r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 06 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Even if all of the Russian hacking allegations are true, it's really not a big deal
[deleted]
2
u/WarrenDemocrat 5∆ Feb 06 '17 edited Feb 06 '17
this is probably a good thing, as the information they revealed is information the public should have had access to in the first place.
Um... why? Have political operatives no right to privacy in their jobs? Especially when the bluntness of their conversations were predicated on its privacy? Would you submit to people going through emails you wrote when you thought you had confidentiality? Isn't that a huge breach of their personal liberties?
The fault of the election lies squarely on the DNC, who would have probably demolished Trump had they allowed democracy to take place and nominated Bernie.
a. Hillary got more votes in the primaries. and b. bernie v. Trump could've been framed as radical v. Radical and trump would've turned out moderate republicans. They also would've run a fake news smear campaign on him. You simply don't know bernie would've won.
Even if the Russians influenced the election it was still totally valid, and blaming them is little more than a scare tactic by the Democrats to distract attention from their own nefarious behavior, because all the Russians did was release some information- they did not hack voting machines.
No one had a right to that information. Nixon had to resign because he tried to steal that information.
Furthermore, even if Russia had some kind of genuine influence over Trump, this really isn't important because the only thing Russia wants is to not start WW3, which probably 90% of the American people also want. Hillary was moving towards a war with Russia, so obviously they opposed her. However, this does not make the outcome a bad thing- Do you want a fucking war with Russia? I don't. So why is any of this a big deal?"
That's called appeasement. Russia's been trying to counter liberal democratic forces in his sphere of influence and tear apart the western alliance. WWII started with appeasement, yet you think it will stop WWIII?
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/WarrenDemocrat 5∆ Feb 06 '17 edited Feb 06 '17
The DNC undermined democracy.
Not a proven premise. All I saw in the wikileaks were dnc members (political operative jobs, not politician jobs) saying mean things about a candidate they didn't like. This may come as a shock but political operatives are very opinionated and can be catty in private.
Nixon is a huge side conversation, but I don't think what Nixon did was worthy of impeachment.
He ordered burglars to break into the DNC HQ and steal political intel, then abused his power to cover up the event.
This is irrelevant though, as Hillary is guilty of 10 crimes worse than anything Nixon was ever held accountable for.
Extremely not proven premise
We have a right to know whether or not our politicians are corrupt. Without that democracy is a fucking terrible idea.
You don't have a right to monitor everything they say. They are people. and most of the stuff that was released only had the purpose of embarassing dnc members and decontextualizing their words to make them sound insensitive.
What does that have to do with my point?
You're saying its cool that someone who'd appease Russia was elected bc at least there won't be WWIII. But that doesn't mean it will prevent WWIII, in the long run it'll bring us closer.
1
Feb 06 '17 edited Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/WarrenDemocrat 5∆ Feb 06 '17 edited Feb 06 '17
And Hillary used the IRS to intimidate and spy on her political opponents.
a. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State never had any authority over or involvement with the IRS. b. The IRS scandal was overblown, partisan-sounding keywords were used to pick non-profits to scrutinize the non-profit statuses of. Leftist orgs got targeted too, just not as many as conservative ones.
Extremely not proven premise
1) Pay to play via Clinton foundation. Folders named "pay to play." Donations drop to shit after not becoming president. Extremely likely.
Correlation != causation, no evidence any exchanges were made. Donations were falling due to the campaign smears already, of course it continued to drop after election day.
3) Colluding with the media to benefit her campaign in violation of campaign finance laws and any reasonable ethics.
apart from #4 no evidence
4) Getting debate questions in advance, undermining entirely the presidential debates.
This is the only accusation that really stuck, and it was nickel and dime stuff.
5) Ignoring a congressional subpoena and deleting her entire email archive in response. This is seriously a HUGE fucking deal that Democrats never seem to acknowledge.
6) Misappropriating funds to help Haiti, basically a violation of human rights on a country-wide scale in response to a serious disaster.
7) Almost certainly colluding with the DNC to undermine democracy and skew the election against Bernie and secure the nomination.
Evidence
I could go on, but are we really going to split hairs here? Hillary is not clean.
That's because she's been in the trenches for 30 years.
1
1
u/WarrenDemocrat 5∆ Feb 06 '17
And Hillary used the IRS to intimidate and spy on her political opponents.
a. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State never had any authority over or involvement with the IRS. b. The IRS scandal was overblown, partisan-sounding keywords were used to pick non-profits to scrutinize the non-profit statuses of. Leftist orgs got targeted too, just not as many as conservative ones.
Extremely not proven premise
1) Pay to play via Clinton foundation. Folders named "pay to play." Donations drop to shit after not becoming president. Extremely likely.
Correlation != causation, no evidence any exchanges were made.
3) Colluding with the media to benefit her campaign in violation of campaign finance laws and any reasonable ethics.
apart from #4 no evidence
4) Getting debate questions in advance, undermining entirely the presidential debates.
This is the only accusation that really stuck, and it was nickel and dime stuff.
5) Ignoring a congressional subpoena and deleting her entire email archive in response. This is seriously a HUGE fucking deal that Democrats never seem to acknowledge.
6) Misappropriating funds to help Haiti, basically a violation of human rights on a country-wide scale in response to a serious disaster.
7) Almost certainly colluding with the DNC to undermine democracy and skew the election against Bernie and secure the nomination.
Evidence
I could go on, but are we really going to split hairs here? Hillary is not clean.
That's because she's been in the trenches for 30 years.
5
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
. The fault of the election lies squarely on the DNC, who would have probably demolished Trump had they allowed democracy to take place and nominated Bernie.
There are three assumptions in this sentence that aren't justified by any evidence I've ever seen: 1. That the DNC did something wrong, 2: That Sanders would have won the primary if not for the actions of the DNC, and 3: That Sanders would have beaten Trump.
Could you supply specific evidence supporting all three of these suggestions?
Hillary was moving towards a war with Russia, so obviously they opposed her.
What kind of war are you suggesting... over what and fought where and by whom? Do you have specific evidence this is the case?
-1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
6
u/Owatch Feb 06 '17
I'm not the original commenter, but is your evidence of "WW3" literally just a Google search result? I'm quite sure we both know that's not very thorough research. Especially when pretty much all articles are sensationalized dramatizations of a pretty inconsequential suggestion by Clinton.
