3 ms·

The obvious answer is that you end up as a useful idiot for the United States's enemies. Yes, the Podesta leaks were probably largely true, but this one-sided a

The obvious answer is that you end up as a useful idiot for the United States's enemies. Yes, the Podesta leaks were probably largely true, but this one-sided airing of dirty laundry in the lead up to the 2016 election obvious impacted the result. So if you endorse this, aren't you just opening the door for every election cycle whereby the US's enemies get to wade in and strategically release information that they've obtained through espionage? And don't you also therefore, start to create a dynamic in the election that candidates have to attempt to appease foreign adversaries in order to avoid damaging their election hopes? What if Hilary had come out in February of 2016 and said "Hey, Putin's not so bad, he's got legitimate interests in Ukraine and I think we should leave Europe to stand on it's own" - do you think the campaign of leaking hacked material to wikileaks would've happened? Or do you think maybe Trump's tax returns might have come out instead?

o_1 4y ago
Accountability is paramount. Where it came from is far less important.
OtomotO 4y ago
I don't really care about the geopolitical aspect of this. I have no stakes in it so to speak. What I care about is the truth and the truth alone. And if it turns out both Trump and Clinton were bad candidates for the US maybe the US should finally change their voting system. I mean if it's that easy to topple an election in the most powerful country in the world, we should really make democracy more resilient
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  Ok, if your position is that you want ideological purity at the cost of all practical considerations, then fine, you'll end up with whoever Russia/Saudi Arabia etc wants you to have. I don't think that's a good practical trade off, but it's one you're welcome to make.
  - OtomotO 4y ago
    Practical considerations? Hm, if I consider it practically I feel like Europe shouldn't consider the US an ally. (And before someone assumes something wrong: nor should it consider Russia, China or Saudi Arabia an ally.) It's game of thrones in the truest sense and I personally don't think the track record of the US is much better for Europe in the last 7 decades, so... When it comes to meddling with elections I think nobody has as much experience in doing so than the US. So part of me was quite happy that this super power could have a taste of their own medicine at some point. While at the same time I wish all the people in the world the best, including the US and Russia :)
    - SilverBirch 4y ago
      What an absurdly stupid position. Fine, you openly want to encourage foreign adversaries to determine the outcome of US elections. Fine. That's a position you advertise widely, because it makes you look absurd.
leereeves 4y ago
"one-sided airing of dirty laundry in the lead up to the 2016 election" Are you talking about the mainstream media here? They leaked every scrap of dirty laundry about Trump that they could find (not all of which were true), yet Wikileaks was the only one willing to leak the DNC leaks.
philippejara 4y ago
And what is stopping those patriotic principled leakers from leaking things to just about anyone else? If the republican party e-mails were leaked for example I can guarantee you'd have a huge amount of journalists willing to publish them, even if in the theoretical wikileaks wouldn't do it. At the end of the day the US is most likely the country with the highest amount of espionage in the world, maybe barring china, it's not like they can't do the same as some supposed FSB spy. Expecting anyone to be impartial is a big mistake, especially when you can conveniently persecute and try to kill said person and with that pretty much force them to cease being being "impartial" at the very least in the public perception. Under the circumstances laid out all it takes to discredit someone as an "useful idiot" is to persecute and corner them into "enemy territory". Also let's take a step back and differentiate between something being of interest to exclusively US enemies, that would be a detriment to the US directly, or a matter of international policy, which is the case of the Ukraine position you cited. The Ukraine position is not a threat to the US either way, it's just a position in foreign policy. Edit: It seems the case of an example of that exact alternative to wikileaks cited did exist already, by micheal moore of all people, focused on trump however. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-im-launching-trumpileaks-a-letter-from-michael-moore_b_5936949ae4b013c4816adee7 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-im-launching-trumpileaks-...
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  There's a big difference between principled citizens who choose to leak information, and foreign adversaries of the US. I would have thought this was obvious but it's down to US citizens to decide the US election, and external interference should be met as the attack on the US that it is. >At the end of the day the US is most likely the country with the highest amount of espionage in the world, maybe barring china, it's not like they can't do the Absolutely, they could, this weird whataboutism doesn't help your position. Either what I'm saying is correct - and you concede that, in which case we can talk about the US capabilities - which we can view in the correct context of capabilities operated under a free accountable democratic society. Or you don't agree, in which case your whatabouttery is moot, since you think it's fine, and therefore the US intelligence could just intervene to get their way. As you say, they probably have more capabilities.
chmod775 4y ago
> So if you endorse this, aren't you just opening the door for every election cycle whereby the US's enemies get to wade in and strategically release information that they've obtained through espionage? If there's no dirty laundry to air, this strategy doesn't work. Clean up your act at home and your enemies will have no ammunition. Guess what's the first step to do that... Even if this was a Russian ploy, you should be thanking them.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  "I have nothing to hide"
  - monocasa 4y ago
    My politicians ideally shouldn't. And absolutely should lose elections when their dirty laundry is aired if that's what the voters think when seeing the truth.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    To the degree you're acting as a representative of my interests, yeah, you shouldn't have. Individuals have a right to privacy. Those who hold power in the public's trust, have no right to secrecy.

o_1 4y ago

Accountability is paramount. Where it came from is far less important.

