Trump's chief of staff acknowledges that Russia was behind DNC hacks
71 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51642318]The election being "the primaries", I suppose. And who says the RNC didn't do something similar (trying to start media narratives etc.), they didn't want Trump - and we'll never know, because Russia decided it wasn't worth releasing.
[I]That's[/I] the problem. If both parties were hacked and exposed, I'm all on board, but when both parties are hacked and only one party's emails are exposed, that either means that the RNC were so squeaky clean that they had nothing to release (doubtful) at all, or that Russia tried to meddle in the election or otherwise influence the narrative. You should be concerned about that.[/QUOTE]
i believe assange said in the hannity interview that the gop emails had nothing controversial in them, hence why he didn't release them.
also, i can't seem to find it, but there was a time magazine issue all about how the us interfered with a russian election back in 78 or something, to get a candidate they liked in power. why is it okay when we do it, but not okay when they do it back to us?
[QUOTE=Naught;51642283]how far would they need to go before you did see a problem?[/QUOTE]
to justify this amount of news coverage they would have had to tamper with voting machines, threatened/blackmailed electors or done something that actually constitutes interfering with the election.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;51642300]And do you think the Russians were doing it with noble intentions of exposing the DNC corruption because they are our friends? Do you think that, out of both of those alarming and terrible situations, that the DNC's unfair bias against Bernie was more urgent than the Russian interference with our election?
How about the fact that the Russians also hacked Republicans, but have yet to release anything? Does it concern you that Republicans are falling in line and defering to the Russians, who have information on the republicans too? Does it concern you that are trying to portray Russians as the lesser of two evils than Democrats and liberals?[/QUOTE]
It is extremely disingenuous to claim russia leaking true documents constitutes election interference, when real election interference is going on and the supposed russian interference is exposing the prior election interference. Quite frankly i think your position is barely worth attention, it's such a ludicrous joke of a stance to hold when you hold the full situation in view.
Lets say they hacked the GOP and found that they did collude against trump in the same way they did against bernie (both not previously being members of the party establishment, this is possible), so what? Trump won the primary either despite interference or without interference. Lets say russia leaked confirmation of primary collusion against trump, who do you think it would help? It would have helped trump, as now he gets to brag about overcoming a disadvantage. We dont know exactly what was exposed in the GOP breach, it's also entirely possible they're corrupt but the hack didn't find anything.
It's possible russia is blackmailing the GOP somehow despite trump and the GOP's separation and trump's pro-putin stance existing earlier. It's remotely possible in some bizzare chain of events for our intelligence to be allowing the GOP to be blackmailed while also putting out loads of contradicting statements about exactly which bits of the GOP was hacked. But quite frankly, this is presuming a lot to form a solid argument on, it would be conspiritard territory if the MSM didnt decide to run with it. Meanwhile we're having the washington post put out garbage fake news about russia hacking our power grid, do you trust the same media to be accurately reporting the rest of this?
[QUOTE=Pops;51642337]i believe assange said in the hannity interview that the gop emails had nothing controversial in them, hence why he didn't release them.[/quote]
Great, maybe we could check ourselves? I didn't know Wikileaks were even in possession of them.
[quote]also, i can't seem to find it, but there was a time magazine issue all about how the us interfered with a russian election back in 78 or something, to get a candidate they liked in power. why is it okay when we do it, but not okay when they do it back to us?[/QUOTE]
Yeah feel free to point to the quote where I justified that.
[QUOTE=Pops;51642337]also, i can't seem to find it, but there was a time magazine issue all about how the us interfered with a russian election back in 78 or something, to get a candidate they liked in power. why is it okay when we do it, but not okay when they do it back to us?[/QUOTE]
why do you see a problem in that but not the other way around as well?
[QUOTE=Pops;51642337]i believe assange said in the hannity interview that the gop emails had nothing controversial in them, hence why he didn't release them.
also, i can't seem to find it, but there was a time magazine issue all about how the us interfered with a russian election back in 78 or something, to get a candidate they liked in power. why is it okay when we do it, but not okay when they do it back to us?[/QUOTE]
It's not really transparent if you choose not to release the emails just because he personally didn't find or think anything was controversial. It only makes it look like he's spinning a narrative. If he was truly for truth and transparency he would have released both sets and let people reach their own conclusions.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51642362]why do you see a problem in that but not the other way around as well?[/QUOTE]
what goes around comes around, i suppose.
