6 ms·

I'd say each of your three points are seriously exaggerated, but that's really neither here nor there. Why can't we be worried by the content of the emails and

I'd say each of your three points are seriously exaggerated, but that's really neither here nor there. Why can't we be worried by the content of the emails and the fact that a foreign government hacked them and leaked them strategically to influence our election? It strikes me as profoundly foolish to not react here just because you happen to be happy that this particular set of information was released. (As well as, by the way, reams of email with no value to the public whatsoever.) And of course nobody is suggesting we fight a nuclear war. There's clearly plenty of space between GP's suggestion that we do more than tell them to 'cut it out' and nuclear warfare.

exstudent2 10y ago
Whoever released the emails did the American public a huge service. They pulled back the curtain and we got to see how the sausage is made. It doesn't matter who they are or why they did it. The end result was important whistle blowing. We should hope that information like this is leaked out as it helps balance the power between the public and corrupt politicians/media in a way nothing else can.
- simonw 10y ago
  How do you feel about the fact that they appear to have hacked the RNC too but deliberately chose not to release those emails, in order to favor one candidate over the other. Still think that's a huge public service? Not to mention that the emails they kept might be used for blackmail in the future.
  - williamle8300 10y ago
    Maybe because RNC emails are mundane and don't have scandalous material?
    - cariaso 10y ago
      The majority of the Podesta leaks were extremely mundane. This suggests the RNC leaks were held to a different standard.
      - mythrwy 10y ago
        The majority, yes. However some were "interesting".
      - 3131s 10y ago
        Of course the majority were mundane. The majority of Chapo Guzman's private communications would be mundane too. The contents of the DNC emails suggest nothing about the contents of the RNC emails, though I have no doubt that republicans are equally crooked.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        And what does the one-sidedness of the attacks and releases suggest?
        3131s 10y ago
        The one-sidedness of the attacks? From whom? If you're referring to recent CIA claims that the RNC was hacked as well, then my answer is that I don't trust the CIA. It may have happened, but you have no real proof about Russian involvement at all. Unlike other posters in this thread and Clinton herself, I am not keen on starting a physical war with Russia over conjecture about a virtual attack.
  - makomk 10y ago
    If I remember correctly, that was walked back to a claim that they'd hacked "RNC actors" but not the RNC themselves - and we already knew that because e-mails from Republicans were released fairly early on. This is a problem with a lot of the scary claims going around in general; they simply don't actually seem to be true.
  - exstudent2 10y ago
    Yes they did 1/2 have of the work they could but I'm not complaining about getting more information. Someone else should leak the RNC. Or possibly it didn't contain as many bombshells? Either way, I'm happy to get more information than I had before.
williamle8300 10y ago
It's called whistleblowing. By definition, you have to step outside of protocol... or hack. Choose whatever verbiage that suits you. I don't know what country you're from, but our laws in America are supposed to protect whistleblowers––not prosecute them.
- rhcom2 10y ago
  A foreign government breaking into a computer system and releasing documents wholesale is not whistleblowing.

exstudent2 10y ago

Whoever released the emails did the American public a huge service. They pulled back the curtain and we got to see how the sausage is made. It doesn't matter who they are or why they did it. The end result was important whistle blowing. We should hope that information like this is leaked out as it helps balance the power between the public and corrupt politicians/media in a way nothing else can.

simonw 10y ago
How do you feel about the fact that they appear to have hacked the RNC too but deliberately chose not to release those emails, in order to favor one candidate over the other. Still think that's a huge public service? Not to mention that the emails they kept might be used for blackmail in the future.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  Maybe because RNC emails are mundane and don't have scandalous material?
  - cariaso 10y ago
    The majority of the Podesta leaks were extremely mundane. This suggests the RNC leaks were held to a different standard.
    - mythrwy 10y ago
      The majority, yes. However some were "interesting".
    - 3131s 10y ago
      Of course the majority were mundane. The majority of Chapo Guzman's private communications would be mundane too. The contents of the DNC emails suggest nothing about the contents of the RNC emails, though I have no doubt that republicans are equally crooked.
      - chillwaves 10y ago
        And what does the one-sidedness of the attacks and releases suggest?
        3131s 10y ago
        The one-sidedness of the attacks? From whom? If you're referring to recent CIA claims that the RNC was hacked as well, then my answer is that I don't trust the CIA. It may have happened, but you have no real proof about Russian involvement at all. Unlike other posters in this thread and Clinton herself, I am not keen on starting a physical war with Russia over conjecture about a virtual attack.
- makomk 10y ago
  If I remember correctly, that was walked back to a claim that they'd hacked "RNC actors" but not the RNC themselves - and we already knew that because e-mails from Republicans were released fairly early on. This is a problem with a lot of the scary claims going around in general; they simply don't actually seem to be true.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  Yes they did 1/2 have of the work they could but I'm not complaining about getting more information. Someone else should leak the RNC. Or possibly it didn't contain as many bombshells? Either way, I'm happy to get more information than I had before.

williamle8300 10y ago

It's called whistleblowing. By definition, you have to step outside of protocol... or hack. Choose whatever verbiage that suits you. I don't know what country you're from, but our laws in America are supposed to protect whistleblowers––not prosecute them.

rhcom2 10y ago
A foreign government breaking into a computer system and releasing documents wholesale is not whistleblowing.