WWTBAM Bored

Hans Keirstadt was running against Putin’s favorite Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher. Rolling Stone is reporting today that he and his campaign were the target of sustained and sophisticated cyberattacks. Keirstadt does not believe the attacks affected the primary, which saw him fall 125 votes short of reaching the general election in California’s jungle primary. Keirstadt has endorsed fellow Democrat Harley Ronda.

The first attempt briefly succeeded. A spear phishing attempt got Keirstadt to provide the password to his office e-mail, which he’d been using for campaign purposes. Keirstadt quickly realized he’d been fooled and his employer was able to secure its e-mail system.

The second attack didn’t work. In this attack, unidentified assailants made more than 100,000 attempts in a month and a half to gain administrative access to Keirstadt’s campaign Web site.

The FBI is investigating. —Bob

Bubble baths, dude.

I assumed it was just you, bob-tel, but pretty much all the 'news' stories on this subject, from Rolling Stone (A pillar of journalistic integrity) to CNN, refer to Rohrabacher as "Putin's favorite congressman". Well, it may be part of the story that Rohrabacher was also on the ballot, but the story was about a hacking attempt on an also-ran democrat candidate, there is no evidence that Rohrabacher or even the RUSSIANS!!! were involved, and to make the Democrats narrative part of the 'news' story is exactly what millions of people, including me, call FAKE NEWS.

Show me a story where Lizzy Warren is part of the background of the news story where they make sure their readers know she is known as "Pocohantas" and allegedly claimed native american ancestry for her own advantage.....

And, of course bob-tel parrots it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: is exactly what millions of people, including me, call FAKE NEWS.

These millions of people are what we refer to as the hard core Trump believers, or, in other words, useful idiots.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: refer to Rohrabacher as "Putin's favorite congressman".

Some background on Rohrabacher. Note that this article dates form November 2016.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ ... ump-231775

I do have some knowledge about this particular election since my Twitter follower Shastina Sandman was one of the also rans in this race. There were two major Democratic candidate including Kiersted, and two major Republican candidate including Rohrbacher. For a long time, the worry was that the two Democrats would split the Democratic vote and allow the second Republican to make the general election ballot. That didn't happen, but it's easy to see how what was perceived by many as the stronger Democratic candidate could be the target of cyberwarfare.

But apparently cyberwarfare doesn't worry Flock because Donald Trump says it doesn't exist.

Just to remind aSSShole, I am NOT a trump supporter, as I've said numerous times. Why he keeps referring to me as one is puzzling, especially since this post had nothing to do with trump.

I point out what I believe is obvious bias in multiple media 'news' reports. He doesn't even mention the point of the post. His answer is to call me a trump sycophant.

I guess that's all there is to him. That and calling people racist.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:That and calling people racist.

Which is interesting, as he is the biggest racist here.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Just to remind aSSShole, I am NOT a trump supporter, as I've said numerous times. Why he keeps referring to me as one is puzzling, especially since this post had nothing to do with trump.

I point out what I believe is obvious bias in multiple media 'news' reports. He doesn't even mention the point of the post. His answer is to call me a trump sycophant.

I guess that's all there is to him. That and calling people racist.

Well, he'd have to pull his head out, so there you have it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Just to remind aSSShole, I am NOT a trump supporter, as I've said numerous times. Why he keeps referring to me as one is puzzling, especially since this post had nothing to do with trump.

I point out what I believe is obvious bias in multiple media 'news' reports. He doesn't even mention the point of the post. His answer is to call me a trump sycophant.

I guess that's all there is to him. That and calling people racist.

You may not be a Trump supporter, but you're a Trump believer, in that you are apparently willing to believe his version of events over anything else to the contrary. Your apparent definition of bias is saying something negative about Trump. The mainstream media is similarly "biased" against Kim Jong Un, mob bosses, serial killers, and Mexican drug cartels.

Whether or not the news media is biased has no bearing on the question of whether what they are publishing is true. And the vast majority of what they publish is proved out, something people like you conveniently ignore when they continue to harp on the occasional mistake.

All there is to you Flock is screaming Fake News at the top of your lungs and ignoring anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions about Trump. Bob ###'s used the phrase "useful idiots," not me, but it's something you might think about the next time you look in a mirror.

Estonut wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:That and calling people racist.

Which is interesting, as he is the biggest racist here.

