US Politics Thread

[britbox]

Britbox, I mostly agree with you on this subject, but I am curious on the "wikileaks said" part. Is it possible for them to actually back this statement without compromising their modus operandi?

I don't think they can. The mainstream narrative is that Russian hackers leaked it and that is being repeated over and over. What we do know is that Podesta (Clinton's campaign chief) fell foul of a phishing attack... which isn't some elaborate hack... It's Podesta logging into a fake page that looks like a real one. Those kind of attacks rely on end user stupidity (or to be nice, being naive, clumsy or careless). Frankly, they are the sort of luring emails people get . Everyone gets them daily.. fake emails to login to fake bank pages, fake paypal pages or fake amazon pages...etc etc On a level of 1-10 with 10 being the smartest - it's a grade 1 or 2 hack.

Now, let's assume the Russians did it for a moment (and despite what I said earlier, I wouldn't rule it out by any means - they had a preferable candidate for sure). I personally couldn't care less - I welcome raw data into the public domain. Cyberattacks happen between these nations 24/7. You'll know that coming from Brazil and I'm sure you're well aware of the cyber espionage originating from the United States toward governments and companies in South America. If people are complaining that factual documents revealed a few home truths about things... then so be it... cry me a river.

With regard to the mainstream media (on both sides of any fence), stories are written to meet a narrative... a narrative guided by the proprietor, the editor, advertisers, the demographic and other vested interests... that's not to say everything is crap by any means... just that people should be aware of the slant. These media moguls aren't courted by politicians because they enjoy the same food... they are courted to get them onside and get favourable edited coverage with a narrative.

So what we have now is a mainstream media whining about raw factual data going out into the public domain without them getting the chance to sanitize first based on their own narrative. Ironic on so many levels.

 

[mrzz]

Thanks for the answer, Britbox. Your last phrase coined the situation perfectly.

Yes, there is no logical need to a government run operation if the guy was so clumsy to begin with. The narrative omits this part, as "russian hackers" sounds, to the general public, quite scary anyway.

I also agree that for sure the russians smiled at all this, and, yes, they surely acted to protect their interests. This is the daily experience of global geopolitics. I do not disagree with the concern people have on the subject, I question the selective indignation. As you said, being from South America, I grew up seeing countries messing up with others.

There are levels of interference which, at least to me, are ok. If their services of intelligence had access to information, and they used it to their own discretion (for example, leaking it to wikileaks), honestly, fair game IMO. That´s how it works.

 

[Federberg]

On holiday so wifi is patchy. It really doesn't matter how accurate the data Wikileaks publishes is if they pick and choose what they publish. I'm led to believe the RNC was also hacked. The fact that only one sides data was published takes them out of the "data" game into the "information " game. They don't have the purity you are trying to assign to them. Just another biased media outlet

 

[britbox]

 

[britbox]

On holiday so wifi is patchy. It really doesn't matter how accurate the data Wikileaks publishes is if they pick and choose what they publish. I'm led to believe the RNC was also hacked. The fact that only one sides data was published takes them out of the "data" game into the "information " game. They don't have the purity you are trying to assign to them. Just another biased media outlet

Everyone picks and chooses what they publish... but at least you're slowly moving towards some sort of acceptance that the Wikileaks data is at least accurate.... without a narrative. Unlike the Post, CNN etc... and every mainstream media outlet who all have a narrative and mouths to feed.

 

[Federberg]

Everyone picks and chooses what they publish... but at least you're slowly moving towards some sort of acceptance that the Wikileaks data is at least accurate.... without a narrative. Unlike the Post, CNN etc... and every mainstream media outlet who all have a narrative and mouths to feed.

Not sure where you get that from. I don't need to question their data if they are selective in its use. It's just propaganda. I find it hilarious you assign a higher weighting to it

 

[britbox]

Not sure where you get that from. I don't need to question their data if they are selective in its use. It's just propaganda. I find it hilarious you assign a higher weighting to it

Are you questioning the validity of the data that is released or not? No need to talk in riddles, a simple yes or no will be sufficient.

