Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Only other thing I'm going to say on the subject is that if the whole system is fragile enough to be put on end by a few people openly and legally put in a position to simply watch, then I question relying on it at all.

I'd still say even if we could trust the word of the government that the hacking is Russia's doing, I honestly think they're doing us a favor. If our politicians are so security lax, and so openly corrupt as to put their plans in writing. They need to be exposed. They need to have it proven to them that what they're doing is wrong on every level and needs to stop.

Do I think Putin is any angel of democracy either? Hell no. But don't look a gift horse in the mouth. And don't make any sort of personal fight(And this is personal given that it's targeted at Clinton and the DNC which is NOT a part of the government, as has been said) a political issue that affects the whole country.

[Reelya]

Russian intelligence.

Do you have a citation for that? all the sources I can see say that he got payments from the party he was supporting in Ukraine. Or is it "party in Ukraine = Russian intelligence" automatically.

I can find a link that says the interpreter Manafort relied on might had a background at the tail end of the Cold War as a translator in the USSR army's intelligence division. And they speculate that this comprimises Trump. But that guy was young - only 19 when the Berlin Wall came down, and has been working for US NGOs since he left the army in the the early 1990s, so it's basically pure speculation to say he must be a KGB spy, despite literally zero evidence of KGB connections.

I mean, if an American trained as a translator in an army intelligence unit, the quit to work as a translator with an NGO, and someone later said "he much have CIA connections" we'd realize how dumb that sounds. Yet, say the same thing for a Russian, and people just assume he must be a KGB master spy, no other evidence required.

[mainiac]

all the sources I can see say that he got payments from the party he was supporting in Ukraine.

He received off the books payments from a party run by a man who had a ring of corruption that implicated all high level members of the party.  This man is now wanted for corruption everywhere but Russia.  This man is currently living in luxury in Russia.  Yanukovych was a Russian surrogate and he was paying Manafort.

Maybe it was some other part of the Russian government that was running an illicit operation in Ukraine.  But somebody in Russia was bribing somebody in Ukraine and Montefort is implicated in the corruption.

[alway]

I'd still say even if we could trust the word of the government that the hacking is Russia's doing, I honestly think they're doing us a favor. If our politicians are so security lax, and so openly corrupt as to put their plans in writing. They need to be exposed. They need to have it proven to them that what they're doing is wrong on every level and needs to stop.

And what if what they're doing isn't wrong? What if all there is to find is risotto recipes? And what if that isn't good enough for the perpetrators of the criminal hackings? See, here's the thing: there have been modifications made to "leaked" files. Doing so is easy and can trivially be done without a trace.

"Evidence" from Putin is no more reliable than "evidence" from a random internet troll with an agenda. Believing information from such leaks is as suspect as believing whole-hog a tale spun by any other internet conspiracy monger. All it takes is slipping in false evidence of some act of debauchery and morons who see the word leak take it as gospel and will spread it like wildfire. It doesn't matter if it gets debunked, because it's been shown most people don't care. Emails about Clinton funneling billions into a Caribbean slush fund could be invented and leaked tomorrow. Emails about underage orgies. Emails about taking bribes. Just slip them into a batch of "leaked" information a week before the election, and it's done. And you would believe every word of it.

[Reelya]

Yeah, but Mainiac, you clearly don't actually have evidence for what you said about "payments from Russian intelligence" that went to Manafort. Now, you're backtracking and adding indirect links, and "maybes". So how can I take your overall argument at face value?

Another possibililty is that Manafort was paid for work that he legitimately did for the party in Ukraine. Campaigns cost money to produce. They clearly didn't just give him $12 million to just put in his pocket - he operated an entire election campaign for them including media and staff with that money.

The very real possibility is that Manafort provided legitimate campaign work, but they stole the money they used to pay him from the taxpayers, rather than pay it out of party funds. If that's the case, they could have been corrupt, but he actually did the work that he was asked to do. After all, they didn't just give him tons of money coz they liked his pretty face.

[mainiac]

Yeah, but Mainiac, you clearly don't actually have evidence for what you said about "payments from Russian intelligence" that went to Manafort. Now, you're backtracking and adding indirect links, and "maybes". So how can I take your overall argument at face value?

Sure, I'll backtrack the word "intelligence".  It should have been the word "government".

Wow!  You sure are establishing that the ring of corruption from a foreign government was exactly the same thing as publicly disclosed contracts.

[Reelya]

Manafort was running an election campaign. Election campaigns cost shitloads of money to run. So that kind of explains why they'd be providing Manafort with large sums of money. And he was from a background in US elections, which are all about throwing money around, so he's not a "shoestring" guy.

Perhaps he didn't control how they raised the funds to pay for the campaign. They could have appropriated the money and paid him off the books, because they were paying him with other peoples money. That's bad, but it doesn't directly implicate him in wrongdoing, actually. You need more evidence than that.

[UXLZ]

The 1960's called. You're infringing on their turf.

@Mainiac, you seem to have exactly as much evidence for this as I have about Clinton's awfulness. Potentially even less.

[UXLZ]

Honestly I don't see why the US can't just let the observers in and then make sure no funny business happens...

But then again, transparency is anathema to your government, and the two presidential candidates in particular.

[mainiac]

@Mainiac, you seem to have exactly as much evidence for this as I have about Clinton's awfulness. Potentially even less.

I'm talking about things that are under current criminal investigations which interpol thinks are legit.

You are not.

Honestly I don't see why the US can't just let the observers in and then make sure no funny business happens...

Man, that must suck for you that you cant see it.

[Reelya]

I'm talking about things that are under current criminal investigations which interpol thinks are legit.

Mainiac, you know who else is being investigated over Ukraine, right?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump-ukraine/

The probe is also examining the work of other firms linked to the former Ukrainian government, including that of the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations company run by Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Ah, so the brother of Clinton's campaign chairman is also being investigated over the Ukraine thing. It's important to get the full range of facts, isn't it?

[mainiac]

So just to clarify, you were thinking it was bullshit before but now that we add one more degree of separation you think it's legit?

[UXLZ]

Actually it's more along the lines of "the US is incompetent because it can't guarantee that a small group of Russians won't massively influence their election."

Hell, by being so worried about the Russians doing it, it makes it clear that the system is extremely insecure and awful... Perhaps even to the extent that a certain unnamed candidate could massively influence it themselves, given that they're (A) already be inside the system, (B) have support from inside the system, (C) extremely influential within the system and thus have a much higher likelihood of being able to do so than the Russians ever could. 

[Reelya]

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that you're being selective about what you cite, and assuming an investigation = guilt.

Manafort being under investigation is no more proof of wrongdoing than Podesta.

By stating "I'm talking about things that are under current criminal investigations which interpol thinks are legit", and selectively applying this to Manafort, but not Podesta, you're indulging in confirmation bias and appeal to authority. It's basically name-dropping Interpol rather than having any evidence.

Also, the Manafort->Putin thing via Yakunovich is Association Fallacy, without some linking evidence.

[mainiac]

Manafort being under investigation is no more proof of wrongdoing than Podesta.

Then Podestas BROTHER.  There you go again.  You start saying a sentence and then you leave out important context.

You are about as trustworthy as a Russian election observer.

By stating "I'm talking about things that are under current criminal investigations which interpol thinks are legit"

No, it was because he compared it to the Clinton scandals.  Specifically it was about the reason for SUSPICION.  Once again you lie by omitting the context.  I gotta ask, what is in this for you?  Why are you desperately trying to find a way to twist my words like this?  You think I'm going to be convinced by you lying about things that I just said?