OtomotO 4y ago

I don't really care about the geopolitical aspect of this. I have no stakes in it so to speak. What I care about is the truth and the truth alone. And if it turns out both Trump and Clinton were bad candidates for the US maybe the US should finally change their voting system. I mean if it's that easy to topple an election in the most powerful country in the world, we should really make democracy more resilient

SilverBirch 4y ago
Ok, if your position is that you want ideological purity at the cost of all practical considerations, then fine, you'll end up with whoever Russia/Saudi Arabia etc wants you to have. I don't think that's a good practical trade off, but it's one you're welcome to make.
- OtomotO 4y ago
  Practical considerations? Hm, if I consider it practically I feel like Europe shouldn't consider the US an ally. (And before someone assumes something wrong: nor should it consider Russia, China or Saudi Arabia an ally.) It's game of thrones in the truest sense and I personally don't think the track record of the US is much better for Europe in the last 7 decades, so... When it comes to meddling with elections I think nobody has as much experience in doing so than the US. So part of me was quite happy that this super power could have a taste of their own medicine at some point. While at the same time I wish all the people in the world the best, including the US and Russia :)
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    What an absurdly stupid position. Fine, you openly want to encourage foreign adversaries to determine the outcome of US elections. Fine. That's a position you advertise widely, because it makes you look absurd.

leereeves 4y ago

"one-sided airing of dirty laundry in the lead up to the 2016 election" Are you talking about the mainstream media here? They leaked every scrap of dirty laundry about Trump that they could find (not all of which were true), yet Wikileaks was the only one willing to leak the DNC leaks.

philippejara 4y ago

And what is stopping those patriotic principled leakers from leaking things to just about anyone else? If the republican party e-mails were leaked for example I can guarantee you'd have a huge amount of journalists willing to publish them, even if in the theoretical wikileaks wouldn't do it. At the end of the day the US is most likely the country with the highest amount of espionage in the world, maybe barring china, it's not like they can't do the same as some supposed FSB spy. Expecting anyone to be impartial is a big mistake, especially when you can conveniently persecute and try to kill said person and with that pretty much force them to cease being being "impartial" at the very least in the public perception. Under the circumstances laid out all it takes to discredit someone as an "useful idiot" is to persecute and corner them into "enemy territory". Also let's take a step back and differentiate between something being of interest to exclusively US enemies, that would be a detriment to the US directly, or a matter of international policy, which is the case of the Ukraine position you cited. The Ukraine position is not a threat to the US either way, it's just a position in foreign policy. Edit: It seems the case of an example of that exact alternative to wikileaks cited did exist already, by micheal moore of all people, focused on trump however. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-im-launching-trumpileaks-a-letter-from-michael-moore_b_5936949ae4b013c4816adee7 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-im-launching-trumpileaks-...

SilverBirch 4y ago
There's a big difference between principled citizens who choose to leak information, and foreign adversaries of the US. I would have thought this was obvious but it's down to US citizens to decide the US election, and external interference should be met as the attack on the US that it is. >At the end of the day the US is most likely the country with the highest amount of espionage in the world, maybe barring china, it's not like they can't do the Absolutely, they could, this weird whataboutism doesn't help your position. Either what I'm saying is correct - and you concede that, in which case we can talk about the US capabilities - which we can view in the correct context of capabilities operated under a free accountable democratic society. Or you don't agree, in which case your whatabouttery is moot, since you think it's fine, and therefore the US intelligence could just intervene to get their way. As you say, they probably have more capabilities.

chmod775 4y ago

> So if you endorse this, aren't you just opening the door for every election cycle whereby the US's enemies get to wade in and strategically release information that they've obtained through espionage? If there's no dirty laundry to air, this strategy doesn't work. Clean up your act at home and your enemies will have no ammunition. Guess what's the first step to do that... Even if this was a Russian ploy, you should be thanking them.

mrguyorama 4y ago
"I have nothing to hide"
- monocasa 4y ago
  My politicians ideally shouldn't. And absolutely should lose elections when their dirty laundry is aired if that's what the voters think when seeing the truth.
- vintermann 4y ago
  To the degree you're acting as a representative of my interests, yeah, you shouldn't have. Individuals have a right to privacy. Those who hold power in the public's trust, have no right to secrecy.