>The group also cited concerns over public distrust of political leaders and the media, saying it is drawing away from the focus on real threats.

So... depending on how they meant to word that, are they seriously wagging their finger at the public for not blindly falling in line behind this unprecedented, petty shit-show? That's an impressive amount of hubris.

No, I believe they are trying to say that rule of law is breaking down, and the fabric of our society is at stake.

It still sounds as though they accuse the public for this, though. I can't abide that.

Well, it is the public who elected the leaders, the public who chooses the advice of biased talking heads while disregarding those with legitimate domain expertise, and the public that is unwilling to engage in real debate between factions and engage in independent critical thought. So yes, it is the public's fault.

I agree, but only so far. There is also the enormous amount of corruption that keeps these political machines opaque and inaccessable to the public, by design.

My point isn't that we are blameless, but that this has been forced upon us in varying degrees. Our options each election year are purposefully limited, and no matter the campaign promise, we get the same results each time--and those are the officials we have a modicum of control over through elections.

We're responsible for fixing it, but distrust in the system is an integral part of fixing it.

You're going to have to qualify that claim.

How would you like the comment to be qualified? Most direct public confirmation I can think of would be the IG report regarding violations, I believe it was one of the Snowden documents, in which multiple people who tried to “test” search themselves or others and it failed to allow the query (They were disciplined either way, of course).

I don’t think there was a claim to the contrary, unless you’re thinking of targeted / secret FISA by FBI, which is a different issue yet a possibly valid point (due to lack of normal search warrant).

>Luckily, we have more than two parties to vote for

Not to most americans--especially when it comes time to vote.

There's a real catch-22: the multiple other parties we (in the US) are capable of voting for will never have a chance at winning if we don't treat them as real alternatives to the entrenched two.

There's a reason both D's and R's repeat the lines "voting for a third party is a wasted vote" and play the polarizing "if you vote third party, you're voting for <opposite party>" card each election season. It may be partially true at the time, but also implies there are only two parties that can actually win -- which is something that can easily change, especially as D's and R's both move further towards the end of their respective spectrums.

I think the key is to vote third (alternative?) party in smaller elections (mayor, state senate), and then work up.

Voting third party for congress is mostly a waste of time for now, and it doesn't seem likely that we're going to see a massive enough shift in voter participation to change that all in one go, but I think with enough effort to build up non-D/R party support at the local level that could change a lot faster than most people think.

I'm less optimistic about the presidency, really. I doubt the reigning parties will let that slip out of their hands.

You wouldn't transfer a car to Google Play, would you?

I'm not sure what that means. Every way that I can think of to compare movie ownership and car ownership suggests that I should be able to transfer a movie from one service to another.

They can be assumptions because life is complex & sometimes people tell themselves convenient lies to make themselves feel better.

It depends on the circumstances.

Like I said, it really depends on the circumstances.

Sometimes having control over your fight-or-flight reaction is better for you, personally, given your value system, than say trampeling fellow coworkers in a panic on your way out the door.

Don't judge too harshly people who don't share your starry-eyed view of the world. Let them have their peace if they're so resolved.

If true, Armageddon can't get here fast enough.

Events specifically related to an incoming ICBM? Context matters. People will react differently depending on the circumstances, which means there are things to learn there.

The least nefarious reason for a 3 letter agency to do this would be to dry-run a reaction plan to such an event, and take what they learn from reactions & apply what they learn to improve said plan

Then again, it could be a dry-run to measure peoples sentiments toward a war with NK. Less likely, but still possible.

Pranksters=/=Russia.

I didn't say otherwise. I implied that if pranksters can pull off a hack it is likely that Russia also can.

Both Russia and NK have obvious motives and capability to do it.

It doesn't mean you stop looking for causes or eliminate human error though.

The viability of Russia/NK depends on how the EAS network is set up in Hawaii. If they have internet-facing servers, it's completely possible.

Still, implicating other countries so soon seems premature and reactonary to me. Its like corporate news jumping to 'terrorism' immediately after any domestic tragedy. Our threat models need to include more than just nation states. Otherwise, we end up contributing to escalation through untethered fear.

COINTELPRO is a poor comparison. A better example would be Operation Mockingbird (CIA, before the Church Committee & all that that entailed), or Operation Northwoods--to a lesser extent (also before the Church Committee, under JFK).

Its my personally held opinion that Operation Mockingbird never died. I feel that the intelligence arms are the deep state running the show through misinformation campaigns. My personal opinion held in this, the 2nd paragraph, is 100% conjecture. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found to be true, though.