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

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Agreed. I've used the "Death by a thousand cuts" line myself in regards to this. However, regardless of what self-inflicted wounds she might have suffered from, none were a matter of actual criminality (Though, seriously, not putting more resources into Michigan and Pennsylvania when they were getting word from people on the ground of some major issues was criminally incompetent, especially when they instead put those resources into avoiding a scenario where Hillary would when the Electoral College, but lose the popular vote). The hacking may or may not have pushed him over the top. However, regardless of whether or not it was a deciding factor, it was still an attempt by a foreign government to use illegal means to influence the outcome of our election, and that's not cricket.

I don't think that hacking was the sole cause of Clinton losing. Her campaign was plagued with an endless rollercoaster of scandals and a flawed strategic vision. Even with all of Clinton's problems, this election was one of the closest electoral college victories of the past 100 years. In the past century, only three elections (2004, 2000, and 1976) had a narrower margin of victory in the electoral college than the 2016 election. Trump barely won his key Rust Belt states by a few thousand votes, and he lost the nationwide popular vote by an unprecedented 2 million votes.

That hasn't stopped Trump from falsely and stupidly claiming he won in a "landslide." Like Bush before him, he'll claim that a razor-thin margin of victory gives him a "mandate" to rule like an autocrat and impose the Republicans moronic, failed, short-sighted, asinine policy platform on the entire country regardless of the damage it will cause.

Yes. I actually said that it wasn't the sole cause in the post you're replying to. In fact, it was one of two major points.

[Vassenor]

Personally, I like to imagine that this will result in a redo of the election, but, sadly, it's obviously not going to, just like the electoral college isn't going to be abolished or updated.

How could it possibly? The Russian government did not change the vote. Nobody serous is alkegeding that. The true information they may have worked to release would still be out there. And every election has foreign governments trying to play a role.

BTW, was it demonstrated to be true information?

[Hittanryan]

I don't think that hacking was the sole cause of Clinton losing. Her campaign was plagued with an endless rollercoaster of scandals and a flawed strategic vision. Even with all of Clinton's problems, this election was one of the closest electoral college victories of the past 100 years. In the past century, only three elections (2004, 2000, and 1976) had a narrower margin of victory in the electoral college than the 2016 election. Trump barely won his key Rust Belt states by a few thousand votes, and he lost the nationwide popular vote by an unprecedented 2 million votes.

That hasn't stopped Trump from falsely and stupidly claiming he won in a "landslide." Like Bush before him, he'll claim that a razor-thin margin of victory gives him a "mandate" to rule like an autocrat and impose the Republicans moronic, failed, short-sighted, asinine policy platform on the entire country regardless of the damage it will cause.

Yes. I actually said that it wasn't the sole cause in the post you're replying to. In fact, it was one of two major points.

I was agreeing with you.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes. I actually said that it wasn't the sole cause in the post you're replying to. In fact, it was one of two major points.

I was agreeing with you.

I apologize, then. With the way that the first sentence was phrased, it came across differently to me.

[Lady Scylla]

How could it possibly? The Russian government did not change the vote. Nobody serous is alkegeding that. The true information they may have worked to release would still be out there. And every election has foreign governments trying to play a role.

BTW, was it demonstrated to be true information?

Why dont you let me show you the IPs affected, how these tools work, the data stolen, and where it came from. Because the average joe is going to understand it, and those that will surely need to know that information!

[Novus America]

How could it possibly? The Russian government did not change the vote. Nobody serous is alkegeding that. The true information they may have worked to release would still be out there. And every election has foreign governments trying to play a role.

BTW, was it demonstrated to be true information?

The Democrats did not deny the emails were real. And admitted many were.

[Vassenor]

BTW, was it demonstrated to be true information?

The Democrats did not deny the emails were real. And admitted many were.

So how does it being true make it right?

[Novus America]

It was unethical, but I think that the leaking of the emails actually had a significant effect on Hillary's campaign, whereas the bias on the part of the DNC didn't seem to have that many real-world repercussions.

