Putin's pro-Trump trolls accuse Harris of poaching rhinos Russian, Iranian, and Chinese trolls are all ramping up their US election disinformation efforts ahead of November 5, but – aside from undermining faith in the democratic process and confidence in the election result – with very different objectives, according to Microsoft. In a Wednesday report [PDF], Redmond's Threat …
Lets not forget the woman who has only just remembered something that happened 31 years ago or the completely 'trust me bro' claims that Trump said something when everyone else who was there says that its utter bullshit.
This is a common theme from the political left. They NEVER have actual evidence to back up their claims. Sadly their midwit followers lap it up.
I wrote 'political left', not 'left wing'.
And despite your claims that the US doesn't have a left wing party there are some very left leaning people under the umbrella of the democrat party. Certainly on the left coast and the big cities.
"Almost everything the GOP and especially Trump say is a lie"
You do realise that a fact you dislike is not a lie?
"Political left" or "left leaning" or "left wing" all mean the same and neither of the major US parties qualify. The Democrats are what most countries would consider right of centre and the GOP (as it is now under Trump) are what most countries would consider as completely insane.
And do YOU realise "a fact you dislike is not a lie"?
Hmm.. someone who can't comprehend relative and absolute. The Democrats in the US are generally to the LEFT of the GOP. Try an alternative viewpoint, it might enlighten you.
The stance of the Democrat party under Bill Clinton would be classed as 'far right' today. Against illegal immigration, pro deportation, sensible prison sentences for criminals and sane restrictions on abortion rather than using it as very late contraception.
It still makes me laugh that Liz Cheney is out campaigning for the Dems. You know they are truly desperate!
I have a good grasp on reality. Those that don't are the ones who think endorsements from billionaires and people previously hated by the dems are a good thing. Kamala will 'make the rich pay their fair share' yet is endorsed by the very same rich the claims to want to tax more. Uh huh. Don't buy it!
No, you only think you do. Or more accurately you have a firm grasp of your reality but fail to understand that your reality is not the same as experienced by other people.
It's the GOP who are courting people like Musk and apart from selfish gits like that there are rich people who understand their current tax burden (as a proportion of income) is the lowest it's been for a long time and could easily be raised to a more equitable level.
"Uh huh. Don't buy it!"
Just because you are selfish and expect rich people to be equally selfish does not make it true.
Why shouldn't the rich want to pay more, there are many rich people who engage in philanthropy which these days is largely helping people who if the government could afford it would and should be helping.
Ah, we're onto 'lived experience' now. Another phrase used by the political left to make claims that are contrary to reality.
"many rich people who engage in philanthropy"
You do realise that this is to avoid tax? No matter how much philanthropy Bill Gates appears to do he gets richer. Very very few rich people actively make themselves poorer. It is all show. And you got suckered!
You do realise that this is to avoid tax?
From 1994 through 2018, Bill and Melinda gave the foundation more than $36.0 billion. Those donations resulted in a tax savings of approximately 11% of the contributions they made over that time.
So they made themselves about $32b poorer.
Please do the absolute minimum amount of research before spouting your nonsense.
Perhaps is you who seems to think every rich person is a greedy grasping inconsiderate bastard who has been suckered. While of course many rich are as I described (looking at you Musk) by no means are they all, some even have a social conscience which is more than you seem to have.
Additional --The most tax one can save by charitable donations is about 35% and is usually a lot less. It is not possible to become wealthier by making donations.
For fucks sake what part of "it is impossible to become richer by making charitable contributions" are you finding hard to understand?
He is getting richer because he owns a fuckton of shares in Microsoft and almost certainly a load of other companies too.
So only if he gave away every single cent and burned all his shares and moved into a trailer in Des Moines would you consider it to be anything else than self-aggrandisement?
Really you seem to have zero concept of how finance works in the real world.
"Please do the absolute minimum amount of research before spouting your nonsense."
Take your own advice.
I'm sure you've used the phrase 'turkeys voting for christmas' to describe GOP voters. This also applies to rich people. They are not stupid otherwise they'd be poor. Kamala will never increase taxes on her donor class. If you believe that then can I interest you in some magic beans?
