Elections, Hacking, Russia, And Trump: This Is Serious

[The Rich Port]

Perhaps you can put some more meat on those bones.

I am fairly underweight.

We could tell by your post.

[Valrifell]

Not really. Bernie kept saying that we need to do more for the working class a bunch, that we need to get jobs back and do healthcare and education programs to help the poor and such. He said that other thing once. What are people going to pay attention to, something he said once in an appeal to the black community, or something he repeats every single time he opens his mouth.

Something he said once that insults a great part of the Electorate. Need an example? "Basket of Deplorables" comes to mind off the bat. Said it once, and for a few months after, everyone could not get over how she had the gall to insult Trump supporters and whatnot. The GOP and Trump would have a field day making it seem Sanders was completely out of touch and willing to do anything to pander to minority voters.

Also, the reason people were outraged and annoyed at the DNC with the leaks is because what they did was really scummy and very fraudulent, bordering on illegal.

I mean, no. Not at all, really. Pretty sure that political parties get to chose how they select their candidates. Could be wrong, but, still, the extent of what was revealed was that they didn't like Bernie in the slightest and discussed about ways to sabotage him if it came to that. I don't know about you, but I've seen no proof that they've ever acted upon what was discussed nor do I think the DNC was ever revealed to mess with the vote count to the tune of millions. Sanders lost by a wide margin, friendly reminder, it's time to move beyond that now.

If they didn't want this to blow up in their face, they should have not done it. Rather than cheat their way around popularity issues, they could have just, you know, listened to their voter base and appealed to what voters want. You know, like every other political party in the history of the world has always done. Its politics 101 really. They wouldn't have needed to cheat if they didn't snub their base the way they did, and then none of this scandal would have happened because there would have been nothing to leak.

They did do as voters wanted by nominating Hillary Clinton. Again, like it or not, Sanders lost by a healthy margin with absolutely no evidence of any actual tampering on the part of the DNC. Did they have a favorite? Hm, you're saying they liked the candidate who was a member of their party and an established candidate over the independent from nowhere? Color me shocked. Did they have their thumbs on the scales? Perhaps. Would that account for the fact Sanders still lost by a healthy margin? No, I don't think so. Had the DNC been completely impartial, he probably still would've lost due to his inability to connect with minority voters.

Its the same logic with what WikiLeaks did with US government documents about the shameful stuff the US does with out tax money. The government line is that the leaks are such a terrible thing that put the US at risk. Well, if knowledge of the things you do puts the US at risk, maybe you shouldn't have done it in the first place. If something is so shameful and damning that it would cause huge public outcry if it every surfaced, then you should seriously consider whether or not its really worth doing.

But the DNC didn't really do anything except discuss how much they don't like Bernie Sanders. There were a few fundraising things in there too, I think, but again, it can't all account for the numbers by which Bernie lost.

So basically what I'm saying is that while Russia should probably not have gone through DNC secrets (which again, we have no substantial proof that they did. Its why we say they *allegedly* did this), we really can't pin all the blame for the damage it caused to the Clinton campaign all on them. Some of the blame rightly belongs to the campaign and the DNC for doing these hacky tactics in the first place that they then had to keep under wraps.

The US government actually declassified their proof some time ago, it's back earlier in this thread, actually. There is proof they hacked the DNC with the intention of swaying the election. I agree, though, we do need to pin some of the fault on the actual Clinton campaign, mostly in their self-assured "we got this" attitude and not some conspiracy with the DNC. By doing that, in essence, you appear to be replacing what you think everyone's doing when we talk about Russia with the DNC. It's also not like the DNC did some super extra security things to make sure nobody would ever know, these were simply regular emails.

(EDITS: Fixed quote tags)

[Grave_n_idle]

Wow. You're really bad at this.

I wasn't being defensive - I was questioning why you assume that people rubbishing your awful arguments was because of THEIR political affiliations.

Since, clearly - the uselessness of your arguments is a bipartisan consensus.

Where are you coming from with all this? I said Hillar supporters like being lied to...

You did.

You got your nonsensical logical fallacies roundly dismissed, and suddenly expostulated a complete nonsense about Clinton supporters.

And I pointed out that Clinton supporters are not the reason your fallacy is fallacious. Your argument is just a shitty argument.

