9 ms·

You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attac

You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't matter how true those arguments are, I will come to biased conclusions.

borkborkbork 10y ago
Imagine all the dirt on GOP email accounts
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Like that time Sarah Palin had to release her personal email acct? Remember all the bad stuff in there? No? That's because there wasn't any. It's weird that when a political entity gets caught rigging debates (and worse) the std response is "I'm sure the other side did it too".
vkou 10y ago
If the press digs up dirt on a candidate, should they not publish it until they dig up some dirt on their opponent? What if it's a foreign newspaper? Should Deep Throat's leaks not been published, because they would influence the election? What if he were a card-holding Democrat? What if he were a reptilian agent? I hate Trump as much as the next person, but there was no shortage of actual dirt that was dug up on him. There was no democratic outrage over the source of his comments about grabbing people's genitals... Or that one page of his tax return.
- rhcom2 10y ago
  The press "digging up dirt" is surely different than the illegal hacking and wholesale release of all private email correspondence. Deep Throat provided info on the current President's illegal actions to a journalist, not just "dirt". Even if we accept that it is better to know the info in the DNC leaks, it is still a big problem if a foreign government can wield its influence so easily through illegal computer intrusions. At least to me.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Leaking the Trump tax return was illegal. There was nothing illegal in the tax return. The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Many of the things he leaked were not illegal. (Since this will never go to trial, we'll probably never know.) Should the press only report on legally-sourced information? They aren't a jury. Good news for us, though - both illegal leaks, and illegal hacks are illegal. We already have a mechanism to deal with bad behaviour in this space.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Not at all. It was required behavior. Until the government enacts a useful whistleblowing program someone who witnesses criminal actions has literally no legal choice but to leak. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away is the illegal option. I want my institutions to be fixable from inside but when they aren't, I simply want them fixed. Re Downvoter - I understand that you're upset but lashing out, especially against the truth, doesn't help.
      - mixedCase 10y ago
        It was illegal. Which does not stop it from being moral.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        No, it was legal because it was a requirement which overrode all lesser orders. No law can compel you to break the law, or cover up abuses of it.
        mixedCase 10y ago
        The way he went about it was (and is) illegal. The legal way would have gotten him nowhere, though.
        10y ago
- facetube 10y ago
  On July 27th, Donald Trump asked for the assistance of a foreign power under US sanctions. Specifically, he asked for assistance in performing opposition research. This is fundamentally wrong IMO, and arguably a foreign emolument in and of itself. He did this during a live televised press conference, beginning with the words "Russia, if you're listening..." [1]. There is documented evidence of a large-scale Macedonian-originated "fake news" ring [2], and thousands of comments in closed pro-Trump Facebook groups which demonstrate that a nontrivial number of Americans believed the obviously-false (e.g. [3]) information being peddled. That is fundamentally different than having a questionable history be exposed by a free press. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnY7D4M4k68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnY7D4M4k68 2: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281 3: http://usapoliticszone.com http://usapoliticszone.com
sidlls 10y ago
It doesn't concern me at all. The Democratic Party isn't a branch of government. It's a private company. That so many treat it like it's a government organization is far more concerning than the motivations behind any hacks of one or both major parties.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  While you are technically correct, do you want to live in a country run by private corporations or would you rather public pressure and regulations be able to influence the parties?
  - sidlls 10y ago
    I'd rather the latter. Which is why I don't care that the private company that is the DNC was hacked. They don't succumb or respond to public pressure in any meaningful way.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      I think we should do more than treat it as a governmental organization, we should regulate it into behaving more like one, or regulate some of its influence away so that there's is more room for third parties
      - sidlls 10y ago
        Plenty of states already have regulations. California has rules about how parties elect their boards and whatnot, for example, and officially recognizes parties. I agree that we should reduce their influence. That would be the opposite of doubling down on our current system of treating them like pseudo-branches of government. One way to accomplish that would be to ban official recognition of parties, require them to fund and run their own primary elections, and move to multi-member representation districts. All of these things can be done at the state level for state and local offices.
pdeuchler 10y ago
Whoever it was actually did target the RNC, but as for your other point it still befuddles me how Russians not wanting a president who was threatening WWIII with them is some sort of groundbreaking revelation that proves this was an insane conspiracy and not just every day business by a nation looking out for their interests
snickerbockers 10y ago
Just because one party was predominantly targeted doesn't mean they were sponsored by a foreign geopolitical interest. This could mean that guccifer 2.0 was a partisian (in America or abroad) acting on his own beliefs, or it could also mean that Democrats are especially bad with infosec and Republicans aren't.
harry8 10y ago
> but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. This is just wrong, of course there were. "Grab them by the pussy." Was also a leak and was also published with political intent. (And just quietly, also demonstrated a man is an utterly foul human being whom I would cross the road to avoid.)

