IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , election conspiracies , election issues , hacking incidents , US-Russia relations , vladimir putin

Reply
Old 18th December 2016, 07:29 PM   #121
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Because they aren't valid?
See: Monty Python Argument Clinic
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 07:31 PM   #122
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,432
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?
For the same reason my love of fire safety doesn't translate to me supporting a deadbolt on my doors.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 08:10 PM   #123
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I've seen you make this kind of pedantic argument before, but an EPA that doesn't do anything isn't any better than an abolished EPA.
And he isn't going to make the EPA do nothing. He can't. He can scale it back, but not by all that much. So yes, your fear mongering really is irrational.

Quote:
You want knee-jerk?
No, I don't. But that's all you give.

Quote:
That would be your constant deflection and hand-waving from all criticisms of Trump.
You're projecting. Your own defense of Obama is knee-jerk. My criticism of Trump is just different than yours. When I indicate that he's cynical and self-serving, that's not enough: I have to say that he's stupid too. I have to agree to the narrative. The narrative is everything.

Quote:
You think Trump's appointments will 'balance' the EPA?
Nope. I didn't say that. Rather, I think the issue of what to properly do with the EPA is one of balance. But you can't see it that way. For you, it's either full-steam ahead with what the EPA has been doing, or the EPA does nothing at all. There's no consideration of anything in between.

Quote:
That you keep asserting that Obama has been disastrous has more to do with your agenda and beliefs than with reality.
Funny that you should make this argument, considering that I can point to actual bad outcomes (like the rise of ISIS) while you're basically throwing chicken bones to divine the future.

Quote:
Oh, thank you for saying I'm more polite than Tony Stark, but your assessment of such things has long since ceased being something I put weight in.
Of course.

Because I offended your god king.

Quote:
It actually upsets me a great deal that I have to admit that Tony and Travis have been more right about so many on the right than I have been. I still hold out hope for the independents though.
You're now sorry that you haven't been more of a partisan hack. That's... well, not surprising any more.

Quote:
You've given up your science and critical thinking advocacy to make room for political tribalism on climate and pollution issues.
I haven't given up anything about science.

Quote:
You've given up on making good faith arguments on politics because gloating and lecturing about lying in threads you lied to everyone in.
I've never lied to you. You have lied to me, though. And I warned you about the tone of this message board. But instead of listening, you decided to be part of the very problem I complained about. And now you want to complain about me, because I'm not willing to play by one-sided rules anymore.

Tough ****. I'm not playing nice anymore, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. You burned that bridge, tyr, not me.

And Hillary Clinton will never be president.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 08:19 PM   #124
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,711
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?
Because VoterID laws are the anti-thesis to voter integrity.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 08:21 PM   #125
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?
Because you're a right wing hack?

Many of us on the left support National ID which could be used as Voter ID. What we don't support is cherry-picked regulations set-up by states like North Carolina, who actually go to the trouble to find out which ID is most problematic for the political opposition to obtain. Gee, what a surprise.... voting was down in states with oppressive Voter ID programs.

Give us a national photo ID and I'm happy with it. I think many on the left agree. The point being that it would have the same rules for everyone to obtain and it would include a roll-out period and financing to assure that it was non-partisan and user-friendly to the least accessable of our rural districts and the poorest and most congested inner city districts.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 08:27 PM   #126
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,711
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Because you're a right wing hack?

Many of us on the left support National ID which could be used as Voter ID. What we don't support is cherry-picked regulations set-up by states like North Carolina, who actually go to the trouble to find out which ID is most problematic for the political opposition to obtain. Gee, what a surprise.... voting was down in states with oppressive Voter ID programs.

Give us a national photo ID and I'm happy with it. I think many on the left agree. The point being that it would have the same rules for everyone to obtain and it would include a roll-out period and financing to assure that it was non-partisan and user-friendly to the least accessable of our rural districts and the poorest and most congested inner city districts.
Yes, I agree. If Republicans really were worried about voter integrity, they would push a reasonable, national ID program that could be phased in over a generation or two. Instead, they use these "Voter ID" laws to surgically pick their voters.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 05:24 AM   #127
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,989
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Because you're a right wing hack? Many of us on the left support National ID which could be used as Voter ID ...