If you knew anything at all about US politics, you'd know that here in the modern era left and right have absolutely nothing to do with the traditional European meanings of the terms.
All those handles are is indicators of which side of the chamber the particular member sits on. Trying to attribute anything else to them is merely a display of ignorance ... as aptly demonstrated near daily by ignorant fuckwits on both sides of the isle in both the House and the Senate.
As a separate point, so-called "alternative facts" are lies, and usually whoppers at that ...
The really funny thing is that the guy who wrote the latest article in the Atlantic (owned by Kamala's best friend) that claims 'Trump did something bad, I have zero evidence but trust me bro!' is also the guy who was busy convincing the US that Saddam had WMD and needed to be overthrown back in 2002 cos trust me bro!
Homie when your guy is so odious that Dick "Shot a guy and made him apologize for shooting him" Cheney sees no use in you *and* sees it as politically expedient to denounce him, it's a bit like being despised by a convicted wifebeater - you gotta be a *real* piece of shit to get that low. And your man has managed.
First, realize that "weapon of mass destruction" has no formal definition by international law or treaty, as such it can mean whatever the politician wants it to mean at any given time. Still, most countries classify chemical and biological weapons as WMD, and coalition forces found and destroyed multiple stockpiles of Iraq's chemical weapons. They also found shells for disbursing biological weapons that had residue that tested positive for biological agents. What they didn't find was the factories that made them or as large of stockpiles as they expected.
When the terror brothers bombed the Boston Marathon finish line with fragmentation bombs made out of pressure cookers, those pressure cookers were labeled "weapons of mass destruction" by government prosecutors. At the time I looked up the FBI's then-current definition and found that even a 10-gauge shotgun shell could have enough explosive to qualify for the label.
In the United States, it is defined in U.S. law (18 USC §2332a) and includes any destructive device with the following characteristics: "Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;"
So, realizing that there is such a wide range, and the bar is so low under US Government definitions, you would have to concede that it is a truthful statement to say that ALL countries with a military have weapons of mass destruction under those definitions, as do most terrorist groups. Using WMD as an excuse was always political propaganda.
Still, there are people who persist in believing that Iraq, with the fourth largest military in the world at the time, didn't have them.
"Iraq, with the fourth largest military in the world at the time, didn't have them."
Well the claim made in 2002 was that Saddam had been increasing his stockpile of chemical weapons, was still working on nuclear weapons and was an immediate and direct threat to America. (more likely Israel but they run America)
So everyone knew Saddam had the chemical weapons as he had used them on his own people in the 80s. But the vast majority of the stockpile was destroyed by the US/UN along with the manufacturing facilities and long range missiles in the late 90s and the remainder was under supervision of the UN.
However with the new 'revelation' and a requirement for Dick Cheney amongst others to get staggeringly rich the US had to 'do something' so invaded anyway.
What was found was pretty much what the UN knew about and was all old, corroded, un-serviceable and no threat to anyone outside of their storage area.
So yes, Iraq didn't have the weapons claimed by Bush and Blair as the west had already destroyed them.
I'm not saying that Cheney was honest. After all, he is a politician and honesty is rare in those circles. I am saying that the WMD claim was always political propaganda because EVERY military has WMD under the US Government's piss-poor definition of a WMD. That statement isn't in conflict with any of the rest of your post. And since every military has WMD under the US definition, then they were of course found and it isn't accurate to say that they were not.
This post has been deleted by its author
Rhino poached? Broiled surely.
I know it is politically incorrect and certainly sexist but the immediate picture that came to mind was the VP in her kitchen with bloody big pot with on the cooktop with a rhino horn protruding from the top of the pot.
The actual story only marginally less crazy. I don't quite get the angle these malefactors were trying to work.
Trump leaning nongs would actually applaud the killing endangered species while the rest of the electorate would have likely retained sufficient brain cells to have serious doubts whether Ms Harris could discharge something of the calibre* of an elephant gun without ripping one or both of her arms off in the process.