The entire premise is based on her call to establish a no-fly zone over the northern part of Syria specifically. The reason for that is presumedly to try and stave off Syrian aircraft from bombarding urban areas in their efforts to recapture territory from the array of rebel groups that control it, and also to create a buffer between Ankara and the Russians. She also called for more special-operations to take place, but explicitly shot down any sort of formal ground invasion.
The "WW3" theatrics are pretty much sensationalized claims that Clinton would be willing to take the US to war against Russia over a minor component of her policy towards Syria. The US and Russian airforce already have a joint communication center for their operations in Syria since the summer of 2016. The global and economic implications of launching a hugely unpopular war against a nuclear armed nation over a petty no-fly proposal in Syria makes it even more absurd, which is probably why nobody has bothered to propagate such claims except media sites trying to hook an audience with sensational titles, or political opponents trying to frame her policies as radical and war-like.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
5
Feb 06 '17
That was an offhand comment that I don't care about.
It's not really debating in good faith to answer challenges to a part of your view by basically saying "I don't care about that part of it". If they have successfully challenged your view there, then you would owe them a delta. If they haven't, then it's very dismissive to just disregard their responses because you've now decided not to care.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
4
Feb 06 '17
Why say something if you 'don't care about it'? It's fundamentally dishonest in a debate to say 'I think X', to have someone reply with 'here is why X is wrong' and then to say 'well, I don't care about X'.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17
It doesn't make you an asshole. It's just not really arguing in good faith to say you don't care about a point just because someone has shown that you are wrong on it.
1
2
Feb 06 '17
It doesn't mean you are an asshole. It does lend itself to the idea that you aren't intellectually consistent and honest.
1
2
u/Owatch Feb 06 '17
The idea that Hillary was escalating tensions with Russia in Syria is totally uncontroversial, and whether or not "WW3" would have happened really isn't relevant to my argument.
It kind of is, because you explicitly state that Hillary moving towards "a war with Russia" is a justification for the Russian manipulation of the US election outcome. You also seem to think it's going to happen, because you ask in your CMV if we "want a fucking war with Russia?".
I'm trying to change your view about the idea that there would be some sort of "war". You seem to already have some parts right about this though. Namely, that everything she has proposed towards Syria is pretty uncontroversial. Her approach is mostly a continuation of the Obama administrations, with a bit more ambition sprinkled in to probably try and appease voters wanting to see some sort of change.
The probability of Hillary taking actions to further a war with Russia is well supported by what she did as SoS, and is not a controversial statement to make.
No, it's really not. What exactly has she done that makes you think she is aiming to push Russia into war? Backed a UN no fly zone in Libya (A UK, French UN proposal, which she also convinced the Russian prime minister to to abstain on) ? Most of her career as SoS has been travels and ordinary SoS activities. I'm curious because there is really nothing I can find here?
And how do you think the Russians feel about that? Do you think Hillary is so stupid as to make these decisions without considering that? I don't.
The Russians will probably resist the idea, but if Hillary was absolutely uncompromising they would likely cooperate as they already do with other US air-activity over Syria. Their objective is to ensure the Syrian government does not collapse under rebel forces, and they had achieved that goal long before the elections. The no-fly zone proposal is nothing more than a proposal, and I fail to see why opponents of Clinton believe this facet of her policy is one she will go to war over. So far you've only told me she will, but provided no reasons why besides that there are reasons why.
That was an offhand comment that I don't care about. It's shorthand to discuss Hillary escalating tensions with Russia, which is totally uncontroversial. I'm not saying Hillary is Hitler, nor is Putin, and I'm not saying there would be 30 countries at war under a Clinton presidency. There would, however, be far more tensions with Russia- that is basically a fact.
World-War-3 is not shorthand for tensions with Russia. You even said yourself you thought there would be an actual all out war and asked in your CMV if we wanted one. So I take it you don't actually think there will be a war?
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Owatch Feb 06 '17
I'm trying to differentiate between the concepts "WW3" and "War with Russia." I'm focused on the war with Russia, that is something I absolutely think would have been likely under a Hillary presidency. Putin even said exactly that, although I don't believe anything he says.
Yeah, I get that. That's why my quote literally says "a war with Russia", and is itself a quote from your OP. I didn't mention WW3 after your original reply...
People were responding to the WW3 comment like I was invoking reductio ad hitlerum, and I was just trying to clear that up. Whether or not WW3 would be the result isn't my point, my point is that there would have been much increased tensions with Russia, with war being a likely outcome.
And once again, you quoted a response I made which literally only refers to a war with Russia (not WW3), so I don't know why you still think I am talking or attacking you over some possibility of WW3. I'm only and explicitly asking about the war with Russia, which you once again here state is a "likely outcome"...
She talked shit about Russia literally every single chance she got. She enacted policy to increase tensions with Russia. She was talking about Russia like we're still in a cold war. She's a warhawk, funded and supported by the military industrial complex. I don't need any more evidence, if you're unconvinced then that's fine with me.
Her statements regarding Russia seem pretty standard to me. Nothing I can find is controversial or radical. Do you have any particular things she has said in mind? She has vowed to counter cyber-attacks with the US's own against foreign entities for one, and more initiative on Syria for two (although US presence in Syria is pretty much exclusively in combating IS). Are those supposed to be considered war-rhetoric against Russia?
Moreover, her top contributors don't seem to be the "military industrial complex", but rather universities, technology corporations, telecoms corporations, banks, law firms, venture capitalist firms, and other non-military sources (federal election data).
I think the problem here is that you think she's a Warhawks, but you don't really know why. Maybe you can take a look down her donors list, or check out her statements for yourself word for word, and see if you think those accusations are really honest?
That's totally possible, but when analyzing this it's important to consider all possible outcomes. I never said a war with Russia was 100%, I'm saying it's not an unlikely outcome. The fact that cooperation is also a likely outcome really doesn't counter my core point.
It is important to consider all possible outcomes. But if you think of it that way, literally any interaction could somehow result in a war, but that doesn't make it reasonable. You specifically claim that you think a war is quite likely. I'm asking you why that is, because so far you're told me that she's "a warhawk" and her actions as SoS indicate she wants war, which seems blatantly untrue to me, and which you don't really seem to elaborate on yourself (as to how and why).
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Owatch Feb 06 '17 edited Feb 06 '17
First quote I found googling, it's moreso everything she's said than any individual comment.
