4 ms·

Really? Cool! I’m sure you won’t have any troubles pointing me to some evidence then! Let’s see it... Also, I’m not alone in this, notable journalists such

Really? Cool! I’m sure you won’t have any troubles pointing me to some evidence then! Let’s see it... Also, I’m not alone in this, notable journalists such as Glenn Greenwald are also asking for evidence.

tree_of_item 9y ago
Are you just not paying attention to the Mueller investigation? There's like five guilty pleas by now. Is that just a nothing burger? Seriously, what do you think that's all about? If you want a timeline of events you can go here[0] or here[1], but something tells me you won't accept these... [0]: https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/tim... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/05/a-so-far-complete-timeline-of-the-investigation-into-trump-and-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/05/a...
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Can you spell it out? How did Russia "hack" the election? Please try to be specific. If I wanted random news stories, I'd google them.
  - drdeca 9y ago
    The topic at hand is "meddling", not "hack"ing. Please don't try to change the topic.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      Whatever adjective you prefer. But can you answer the question? You're being purposely obtuse.
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    Can you read? Those lists are very detailed and deal exclusively with this topic.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      I have read and didn't find anything concrete. That's why I asked. No need to be rude.
    - dang 9y ago
      Crossing into personal nastiness will get you banned here regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again. All: Please keep garden-variety partisan flamewars far away from this site, too.
- freejulian 9y ago
  Your timeline is a list of accusations. You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim of Russian’s interfering with the election. More importanly: why should I care about Russians interfering with elections when we let corporations do that to a far greater extent?
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    The timeline contains confirmed events which are in fact evidence. They're not accusations; the point of the timeline is that these are things we know happened.
  - drdeca 9y ago
    How, exactly, are you defining evidence? I assume you don't mean in the P(A|B) > P(A) sense?
dingo_bat 9y ago
I bet 10 bucks nobody here is going to reply with what you asked for. Because there is no "evidence" of any sort of "hacking".
- djur 9y ago
  You're the first person in this thread to introduce the word "hacking".
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    My point still stands. Whatever adjective you prefer.
    - djur 9y ago
      https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download "From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016." https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        People can say anything. Anything proven in the court? To me all this sounds like partisan activities against the President. I skimmed both documents, but couldn't find any proven fact. Only allegations. Did I miss something? Also the DNI report is too generic. They literally have screenshots of Russian news channels. This is bordering on cold war era style propaganda. PS: thank you for taking the time and effort to have a conversation. I haven't seen anything convincing me that Russia meaningfully interfered in the election. And I'm wary to jump to conclusions since there are a lot of people who seem to be hell bent on undercutting the President using any means.
austincheney 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... There is enough evidence to substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia deliberately interfered with the 2016 presidential election. It is hard to determine the degree with which that interference influenced voters.
yequalsx 9y ago
When all the stories first started coming out about U.S. torture around 2005 the first stage was denial by supporters of Bush. The number of intelligence officials, the number of investigative reports, etc. is such that someone denying Russian influence is being willfully naive. The question isn’t if they did influence the election it’s just how much the influence really was. It is beyond question that the Russians were involved in shenanigans. The U.S. has regularly unduly influenced elections in other countries so I don’t begrudge the Russians for what they did. I do begrudge those of our leaders who don’t care.

tree_of_item 9y ago

Are you just not paying attention to the Mueller investigation? There's like five guilty pleas by now. Is that just a nothing burger? Seriously, what do you think that's all about? If you want a timeline of events you can go here[0] or here[1], but something tells me you won't accept these... [0]: https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/tim... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/05/a-so-far-complete-timeline-of-the-investigation-into-trump-and-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/05/a...

dingo_bat 9y ago
Can you spell it out? How did Russia "hack" the election? Please try to be specific. If I wanted random news stories, I'd google them.
- drdeca 9y ago
  The topic at hand is "meddling", not "hack"ing. Please don't try to change the topic.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    Whatever adjective you prefer. But can you answer the question? You're being purposely obtuse.
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  Can you read? Those lists are very detailed and deal exclusively with this topic.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    I have read and didn't find anything concrete. That's why I asked. No need to be rude.
  - dang 9y ago
    Crossing into personal nastiness will get you banned here regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again. All: Please keep garden-variety partisan flamewars far away from this site, too.
freejulian 9y ago
Your timeline is a list of accusations. You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim of Russian’s interfering with the election. More importanly: why should I care about Russians interfering with elections when we let corporations do that to a far greater extent?
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  The timeline contains confirmed events which are in fact evidence. They're not accusations; the point of the timeline is that these are things we know happened.
- drdeca 9y ago
  How, exactly, are you defining evidence? I assume you don't mean in the P(A|B) > P(A) sense?

dingo_bat 9y ago

I bet 10 bucks nobody here is going to reply with what you asked for. Because there is no "evidence" of any sort of "hacking".

djur 9y ago
You're the first person in this thread to introduce the word "hacking".
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  My point still stands. Whatever adjective you prefer.
  - djur 9y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download "From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016." https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      People can say anything. Anything proven in the court? To me all this sounds like partisan activities against the President. I skimmed both documents, but couldn't find any proven fact. Only allegations. Did I miss something? Also the DNI report is too generic. They literally have screenshots of Russian news channels. This is bordering on cold war era style propaganda. PS: thank you for taking the time and effort to have a conversation. I haven't seen anything convincing me that Russia meaningfully interfered in the election. And I'm wary to jump to conclusions since there are a lot of people who seem to be hell bent on undercutting the President using any means.

austincheney 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... There is enough evidence to substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia deliberately interfered with the 2016 presidential election. It is hard to determine the degree with which that interference influenced voters.

yequalsx 9y ago

When all the stories first started coming out about U.S. torture around 2005 the first stage was denial by supporters of Bush. The number of intelligence officials, the number of investigative reports, etc. is such that someone denying Russian influence is being willfully naive. The question isn’t if they did influence the election it’s just how much the influence really was. It is beyond question that the Russians were involved in shenanigans. The U.S. has regularly unduly influenced elections in other countries so I don’t begrudge the Russians for what they did. I do begrudge those of our leaders who don’t care.