A generalization based on a single unfortunate turn of phrase which I have acknowledged, as opposed to a lot of others who consistently deny bias when their statements reflect it over and over again.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Just to remind aSSShole, I am NOT a trump supporter, as I've said numerous times. Why he keeps referring to me as one is puzzling, especially since this post had nothing to do with trump.

I point out what I believe is obvious bias in multiple media 'news' reports. He doesn't even mention the point of the post. His answer is to call me a trump sycophant.

I guess that's all there is to him. That and calling people racist.

You may not be a Trump supporter, but you're a Trump believer, in that you are apparently willing to believe his version of events over anything else to the contrary. Your apparent definition of bias is saying something negative about Trump. The mainstream media is similarly "biased" against Kim Jong Un, mob bosses, serial killers, and Mexican drug cartels.

Whether or not the news media is biased has no bearing on the question of whether what they are publishing is true. And the vast majority of what they publish is proved out, something people like you conveniently ignore when they continue to harp on the occasional mistake.

All there is to you Flock is screaming Fake News at the top of your lungs and ignoring anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions about Trump. Bob ###'s used the phrase "useful idiots," not me, but it's something you might think about the next time you look in a mirror.

I am a conservative, and I support trump when I agree with what he is trying to do. I totally disagree with his personality and his tactics. I agree with his strategy of fighting back against those who spread fake news, like I described above, but I wish he would employ someone who would do it in a more intellectual, tactful fashion. I do not mindlessly oppose and attack everything he says, does or is, like you and the resistance, who are the real useful idiots. Calling me a trump supporter is not a very effective answer to anything.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I am a conservative, and I support trump when I agree with what he is trying to do. I totally disagree with his personality and his tactics. I agree with his strategy of fighting back against those who spread fake news, like I described above, but I wish he would employ someone who would do it in a more intellectual, tactful fashion. I do not mindlessly oppose and attack everything he says, does or is, like you and the resistance, who are the real useful idiots. Calling me a trump supporter is not a very effective answer to anything.

So, you're a Trump believer; you just wish there were a kinder, gentler version of him.

And the only "fighting back" he does is to call people names and yell "fake news" and "witch hunt" over and over.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I am a conservative, and I support trump when I agree with what he is trying to do. I totally disagree with his personality and his tactics. I agree with his strategy of fighting back against those who spread fake news, like I described above, but I wish he would employ someone who would do it in a more intellectual, tactful fashion. I do not mindlessly oppose and attack everything he says, does or is, like you and the resistance, who are the real useful idiots. Calling me a trump supporter is not a very effective answer to anything.

So, you're a Trump believer; you just wish there were a kinder, gentler version of him.

And the only "fighting back" he does is to call people names and yell "fake news" and "witch hunt" over and over.

You keep on showing your ignorance.
Consider the 2 active threads.
1. bob-tel posts a 'news' story about cyberhacking of an also-ran dem, and I notice that all the 'news' stories include a dem slur of a sitting congressman, that has nothing to do with the actual story, and the response is that I am a trump supporter. Not any reference to the obvious bias of the 'news' story.
2. I post 2 published articles that document the concerns that the left is actively ignoring, and the response is not to debate the facts presented, but to attack the messengers.

You guys must be SOOO happy, because ignorance is bliss.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. bob-tel posts a 'news' story about cyberhacking of an also-ran dem, and I notice that all the 'news' stories include a dem slur of a sitting congressman, that has nothing to do with the actual story.

To the contrary, the fact that the person who was hacked was an opponent of a Congressman who is well known for his support of Russian issues in the past is an important part of the story, considering the record of Russian interference in elections. Is it proof? Of course not, but it's something that gives the story some more perspective.

And Flock, I've been reading various versions of your articles on right wing sites for months. Even when major parts of them get debunked, the articles continue in just about the exact same language. There's never anything new. There's never a response to what's been pointed out that's incorrect about them. They just parrot the same thing over and over.

You have concerns because the only thing you are willing to accept is the party line as set forth in these articles and the dozens of similar ones you'll find all over right wing web and news sites.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. bob-tel posts a 'news' story about cyberhacking of an also-ran dem, and I notice that all the 'news' stories include a dem slur of a sitting congressman, that has nothing to do with the actual story.

To the contrary, the fact that the person who was hacked was an opponent of a Congressman who is well known for his support of Russian issues in the past is an important part of the story, considering the record of Russian interference in elections. Is it proof? Of course not, but it's something that gives the story some more perspective.

