Putin Personally Involved in Hack

[tyr_13]

Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.

They found a headline to keep the 'Hillary email scandal' idea fresh and 'plausible' to those not actually paying attention. The effect of a completely fake hack might have been almost as bad, but the veneer of credibility it gave to some of the CT out there at just the right time from being a real hack probably did have an effect.

I like fire safety and dead bolts.
Where does that leave me?

Same place as me. That was kind of the point. Deadbolts well implemented are a good idea, but not for fire safety.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.

The progs. Weren't they a bad garage band from Portland?

Are conservatives going to continue with the pretense of myopia until the Orange Slushy has sold the country for scrap or until we get rid of him? No one is actually saying that it turned ANY voters, much less "so many".

Take the year away. Take away the fact that the target was a "prog" or a "LOL Lib" or the Democratic Candidate for the President of the United States. Would you, in theory, be arguing in any other situation (other than desperately trying to support the great fraud that the GOP is putting over on the American public) that the ends justify the means? "Hey, we got some interesting information, can't be all that bad, eh?"

I try to imagine anyone from far right to reactionary to conservative to right-ish moderate not understanding that the content doesn't matter. It's the act that matters. If Botswana, Bolivia, Belize or Bangladesh was caught meddling in the US elections it might be a bit comic. When you get to the level of China, Russia, England, Japan, France, Germany, et al.... you're talking world powers (to varying degrees).

The content does not matter in the least. It was marginally significant, not in the least bit revealing (thus the need to cherry-pick and inflate), and probably had the net effect of keeping two Sanders supporters from voting (probably for Jill Stein).

It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.

 

[Noztradamus]

Let me see if I've got this right.

As part of their newfound love for cybersecurity, in the left's new narrative the alleged Russian hacks which revealed the truth about team Clinton's collusion with the media against Sanders cost her the election.

In other words, if only American voters didn't know the truth about Clinton, she would have won.

And she would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling Russkids!

 

[Mycroft]

Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.

Conspiracy kooks make up stuff out of nothing, which is how "pizza" came to be understood as a code-word for child sex, and why a man with a gun showed up at a Pizza restaurant to expose the terrible secret he "learned" from the e-mails.

What actual scandals were uncovered? Some woman gave the campaign a heads up about questions that were going to be asked. I don't remember much else.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

They helped the Democrats fulfill their promise of a transparent government.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

For the question of whether or not the US has been the target of a state-directed cyberattack to influence the electoral process, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not it had any impact, beneficial or otherwise. It also doesn't matter what individuals, be they private citizens or president-elect think about these hacks.
To the best knowledge of our security services, Russia did try to undermine US democracy.

I find it deeply unpatriotic not to be outraged by this.

 

[theprestige]

The progs. Weren't they a bad garage band from Portland?

It's short for "progressives". I like it because it captures the aspirational qualities of that subculture. It's also free of any insulting connotations. And it make a nice converse to "conservatives". And it's shorter to type.

Are conservatives going to continue with the pretense of myopia until the Orange Slushy has sold the country for scrap or until we get rid of him? No one is actually saying that it turned ANY voters, much less "so many".

Take the year away. Take away the fact that the target was a "prog" or a "LOL Lib" or the Democratic Candidate for the President of the United States. Would you, in theory, be arguing in any other situation (other than desperately trying to support the great fraud that the GOP is putting over on the American public) that the ends justify the means? "Hey, we got some interesting information, can't be all that bad, eh?"

I try to imagine anyone from far right to reactionary to conservative to right-ish moderate not understanding that the content doesn't matter. It's the act that matters. If Botswana, Bolivia, Belize or Bangladesh was caught meddling in the US elections it might be a bit comic. When you get to the level of China, Russia, England, Japan, France, Germany, et al.... you're talking world powers (to varying degrees).

The content does not matter in the least. It was marginally significant, not in the least bit revealing (thus the need to cherry-pick and inflate), and probably had the net effect of keeping two Sanders supporters from voting (probably for Jill Stein).

It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.

If the act itself had a negligible effect, and nobody is claiming it swung the election, then why is the act itself problematic? And to be clear: You are in fact *not* attributing Hillary's loss to anything the Russians did. Is that correct?

 

[theprestige]

For the question of whether or not the US has been the target of a state-directed cyberattack to influence the electoral process, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not it had any impact, beneficial or otherwise. It also doesn't matter what individuals, be they private citizens or president-elect think about these hacks.
To the best knowledge of our security services, Russia did try to undermine US democracy.

I find it deeply unpatriotic not to be outraged by this.

There's a few different questions here. One is, did Hillary lose because of what the Russians did? Another is, were the Russians even trying to make her lose?

Yet another question, the one you're asking is, did the Russians launch a cyber attack against the US? I'm not sure why you're appealing to patriotism, but whatever. I view Russia as an existential enemy of Europe and America, and therefore I assume they are in a continual state of war against us. I expect Russia to be engaging in low-level attacks all the time.