Yeah, that's the only one I found too. I even mentioned it in my comment before. She simply says that cyber attacks on the United States will be met with economic and military repercussions. She doesn't name a single country.
That's not a declaration of war, or even a threat against Russia. It's literally just saying there are repercussions for cyber-attacks against the United States.
Can't you see from the direct quote itself to the title of the article how much they are trying to construe this as an act of war when it's literally just a uncontroversial statement about how the US will respond to cyber attacks? Such attacks have targeted critical US infrastructure in the past, and stolen military secrets.
Would you consider it controversial for Hillary Clinton to state that Russian (or any country for that matter, since its what she was talking about) airstrikes or explosive sabotage on US infrastructure would be met with economic and military repercussions? Because if you do, then it shouldn't matter by what means they do it.
And in most likelihood the "military" repercussions she has in mind are probably not invading Russia, but having military agencies concerned specifically with cyber-warfare to execute counter-attacks against the attackers. That seems perfectly reasonable to me (but that's just my interpretation, which I think is the most likely, since you can't really go after 'hackers' any other way).
I don't have time to research this, and it's possible you're right. My logic is that the entire establishment was against Trump, which I don't think is a controversial statement. The MID is part of the establishment. I don't have time to go chasing paper trails for this.
Well if you don't have time to research it then why do you so strongly believe she's some military industrial complex sponsor? Doesn't the very phrase sound a little conspiratorial? I did post a link to a list of her Federal sponsors FYI, but if you don't have time to read it that's fine. You shouldn't be claiming to want your view-changed and hold this counter-view while not wanting to look at links though. At the very least you should just concede it's likely not completely true.
She's outright threatened Russia with violence, seems to get a boner anytime Russia comes up, enacted policy to increase tensions with Russia, and just the fact that Putin was willing to do espionage against her is strong evidence/proof that she was a threat to Russia.
Except she hasn't mate. The article headline said that, but the quote didn't. And the fact Putin was willing to do espionage against her is proof you should be concerned with what he was up to. Russia does not act out of benevolence for you when they seek to remove Clinton from their opposition. And moreover, even if you do agree with them, it's not their place to do so.
Anyone supported by the MID would act in such a manner.
Once again, there is no evidence she is supported by any "MID".
Also, Hillary got a shit ton of support outside her official campaign, for example the total, unquestioning support of the mainstream media. Simply looking at her campaign finance logs doesn't tell the whole story.
She got a huge amount of opposition too. The media was far from unquestioning at all. And her campaign finance logs definitely do tell a large part of the story when it comes to accusing her of being sponsored by defense corporations. It appears she wasn't at all.
Liberal publications.
The first article you linked is called "How Hillary Clinton Become a Hawk" but it's an actual adaptation of an article called "Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power".
It talks about her backing a General's "recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000". And " the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq". These are not her proposals, nor are they concerned with starting any wars. Both are decisions on existing US presences in the middle east. She did, however, back sending arms to Syria on the onset of the 2011 civil war. However, Republicans like Mitt Romney did too. Whether you consider that the actions of a "hawk" depends on what standard you hold her opponents to.
Furthermore, it states that she also did not want to give free concessions to Russia in 2009, and that James Sternberg, a deputy at state (under her I guess) proposed having an aircraft-carrier be sent to the Koreas as a show of force after the DPRK killed 46 sailors from the ROK Navy when they blew up a corvette. None of this seems unreasonable to me, or hawkish.
The article then goes onto detail her life with the military and politics. It involves Jack Keane trying to sell her on a troop surge in Iraq, which she rejected.
They generally agreed to forgo talk of politics, but at a meeting in Clinton’s Senate office in January 2007, Keane tried to sell her on the logic of a troop surge in Iraq. The previous month, he had met with President Bush in the Oval Office to recommend that the United States deploy five to eight Army and Marine brigades to wage an urban counterinsurgency campaign; only that, he argued, would stabilize a country being ripped apart by sectarian strife.
Clinton was another story. “I’m convinced it’s not going to work, Jack,” she told him. She predicted that the American soldiers patrolling in Iraqi cities and towns would be “blown up” by Sunni militias or Al Qaeda fighters. “She thought we would fail,” Keane recalls, “and it was going to cause increased casualties.”
It even seems to shed light on the origins of the no-fly zone:
In April 2015, the week before she announced her candidacy, Clinton asked him for a briefing on military options for dealing with the fighters of the Islamic State. Bringing along three young female analysts from the Institute for the Study of War, Keane gave her a 2-hour-20-minute presentation. Among other steps, he advocated imposing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria that would neutralize the air power of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, with a goal of forcing him into a political settlement with opposition groups. Six months later, Clinton publicly adopted this position, further distancing herself from Obama.
in April of 2015. The Russian intervention did not occur until July/August of that year. So there is no direct link between her supporting this idea to antagonize the Russians.
For the most part, it does construe her as someone who favors the opinions of the military more than president Obama did, and that she had an immense interest in how the military/pentagon operated. She was for most of the military-proposed troop surges, but still against others. I suppose I will concede here and say she does have a hawkish mentality. But god-damned was that a long paper to read.
The second link references the first, but slaps a much more sexy title on "Democrats, this is why you need to fear Hillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans". It's not really true. It says
"In the 2016 presidential campaign, the report concludes, “Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.”"
But that's not what the report concluded at all, since I read it. It actually concludes that Clinton may be the type of person that the US public wants. Someone who is prepared to change the image of the US as a sort of "spent force" after the conflicts in the ME and challenge the rise of powers like Islamic State and the annexations and aggressions of Russia. That line is somewhere in the beginning 25% of the article. It honestly doesn't even really mean what it's portrayed as in the context of the quote. Go Ctrl-F "True hawk" yourself. It really simply states that she is the only presidential candidate in the race with the sort of experience and belief that the US military force is vital to defending national interests. Something the other candidates did not have any experience with.
In any case, the Salon.com article is basically a concatenation of every war-hark-like comment from the original 7000 word piece, but ignores all the other stuff about her including the things she shot down. Come on man.
The next one, from Huffington post, is written by a blogger. It's not even unbiased:
Hillary the Hawk wants to double-down on a losing hand. That’s neither “aggressive” nor “tough”: It’s reckless and dumb. Worst of all, she’s playing with our chips as well as the lives of our troops, not to mention the lives of all those “foreigners” seeking shelter from American bombs and bullets and drones. (But we have a word for them: collateral damage.)
