4 ms·

I find the irony in so many Americans being outraged at a foreign state influencing another state's elections to be deliciously intoxicating.

by lagadu 8y ago

mc32 8y ago
I think it’s mostly redirecting dissatisfaction. Dems waaay underperformed and need to find a scapegoat rather than look internally and see why people switched. But no, they rather blame others, be they foreign or even within the party: right now the Dems can’t decide if they are 1980s Dems or 1920s Workers Partiers.
- gnode 8y ago
  > why people switched. If I remember correctly, it wasn't so much that many people switched parties, but that typical Democrat voter turnout was low, reflecting some amount of disillusionment. Also, what you say about the Democrats' identity crisis seems to mirror what's been happening with Labour (the left party) in the UK.
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    >reflecting some amount of disillusionment Disillusionment through propaganda and well-timed leaks of stolen documents by a foreign, hostile power.
    - mc32 8y ago
      Does the source of the leaks matter? Does it matter that it was Wikileaks, AccessHollywood, Guccifer? Either something is true or it isn’t.
      - orf 8y ago
        Absolutely the source matters as well as the contents. You could ask yourself why the Russians penetrated the RNC but decided not to release any dirt. Perhaps you could ask yourself if this has any bearing on Trump's Russia stance? Could he be unable to admit meddling for fear of undermining his very legitimacy? As a result of this is the head of state feuding with the unanimous conclusion of his (+allies) intelligence agencies good for anyone? Who would that be? This is why the source matters. Because things are always leaked with intent, and by missing that intent and being distracted by shiny talking points you're missing the whole story. Both matter, equally.
        mc32 8y ago
        So let’s say (presume) Russia has goods on Trump, and we all know they had at least some goods on Hillary. I think then it would be fair to presume they could get the goods on anyone. If that’s the case, how can anyone do anything against this kind of adversary without someone saying “Ha, you’re taking/not taking an action because Russia is in your pocket!” Or whatever.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        akhilcacharya 8y ago
        > So let’s say (presume) Russia has goods on Trump, and we all know they had at least some goods on Hillary Why do we have to "presume" they do about Trump and "know" they had some goods on Hillary?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Dems waaay underperformed and need to find a scapegoat rather than look internally and see why people switched. Switching was (as always) much less significant than turnout. And the previously absolutely dominant neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party hasn't made a lot of substantive (and even more symbolic) concessions to the anti-establishment progressive faction of the party because of a sudden outburst of generosity. Just because Democrats (and plenty of Republicans, though mostly it's only the ones not currently in elective office, or on their way out, that talk strongly about it) notice and are outraged about foreign interference doesn't mean that they aren't aware of and actively seeking to address other issues that hurt them in 2016. There's nothing stopping them from doing both.
- frockington 8y ago
  Rather than try and understand why Midwestern states such as Ohio flipped heavily Republican it seems like the plan is to call them idiots and bigots. It seems like some introspection and message focus is needed. The name calling path isn't working
akhilcacharya 8y ago
It's almost as though some governments have been determined through economic and military strength to be more significant and powerful than others perhaps? Whataboutism doesn't change the facts at hand, do they? A hostile foreign state orchestrated an intelligence operation to elect a specific person to further their own geopolitical goals. Every single person in this country should be alarmed by this.
- kuraudo 8y ago
  Who gets to decide which state is hostile? We should be friends with Russia, not blaming them for all of our woes.
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    The American intelligence community. And also anybody that has been paying attention to the situation in Ukraine and Syria.
sctb 8y ago
Then enjoy, but please don't post about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I find the irony in so many Americans being outraged at a foreign state influencing another state's elections to be deliciously intoxicating.

by lagadu 8y ago

I find the irony in so many Americans being outraged at a foreign state influencing another state's elections to be deliciously intoxicating.

mc32 8y ago

I think it’s mostly redirecting dissatisfaction. Dems waaay underperformed and need to find a scapegoat rather than look internally and see why people switched. But no, they rather blame others, be they foreign or even within the party: right now the Dems can’t decide if they are 1980s Dems or 1920s Workers Partiers.

gnode 8y ago
> why people switched. If I remember correctly, it wasn't so much that many people switched parties, but that typical Democrat voter turnout was low, reflecting some amount of disillusionment. Also, what you say about the Democrats' identity crisis seems to mirror what's been happening with Labour (the left party) in the UK.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  >reflecting some amount of disillusionment Disillusionment through propaganda and well-timed leaks of stolen documents by a foreign, hostile power.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Does the source of the leaks matter? Does it matter that it was Wikileaks, AccessHollywood, Guccifer? Either something is true or it isn’t.
    - orf 8y ago
      Absolutely the source matters as well as the contents. You could ask yourself why the Russians penetrated the RNC but decided not to release any dirt. Perhaps you could ask yourself if this has any bearing on Trump's Russia stance? Could he be unable to admit meddling for fear of undermining his very legitimacy? As a result of this is the head of state feuding with the unanimous conclusion of his (+allies) intelligence agencies good for anyone? Who would that be? This is why the source matters. Because things are always leaked with intent, and by missing that intent and being distracted by shiny talking points you're missing the whole story. Both matter, equally.
      - mc32 8y ago
        So let’s say (presume) Russia has goods on Trump, and we all know they had at least some goods on Hillary. I think then it would be fair to presume they could get the goods on anyone. If that’s the case, how can anyone do anything against this kind of adversary without someone saying “Ha, you’re taking/not taking an action because Russia is in your pocket!” Or whatever.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        akhilcacharya 8y ago
        > So let’s say (presume) Russia has goods on Trump, and we all know they had at least some goods on Hillary Why do we have to "presume" they do about Trump and "know" they had some goods on Hillary?
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Dems waaay underperformed and need to find a scapegoat rather than look internally and see why people switched. Switching was (as always) much less significant than turnout. And the previously absolutely dominant neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party hasn't made a lot of substantive (and even more symbolic) concessions to the anti-establishment progressive faction of the party because of a sudden outburst of generosity. Just because Democrats (and plenty of Republicans, though mostly it's only the ones not currently in elective office, or on their way out, that talk strongly about it) notice and are outraged about foreign interference doesn't mean that they aren't aware of and actively seeking to address other issues that hurt them in 2016. There's nothing stopping them from doing both.
frockington 8y ago
Rather than try and understand why Midwestern states such as Ohio flipped heavily Republican it seems like the plan is to call them idiots and bigots. It seems like some introspection and message focus is needed. The name calling path isn't working

akhilcacharya 8y ago

It's almost as though some governments have been determined through economic and military strength to be more significant and powerful than others perhaps? Whataboutism doesn't change the facts at hand, do they? A hostile foreign state orchestrated an intelligence operation to elect a specific person to further their own geopolitical goals. Every single person in this country should be alarmed by this.

kuraudo 8y ago
Who gets to decide which state is hostile? We should be friends with Russia, not blaming them for all of our woes.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  The American intelligence community. And also anybody that has been paying attention to the situation in Ukraine and Syria.

sctb 8y ago

Then enjoy, but please don't post about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html