I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage, though. Life's too short to be outraged all the time. Of course Russia is cyberattacking the US. Of course the scorpion stings the toad.

 

[Ziggurat]

The content does not matter in the least. It was marginally significant, not in the least bit revealing (thus the need to cherry-pick and inflate), and probably had the net effect of keeping two Sanders supporters from voting (probably for Jill Stein).

It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.

Did you feel that way about Hillary's decision to run her own server?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There's a few different questions here. One is, did Hillary lose because of what the Russians did? Another is, were the Russians even trying to make her lose?

Yet another question, the one you're asking is, did the Russians launch a cyber attack against the US? I'm not sure why you're appealing to patriotism, but whatever. I view Russia as an existential enemy of Europe and America, and therefore I assume they are in a continual state of war against us. I expect Russia to be engaging in low-level attacks all the time.

I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage, though. Life's too short to be outraged all the time. Of course Russia is cyberattacking the US. Of course the scorpion stings the toad.

There is a fundamental difference between corporate or even military espionage against a global rival and messing with their election process. A democracy needs trust to work.

Putin is basing his entire geopolitics on the demand that the West stay out of Russian affairs. But because of his intrusion, we can and should feel free to publicly engage in efforts for regime change in Russia.

 

[Mycroft]

There's a few different questions here. One is, did Hillary lose because of what the Russians did? Another is, were the Russians even trying to make her lose?

Given how close the election was, can you say Russian interference didn't make her lose?

Sure, there were many factors involved including Clinton not running a better campaign, but she did win the popular vote and her loss in the electoral college was small. Take away any one of many factors that went against her and the election very likely would have been different.

Yet another question, the one you're asking is, did the Russians launch a cyber attack against the US? I'm not sure why you're appealing to patriotism, but whatever. I view Russia as an existential enemy of Europe and America, and therefore I assume they are in a continual state of war against us. I expect Russia to be engaging in low-level attacks all the time.

And if a "low level" attack happens to have a profound impact, even if it's just a lucky shot, we should be concerned.

I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage, though. Life's too short to be outraged all the time. Of course Russia is cyberattacking the US. Of course the scorpion stings the toad.

That argument works equally well against every conceivable problem. I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage over anything, but that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't identify and address existing problems.

 

[varwoche]

Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.

They didn't find much. But it was enough to cause a constant drip-drip down the stretch, which I suspect changed the outcome. I also suspect that Comey changed the outcome. These possibilities are in line with:

Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute

Mind you, in a super close election lots of things change the outcome. I have little doubt that Clinton's baggage (regardless the extent fair/factual) changed the outcome. And that her overall poor presentation as a candidate changed the outcome. And that bigoted attitudes on the part of Trump/supporters changed the outcome.

 

[theprestige]

Clinton was a poor candidate with a poor campaign, but if everything else had gone her way, she might have beaten Donald Trump anyway? I don't think a presidential candidate should have to depend on luck to win an election.

 

[shuize]

It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.

First, I'm so old I can remember when our friends on the left assured us that repeated cybersecurity violations by a certain you know who were completely meaningless unless there were demonstrably negative consequences associated with the act.*

Second, there seems to be a bit of a shell game related to the alleged Russian "hacking." Lots of crying about how "Russia stole the election!" but when asked for details as to how they "stole" it or proof of any negative influence on the voters, they switch to "Hey, it was act itself, Man. That's the issue." "OK," one thinks "but that still doesn't explain the claim that they 'stole' it." "No, no. Don't look there. Look at the act itself..." Of course, as soon as one glances away, they'll go back to crying that "Russia stole the election!" again.

Third, I'm still having a hard time getting excited about the release of accurate, non-classified information. As noted above, the argument seems to be, "If only the American people knew less truthful information about Clinton, she would have won." The email "hack" has a bit of a government whistleblower feel to it to me, i.e. an insider releasing truthful information about the bad deeds of other government agents. I'm so old I can remember when the left used to love that sort of stuff. There were whole T.V. programs devoted to it. Also, there's a nice touch of irony in the fact that Podesta's emails, if those really were the ones that did the claimed damage, were reportedly hacked through lack of security on his part.



* I see that Ziggurat beat me to this.

 

[Mycroft]

Clinton was a poor candidate with a poor campaign, but if everything else had gone her way, she might have beaten Donald Trump anyway? I don't think a presidential candidate should have to depend on luck to win an election.

If Clinton lost by luck then the corollary is that Trump won by luck.

At the same time, the issues we are talking about are not "luck". They were the results of actions taken by people advancing their own agenda.

 

[crescent]

Clinton was a poor candidate with a poor campaign, but if everything else had gone her way, she might have beaten Donald Trump anyway? I don't think a presidential candidate should have to depend on luck to win an election.