[Cannot think of a name]

One example of a "private public" policy change is that you, yourself, don't believe in abortion. You think, for whatever reason, that it is not inherently right and would not seek one yourself. The public face of this, is you still supporting abortion clinics and planned parenthood.

Because you accept that the world exists beyond your own mind and there are people who aren't you.
Normal people would consider this a very liberal, very open set of values. The willingness to accept outside views.

But nope, apparently it's lies and deceit and wrong and we must have STRONG OPINIONS and anyone who gets run down through these committed the irresponsible act of not having same STRONG OPINIONS

Actually no, I've already told someone else that the example you just gave isn't the same thing. A personal opinion isn't the same as a private position, either you lack the ability to distinguish between the two or you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Physician heal thyself?

Dude, give it up. Your position is found lacking and you're just bleeding everywhere now. We hashed this shit out when it happened, your johnny come lately arguments were disingenuous now as they were then.Trumps presidency has an asterisk and the Russian hacks, which are the subject of the thread, are just part of that rich tapestry.

[Opfornia]

You did.

You got your nonsensical logical fallacies roundly dismissed, and suddenly expostulated a complete nonsense about Clinton supporters.

And I pointed out that Clinton supporters are not the reason your fallacy is fallacious. Your argument is just a shitty argument.

I did what? Respond to someone? No, I just made a comment I knew would get attention from sensitive Susies and Hillary supporters.

"Roundly dismissed" oh no, a handful of pedantic liberals don't like what I have to say, therefor I am wrong.

And by the way, this isn't an argument, she is a liar by her own words

[Cannot think of a name]

This whole hacking thing is entirely misleading. The Russians never hacked any actual votes. No one is accusing them of doing this, at least no one in government.

What they are actually being accused of doing is leaking information from the DNC to WikiLeaks. Which is not really "hacking" the election, more leaking dirty secrets that we should have been aware of anyway.

So I guess that kinda makes this thread pointless, in a way.

Bernie would have won

Well, that clears up a point absolutely no one was confused about.

[Opfornia]

Actually no, I've already told someone else that the example you just gave isn't the same thing. A personal opinion isn't the same as a private position, either you lack the ability to distinguish between the two or you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Physician heal thyself?

Dude, give it up. Your position is found lacking and you're just bleeding everywhere now. We hashed this shit out when it happened, your johnny come lately arguments were disingenuous now as they were then.Trumps presidency has an asterisk and the Russian hacks, which are the subject of the thread, are just part of that rich tapestry.

Man, you've really been trying to get me to leave, I must be really dappening your echo chamber. Those who find my position lacking are my ideological detractors, but don't worry, the feeling is mutual.

You can keep your imaginary asterisk, you'll never see it in the history books.

[Grave_n_idle]

"Roundly dismissed" oh no, a handful of pedantic liberals don't like what I have to say, therefor I am wrong.

A handful of pedantic liberals

See, once again, you think the reason people think your arguments are awful is because of THEIR political affiliations. Which - as I already pointed out - is a false assertion, anyway - your logical fallacy is fallacious regardless of the partisanship of the audience.

And by the way, this isn't an argument, she is a liar by her own words

You are correct on one thing. This is not an argument.

[Opfornia]

"Roundly dismissed" oh no, a handful of pedantic liberals don't like what I have to say, therefor I am wrong.

A handful of pedantic liberals

See, once again, you think the reason people think your arguments are awful is because of THEIR political affiliations. Which - as I already pointed out - is a false assertion, anyway - your logical fallacy is fallacious regardless of the partisanship of the audience.

And by the way, this isn't an argument, she is a liar by her own words

You are correct on one thing. This is not an argument.

Uh, no, I never said you were wrong because you were liberals.

[Imperializt Russia]

You did.

You got your nonsensical logical fallacies roundly dismissed, and suddenly expostulated a complete nonsense about Clinton supporters.

And I pointed out that Clinton supporters are not the reason your fallacy is fallacious. Your argument is just a shitty argument.

I did what? Respond to someone? No, I just made a comment I knew would get attention from sensitive Susies and Hillary supporters.

"Roundly dismissed" oh no, a handful of pedantic liberals don't like what I have to say, therefor I am wrong.