Ha. In my previous job I worked in a government office which offered services to indigent clients.* Take a guess how many (citizen) clients I met who could not come up with at least one form of state identification when they needed it to get something they wanted?

The idea that people are unable to obtain valid identification is almost always soft racism through low expectations.

* So before you start with the insults, you should probably know that unlike most on the left who just spout the words, I actually did time in the trenches.

Last edited by shuize; 19th December 2016 at 05:32 AM.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 05:52 AM   #128
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,711
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Ha. In my previous job I worked in a government office which offered services to indigent clients.* Take a guess how many (citizen) clients I met who could not come up with at least one form of state identification when they needed it to get something they wanted?

The idea that people are unable to obtain valid identification is almost always soft racism through low expectations.

* So before you start with the insults, you should probably know that unlike most on the left who just spout the words, I actually did time in the trenches.
You believe your anecdote has more value than scientific studies on this?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 06:09 AM   #129
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,819
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Because they aren't valid?
No one on the right thinks leftist voters are too dumb to get an ID, especially when they already have ID's.
Take your red herring to your own thread, please.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 06:21 AM   #130
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?
Voter ID laws are a solution without a problem.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 06:22 AM   #131
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Ha. In my previous job I worked in a government office which offered services to indigent clients.* Take a guess how many (citizen) clients I met who could not come up with at least one form of state identification when they needed it to get something they wanted?

The idea that people are unable to obtain valid identification is almost always soft racism through low expectations.

* So before you start with the insults, you should probably know that unlike most on the left who just spout the words, I actually did time in the trenches.
Thank you for your service.

Alas, it does nothing to disprove my statements. A) It is very possible to be a right wing hack and hold a job in a government office or a pizzeria or as a gravedigger. B) Your anecdotes do nothing to disprove the testimony of two "lefties" in this thread who've said they'd be fine with a uniform and fairly applied National ID and/or Voter ID.

Your claim was easily disproven. Your claim was purely partisan and you questioned the integrity of those on the left. You have been proven wrong. But thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you; tell him about 'em, Don Pardo!
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 07:09 AM   #132
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Take your red herring to your own thread, please.
I didn't bring it up genius! Go back through the thread.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 06:58 PM   #133
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,432
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And he isn't going to make the EPA do nothing. He can't. He can scale it back, but not by all that much. So yes, your fear mongering really is irrational.
You assume they'll follow the rules? Right. You will get many special 'I told you so' reminders.



Quote:
No, I don't. But that's all you give.


Quote:
You're projecting. Your own defense of Obama is knee-jerk. My criticism of Trump is just different than yours. When I indicate that he's cynical and self-serving, that's not enough: I have to say that he's stupid too. I have to agree to the narrative. The narrative is everything.

Don't make up positions for me. Your defenses of Trump's anti-science and pro-Russian stances is more than enough. It's ridiculous to pretend you've been critical of Trump as you couldn't even bring yourself to criticize his supporters on the wall. All you can do is complain that I was overly broad in my criticism of it. Party before country, and reason, and everything.


Quote:
Nope. I didn't say that. Rather, I think the issue of what to properly do with the EPA is one of balance. But you can't see it that way. For you, it's either full-steam ahead with what the EPA has been doing, or the EPA does nothing at all. There's no consideration of anything in between.
Don't make up positions for me, and don't keep those goalposts moving. Trump's appointments aren't going to 'bring balance', which you now agree with (next you'll tell me you don't, because you keep refusing to actually take a position if it will happen to conflict with Republicans), so even that's a red-herring. And what does this have to do with Putin's interference with our elections to get Trump in?



Quote:
Funny that you should make this argument, considering that I can point to actual bad outcomes (like the rise of ISIS) while you're basically throwing chicken bones to divine the future.



Of course.

Because I offended your god king.

