|
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. |
This Tillerson thing will be interesting. An ExonnMobil guy + Russia tie means he will get about 0 Democrat votes, and only needs 3 GOP no votes. Interesting to see if these Senators will actually stand up to Trump or not, could set the tone for the next few years.
|
On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:
And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published.
Then I hope you'll appreciate the reverse, that the people who made the biggest stink about Obama meddling by arguing in favor of Remain are now saying so what if Russia hacked a presidential candidate's camp to get the candidate favorable to them to win. I don't believe for a second that if this were an abstract hypothetical with made up countries and x and y instead of people, anyone would have said that the former of the two actions is worse.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump
Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then.
The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 08:56 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:
And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. Then I hope you'll appreciate the reverse, that the people who made the biggest stink about Obama meddling by arguing in favor of Remain are now saying so what if Russia hacked a presidential candidate's camp to get the candidate favorable to them to win. I don't believe for a second that if this were an abstract hypothetical with made up countries and x and y instead of people, anyone would have said that the former of the two actions is worse.
That it's a partisan issue in both cases is a problem. Frankly the fact that there isn't universal denunciation of foreign entities butting their way into local elections is a sign of something not so close to a healthy democracy.
And that's not even noting the fact that the people now making a fuss over the Russians are the same who said "no big deal about Obama." So we can play that hypocrisy game in reverse.
|
On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make?
we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway.
|
On December 11 2016 03:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 03:05 Tachion wrote:
Is anyone still skeptical that Russia was involved at all? Between the department of homeland security, the office of the director of national intelligence, the NSA, and the CIA confirming Russian interference, is there any doubt left to be had?
Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not quite sure what the big deal is supposed to be or why this would have to be leaked?
No big deal really. An openly hostile foreign dictatorship hacks into parties to change the election outcome in favour of a candidate that they know willl probably weaken the country but really who cares. Let's talk again of whether or not that room from the Clinton Foundation was designed for private use, and other truly essential questions.
I'm amazed you don't see how far your double standard goes.
Meanwhile a big oil executive with business ties to Russia will be secretary of State. But let's concentrate on how corrupt Hillary would have been because DNC.
Sarcasm apart, as a leftist, you really have nothing to say to what is happening?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway.
I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it.
|
On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make?
Uh, a couple things. First of all, weren't you the one shitting on liberals a few months ago for saying the wikileaks were unconfirmed, on the basis that there is zero precedent for wikileaks fabricating info? If so, how does the same defense not apply to WaPo fabricating sources?
Also, how is it not relevant in a US politics thread whether or not the US president got elected partly on the back of illegal election interference by a foreign government whose interests may not align with our own? Seems a lot more relevant than when you guys get off on hypotheticals about whether genocide could be a moral or effective military tactic under the right conditions.
|
On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it.
Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal.
|
On December 11 2016 09:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 08:56 Dan HH wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:
And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. Then I hope you'll appreciate the reverse, that the people who made the biggest stink about Obama meddling by arguing in favor of Remain are now saying so what if Russia hacked a presidential candidate's camp to get the candidate favorable to them to win. I don't believe for a second that if this were an abstract hypothetical with made up countries and x and y instead of people, anyone would have said that the former of the two actions is worse. That it's a partisan issue in both cases is a problem. Frankly the fact that there isn't universal denunciation of foreign entities butting their way into local elections is a sign of something not so close to a healthy democracy. And that's not even noting the fact that the people now making a fuss over the Russians are the same who said "no big deal about Obama." So we can play that hypocrisy game in reverse.
I don't think we can, I'd have no problem with Putin publicly supporting/arguing in favor of Trump. Though I won't rehash why I disagree with the equivalency between trying to persuade via publicly speaking and trying to influence via covert actions because it didn't go through the last time.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it. Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal.
It shouldn't be a partisan issue but by virtue of who takes the "it's Russia" vs. "look at the hacks, Russia or someone else" side it happens to be split along Clinton vs anti-Clinton lines.
|
On December 11 2016 09:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it. Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal. It shouldn't be a partisan issue but by virtue of who takes the "it's Russia" vs. "look at the hacks, Russia or someone else" side it happens to be split along Clinton vs anti-Clinton lines.
theres a few republicans who want this investigated. Graham for one
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote:
Uh, a couple things. First of all, weren't you the one shitting on liberals a few months ago for saying the wikileaks were unconfirmed, on the basis that there is zero precedent for wikileaks fabricating info? If so, how does the same defense not apply to WaPo fabricating sources?
