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

[Sanctissima]

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.

It's run by a few hundred people, that's the point. I mean, why do you think superdelegates are a thing?

[Opfornia]

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?

Do you actually need me to go and quote the entire selections where she speaks about having a private and public policy? Do yourself a favor and CTRL-F, search "Private" it will pop up for you, or just read the whole fucking thing, it isn't that long. What is with this hand holding?

[The Rich Port]

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.

It's run by a few hundred people, that's the point. I mean, why do you think superdelegates are a thing?

IMO, they shouldn't be a thing.

[Valrifell]

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.

I've never delegitimized the leak. What was leaked was shitty, it has, however, been blown terribly out of proportion by people who suspected it was going on all along. It only serviced to reinforce the corruption of the DNC by those who claimed to already have seen it and giving the media to be a broken record about. Nothing particularly nefarious was being discussed.

You'll note that while I'm not saying the DNC was a perfect saint, I'm also saying we should be skeptical of Russian intentions in doing so, because I also doubt they're perfect angels as well. But, can't have that discussion because we need a "DNC IS CORRUPT" circlejerk instead.

You're fine having Russian actors interfere if it benefits you, is what you're really saying.

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

Time stamp to where evil incriminating evidence is, too lazy to watch 6 minute video.

Feel free to use this anecdote as evidence that everyone on the left is lazy and evil

[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!"

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.

You're right, foreign actors involving themselves in a sovereign nation's elections is a huge problem, so I think you should see this; https://youtu.be/24WlEtHgYQc

[The Gurcistani Respublika]

"He-he-he guys you know we're a bunch of sleazy arseholes but that doesn't matter because PUTIN WAS THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU!" Seriously, why am I supposed to care? I'm genuinely curious.

And there isn't that much evidence Russia was behind the DNC hacks except for a substanceless assertion by a third-party analytics group whose CEO sits on some oleaginous Saudi-funded Neocon group.

Haven't heard this before...

Your first sentence is blatant ad hominem. Does the fact that the persons victim to the hacking were some of the first to point out this issue matter when evaluating the seriousness of this issue? No. The very fact that people like yourself can make mistakes like this is evidence of some kind of insecurity. I would seek help.

[Opfornia]

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.

I've never delegitimized the leak. What was leaked was shitty, it has, however, been blown terribly out of proportion by people who suspected it was going on all along. It only serviced to reinforce the corruption of the DNC by those who claimed to already have seen it and giving the media to be a broken record about. Nothing particularly nefarious was being discussed.

You'll note that while I'm not saying the DNC was a perfect saint, I'm also saying we should be skeptical of Russian intentions in doing so, because I also doubt they're perfect angels as well. But, can't have that discussion because we need a "DNC IS CORRUPT" circlejerk instead.

You're fine having Russian actors interfere if it benefits you, is what you're really saying.

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

Time stamp to where evil incriminating evidence is, too lazy to watch 6 minute video.

Feel free to use this anecdote as evidence that everyone on the left is lazy and evil

The clip comes in real early, at the 40 second mark.

[Valrifell]

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.

You're right, foreign actors involving themselves in a sovereign nation's elections is a huge problem, so I think you should see this; https://youtu.be/24WlEtHgYQc

"Because we do it it's okay that Russia did it"

[IceBuddha]

Cross-posted from the main Trump thread since it's relevant to the transition and also to this scandal.

(Reuters) Trump team has differences of opinion on shaping spy agencies: sources

tl;dr incoming NSC adviser Flynn, who was fired by DNI Clapper for bad management, wants to decrease the power of ODNI

Side note: Clapper is also "resolute" that Russia attempted to influence the US election, much to Trump's chagrin

[Cannot think of a name]

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.

You're right, foreign actors involving themselves in a sovereign nation's elections is a huge problem, so I think you should see this; https://youtu.be/24WlEtHgYQc

I'm on set, so I'm not watching your video but given your track record so far I don't think I'm missing out.