These two go together well actually. Obama is not to blame for the rise of ISIS. He's simply not. There were no good options and he's consistently taken the least bad ones (with some quibbling from me). For him to have changed this meaningfully, he would have to have been a god king. Republicans want a strong dictator, so they behave as if that's what the liberals are going for, but we know the president isn't all powerful. What did Congress do to stop the raise of ISIS? Besides that, the US isn't the only factor. Other people and places have agency. The US isn't that powerful.

Now, what is Trump going to do about Putin's attacks helping Trump?



Quote:
You're now sorry that you haven't been more of a partisan hack. That's... well, not surprising any more.
That's not what I said. Read for comprehension, not just to respond.


Quote:
I haven't given up anything about science.
It's well behind party.



Quote:
I've never lied to you. You have lied to me, though. And I warned you about the tone of this message board. But instead of listening, you decided to be part of the very problem I complained about. And now you want to complain about me, because I'm not willing to play by one-sided rules anymore.

Tough ****. I'm not playing nice anymore, and look in the mirror if you want to know why. You burned that bridge, tyr, not me.

And Hillary Clinton will never be president.
You lied to everyone. Your tone-policing and persecution complex is getting you nowhere. This is all off-topic nonsense.

Trump leads your movement now. Good luck with it.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 08:59 PM   #134
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You assume they'll follow the rules? Right. You will get many special 'I told you so' reminders.
I assume he will be constrained by how much he can violate the rules. The EPA gets sued by environmental groups, and the courts impose rulings on the EPA to make them do things. That happened before Trump, that will happen after Trump, and Trump can't stop it.

Quote:
Don't make up positions for me. Your defenses of Trump's anti-science and pro-Russian stances is more than enough.
You complain that I'm making up positions for you, and then turn around and make up positions for me.

Quote:
Don't make up positions for me, and don't keep those goalposts moving. Trump's appointments aren't going to 'bring balance',
Again, your hypocrisy is blinding. I never said Trump's appointments are going to bring balance. That's a lie. Stop lying, liar.

Quote:
And what does this have to do with Putin's interference with our elections to get Trump in?
You tell me. You're the one who started bitching about all the environmental damage Trump was supposedly going to do.

Quote:
These two go together well actually. Obama is not to blame for the rise of ISIS. He's simply not. There were no good options and he's consistently taken the least bad ones
Bull ****. There were plenty of ways to negotiate keeping troops in Iraq. There were plenty of other ways we could have handled Syria and Libya.

Quote:
Now, what is Trump going to do about Putin's attacks helping Trump?
Probably not much. After all, what exactly did Putin's attack consist of? Did he alter voter registration databases? Did he interfere with anyone's ability to vote? Did he distort the vote counting process in any way?

No. He leaked some emails that revealed true information about the Democrats. And admit it: if a Republican party insider had done the same thing to the Republicans, you wouldn't have been at all upset. You're just using Putin as an excuse to cover for how badly the Dems ********** up.

I'm not particularly outraged that Putin hacked the Dems emails, because 1) of course he did, he's a bad actor, that's what he does, 2) there was nothing in those emails that was classified, and 3) if the Dems had behaved decently there wouldn't be much in those emails to get people upset.

Quote:
It's well behind party.
Your entire world view in Manichean, and getting more so every day.

Quote:
You lied to everyone.
No, I didn't. But you lied to me, and about me. And I'm not going to forget that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 10:00 PM   #135
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,678
To get back to the OP:
For the reaction of the US government, it's irrelevant whether they trust the CIA/FBI assessment of the source of the hack: it's the best Intel we have, and not to act on it would send the (continued) signal that it is ok to mess with America in cyberspace.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2016, 10:13 PM   #136
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,432
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I assume he will be constrained by how much he can violate the rules. The EPA gets sued by environmental groups, and the courts impose rulings on the EPA to make them do things. That happened before Trump, that will happen after Trump, and Trump can't stop it.

He can let a LOT of damage happen while he's trying. Those things take time. Court remedies aren't fast.



Quote:
You complain that I'm making up positions for you, and then turn around and make up positions for me.

I observed them.



