Wikileaks reveals the CIA hacking program left electronic trails to Russia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Wikileaks reveals the CIA hacking program left electronic trails to Russia

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Not a Step posted:

drat those Russians and their mind control powers! If only they hadn't forced the DNC to write many bad emails to each other, and then forced Hillary to ignore policy positions in favor of continuously attacking Trump while avoiding putting in campaign appearances in crucial states! Those Russian hackers fed bad data into the Clinton Super Computer that told her to do dumb things! Its not her fault if she actually did the dumb things!

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 14:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 08:20

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

just a reminder that the full scope of the hacking accusations isn't about compromising any election voting machines or anything like that. it's leaking 1 month worth of emails from the DNC and whatever was in podesta's email account using a technique any phisher could do.

the democratic emails incriminate themselves because they are a lovely and terrible organization.

this russian hysteria is hilarious in this context

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 14:38

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

first of all that isn't even hacking or even illegal AFAIK. it's like barely nefarious

second of all is there any proof to these allegations of spreading "fake news" from russia.

third of all even if that's been happening, that is a tiny baby's game compared to the media manipulation that the CIA is known to have done to influence foreign and domestic affairs. they've literally put prominent media figures on their payroll and create entire fake news organizations to push propaganda. lol

fourth of all, any influence any of this may have had on the election is infinitesimal compared to the hillary campaign and dnc blunders

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 14:44

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

creating some fake social media accounts is like tiny man's game compared to ad-buying in domestic media markets lol

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 14:46

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the scope of alleged russian actions to influence the election is so loving tiny and miniscule that any breath wasted on it just feels like sour grapes for losing or trying to distract from the real reasons the democrats lost

the only thing that would be a big deal is if there's any evidence that the trump campaign attempted a quid pro quo with russia, but there's literally zero evidence for this allegation

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 16:15

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

sexpot posted:

Did I just hallucinate the e-mails getting talked about for months while people chanted "Lock her up"

they were chanting that about her not following security protocols and not about any of the dnc leaks or podesta's email leak

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 16:54

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

people werent chanting lock her up because russia is alleged to have leaked emails or for the content revealed from those emails

they would've chanted lock her up if there were zero leaks

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 17:51

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the media (e.g. NPR) are certainly pushing the russians changed the election outcome (or were a significant factor) narrative

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 00:48

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Brother Friendship posted:

How were the releases not a significant part of the 2016 election?

Not a Step posted:

I do understand the concern about Russia trying to rig the election, really. Its just weird that people keep wanting to blame the election on Russia for placing a stink bomb when the Clinton campaign tied a noose, anchored it firmly to the stair rail, got a stool from the kitchen, climbed up on it, put the noose around its neck and kicked the stool out from underneath while shooing off any rescue attempts on live television.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 01:00

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

jimmy dore on this russian hysteria poo poo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTsch129Zwg

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 02:03

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

i couldnt turn on NPR recently without them blabbing about russia this or russia that. it's anecdotal but there you go. I dont really tune into any other mainstream media source.

also keep in mind i really hate and loathe NPR. not sure why i keep hitting myself and listening to them.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 23:53

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

it's really dumb sanders is engaging in this ineffective fearmongering as well

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 20:28

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

jimmy calling out how retarded the latest russian hysteria about manafort is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nkauLrC0w

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 22:58

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

not only is there zero evidence of collusion with the russian government, there's not even an allegation of what if anything illegal or unethical may have happened

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 23:10

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Brother Friendship posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

Literally the POTUS asking Russia to release compromising information on his political opponent.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/politics/roger-stone-wikileaks-russia/

Literally one of Trump's tumors bragging about his relationship with Kremlin mouthpiece Wikileaks.

lol this is zero evidence of collusion

tweeting about a wikileaks release as prescient is lol when wikileaks had been foghorning about a release themselves

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 23:47

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

JeffersonClay posted:

Russia can't be bad, they're not communists anymore. And GWB liked putin! What's the difference between Russia and Norway? Nothing! And the Clinton foundation. Just Dems trying to distract from how bad they suck.