And Flock, I've been reading various versions of your articles on right wing sites for months. Even when major parts of them get debunked, the articles continue in just about the exact same language. There's never anything new. There's never a response to what's been pointed out that's incorrect about them. They just parrot the same thing over and over.

You have concerns because the only thing you are willing to accept is the party line as set forth in these articles and the dozens of similar ones you'll find all over right wing web and news sites.

They have NO idea who tried to hack them, and the story says they haven't even looked. A responsible journalist would have left it at that. Irresponsible propaganda would use it as an opportunity to put in their allegations and sway their audience. This guy wasn't even the most likely opponent. Why the hell would he be attacked by Rohrabacher or the ~~~RUSSIANS~~~?? The bias is totally obvious to someone who doesn't have a completely closed off mind.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: A responsible journalist would have left it at that. Irresponsible propaganda would use it as an opportunity to put in their allegations and sway their audience.

No, a responsible journalist would not have left it at that. By omitting key information, it would have given an inaccurate picture of what happened.

Again, your view of responsible journalism is about the same as that of Joseph Goebbels.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. bob-tel posts a 'news' story about cyberhacking of an also-ran dem, and I notice that all the 'news' stories include a dem slur of a sitting congressman, that has nothing to do with the actual story.

To the contrary, the fact that the person who was hacked was an opponent of a Congressman who is well known for his support of Russian issues in the past is an important part of the story, considering the record of Russian interference in elections. Is it proof? Of course not, but it's something that gives the story some more perspective.

And Flock, I've been reading various versions of your articles on right wing sites for months. Even when major parts of them get debunked, the articles continue in just about the exact same language. There's never anything new. There's never a response to what's been pointed out that's incorrect about them. They just parrot the same thing over and over.

You have concerns because the only thing you are willing to accept is the party line as set forth in these articles and the dozens of similar ones you'll find all over right wing web and news sites.

They have NO idea who tried to hack them, and the story says they haven't even looked. A responsible journalist would have left it at that. Irresponsible propaganda would use it as an opportunity to put in their allegations and sway their audience. This guy wasn't even the most likely opponent. Why the hell would he be attacked by Rohrabacher or the ~~~RUSSIANS~~~?? The bias is totally obvious to someone who doesn't have a completely closed off mind.

Really? How many organizations do you think have the motivation to attack this particular candidate and the sophistication and resources to execute the attack that way? And you have no basis for knowing which Democrat was the more likely opponent. The final margin was 125 votes.

As for this being a Democratic slur, it was House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) who said that Putin’s paying Rohrabacher. When the tape surfaced, he claimed it was a joke, but why the hell would he make that particular joke? The more likely explanation is that he believes it but won’t try to do anything about it because he’s more loyal to his party than to his country. Just like nearly every other Republican in Congress and an awful lot of their voters. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
To the contrary, the fact that the person who was hacked was an opponent of a Congressman who is well known for his support of Russian issues in the past is an important part of the story, considering the record of Russian interference in elections. Is it proof? Of course not, but it's something that gives the story some more perspective.

And Flock, I've been reading various versions of your articles on right wing sites for months. Even when major parts of them get debunked, the articles continue in just about the exact same language. There's never anything new. There's never a response to what's been pointed out that's incorrect about them. They just parrot the same thing over and over.

You have concerns because the only thing you are willing to accept is the party line as set forth in these articles and the dozens of similar ones you'll find all over right wing web and news sites.

They have NO idea who tried to hack them, and the story says they haven't even looked. A responsible journalist would have left it at that. Irresponsible propaganda would use it as an opportunity to put in their allegations and sway their audience. This guy wasn't even the most likely opponent. Why the hell would he be attacked by Rohrabacher or the ~~~RUSSIANS~~~?? The bias is totally obvious to someone who doesn't have a completely closed off mind.

Really? How many organizations do you think have the motivation to attack this particular candidate and the sophistication and resources to execute the attack that way? And you have no basis for knowing which Democrat was the more likely opponent. The final margin was 125 votes.