And by the way, this isn't an argument, she is a liar by her own words

Please provide these words.

[Opfornia]

I did what? Respond to someone? No, I just made a comment I knew would get attention from sensitive Susies and Hillary supporters.

"Roundly dismissed" oh no, a handful of pedantic liberals don't like what I have to say, therefor I am wrong.

And by the way, this isn't an argument, she is a liar by her own words

Please provide these words.

What happened about the baby mincing?

Anyway, here you go; https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11011 I posted this earlier already.

Cue everyone giving their interpretation of what she meant.

[Opfornia]

Even if there was hacking (which I've yet to see the remotest evidence for), its irrelevant, what matters is whether the information is true or not.

Otherwise this is literally "OH-EM-GEE Russia is telling us truthful information about our leaders!"

Haha, no dude, in their eyes it's either Russian hackers, fake emails, or they just don't see anything wrong with what is in the emails. This form of denial actually has many symptoms.

[Sanctissima]

Even if there was hacking (which I've yet to see the remotest evidence for), its irrelevant, what matters is whether the information is true or not.

Otherwise this is literally "OH-EM-GEE Russia is telling us truthful information about our leaders!"

I mean, it's pretty clear they did hack the DNC.

The whole "hacking the elections" thing is nonsense, but they did go out of their way to steal documents from the DNC and give them to WikiLeaks.

[Valrifell]

Even if there was hacking (which I've yet to see the remotest evidence for), its irrelevant, what matters is whether the information is true or not.

Otherwise this is literally "OH-EM-GEE Russia is telling us truthful information about our leaders!"

So a foreign actor involving itself with the election of a sovereign state for its own - possibly nefarious - goals doesn't bother you at all? I guess it can't when it goes with your confirmation bias.

[Valrifell]

Haha, no dude, in their eyes it's either Russian hackers, fake emails, or they just don't see anything wrong with what is in the emails. This form of denial actually has many symptoms.

Prime example of the anti-intellectualism of some of the left.

Fucking irony

[Imperializt Russia]

Please provide these words.

What happened about the baby mincing?

You're spouting conspiracy-tier shit. I asked if you believed in another Hillary conspiracy, which you denied. It wasn't intentionally related to the "public/private abortion" comment before it.

Anyway, here you go; https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11011 I posted this earlier already.

Cue everyone giving their interpretation of what she meant.

Things not in this email "Hillary Clinton saying she is a liar in her own words".
Hillary isn't even in this email thread.

[The Rich Port]

Even if there was hacking (which I've yet to see the remotest evidence for), its irrelevant, what matters is whether the information is true or not.

Otherwise this is literally "OH-EM-GEE Russia is telling us truthful information about our leaders!"

I mean, it's pretty clear they did hack the DNC.

The whole "hacking the elections" thing is nonsense, but they did go out of their way to steal documents from the DNC and give them to WikiLeaks.

I haven't read anybody claim they hacked the elections.

My stance is sabotage is sabotage, don't matter what it is.

I admit, the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders over, which is why they lost the election either way. Underhandedness is a benchmark of modern politics, on both the left and the right... As Mack from the dead has demonstrated.

[Opfornia]

What happened about the baby mincing?

You're spouting conspiracy-tier shit. I asked if you believed in another Hillary conspiracy, which you denied. It wasn't intentionally related to the "public/private abortion" comment before it.

Anyway, here you go; https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11011 I posted this earlier already.

Cue everyone giving their interpretation of what she meant.

Things not in this email "Hillary Clinton saying she is a liar in her own words".
Hillary isn't even in this email thread.

It's a transcript of Hillary from her Goldman Sachs speeches, the ones Bernie always mentione, I feel like a broken record. What you're reading is what she said, I don't know how you couldn't figure out what a transcript is.

[The Rich Port]

So a foreign actor involving itself with the election of a sovereign state for its own - possibly nefarious - goals doesn't bother you at all? I guess it can't when it goes with your confirmation bias.

Self-interest is very different from confirmation bias dearie, and you're displaying a perfect example of it here in delegitimatising the leak because its in the interests of people you don't like.

Self interest confused with ignorance is.