The only difference between jimmy dore and Sean spicer is spicey's voice isn't goony as gently caress.

jimmy's point is that gaslighting about a connection merely because it's russian is basically xenophobia and an absurd variation of mccarthyism

only when there's actual evidence of collusion or quid pro quo is any of this attention and hysteria deserved. right now there's zero loving evidence of anything. if it turns out democrats gaslighted over loving nothing it's going to blow up in their face so hard.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 23:49

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

having past financial ties with a russian businessman is neither illegal, nefarious, or unethical in itself. the democrats and fart-huffing media is trying to paint it in this way and this is called gaslighting.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 23:56

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

also keep in mind that i'm not saying there hasn't been collusion between russia and the trump political campaign. i'm just saying there's loving zero evidence and this russia hysteria is absurd in that context.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2017 23:57

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

uh no i dont care about the purity or sanctity of russia

the russian hysteria distracts from legitimate criticisms of trump and the republicans and on why the democrats lost

it's basically a ridiculously dangerous gamble for the democrats if it turns out there was nothing there. taibbi wrote a good article about this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russia-story-is-a-minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:08

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Bip Roberts posted:

I don't think that's mccarthyism bub.

mccarthyism was a witchhunt involving accusing people of being communists or being associated with communists and therefore they must be evil. the shade of mccarthyism here is insinuating nefarious deeds for merely having a business association with a russian. there's not even any action that is alleged that Manafort actually did that might be unethical or illegal while in the trump campaign. there's just the insinuation that he must have done something bad because RUSSIANS!

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:16

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Gringostar posted:

you're dumb if you think the russia poo poo is about distracting legitimate criticisms of why democrats lost

lol

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:18

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Bip Roberts posted:

Have u heard the soviet union doesn't exist

that's why it's a variation of mccarthyism and why it's so ridiculous. communist soviet russia is literally dead and theyre a capitalist corrupt plutocracy like the US now, but the media and politicians are still gaslighting as if russia was still communist and merely associating someone with russia is somehow a success in painting someone as bad

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:20

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

JeffersonClay posted:

The points he made in that video you linked is "Russia isn't any different from Italy", and "Putin is fine" which are hilariously dumb. Yes, neither of those countries are communist. But one of them has a former KGB president who murders dissidents and journalists on the regular, invaded and annexed its neighbors, is funding and aiding right wing populist movements throughout Europe, and just successfully hacked the US election. "Gaslighting" is denying that awful poo poo is happening on a dumb internet show for broke brains.

no, his point was that russian relations with the united states have normalized politically since the cold war. he's not saying russia is a good country. he's pointing out the absurdity of stoking mccarthyist-like sentiment ityool 2017. the media and democrats are insinuating nefarious deeds for merely being associated with russia.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:35

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

he's making a point that this gaslighting would be a lot less effective if you replaced russia with italy or some poo poo because of historical xenophobia from the cold war. in a sane world merely associating someone with russia would be just as effective as merely associating someone with norway. he's not saying the countries are the same politically or ethically.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:44

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

if there's nothing to hide, it's actually way smarter for trump to let the democrats and media hang themselves on a witchhunt that goes nowhere

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:49

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Bip Roberts posted:

how is this remotely "gaslighting"

journalists from the AP are literally insinuating manafort must have done something bad or been trying to spread putin's influence because he had in the past lobbied for a russian businessman. they're not even alleging manafort did any specific concrete illegal or unethical action. theyre just insinuating he must be bad or done something bad because RUSSIA

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:51

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Bip Roberts posted:

how are they "hanging themselves"? People don't give a poo poo that there was nothing behind Benghazi so it seems like it's either that or something does come from it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russia-story-is-a-minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 00:53

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Azathoth posted:

So, when people are concerned about Russia, it's not because of some irrational fear that Ivan is gonna nuke us, it's because there's a rational belief that the U.S. and Russia are geopolitical rivals and that Russia is actively working against our own best interests.

maybe the obama administration shouldn't have negotiated that giant uranium deal with russia if they felt that way lol

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 01:37

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

it's dumb because it's selective belief

james clapper, the former director of national intelligence (who infamously lied about the scope of nsa data collection), went on national television and said there was 0 evidence of collusion at the beginning of the year

but people want to so willingly believe anonymous sources without any evidence

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 08:41

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

let's offer no vision, no platform, and no message. this worked absolutely wonderfully for the democrats in the 2016 elections, so let's repeat this strategy. russian hysteria and negative trump messaging will surely work this time

