EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4583
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:28 m4ini wrote: It's a bit mindboggling that people still argue with "but the intelligence said", considering that they blatantly lied multiple times over the last couple of years, all in regards to huge things. Starting from the WMD lies, to lying about spying on allies etc - all things "the intelligence said". I know it's cool to be edgy and contrarian, but saying "they're wrong because different people in the past were wrong" isn't a very sound argument. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:33 Gorsameth wrote: So look at it logically. What is the gain from blaming Russia and further antagonizing them when they did not do it? What is the gain for Russia by amateurishly hacking a server, leaving (allegedly) traces all the way back to the FSB etc, to push a candidate they'd think would be more benefitial? Do you realize how tinfoily that sounds? Look. I'm not saying russia wouldn't do it. I'm pretty sure they would. But certainly not the way this was done, which apparently leaves no other option but Russia as the culprit. It's literally the opposite of what a country would do. I know it's cool to be edgy and contrarian, but saying "they're wrong because different people in the past were wrong" isn't a very sound argument. That's actually how it works. If you have the same agency constantly being wrong (btw, they weren't just wrong, they deliberately lied), then you don't believe them until they actually prove it. The other way around would be rather idiotic, if you have a person constantly lying to you and then he asks you for 1000 bucks because his car broke, you check if the car is actually broken. Sidenote, in regards to "it wasn't": feel free to quote what Bush said what he regrets most in his presidency. edit: and since you're not really understand it: i'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying they got nothing. To argue that it was russia with literally(!) no proof whatsoever is plain naive. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:28 Stratos_speAr wrote: Distrust of a consensus because it's a consensus just makes it a waste of time to talk to you. It's impossible to operate under scientific and logical principles if you think that way. Show us the evidence that "experts" know who was responsible for the leak. Wikileaks says it wasn't the Russians. Russia agreed. A bunch of newspapers mere days after it happened all reported the same thing, that "sources" were confirming what they were reporting, that essentially the KGBoogeyman did it. Where's the meat? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:39 m4ini wrote: What is the gain for Russia by amateurishly hacking a server, leaving (allegedly) traces all the way back to the FSB etc, to push a candidate they'd think would be more benefitial? Do you realize how tinfoily that sounds? Look. I'm not saying russia wouldn't do it. I'm pretty sure they would. But certainly not the way this was done, which apparently leaves no other option but Russia as the culprit. It's literally the opposite of what a country would do. Your argument: "All of the evidence points to A, but it doesn't make sense to me for it to be A so it can't be A." And that doesn't even address the fact that we've been able to track hackers from other states for years. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:39 m4ini wrote: What is the gain for Russia by amateurishly hacking a server, leaving (allegedly) traces all the way back to the FSB etc, to push a candidate they'd think would be more benefitial? Do you realize how tinfoily that sounds? Look. I'm not saying russia wouldn't do it. I'm pretty sure they would. But certainly not the way this was done, which apparently leaves no other option but Russia as the culprit. It's literally the opposite of what a country would do. That's actually how it works. If you have the same agency constantly being wrong (btw, they weren't just wrong, they deliberately lied), then you don't believe them until they actually prove it. The other way around would be rather idiotic, if you have a person constantly lying to you and then he asks you for 1000 bucks because his car broke, you check if the car is actually broken. Mistakes, incompetence, any number of other reasons why they got caught when they didn't expect it? And your example doesn't fly, there is a clear reason why he would ask for 1000 bucks. What is the gain from fake claiming Russia did it? And why is a non government agency going along with it (rather then saying they don't know). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:19 silynxer wrote: Just to check if we live in the same universe: Do you guys believe that the main reason something similar has not happened to the Republican is that they are just that much more competent with computer security? No. (not me anyway) What people are avoiding is that there shouldn't be anything in these emails that significant anyway. We all know what the RNC emails would look like, and I don't think anyone would deny it. That's the difference. There's no point in "exposing" something no one is denying. Plus Reince did a damn good job keeping the primary fair (look at any of the voter irregularity charts). The reason these hacks could be "damning" and why Clinton's camp is trying to focus on how they were exposed in a grand conspiracy is because they know they are contrary to the lies they've been feeding people. No one discovered anything in the DNCLeaks, we just got the confirmation of things that were being actively denied by the parties involved. EDIT: They didn't can DWS because they had no idea what was happening, they canned her because she got caught red handed and they think they can preserve the underlings implicated by "giving up" DWS, as if she wasn't already going to go from the DNC to the campaign anyway. Just that much more awkward in her election year. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:22 m4ini wrote: By that measure, there's so many other people/organisations before russia that would have an interest in doing so. I love how people think that russians are just plain retarded. Like, properly, looking at a computer and wondering how shit works. Because clearly, a russian would not be able to comprehend the fact that if they'd get caught, it would be a win by default for HRC. They'd also use the computer of the head of the FSB, to make sure they're easily traceable. Doesn't ring any alarm bells though, to some people. Ffs. This is not really what I was getting at. If you read this page you will see people arguing that this is a sign of special incompetency. I think it is more of a sign of an unusually concerted attack. Note that with other major leaks the source was almost always internal showing the peculiar character of this event. Cyber security is difficult, in particular with large and not very tight organisations because you can attack the weakest link and there will be one. Furthermore, from an organisatorial view point, where things move very slow and many times don't start moving before something big happens, this is a very recent phenomenon. To reply more to your point:There are several indirect and direct lines to Russia for this, making it the most likely origin of this attack at the moment. The argument that "they didn't do it because that would be stupid" is not a very good one. There are many, many examples of organisations acting in counterproductive ways for their host (look at the rich history of the CIA for examples). Something like this does not need to be ordered by Putin directly. There could be a general campaign to discretely push for Trump and somewhere in the chain someone made a bad call. This is very realistic. (there is again incidential evidence for the existence of such a campaign, look for example here, where someone researching Russian troll factories realized that known troll accounts started to become conservative, note the date) | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:43 oBlade wrote: Show us the evidence that "experts" know who was responsible for the leak. Wikileaks says it wasn't the Russians. Russia agreed. A bunch of newspapers mere days after it happened all reported the same thing, that "sources" were confirming what they were reporting, that essentially the KGBoogeyman did it. Where's the meat? It's interesting that your standard of proof from journalism rises or falls so much depending on what you want the answer to be. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10109 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:33 Gorsameth wrote: So look at it logically. What is the gain from blaming Russia and further antagonizing them when they did not do it? Because now people is talking about if it was the Russians instead of talking about the leaks themselves. I thought that was blatantly obvious. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:52 Godwrath wrote: Because now people is talking about if it was the Russians instead of talking about the leaks themselves. I thought that was blatantly obvious. Not just that. With this, it also shifted the negative press to Trump. But alas, apparently russia is dumb enough to not see this coming, even though even people here called it immediately. To be clear: this hack is and always was more beneficial to HRC than it was to Trump. It in fact could never have been beneficial for Trump, because at best, people would've said that he paid "X" to hack a server. It's interesting that your standard of proof from journalism rises or falls so much depending on what you want the answer to be. Guess you're out then if all you have is a straw man against a certainly objective standpoint. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:19 silynxer wrote: Just to check if we live in the same universe: Do you guys believe that the main reason something similar has not happened to the Republican is that they are just that much more competent with computer security? It's possible. The DNC is notably incompetent and hackers aren't some sort of omniscient force that will avoid any attempt to stop them. The RNC organization itself has always struck me as more effective, given that they win elections despite a fractured party and much smaller base. I looked at the purported evidence for Russia doing it. It was admitted to be circumstantial. And I'd say that the best I could say about it is that it's possible that it's Russia. Possible. But it's taken as an excuse to say that Russia did it so the leak contents somehow don't matter. As it usually happens, the "Russia matters" vs "leak content matters" is divided across party lines. If people liked Hillary before this then they probably won't change their minds. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote: No. What people are avoiding is that there shouldn't be anything in these emails that significant anyway. We all know what the RNC emails would look like, and I don't think anyone would deny it. That's the difference. There's no point in "exposing" something no one is denying. Plus Reince did a damn good job keeping the primary fair (look at any of the voter irregularity charts). The reason these hacks could be "damning" and why Clinton's camp is trying to focus on how they were exposed in a grand conspiracy is because they know they are contrary to the lies they've been feeding people. No one discovered anything in the DNCLeaks, we just got the confirmation of things that were being actively denied by the parties involved. EDIT: They didn't can DWS because they had no idea what was happening, they canned her because she got caught red handed and they think they can preserve the underlings implicated by "giving up" DWS, as if she wasn't already going to go from the DNC to the campaign anyway. Just that much more awkward in her election year. Just to make sure I got you right: You believe no RNC mails were leaked because they are too uninteresting? [EDIT] To LegalLord: apparently the RNC got hacked as well (someone mentioned it above, can't check right now). | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:52 Godwrath wrote: Because now people is talking about if it was the Russians instead of talking about the leaks themselves. I thought that was blatantly obvious. The people are not talking about the leaks because there is nothing worth noting in them. If there is a smoking gun in there then it won't matter how hard they shout 'blame Russia'. hiding typical office emails is not worth antagonizing Russia like this. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:51 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's interesting that your standard of proof from journalism rises or falls so much depending on what you want the answer to be. I don't know what this is supposed to be referencing. If I require different standards of proof in different situations it would be related to the gravity of the subject. My asking for evidence isn't a rhetorical question. Can you just come out and link us the most credible pieces you've encountered with the case for Russia? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: The people are not talking about the leaks because there is nothing worth noting in them. If there is a smoking gun in there then it won't matter how hard they shout 'blame Russia'. hiding typical office emails is not worth antagonizing Russia like this. This is very standard anti-Russia rhetoric by US standards. It's almost not even notable. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10109 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: The people are not talking about the leaks because there is nothing worth noting in them. If there is a smoking gun in there then it won't matter how hard they shout 'blame Russia'. hiding typical office emails is not worth antagonizing Russia like this. How much substance there is on the leaks themselves is not relevant, only how they are perceived, and after the things we had seen in the past week, you are just being dishonest by neglecting the impact talking about it has. In the other hand, since when does the US care about antagonizing Russia ? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 30 2016 07:55 m4ini wrote: Not just that. With this, it also shifted the negative press to Trump. But alas, apparently russia is dumb enough to not see this coming, even though even people here called it immediately. To be clear: this hack is and always was more beneficial to HRC than it was to Trump. It in fact could never have been beneficial for Trump, because at best, people would've said that he paid "X" to hack a server. Guess you're out then if all you have is a straw man against a certainly objective standpoint. "I refuse to believe it, despite there being no evidence of any other conclusion, until the journalists reveal their sources, which is an incredibly unethical journalistic practice" is not an "objective stance", no matter how much you want it to be. Your stance would be more plausible if you offered any other explanation (preferably a plausible one). However, the only thing I've seen at all in this thread is, "It can't be Russia because I don't like that it shifts attention away from bashing Hillary". | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 30 2016 02:41 Trainrunnef wrote: There are so many things that I would like to say, but I cant really wrap my head around where to start. Firstly, you have quite a bit of audacity to presume that you know anything about this woman other than what has been reported in the media. You have no idea if she wanted/didn't want obama to be president, you have no idea what aspirations of her own she might have had, that she couldn't fulfill because of her role as 1st lady. You also have no idea what she has had to do for herself that her father or husband or mother or whoever, could not/would not do for her. Secondly she doesn't have some special claim to those slave because they share skin color, she has special claim because she along with millions of others share ancestry with those slaves (Her grandfather's grandmother was a slave who had a child with her master's son - who knows whether it was consensual). 5 generations from slavery to white house, and you're telling me hard work and sacrifice had nothing to do with it on her part. Sure I believe that a black woman in 1982 made it to Princeton University and through Harvard Law based solely on the work of her father Fraser C. Robinson III who was a pump worker at a water plant in Chicago. 1) She was never proud of her country until Obama ran for President, so I'm pretty sure she wanted it. If there is some other story that we haven't heard of her working at a real job, be sure to let me know. You're acting like Michelle's life is this great mystery, when in actuality, we know all about her because she told us. 2. A lot of hard-work and sacrifice on the part of other people put her in the white house. 3. She went to school. School is not work. A pump worker at a water plant is work. College is not work. | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 30 2016 02:47 Velr wrote: That post by cowboy is a prime example of why americans get ridiculed around the world: tons of useless, unfounded, scared bullshit. This post is a prime example of why Americans are sick of sending our soldiers to protect the rest of the world. They constantly blast us and our ways and our culture and sneer at us. The only thing they love is our blood. No matter what we do, it is the same story: hate on America and then scream and moan whenever anyone in America suggests that maybe we shouldn't be protecting people who hate us. Also, I notice you didn't actually refute anything I said. We all know why you didn't. So go ahead and keep attacking, it's all you've got and it's all you'll ever have. And it's why your side is losing. | ||
| ||