[QUOTE=Pops;51642393]what goes around comes around, i suppose.[/QUOTE]
what a shit justification to your argument
[quote]also, i can't seem to find it, but there was a time magazine issue all about how the us interfered with a russian election back in 78 or something, to get a candidate they liked in power. why is it okay when we do it, but not okay when they do it back to us?[/QUOTE]
Because one benefits us and one harms us. You wouldn't say "Oh, since we go out and bomb ISIS, it's okay for them to bomb us back."
[QUOTE=The Vman;51642441]Because one benefits us and one harms us. You wouldn't say "Oh, since we go out and bomb ISIS, it's okay for them to bomb us back."[/QUOTE]
People are making the argument in this thread that it's bad because russia did it and might be withholding other leaks in order to blackmail the GOP wheras you are suggesting the DNC leaks harmed us. They exposed the corruption in the DNC, there is no way to spin the leak itself as anything but a positive for the american people.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642454]People are making the argument in this thread that it's bad just because russia did it wheras you are suggesting the DNC leaks harmed us. They exposed the corruption in the DNC, there is no way to spin this as anything but a positive for the american people.[/QUOTE]
Unless you spin it as it may have contributed to the election of a wholly incompetent president who will undo decades of progress.
Or do you feel that Hillary would have been equally as bad as Trump?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642454]People are making the argument in this thread that it's bad because russia did it and might be withholding other leaks in order to blackmail the GOP wheras you are suggesting the DNC leaks harmed us. They exposed the corruption in the DNC, there is no way to spin the leak itself as anything but a positive for the american people.[/QUOTE]
Corruption is bad, period. But the idea that you think an even more corrupt, uncaring GOP is a positive for the US is bizarre.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51642473]Unless you spin it as it may have contributed to the election of a wholly incompetent president who will undo decades of progress.
Or do you feel that Hillary would have been equally as bad as Trump?[/QUOTE]
Your spin depends on the reader temporarily forgetting that that there was another step between the leak and the election's conclusion, people choosing who to vote for.
Im glad we aren't going to see the results of a hillary clinton presidency. Im not glad we're going to see the result of a trump presidency. Not going to let you derail the argument with another election debate.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51642485]Corruption is bad, period. But the idea that you think an even more corrupt, uncaring GOP is a positive for the US is bizarre.[/QUOTE]
I don't think a more corrupt uncaring GOP is a positive, if you look to my previous post you'll see i consider this line of thinking to require mental gymnastics to a level only now common because the MSM is doing it this time. "russia leaking dnc corruption but not leaking gop corruption that they might not have found means the GOP is more corrupt!" lol stop. this line of thinking makes me think about the *assumption* that the gop is just as corrupt and in the same ways. Personally i think their main flaw is more stupidity and personal corruption rather than collective. Maybe the reason i find this line of thinking silly is because i don't automatically assume things without evidence as posters in this thread do.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642454]People are making the argument in this thread that it's bad because russia did it and might be withholding other leaks in order to blackmail the GOP wheras you are suggesting the DNC leaks harmed us. They exposed the corruption in the DNC, there is no way to spin the leak itself as anything but a positive for the american people.[/QUOTE]
Leaking one side of a two party system and only spilling half the secrets? I don't have to "SPIN" this to see it being a clearly partisan and corrupt action leading to less trust and less information.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642526]Your spin depends on the reader temporarily forgetting that that there was another step between the leak and the election's conclusion, people choosing who to vote for.
Im glad we aren't going to see the results of a hillary clinton presidency. Im not glad we're going to see the result of a trump presidency. Not going to let you derail the argument with another election debate.