# ¿ Mar 26, 2017 22:50

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

voters will support you if you genuinely fight for something even if at that immediate moment in time you won't be able to get it into law

there's a reason sanders is the most favorably viewed politician in the united states while corporate and centrist democrats' favorability is in the loving dumpster

doubling down on a losing strategy when the party has been wiped out at all levels of government is just loving insane

# ¿ Mar 27, 2017 00:00

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

you make republicans and trump the obstacles to progressive change so that people throw them out and vote for you. forcing trump to veto progressive legislation would be a huge win.

right now, the democrats are the obstacles to progressive change

a huge amount of voters identify as independent instead of democrat since the 2008 elections because they are becoming disillusioned with the party

# ¿ Mar 27, 2017 00:48

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

wizard on a water slide posted:

i've asked this in cspam before but what reality do you gusy live in where russia is the only story right now, rather than trump being bombarded 24/7 by negative news criticizing his approach to the budget, immigration, healthcare, diplomacy, etc

even my dumbest dem friends who constantly lament the defeat of dear abuelita constantly talk about a lot of poo poo trump and the us govt are bad at besides the existence of a russian connection

the head of the dnc keeps pushing this angle hard whenever he gets on air
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtcPzet9Fnc

every time i turn on npr it's russia this or russia that

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 00:59

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

also in case it wasn't immediately obvious from the video, the head of the dnc, tom perez, tries to deflect a question about superdelegates and the issues with the dnc primaries by talking about russia

he's literally using the russia angle to try to get away from criticism of the democratic party

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 01:53

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

also for context in case you dont understand how absurd the democratic party superdelegate system is and why criticism of it is warranted and entirely legitimate and why the literal head of the dnc not wanting to answer questions about it is so loving stupid:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year

quote:

The technical answer is that yes, the Republican Party does have superdelegates. However, they function differently for the GOP than Democrats, and in 2016, Republican superdelegates will have way, way less power and autonomy than the superdelegates on the Democratic side.

The thing to keep in mind about delegates and superdelegates is that they were created not by Congress or the Constitution, but the parties themselves. The GOP and the Democratic Party are non-governmental organizations, and so they can basically set whatever rules they'd like regarding delegates and how they're distributed.

In the Democratic Party, you're a superdelegate if you're a member of the official party apparatus. That includes all current Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as former presidents, former vice presidents, state party chairs, and that sort of thing. In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish regardless of how the state that they come from votes, and in total, superdelegates comprise about 15 percent of the total delegates that determine the nomination.

The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state's national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates.

The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The Republican National Committee ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that's the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.

In general, superdelegates are a way for the party elite to exert additional influence over the nomination process. If voters were on the verge of nominating a candidate who the party felt didn't have a good shot at winning the general election, the superdelegates might step in and tip the scales.

That could conceivably happen this year on the Democratic side. However, it's simply not possible for Republican superdelegates to override the wishes of Republican voters. Thanks to the rules the national GOP has established, Republican "superdelegates" aren't very "super" at all.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 01:59

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

for as much democrats moan about the electoral college and how the popular vote doesn't determine the presidential election, they sure as poo poo are hypocritical when it comes to the structure of their own primaries with superdelegates

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 23:14

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Gringostar posted:

voter suppression is bad

this is a map of people dissatisfied with american politics i think moreso than a map of voter suppression

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 23:22

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

wizard on a water slide posted:

republicans have won the popular vote 1/5 times and the presidency 3/5 times since the year 2000

dem superdelegates did not and afaik have never caused the winner of the party's popular vote to lose the primary

that seems like a pretty big difference

superdelegates are a democratic party invention that only exists so that the democratic party can try to overturn a popular vote while attempting to claim legitimacy

the fact they haven't had to invoke the nuclear option yet doesn't somehow mean that superdelegates aren't a terribly undemocratic system. as head of the dnc, blowing off criticism of them by invoking russians is farcical.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 03:27

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Bip Roberts posted:

Superdelegates exist so if there's a three way race where no one gets a majority they can avoid an equally undemocratic convention fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 03:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 08:20

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

i never said they stole an election. i said they are an incredibly undemocratic institution. complaining about the electoral college while keeping around something even more undemocratic is called hypocrisy. even the republicans dont have something as stupid in their primary system.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 04:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Wikileaks reveals the CIA hacking program left electronic trails to Russia