Hillary, the 1980s called...

Posted by DC on Sat, 12/17/2016 - 03:29

The past few weeks have showcased beyond any reasonable doubt that liberalism truly is a mental disorder.  Grown adults void of life experiences and maturity refuse to accept that we live in a Republic where the leader of our country is elected by the people via the electoral college every four years.  They are in such a panic over being ripped from their cozy DC digs that they are bitterly clinging to an unfounded conspiracy that Russia engineered the election and want to use that as evidence to convince the electors to throw the election.

Did Russia try to hack the election?  Possibly, but I'd have no idea how they could have pulled it off.  Even Obama thinks it's rediculous, and sure thinks it's silly that Russia could be a threat.  Our elections are not centralized but spread out in various localities amongst the states.  It would be quite an operation and seems very improbable to me.  However, one thing I have learned in this business (my company is in cybersecurity) is how creative and innovative smart black hats can be when all their pent-up sexual repression concentrates and focuses itself into harming others.

There are so many ways to hack a system that it would blow your mind.  For example, check out "RSA Key Extraction via Low-Bandwith Acoustic Cryptanalysis"; that's pretty unconventional.  I've learned to never say never in regards to what is possible.

I think if Russians did meddle in our election, they tried to get Clinton elected.  Why not?  She used her smooth diplomatic savvy and gave them a nice toy red button (they even screwed that up).  Obama was very flexible and willing to give Russia whatever they wanted.  The Clintons helped the Russians get control of 1/5 of the American uranium production:

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why in the world would Putin want to trade that degree of malleability for someone who won't submit like a beaten puppy, or be available for purchase like the Clintons?  I'm sure there's more to the story, but it's more plausible to me that if they hacked the election in some form, it was to throw it to Clinton.

If the Russians did engineer a Trump victory, why was it so close?  Why did Trump not blow Clinton out of the water?  President Trump says it was a landslide, but that is not accurate (but I like the spirit).  Why would this amazing operation be in such jeopardy of almost failing?  Why spend that kind of time and money?  It seems more likely that the Russians would attempt good old fashioned psychological warfare to shake the confidence in our election system:

The U.S. election landscape is made up of approximately 9,000 different state and local jurisdictions, providing a patchwork of laws, standards, processes, and voting machines. This environment is a formidable challenge to any actor — nation-state or not — who seeks to substantially influence or alter the outcome of an election. Doing so would require mastering a large number of these disparate cyber environments and finding a multitude of ways to manipulate them. An operation of this size would require vast resources over a multi-year period — an operation that would likely be detected and countered before it could come to fruition.

Russia can most likely achieve a more reliable outcome with fewer resources not by attacking the election infrastructure directly, but rather by organizing a disinformation campaign attacking confidence in the election itself. This approach is more consistent with Russian tactics employed in Eastern Europe. This logic also seems to be echoed in the latest Guccifer 2.0 message posted on November 4, which alleges that U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) “software is of poor quality, with many holes and vulnerabilities.” As a consequence, Guccifer 2.0 has warned “that the Democrats may rig the elections… I also call on other hackers to join me, monitor the elections from inside and inform the U.S. society about the facts of electoral fraud.”

That article was written before the election.  Direct hit Russians.  You duped the sitting President, media, and Bernie's kids -- who were crying before about Bernie getting robbed by Hillary.  To be fair, if the shoe were on the other foot, hell would have been raised.  Can you imagine a nation of pissed off Trump supporters running around with red hats thinking the election was rigged?  Instead, the losers who thought they had rights to the White House, simply because their candidate's qualifications are she possessed reproductive capabilities at one time, and pretended to be in a faithful relationship while her husband ascended up the political ranks from Arkansas to the Presidency, are intimidating the electors and looking to do away with the electoral system.  The Russians couldn't dream of a better outcome if they did execute such a disinformation operation.

The desperate Marxists pushed for a recount in several states.  Thanks to Jill Stein's Michigan recount scam, the Marxists overplayed their hand and exposed that over 1/3 of Detroit precincts registered more ballots than voters.  Woops!  Did the Russians hack these systems to drive up the popular vote for Clinton?  Donna Brazile was worried about Clinton winning the electoral total but not the popular vote.  Did the Russians help her run up the vote in California?  If we excluded California, which is actually a conservative state outside of the liberal cesspools, Trump barely beat Hillary in the popular vote combined in the other 49 states.  In the Wisconsin recount, Trump gained votes.  Did Russians inflate Clinton's totals, or did they suppress Trump's?

The election was too close and could have gone either way, making an election hack less likely I believe.  There are different scenarios that could have played out in Clinton's favor, but two off the top of my head are Pennsylvania and Florida.  It's very plausible that Clinton could have taken Florida if she picked off a few more Cubans, and Pennsylvania if she didn't promise to put coal miners out of business.  Castro endorsed Clinton before he went tango uniform, and the Democrat party fawned over Castro, and don't think the Cubans didn't notice.  Of the Latino vote in Florida, Clinton lost the Cubans by a nice chunk, 41% to Trump's 54% of the ~800k Cuban voters.  In Pennsylvania, the state elected Democrats down the ticket, including Attorney General, State Treasurer, a Congressional seat, and a few state legislatures and representatives.  The Democrats narrowly lost their US Senate seat, but it was close.  Turnout wasn't the issue for Democrats in PA – they just didn't check Clinton while they were voting for the other Democrats.

Those two states would have thrown the election to Clinton.

Everyone knows how weak Obama is.  There's no consequence for a foreign actor to launch a cyber-attack on us.  Why has the Obama administration been so easy to hack?  Iran hacked them.  China hacked them.  Russia, of course, hacked them.  Instead of fighting back, the Obama administration decides to retaliate and attack -- the Secretary of State of Georgia.  Hack attempts from the Department of Homeland Security occurred not once, not twice, but ten times!  Seriously, if the Obama administration went after our enemies like they did Americans, maybe the country wouldn't have rejected Democrats as much over the past 6 years.

Why are Democrats pretending they now care about cyber-security?  Maybe they have some secret strategy and they really have an A-Team behind the scenes that have a handle on everything.  I know for a fact they have some badasses.  I am open to it, but in the case of Georgia, why ignore Brian Kemp?  The good guys wouldn't shove him off, but maybe there's more to the story there as well, I don't know.  Since he was getting ignored, he had to reach out to someone who cares.

The Clinton email scandal proved how little the Democrats care about security.  Who hacked the Clinton's server?  How much classified data was compromised?  The most careless error, however, turned out to be John Podesta's email blunder.  He fell for one of the oldest SE tricks in the book.  Why would he know or even care about security?  He was only the head of the Clinton campaign.  He fell for that scam and the attacker stole a decade's worth of emails, yet they want to pretend the Russians did it.  Sorry, nobody believes that.  One big goodie we got from the Podesta emails is we now know that the Trump transition team should not eat anything in the White House refrigerator marked "John P".

Clinton lost because she and her campaign had no idea America had so many Americans.  Clinton in true academic form is blaming everyone but herself.  Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's Comm Director, still says Kellyanne Conway delivered all those racists who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.  They have grasped for every excuse they can conjure up, but the country didn't want her or her bag of Marxism.  Even Obama says the Russians didn't affect the election and implied that Clinton wasn't good at campaigning and couldn't deliver the Democrat message.  He's wrong, she did, and the country rejected it, but whatever helps him sleep better at night.

Share on Telegram

Recent Articles