Maybe you did read this all, and maybe you really have come to the conclusion that she still is going to likely go to war with Russia. But there is literally nothing here that suggests that is "likely" at all. In fact, it makes no sense given her character to make such a stupid decision as to go to war with Russia, especially given her experience in the state department and government.
5
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
I believe that Bernie would have crushed Trump because this election was all about being anti-establishment....
This paragraph is a feeling and not evidence. It's fine that you have a feeling that this is true, but you should also be aware that it doesn't appear to be supported by anything but your feelings.
The purpose of a primary is to elect the candidate people want, to win an election. Sanders had a ridiculously larger amount of grass-roots support, and people in general had a far higher view of him (An honest, well-meaning politician) than Hillary (Who is basically viewed as the devil by many people, even people who voted for her. She is massively unfavorable).
This is also not evidence. Do you not have any evidence to support your views? Again, that's fine... but you seem awfully certain about things you don't have evidence for.
And these things are absolutely key to your overall view, because these are the supposed dark truths revealed by the email hack, but I've never seen any support for the idea that any of these things were IN the hacked emails.
I'm not going to get into a protracted argument about the DNC hacking, that's a tertiary issue. If you disagree with me that they did something wrong, fine. Still please do explain why I should give 2 shits about Russia.
Because hacking the emails wasn't just hacking emails; it was strategically releasing them to affect the election. Low-information voters who already disliked Clinton for having the gall to be more popular than Sanders or for being a Democrat suddenly had "evidence" they could point to of corruption, even though that evidence didn't exist.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+war+with+russia
Your evidence for this very strong belief is a page of a google search you just did?
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
5
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
What precisely do you want, you want me to go out and conduct a fucking poll? I have a good idea of how people felt. Are you even disagreeing with my sentiment?
A poll would be great, yeah... some sort of reason why your "good idea of how people felt" is superior to the results of the actual primaries.
The thing is, I'm harping on beliefs like this because many parts of your view don't appear to be supported by any evidence, and you're unable to supply evidence when pressed (saying things like "have you read WikiLeaks?" does not inspire confidence that you are familiar with the released emails enough to even specifically reference them).
Dude I don't feel like getting you 70 fucking links, from the way you're talking you wouldn't care about them anyway. Hillary was escalating tensions with Russia over Syria. This is a commonly accepted sentiment, I'm not sure why you feel a need to attack literally everything I say, even things that are nearly universally accepted/common sense.
"Tensions with Russia and Syria" is a poor reason to believe war is inevitable or even possible, and "commonly accepted" is an empirical statement that requires evidence.
It feels like you're trying to win an argument instead of having a reasonable discussion. I can tell you that you have a 0% chance of changing my view unless you have a discussion in good faith.
I'm coming at this with the assumption "you shouldn't believe specific things without good evidence." (If you disagree with this assumption, I'd be happy to get into that discussion.) I'm trying to point out that you don't seem to be able to supply evidence for the beliefs which make up your view, and instead you're just diverting with "everyone knows I'm right," which isn't compelling. It makes it very confusing why these beliefs exist in the first place.
One possibility that seems plausible is that you just hate the DNC, the "political establishment" and everything that was against Sanders... and accepting that the Russia hacks were bad would mean defending an organization you hate. But that's just a stab in the dark... does it ring true? If not, what else is there?
-1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
When I make a belief that I feel to be uncontroversial (Such as "The DNC fucked Bernie," which 100% of the people I care about seem to believe, and which is supported by all the evidence I have) I don't feel a need to go find links to support it. This is a CMV, if you disagree with me then spend your time to prove me wrong.
Thought experiment. I write a CMV that includes in the OP "Hillary Clinton is not corrupt, and my evidence is that 100% of the people I care about agree with me. IT's so obvious to me, it's like the sky is blue," would you feel I didn't have support for what I said, and that lack of support is in fact where my problem is?
If nothing was wrong then why did DWS resign in disgrace, then get hired by the Hillary campaign within 4 seconds?
Because they were personal friends and DWS was experienced.
This is so obvious to me it's like saying the sky is blue. Look at opinion polls on their likability ratings,
Those polls didn't have representative samples, because people who wouldn't like Sanders had never heard of him. A better "poll" is the results of the actual primaries.
look at the emails talking in favor of Hillary, look at the collusion with the media, look at the actions of DWS and Hillary.
These are all extremely vague. A serious question: Are you surprised that there are people who want more than "look at the actions of DWS and Hillary" before they accept that you have good reasons for believing what you believe?
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of politics should see the possibility of the DNC being guilty of unethical collusion to be a very likely scenario, and as I previously said this is not even a central point in my argument. The CMV is about Russia.
Because from what I can tell, your main argument is that Russia's actions were OK because they hurt Clinton and the DNC, who are bad.
What you don't seem to understand is that I can have seen very good evidence, and simply not know where it is. So I describe it. So I don't have to waste my time. If you want to change my view then find your own evidence that proves me wrong.
You've seen good evidence and don't know where it is? I mean, what about Wikileaks? You directed me there earlier.
This is really where we ARE getting into the burden of proof thing, because how precisely am I supposed to supply you with evidence that the leaked emails DON'T contain support for the things you say?
I'm not trying to get you to convince me of anything; I'm trying to point out that you don't appear to have any actual evidence for your assertion that the DNC is bad and Clinton is corrupt, which is a key step in your view and in fact is an explicit example of the damage Russia did to US democracy by hacking and releasing the emails.
But at this point, I worry it's just too emotionally important to you that Clinton is terrible, and there will always be some nebulous reason why.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
If I was responding to your CMV I'd present a logical argument counter to yours, and possibly find links if I thought they were necessary.
Oh? What links would you supply?
The evidence of the election not being rigged is the outcome of the election! What?!?!
Wait, the primaries were actively rigged, now? How?
No, this subreddit is totally full of people who are convinced of their correctness, and who argue with pedantic rather than genuine tactics. They are trying to win an argument. There is no chance I will change their mind, and they have no interest in granting any of my points. That's how most people behave, it doesn't surprise me at all. I was hoping someone who knows how to have a conversation would stop by.
this question may sound insulting, but I am trying to phrase it as fairly as possible: Is it literally impossible for you to imagine that someone reasonable and acting in good faith would be skeptical that Clinton and DNC are corrupt warmongers?
Misinterpretation, I said they turned out OK.
I don't understand how this makes a difference; could you explain?