Actually I really don't think the initial leaks really didn't have as a significant effect on her Campaign as it could have, it hurt her but it wasn't a damnable level. It was still quite clear after the leaks that she still had a very high chance to win the election, it wasn't a "Grab them by the pussy" level bad...

I think the Podesta emails actually might have hurt her more because it happened so late in the season, it was those emails that generated the crazy Spirit Cooking and Pizzagate stuff.... and I'm sure that will be revealed to be Russians too.

Really her campaign fell by a death from a thousand cuts... some of them delivered by Russia, some of them self inflicted, some of them just by plain bad luck, I mean getting Pneumonia and fainting at the 9/11 memorial... that's just plain horrible luck right there... and a bad image.

But do we have any evidence the leaks changed many (or any) minds? I have yet to seen anything, just speculation. The people who believe Pizzagate are almost all hard core Infowars types, their vote was already determined long before.

Also the argument that the leaks proved Trump is a shill for Putin probably hurt Trump. Possibly more than helped.

In any campaign people are going to be leaking stuff about you. If you cannot deal with that you do not know how to campaign.

[New Chalcedon]

The relative seriousness was decided by the public.

Yes, and around 3,000,000 more people decided it was more serious than the improprieties the emails themselves disclosed. But that doesn't matter, does it? I guess some members of "the public" matter more than others...

And, it would seem, hacking is relatively mild compared to the DNCs political corruption, according to the public.

Yours is a valid opinion and evaluation, but it wouldn't appear to have worked out for the democrats.

No, because the United States elects its Head of State by an 18th-century method designed to keep anyone who wasn't part of the landowning gentry out of the political process. If another country engaged in such disparate valuation of voters' importance based on no factor but where they lived, you'd call for the US to give it a hefty dose of "freedom".

An election isn't a court of law, it's a court of public opinion. The dems were found guilty. That the evidence was discovered (allegedly) using illegal means isn't relevant, because it isn't a court of law.

1. It doesn't bother you - not in the slightest - that the Presidency is about to be handed off to Vladimir Putin's handpicked candidate? The candidate who praised him for murdering opposition-sympathetic journalists, thinks it's OK to beat people up for heckling him, thinks it's OK gin up his political base by calling for the jailing of his main opponent and win elections by taking a sledgehammer to confidence in the institutions of governance, thinks it's OK to bar all adherents to a billion-plus-strong religion from even entering the country, thinks it's OK to use long-settled international norms as bargaining-chips in future negotiations? You're comfortable with making that level of behaviour acceptable going forward? Be careful what you wish for, Ostro; someday, you may be on the short end of the stick, rather than the privileged end.

I mean, let's face it here. If - let's pick a large country at random - if India, Brazil or Indonesia were to elect someone as President who had embraced those positions, America would be sounding the alarm bells for democracy in those nations. Why is it different with America? Because your civic institutions are stronger?

They're not, at least not in recent years - between GOP hyper-partisanship and unprecedented levels of obstruction in the appointments process, America's civic institutions are short-staffed and under-resourced. And all too many of the staff who are there are partisan zealots (at the State level at least), not apolitical public officers. The "election" of Trump, and the eager acquiescence of the bulk of the mainstream media outlets, signals a change in America's political consensus, from liberal democracy to illiberal democracy (at best).

2. Your point - that the election is fundamentally a court of public opinion rather than a court of law - is accurate, but this isn't the election. This is an online board where people interested in politics debate issues. You can't just shut down the argument by making an argumentum ad populum - and, as I've noted, if you do, you should in all honesty acknowledge that Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin.

[Novus America]

The Democrats did not deny the emails were real. And admitted many were.

So how does it being true make it right?

The actual hacking was not right, I never said it was. But that does not make the information itself bad, just because it was obtained through bad methods.

[Vassenor]

So how does it being true make it right?

The actual hacking was not right, I never said it was. But that does not make the information itself bad, just because it was obtained through bad methods.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

[Ifreann]

The actual hacking was not right, I never said it was. But that does not make the information itself bad, just because it was obtained through bad methods.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

Is a principle that pertains to trials and the admissibility of evidence.