(Fairly clearly she hasn't been so "disarmed" unlike the Jackal Kings (Court of the Air))
* according to the "wisdom" of interwebs ".375 H&H Magnum or larger caliber." I have no idea what that means but if I were, heaven forfend, in the US the author of this sage advice could give me a very good deal on a case of the stuff. :(
> I don't quite get the angle these malefactors were trying to work.
That both sides are the same.
Trump does or says something "eyebrow raising" at a rally, the next tweet down shows Kamala eating puppies = both sides are the same I might as well stay-home/vote for the lowest tax/vote for the guy whose name I recognise
Quotes intentional. I get it... .everything and everyone that does anything from inside of Russia is "pro-Putin" and wants to see the death of everyone in Ukraine.
But honestly...AFAIK, that is not the position of the majority of people in Russia.
So, I'd be careful trying to imply that "all things Russian" means one thing or another with regards to USA politics. It could be the exact opposite.
People I've heard talk in Russia think their government and leadership is a joke.
In fact, the whole subject discussion here on The Register, could be a stealth manipulation of the truth.
Best thing to do... unplug folks.
It's all or nothing, if Trump gets el..., eh wins the presidency by one means or another, does it matter that close-on 50% of the electorate didn't want him?
All or nothing means that he and the Republicans get the Executive Branch. They already control the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch is up for grabs.
Does it matter that only about 30% of the US voters are MAGA?
It may very well transpire that the US becomes a valid member of BRICS next January with all that that entails?
The ordinary Russian may despise Putin and wish he wasn't there but what can he/she do now? It is too late now.
you missed a few steps:
This is how democracy works. One person gets slightly more votes than the other, they win.
Then the loser claims that he won and starts lying about election integrity.
Then the loser goes after the individuals running the count and gets them hounded from their homes
Then the loser gets all his acolytes to storm the place where the election winner is declared in an attempt to reject the will of the people
Then, after all the court cases have been thrown out and all the "evidence" has been shown to be bollocks the loser still refuses to concede, refuses to attend the inaguration of the new winner and spends the next four years claiming he won despite all the evidence being against him.
Then he goes up for election again, still claiming to have won the previous election and saying that he will declare himself winner of the next one too, whatever the voters say.
Yup, pretty sure that's how it works everywhere that they regularly massacre school children.
"Then the loser claims that he won and starts lying about election integrity."
Hmm.. 2016, Hillary, "I had the election stolen from me"
Also 2016, Brexit, oh god did the losers whinge on about that one.
"Then the loser goes after the individuals running the count and gets them hounded from their homes"
Actually this was dem supporters who were protesting outside the houses of SCOTUS judges. And at least one was caught with guns.
"Then the loser gets all his acolytes to storm the place where the election winner is declared in an attempt to reject the will of the people"
Do you remember the riots in late 2016 and early 2017? Do you remember the people who stormed the Bret Kavanaugh hearings to try and stop them? No?
Or the Time magazine article where the shady cabal of billionaires told how they 'fortified' the 2020 election and had thousands of activists ready to go if Trump had actually won?
"after all the court cases have been thrown out and all the "evidence""
Most of the cases were dismissed long before the evidence stage on procedural grounds. Mostly on the basis of laches as the courts delayed and delayed.
Also 2016, Brexit, oh god did the losers whinge on about that one.
I don't remember anyone claiming that was stolen. A lot of people weren't happy about the result or that the result was treated as binding but debating about things like abstained votes and votes by people who would never live to see the consequences is not the same thing.
The result was accepted by everyone.
Losers are allowed to moan about losing. They just shouldn't try and topple the result without evidence and whatever they do should be done within the legal and moral framework of society.
"The result was accepted by everyone."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh wait, you're serious?
How many protests happened in London *after* the vote? 13 listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Brexit
Claims of 'Russian interference'
The age old 'brexit voters are just thick'
If the pro EU crowd hadn't spent all their energy prior to the vote on insulting the voter base and running project fear they would have won easily. Spending all your energy blithering on about how morally and intellectually superior you are cos you wave the EU flag, go on lots of holidays there and can parles-vous some Francais while calling everyone else racist gammon was not a good strategy. And they managed to get a lot of traditional labour supporters to vote leave. It was impressive.