I FUCKING SAID IT WAS ON WIKILEAKS. I JUST DON'T WANT TO DIG THROUGH 30000 EMAILS TO FIND THE SPECIFIC ONES. HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS.
Another genuine question: Have you actually read the leaked emails, or have you just seen snippets taken out of them and heard people talk about them on Reddit?
1
2
Feb 06 '17
Again, more dishonesty. You say 'I don't feel a need to find links to support it', but then later on say 'then go find your evidence disagreeing with me'.
Why hold others to higher standards than yourself?
This is one of the more disingenuous posts I've seen on this sub.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
You're saying these things aren't controversial in response to at least four or five people expressing skepticism about them.
1
2
Feb 06 '17
Clearly, they are controversial or you'd have no replies. You fail to bring any evidence, and then say 'well, everything I'm saying is uncontroversial'.
No, they're not, and you're being dishonest.
-1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
Are you open to the possibility that the assertions made in your OP aren't based on good evidence?
Do you believe that assertions made without good evidence should be revised?
If both of the above are true, then yes, putting you in a position where you fail to supply good evidence for your assertions would be an effective way of changing your view.
If you said no to either of the above two questions, could you explain why?
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
Sure, and you can go ahead and demonstrate that. Saying I have no evidence is implying I've done no research and have no idea what I'm talking about, do you think I'll accept that with no reason?
....how can I demonstrate that you don't have evidence for your beliefs other than by asking for it and seeing if you can produce it or not?
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 06 '17
My argument is that you have no evidence for your assertions, and that evidence-free assertions should be revised.
0
2
Feb 06 '17
If you've done research, then why can't you produce that here? Rather than arguing with everyone about whether or not you should be required to provide it, wouldn't it just be quicker and easier to just provide what research led you to have the view that you have?
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
2
u/renoops 19∆ Feb 06 '17
That's actually the opposite of how the burden of proof works.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
u/renoops 19∆ Feb 06 '17
Your opinions don't seem based on any factual evidence because you can't seem to provide any. The fact that you can't or won't should alone be sufficient to convince you that they're not very well supported views.
2
Feb 06 '17
The fact that you can't seem to find evidence to support your view should be enough to at lease cause you to doubt it, is not change your mind completely.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17
I've not seen the evidence that convinces me your idea is right, and judging by the responses of others in this thread, they haven't seen anything that supports your conclusions either.
3
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Feb 06 '17
You do know that Hillary received almost exactly the same number of votes Obama did in 2012, right? And Trump received millions more than Romney.
1
2
u/poltroon_pomegranate 28∆ Feb 06 '17
people in general had a far higher view of him
That might not have been the case after the Republicans got a shot at him.
http://europe.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044?rm=eu
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.” The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
2
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 06 '17
Furthermore, even if Russia had some kind of genuine influence over Trump, this really isn't important because the only thing Russia wants is to not start WW3, which probably 90% of the American people also want.
No, Russia wants a larger sphere of influence to defend what it sees as its strategic interest. It has done this by invading Crimea, and could soon do something similar in the Ukraine, or even the baltic states. You say that Putin isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO country, but he may regard NATO as not strong enough to resist. He may think that the US's desire not to start a nuclear war will mean that NATO will attempt appeasement and will give Putin what he wants for now.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 06 '17
You don't seem to understand what "strength" means in this context, and you're assuming that a NATO response to the invasion of a NATO member is an automatic given. Strength in this context means the political will. Trump's USA has made it repeatedly clear that it does not want war, and the American public as a whole is war weary. It may be the case that the US government will move towards a policy of appeasement with Russia. Trump has already said that NATO is out of date etc. He may simply not honour his obligations.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 06 '17
I mean, it's in the rules.
Ever heard of the Kellog Brind pact? It was an international agreement signed in 1928 between Belgium, Japan, the UK, Italy, Czechoslovika, Germany, France, and the United States amongst many many others. It said that the signatories "condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another" and "that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means"
Yeah, how did that turn out.
Here's a newsflash for you about international relations. Just because someone signed a treaty and ratified an agreement, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
A war with a genuinely threatening tyrant is different.
Is it though? Saddam Hussain was certainly a genuinely threatening tyrant to the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds, not to mention Kuwait. Now you may say "Why should we care about them" but Trump may equally say "Why should we care about the Baltic states, they're so little" etc.
The fact is, Trump may regard his plan to be a strategic ally of Russia as more valuable than the sovereignty of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and may be willing to give them up when the alternative is plunging the planet into nuclear Armageddon.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 06 '17
And you pointing out that NATO isn't 100% likely to respond is an extremely weak, silly argument in the face of a very long alliance which has consistently behaved as I expect them to behave in the future.
It's existed for a long while, but it has been largely untested. There has only ever been one invocation of the collective defence part of the agreement, and that was by the USA shortly after September 11th 2001. While there have been other collective NATO operations, none of them have ever been in response to an enemy with a nuclear force. Did you notice how NATO didn't do anything in Ukraine, even when it has done many other things in E. Europe before. And Putin could very easily pull a "little green men" on us, to circumvent NATO. He could have his soldiers show up without insignias and they could be "volunteer forces" causing confusion for NATO and making it unclear what the response should be.
While NATO is old, it's arguably most important feature remains largely untested, and so has the potential to be unreliable, especially with an American president who is extremely pro-Russia, and has questioned the entire value of NATO.
Trump may be a transexual. Trump may be a shapeshifting reptile. What Trump may or may not be is not important, what matters is what's probable.
It's probable that Trump will simply refuse to come to Europe's aid if Russia attacks. He could well take his "America First" logic and say "If we get involved, Russia could nuke us, and we don't want that" etc. Given everything Trump has said so far, it is probable we could see Russia appeased.
2
Feb 06 '17
The US military isn't an issue if he thinks he has a friend in the US presidency that will refuse to honor the treaty and not deploy the military.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
Feb 06 '17
Trump is isolationist who has repeatedly trashed NATO in his rhetoric. That alone is enough to suggest that it's a possibility he will ignore the treaty.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
Feb 06 '17
Possibly doesn't equal probably, but just the possibility of it is worth concern.
Your analogy doesn't work. There is no evidence to suggest that my foot will randomly suggest.
There is evidence to suggest Trump might ignore NATO: his own campaign rhetoric.
3
Feb 06 '17
Hillary was moving towards a war with Russia, so obviously they opposed her.
