.
Re: (Score:1)
Aww does the fash not like being called fash? Who could imagine such a thing? However I don't give a fuck if you don't like it. If you support tRump you are a nazi pig just like he is. The guy not only acts like them, he invites them over for dinner. "Guess who's coming to dinner?" Fucking nazi's apparently. Fuck you and all your bullshit.
Re:Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:4, Informative)
Admire Putin is putting it mildly. When Putin first invaded, we have the following report:
From https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, one could argue that thinking that someone's actions or plans might be effective or "savvy" does not necessarily man that you think that they are in the broader sense "good".
Now, if I was in this type of situation, I think I would probably go out of my way to clearly state how much I did NOT support whatever bad stuff was going on, even if I thought those bad things might be very effective in obtaining the goals of the bad actor.
I have seen no indication that Donald has ever had any of this leve
read the FBIs 1023 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you must have linked the wrong document as that one has nothing to do with the call where Trump tried to extort the Ukrainian president.
And I'm going to cut the argument that "trump was just trying to stop corruption" off right at the bud as Trump was one of the most corrupt presidents in history (even hiring his family and taking huge amounts of money in through his businesses) and had no interest in corruption except in one case regarding his political rival. When it's that blatantly targeted it'
Re: (Score:1)
Please tell me you sent him money.
Re: (Score:2)
So you sent money to someone with much greater wealth than yourself.
Martha get out the checkbook, Trump needs our help!
Re: (Score:1)
According to Burisma, it costs only $5M for one Biden and $5M for the other one.
Re:Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe I'd take you more seriously if you apparently knew the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. Still, could just be a typo. The insistence about European countries (specifically, ones in NATO) spending more on their militaries is a persistent US goal. Obama was doing it well before Trump was. It's just a very basic policy goal. Nothing any President should self-congratulate or demand accolades over. Trying to get European countries to diversity their energy sources to reduce dependence of Russia is also something Obama was doing well before Trump. Once again, it's a general foreign policy goal that has been the sitting President's responsibility to push for a while now. Trump just tries to make it sound like anything he does is his own brilliant idea and he's heroically going beyond the pale when all he's doing are the very basics of his job.
As for providing Ukraine with real weapons, let's be clear here: Trump approved SELLING Ukraine Javelins. He didn't do it out of some sense of righteousness either. He did it because he thought the US should be selling weapons to everyone with no care whatsoever given to the situation or how the country would use them. He saw one of the roles of President of the US as chief arms salesman. So it's no surprise that he went ahead with arms sales to Ukraine. He would have been happy to sell to both Russia and Ukraine in the same war. He just didn't get geopolitics and didn't care. It was all transactional to him. Of course, the goal of selling US weapons could be overridden by his personal goals, as when he held up arms to Ukraine specifically to extort private favors for his campaign from the Ukrainians.
So, while I do think that the US and the various countries of Europe who already had made security guarantees to Ukraine should have stomped all over Russia on Ukraine's behalf back on 2014. Donald Trump is hardly some savior of Ukraine, and he was clearly viewed as a buffoon and easily manipulated by Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
he was clearly viewed as a buffoon
I can confirm that most of Europe considers him as a buffoon, and has been doing so for quite a while. When he was elected everyone froze because he became a buffoon with a hell of a lot more influence and power than before. Now that he's not anymore, he's gone back the the regular buffoon state.
He's done so much harm to the US population during his presidency, it's actually hard to see why people would actually keep supporting him. I know it's cognitive dissonance and all that, but it's fascinating to see
Re: (Score:2)
he was clearly viewed as a buffoon
I can confirm that most of Europe considers him as a buffoon, and has been doing so for quite a while. When he was elected everyone froze because he became a buffoon with a hell of a lot more influence and power than before. Now that he's not anymore, he's gone back the the regular buffoon state.
He's done so much harm to the US population during his presidency, it's actually hard to see why people would actually keep supporting him. I know it's cognitive dissonance and all that, but it's fascinating to see it in action in such a scale.
