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
Giving us more important info does the opposite of undermine our elections. Blaming the leak for Trump's victory is like blaming a casino for someone losing all their money at gambling, of blaming Nestle for making you fat because you ate so much chocolate. Russia didn't force or deceive anyone into voting the way they did.
My question to you, Numbers, is this - if that's how you're looking at it, then where's all the information about the RNC's shady practices? I'm legitimately asking here - do you think the RNC just has no shady practices? The information in the leak may be important to know, but if you're for information at all costs, even you must be wondering where the data on the other side is.
I think I understand what you're saying - that knowing more, regardless of why we know more, is a good thing. But that's blinding yourself to the circumstances and the reality of the leak, which is that a foreign power released private material hacked from our government in a controlled way to influence our elections to a certain result. Let me restate that.
A foreign power released private material hacked from our government in a controlled way to influence our elections to a certain result.
edited 30th Dec '16 11:07:38 PM by RedSavant
It's been fun.![]()
![]()
For the record, that study defines Generation Z as having been born 2001 or later.
edited 30th Dec '16 11:11:22 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!I'm sorry, Le Garcon. I shouldn't have been so abrasive. I just feel frustrated because I feel like you and most other people on this thread are repeatedly missing what should be an obvious point. It looks to me like you guys are too caught up in Cold War-style anti-Russian fervor and Democratic tribalism to think straight.
I vote Democrat consistently, and I agree with virtually every criticism of Trump or the Republicans I've seen on this thread that isn't related to the leaks or Russia. I still think the Democrats are pretty awful, but the Republicans are significantly worse.
I just feel like a lot of my fellow Democratic supporters are not being principled. They're against transparency in government when it hurts our side, or they think that anything Russia does is bad simply because Russia did it. (Yes, Russia's done some awful things, but they doesn't mean anything they can't also do good things). It's part of the larger war against nuance and complexity on the net that always makes me feel like tearing my hair out. I guess we're just never going to agree on this and we've probably both exhausted all the arguments for our positions.
Just admit it.
You're not fooling anyone.
Wanting the voters to have the info they need to make their decision is more patriotic then wanting to withhold info to trick them into voting a certain way.
edited 30th Dec '16 11:15:42 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
How about Russia flooding the Internet with propaganda, misinformation, and lies designed to turn the public away from Clinton and towards Trump? How about Russia hiring hundreds or thousands of trolls to pose as American Trump supporters, with the purpose of browbeating anti-Trump activists into submission while simultaneously providing the illusion of greater numbers than the Trumplings actually possess?
How about Russia illegally hacking and releasing emails from the DNC, but mysteriously sitting on whatever information they gleaned from the RNC? (Probably as future blackmail material.) It ought to be painfully obvious to anyone at this point that they interfered with the express purpose of getting Trump elected. To subvert democracy and meddle in what should be one of the most sacred American political processes. No transparency. No maintaining the integrity of the system. Their objective was very specific, and could result in incalculable damage being done to America and the world at large.
For God's sake, it's not "Cold War fervor" when Russia are literally taking over our country and installing a klepocratic fascist against the will of the people. It's not exactly just the people in this thread saying it either - experts and analysts from all over are warning that the scope of this disaster cannot be exaggerated. Garry Kasparov, for example.
I'm serious when I ask this - what do you think Russia's motivation was for hacking both the DNC and the RNC...but only releasing the information from the DNC?
edited 30th Dec '16 11:22:12 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."The insides of liberal minds must be free for all and sundry to bitch about.
It's like someone tried cloning Snowden's mind but botched it and gave us a schoolkid with no clue as to why their neighbors would get fired for telling them their trade secrets.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot![]()
![]()
"Patriotic" isn't really the word I'd use here - it doesn't seem especially relevant, and I don't really think it's something you can quantify this sort of action with.
I understand your concerns, to be sure. That said, I think it's pretty apparent by this point that these hackings were done with the intent of influencing the election. Whether they were a key factor in influencing the result is more difficult to ascertain, but if there exists any positive outcome of this, I think that the intent - and that it may have help accomplish that intent - tars it. We can talk about the will of the people all we want (although I am now convinced that the electoral college is not a fair representation of this), but things get more complicated when that will ends up causing a great deal of harm.
I was ultimately more concerned about the issues than any of this, and I'm rather frustrated that so many people appeared to have let something like this interfere with that.
edited 30th Dec '16 11:30:43 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!I wish the info about the RNC's shady practices had been leaked, too, if that's what you're asking. If you're asking why Wikileaks didn't also leak that, I don't know why for sure. It might be because they wanted to help the Republicans, but I think it's also plausible that the RNC just had better cyber-security.