[Opfornia]

Even if there was hacking (which I've yet to see the remotest evidence for), its irrelevant, what matters is whether the information is true or not.

Otherwise this is literally "OH-EM-GEE Russia is telling us truthful information about our leaders!"

So a foreign actor involving itself with the election of a sovereign state for its own - possibly nefarious - goals doesn't bother you at all? I guess it can't when it goes with your confirmation bias.

I'll just leave this here... https://youtu.be/24WlEtHgYQc

[Sanctissima]

I mean, it's pretty clear they did hack the DNC.

The whole "hacking the elections" thing is nonsense, but they did go out of their way to steal documents from the DNC and give them to WikiLeaks.

I haven't read anybody claim they hacked the elections.

My stance is sabotage is sabotage, don't matter what it is.

I admit, the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders over, which is why they lost the election either way. Underhandedness is a benchmark of modern politics, on both the left and the right... As Mack from the dead has demonstrated.

Eh, fair enough.

To be fair to the DNC though, it's not like they were ever going to let a person who wants to completely ruin their way of life run as their candidate. The guy didn't have a shot in hell at winning from the get-go, and I suspect he knew it.

[The Rich Port]

I haven't read anybody claim they hacked the elections.

My stance is sabotage is sabotage, don't matter what it is.

I admit, the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders over, which is why they lost the election either way. Underhandedness is a benchmark of modern politics, on both the left and the right... As Mack from the dead has demonstrated.

Eh, fair enough.

To be fair to the DNC though, it's not like they were ever going to let a person who wants to completely ruin their way of life run as their candidate. The guy didn't have a shot in hell at winning from the get-go, and I suspect he knew it.

The DNC isn't just a few hundred chodes.

The DNC is millions upon millions of American voters, which those few hundred chodes screwed over.

[Cannot think of a name]

Even if there was hacking (which I've yet to see the remotest evidence for), its irrelevant, what matters is whether the information is true or not.

Otherwise this is literally "OH-EM-GEE Russia is telling us truthful information about our leaders!"

I can't decide if that's just optimism about how narratives are formed or naive. I mean, you walk in while someone is flopping around like a fish on the bottom of the boat desperately trying to find oxygen clinging to an idea that isn't actually true but still was from a leak. With there already being a wild goose chase regarding Clintons emails all you have to do is release or in the case of the Weiner emails just suggest it and that enforces a narrative. Thus the emails don't really have to be damning to do damage in the news cycles before an election. Ultimately all we really learned is what we knew, that the DNC preferred Clinton and put their finger on the scale. But that's the overt purpose of super delegates, so how much did it reveal to people already paying attention? It wasn't about truth or transparency, it was about the news cycle.

Further, when it's done selectively by a foreign power for the express purpose of weighting the election it's a concern even if you're dismissive of the effect, it's not as if you want to wait until the disease is terminal before you cure it.

[Imperializt Russia]

You're spouting conspiracy-tier shit. I asked if you believed in another Hillary conspiracy, which you denied. It wasn't intentionally related to the "public/private abortion" comment before it.
Things not in this email "Hillary Clinton saying she is a liar in her own words".
Hillary isn't even in this email thread.

It's a transcript of Hillary from her Goldman Sachs speeches, the ones Bernie always mentione, I feel like a broken record. What you're reading is what she said, I don't know how you couldn't figure out what a transcript is.

"Politicians shouldn't sit idly by, they should be doing something when there are problems in markets like the global crash"

This is generic af "politician talk", what is the alleged problem here?

[The Rich Port]

I haven't read anybody claim they hacked the elections.

My stance is sabotage is sabotage, don't matter what it is.

I admit, the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders over, which is why they lost the election either way. Underhandedness is a benchmark of modern politics, on both the left and the right... As Mack from the dead has demonstrated.

Eh, fair enough.

To be fair to the DNC though, it's not like they were ever going to let a person who wants to completely ruin their way of life run as their candidate. The guy didn't have a shot in hell at winning from the get-go, and I suspect he knew it.

P.S.: And Russia doesn't give a shit about those millions of Democrat voters. They just wanted to take a piss on the American democratic system, and they did it in the lamest, cheapest, most non-committal way they could.

And the Trump supporters lapped it up like they were trying to win a Putin body-oiling competition.