3 ms·

> that "Russians" hacked the election That's not the claim. In fact, multiple people have said that is not the claim. The claim is that the Russians influence

by vinhboy 10y ago

> that "Russians" hacked the election That's not the claim. In fact, multiple people have said that is not the claim. The claim is that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump by promoting propaganda against Clinton.

roc 10y ago
Through leaks like this one. Leaks that can be partially validated or corroborated, but which (by their nature) cannot be entirely proven true. And those leaks were very transparently beneficial to a person/group who are also going to benefit from this one. I don't trust the CIA at all. But I don't trust Wikileaks either. I see way too many self-described "skeptical" types who aren't approaching any of this with any shred of skepticism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
troyvit 10y ago
Yeah it's irritating how our media is ignoring the propaganda machine and looking at "hacks" instead.
ctdonath 10y ago
Objective proof is usually not considered "propaganda". We used to call it "investigative journalism".
fareesh 10y ago
There's also an argument to be made that Hillary would not have been the nominee had the DNC played fair. The leaked emails show that they actively worked to suppress Bernie, who had huge rallies, similar to Trump.
- danans 10y ago
  A US political party playing favorites with it's own candidates (however upsetting that is), is very different from a foreign state engaging in a successful propaganda campaign to influence the US election. The DNC problems are part of a long term reshaping of US political identities. The Russia issues are a serious near-term national security concern.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  Absolutely no one intelligent thinks that. And rally size means literally nothing.
arca_vorago 10y ago
Actually, that was the claim, but once people started undermining the story they had to shift to the word "influence" to save face. This kind of shit is why middle-class rightwing America cheers when Trump calls out fake news. A complete inability to honestly say, ok, we don't know, or ok, we fucked up. Nope, the story always was X... sure it was.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Can you provide some evidence? Links to articles?
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    Sure, not a problem. It's so easy, you can do it too! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22russia+hacked+election%22 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22russia+hacked+election%22
remarkEon 10y ago
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. I think the more likely objective (assuming the Russians were behind this, which for the time being is a fair assumption) is that they wanted to delegitimize a President Clinton. Everyone thought she would win. I think it's a bold claim to make that the Kremlin set out on a campaign to elevate an obtuse philanderer in a field of 16 who ignores any semblance of political norms. Rather, I think they just wanted to further tarnish Clinton's image, as President, as a corrupt establishment figure.

by vinhboy 10y ago

roc 10y ago

Through leaks like this one. Leaks that can be partially validated or corroborated, but which (by their nature) cannot be entirely proven true. And those leaks were very transparently beneficial to a person/group who are also going to benefit from this one. I don't trust the CIA at all. But I don't trust Wikileaks either. I see way too many self-described "skeptical" types who aren't approaching any of this with any shred of skepticism.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

troyvit 10y ago

Yeah it's irritating how our media is ignoring the propaganda machine and looking at "hacks" instead.

ctdonath 10y ago

Objective proof is usually not considered "propaganda". We used to call it "investigative journalism".

fareesh 10y ago

There's also an argument to be made that Hillary would not have been the nominee had the DNC played fair. The leaked emails show that they actively worked to suppress Bernie, who had huge rallies, similar to Trump.

danans 10y ago
A US political party playing favorites with it's own candidates (however upsetting that is), is very different from a foreign state engaging in a successful propaganda campaign to influence the US election. The DNC problems are part of a long term reshaping of US political identities. The Russia issues are a serious near-term national security concern.
hackinthebochs 10y ago
Absolutely no one intelligent thinks that. And rally size means literally nothing.

arca_vorago 10y ago

Actually, that was the claim, but once people started undermining the story they had to shift to the word "influence" to save face. This kind of shit is why middle-class rightwing America cheers when Trump calls out fake news. A complete inability to honestly say, ok, we don't know, or ok, we fucked up. Nope, the story always was X... sure it was.

hackuser 10y ago
Can you provide some evidence? Links to articles?
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Sure, not a problem. It's so easy, you can do it too! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22russia+hacked+election%22 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22russia+hacked+election%22

remarkEon 10y ago

I think it's a little more nuanced than that. I think the more likely objective (assuming the Russians were behind this, which for the time being is a fair assumption) is that they wanted to delegitimize a President Clinton. Everyone thought she would win. I think it's a bold claim to make that the Kremlin set out on a campaign to elevate an obtuse philanderer in a field of 16 who ignores any semblance of political norms. Rather, I think they just wanted to further tarnish Clinton's image, as President, as a corrupt establishment figure.