Donald Trump was also a poor candidate with a poor campaign. What the Russian government had released RNC emails instead of DNC emails and revealed the same level of political sausage-making? What if that tilted the election in Hillary's favor?

What would you have felt then about the importance of Russia's actions?

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's short for "progressives". I like it because it captures the aspirational qualities of that subculture. It's also free of any insulting connotations. And it make a nice converse to "conservatives". And it's shorter to type.



If the act itself had a negligible effect, and nobody is claiming it swung the election, then why is the act itself problematic?

Gasp! Do I really have to explain to you what is wrong with one country meddling, maliciously, in the free elections of another? Again, would you say the same if, say, Freedonia was caught trying to crack into the Pentagon's email system? Hey, no harm, they caught them before they got through, so we'll just ignore the attempt.

Remember when conservatives used to have this huge morality-stripe painted across their chests?

And to be clear: You are in fact *not* attributing Hillary's loss to anything the Russians did. Is that correct?

Far be it from me to prevent Putin from basking in his pyrrhic victory, but the impact of the Russian leaks was merely the effect of one or two drips in the traditional Chinese Water Torture. The twenty-five years of Clinton bashing, the organized Congressional witch hunts, the Alt-Right lies, the Fox News echo chamber, the upstarts of Mercer/Coulter/Bannon.... All had considerably more negative impact.

Comey? That's a different question. He had considerable impact.

None of this equals "Why We Lost". They were all major contributing factors, but the loss was because the Democrats were not up to 2016 campaigning standards and should have been. Their polling wasn't half as good as it was in '08 and '12, and they took too much for granted in the rust belt. It was a combination of a lot of things but mostly the Dems weren't up to the game.

Personally, I think a part of it was that the "change" message didn't resound. Simply electing a woman was no longer going to bring out the masses. The "revolutionary" edge of running a woman was sort of a let-down, see? We'd hurdled past that by electing the first black man.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Did you feel that way about Hillary's decision to run her own server?

Different discussion than the one we're having. Why don't you address the points I made instead of regressing?

Is this the game plan? You folks are going to replay the 2016 election for the next four years and hope that no one notices that there's a buffoon in the White House, appointing the only people in the country he can locate who are less qualified than himself?

My question remains. You aver that you're a conservative? You find that it's all okay that the Russians (or the Freedonians) made a professional and concerted effort to hack into private correspondence and selectively release material that was damaging to one side only.

 

[Foolmewunz]

They didn't find much. But it was enough to cause a constant drip-drip down the stretch, which I suspect changed the outcome. I also suspect that Comey changed the outcome. These possibilities are in line with:

Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute

Mind you, in a super close election lots of things change the outcome. I have little doubt that Clinton's baggage (regardless the extent fair/factual) changed the outcome. And that her overall poor presentation as a candidate changed the outcome. And that bigoted attitudes on the part of Trump/supporters changed the outcome.

Hilited: Disclaimer! I hadn't seen your post before composing my above response to The Prestige.

 

[Foolmewunz]

First, I'm so old I can remember when our friends on the left assured us that repeated cybersecurity violations by a certain you know who were completely meaningless unless there were demonstrably negative consequences associated with the act.*

Second, there seems to be a bit of a shell game related to the alleged Russian "hacking." Lots of crying about how "Russia stole the election!" but when asked for details as to how they "stole" it or proof of any negative influence on the voters, they switch to "Hey, it was act itself, Man. That's the issue." "OK," one thinks "but that still doesn't explain the claim that they 'stole' it." "No, no. Don't look there. Look at the act itself..." Of course, as soon as one glances away, they'll go back to crying that "Russia stole the election!" again.

Third, I'm still having a hard time getting excited about the release of accurate, non-classified information. As noted above, the argument seems to be, "If only the American people knew less truthful information about Clinton, she would have won." The email "hack" has a bit of a government whistleblower feel to it to me, i.e. an insider releasing truthful information about the bad deeds of other government agents. I'm so old I can remember when the left used to love that sort of stuff. There were whole T.V. programs devoted to it. Also, there's a nice touch of irony in the fact that Podesta's emails, if those really were the ones that did the claimed damage, were reportedly hacked through lack of security on his part.



* I see that Ziggurat beat me to this.

We're (that means you guys and me) not having this discussion. There's a thread on the Emails. Go to it. It'll warm the cockles of The Big Dog's heart.

We're discussing (well, I am - you guys are assiduously avoiding it) where Republican or Conservative morality disappeared to. I'm very tempted to do a nice Rule of So... So, I can put you guys down as being in favor of foreign governments meddling in other countries' elections?

Oh, and to burn down your straw man.... I'm not claiming the Russians stole the election. I have a pretty good idea of how the election was lost. I'm more interested in discussing the lack of moral fiber in people who are willing to brush this act off.