I think you're thinking of GH. I mostly stayed out of the "legitimacy of wikileaks" argument. I could have said that but I don't recall doing so at all.
On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote:
Also, how is it not relevant in a US politics thread whether or not the US president got elected partly on the back of illegal election interference by a foreign government whose interests may not align with our own? Seems a lot more relevant than when you guys get off on hypotheticals about whether genocide could be a moral or effective military tactic under the right conditions.
Deflection and straw man. How does a different argument you don't care for have to do with anything?
So say Russia wanted to get Trump elected. Mission accomplished. Now what? Would you like to have the entire election invalidated under Russian conspiracy and rerun the primaries and general? Should we just hand it to #2? Get rid of Trump and put Pence in as president? Be pouty and upset about it? That's my question: what of it?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 09:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways).
It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it. Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal. It shouldn't be a partisan issue but by virtue of who takes the "it's Russia" vs. "look at the hacks, Russia or someone else" side it happens to be split along Clinton vs anti-Clinton lines. theres a few republicans who want this investigated. Graham for one
Graham doesn't exactly fall into the anti-Clinton camp. He's more like a "defectors from the Trump Republicans" Republican.
|
On December 11 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote:
Uh, a couple things. First of all, weren't you the one shitting on liberals a few months ago for saying the wikileaks were unconfirmed, on the basis that there is zero precedent for wikileaks fabricating info? If so, how does the same defense not apply to WaPo fabricating sources? I think you're thinking of GH. I mostly stayed out of the "legitimacy of wikileaks" argument. I could have said that but I don't recall doing so at all. Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote:
Also, how is it not relevant in a US politics thread whether or not the US president got elected partly on the back of illegal election interference by a foreign government whose interests may not align with our own? Seems a lot more relevant than when you guys get off on hypotheticals about whether genocide could be a moral or effective military tactic under the right conditions. Deflection and straw man. How does a different argument you don't care for have to do with anything? So say Russia wanted to get Trump elected. Mission accomplished. Now what? Would you like to have the entire election invalidated under Russian conspiracy and rerun the primaries and general? Should we just hand it to #2? Get rid of Trump and put Pence in as president? Be pouty and upset about it? That's my question: what of it?
If there's a link between trump and russia, I think a good move would be to give presidency to Hillary and throw trump and maybe pence in jail. At the very least if trump does become president, impeach him if there is a link. Other than that? Heavier sanctions on russia, publicly denounce them for it and have our allies sanction russia.
|
On December 11 2016 09:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 07:11 travis wrote:
So apparently if you run for president and then Russia does something that supports you, then you can't be president.
Is that the point?
If not, then what's the point here?
(this is all assuming we give a shit about the "intelligence" and ignore that we aren't actually being told what the intelligence is, and also ignore that even if they were right they were only exposing things that were true anyways - things that our own media should have been exposing)
Honestly this is all just so, so stupid. So stupid. I don't even like Trump but holy shit how do people not see right through this shit? It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways). It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it. Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal. It shouldn't be a partisan issue but by virtue of who takes the "it's Russia" vs. "look at the hacks, Russia or someone else" side it happens to be split along Clinton vs anti-Clinton lines.
That doesn't mean it's a partisan issue though in the genuine sense, that just means that Trump supporters act opportunistically by tolerating foreign interference in their elections although they should not and would not if their candidate was affected.
You can't really go "Hillary stands to profit from it, so it's partisan by definition". That's not what partisan means. And I actually think Clinton + supporters would not do the same thing if the roles were reversed.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 09:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:01 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:56 Dan HH wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:
And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. Then I hope you'll appreciate the reverse, that the people who made the biggest stink about Obama meddling by arguing in favor of Remain are now saying so what if Russia hacked a presidential candidate's camp to get the candidate favorable to them to win. I don't believe for a second that if this were an abstract hypothetical with made up countries and x and y instead of people, anyone would have said that the former of the two actions is worse. That it's a partisan issue in both cases is a problem. Frankly the fact that there isn't universal denunciation of foreign entities butting their way into local elections is a sign of something not so close to a healthy democracy. And that's not even noting the fact that the people now making a fuss over the Russians are the same who said "no big deal about Obama." So we can play that hypocrisy game in reverse. I don't think we can, I'd have no problem with Putin publicly supporting/arguing in favor of Trump. Though I won't rehash why I disagree with the equivalency between trying to persuade via publicly speaking and trying to influence via covert actions because it didn't go through the last time.