I don't think a more corrupt uncaring GOP is a positive, if you look to my previous post you'll see i consider this line of thinking to require mental gymnastics to a level only now common because the MSM is doing it this time. "russia leaking dnc corruption but not leaking gop corruption that they might not have found means the GOP is more corrupt!" lol stop. this line of thinking makes me think about the *assumption* that the gop is just as corrupt and in the same ways. Personally i think their main flaw is more stupidity and personal corruption rather than collective. Maybe the reason i find this line of thinking silly is because i don't automatically assume things without evidence as posters in this thread do.[/QUOTE]
The point of bringing up the GOP is because it relates to Russia's motive and why people feel like this is a problem.
Yea, I'll agree that the DNC was shitty based off some of the stuff in those leaks. I also don't believe the leaks were the deciding factor in who won.
But I also believe Russia was attempting to weaken our country by leaking those emails, and I'd want the new administration to react appropriately to that. If Trump was interested in gaining support from democrats, he'd decry these actions and reevaluate his opinion on Putin.
I don't want us to be enemies with Russia, but I also don't want to be friend with them if they feel like they'RE free to interfere with our democracy.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51642604]Leaking one side of a two party system and only spilling half the secrets? I don't have to "SPIN" this to see it being a clearly partisan and corrupt action leading to less trust and less information.[/QUOTE]
Lets put it this way since you seem to fail at reading comprehension, whats better, both the DNC and the GOP continuing on forever without having anything leaked, or just having one of them exposed and the other's corruption still being an unknown. In one situation we're completely fucked regardless, in the other situation there's possibility for one of our only two viable choices of political party to reform for the next election cycle.
Your idea of "less information" is more information because of your biases. We don't know the extent of the GOP hack. We don't know if the hacker actually found anything or managed a breach on the same scale as the DNC. We don't know. You are assuming they did, however in the current state of things either your assumption is true and we can try to reform one party, or your assumption isn't true and one party needs reforming and the other one, at least isn't corrupt in this way.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642358]Meanwhile we're having the washington post put out garbage fake news about russia hacking our power grid[/QUOTE]
In fairness they came out and corrected the article.
To answer your question, yes, I trust the editorial board of WaPo more than I do, say, Julian Assange or Vladimir Putin.
So it sucks that the Russians hacked the DNC but I don't see it as a bad thing tbh... it revealed a hithertoo unknown but expected level of corruption within one of our primary political parties and hopefully will force some level of change within.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51642630]The point of bringing up the GOP is because it relates to Russia's motive and why people feel like this is a problem.
Yea, I'll agree that the DNC was shitty based off some of the stuff in those leaks. I also don't believe the leaks were the deciding factor in who won.
But I also believe Russia was attempting to weaken our country by leaking those emails, and I'd want the new administration to react appropriately to that. If Trump was interested in gaining support from democrats, he'd decry these actions and reevaluate his opinion on Putin.
I don't want us to be enemies with Russia, but I also don't want to be friend with them if they feel like they'RE free to interfere with our democracy.[/QUOTE]
If you think exposing corruption is weakening our country maybe you'd like to move to russia instead.
If russia had actually interfered in the election in a way that was tangible, somehow bypassing the voters i would agree with you, but they didn't. Meanwhile there are people who interfered with our election and are still in leadership positions in the DNC while a bunch of easily distracted fools yelp about untouchable hackers in a different country. We could have the DNC leaders either in prison or at least out of a job if they were getting this much attention from the media.
[editline]8th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51642639]In fairness they came out and corrected the article.
To answer your question, yes, I trust the editorial board of WaPo more than I do, say, Julian Assange or Vladimir Putin.[/QUOTE]
It's incredible how quickly the left media turned on assange, now he's just putin lite in the eyes of the guardian.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642633]Lets put it this way since you seem to fail at reading comprehension, whats better, both the DNC and the GOP continuing on forever without having anything leaked, or just having one of them exposed and the other's corruption still being an unknown. In one situation we're completely fucked regardless, in the other situation there's possibility for one of our only two viable choices of political party to reform for the next election cycle.