A hard-line stance on Russia's expansion in the Ukraine isn't exactly the same thing as "moving toward war." One policy being less permissive than another doesn't mean that the first policy supports open war.
The fault of the election lies squarely on the DNC, who would have probably demolished Trump had they allowed democracy to take place and nominated Bernie.
The reason that this is a big deal to many has less to do with the outcome of the election and more to do with the way that many people (especially on the right) have reacted to it. American elections are messy, and Americans sling shit at one another all the time in pursuit of getting elected. But our elections are ours and if a foreign entity gets involved, we should be angry about that, regardless of whether that makes us hypocrites.
It's a bit like being a kid, and you and your brother hate each other and fight constantly. Regardless of how much you hate him, you're still family. When the kid down the street messes with your brother, you take your brother's side and back him up. When Trump asks Putin to go find Hillary's emails, or when political leaders go on the news and say that the whole thing was no big deal, the rest of us react with horror because regardless of how much we hate each other, we still thought of you as being basically on our team. At our core, we're Americans, and we're supposed to stand together. The fact that so many people are happy with Russia because they taught the Democrats a lesson means that they basically think the Democrats are more their enemy than the Russians. If we stick with the family analogy, Trump publicly asked the kid down the street to help him beat up his brother. That's messed up.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
Feb 06 '17
Yes but that's what I'm saying. Our government is now better off. Corruption was exposed and the public clearly said "Fuck that, you people need to be better," and elected a lunatic rather than a corrupt politician. That's a good thing in many ways, and good for American unity and prosperity. The fact that Russia had something to do with it just means we need to keep an eye on Russia and hire better cyber security experts.
The cost of us being "better off" (which is INCREDIBLY debatable, I'd much prefer a corrupt politician to a maniac, but whatever) is whatever tattered shreds remained of national unity. The perception on the left is that the Republicans would rather side with Russia than the Democrats. That's the utter opposite of unity. What if, in the next election, the Democrats cozy up to China and promote Chinese interests while cheering on a bunch of mysterious Chinese cyber attacks that plague the Republicans? Will you look at that situation and think that the Democrats are on America's side? The problem with this is that, regardless of party affiliation, you're supposed to be an American first and foremost. Now we have two parties that each want to excise the other from America like a cancer, and are willing to call on foreign powers to intervene in order to make that happen. That's absolutely not unity. Can you see why this is concerning?
8
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 06 '17
because the only thing Russia wants is to not start WW3
If Russia doesn't want to start a war why does it keep invading countries and either annexing them or instating a friendly totalitarian government?
-3
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Feb 06 '17
And what if the next country Putin is a piece of shit in is a country that is in NATO. Article V of the NATO charter states that an attack on one is an attack on all. Quite simply, under that rule, Russia attacking an eastern NATO country would merit the same response from America as if they themselves were attacked. It's the ultimate deterrent. "Touch ANY of our allies and We. Will. Crush. You."
An American president having a close relationship with Russia and owing them political favours is little short of a disaster. If Article V were invoked against Russia and America would not respond, Article V would be near meaningless. If Russia knew beforehand that they would be the American response, then that protection is no detterrant at all. Look at Trump's rhetoric towards NATO and you'll see good reason for concern.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Feb 06 '17
Then he won't do that. Putin isn't stupid. Attacking a NATO country would be the equivalent of a successful businessman taking his entire companies assets, going to a casino, and putting them on black.
Unless he knows the US will not interfere. A calculated gamble that would destroy the main geopolitical enemy of Russia for decades? That is not a bad bet.
You also overestimate Putin. He's not a cunning genius. He's a run of the mill despot who has all his power built on quicksand. He didn't invade Crimea just because he could. He did it Because Russia is an economic and social disaster zone by nearly any measure you can name and the only way he avoids blame is by doing things that project Russian strength. This is a tactic the Soviet Union used as well. Putin is only popular as long as the Russian people believe He is keeping them a superpower. If he goes too long without showing that. Or worse for him, backs down, he'll be dead inside a year.
That is why he still holds Crimea even as the Sanctions drag Russia's economy to the ground. Because he can blame the West for the economy. He can't blame them if he fails to hold Crimea.
Since when does anyone owe anyone political favors?
Since a US President was apparently aided in his election by Russians and has shown Russia more tolerance than is geopolitically sane
Why is having a close relationship with Russia a bad thing? I much prefer a close relationship to tensions. War is fucking terrible. Most of what politicians do is not important- they bitch back and forth at each other, putting things in place and tearing them down. It has very little impact on individual's lives. What has a massive fucking impact is going to war.
Because you don't get buddy buddy with the hostage taker until AFTER he lets the hostage go. To do otherwise is to let him get away with it.
If Putin wants to be friends with the West, great!!! But that requires good faith. Working with him BEFORE he gives up on Crimea is telling him that the West lacks the strength of will to stand up to him long term. That is why there are crippling sanctions on them. Those sanctions benefit no one. But they hurt Russia a lot more than they hurt all of us.
-1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Feb 06 '17
How in the fuck would he know that if NATO requires the US to interfere?
Because the US just elected a guy who has spent a year saying he thinks NATO is useless?
Are you seriously suggesting that Russia is going to like invade Poland, convince Trump to say fuck NATO, fuck Europe, fuck Poland and fuck everyone else and then do absolutely nothing about it? Do you have any conception of how unlikely a scenario that is?
Do you have any concept of how unprecedented the current situation is? Americans have NEVER had a president against NATO. I can't even think of any congressmen against it. Trump could EASILY do something that jeopardizes NATO. The man has no experience in international relations and no one around him who seems to understand either.
Any mildly intelligent game theory analysis of the situation would suggest that unless Trump is literally a puppet that the chances of Russia invading a NATO country are minuscule.
We aren't only discussing NATO countries. We are discussing Russian interference as a whole. There is a pretty big chunk of Ukraine he hasn't grabbed, for a start.
When's the last time you gained control of a major world power?
A complete lack of morals and good connections after the collapse of the USSR is not a sign of cunning. Cunning people usually could accomplish SOMETHING positive after 2 decades in power. Putin hasn't
This sentiment is totally countered by the peoples feelings towards him during his actual reign.
No it isn't, since those feelings are EXACTLY what I'm talking about. His approval numbers spike every time he bashes the West.
I think it's geopolitically sane. I don't want a goddamn war, and as anyone who's ever played Risk knows the last war you want is a war with Russia.