The way the dems operate is to attack normal people. Destroy businesses, homes, lives. Basically do anything except annoy the political ruling classes. The riots in 2016/2017 and the summer of love in 2020 (along with all previous 'justice' riots) did huge harm to the local communities. The political left riled up the mobs and set them destroying their own neighbourhoods.
As the political left know that the political right are the side that actually builds rather than destroys they had to stage the capitol protest and lure people in. If you watch the video of the capitol guards as they are told to pummel the crowd with tear gas and riot grenades (specifically to enrage the crowd) they are all complaining that they have been setup and abandoned by the higher ups.
And the 'investigation' is another case where virtually every bit of evidence presented was 'trust me bro'. Even Lionel Hutz would be ashamed of what they did. Person A overheard person B telling person C that person D told person B that Ferris was seen at 31 flavors last night. It must have been bad!
This post has been deleted by its author
"This is how democracy works. One person gets slightly more votes than the other, they win."
You obviously have never heard of a country called "The United States of America" - they claim to be a democracy but nothing could be further from the truth.
The Democrats have polled most votes in almost every election since Nixon but did they win every time? No.
Combine the absurd electoral college with gerrymandering and voter suppression by the GOP, to claim the USA is a Democracy is a bad joke.
Suppression - Consider the provision of polling stations, in the USA it seems usual to have to queue, sometimes for hours to vote. This is a deliberate strategy to make it hard for some sectors to vote. Here in the UK almost every school and church hall is a polling station seldom more than walking distance and I have never in 40 years of voting had to queue, never, not once, not even for 5 minutes.
Someone on these forums looked at the US EC system compared to the UK parliament system and only 4 times has the US president not won the popular vote. In the UK there are at least 10 occasions where the party with the highest overall vote tally didn't end up in control.
A popular vote system is a very simplistic and not very good way to do things.
As for having to queue, you do know that this is due to the very stupid and complex ballots that the US have? Here in the UK we have at worst 3 things to vote on and its all paper based so a polling station can be setup anywhere vaguely secure with a roof. In the US they need computers, printers, scanners, people to help print and scan etc.. You can't have lots and lots of polling places if there is so much kit needed.
Ah yes, another form of voter suppression, make it incredibly complicated to vote. It's really not necessary, those long form votes could easily be simplified.
In the UK we have first past the post which for all it faults, and there are many faults, does generally work.
Unlike the USA we have more than 2 parties so the prospect of one party getting over 50% of the votes cast is remote so the party with the most votes wins (unless 2 or more parties whose summed votes exceed the party with most votes can form a stable coalition), and will form the government.
Also don't understand the delay in America, vote in November but the changeover doesn't happen for months.In the UK the vote is on Thursday and the new government is in office on the next Monday.
A large part of the federal government turns over with the new administration.
If you have to plan to replace half the civil service, and everyone from Air Traffic control to the Whitefish authority it takes a while.
But since you don't have the problem of an institutionally Conservative/woke Marxist [delete as applicable] civil service opposing the will of the newly democratically elected Labour/Conservative government - the US government is able to be much more efficient.
the US government is able to be much more efficient.
Hilarious. You must be kidding, the US government is pretty much the most inefficient, pork barrel stuffed, mess in the western world. You spend 50% more per-capita on civil expenditure than the UK and you don't even get healthcare thrown in for that.
It is a terrible system. You end up with a civil service full of political appointees who don't have a clue about that they are doing and just as they are beginning to settle down into the role along comes an election and they are all out of a job and the stupid circus rolls around again. That is why your government is so ineffective.
Our civil service is criticized by both sides for being institutionally biased against them so it's fair to conclude that neither is true and the civil service is largely neutral. Their job is to do what the government tell them unless it is illegal or impractical in which case they tell the government. That is what they are for and because you have career civil servants they know what they are doing so there's none of this spending the first year or so working out what they are meant to do and what they are allowed to do. The departments are of course headed by a minister who should be capable of seeing any machinations of the sort seen in political dramas such as "Yes Minister". If they are too incompetent to detect that, it's probably better to leave the department to the civil servants. It sort of acts as a filter to inhibit the truly and possibly dangerously incompetent ministers, such as almost every Conservative one for the last 5 to 10 years.
