|
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. |
On November 08 2016 00:17 LegalLord wrote:
Assange has commented that Trump's own words are more of an argument against him than anything that they could release. I could certainly believe that.
The thing is despite saying that Wikileaks has targeted the leaks for the maximal impact to Clinton's campaign, but not necessarily Clinton's presidency. So it seems a bit awkward in a motivational sense.
Like if you wanted to hold Clinton the maximal amount accountable for the leaks the time to leak them would either be after the campaign (when there's no Trump to focus on).
Not that I think it means Trump support, more just that I think it means the whole thing is being heavily motivated by a dislike of Clinton by Assange/Wikileaks.
|
On November 08 2016 00:26 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 00:17 LegalLord wrote:
Assange has commented that Trump's own words are more of an argument against him than anything that they could release. I could certainly believe that. The thing is despite saying that Wikileaks has targeted the leaks for the maximal impact to Clinton's campaign, but not necessarily Clinton's presidency. So it seems a bit awkward in a motivational sense. Like if you wanted to hold Clinton the maximal amount accountable for the leaks the time to leak them would either be after the campaign (when there's no Trump to focus on). Not that I think it means Trump support, more just that I think it means the whole thing is being heavily motivated by a dislike of Clinton by Assange/Wikileaks.
I think the simple answer is that Assange sees releasing stuff during the campaign as more damaging of Clinton, so he does it then. I think he's taking a Bernie or bust'esque perspective by not being concerned with what it means or what happens, just making sure maximum damage is delivered to Clinton.
|
The Russian motivation is to cast doubt on US democracy and cast its leaders as corrupt. Thus the US has no moral high ground or exceptionalism. In that regard it makes a of sense to happen during the campaign.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 08 2016 00:26 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 00:17 LegalLord wrote:
Assange has commented that Trump's own words are more of an argument against him than anything that they could release. I could certainly believe that. The thing is despite saying that Wikileaks has targeted the leaks for the maximal impact to Clinton's campaign, but not necessarily Clinton's presidency. So it seems a bit awkward in a motivational sense. Like if you wanted to hold Clinton the maximal amount accountable for the leaks the time to leak them would either be after the campaign (when there's no Trump to focus on). Not that I think it means Trump support, more just that I think it means the whole thing is being heavily motivated by a dislike of Clinton by Assange/Wikileaks.
If you believe the FBI, the motivation is actually even more general than that: to tug at deep-seated divisions within the US political climate and promote chaos. The Bernie-Hillary divide corresponds well to the DNC leaks. The Trump-Hillary divide corresponds well to the Podesta leaks. The DCLeaks (NATO emails regarding Ukraine policy) correspond to a FP push, though I think other countries care more about that one.
Like I said earlier, if they really wanted to sink Hillary, and they really do have contact with the Russian intelligence wing, then they would release some wiretaps that make Hillary look particularly incriminating (there is no way that an intelligence wing as expansive as Russia's would not have enough to put Hillary down if that was what they really wanted). These leaks are, I'm pretty sure, just mild enough that they don't start a war, and just severe enough that they exacerbate the existing divisions within the nation.
|
Personally, there are times where, instead of the current process, I'd rather just vote for an elector I trust, to look over a much wider set of potential candidates than we get to choose from, and in much greater detail, and then have the elector pick who to vote for.
i.e. sometimes I feel that indirect selection produces better results than direct selection, in part because someone who has that as their job (at least for a month or so, can really pour a lot of time into the details and looking at all the potential prospects)
sadly that's illegal in my state, you can only have electors pledged to a candidate.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
To expand on my previous point: suppose that the entire point of the Wikileaks leaks is to create chaos and disunity. I already explained which leaks correspond to what part of disunity. DNC leaks help the left hate Hillary, the Podesta leaks help the right do so. Though both groups have plenty of reason to do that already, but damn does it help to have a push in that direction.
Trump, on the other hand, doesn't need any leaks against him to help. He is like a pre-packaged agent of chaos. The Republican establishment (with the exception of hardliner has-beens looking for a new chance of relevance) despise him. Much of the right-wing despises him as well but not as much as they despise Hillary. And for the left, he is pretty much a complete non-starter. Nothing needs to be done to exacerbate that issue because it's already all there.
From that perspective, you could see why Wikileaks would leak only Hillary but not Trump, without being explicitly in the tank for Trump.
|
United States41989 Posts
My American father-in-law just called Obama a "jug-eared nigger". They're all coming out.
|
On November 08 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:
To expand on my previous point: suppose that the entire point of the Wikileaks leaks is to create chaos and disunity. I already explained which leaks correspond to what part of disunity. DNC leaks help the left hate Hillary, the Podesta leaks help the right do so. Though both groups have plenty of reason to do that already, but damn does it help to have a push in that direction.
Trump, on the other hand, doesn't need any leaks against him to help. He is like a pre-packaged agent of chaos. The Republican establishment (with the exception of hardliner has-beens looking for a new chance of relevance) despise him. Much of the right-wing despises him as well but not as much as they despise Hillary. And for the left, he is pretty much a complete non-starter. Nothing needs to be done to exacerbate that issue because it's already all there.
From that perspective, you could see why Wikileaks would leak only Hillary but not Trump, without being explicitly in the tank for Trump.
Does your reasoning not also make it advantageous for Trump to be president, from a Wikileaks perspective?
|
On November 08 2016 01:03 KwarK wrote:
My American father-in-law just called Obama a "jug-eared nigger". They're all coming out.