Your idea of "less information" is more information because of your biases. We don't know the extent of the GOP hack. We don't know if the hacker actually found anything or managed a breach on the same scale as the DNC. We don't know. You are assuming they did, however in the current state of things either your assumption is true and we can try to reform one party, or your assumption isn't true and one party needs reforming and the other one, at least isn't corrupt in this way.[/QUOTE]
Oh no I fully read, and comprehened your point. It's just that it's not valid as far as I see it.
Yes, my view is informed by my bias. Yours isn't? Pft.
In a situation between two parties and a public entity, when only one party has their dirty laundry hung out for the public to see, this is "more information" but it doesn't effect the system as if it was a bi-partisan info dump. What it does is create a bias that is clearly intentional and clearly would have an effect on the uneducated or ill informed. By having the DNC leak public, and the RNC leak hidden, another party that isn't the public has leverage and leeway over the RNC. This isn't more information in the hands of the public, it's very specifically tailored information meant to reduce the overall effectiveness of the one party at being taken seriously and honestly. The other party doesn't have that issue, they issues are still private, albeit leverage.
[QUOTE=Fort83;51642313]My primary concern is Russia hacking and influencing the elections in other countries, who they did it to and what they exposed is irrelevant. Being okay with this sets a precedent that it's okay to do this as long as it's for our own view of it being for "the greater good". That's a very slippery slope.[/QUOTE]
It also needs to be understood that the people in our own country who unironically defend this manipulation by foreign powers...
[QUOTE=Pops;51642176]okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642269]My canidate lost as a result of the corruption the DNC leaks exposed, the election was interfered with by DNC officials. The DNC was then hacked and the truth of their corruption gets exposed.
And the main story here is that "russia interfered in our election". :hammered:
edit:
If your primary concern here is that someone in russia exposed the truth and the truth affected the election i feel like your priorities are fucked.[/QUOTE]
...are as much a threat to us as those foreign powers are. We also shouldn't think that Russia doesn't understand this. They do. They know that a portion of our population is so fucking stupid they'll happily look the other way and invent rationalizations when this kind of behavior is uncovered. And they're more than happy to use that fact in their attempts to sabotage us. They're doing it right now, and they're going to keep doing it if we continue to give them the opportunity.
We're going to have to sort this problem out eventually.
[QUOTE=Pops;51642176]okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.[/QUOTE]
You just cucked your entire country.
"Oh yes please daddy russia you know what's best for me :3"
[QUOTE=Govna;51642742]It also needs to be understood that the people in our own country who unironically defend this manipulation by foreign powers...
...are as much a threat to us as those foreign powers are. We also shouldn't think that Russia doesn't understand this. They do. They know that a portion of our population is so fucking stupid they'll happily look the other way and invent rationalizations when this kind of behavior is uncovered. And they're more than happy to use that fact in their attempts to sabotage us. They're doing it right now, and they're going to keep doing it if we continue to give them the opportunity.
We're going to have to sort this problem out eventually.[/QUOTE]
It needs to be understood that your insistence that our own severe corruption issues matter less than some other country potentially selectively telling the truth then saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a "threat to us" is fucking abhorrent.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51642673]Oh no I fully read, and comprehened your point. It's just that it's not valid as far as I see it.
Yes, my view is informed by my bias. Yours isn't? Pft.
In a situation between two parties and a public entity, when only one party has their dirty laundry hung out for the public to see, this is "more information" but it doesn't effect the system as if it was a bi-partisan info dump. What it does is create a bias that is clearly intentional and clearly would have an effect on the uneducated or ill informed. By having the DNC leak public, and the RNC leak hidden, another party that isn't the public has leverage and leeway over the RNC. This isn't more information in the hands of the public, it's very specifically tailored information meant to reduce the overall effectiveness of the one party at being taken seriously and honestly. The other party doesn't have that issue, they issues are still private, albeit leverage.[/QUOTE]
You ignoring a point just to state something irrelevant to it doesn't really make a good argument for your future reference. I already explained in full my thoughts on the possibility russia is blackmailing the GOP, and how the timing doesnt line up, we don't know enough about the hack itself to make that judgement, and how the assumptions you and much of the media are making are quite frankly conspiritard tier. Imagine tomorrow wikileaks releases a few mailing lists without the actual mail or some boring messages and says this is what the GOP hack managed to get. Would you even believe them? Do you even care? You continuously assume the extent of both hacks was similar, you assume that there are even scales here and then you refuse to notice that my point is that this is a better situation than if no hacks had happened at all. Now we have a fucking chance to reform the DNC. We would all be a lot better off if we focused attention on the content of the leaks, which much of the media has done it's best to downplay meanwhile they manipulate people into thinking russia is responsible for trump's victory. Would i prefer literally everyone in power's dirty laundry got aired? Absolutely, i think i've made that clear in other threads, but that isn't reality and i don't intend to waste what little we got by assuming russia is now blackmailing the GOP into doing it's bidding, because thats exactly what you're suggesting we do.