Quote:
Again, your hypocrisy is blinding. I never said Trump's appointments are going to bring balance. That's a lie. Stop lying, liar.
I didn't say you said that. In the part of that exact same sentence you snipped, I even said you agreed that they wouldn't bring balance.


Quote:
You tell me. You're the one who started bitching about all the environmental damage Trump was supposedly going to do.

I complained about Trump's appointments and policies resulting in things like Putin getting an easier time of it, and attacks on science and the EPA, being things that Putin will benefit from by prolonging the dependence of fossil fuels, keeping his economy propped up longer.



Quote:
Bull ****. There were plenty of ways to negotiate keeping troops in Iraq. There were plenty of other ways we could have handled Syria and Libya.

Who's divining now?



Quote:
Probably not much. After all, what exactly did Putin's attack consist of? Did he alter voter registration databases? Did he interfere with anyone's ability to vote? Did he distort the vote counting process in any way?
Good questions. How are we going to find out? Trump denies any type of attack from Russia happened. We'll have to rely on Congress and hope Trump can't block them too much. Thankfully people like McCain are still around and giving me some hope for Republicans who aren't going to give Trump cover. Hopefully he can overcome the Republican leadership on this issue.

Quote:
No. He leaked some emails that revealed true information about the Democrats. And admit it: if a Republican party insider had done the same thing to the Republicans, you wouldn't have been at all upset. You're just using Putin as an excuse to cover for how badly the Dems ********** up.

A party insider? What a weird choice of scenario.

Quote:
I'm not particularly outraged that Putin hacked the Dems emails, because 1) of course he did, he's a bad actor, that's what he does, 2) there was nothing in those emails that was classified, and 3) if the Dems had behaved decently there wouldn't be much in those emails to get people upset.

Yeah, they, talked about pizza and favored a long time party member over an independent that caucused with them. I wish Bernie had gotten the nom, but all the emails showed was people can make scandal literally out of pizza parties.



Quote:
Your entire world view in Manichean, and getting more so every day.



No, I didn't. But you lied to me, and about me. And I'm not going to forget that.

It doesn't bother me anymore that you're upset. It does bother me that it's interfering with your ability to make cogent arguments and stop from personalizing the discussion. I haven't lied about you. Stop.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 11:51 AM   #137
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,664
I don't think Putin was trying to get Trump elected. I think that Putin, like pretty much everyone else, was looking at the polling analysis and figuring Hillary was likely to win. I think the hack, and the leak, was calculated to undermine and de-legitimize a Hillary administration. If she spoke about Russian political corruption, it would ring hollow in the face of the publicized shenanigans that attended her own accession to the Presidency.

I think Russia did not leak GOP shenanigans because their hacking did not yield anything juicier than the party's known shenanigans already. And also because undermining Trump's legitimacy would be (will be) done by other methods than leaking GOP campaign plans.

Leaking the DNC emails, etc. was Putin's hedge against what everyone saw as the most likely risk: A Clinton presidency. His hedge against a Trump presidency will take a different form.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 05:30 PM   #138
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,989
Let me see if I've got this right.

As part of their newfound love for cybersecurity, in the left's new narrative the alleged Russian hacks which revealed the truth about team Clinton's collusion with the media against Sanders cost her the election.

In other words, if only American voters didn't know the truth about Clinton, she would have won.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 07:02 PM   #139
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,664
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Let me see if I've got this right.

As part of their newfound love for cybersecurity, in the left's new narrative the alleged Russian hacks which revealed the truth about team Clinton's collusion with the media against Sanders cost her the election.

In other words, if only American voters didn't know the truth about Clinton, she would have won.
Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 07:12 PM   #140
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
If Putin thought it was in his national interest to try and hack our elections, and he thought that he could, why does anyone think he would not do so?
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Justified how?
Because he thought it was in Russian national interest to do so. In Real Life, politics isn't fettered with a lot of moralism. It is played to win. End of.
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Yeah, in the 80s we were super-concerned about Russian hacking.
Actually, Cain, our Navy was concerned about back doors hacked into our missile guidance systems by anti establishment hackers in the tech dense hot bed of anti establishment sorts in California. Read a few interesting articles on that in Naval Institute's proceedings. Late 80's and early 90's. It was a topic of serious discussion still in the mid 90's when I was at staff college.
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
The desperate morons running these stories sure want their late-90s Russia back. Which Putin broke. Meanie.

