3 ms·

Can you expand some why that is bothering? Though not sure that is his stance even. It seems it is more about it being a wasted opportunity cost. That is, it w

by rdtsc 8y ago

Can you expand some why that is bothering? Though not sure that is his stance even. It seems it is more about it being a wasted opportunity cost. That is, it was a good PR campaign, but it ran out of steam and contuing to invest time and money into it does pay off anymore.

pstuart 8y ago
It bothers me because, from my armchair view, Russia had the motives and means to do exactly what they are being accused of. To dismiss that as "just the DNC looking for excuses" seems disingenuous at best coming from such an "independent thinker"
- rdtsc 8y ago
  > seems disingenuous at best coming from such an "independent thinker" But he wouldn't be an independent thinker if he just reiterated and nodded to everything every other media outlet prints or shows? I am not sure on the "disingenuous" part, do you think he is somehow has an ulterior motive to ignore it despite the evidence? > It bothers me because, from my armchair view, Russia had the motives and means to do exactly what they are being accused of They have a motive and means, I agree. But so does any advanced country. Anyone affected and influenced by the power structure in Washington would be interested in affecting that structure somehow. Why isn't anyone talking much about China hacking, or Iran or any other advanced enough country? Why focus on Russia so much. That's what bothering me. Compare how much coverage there was about Russian hacking vs the OPM hack. OPM is probably the most significant intelligence failure in history. What Greenwald is saying, and I in large agree, is for the amount of time and money spent talking about it, there would have to be a lot more evidence that any of the stuff the Russians did made any difference. > To dismiss that as "just the DNC looking for excuses" I see them having a motive to look for excuses. Their excuse for losing is "Russians hacked us". I don't really believe that. I think there wasn't enough introspecting and self analysis on why they failed. And as such, I think they'll fail again, precisely because they put all their eggs into one, not very sturdy, basket. Anyway, thanks for the reply and sorry for getting carried away with the prose a bit.
  - pstuart 8y ago
    It's not necessarily independent thinking. He hates the DNC (as a progressive, I don't like them either). The way Greenwald has framed it as "The DNC is corrupt and they're looking for scapegoats" -- it dismisses the possibility without showing any reason to do so. edit: ignoring any malfeasance and chicanery, it's clear that that HRC was not a likable candidate (some natural, much of it manufactured), their messaging was poor, and they ignored the working people who they are supposed to represent.

by rdtsc 8y ago

pstuart 8y ago

It bothers me because, from my armchair view, Russia had the motives and means to do exactly what they are being accused of. To dismiss that as "just the DNC looking for excuses" seems disingenuous at best coming from such an "independent thinker"

rdtsc 8y ago
> seems disingenuous at best coming from such an "independent thinker" But he wouldn't be an independent thinker if he just reiterated and nodded to everything every other media outlet prints or shows? I am not sure on the "disingenuous" part, do you think he is somehow has an ulterior motive to ignore it despite the evidence? > It bothers me because, from my armchair view, Russia had the motives and means to do exactly what they are being accused of They have a motive and means, I agree. But so does any advanced country. Anyone affected and influenced by the power structure in Washington would be interested in affecting that structure somehow. Why isn't anyone talking much about China hacking, or Iran or any other advanced enough country? Why focus on Russia so much. That's what bothering me. Compare how much coverage there was about Russian hacking vs the OPM hack. OPM is probably the most significant intelligence failure in history. What Greenwald is saying, and I in large agree, is for the amount of time and money spent talking about it, there would have to be a lot more evidence that any of the stuff the Russians did made any difference. > To dismiss that as "just the DNC looking for excuses" I see them having a motive to look for excuses. Their excuse for losing is "Russians hacked us". I don't really believe that. I think there wasn't enough introspecting and self analysis on why they failed. And as such, I think they'll fail again, precisely because they put all their eggs into one, not very sturdy, basket. Anyway, thanks for the reply and sorry for getting carried away with the prose a bit.
- pstuart 8y ago
  It's not necessarily independent thinking. He hates the DNC (as a progressive, I don't like them either). The way Greenwald has framed it as "The DNC is corrupt and they're looking for scapegoats" -- it dismisses the possibility without showing any reason to do so. edit: ignoring any malfeasance and chicanery, it's clear that that HRC was not a likable candidate (some natural, much of it manufactured), their messaging was poor, and they ignored the working people who they are supposed to represent.