Industry will often need relationships with parts of the government machine, maybe someone to phone to get the minutiae of new legislation. In your system it is impossible to build a relationship because after every election they have to find a new person to contact, with our system there is no disruption. A minor point but one of many reasons why continuity is a good thing.
Basically your system switches off the government for about 15 months in every electoral cycle, after the election there's a period where they are getting ready to hand over so not a lot gets done, then after the handover there's about a year for them to sort themselves out. You are wasting about 30% of the time that should be spent serving the country. As I said in the UK, election on Thursday, new government on Monday with no disruption to anything.
The USA is young country, it needs to learn from its mistakes but first it has to recognize that there are ways aspects could be better. That's why they allowed for amendments, they knew circumstances change over time. We've been at this for over 600 years, we made a zillion mistakes and continue to do so, but we learn from them. One thing we worked really early out is that political appointments to administrative roles is a really bad idea. Doesn't stop idiots trying to resurrect it but it never gets far.
The difference in the two systems.
The USA swaps the establishment after the election so that all the functionaries are politically aligned with the new leader and ready to do his (or conceivably her) bidding.
The UK swaps the leader before the election so they are politically aligned with the establishment and he (or she) is ready to do their bidding.
It really, really, does not happen like that.
The purpose of the civil service is to execute the instructions of the executive to the benefit of the populace. Their responsibility is to the populace first, the executive second.
If you shove a load of people in the positions who do not know what they are doing and only have the interests of the party and could not care at all about the electorate (until about a year before the next election) and will push through stuff without a care if it is legal or practical with no thought to the ramifications. You get a complete mess. Sorry but sometimes the outsider can see more of the game (no doubt you'll point out the same to me with some justification but we get a lot more information here about what's happening in the USA than you get about what's happening in the UK.)
I've absolutely no idea what you mean about the UK swapping the leader before the election (Unless you are referring to the Tory №10 revolving door, that was because they sidelined or expelled anybody who didn't believe in Brexit, which meant they got rid of the few remaining competent ministers.).
Correct me if I'm wrong it was in the USA that the leader was swapped before the election when Biden stepped down. It seems to me you have no idea of how the UK system of government really works, everything you say seems filtered through the view of someone with an agenda I'm not saying you are prejudiced but whoever you get your "facts" from certainly is, very.
The possibles of corruption are increased too, if someone put in a position of authority knows they will be out of a job in 4, 8 or 12 years the temptation to line their nest will be strong but a career civil servant will not want to risk losing the rather generous pensions they get and other awards that successful civil servants tend to get towards the end of their careers (knighthoods, MBEs and other trivia which while of no real import and of no financial value whatsoever, does look good to people of a certain mindset.)
Also you seem to have conveniently ignored just how inefficient the American system is, costing 50% more per-capita and being moribund for about 1/3 of each term. (obviously a bit less if the government does not change). And you as citizens get a lot less from your government than we do even though you are paying a lot more.
America spends more on healthcare per citizen than we do but most of that money ends up in the hands of insurance companies and exploitative drug companies. By rearranging how you do healthcare you could provide a better service and save money, true some insurance companies may go out of business but that is price well worth paying, they are parasites anyway.
Actually the US & UK healthcare spending per-capita is not that different, what is different is what you get for the money.
US healthcare spending 2022: $1.5 trillion plus another $300 billion in income tax expenditures for health care. So $1.8t for 341million (2022 population) = $5,278 per person
UK healthcare spending 2022: £292 billion ($342b) with a population of 67.6m = £4,319 per person ($5,067) for which everybody has free healthcare while in the US a trip to the ER can put someone in debt for years.
"People I've heard talk in Russia think their government and leadership is a joke."
I have tried to feel sympatly to the Russian people. Living and continuing to live in a dictatorship is a balancing act that can not always follow morality.
