3 ms·
Those aren't contradictory, and both are supported by the evidence. Which do you actually disagree with, or do you simply not see how both can be true? Affect
by kadoban 5y ago
Those aren't contradictory, and both are supported by the evidence.
Which do you actually disagree with, or do you simply not see how both can be true?
Affecting the outcome of an election is not inherently wrong. Foreign countries affecting the outcome of our elections is dangerous, and has historically been very frowned upon. There's reasons that only Americans are allowed to donate to election campaigns. Our elections are supposed to be for _us_. If whatever countries want a particular outcome start having an outsized voice, our elections will be even less connected to what's best for Americans than they already were.
- pydry 5y agoI disagreed that there was nothing in the emails and explained below. I also disagree with the notion that a foreign power revealing truths about a candidate is wrong. If you reject a foreign truth over a domestic lie you reject the very heart of democracy itself. It's all the more ironic given the amount of meddling the US has done in foreign elections, including Russia's.
- kadoban 5y agoYou didn't really say what was in them that you found valuable, unless I missed it? What important truths did they reveal? Okay, but then you're welcoming well-funded nations to spend outsized money and effort on attacking whatever candidate they will get the least from. How does that not devolve into our elections just being playthings of our enemies? What is ironic about this? I also do not think that the US should meddle in foreign elections, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this.
- cwkoss 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27508549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27508549