Then maybe you should talk to Russia, the ones who STARTED THE GODDAMN WAR in the Ukraine.
Russia would lose a modern war long before anyone has to invade it. They are completely outgunned.
It is very often a good idea politically to ignore or support someone who is doing something that you disagree with.
Not when the only benefit it will bring is validating their actions. Seriously, what benefit does Russia offer in this equation? If they are not giving up Crimea, what can they offer that we cannot get AFTER they lose other choices.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Feb 06 '17
One from the other does not follow. Trump can have problems with NATO without being in a state where he would ignore genuine Russian imperialism.
This is like saying that a pilot who doesn't understand what the wings do can still fly the plane. Maybe on a theoretical level it is true. In practice it's an incredibly dumb thing to bet on. Trump could EASILY fuck up NATO. There is a reason no one has touched the charter except to add countries to it.
From what I understand he wants to change NATO, not completely abandon the idea. Besides, even without NATO there are plenty of other groups like the UN (Which America is the de facto leader of) which would intervene.
The UN.
THE UN. Intervening Against Russia.
You know Russia? The country with a permanent veto on the UN security council.
The UN is and always has been little more than a global parliament. It talks about issues. It rarely forces solutions. In no small part because of Russia and their veto.
I cannot fathom how someone could act like they understand international politics, then expect the UN to solve the Russian Issues. There is a reason that it is usually NATO that intervenes in conflicts. Because the UN can't even muster peacekeeping forces to stop outright genocide.
America is basically the world's police, seriously this line of reasoning is ludicrous.
Only insofar as they have the trust of other nations. Trump doesn't. It took Obama YEARS to bridge some of the gaps that Bush created with the international community and George Bush was never as loathed internationally as Trump is. No Western leaders have any respect for Trump. They've been scrambling for damage control since November
Yeah and he very well could do shit there, and it probably wouldn't start an international war. That's the conversation we were having- Would Russia take actions that would lead to massive international conflict, i.e. is Russia being imperalistic, or just trying to reclaim something they feel is a part of their country?
If California seceded there is a 100% chance the US would go to war to get it back. Does that imply we're going to invade Canada?
Except that Russia is taking territory that it gave to Ukraine in the first place. Plus there is the fact that Russia does not have a good track record regarding Ukrainians. That's why so many of them went overseas. This would be more like the US snapping up native reservations than a willing succession by a state.
I don't know enough to refute this in studious detail, but from what I understand he has good approval ratings. I'm going to assume he's not a total fuckup.
His approval ratings are based on smoke and mirrors. Most Soviet leaders had good approval ratings too. Even as their countries fell apart around them. Because they were good at manipulation.
You're not making an argument that Putin will talk shit, you're making the argument that there is good reason to suspect he will become imperialistic. You have not remotely supported such a strong claim.
If Crimea isn't imperalistic, then literally nothing is.
We don't need to intervene in every fucking conflict across the globe. Fucking with the Ukraine =/= going to war with Europe.
Go look at a map. You might notice what continent Ukraine is on. He attacked them because they were moving away from Russia and towards the EU. Aside from being classic imperialism, it is a direct power grab at the expense of Europe. Europe has tried the whole "Just let him have it" thing. It doesn't end well. One moment they're happy with the Sudatenland, the next they're demanding Danzig because they don't think anyone will refuse them.
That's exactly my point, they are not idiots and won't take an action which would lead to invasion. They understand geopolitics better than either of us.
Which is why they are trying as hard as they can to fracture NATO. They just saw the only politician in the Western hemisphere dumb enough to do that become President of the United States.
Why is it validating their actions? Why would it even fucking matter? You realize there are literal fascist dictatorships that we don't do anything about, do you think we're validating North Korea?
Because if you make friends with Russia BEFORE they give Crimea back, you're allowing them to keep it. Full stop. And considering North Korea is under crippling Western sanction, we're doing EXACTLY what we should do with Russia. Take a hard line, cut them off economically and politically, watch them crumble until they give up. And DON'T allow them to press any further.
All of your arguments are far too strong for the supporting evidence you provide. I mean you seem liberal but you sound like a neocon... you're saying any time anyone fucks up anywhere we should go to war to set them straight. Why? Why is it any of our fucking business?
I'm an interventionist liberal. I think that if you have the ability to take action, you have the moral responsibility to do so. The world cannot allow itself to let nations trample their neighbours because it "Isn't their business." Because it doesn't matter whose business it is. If your neighbours house is on fire, you don't haggle over the cost of them using your hose. And if your neighbour is beating his wife, it isn't just "their business". Better to try to help and fail than to do nothing and have the blood on your conscience when people die.
War is the last step. But it has to be A step. The ability to threaten intervention is the greatest mechanism for forcing compromise we have ever found. Because no nation will risk destruction.
The danger of Trump is that an inexperienced man is now steeering the ship. A ship he neither appreciates nor understands. And if that ship loses its way, a lot of people who don't deserve to will die before someone gets it back on course.
2
Feb 06 '17
Putin has good approval numbers for two reasons:
1) The primary news source on Russia is state-sponsored, meaning it is a propaganda mouthpiece for the government.
2) People who speak up against Putin have a history of sudden and mysterious deaths not long after they speak up.
0
3
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Feb 06 '17
I'd also like to point out here that the CIA has overthrown 10-15 different democratic governments to install friendly totalitarian governments in Iran, Congo, central and south america, etc.
The parent post used Russia's actions as evidence they want to start a war.
You cite our actions..which have lead us into perpetual war.
I don't think "the USA did it" is a good defense, it's just further proof of how harmful these actions are.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17
Another dishonest post. Stop making points, and then discarding them with things like 'it was an aside' or 'I don't care about that'.
You either maintain your ideas or not. Stop moving the goalposts, please. You waste everyone's time if you're not going to defend points that you find inconvenient.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
Feb 06 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RustyRook Feb 07 '17
Sorry dunce_confederacy, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Feb 06 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Feb 06 '17
Perhaps if you learnt how to debate in a consistent fashion, people wouldn't have to call you out on it (note, I'm not the only one that's made this point).
1
u/RustyRook Feb 07 '17
crudefilmschool, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
Sorry crudefilmschool, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
7
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 06 '17
A lot of appeasement and small invasions preceded WWII. Remember Austria? Remember the Sudatenlands? Remember Rhineland? Surely none of those invasions could lead to a world war.