That feeling when your mad world-domination plans get thwarted in last second. Not nice.
Moscow troll 101. Not even creative.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
I'm anti-Empire (except my own).
Indeed, the new Russian empire being restored is a Moscow troll talking point. I wish Vlad and friends luck, empires can be tough to run and maintain. check Human history, if you doubt me. Be careful what you wish for, as you are sure to get it.
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Why is Putin driving a taxi? I would think he could get by on salary and graft??!!
In Russia, taxi drives you. (Google so copied Yakov Smirnoff! )
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
For the same reason my love of fire safety doesn't translate to me supporting a deadbolt on my doors.
I like fire safety and dead bolts.
Where does that leave me?
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 08:11 PM   #141
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,432
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.
They found a headline to keep the 'Hillary email scandal' idea fresh and 'plausible' to those not actually paying attention. The effect of a completely fake hack might have been almost as bad, but the veneer of credibility it gave to some of the CT out there at just the right time from being a real hack probably did have an effect.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
I like fire safety and dead bolts.
Where does that leave me?
Same place as me. That was kind of the point. Deadbolts well implemented are a good idea, but not for fire safety.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 09:23 PM   #142
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.
The progs. Weren't they a bad garage band from Portland?

Are conservatives going to continue with the pretense of myopia until the Orange Slushy has sold the country for scrap or until we get rid of him? No one is actually saying that it turned ANY voters, much less "so many".

Take the year away. Take away the fact that the target was a "prog" or a "LOL Lib" or the Democratic Candidate for the President of the United States. Would you, in theory, be arguing in any other situation (other than desperately trying to support the great fraud that the GOP is putting over on the American public) that the ends justify the means? "Hey, we got some interesting information, can't be all that bad, eh?"

I try to imagine anyone from far right to reactionary to conservative to right-ish moderate not understanding that the content doesn't matter. It's the act that matters. If Botswana, Bolivia, Belize or Bangladesh was caught meddling in the US elections it might be a bit comic. When you get to the level of China, Russia, England, Japan, France, Germany, et al.... you're talking world powers (to varying degrees).

The content does not matter in the least. It was marginally significant, not in the least bit revealing (thus the need to cherry-pick and inflate), and probably had the net effect of keeping two Sanders supporters from voting (probably for Jill Stein).

It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 09:31 PM   #143
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
Let me see if I've got this right.

As part of their newfound love for cybersecurity, in the left's new narrative the alleged Russian hacks which revealed the truth about team Clinton's collusion with the media against Sanders cost her the election.

In other words, if only American voters didn't know the truth about Clinton, she would have won.
And she would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling Russkids!
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:13 AM   #144
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,819
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.
Conspiracy kooks make up stuff out of nothing, which is how "pizza" came to be understood as a code-word for child sex, and why a man with a gun showed up at a Pizza restaurant to expose the terrible secret he "learned" from the e-mails.

What actual scandals were uncovered? Some woman gave the campaign a heads up about questions that were going to be asked. I don't remember much else.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 07:10 AM   #145
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?
They helped the Democrats fulfill their promise of a transparent government.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 07:24 AM   #146
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,678
For the question of whether or not the US has been the target of a state-directed cyberattack to influence the electoral process, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not it had any impact, beneficial or otherwise. It also doesn't matter what individuals, be they private citizens or president-elect think about these hacks.
To the best knowledge of our security services, Russia did try to undermine US democracy.

I find it deeply unpatriotic not to be outraged by this.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:30 PM   #147
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,664
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
The progs. Weren't they a bad garage band from Portland?
It's short for "progressives". I like it because it captures the aspirational qualities of that subculture. It's also free of any insulting connotations. And it make a nice converse to "conservatives". And it's shorter to type.

Quote:
Are conservatives going to continue with the pretense of myopia until the Orange Slushy has sold the country for scrap or until we get rid of him? No one is actually saying that it turned ANY voters, much less "so many".

