6 ms·

Last time I checked Glenn Greenwald was saying that Russian interference had nothing to do with results of the last election and Hillary lost because she was a

Last time I checked Glenn Greenwald was saying that Russian interference had nothing to do with results of the last election and Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate. I have no quibble with the bad candidate line, but it's pretty clear that the Russians we're actively involved trying to get Trump elected. I think some people have legitimate disagreements with Glenn.

padseeker 7y ago
man the russian bots are awfully quick to downvote this stuff
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  Posting like this breaks the site guidelines. Would you please review them and stick to them in the future? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want more explanation, I posted elsewhere in the thread about a similar case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22110856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22110856
detcader 7y ago
That sounds pretty worrying, as I often respect his commentary and journalism. Can you link to or quote where he claimed what you're saying he did about Russian interference?
- padseeker 7y ago
  "Journalist Glenn Greenwald told Hill.TV's "Rising" on Monday that the news media's response to the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report is "genuinely stunning," accusing the press of continuing to promote the "conspiracy" that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia in 2016." ... “The reality is that for three years there has been a conspiracy theory that has dominated our political and media discourse, which is that Donald Trump conspired with Russia over the 2016 election and that he’s an agent of the Russian government along with many of his associates," he continued. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-media-reaction-to-mueller-report-is-genuinely-stunning https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-medi... He's been very outspoken that he thinks the Russian interference is bs. His angle seems to be the Democrats aren't liberal enough. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwal...
  - AndrewBissell 7y ago
    "Russia did not try to influence the US election" and "Trump did not actively conspire with Russia" are two very different claims.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaeltoth 7y ago
    There's a big difference between saying Trump didn't conspire with the Russians (what Greenwald said" and saying the Russians didn't attempt to interfere. It's astonishing how people conflate these two things
    - DaniloDias 7y ago
      I find this topic to be one of the single most interesting of the last 10 years. It’s the only story I’ve ever experienced first hand that seems to represent an actual instance of mass hysteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases Persuasive discussion with people on the “other side” on this topic appears to be absolutely impossible. Ive just given up on Americans who believe this Russian collusion narrative. It’s like talking to people in a cult or who are insane. I know liberals exist who don’t fall prey to this thinking- but they’re not well represented in mainstream and social media universe. It is such a sad development.
      - detcader 7y ago
        I mean, Greenwald has a lot of followers online and tons of liberal leaders supported him against this charge when they could have ignored it. I think some of the most vocal people are the most deluded... and the upper class Dem establishment incentivizes focus away from them and punishes focus on them. So you get a magnified effect
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    He's referencing this direct quote from the Mueller report: "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities" Seems pretty cut and dry.
nostrademons 7y ago
It's possible for the Russians to be actively involved in trying to get Trump elected and for Russian interference to have nothing to do with the results of the last election. The conclusion would simply be that the Russians sucked at their election meddling, or more neutrally, that foreign interference is dwarfed by the independent effect of charisma on 200M American voters.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  When elections are this close, it's impossible to say that any one factor had "nothing to do" with the outcome. It was clear this was going to be a problem after the 2000 Presidential election came down to a few semi-literate Floridians. One definition of "chaos" is a system involving large numbers with sensitive dependence on very small margins, and that's what we have here. Edit: Well, I guess we're still hearing from the semi-literate Floridians. What are the high schools teaching kids about that election, anyway?
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    You're probably getting downvoted for a number of reasons. First, a big reason you didn't mention is that Nader running as a third party syphoned votes primarily from Gore. Second, the butterfly ballots are a bad design. If you were to design a software interface in the same way and with the same failure modes as a butterfly ballot then you can't blame the user for not understanding it. Those ballots were not designed with usabilty in mind - calling people who failed to use them properly 'illiterate' is placing the blame in the wrong place. Third, a plausable implication from your above comment is that you believe that people who didn't vote for the candidate you prefer are somehow less intelligent than you. I'm not saying that was your intent, but I can see how somebody might draw that conclusion from your comment.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > When elections are this close, it's impossible to say that any one factor had "nothing to do" with the outcome. Technically, it's incredibly easy to "say" whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome - in fact, this seems to be the overwhelmingly normal behavior of individuals, the media, and government officials. What's impossible is to know whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome. More interestingly, it also seems nigh impossible for people on either side of the dispute to simply acknowledge that great certainty exists everywhere within the complexity of life, that we simply do not know what has taken place in this situation, or in the thousands of others that people argue about, with many of these arguments having a lifespan of decades if not longer. It may seem like a trite idea, but I believe that if we could have more widespread realization and acceptance of this fundamental truth, perhaps we could move beyond this increasingly deep rut of partisan bickering we seem to find ourselves in.
aguyfromnb 7y ago
>but it's pretty clear that the Russians we're actively involved trying to get Trump elected. Really? It's my understanding that the Russians were sowing controversy for all parties and all kinds of people. Intelligence officers have testified that this was the case during the impeachment hearings.
rhino369 7y ago
Foreign interference is a big deal and shouldn't be overlooked. But I just don't think its plausible that the identified Russian activities swung the election. The Russian fake news trolls were a drop in the ocean of social media/news. The russia spend on facebook was 0.05 percent of the candidates (not even going to mention the free posting by individual supporters). FB estimated that 1 out of ~20 thousand pieces of "content" it served related to the election was russian. In order to believe they had an impact, you have to believe russia ads/fake news are almost infinitely more persuasive than other propaganda, ads, news, etc.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Asking whether they "swung" the election is an unnecessarily high bar. The question is whether they influenced the election, and the answer is a pretty clear yes. Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta, and the ensuing leaks, drove front-page headlines and cable news coverage for weeks in aggregate, if not more.
  - kaonashi 7y ago
    The DNC came out with the story about the Russian hack very quickly; they can't possibly have known it was them with any accuracy. It could easily have been a leak, and the Russia story was simply to deflect from the content of the leak.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      IIRC the DNC was using Crowstrike for their AV and security who interestingly has a lot of their company based in Ukraine, and both CS and DNC refused to allow the FBI access to servers and logs to verify the Russian attack. IDK much about much, but that sure does seem questionable to me.
      - onecool 7y ago
        The Crowdstrike line is another primary talking point of the paid Russian propagandists.
driverdan 7y ago
I downvoted you because your comment has nothing to do with the charges at hand. No one said you have to agree with everything Greenwald says.
- padseeker 7y ago
  FYI I was trying to reply to DanBissel's comments about how GG is the only one capable of telling the truth and the rest of the media is compromised. I don't want GG to be charged or go to jail. DanBissel's comments were not quite related to the post. But that's fair, I can understand your justification. I respect your downvote.

