Was your vote in the 2016 elections meddled with?

@Lash,

So you would be ok with the DNC (or the N. Koreans) hacking the RNC, stealing their emails and selectively releasing documents to paint whatever picture they want as long as their goal somewhat aligns with yours?

The idea that you will withhold judgment on the hack until you see how the information is used seems strange. You don't know how the information is being used, only what is presented to you.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Thanks. I know my vote was counted and no one meddled with the results. I do believe the Russians, with the help of the Clinton Campaign, tried to put out propaganda against Trump, but that is the game of politics. Don't PAC"S do the same thing that we accuse "Russia" of doing? Putting out propaganda against political rivals?

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I don't see how you can group them with Snowden and Manning who observed wrong-doing first hand and took action at great personal risk.

Hold on here. Neither Snowden nor Manning observed any wrongdoing at all.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Breaking into the watergate offices by one campaign to spy on another isn’t protected behavior in my opinion. I do support both Snowden and Assange and Manning and other whistleblowers who want the people to know how their government is spending their money or lying to them.

They are anything but whistle-blowers. Unless "helping terrorists evade detection by law enforcement" and "helping dictators root out democracy advocates" counts as a form of whistle-blowing.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I’m fine with DNC and RNC releasing unaltered emails that reveal facts about political operatives and entities.

I’m not ok with anyone who uses the same emails for blackmail.

The ‘public service’ releases are different—to me—than personal profit.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Democrats lynched our President over nothing, and this should be grounds for outlawing the Democratic Party.

The Democrat party should be outlawed and banned because its activities, like CNN programming, can be shown to cause IQ reduction in people exposed to them. You can see that in the postings of some of the snowflakes and cheese eaters on this forum.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

The Russians broke into the DNC to spy and find information they could use to destabilize the US elections.

Stop Lying.

0 Replies

@Lash,

You approve of unfettered "altruistic" hacking but not evil hacking? How do you know what is being done? I assure you that if I were a hacker, I would be spinning everything I could in public and using whatever I could in private behind the scenes. One person's altruism is another person's personal profit. I think you are on a very slippery slope here condoning illegal conduct that embarrasses your opponents.

If it was Sander's campaign that was hacked by the Russians (or say the DNC) and embarrassing emails released, I doubt you would be so sanguine. There would be no moral difference between hacking Sanders, using it to publicly embarrass his campaign and privately develop strategies against him and what the Russians actually did to the DNC accept that if the DNC did such a thing, at least it wouldn't be an attack by a foreign power.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Do you believe that Russian hacking of the DNC and releasing of selected emails is acceptable?

According to Assange, it was not the Russian, but an insider of the DNC. It has not been proven who actually released the "hacked" emails to wikileaks.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

You approve of unfettered "altruistic" hacking but not evil hacking? How do you know what is being done? I assure you that if I were a hacker, I would be spinning everything I could in public and using whatever I could in private behind the scenes. One person's altruism is another person's personal profit. I think you are on a very slippery slope here condoning illegal conduct that embarrasses your opponents.

If it was Sander's campaign that was hacked by the Russians (or say the DNC) and embarrassing emails released, I doubt you would be so sanguine. There would be no moral difference between hacking Sanders, using it to publicly embarrass his campaign and privately develop strategies against him and what the Russians actually did to the DNC accept that if the DNC did such a thing, at least it wouldn't be an attack by a foreign power.

I will tell you that I do not approve of hacking anyone's e-mails and releasing them anywhere. I consider it theft and it should be punished. I believe that in a campaign you have to be able to communicate freely with others in your campaign without fear of it being released to the general public.

On the other hand, that is what encryption is for and maybe hire an IT staff of qualified people to keep your **** secure.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I will tell you that I do not approve of hacking anyone's e-mails and releasing them anywhere. I consider it theft and it should be punished. I believe that in a campaign you have to be able to communicate freely with others in your campaign without fear of it being released to the general public.

Then I think we are in agreement.

While Assange said he got the emails from a DNC insider, I'm with our intelligence services in saying it was the Russians. I haven't been briefed, but if Trey Gowdy and other Republicans say they're convinced, I'm pretty sure the evidence is solid. Based on that, I'm comfortable saying the Russians were "meddling" in our elections beyond just propaganda campaigns, in ways that are illegal. I can't point to a single vote to say that vote was swayed, but the Russians were definitely involved in ways they shouldn't have been and I find that unacceptable. I think every American regardless of political beliefs should find that unacceptable.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
No votes were meddled with (at least not directly). You don’t need to meddle with votes if you can color the information stream which people use to pick their votes. That’s the value of propaganda.
Freedom of Speech. If Russia wishes to pitch an argument to America's voters, they have just as much right to speak as anyone else.

I'm not sure it's Freedom of Speech when one country sets out to intentionally and surreptitiously alter the outcome of another country's political process. That's a singularly aggressive act for one sovereign country to take against another.

If Russia just had a web page which explained their displeasure with the US and our system of government, then I would consider that Freedom of Speech, but that's not what happened.

I think the reality of the situation is that we will never be able to stop anyone... individuals, corporations or countries from generating propaganda, especially in the Internet age. But I think Russia, and anyone else who tries this, needs to be held accountable for their actions.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I’d want to know if Sanders was in private who he projected to be in public. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t feel that way.

1 Reply

@Lash,

how do you know everything released is accurate? If I'd got Sanders' emails I could make him look like a right **** with some editing. Just leave enough real stuff to add verisimilitude along with all the donkey shagging and stealing from orphanages.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm not sure it's Freedom of Speech when one country sets out to intentionally and surreptitiously alter the outcome of another country's political process. That's a singularly aggressive act for one sovereign country to take against another.

If all they do is run political ads to try to sway the voters, that seems like speech to me.

1 Reply

@engineer,

There has been no real evidence released that shows Russia was behind the DNC email leak though.
On the other hand, Assange, the guy that posted the leak has said it wasn't Russia... What does Assange have to gain from that claim?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Experts can tell what was in the legitimate emails, and if the content was altered. You noticed the DNC didn’t argue with the authenticity of the emails.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Who listens to experts? People just follow their prejudices. How else could Trump get away with such blatant lies and claims of fake news? If you start denying stuff you only legitimise the criminal activity.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

How else could Trump get away with such blatant lies and claims of fake news?

Because everyone knows that the media is lying about him too.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I'm not sure it's Freedom of Speech when one country sets out to intentionally and surreptitiously alter the outcome of another country's political process. That's a singularly aggressive act for one sovereign country to take against another.
If all they do is run political ads to try to sway the voters, that seems like speech to me.

Political ads say “paid for by...”, that’s not what these said. Russia set out specifically to make the information look like it was coming from grass roots, Apple pie and baseball Americans with real opinions about something. It wasn’t. It was coming from a foreign county with an agenda.

0 Replies

Was your vote in the 2016 elections meddled with?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know