Take the year away. Take away the fact that the target was a "prog" or a "LOL Lib" or the Democratic Candidate for the President of the United States. Would you, in theory, be arguing in any other situation (other than desperately trying to support the great fraud that the GOP is putting over on the American public) that the ends justify the means? "Hey, we got some interesting information, can't be all that bad, eh?"

I try to imagine anyone from far right to reactionary to conservative to right-ish moderate not understanding that the content doesn't matter. It's the act that matters. If Botswana, Bolivia, Belize or Bangladesh was caught meddling in the US elections it might be a bit comic. When you get to the level of China, Russia, England, Japan, France, Germany, et al.... you're talking world powers (to varying degrees).

The content does not matter in the least. It was marginally significant, not in the least bit revealing (thus the need to cherry-pick and inflate), and probably had the net effect of keeping two Sanders supporters from voting (probably for Jill Stein).

It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.
If the act itself had a negligible effect, and nobody is claiming it swung the election, then why is the act itself problematic? And to be clear: You are in fact *not* attributing Hillary's loss to anything the Russians did. Is that correct?

Last edited by theprestige; 21st December 2016 at 01:32 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:37 PM   #148
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,664
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
For the question of whether or not the US has been the target of a state-directed cyberattack to influence the electoral process, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not it had any impact, beneficial or otherwise. It also doesn't matter what individuals, be they private citizens or president-elect think about these hacks.
To the best knowledge of our security services, Russia did try to undermine US democracy.

I find it deeply unpatriotic not to be outraged by this.
There's a few different questions here. One is, did Hillary lose because of what the Russians did? Another is, were the Russians even trying to make her lose?

Yet another question, the one you're asking is, did the Russians launch a cyber attack against the US? I'm not sure why you're appealing to patriotism, but whatever. I view Russia as an existential enemy of Europe and America, and therefore I assume they are in a continual state of war against us. I expect Russia to be engaging in low-level attacks all the time.

I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage, though. Life's too short to be outraged all the time. Of course Russia is cyberattacking the US. Of course the scorpion stings the toad.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:39 PM   #149
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,352
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
The content does not matter in the least. It was marginally significant, not in the least bit revealing (thus the need to cherry-pick and inflate), and probably had the net effect of keeping two Sanders supporters from voting (probably for Jill Stein).

It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.
Did you feel that way about Hillary's decision to run her own server?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:46 PM   #150
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,678
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There's a few different questions here. One is, did Hillary lose because of what the Russians did? Another is, were the Russians even trying to make her lose?

Yet another question, the one you're asking is, did the Russians launch a cyber attack against the US? I'm not sure why you're appealing to patriotism, but whatever. I view Russia as an existential enemy of Europe and America, and therefore I assume they are in a continual state of war against us. I expect Russia to be engaging in low-level attacks all the time.

I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage, though. Life's too short to be outraged all the time. Of course Russia is cyberattacking the US. Of course the scorpion stings the toad.
There is a fundamental difference between corporate or even military espionage against a global rival and messing with their election process. A democracy needs trust to work.

Putin is basing his entire geopolitics on the demand that the West stay out of Russian affairs. But because of his intrusion, we can and should feel free to publicly engage in efforts for regime change in Russia.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 02:13 PM   #151
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,819
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There's a few different questions here. One is, did Hillary lose because of what the Russians did? Another is, were the Russians even trying to make her lose?
Given how close the election was, can you say Russian interference didn't make her lose?

Sure, there were many factors involved including Clinton not running a better campaign, but she did win the popular vote and her loss in the electoral college was small. Take away any one of many factors that went against her and the election very likely would have been different.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yet another question, the one you're asking is, did the Russians launch a cyber attack against the US? I'm not sure why you're appealing to patriotism, but whatever. I view Russia as an existential enemy of Europe and America, and therefore I assume they are in a continual state of war against us. I expect Russia to be engaging in low-level attacks all the time.
And if a "low level" attack happens to have a profound impact, even if it's just a lucky shot, we should be concerned.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage, though. Life's too short to be outraged all the time. Of course Russia is cyberattacking the US. Of course the scorpion stings the toad.
That argument works equally well against every conceivable problem. I don't walk around in a perpetual state of outrage over anything, but that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't identify and address existing problems.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:34 PM   #152
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,436
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Heh. I've been thinking along the same line lately. Like, what exactly did the Russians find that it flipped the election?