borkborkbork 10y ago

Imagine all the dirt on GOP email accounts

jakeogh 10y ago
Like that time Sarah Palin had to release her personal email acct? Remember all the bad stuff in there? No? That's because there wasn't any. It's weird that when a political entity gets caught rigging debates (and worse) the std response is "I'm sure the other side did it too".

vkou 10y ago

If the press digs up dirt on a candidate, should they not publish it until they dig up some dirt on their opponent? What if it's a foreign newspaper? Should Deep Throat's leaks not been published, because they would influence the election? What if he were a card-holding Democrat? What if he were a reptilian agent? I hate Trump as much as the next person, but there was no shortage of actual dirt that was dug up on him. There was no democratic outrage over the source of his comments about grabbing people's genitals... Or that one page of his tax return.

rhcom2 10y ago
The press "digging up dirt" is surely different than the illegal hacking and wholesale release of all private email correspondence. Deep Throat provided info on the current President's illegal actions to a journalist, not just "dirt". Even if we accept that it is better to know the info in the DNC leaks, it is still a big problem if a foreign government can wield its influence so easily through illegal computer intrusions. At least to me.
- vkou 10y ago
  Leaking the Trump tax return was illegal. There was nothing illegal in the tax return. The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Many of the things he leaked were not illegal. (Since this will never go to trial, we'll probably never know.) Should the press only report on legally-sourced information? They aren't a jury. Good news for us, though - both illegal leaks, and illegal hacks are illegal. We already have a mechanism to deal with bad behaviour in this space.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Not at all. It was required behavior. Until the government enacts a useful whistleblowing program someone who witnesses criminal actions has literally no legal choice but to leak. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away is the illegal option. I want my institutions to be fixable from inside but when they aren't, I simply want them fixed. Re Downvoter - I understand that you're upset but lashing out, especially against the truth, doesn't help.
    - mixedCase 10y ago
      It was illegal. Which does not stop it from being moral.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        No, it was legal because it was a requirement which overrode all lesser orders. No law can compel you to break the law, or cover up abuses of it.
        mixedCase 10y ago
        The way he went about it was (and is) illegal. The legal way would have gotten him nowhere, though.
        10y ago
facetube 10y ago
On July 27th, Donald Trump asked for the assistance of a foreign power under US sanctions. Specifically, he asked for assistance in performing opposition research. This is fundamentally wrong IMO, and arguably a foreign emolument in and of itself. He did this during a live televised press conference, beginning with the words "Russia, if you're listening..." [1]. There is documented evidence of a large-scale Macedonian-originated "fake news" ring [2], and thousands of comments in closed pro-Trump Facebook groups which demonstrate that a nontrivial number of Americans believed the obviously-false (e.g. [3]) information being peddled. That is fundamentally different than having a questionable history be exposed by a free press. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnY7D4M4k68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnY7D4M4k68 2: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281 3: http://usapoliticszone.com http://usapoliticszone.com

sidlls 10y ago

It doesn't concern me at all. The Democratic Party isn't a branch of government. It's a private company. That so many treat it like it's a government organization is far more concerning than the motivations behind any hacks of one or both major parties.

mattnewton 10y ago
While you are technically correct, do you want to live in a country run by private corporations or would you rather public pressure and regulations be able to influence the parties?
- sidlls 10y ago
  I'd rather the latter. Which is why I don't care that the private company that is the DNC was hacked. They don't succumb or respond to public pressure in any meaningful way.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    I think we should do more than treat it as a governmental organization, we should regulate it into behaving more like one, or regulate some of its influence away so that there's is more room for third parties
    - sidlls 10y ago
      Plenty of states already have regulations. California has rules about how parties elect their boards and whatnot, for example, and officially recognizes parties. I agree that we should reduce their influence. That would be the opposite of doubling down on our current system of treating them like pseudo-branches of government. One way to accomplish that would be to ban official recognition of parties, require them to fund and run their own primary elections, and move to multi-member representation districts. All of these things can be done at the state level for state and local offices.

pdeuchler 10y ago

Whoever it was actually did target the RNC, but as for your other point it still befuddles me how Russians not wanting a president who was threatening WWIII with them is some sort of groundbreaking revelation that proves this was an insane conspiracy and not just every day business by a nation looking out for their interests

snickerbockers 10y ago

Just because one party was predominantly targeted doesn't mean they were sponsored by a foreign geopolitical interest. This could mean that guccifer 2.0 was a partisian (in America or abroad) acting on his own beliefs, or it could also mean that Democrats are especially bad with infosec and Republicans aren't.

harry8 10y ago

> but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. This is just wrong, of course there were. "Grab them by the pussy." Was also a leak and was also published with political intent. (And just quietly, also demonstrated a man is an utterly foul human being whom I would cross the road to avoid.)