padseeker 7y ago

man the russian bots are awfully quick to downvote this stuff

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dang 7y ago
Posting like this breaks the site guidelines. Would you please review them and stick to them in the future? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want more explanation, I posted elsewhere in the thread about a similar case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22110856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22110856

detcader 7y ago

That sounds pretty worrying, as I often respect his commentary and journalism. Can you link to or quote where he claimed what you're saying he did about Russian interference?

padseeker 7y ago
"Journalist Glenn Greenwald told Hill.TV's "Rising" on Monday that the news media's response to the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report is "genuinely stunning," accusing the press of continuing to promote the "conspiracy" that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia in 2016." ... “The reality is that for three years there has been a conspiracy theory that has dominated our political and media discourse, which is that Donald Trump conspired with Russia over the 2016 election and that he’s an agent of the Russian government along with many of his associates," he continued. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-media-reaction-to-mueller-report-is-genuinely-stunning https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-medi... He's been very outspoken that he thinks the Russian interference is bs. His angle seems to be the Democrats aren't liberal enough. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwal...
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  "Russia did not try to influence the US election" and "Trump did not actively conspire with Russia" are two very different claims.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- michaeltoth 7y ago
  There's a big difference between saying Trump didn't conspire with the Russians (what Greenwald said" and saying the Russians didn't attempt to interfere. It's astonishing how people conflate these two things
  - DaniloDias 7y ago
    I find this topic to be one of the single most interesting of the last 10 years. It’s the only story I’ve ever experienced first hand that seems to represent an actual instance of mass hysteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases Persuasive discussion with people on the “other side” on this topic appears to be absolutely impossible. Ive just given up on Americans who believe this Russian collusion narrative. It’s like talking to people in a cult or who are insane. I know liberals exist who don’t fall prey to this thinking- but they’re not well represented in mainstream and social media universe. It is such a sad development.
    - detcader 7y ago
      I mean, Greenwald has a lot of followers online and tons of liberal leaders supported him against this charge when they could have ignored it. I think some of the most vocal people are the most deluded... and the upper class Dem establishment incentivizes focus away from them and punishes focus on them. So you get a magnified effect
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  He's referencing this direct quote from the Mueller report: "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities" Seems pretty cut and dry.

nostrademons 7y ago

It's possible for the Russians to be actively involved in trying to get Trump elected and for Russian interference to have nothing to do with the results of the last election. The conclusion would simply be that the Russians sucked at their election meddling, or more neutrally, that foreign interference is dwarfed by the independent effect of charisma on 200M American voters.