[Opfornia]

You're right, foreign actors involving themselves in a sovereign nation's elections is a huge problem, so I think you should see this; https://youtu.be/24WlEtHgYQc

I'm on set, so I'm not watching your video but given your track record so far I don't think I'm missing out.

It's Cenk Uygur reporting on a leaked clip, it's Hillary saying that they should have rigged the Palestinian elections.

[The Gurcistani Respublika]

You're right, foreign actors involving themselves in a sovereign nation's elections is a huge problem, so I think you should see this; https://youtu.be/24WlEtHgYQc

"Because we do it it's okay that Russia did it"

It's not a matter of right or wrong. This is about whether the USA is a strong state or an impotent one which allows itself to be manipulated by foreigners. Strangely the right wingers would like nothing to be done and see the country get cucked by Ivan.

[Opfornia]

You're right, foreign actors involving themselves in a sovereign nation's elections is a huge problem, so I think you should see this; https://youtu.be/24WlEtHgYQc

"Because we do it it's okay that Russia did it"

Wow, nice cognitive dissonance, where did you get it?

"It's okay when Hillary does it, but if someone gives her the same treatment it's a fucking outrage."

It's karma, if you think about it, she's fine with stealing elections so one was taken from her.

[Farnhamia]

It's not a matter of right or wrong. This is about whether the USA is a strong state or an impotent one which allows itself to be manipulated by foreigners. Strangely the right wingers would like nothing to be done and see the country get cucked by Ivan.

I take it you are also against all foreign donations to presidential candidates as well.

The only people who got ""cucked"" to quote your words, were the DNC.

Foreign contributions to candidates for any office in the US are illegal.

[Grave_n_idle]

"Because we do it it's okay that Russia did it"

Wow, nice cognitive dissonance, where did you get it?

"It's okay when Hillary does it, but if someone gives her the same treatment it's a fucking outrage."

It's karma, if you think about it, she's fine with stealing elections so one was taken from her.

Weren't you claiming that your source said that they DIDN'T 'hack' Palestine's elections, but should have?

So, shouldn't your quote be "It's not okay when Hillary doesn't do it", etc.

[Opfornia]

Wow, nice cognitive dissonance, where did you get it?

"It's okay when Hillary does it, but if someone gives her the same treatment it's a fucking outrage."

It's karma, if you think about it, she's fine with stealing elections so one was taken from her.

Weren't you claiming that your source said that they DIDN'T 'hack' Palestine's elections, but should have?

So, shouldn't your quote be "It's not okay when Hillary doesn't do it", etc.

How ridiculous could you possibly be? She was suggesting it was what they should have done, it is indicative of her actions as a politician.

[IceBuddha]

I've never delegitimized the leak. What was leaked was shitty, it has, however, been blown terribly out of proportion by people who suspected it was going on all along. It only serviced to reinforce the corruption of the DNC by those who claimed to already have seen it and giving the media to be a broken record about. Nothing particularly nefarious was being discussed.

You'll note that while I'm not saying the DNC was a perfect saint, I'm also saying we should be skeptical of Russian intentions in doing so, because I also doubt they're perfect angels as well. But, can't have that discussion because we need a "DNC IS CORRUPT" circlejerk instead.

You're fine having Russian actors interfere if it benefits you, is what you're really saying.

Yes, that is what I'm saying, what's wrong with that? Russia's intentions were clearly to help the candidate they like. I don't see why Leftists repeat this like its some mind-blowing revelation which will make me hate Putin and his wicked servant Trump. Its just a typical genetic fallacy. That its in Trump's interest for things to be leaked and Russia acted in Trump's interests is entirely irrelevant to a neutral observer¹, what matters is the truth of the information.

Which is all besides the point when there's zero actual evidence anyone was hacked or Russia was behind it.² Accept the word of our friendly Saudi-funded third party pseudo-intelligence agency. NSG is quite happy to listen and believe when it suits them it seems.

1. It's not entirely irrelevant, since the guy is soon to be the POTUS. It may be in his interest to sweep this under the rug, but it's not in the national interest. The point is that he should act in the national interest rather than in his personal political interest. I'm sure any real nonpartisan would agree with that.