The progs seem very eager to talk about how horrible the Russian leak was. They don't seem very eager at all to talk about what was so horrible in the leak, that it turned so many voters.

But I don't think you can have the one without the other.
They didn't find much. But it was enough to cause a constant drip-drip down the stretch, which I suspect changed the outcome. I also suspect that Comey changed the outcome. These possibilities are in line with:

Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute

Mind you, in a super close election lots of things change the outcome. I have little doubt that Clinton's baggage (regardless the extent fair/factual) changed the outcome. And that her overall poor presentation as a candidate changed the outcome. And that bigoted attitudes on the part of Trump/supporters changed the outcome.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:38 PM   #153
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,664
Clinton was a poor candidate with a poor campaign, but if everything else had gone her way, she might have beaten Donald Trump anyway? I don't think a presidential candidate should have to depend on luck to win an election.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:21 PM   #154
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,989
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
It is THE ACT, ITSELF. Period.

First, I'm so old I can remember when our friends on the left assured us that repeated cybersecurity violations by a certain you know who were completely meaningless unless there were demonstrably negative consequences associated with the act.*

Second, there seems to be a bit of a shell game related to the alleged Russian "hacking." Lots of crying about how "Russia stole the election!" but when asked for details as to how they "stole" it or proof of any negative influence on the voters, they switch to "Hey, it was act itself, Man. That's the issue." "OK," one thinks "but that still doesn't explain the claim that they 'stole' it." "No, no. Don't look there. Look at the act itself..." Of course, as soon as one glances away, they'll go back to crying that "Russia stole the election!" again.

Third, I'm still having a hard time getting excited about the release of accurate, non-classified information. As noted above, the argument seems to be, "If only the American people knew less truthful information about Clinton, she would have won." The email "hack" has a bit of a government whistleblower feel to it to me, i.e. an insider releasing truthful information about the bad deeds of other government agents. I'm so old I can remember when the left used to love that sort of stuff. There were whole T.V. programs devoted to it. Also, there's a nice touch of irony in the fact that Podesta's emails, if those really were the ones that did the claimed damage, were reportedly hacked through lack of security on his part.



* I see that Ziggurat beat me to this.

Last edited by shuize; 21st December 2016 at 05:24 PM.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:07 PM   #155
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,819
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Clinton was a poor candidate with a poor campaign, but if everything else had gone her way, she might have beaten Donald Trump anyway? I don't think a presidential candidate should have to depend on luck to win an election.
If Clinton lost by luck then the corollary is that Trump won by luck.

At the same time, the issues we are talking about are not "luck". They were the results of actions taken by people advancing their own agenda.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:26 PM   #156
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Clinton was a poor candidate with a poor campaign, but if everything else had gone her way, she might have beaten Donald Trump anyway? I don't think a presidential candidate should have to depend on luck to win an election.
Donald Trump was also a poor candidate with a poor campaign. What the Russian government had released RNC emails instead of DNC emails and revealed the same level of political sausage-making? What if that tilted the election in Hillary's favor?

What would you have felt then about the importance of Russia's actions?
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 07:41 PM   #157
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's short for "progressives". I like it because it captures the aspirational qualities of that subculture. It's also free of any insulting connotations. And it make a nice converse to "conservatives". And it's shorter to type.



If the act itself had a negligible effect, and nobody is claiming it swung the election, then why is the act itself problematic?
Gasp! Do I really have to explain to you what is wrong with one country meddling, maliciously, in the free elections of another? Again, would you say the same if, say, Freedonia was caught trying to crack into the Pentagon's email system? Hey, no harm, they caught them before they got through, so we'll just ignore the attempt.

Remember when conservatives used to have this huge morality-stripe painted across their chests?