[Novus America]

The actual hacking was not right, I never said it was. But that does not make the information itself bad, just because it was obtained through bad methods.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

Only applies to courts of law. Not outside of them. Also under even in a court this would be likely be admissible. Information illegally obtained by a third party is not usually excluded.
Attenuation doctrine and all that.

[Republic of Algonquin]

Donald Trump will be a good president. The dems are trying to find anything they can use to stop Trump.

[Uxupox]

Donald Trump will be a good president. The dems are trying to find anything they can use to stop Trump.

Only time will tell.

[Community Values]

Donald Trump will be a good president. The dems are trying to find anything they can use to stop Trump.

These are pretty serious issues. If Russia was accused of supporting Hillary Clinton in the election, you would want to check it out to, right?

[Vassenor]

Donald Trump will be a good president. The dems are trying to find anything they can use to stop Trump.

And what of the campaign promises he's already walked back on are you basing this around?

[The Portland Territory]

Donald Trump will be a good president. The dems are trying to find anything they can use to stop Trump.

These are pretty serious issues. If Russia was accused of supporting Hillary Clinton in the election, you would want to check it out to, right?

Yeah, of course. I dont think that it's real, but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't look into that. Better safe than sorry, no?

[Vassenor]

These are pretty serious issues. If Russia was accused of supporting Hillary Clinton in the election, you would want to check it out to, right?

Yeah, of course. I dont think that it's real, but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't look into that. Better safe than sorry, no?

If we've learned anything this cycle, it's that Trump supporters seem to regard "we should make sure this didn't actually happen" as some sort of personal insult even when all it can do is make their position stronger.

[New Chalcedon]

These are pretty serious issues. If Russia was accused of supporting Hillary Clinton in the election, you would want to check it out to, right?

Yeah, of course. I dont think that it's real, but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't look into that. Better safe than sorry, no?

Indeed. And frankly, I consider it more likely than not - given what's on the public record - that Trump considers himself an admirer of Putin's. That alone should be sending alarm bells ringing across Europe: Since 1945, the US has been the backstop to any European response to Russian aggressions.

[Uxupox]

Yeah, of course. I dont think that it's real, but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't look into that. Better safe than sorry, no?

Indeed. And frankly, I consider it more likely than not - given what's on the public record - that Trump considers himself an admirer of Putin's. That alone should be sending alarm bells ringing across Europe: Since 1945, the US has been the backstop to any European response to Russian aggressions.

And it's time to stop.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Donald Trump will be a good president. The dems are trying to find anything they can use to stop Trump.

Are you a time traveler and/or a good friend of the Doctor?

[Community Values]

These are pretty serious issues. If Russia was accused of supporting Hillary Clinton in the election, you would want to check it out to, right?

Yeah, of course. I dont think that it's real, but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't look into that. Better safe than sorry, no?

Exactly. Hypothetically though, what if it did turn out that Russia aided Trump in winning the election, and that all of the Democratic fears that Trump is a puppet are true? How would you react?

[Fascism I]

You know thinking this over I now have even more mixed feelings on it, I believe the behavior of the DNC during the Democratic Primaries was unacceptable for them... however that knowledge of that behavior would have never come to light if it wasn't for the Russian hackers.


If the DNC hadn't been all in for Hillary then the Russians wouldn't have had such a bomb shell to drop in the first place.

But, considering the RNC wasn't hacked, I'd say the Russians are expecting Trump to do something. That something will be: Allowing Putin to control most of Eastern Europe with little or no resistance. I voted for Gary Johnson. So, I'm trying to be objective and give the President Elect the benefit of the doubt. But, its suspect asf.

[Novus America]

Donald Trump will be a good president. The dems are trying to find anything they can use to stop Trump.

These are pretty serious issues. If Russia was accused of supporting Hillary Clinton in the election, you would want to check it out to, right?

The Soviet Union supported LBJ in 1964. The Saudis supported Clinton.
Russia is not the epitome of evil, and everything the support is not necessarily bad just because they support it.

Sure we should investigate as hacking is a crime, and if a crime was committed those who committed it should be punished.

But it does not change the outcome of the election.