CamperBob2 7y ago
When elections are this close, it's impossible to say that any one factor had "nothing to do" with the outcome. It was clear this was going to be a problem after the 2000 Presidential election came down to a few semi-literate Floridians. One definition of "chaos" is a system involving large numbers with sensitive dependence on very small margins, and that's what we have here. Edit: Well, I guess we're still hearing from the semi-literate Floridians. What are the high schools teaching kids about that election, anyway?
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  You're probably getting downvoted for a number of reasons. First, a big reason you didn't mention is that Nader running as a third party syphoned votes primarily from Gore. Second, the butterfly ballots are a bad design. If you were to design a software interface in the same way and with the same failure modes as a butterfly ballot then you can't blame the user for not understanding it. Those ballots were not designed with usabilty in mind - calling people who failed to use them properly 'illiterate' is placing the blame in the wrong place. Third, a plausable implication from your above comment is that you believe that people who didn't vote for the candidate you prefer are somehow less intelligent than you. I'm not saying that was your intent, but I can see how somebody might draw that conclusion from your comment.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > When elections are this close, it's impossible to say that any one factor had "nothing to do" with the outcome. Technically, it's incredibly easy to "say" whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome - in fact, this seems to be the overwhelmingly normal behavior of individuals, the media, and government officials. What's impossible is to know whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome. More interestingly, it also seems nigh impossible for people on either side of the dispute to simply acknowledge that great certainty exists everywhere within the complexity of life, that we simply do not know what has taken place in this situation, or in the thousands of others that people argue about, with many of these arguments having a lifespan of decades if not longer. It may seem like a trite idea, but I believe that if we could have more widespread realization and acceptance of this fundamental truth, perhaps we could move beyond this increasingly deep rut of partisan bickering we seem to find ourselves in.

aguyfromnb 7y ago

>but it's pretty clear that the Russians we're actively involved trying to get Trump elected. Really? It's my understanding that the Russians were sowing controversy for all parties and all kinds of people. Intelligence officers have testified that this was the case during the impeachment hearings.

rhino369 7y ago

Foreign interference is a big deal and shouldn't be overlooked. But I just don't think its plausible that the identified Russian activities swung the election. The Russian fake news trolls were a drop in the ocean of social media/news. The russia spend on facebook was 0.05 percent of the candidates (not even going to mention the free posting by individual supporters). FB estimated that 1 out of ~20 thousand pieces of "content" it served related to the election was russian. In order to believe they had an impact, you have to believe russia ads/fake news are almost infinitely more persuasive than other propaganda, ads, news, etc.

snowwrestler 7y ago
Asking whether they "swung" the election is an unnecessarily high bar. The question is whether they influenced the election, and the answer is a pretty clear yes. Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta, and the ensuing leaks, drove front-page headlines and cable news coverage for weeks in aggregate, if not more.
- kaonashi 7y ago
  The DNC came out with the story about the Russian hack very quickly; they can't possibly have known it was them with any accuracy. It could easily have been a leak, and the Russia story was simply to deflect from the content of the leak.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    IIRC the DNC was using Crowstrike for their AV and security who interestingly has a lot of their company based in Ukraine, and both CS and DNC refused to allow the FBI access to servers and logs to verify the Russian attack. IDK much about much, but that sure does seem questionable to me.
    - onecool 7y ago
      The Crowdstrike line is another primary talking point of the paid Russian propagandists.

driverdan 7y ago

I downvoted you because your comment has nothing to do with the charges at hand. No one said you have to agree with everything Greenwald says.

padseeker 7y ago
FYI I was trying to reply to DanBissel's comments about how GG is the only one capable of telling the truth and the rest of the media is compromised. I don't want GG to be charged or go to jail. DanBissel's comments were not quite related to the post. But that's fair, I can understand your justification. I respect your downvote.