"Back of the queue" is more than just making the case, it's a thinly veiled threat. Not really much different from saying "here's what your candidate's staff have been saying behind closed doors." Neither is really very great and I'm not the world's biggest fan of the hack-and-leak strategy but I'll give the Day9 explanation of "I don't really agree with a lot of these choices but they seem to be working."
Though, again, what would you like to be done about it all? Acknowledgment that a foreign country is meddling? I'm pretty sure few people would argue that Russia wasn't responsible and I'm not one of the exceptions there (though I might disagree that intelligence says so = proof).
|
On December 11 2016 09:31 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote:
Uh, a couple things. First of all, weren't you the one shitting on liberals a few months ago for saying the wikileaks were unconfirmed, on the basis that there is zero precedent for wikileaks fabricating info? If so, how does the same defense not apply to WaPo fabricating sources? I think you're thinking of GH. I mostly stayed out of the "legitimacy of wikileaks" argument. I could have said that but I don't recall doing so at all. On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote:
Also, how is it not relevant in a US politics thread whether or not the US president got elected partly on the back of illegal election interference by a foreign government whose interests may not align with our own? Seems a lot more relevant than when you guys get off on hypotheticals about whether genocide could be a moral or effective military tactic under the right conditions. Deflection and straw man. How does a different argument you don't care for have to do with anything? So say Russia wanted to get Trump elected. Mission accomplished. Now what? Would you like to have the entire election invalidated under Russian conspiracy and rerun the primaries and general? Should we just hand it to #2? Get rid of Trump and put Pence in as president? Be pouty and upset about it? That's my question: what of it? If there's a link between trump and russia, I think a good move would be to give presidency to Hillary and throw trump and maybe pence in jail. At the very least if trump does become president, impeach him if there is a link. Other than that? Heavier sanctions on russia, publicly denounce them for it and have our allies sanction russia.
It really really wouldn't be a good move, that would cause more damage than an actual Trump presidency. And I very much doubt there's any legal ground for it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 09:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
It's basically that Hillary supporters say the Russians did it, the rest of the people say, look what these leaks tell us. That "rest of the people" is the Bernie left, the Trump right, but not necessarily the moderate non-Trump right (who are pretty much overlapping with "Hillary supporters" anyways).
It's quite telling that apparent meddling has basically been reduced to a partisan issue. It tells us that the "Russians" were correct in their interpretation that the hacks would have the proper effect of feeding the flame war rather than uniting against a foreign boogeyman that is used to distract from genuine domestic concerns that are being deflected more so than defended. Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it. Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal. It shouldn't be a partisan issue but by virtue of who takes the "it's Russia" vs. "look at the hacks, Russia or someone else" side it happens to be split along Clinton vs anti-Clinton lines. That doesn't mean it's a partisan issue though in the genuine sense, that just means that Trump supporters act opportunistically by tolerating foreign interference in their elections although they should not and would not if their candidate was affected. You can't really go "Hillary stands to profit from it, so it's partisan by definition". That's not what partisan means. And I actually think Clinton + supporters would not do the same thing if the roles were reversed.
Whichever word you wish to use, one group (Trump right and Bernie left) focuses on the contents of the leak, the other side (establishment Republicans and the Clinton base) focuses on Russia. Neither does both.
|
Its a tricky position. I wouldnt say that the Russian interference cost Hillary the election but and don't think its something you can take Trumps presidency away for (or should for that matter, the vote wasnt rigged. The information was).
But one the other hand you cant let is pass unaddressed either, especially when there is a good reason to believe there is further Russian influence in Trumps staff and department picks.
I don't know how the US should deal with this. I just know that doing nothing is a terrible choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