There was a meeting in Europe between leaders (a G8 or G20 I believe) where Trump ended up flying home half way through because no-one at that level could take him seriously... In fact the only 1 on 1 chat he had with another world leader was with Vladimir Putin. We still have no idea what they discussed, but we can make some guesses. Trump could never manage to see anyone as equals, they were either subservient (like his staff or his children and wives) or his superiors (like his father or Putin)
It was
Re:Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin didn't invade while Trump was in office because Trump was giving him everything he wanted - chaos with NATO, a weakened US democracy, undermining Zelensky. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?
If Trump had been re-elected, he would have pulled the US out of NATO, Putin would have waltzed into Ukraine with Trump's full-throated support, and you would be on here talking about how that was a good thing.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-m... [msnbc.com]
https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
Re: (Score:1)
This is also why tRump is trying sooooo hard to get back in power. He needs to save his pimp daddy.
I mean, he sounds serious: https://truthsocial.com/@Ameri... [truthsocial.com]
How the fuck this taliwag terrorist is still walking free boggles the mind. Second time the charm?
Re: (Score:1)
Putin didn't invade while Trump was in office because Trump was giving him everything he wanted - chaos with NATO, a weakened US democracy, undermining Zelensky. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?
If Trump had been re-elected, he would have pulled the US out of NATO, Putin would have waltzed into Ukraine with Trump's full-throated support, and you would be on here talking about how that was a good thing.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com] https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com] https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-m... [msnbc.com] https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
That line of reasoning would only make sense if Putin believed Trump would rule forever. Otherwise, if Trump was as Russia-friendly as you believe, it'd make sense to make the grab NOW, and having his supposedly anti-Russian successor be faced with fait accompli of an annexed Ukraine with dust long settled.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading that one of the reasons Putin didn't invade during Trump's term was that Trump was viewed as insufficiently stable.
As in Putin couldn't nail down whether he'd be welcomed by Trump in his invasion, whether economic sanctions would be used, all the way up to a US counter-invasion and/or nuclear war.
Basically, Trump was the dynamite monkey from the memes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I tried, but I really can't understand what on Earth you're trying to to say here.
Re: (Score:1)
According to Alexander Vindman (the U.S. Army person the former alleged president had fired because he was exposing the truth), the reason Putin kept from showing he's really Beelzebub on wheels is because the former alleged president was doing Putin's work from inside the West. Appeasement, in the form of doing your enemy's work for him, works for awhile...until it doesn't.
Re:Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And Trump has no principles. I was amazed that so many conservatives voted for him. I can certainly understand voting for a vague unknown and assuming he's only pretending to be dumb versus voting for Hillary, especially by those not really paying attention. But after it was clear that Trump was incompetent and smooching up to dictators and doing the same actions that he accused his opponents of doing, I don't understand why they continued to back him. It's like the voter's principles were also weak exc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trump does have principles.
1. Loyalty to Donald Trump. You are loyal to him, or else you are out.
2. Truth doesn't matter. Say whatever you want, even the opposite of what you just said, it's OK, as long as you are loyal.
3. See Principle #1.
I believe conservatives made a deal with the devil, so to speak. They heard a man who voiced their frustrations, and followed him. My own family is full of Trump followers. When I point out the hypocrisy of Trump, they say "But Supreme Court." Funny, how Trump's Court did
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:2)
Generation x just gave up. We don't have the stomach for armed rebellion, and that's what it will take to save any or all of the things we care about. The only ones with the guts for it are the MAGAts, and they are only willing to burn everything down in the name of saving the things they care about (like white supremacy.)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, you sound like a right wing militia nut. Our country doesnt need another civil war thankyou very much. We've tried that already and it didnt resolve a damn thing outside of slavery as the North / South divide still very much exists today.
What we actually need is a resumption of civil, democratic discourse and talk of the necessity of armed rebellion is pretty much the opposite of that. It doesnt help when the right does it and it doesnt help when the left does it. Neither are in accordance with Democ
Re: (Score:2)
oops, little "d" on democratic.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, you sound like a right wing militia nut. Our country doesnt need another civil war thankyou very much.
Right. We don't need that. We need to reject this unsustainable brand of capitalism and can only do that as a unit, which is why it's not going to happen and the world will continue to go to shit.
Re:Cue conservatives screaming... (Score:4, Interesting)
Once the Electors cast their votes, as per the constitution, no other votes matter.