As for this being a Democratic slur, it was House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) who said that Putin’s paying Rohrabacher. When the tape surfaced, he claimed it was a joke, but why the hell would he make that particular joke? The more likely explanation is that he believes it but won’t try to do anything about it because he’s more loyal to his party than to his country. Just like nearly every other Republican in Congress and an awful lot of their voters. —Bob

I don't care who originated it, it has no place in a fair and unbiased new story. As per who did it, you can speculate, and I can speculate, but an objective news story should not speculate who did it, and then they take it to the second level by including an unflattering slur against another candidate who had nothing to do with it. And all without a shred of factual evidence. Then you conclude your marvelous rant with a swipe at 'nearly every other Republican in Congress and an awful lot of their voters', as if you have the faintest clue to anything outside your narrow mind.

You are the first one to proclaim with your self-righteous indignation "Where's the Evidence?". Well, where is it, mr. above average ethical lawyer? As far as I can tell from the story, all we have is the alleged victim's story that he was hacked. There's just as much evidence that he made the story up to get his 15 minutes of fame as there is that anyone else did it. If he does not submit the computer for examination, THAT is the more likely explanation. But even that shouldn't be part of a factual news story.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: A responsible journalist would have left it at that. Irresponsible propaganda would use it as an opportunity to put in their allegations and sway their audience.

No, a responsible journalist would not have left it at that. By omitting key information, it would have given an inaccurate picture of what happened.

Again, your view of responsible journalism is about the same as that of Joseph Goebbels.

By 'responsible journalist' I assume you mean useful idiot reporter.

The resistance's frequent use of nazi analogies is not only stupid, ignorant and hateful, but very offensive to those who actually lived through those times or have been directly affected by them. If you had any shame, you should be ashamed of yourself.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The resistance's frequent use of nazi analogies is not only stupid, ignorant and hateful, but very offensive to those who actually lived through those times or have been directly affected by them. If you had any shame, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Gee, if only I was running for governor of California:

[Republican John] Cox, who came in second in [California]'s June primary and will face Democrat Gavin Newsom, was speaking to potential voters as he toured the DMV to draw attention to wait times. 'You know, I met a Holocaust survivor in Long Beach. He survived concentration camps, and he said this was worse,' Cox said. 'He's 90 years old and he had to wait four hours down in Long Beach. Can you imagine that?' Cox added.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... camps.html

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:That and calling people racist.

Which is interesting, as he is the biggest racist here.

A generalization based on a single unfortunate turn of phrase which I have acknowledged, as opposed to a lot of others who consistently deny bias when their statements reflect it over and over again.

This was NOT simply an "unfortunate turn of phrase." You claimed it was an attempted joke, yet failed to explain what was the funny part about assuming/implying an African-American man would kill his white cellmate.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:Which is interesting, as he is the biggest racist here.

A generalization based on a single unfortunate turn of phrase which I have acknowledged, as opposed to a lot of others who consistently deny bias when their statements reflect it over and over again.

This was NOT simply an "unfortunate turn of phrase." You claimed it was an attempted joke, yet failed to explain what was the funny part about assuming/implying an African-American man would kill his white cellmate.

Why should we acknowledge anything you post here, aSSS, or give you any benefit of any doubt, when you never do the same for anyone else?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:A generalization based on a single unfortunate turn of phrase which I have acknowledged, as opposed to a lot of others who consistently deny bias when their statements reflect it over and over again.

This was NOT simply an "unfortunate turn of phrase." You claimed it was an attempted joke, yet failed to explain what was the funny part about assuming/implying an African-American man would kill his white cellmate.

Why should we acknowledge anything you post here, aSSS, or give you any benefit of any doubt, when you never do the same for anyone else?

The same goes for you.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Why should we acknowledge anything you post here, aSSS, or give you any benefit of any doubt, when you never do the same for anyone else?

The same goes for you.

To the contrary, Flock gives Donald Trump the benefit of every conceivable doubt and quite a few inconceivable ones.

A generalization based on a single unfortunate turn of phrase which I have acknowledged, as opposed to a lot of others who consistently deny bias when their statements reflect it over and over again.

You want to be exonerated for an obvious and egregious racist statement that you made, based on your own flawed definition of racism, but you have yet to apologize to me for implying racism on my part against Dr Tipernini when I made fun of trump haters that had nothing to do with her?


You want us to believe you that it was a 'single unfortunate turn of phrase', when I have told you dozens of times that I don't listen or care for hannity, and that I am not a trump supporter, did not vote for him, and will not in the future yet you respond to everything I post with 'hannity this' and 'trump sycophant' that?

No way, Jose...