But then I see what the Russian people, soldiers, civilians do in Ukraine, and my sympathy is gone. torture, rape, murder, thefth. buying "cheap" (owners killed or driven out) homes in occupied territories, vacationing in war zones.. My sympathy has dried out.
"then I see what the Russian people, soldiers, civilians do in Ukraine, and my sympathy is gone. torture, rape, murder, thefth"
- Vietnam
- Lybia
- Afghanistan
- Iraq
The USA / NATO are promoting wars and killing for the past 50 years and you are mad at RUSSIA bcz they are defending their borders and ethnic Russians living in Ukraine from being slaughtered ???
The weird thing is that US Neo-cons like Cheney, do the same to their own population, US is #1 in drugs use, murders, people dying of cancer, moral decline, reduction of the average life expectation, inequality, limitation of freedom for women by prohibition of abortion in many states, growth of the national debt, de-industrialization and even more deaths caused a medical system that prescribes opioids faster than Mexican drug gangs can bring the stuff in.
If the Neocons wouldn't be so busy creating wars in the world to keep the weapon factories of their cronies running, nobody would care.
It seems a safe guess that heaven will be heaven since there can not be any democrats in heaven.
I suspect that LogicGate is mad at Russia because it is engaged in a war of genocide, with the intent to permanently annex the entirety of Ukraine; because the Russian Aggressor State has no regard for defending their borders but instead is intending to extend them, launching an illegal war, being one intended to provide permanent territorial acquisition; because the RAS has first promoted violence with Ukrainian oblasts where there is a Russian-speaking population to create a 'frozen conflict' situation in Ukraine just as they have done elsewhere, to justify Russian troops occupying foreign territory; because war crimes committed by the RAS are routine, and are practiced throughout the command chain from Putin himself down to the lowliest Russian serviceman, with prisoners of war tortured and murdered, civilians within areas of Russian control raped and murdered, children kidnapped, food supplies being shipped abroad deliberately targeted, power and water supplies for civilian use deliberately targeted, housing and hospitals being deliberately targeted.
Russia is merely defending it's borders by the time honoured mechanism of killing everyone on the other side of the border to ensure peace.
This method works extremely well right up to the point where you: 1. Die (in the case of Alexander the Great) 2. Encounter Crazy Germans (in the case of the Roman Empire) 3. Try and occupy Afghanistan (in the case of the British) 4. Fight a land war in S.E Asia (in the case of the French/USA)
It would seem to be advantageous for the students of various military colleges to watch more Horrible Histories
"3. Try and occupy Afghanistan (in the case of the British)"
It seems you know history extremely well.
You also know that every empire that TRIED to conquer Afghanistan, felt a few years later, after losing the war (empire ENDED). Last one was Soviet Union (USSR).
History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Who was the last empire to be defeated in Afghanistan?
"mad at Russia because it is engaged in a war of genocide, with the intent to permanently annex the entirety of Ukraine"
Once Ukraine commits to not enter NATO, and to not kill ethnic Russians loving in Ukraine, Russian soldiers will leave the Ukrainian territory.
Stop reading CIA/CNN bull$hit.
Remember the Minsk agreements proposal?
This post has been deleted by its author
quote: posting "divisive and at times conspiratorial" articles.
That is the job (and main occupation) of American Trump and Harris supporters. And they do it better.
quote: stealing massive amounts of materials from Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, and then leaking this info to media organizations.
They made a lash up of it, as we didn't get to hear it. Leak better or accept that you aren't actually cut out for this sort of thing.
quote: Iran's election operations to date seem to put it in the pro-Harris camp.
That's odd, as the Democrat government have been supplying weapons to Israel and Ukraine. Maybe the AI they are using was hallucinating.
quote: claiming Harris killed an endangered rhinoceros.
Was she riding a unicorn at the time?
Only incredibly dumb people would lap this up. The solution is a better education system in the US.
Only incredibly dumb people would lap this up. The solution is a better education system in the US.
And deporting a couple of immigrants. Murdoch & kin to start with. "Faux 'news'" is the loudest and most pervasive lie machine the USA has ever had to suffer.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