Yes. Not only good, in fact, but vital for a democracy. (Not that we're particularly democratic right now thanks to the control exerted over politicians through campaign donations, but I wish we were).
A foreign power released private material hacked from our government in a controlled way to influence our elections to a certain result
But isn't that like saying that it's bad for a city hit with a hurricane to be re-built because the business that paid for the rebuilding only did so to increase sales from good PR? Are the results of us getting the info from a foreign power that wants to influence our elections any worse than if we'd gotten the same info some other way?
I think blaming Russia for the election result is like blaming a candy company for making people fat or blaming a casino for people losing their money. It's the customer's responsibility to make wise decisions and it was the public's responsibility to weigh the info in the e-mails against the even worse things about Trump.
If true, it is bad that Russia did those things because they were deceiving the public in those cases rather than informing us. That makes those things a separate issue from the leaks.
Did they even manage to hack the RNC? If so, I wish both committee's dirty laundry had been released, but better that one's was than neither.
Giving us more info about what we're voting for isn't subverting democracy. It's doing the exact opposite.
That may not have been what the leakers intended, but that's what they ended up doing.
They didn't "install" him. They possibly convinced people to vote for him (I say "possibly" because a) I'm still skeptical of the alleged Russian responsibility for the leak and b) It's not clear how much the leak even influenced the election).
I agree that Trump will be a disaster. I'm just principled enough to support the public getting to know what they're voting for even if they then make a disastrous choice.
Even assuming they did also hack the RNC, I honestly don't care why they did it. I care that the American people were informed about things that should've been public knowledge to begin with. When it comes to judging whether or not an action was a good thing, I judge the action itself rather than the motives of the person who did it. Money donated to charity just to give the donor good PR is still money donated to charity. Corruption being exposed by someone who wanted to get us to vote a certain way is still corruption being exposed. Either way, I'll take it.
Yes, because that information is being disseminated in ways that are designed to be hostile to our democracy. While I understand and accept that we disagree on whether or not information should always be disseminated as widely as possible, you're seemingly intent on ignoring that people can and usually do disseminate information with the express intent of furthering their own goals.
Your simile is flawed anyway - was learning that the DNC preferred one candidate over another really worth showing Russia that they more or less have the methods for dictating what the American people see, read and think down?
I'm done arguing this. Enjoy your principles.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:05:37 AM by RedSavant
It's been fun.I'd compare it more to a candy salesmen selling candy to someone they knew had diabetes, or a casino admitting a known gambling addict whose family depends on for financial support. Or, say, selling a gun to someone you know has a history of domestic violence. Responsibility is a two-way street.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:05:59 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!See, I actually find this insulting. Because I'm not an American, and I was born after the Cold War ended. Neither of those things apply to me at all. So the idea that those things are the only reason I'm arguing this... bothers me. Surely it couldn't be because I believe what people in authority are saying or because I'm saying things that actually reflect my beliefs. And I'm not sacrificing any of my principles here because I think your principles on this matter are misguided.
What I was needling at way of metaphor, by the way, was the way they'd conspicuously not released any RNC emails. Which is less extreme than my example, yes, but your example was also more extreme than reality.
Also, @the Wikileaks release schedule things: It's a bit tricky for me to find a direct source because I'm not willing to give Wikileaks views or listen to Assange at all- I'm not even certain the stuff I was referring to is still up. Google does turn up lots of people discussing it, though. I mean, really, my source is 'I was here in this thread while it was happening and reading people talk about it'. So I guess flip back to early October and see if you can find that?
Are we talking about separate confirmations from each of the seventeen, or a confirmation by the one that speaks for the seventeen? If it's the latter, then again, what makes you think that one is trustworthy? And what makes you think the other seventeen wouldn't go along with it for fear of getting in trouble if they don't tow the party line?
It probably was to influence the American election. Again, though, the fact that we got more info to vote based on is good regardless of who leaked the info or why. Russia informed us in order to get us to vote for Trump? At least they informed us, and that's what I care about.
It's better than if the public found the info out some other way after the election and were left thinking "oh shit, I wouldn't have voted for her if I'd known that! Now we're stuck for four years with someone we wouldn't have voted for if we'd known this". If Russia was behind this, then it's pretty ironic that that they ended up doing something that was good for democracy, but I'm not going to complain.
I just don't see how matters what the intent of the person disseminating the information is so long as the info is true.