In laws and elections could be the worst. I wish you luck. I have cultivated a reputation of being aggressively argumentative with my Midwestern inlaws for the sole purpose of avoiding these debates.
|
On November 08 2016 00:46 zlefin wrote:
Personally, there are times where, instead of the current process, I'd rather just vote for an elector I trust, to look over a much wider set of potential candidates than we get to choose from, and in much greater detail, and then have the elector pick who to vote for.
i.e. sometimes I feel that indirect selection produces better results than direct selection, in part because someone who has that as their job (at least for a month or so, can really pour a lot of time into the details and looking at all the potential prospects)
sadly that's illegal in my state, you can only have electors pledged to a candidate.
The problem with that becomes that it is much easier to bribe/pressure the select group of electors rather then a hundred million people.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 08 2016 01:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:
To expand on my previous point: suppose that the entire point of the Wikileaks leaks is to create chaos and disunity. I already explained which leaks correspond to what part of disunity. DNC leaks help the left hate Hillary, the Podesta leaks help the right do so. Though both groups have plenty of reason to do that already, but damn does it help to have a push in that direction.
Trump, on the other hand, doesn't need any leaks against him to help. He is like a pre-packaged agent of chaos. The Republican establishment (with the exception of hardliner has-beens looking for a new chance of relevance) despise him. Much of the right-wing despises him as well but not as much as they despise Hillary. And for the left, he is pretty much a complete non-starter. Nothing needs to be done to exacerbate that issue because it's already all there.
From that perspective, you could see why Wikileaks would leak only Hillary but not Trump, without being explicitly in the tank for Trump. Does your reasoning not also make it advantageous for Trump to be president, from a Wikileaks perspective?
No, they really wouldn't care either way.
If Trump wins, the entire world sets into a panic. This is more chaotic, but ultimately I do expect it will be tempered and it'll just be one of those "Bush presidency fallout" scenarios played out all over again. Things will be chaotic for sure.
If Hillary wins, then we get Congressional Oversight Committee -ghazi for the next four years, and we will get a part of the population fully convinced that Hillary rigged the election to win, whether or not Trump actually claims rigging. The left will hate her when she inevitably pushes extremely centrist legislation that doesn't really go nearly as far as the leftists would like. She might even push for the TPP which would be brutally terrible from a domestic politics perspective. She will be chaos enough, and perhaps has the advantage of having that chaos more contained and directed than the Trump side.
Chaos either way. Doesn't matter who wins, if Wikileaks wanted chaos they got it.
|
On November 08 2016 01:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 01:03 KwarK wrote:
My American father-in-law just called Obama a "jug-eared nigger". They're all coming out. In laws and elections could be the worst. I wish you luck. I have cultivated a reputation of being aggressively argumentative with my Midwestern inlaws for the sole purpose of avoiding these debates.
Thanksgiving for me has the potential to be awkward. We will see if the dads who are Trump supporters are part of the "rigged!" category or the less bad MAGA category.
|
On November 08 2016 01:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 00:46 zlefin wrote:
Personally, there are times where, instead of the current process, I'd rather just vote for an elector I trust, to look over a much wider set of potential candidates than we get to choose from, and in much greater detail, and then have the elector pick who to vote for.
i.e. sometimes I feel that indirect selection produces better results than direct selection, in part because someone who has that as their job (at least for a month or so, can really pour a lot of time into the details and looking at all the potential prospects)
sadly that's illegal in my state, you can only have electors pledged to a candidate. The problem with that becomes that it is much easier to bribe/pressure the select group of electors rather then a hundred million people.
while true, there's also higher oversight of that group.
Appointed judges tend to be better than elected judges. I find most appointed federal officials to do a better job than the elected people in congress (and the presidency to a lesser extent)
as with many things, there are positive and negatives sides to it, and i'm not saying it's definitively right; just that there are times when I feel it's what I'd like to do. and that it'd be good to test out more thoroughly.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In IRL political discussions I always take a more humorous approach to discussing the issues. If I were to talk about how targeted killings of civilians is reasonably supported by the literature as a valid approach to dealing with terrorism, then I don't think I'd be very popular at parties.
I mostly stick to something like the following twit, things that both sides can appreciate and laugh at:
|
This is getting so hype 36 hrs from now we'll know who won
|
On November 08 2016 01:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is getting so hype 36 hrs from now we'll know who won
so we all hope at least. because if we don't know at that point, it means more bleh.
what're the odds we don't know the result in 36 hours?
|
United States41989 Posts
We'll know as soon as the first results come in really. Either there is a national swing against what the polls predicted or there isn't. If the first few east coast states show Hillary outperforming her polls by 2% then we're not going to need to wait and see what happens elsewhere.
|
On November 08 2016 01:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is getting so hype 36 hrs from now we'll know who won
I think its safe to assume that 36 hours from now we'll know who won and there's a good chance someone will be saying some treasonous shit.
|
On November 08 2016 01:29 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 01:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is getting so hype 36 hrs from now we'll know who won I think its safe to assume that 36 hours from now we'll know who won and there's a good chance someone will be saying some treasonous shit.
This is gonna be superspicy
|
On November 08 2016 01:29 KwarK wrote:
We'll know as soon as the first results come in really. Either there is a national swing against what the polls predicted or there isn't. If the first few east coast states show Hillary outperforming her polls by 2% then we're not going to need to wait and see what happens elsewhere.
So *exactly* what time will I start seeing legit voting numbers come in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