 

[britbox]

Edward Snowden Interview.

Regardless of what Snowden leaked, I'd regard him as a traitor... as I would Bradley Manning or whatever he calls himself nowadays.... Assange is a totally different kettle of fish... he was a publisher.

 

[Federberg]

Are you questioning the validity of the data that is released or not? No need to talk in riddles, a simple yes or no will be sufficient.

Lol! Are you trying to script my narrative? I repeat. Bigger picture. The veracity of the data is less relevant than how it's used. If a newspaper had two indisputable facts but releases only one to control how the information is perceived then it is now about the dissemination of data for a specific agenda. Not sure why you don't get that.

 

[Billie]

Edward Snowden Interview.

Regardless of what Snowden leaked, I'd regard him as a traitor... as I would Bradley Manning or whatever he calls himself nowadays.... Assange is a totally different kettle of fish... he was a publisher.

Since Snowden and Manning didn't work for and didn't sell their "secrets" to any particular side, I call them people of conscience.

 

[Billie]

Lol! Are you trying to script my narrative? I repeat. Bigger picture. The veracity of the data is less relevant than how it's used. If a newspaper had two indisputable facts but releases only one to control how the information is perceived then it is now about the dissemination of data for a specific agenda. Not sure why you don't get that.

We get that. That is what Western media does all the time. Western media that follows official politics of their countries. When they lie and cover the truth, what do we do then? Thank goodness for WikiLeaks for exposing everything they can and provide some counter balance.

 

[Moxie]

This doesn't link in the US, so I'm not sure what this is. I do think, however, you are obscuring the fact that the CIA believes that the Russians influenced the US elections. I don't know why this isn't a point of outrage. I do get why Trump downplays it, as it doesn't help his cause, in terms of the election, but...WTF? A foreign power, particularly the Russians, hack our elections and we're not meant to be outraged? Tell me you would be comfortable with that in your country.

 

[Federberg]

We get that. That is what Western media does all the time. Western media that follows official politics of their countries. When they lie and cover the truth, what do we do then? Thank goodness for WikiLeaks for exposing everything they can and provide some counter balance.

So non Western media is better then? Otherwise just say media. Besides, intentionally or not you seem not comprehend my point. Ugh.. who cares!

 

[britbox]

Lol! Are you trying to script my narrative? I repeat. Bigger picture. The veracity of the data is less relevant than how it's used. If a newspaper had two indisputable facts but releases only one to control how the information is perceived then it is now about the dissemination of data for a specific agenda. Not sure why you don't get that.

I do get it... but you said Wikileaks wasn't a more credible source than CNN and The Washington Post and I've explained what I believe the difference to be.

As for disseminating data... well, we saw how Donna Brazile on the CNN payroll provided Hillary Clinton with the presidential debate questions in advance... good that we heard about that clever attempt to distort the process (and ironically it was via Wikileaks). Clearly CNN thought they were credible enough to fire her...

Wikileaks IS a credible source. It shouldn't be in doubt.... what you don't like is what they choose to release and what they choose not to release... I agree that they have an agenda also... as do CNN and The Post... but at least I know the Wikileaks material is raw, genuine and totally credible - not an opinion piece that meets vested interests.

 

[Moxie]

So you still prefer to think it's about Wikileaks, and not the Russians as a government influencing the elections, bb?

 

[britbox]

This doesn't link in the US, so I'm not sure what this is. I do think, however, you are obscuring the fact that the CIA believes that the Russians influenced the US elections. I don't know why this isn't a point of outrage. I do get why Trump downplays it, as it doesn't help his cause, in terms of the election, but...WTF? A foreign power, particularly the Russians, hack our elections and we're not meant to be outraged? Tell me you would be comfortable with that in your country.

Considering the number of foreign elections the United States have interfered in over the years then I wouldn't get too outraged if I was in your shoes.