My bias? What is my bias even supposed to be exactly. I don't particularly like either the DNC or the GOP and unless this is some long form joke about how bernie sanders is secretly a russian plant to spread communism i'd say most of my biases are pretty irrelevant. I do have a bias against the media and a bias in favor of whistleblowers and leaks in general, but that impacts what im making an argument about rather than how im making it in this case.
So when you bring up my bias, is that because you assume you know my bias?
I don't like the DNC, so your assumption that I am a DNC backer or supporter is hollow?
[QUOTE=Govna;51642742]It also needs to be understood that the people in our own country who unironically defend this manipulation by foreign powers...
...are as much a threat to us as those foreign powers are. We also shouldn't think that Russia doesn't understand this. They do. They know that a portion of our population is so fucking stupid they'll happily look the other way and invent rationalizations when this kind of behavior is uncovered. And they're more than happy to use that fact in their attempts to sabotage us. They're doing it right now, and they're going to keep doing it if we continue to give them the opportunity.
We're going to have to sort this problem out eventually.[/QUOTE]
'All those people we lost the trust of are dangerous because russia manipulated our elections by spilling the secrets that show how we manipulate elections'
America is sick of its elite. That doesn't make them a threat, that makes them sick of war, growing inequality, and plutocracy.
Also, if you seriously believe this, you will just give countries like russia the logical precedent to crack down on western NGOs and movements given support, organization, and material by us. Worse, they'll have a majority supporting it.
This crap with Russia spiralling out of control since Putin's re-election is just more imperialism, specifically the Great Game 2.0, and once again the enemy isn't the opposing 'team', the mirror image of us, it's at home.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51642857]So when you bring up my bias, is that because you assume you know my bias?
I don't like the DNC, so your assumption that I am a DNC backer or supporter is hollow?[/QUOTE]
Let me know when you want to try to justify your assertions/assumptions about the exact nature and extent of the GOP hack.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642887]Let me know when you want to try to justify your assertions/assumptions about the exact nature and extent of the GOP hack.[/QUOTE]
They're just as baseless as your assumptions and assertions on it so we're really both just blowing smoke.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51642892]They're just as baseless as your assumptions and assertions on it so we're really both just blowing smoke.[/QUOTE]
I'm not making assumptions or assertions. I've been stating all possibilities and describing why some are less likely or don't even have a correct timeline. Meanwhile, you're stating that things are one way and there is no room for alternates or things that don't go whichever way your bias has told you they do. Additionally you're taking an all or nothing position, where the only possibilities were "leak everything" or "leak half", more accurately you haven't even addressed whether or not leaking nothing would be better or worse than the current situation. There is no way im letting you push this "oh but we're both making assumptions" after all that nonsense.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642655]If you think exposing corruption is weakening our country maybe you'd like to move to russia instead.
If russia had actually interfered in the election in a way that was tangible, somehow bypassing the voters i would agree with you, but they didn't. Meanwhile there are people who interfered with our election and are still in leadership positions in the DNC while a bunch of easily distracted fools yelp about untouchable hackers in a different country. We could have the DNC leaders either in prison or at least out of a job if they were getting this much attention from the media.
[editline]8th January 2017[/editline]
It's incredible how quickly the left media turned on assange, now he's just putin lite in the eyes of the guardian.[/QUOTE]
As I said before, exposing the corruption wasn't what was supposed to weaken our country, it was the election of Trump. I stated in my post that I don't support what the DNC did, and I'd love to see a reformed democratic party, but I absolutely will not ignore that a foreign power that would heavily benefit from a weakened US attempted to sway the election.
