4 ms·

Can you point out instances of unethical behavior or "backroom dealings"? Frankly I haven't personally seen anything out of place other than uncharitable readi

Can you point out instances of unethical behavior or "backroom dealings"? Frankly I haven't personally seen anything out of place other than uncharitable readings by the right...

24gttghh 8y ago
I'm referring to their organized snubbing of Bernie, which was out in the open when it comes down to it.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  Bernie lost the primaries by like 10 points and millions of votes. The snubbing was definitely organized, and it was done by the people.
crazynick4 8y ago
The knowledge that we had an ally who was funding ISIS and we were doing effectively nothing about it. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikilea...
- rosser 8y ago
  If you think for one second that not antagonizing the Saudi government by officially calling out their involvement in things inimical to US interests is a consequence of partisanship, you're paying a very selective kind of attention.
  - crazynick4 8y ago
    "things inimical to US interests" is a very euphemistic way of describing systematic executions of civilians and other ISIS warcrimes. > ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention. I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy. Antagonizing the Saudi government would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum. I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
    - wahern 8y ago
      The hypocrisy bothers me as much as the next person, but the fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Even though there are factions that fund terrorism, unlike, say, Iran with Hamas, we can complain (and do complain) to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia will actually try to do something about it, subject (as always) to their own internal power struggles. (Plus, it's not like sanctions convinced Iran to stop funding Hamas or Hezbollah.) This isn't a coincidence. The British installed the Saudis purposefully, knowing that they would be more accommodating to Western interests. This was reflective of their colonial strategy to install minority groups into power so the minority group would have to rely on external assistance to maintain power. Unlike the fumbling strategies of the Americans or French who simply install puppet regimes, the British strategy means that the rulers can't or won't always do your bidding. But it's a far more stable strategy with better long-term outcomes. America has to tolerate the Saudis doing things that aren't always in America's best interest, not unlike tolerating the choices of other allies. The alternative is probably a regime like Syria or Iran. Maybe that would be better for Saudi Arabian citizens, but almost certainly not better for American interests--at least not in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, geopolitical relations don't work like relations between neighbors on a cul-de-sac.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
A good example of unethical can be seen by reading Clinton's leaked Wall Street speeches where her private options is wildly different than her public. Unethical that while the DNC is well within their right to push the candidate most likely to win, their public impression of fair voting was not at all that to Bernie supporters. Nor did the DNC disclose just how much the Clinton campaign was funding operations before her being selected as candidate. Also unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups to an unvetted third civilian party with no security access. Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info. I'm not sure having media push the articles the campaign writes with the promise of greater access is ethical. Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine? IDK. Maybe that's "opposition research"... It's hard to tell where that line is. ... Unless you don't think those things happened. edit: More downvotes, but all of those things happened. Sorry HN, seeming more like Reddit every day :(
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  >unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups Running one's own email server is not unethical, in fact, many on HN do just that. I can't say I've ever seen the allegation about "unecrypted backups," but I'm not sure of the relevance in any case. Care to elaborate (and cite)? >Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info You're on HN, so can we assume you understand how email servers work? IMAP/SMTP? >Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine? Why would anyone pay for phony information instead of just making it up?
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    Wow. Dude, how many of the HN people are running their own servers in order to bypass FOIA compliance at the State Department? Yes, I do know how IMAP works. Why were classified files being forwarded to Wiener's laptop? He didn't have clearance for that information to be on his computer. Do you know how security clearance and handing of classified documents work? I'm trying not to be aggressive with you, but man, that was some flimsy argument there.

Can you point out instances of unethical behavior or "backroom dealings"? Frankly I haven't personally seen anything out of place other than uncharitable readings by the right...

24gttghh 8y ago

I'm referring to their organized snubbing of Bernie, which was out in the open when it comes down to it.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
Bernie lost the primaries by like 10 points and millions of votes. The snubbing was definitely organized, and it was done by the people.

crazynick4 8y ago

The knowledge that we had an ally who was funding ISIS and we were doing effectively nothing about it. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikilea...

rosser 8y ago
If you think for one second that not antagonizing the Saudi government by officially calling out their involvement in things inimical to US interests is a consequence of partisanship, you're paying a very selective kind of attention.
- crazynick4 8y ago
  "things inimical to US interests" is a very euphemistic way of describing systematic executions of civilians and other ISIS warcrimes. > ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention. I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy. Antagonizing the Saudi government would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum. I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
  - wahern 8y ago
    The hypocrisy bothers me as much as the next person, but the fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Even though there are factions that fund terrorism, unlike, say, Iran with Hamas, we can complain (and do complain) to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia will actually try to do something about it, subject (as always) to their own internal power struggles. (Plus, it's not like sanctions convinced Iran to stop funding Hamas or Hezbollah.) This isn't a coincidence. The British installed the Saudis purposefully, knowing that they would be more accommodating to Western interests. This was reflective of their colonial strategy to install minority groups into power so the minority group would have to rely on external assistance to maintain power. Unlike the fumbling strategies of the Americans or French who simply install puppet regimes, the British strategy means that the rulers can't or won't always do your bidding. But it's a far more stable strategy with better long-term outcomes. America has to tolerate the Saudis doing things that aren't always in America's best interest, not unlike tolerating the choices of other allies. The alternative is probably a regime like Syria or Iran. Maybe that would be better for Saudi Arabian citizens, but almost certainly not better for American interests--at least not in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, geopolitical relations don't work like relations between neighbors on a cul-de-sac.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

A good example of unethical can be seen by reading Clinton's leaked Wall Street speeches where her private options is wildly different than her public. Unethical that while the DNC is well within their right to push the candidate most likely to win, their public impression of fair voting was not at all that to Bernie supporters. Nor did the DNC disclose just how much the Clinton campaign was funding operations before her being selected as candidate. Also unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups to an unvetted third civilian party with no security access. Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info. I'm not sure having media push the articles the campaign writes with the promise of greater access is ethical. Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine? IDK. Maybe that's "opposition research"... It's hard to tell where that line is. ... Unless you don't think those things happened. edit: More downvotes, but all of those things happened. Sorry HN, seeming more like Reddit every day :(

18pfsmt 8y ago
>unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups Running one's own email server is not unethical, in fact, many on HN do just that. I can't say I've ever seen the allegation about "unecrypted backups," but I'm not sure of the relevance in any case. Care to elaborate (and cite)? >Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info You're on HN, so can we assume you understand how email servers work? IMAP/SMTP? >Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine? Why would anyone pay for phony information instead of just making it up?
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Wow. Dude, how many of the HN people are running their own servers in order to bypass FOIA compliance at the State Department? Yes, I do know how IMAP works. Why were classified files being forwarded to Wiener's laptop? He didn't have clearance for that information to be on his computer. Do you know how security clearance and handing of classified documents work? I'm trying not to be aggressive with you, but man, that was some flimsy argument there.