Again, it's not just a matter of who the DNC preferred. It's the way they went about helping the candidate they preferred.
Thank you, I will.
So what makes that comparison more valid? What problem does America have that's equivalent to the diabetes or gambling addiction in this metaphor?
]]quoteblock]]See, I actually find this insulting. Because I'm not an American, and I was born after the Cold War ended. Neither of those things apply to me at all. So the idea that those things are the only reason I'm arguing this... bothers me.[[/quoteblock]]
I didn't mean you specifically, it's just the vibe I'm getting from the segment of the population that's arguing this in general. Still, I'm sorry if I offended you. I don't really mean to antagonize anyone here, I just felt like people are missing my point over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and it's really frustrating.
I don't doubt that you or most people in your camp believe what you're saying and what you're being told. I just think a lot of the people arguing what you're arguing - not you, but others like you - would react rather differently if it were Republican corruption that was exposed by a Russian leak. Oftentimes, the way they phrase their arguments even seems to imply that the leak was only bad because it hurt Hillary, meaning it would've been good if it'd hurt Trump instead.
I feel like a lot of people now are judging events based on how it affects their team rather than consistent principles. I don't think they're doing it consciously, but it may be subconsciously affecting how the evaluate the truthfulness of what people in power are saying.
Fair enough.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:46:03 AM by SeriesOfNumbers
The intelligence agencies do often disagree, and fairly publicly. For instance there was a fairly public disagreement between the FBI and CIA about whether the Russians were trying to get Trump elected or just trying to generally sow discord. So if either of them, or any of the other agencies didn't think Russia was behind it at all, one would have expected them to speak up.
And what makes you think any organization whose purpose is to speak for the intelligence agencies as a collective can't be trusted to do that?
I'm back real quick.
Okay, so learning about one's misdeeds is better than none. But what if that information leak is itself designed to be a lie of omission? Say two people in your office are up for promotion, and both of them steal lunches out of the fridge. The head of the neighboring department wants Jack to be manager, so he tells everyone that Karen steals lunches. People are going to assume, falsely, that Jack doesn't steal lunches, and the manager, by the simple omission of the information about Jack, has created more corruption and more voter deception. It gives an invested, interested third party the respect afforded a neutral party when in reality it's anything but. Pretending the Russian hack was freeing information for the sake of information, or that the people who got that information treated it that way, is disingenuous at best.
To summarize, you're holding an incomplete, politically motivated, and self-interested leak (by a foreign power) as a victory for neutral, unbiased freedom of information.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:23:25 AM by RedSavant
It's been fun.![]()
![]()
Well, to start with, just about every form of bigotry under the sun, which has severed tarred our nation's past, and continues to rear its ugly head in the present day - and distressingly often, in the form of violence. To give such sentiments a voice, and then to elect that voice President...is a very bad thing.
I'm sure other people here could name more.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:25:50 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
The most direct comparison would be time a bunch of leaked and out of context documents from climate scientists were framed in a way that made it look like they were managing a conspiracy to trick the world into thinking Global Warming was a thing. Which did a lot to strengthen the movement Climate Change deniers.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:39:15 AM by Gilphon
Oh, that's another good one - giving one of largest contributors to climate change a president who's a climate change denier.
The equivalent here might be giving someone who smokes 20 packs a day a doctor who doesn't think smoking causes cancer.
Oh God! Natural light!Being German, I experienced the consequences of cold war first hand, and I have really no desire to see a repeat of one. I always have been angry with both the US and Russia for putting the world in fear for so long. But I also take the hacking allegations very seriously. This isn't a cold war though. This is the first big scale cyberwar in the history of humanity, and in a way, this is even more dangerous than the cold war ever was. Can you imagine what a big scale cyber attack could do to any country which is currently running mainly on computers (which is more or less most of the EU and many of the American countries)?
And when it comes to Russia: They spend just years to keep the war in Syria going. Now they act as if they are bringing peace, but what is actually happening there is that three powerful states work on taking control over another state, splitting it up between them. This is already the second coup Putin made in the last ten years with the intention to expand his territory. Excuse me if I am not confident that he wont continue on this path. He needs either the EU or the US to fall apart in order to get what he wants...and currently the US is ironically the more vulnerable target.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:53:15 AM by Swanpride

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
What really annoys me (assuming the poster is not just talking shit) is the notion that the heads of the alt-right don' actually believe the crap they are selling. The USA is going to hell because some assholes want to either sell books or watch things burn down (thinking they of course will be safe).
Disgusted, but not surprised