The reason the Russian hack is getting more attention than the DNC's corruption is because it is a much more pressing issue with how our country's relationship is going to be affected with the new administration. Do we want to be allies with a country that hacked our government officials and attempted to manipulate our democratic process? How is Trump going to be dealing with Russia after all those kind words between him and Putin? Is he going to be ignoring the intelligence community on future issues?
On the other hand, what is there to discuss about the DNC? They lost. If any of them have committed a crime then lock them up, strip their governing privileges, do whatever. It doesn't really matter what happens to them right now because [I]they're not the ones in power.[/I] They aren't going to be dictating policy or handling foreign relations.
I'll ask you, what do you think Russia's motivation was to release the emails?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642852]It needs to be understood that your insistence that our own severe corruption issues matter less than some other country potentially selectively telling the truth then saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a "threat to us" is fucking abhorrent. [/QUOTE]
Nah, your insistence that the main story here shouldn't be that Russia interfered in our election is more concerning. "The DNC is corrupt." No shit, thanks for the old news. We saw what went on with Bernie already, and I've known about this personally for a while now.
Now that that's out of the way, what are we going to do about our national security? How about our foreign policy in light of this? Are we just going to sit around and allow them to hack into our business so they can manipulate our country as they please for their own benefit? They're not just "selectively telling the truth" lol, they're doing this deliberately to undermine us. They wanted Trump in office, and they wanted Clinton brushed out of the way. The reasons are (or at least should be) obvious enough.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51642859]'All those people we lost the trust of are dangerous because russia manipulated our elections by spilling the secrets that show how we manipulate elections'
America is sick of its elite. That doesn't make them a threat, that makes them sick of war, growing inequality, and plutocracy.
Also, if you seriously believe this, you will just give countries like russia the logical precedent to crack down on western NGOs and movements given support, organization, and material by us. Worse, they'll have a majority supporting it.
This crap with Russia spiralling out of control since Putin's re-election is just more imperialism, specifically the Great Game 2.0, and once again the enemy isn't the opposing 'team', the mirror image of us, it's at home.[/QUOTE]
And this meanwhile is just crap. Every one of your posts is like reading a schizophrenic's manifesto written in MS Word.
Russia [i]is[/i] the enemy here. "But they showed that our elections are rigged!" Yes, and it doesn't fucking matter. Everybody who had any sense about American politics already knew this. Do you know [i]why[/i] they hacked into the DNC and released this information? It wasn't to help us, and it's not because they're actually a benevolent ally to us.
They did it because they wanted Trump in office. Because he's a patsy with no political experience and a kiss-ass fanboy to Putin. In other words: a disaster for the United States. Clinton, while corrupt, would not have been this way. She has actual political experience and foreign policy experience (knows how to run a country in other words), and she's a staunch opponent of Russian imperialism and meddling in the West's affairs. While Trump drags our economy and geopolitical power down with policy blunders and his general incompetence, he's also going to attempt to lift the sanctions we have in place against them for their behavior in the Crimea/Ukraine and the Middle East. And then there's the statements he's made about breaking up (or at least weakening) NATO, which would (obviously) be advantageous for Russia.
If they actually cared about "spilling secrets" for the sake of transparency, then they also would've gone after Trump and the RNC exposing their corruption. But that's not what's going on here. Again, they [i]are[/i] our enemy. They are not looking out for our best interests, and people attempting to brush aside this fact are just as much of a threat to us as they are. If it isn't just plain stupidity on their part to not understand what's going on here, then it must be maliciousness; either way, it's intolerable given the circumstances we're faced with today, and something is going to have to be done about it-- otherwise, the Russians will continue to exploit it as the weakness it is.
Um, hack or not Hillary would have lost. She neglected important states and they flipped on the DNC.
While I'm sure exposing corruption had an effect on voters it isn't the primary reason why she lost. She lost because of a lot of different reasons.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.