The evidence against Russia hasn't been substantiated other than generic statements... and even if it was then who cares? They didn't fix the election... genuine documents were leaked that uncovered a lot of truths about the Clinton campaign and the complicity of some large media establishments and their employees. You don't think Brazale giving Clinton the presidential debate questions in advance as a serious perversion of the election?

Would I be comfortable with a foreign power attempting to sway voters in my country? I live in Australia but orginally hail from the UK. Obama flew into the UK before the Brexit vote to attempt to sway the British voters... Now, it wasn't a general election... but it was far bigger - It was essentially defining the actual sovereignty of the United Kingdom going forward.

Obama said "“The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.” when it comes to any trade deals with America should they leave the EU.

Clearly an effort to sway the voter via a veiled threat... considering he's a lame duck president in the final months of his final term... it would never have been his decision to make.

 

[britbox]

So you still prefer to think it's about Wikileaks, and not the Russians as a government influencing the elections, bb?

Not sure where you get that from. I don't need to question their data if they are selective in its use. It's just propaganda. I find it hilarious you assign a higher weighting to it

Propaganda? You know the Wash. Post has never endorsed a republican in it's history and the NY Times hasn't endorsed a republican since Eisenhower?... you're aware of the difference between the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail in the UK?

Yet, you're espousing mainstream media as the arbiters of "real news" based on the opinions of hacks who are ultimately told which way to swing from the top down? You're dismissive of actual official documents (albeit leaked), wires and memos that came straight from the horses mouth without the layer of sanitization and pre-defined opinion accorded to them by regular media?

 

[Federberg]

I do get it... but you said Wikileaks wasn't a more credible source than CNN and The Washington Post and I've explained what I believe the difference to be.

As for disseminating data... well, we saw how Donna Brazile on the CNN payroll provided Hillary Clinton with the presidential debate questions in advance... good that we heard about that clever attempt to distort the process (and ironically it was via Wikileaks). Clearly CNN thought they were credible enough to fire her...

Wikileaks IS a credible source. It shouldn't be in doubt.... what you don't like is what they choose to release and what they choose not to release... I agree that they have an agenda also... as do CNN and The Post... but at least I know the Wikileaks material is raw, genuine and totally credible - not an opinion piece that meets vested interests.

Actually the moment information is disseminated with an agenda it loses a lot of its value. That's the point I'm making. It has always been the responsibility of consumers to digest mainstream media objectively. To act like everything mainstream is false and only offbeat sites like Wikileaks are controllers of the truth is what I find quite alarming in these times. Each to their own. A bit of common sense is all I ask. And proportion too!

 

[Moxie]

Propaganda? You know the Wash. Post has never endorsed a republican in it's history and the NY Times hasn't endorsed a republican since Eisenhower?

Assuming you mean endorsements for President only, because otherwise your statement isn't true. And for the record, the Washington Post only started endorsing in the Presidential race in 1976, when it was 99 years old, so it overstates to say "in its history."

 

[Asmodeus]

What's going on? I don't check this site for a week or so and find that dome of you are still crying about the election. And now, rather than admit that Hillary was a bad candidate with a bad message and poor personal characteristics you are looking for an excuse that is so farfetched it's boarding on idiotic. A few points of observation make these Russian claims outlandish.
1. IF Russia was successful in influencing the U.S. election then why haven't they done it with other western democracies that are anti-Russia. You'd think the Russians who put their hands in every election in order to change the world into a policy space that supports them.
2. Why is everyone so concerned about Russia. Russia is a kleptocracy. Their (elites) primary motivation for existing is to steal from other Russians. Russia is one of the few major countries where the government arrests dissenters and steals property for their own personal gain. There seems little change of Russia being a world power that can alter world politics when they are so concerned with stealing and protecting personal assets.
3. Russia simply doesn't have the dynamic economy to be enough of a threat to matter.
4. It's not as if having DT in the White House is going to change the fact that the US is naturally suspicious of Russia. Remember, the president can't, in most cases, singlehandedly create inclusive trade partnerships with Russia or provide them with keys to all of our secrets. He needs congressional approval for most actions that require new statute.