2. There is publicly available evidence out there. That evidence isn't hard proof, but it's more than "nothing". The fact that you're claiming that the entire USIC (this is not just the CIA talking here, other intelligence agencies like the FBI are on board, as is ODNI) is "Saudi friendly", as if they are acting as agents of a foreign power, is pretty ironic. Who exactly is being an irrational McCarthyist?

[Farnhamia]

Foreign contributions to candidates for any office in the US are illegal.

Irrelevant when you can have the same effect through donations to """charity foundations"""

How much did the Clinton Foundation give to Hillary's campaign, exactly?

[Opfornia]

Irrelevant when you can have the same effect through donations to """charity foundations"""

How much did the Clinton Foundation give to Hillary's campaign, exactly?

I don't think any of us will know the real answer to that question, but I'm sure you have a friendly link to some MSM site that is telling you how much, with the completely honest truth.

[Sanctissima]

I take it you are also against all foreign donations to presidential candidates as well.

The only people who got ""cucked"" to quote your words, were the DNC.

Foreign contributions to candidates for any office in the US are illegal.

Look, you can argue that Russia manipulated the US election all you want, and be quite right about it, but it's worth noting that America was doing the exact same thing only a decade ago during the Yeltsin years.

I realize you aren't arguing this on moral grounds, but why on earth should Russia respect US elections and domestic affairs when the US clearly doesn't extend the same courtesy to Russia?

[Opfornia]

Foreign contributions to candidates for any office in the US are illegal.

Look, you can argue that Russia manipulated the US election all you want, and be quite right about it, but it's worth noting that America was doing the exact same thing only a decade ago during the Yeltsin years.

I realize you aren't arguing this on moral grounds, but why on earth should Russia respect US elections and domestic affairs when the US clearly doesn't extend the same courtesy to Russia?

It was her turn!!!
/s

[Vassenor]

I take it you are also against all foreign donations to presidential candidates as well.

The only people who got ""cucked"" to quote your words, were the DNC.

Foreign contributions to candidates for any office in the US are illegal.

Is that the law Trump's breaking by demanding foreign diplomats stay in his hotels?

[IceBuddha]

1. It's not entirely irrelevant, since the guy is soon to be the POTUS. It may be in his interest to sweep this under the rug, but it's not in the national interest. The point is that he should act in the national interest rather than in his personal political interest. I'm sure any real nonpartisan would agree with that.

2. There is publicly available evidence out there. That evidence isn't hard proof, but it's more than "nothing". The fact that you're claiming that the entire USIC (this is not just the CIA talking here, other intelligence agencies like the FBI are on board, as is ODNI) is "Saudi friendly", as if they are acting as agents of a foreign power, is pretty ironic. Who exactly is being an irrational McCarthyist?

The investigation wasn't carried out by the FBI. It was carried out by CrowdStrike whose CTO sits on the Atlantic Council, a Saudi-funded body devoted to expanding the liberal world order. So no, I don't have immense trust for him.

That is factually incorrect.

The FBI did carry out their own investigation. All Crowdstrike did was make a private assessment prior to that.

[Farnhamia]

How much did the Clinton Foundation give to Hillary's campaign, exactly?

I don't think any of us will know the real answer to that question, but I'm sure you have a friendly link to some MSM site that is telling you how much, with the completely honest truth.

I don't, actually. Do you know? This kind of thing is required to be public record. Of course, the list of contributions made by the foundation 2016 may not be available yet, since it's still early in the new year. Here is where their financial reports are available: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about ... al-reports. You can keep an eye on it and let us know when they post 2016's report, and tell us how much they contributed.

[Vassenor]

That is factually incorrect.

The FBI did carry out their own investigation. All Crowdstrike did was make a private assessment prior to that.

They never took one look at the DNC server. For all intents and purposes they outsourced it to a group of ideological hacks.

What's your evidence in support of this claim?