Quote:
And to be clear: You are in fact *not* attributing Hillary's loss to anything the Russians did. Is that correct?
Far be it from me to prevent Putin from basking in his pyrrhic victory, but the impact of the Russian leaks was merely the effect of one or two drips in the traditional Chinese Water Torture. The twenty-five years of Clinton bashing, the organized Congressional witch hunts, the Alt-Right lies, the Fox News echo chamber, the upstarts of Mercer/Coulter/Bannon.... All had considerably more negative impact.

Comey? That's a different question. He had considerable impact.

None of this equals "Why We Lost". They were all major contributing factors, but the loss was because the Democrats were not up to 2016 campaigning standards and should have been. Their polling wasn't half as good as it was in '08 and '12, and they took too much for granted in the rust belt. It was a combination of a lot of things but mostly the Dems weren't up to the game.

Personally, I think a part of it was that the "change" message didn't resound. Simply electing a woman was no longer going to bring out the masses. The "revolutionary" edge of running a woman was sort of a let-down, see? We'd hurdled past that by electing the first black man.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 07:46 PM   #158
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Did you feel that way about Hillary's decision to run her own server?
Different discussion than the one we're having. Why don't you address the points I made instead of regressing?

Is this the game plan? You folks are going to replay the 2016 election for the next four years and hope that no one notices that there's a buffoon in the White House, appointing the only people in the country he can locate who are less qualified than himself?

My question remains. You aver that you're a conservative? You find that it's all okay that the Russians (or the Freedonians) made a professional and concerted effort to hack into private correspondence and selectively release material that was damaging to one side only.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 07:47 PM   #159
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
They didn't find much. But it was enough to cause a constant drip-drip down the stretch, which I suspect changed the outcome. I also suspect that Comey changed the outcome. These possibilities are in line with:

Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute

Mind you, in a super close election lots of things change the outcome. I have little doubt that Clinton's baggage (regardless the extent fair/factual) changed the outcome. And that her overall poor presentation as a candidate changed the outcome. And that bigoted attitudes on the part of Trump/supporters changed the outcome.
Hilited: Disclaimer! I hadn't seen your post before composing my above response to The Prestige.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 07:55 PM   #160
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
First, I'm so old I can remember when our friends on the left assured us that repeated cybersecurity violations by a certain you know who were completely meaningless unless there were demonstrably negative consequences associated with the act.*

Second, there seems to be a bit of a shell game related to the alleged Russian "hacking." Lots of crying about how "Russia stole the election!" but when asked for details as to how they "stole" it or proof of any negative influence on the voters, they switch to "Hey, it was act itself, Man. That's the issue." "OK," one thinks "but that still doesn't explain the claim that they 'stole' it." "No, no. Don't look there. Look at the act itself..." Of course, as soon as one glances away, they'll go back to crying that "Russia stole the election!" again.

Third, I'm still having a hard time getting excited about the release of accurate, non-classified information. As noted above, the argument seems to be, "If only the American people knew less truthful information about Clinton, she would have won." The email "hack" has a bit of a government whistleblower feel to it to me, i.e. an insider releasing truthful information about the bad deeds of other government agents. I'm so old I can remember when the left used to love that sort of stuff. There were whole T.V. programs devoted to it. Also, there's a nice touch of irony in the fact that Podesta's emails, if those really were the ones that did the claimed damage, were reportedly hacked through lack of security on his part.



* I see that Ziggurat beat me to this.
We're (that means you guys and me) not having this discussion. There's a thread on the Emails. Go to it. It'll warm the cockles of The Big Dog's heart.

We're discussing (well, I am - you guys are assiduously avoiding it) where Republican or Conservative morality disappeared to. I'm very tempted to do a nice Rule of So... So, I can put you guys down as being in favor of foreign governments meddling in other countries' elections?

Oh, and to burn down your straw man.... I'm not claiming the Russians stole the election. I have a pretty good idea of how the election was lost. I'm more interested in discussing the lack of moral fiber in people who are willing to brush this act off.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 21st December 2016 at 07:58 PM.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.