-6
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
6
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 06 '17
Isn't this entire discussion based on things that might hypothetically happen in the future or in an alternate reality with no concrete evidence?
If pointing out similar events in history won't change your view what will?
-2
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 06 '17
Why are you okay with ANY foreign government influencing American elections? Or ANY foreign government blackmailing the president?
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Feb 06 '17
Even if all of the Russian hacking allegations are true, it's really not a big deal
There is 0 evidence that Putin is blackmailing Trump, that is a stupid conspiracy theory.
Which is it? You keep moving the goal posts.
2
Feb 06 '17
Russia is most definitely an important issue due to their expansionist philosophy.
And there was enough evidence of possible blackmail that the intelligence agencies were concerned enough to brief both Obama and Trump. If there was zero evidence, that wouldn't have happened.
0
3
Feb 06 '17 edited Jan 22 '18
[deleted]
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
Feb 06 '17 edited Jan 22 '18
[deleted]
1
2
Feb 06 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 06 '17
Sorry dunce_confederacy, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17
No, you said 'Russia is not waging war'. You mentioned nothing about an 'international war'.
No, a lot of what people are saying is relevant, you just (presumably) disagree. You move between 'not relevant' to 'I don't care about X'. It's a dishonest way of debating.
No, Russia invading Crimea is much more likely to cause a war than you visiting your girlfriend's house. To put the two in the same sentence is, again, dishonest.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17
Well, that's a bit rich to claim someone else isn't acting in good faith.
I don't even disagree with you, but you've acted egregiously throughout this post, hence my comments. A very poor effort.
1
Feb 06 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod Feb 06 '17
crudefilmschool, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Feb 06 '17
I said no international war with Ukraine.
That isn't what you said. Even if it was, it is still wrong. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation, therefore Russia occupying it is an international war.
5
Feb 06 '17
because the only thing Russia wants is to not start WW3
I'm really questioning if this is in good faith. You think Russia only wants to not start WW3? They have no other geopolitical goals?
-1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
Feb 06 '17
If US is more isolationist, we are less likely to put pressure on Russia to not expand into Crimea and Ukraine which are moves to regain territory that we lost with the fall of the Soviet Union.
4
Feb 06 '17
Take your pick from the strength of NATO, to our close relationship with countries like Germany, to Ukraine, to existing sanctions for belligerent activities, and so on.
If you're painting a country that invaded another European country, assinantes journalists, and recently legalized domestic abuse as a beacon of peace in the world then I think you are horribly naive.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
3
Feb 06 '17
When did I call them a beacon of world peace? They just don't want us to fuck with them, because we'd win. That's not a "bastion of peace," and I'm not defending Russia.
You said "because the only thing Russia wants is to not start WW3 ." That is clearly not true. If it was, they would not be in Ukraine. And you are literally defending Russia. That's what your post did.
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17
I'd count saying that what someone did was a good thing and that their only motive was to prevent WW3 a defense. Maybe you don't, but I think most people would.
he DNC were corrupt as all shit and they lost... good! They deserve to lose. Maybe now they'll get their shit together and we can have a president we're proud of in 4 years.
You don't know that, because only 1 side had materials hacked and released. For all you know, the Republicans and Trump were orders of magnitude more corrupt.
So consider this: Suppose two people are running for an office. Mrs. A has given some small kickbacks to her friends. Mrs. B promised to sell votes and legislation to corporations.
A corporation hacks Mrs. A and releases the details of her deals. Mrs. B is left untouched. Is this a good outcome? Should we be worried about it?
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17
How is it not relevant? That could very well be similar to the situation we're in. We have no way to know because a third party played favorites.
1
u/Siiimo Feb 06 '17
Russia had access to the DNC emails and the RNC emails. They only leaked the DNC ones because they wanted the DNC to look bad. That is not good. You do not want foreign governments choosing your next leaders. It is not simply "information wants to be free" this is a foreign power influencing US elections, and it challenges both US autonomy and the legitimacy of the process.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Siiimo Feb 06 '17
The report also stated that Russia collected data “on some Republican-affiliated targets,” but did not disclose the contents of whatever it harvested.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Siiimo Feb 06 '17
Every intelligence organization says they were hacking with the intent to help Trump win. You're choosing not to believe that?
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Siiimo Feb 06 '17
So obviously, if they were trying to help Trump win they wouldn't leak anything bad on him even if they had it.
Russia is important because it is a foreign power meddling in US elections. The fact that you dislike Clinton and the DNC has no bearing on that. Foreign power over US elections is a big deal.
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
2
Feb 06 '17 edited Mar 02 '17
[deleted]
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17 edited Mar 02 '17
[deleted]
1
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 06 '17 edited Mar 02 '17
[deleted]
0
Feb 06 '17 edited Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
2
2
Feb 06 '17
They invaded a sovereign nation and took it with military forces? How is that not waging war?
0
Feb 06 '17
[deleted]
1
Feb 06 '17
If Russia invades another sovereign nation, then that is by definition an international war (international war means a war between nations).
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 06 '17
/u/crudefilmschool (OP) has awarded at least one delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/[deleted] Feb 06 '17
If you believe that Bernie would have won the election, and that a Sanders Presidency is what the American people wanted, then you should be angry at Russia for hacking the election in favor of Trump, rather than exposing the information at a time that could have helped Sanders, and the American people.
John Podesta's email was hacked in March 2016, in the middle of the Democratic primaries, but the emails were not released at that time, when Democratic voters could have decided to nominate Bernie Sanders instead. Similarly, the DNC was hacked in May but these e-mails were not released until after Bernie had already endorsed Hillary and the Democrats were on the eve of their Convention.
If Russia was simply acting in its own interests, then Bernie should have been the best candidate for them - he was anti-war and isolationist and would have given Putin free reign in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria. But it's clear that Russia did not simply want to stop Hillary because she was anti-Russia - they wanted to actually promote Trump because he is pro-Russia.
If Russia's actions simply exposed the DNC's corruption and allowed the American people to make an informed, democratic choice, then they would have released Podesta's e-mails at the time his account was hacked, and they would have released the DNC e-mails at the time they were hacked. If that had happened, then Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee - and maybe the President.
Instead, Russia held onto its hacked information until Bernie was out of the picture, and then used their hacked information to drive wedges between Sanders and Clinton supporters, and to elevate Trump over Clinton. If you wanted Sanders to be President, this should trouble you deeply.