Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
[[citation needed]]
Have you considered that maybe a large political organization is not capable of going through literally every email Wikileaks has released and cross checking them against their own databases?
edited 27th Dec '16 10:15:57 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotI don't know, but since we've established that they're a bunch of liars anyway, does the 'why' of every little lie really make a difference? After all, why does the FBI, who've been supporting Trump, back up the bogus story of Russia being behind the hacks? Hell, why do any of them arguing in favour of something that sounds like a conspiracy theory?
Or, sure,
could be a reason. Why not.
edited 27th Dec '16 10:28:15 PM by Gilphon
Wikileaks has become a fucking disgrace, and Assange can rot in that embassy.
Concerning why the Rust Belt went to Trump:
The whole "economic anxiety" thing is half-true at best, utter horseshit at worst.
The people who were actually poor and desperate were all "Oh, Crap! Trump and the GOP want to gut the social safety nets I need to live!" and voted for HRC.
The people who mostly went to Trump were (mostly white) middle class people who still had fairly comfortable lives (thanks in part to the improving economy under Obama's watch) but who found it just a bit more difficult to make ends meet, to pay off mortgages, to pay for their kids' college, with each passing month or year. They were in a slow but steady decline as the industries they relied on for decades gradually began to phase out the need for more workers or were just becoming obsolete. They believed that if things continued this way, they and theirs would be swept aside. And God forbid that they make any real effort to change themselves to adjust to the times.
Then along comes Trump. He's a "self-made" billionaire so obviously he knows a thing or two about success right? He's a celebrity, he was on TV! He beat all those fat cats in the primaries! He's against THE MAN! He's going around wearing a hardhat and eating fast food like Joe the Plumber! And he's promising to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! YEAH!
Best part? He doesn't ask them to change. Because he's going to make things go back to the way they were. He's gonna take the country back from all of those "other" people who aren't actual Americans like they are. Chicken in every pot.
Yeah, there's the bigotry and the sexism and the talk of corruption. But that's all coming from the evil "liberal" media anyway. And besides...EMAILS! BENGHAZI!
edited 27th Dec '16 10:37:53 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedIf any of the things they're now being accused of having done because of the e-mails are things they haven't done, then they should know that at least some of the e-mails are fake. Then they could at least say "we didn't do that and the e-mails that say we did are fake". But they haven't issued any denials of that nature. Besides, why not hire large numbers of people to do the cross-referencing. Or better yet, the intelligence agencies that are supposed to investigate hacks anyway could cross-reference to make sure a cyber-crime was actually committed. The US government executes massive operations every day.
@G Ilphon: Do you have a source that says there's a really large number of agencies agreeing on this? I've seen that claim stated or implied multiple times now, but I didn't find any article that said that when I tried to Google it.
edited 27th Dec '16 10:47:28 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
@ Series Of Numbers: Here's a source from five seconds of Googling - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/
Trump didn't win because of economic anxiety. He won because the USA is collectively going through a mid-life crisis. And Trump is the used car salesman selling them a Mid-Life Crisis Car. Problem is, said car only looks like a Cool Car thanks to the gilding, and it's actually The Alleged Car.
Disgusted, but not surprisedAnyways, #Thanks Donald is trending on Twitter.
I do find it funny when Republicans say that Trump will restore America's reputation overseas. Because, a few outliers (namely Israel) aside, other countries are either reacting with concern (core allies, China), smug glee (Russia, North Korea, Turkey, Philippines, ie countries currently lead by ruthless despots, if not outright psychopaths), abject horror (Eastern Europe, South Korea, Japan, Iran), or just sad laughter (everyone else).
The US is never going to live down Trump, even if it comes out of his administration intact.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.So here's yet another site of tweets of people who regret voting for Trump
This is the only good thing that'll come from a Trump Presidency. lol
I find it heartbreaking. Like watching The Office.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Kind of my fault. I made a post expressing frustration after visiting a chatroom on another site with someone still claiming that HRC and the DNC stole the primaries from Sanders, and that Sanders totally would have beaten Trump in a landslide.
That's kind of where it all started.
edited 28th Dec '16 5:37:21 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@164,451 and 164,452: Thanks. But according to that source, we don't have each agency independently declaring Russia's responsibility. We have one office that supposedly speaks for all the others declaring it. That one office could be lying.
@164,462: Why such binary thinking? One can criticize Clinton without defending Trump. I happen to think she was the lesser of two evils. I'm just annoyed that people are portraying exposure of her corruption as a bad thing.
edited 28th Dec '16 5:38:07 AM by SeriesOfNumbers

If Assange made up the contents of the e-mails, why don't the DNC and Clinton campaign say so? They could say "those e-mails aren't ours and we didn't do what they say we did". Instead they're saying "how dare Russia hack our e-mails". Why would they lie that the e-mails are authentic when the e-mails make them look bad? This is a principle called "citation of embarrassment".
The people who look bad because of the e-mails are admitting that the e-mails are real. This means the e-mails reveal facts that don't change because of who released them. Not only is it possible to separate them from who released them, it's necessary to do so. The alternative is a hypocritical standard where a person's corruption should only be revealed if you want them to loose and corrupt people should be allowed to get away with anything if you want them to win. The implication is that the American people should sometimes have info withheld from them to trick them into voting a certain way for the greater good. That's a fundamentally anti-democratic position.
Maybe, but be careful. The people in power are likely to say the release of information endangered someone regardless if its true or not when the info makes them look bad. This was also the Bush Jr. Administration's go-to attack on any release of info about the war crimes they ordered in Guantanamo and any criticism of their so-called "War On Terror".
Interesting. May I see a source on that?
How so?
Even if Russia was behind it, all they did was release information. They didn't force America to vote the way we did. They didn't lie in order to trick us (again, the people who look bad because of the leak still admit the leaded info is real). They simply informed us. Their reason for informing us may have been a selfish one, but they still informed us.
By your logic, if you told anyone the bad things about Trump before the election in hopes of getting them to not vote for him, you were horribly mucking with the election. Are you in favor of info about the candidates that could be relevant to their conduct in office being withheld from the public in order to trick them into voting a certain way for the greater good? I'm honestly asking, are you in favor of that? Because it sounds like you are.
Obviously, if Russia released lies to trick us into voting a certain way or hacked into voting machines to change the results, that would be bad. But that doesn't appear to be what happened. Your anger should instead be directed at people who thought the info was a good enough reason to let Trump win (which incidentally doesn't include me, since I held by nose and voted Clinton) or, better yet, at Clinton and the DNC for doing the bad things that they were exposed as doing.
Granted, it's questionable how much the e-mails even contributed to the results given that she was cleared before the election, but that's beside the point.
edited 27th Dec '16 10:35:04 PM by SeriesOfNumbers