This. As an aside, I do have to thank Trump for making clear the enormous value of this particular facet of the US constitution. I had always considered the EC kind of a relic, a solution to 18th century travel and communications problems that no longer exist, and a misguided approach to trying to lend more weight to small states (it's actually more likely to do the opposite).
But the procedural and rhetorical part of Trump's failed coup made clear that the EC has one huge, overriding benefit: It means that states have no legal standing to try to interfere in the electoral processes of other states, because those electoral processes (at least for president and VP) are constitutionally irrelevant.
If a state has a corrupt electoral process, that's between the voters in that state and their representatives in the state legislature. State and federal courts may weigh in to adjudicate matters such as whether the process as carried out complied with state and federal law (e.g. civil rights law), and to ensure that processes are not unduly modified midstream, but mostly it's between voters and their representatives.
But Texas has absolutely no say about how Wisconsin conducts its elections, or vice versa.
Moreover, the EC system means -- as you said -- that the vote that matters is the EC vote. This means that the actual outcome of the presidential election is utterly clear. It's a small number of votes to be counted, and they're cast in public, not anonymously. Every vote is identifiable, countable and recountable by anyone who cares to look. You cannot get any more transparent than that.
Taken together, these points mean that who won the presidential election can never be in doubt. There can be legitimate debate about whether a given state correctly allocated its electoral college votes per state and federal law, but once the votes are allocated, rightly or wrongly, that's that. Maybe Al Gore got cheated by the Supreme Court in Florida, but George W. Bush was elected president. And maybe there were shenanigans in 2020 (though the GOP spent a lot of money and effort successfully proving the election was secure), but Joe Biden got the EC votes and is therefore president.
The value of this clarity cannot be overstated. Trump made me a fan of the EC.
Re: (Score:2)
And Trump has no principles. I was amazed that so many conservatives voted for him.
I'm not. The ends justify the means is popular with them.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I am not amazed so many conservatives voted for him. They lost their principles years ago and have turned into White or Christian Nationalists. The rot started under Reagan who decided he could campaign against the Fed. Gov. in a cynical ploy to get elected. So instead of pointing out the gov. is devoted to helping Americans, he convinced conservatives it was out to get them. The rot continued under Bush One with his racist Willie Horton ads.
The torch was carried further by Newt Gingrich who is still out th
Re: (Score:2)
Ponder this possibly apocryphal anecdote if you don't understand why conservatives have chosen Trump, who is not one himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative here...
I applaud Ukraine's resourcefulness, and their ability to take down this bot farm. I wish them ultimate success in their war.
Oh, and those "conservatives" you mention who are seeing conspiracies everywhere? They aren't actually conservatives. There's a difference between a Trump follower and a conservative. The former follows a person, the latter follows principle. It's not possible to do both.
The problem you have is that the Trumpists are calling themselves "Conservatives" and are in control of the traditional Conservative party. So for all intents and purposes, the Conservatives are the Trump party.
Now I get that you mean that you are "small c" conservative (I.E. maintaining the status quo) but the small c part of the conservatives sold out to the rabid religious and racist right decades ago, so as language evolves with usage most people don't make a distinction between the two. Whilst I get
Re: (Score:3)
There are not enough moderate Republicans to make such a distinction meaningful.
Zero disrespect or insult meant.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure our tex dollars aren't going toward pro war bot farms.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Iron Clad innuendo. No basis in fact. Let me guess, you are just "asking questions".
Re: (Score:1)
You got me. There was never any bot farms
Re: (Score:2)
Only because it is poor and right next door to the actual most corrupt country in Europe
And when they tried to get rid of the corruption. The most corrupt country in Europe saw their influence waning and invaded them.
This is a very good point. How corrupt can it be that when you give your arms over to it with agreement of protection it then invades you. Part of that agreement was that west and east would protect it.
I believe this was the agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: U Luckyos are quite stupid (Score:1)
Guess what? They were considering letting Russia in as a form of appeasement at one time. Guess what else? Most of the NATO members are corrupt AF. That's why the dominant paradigm in the world is late stage capitalism
Re: (Score:2)
The AC post here proves that russian bot farms are still active
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe. Don't assume everything is a Russian bot farm. Some people, including Slashdotters are just really fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Russia is still number 1.