US Election 2020

[Tero]

It’s fine, the internet, as long as you don’t go wandering past Wikipedia and footnotes therein, for your information.

[Forty Two]

Hacking for the noble cause: destroy BIG GOVERNMENT! Government must be removed from our lives. Except from inside the uterus, they have jurisdiction there.

"[T]he sonofabitching thief [Daniel Ellsberg] is made a national hero and is going to get off on a mistrial, and the New York Times gets a Pulitzer Prize for stealing documents...What is the name of God have we come to?"

--President Richard Nixon (Oval Office discussion, May 11, 1973)

Time was, being liberal meant being in favor of truthful, but damaging, information about our government and government officials, being outed, come what may.

[Forty Two]

I think the anonymity of the Internet is largely a mistake.

If you're impersonating a Frenchman while lambasting French politicians I'd like to see you exposed as a fraud.

What if I'm not impersonating a Frenchman, but I'm just posting scurrilous memes about Marine Le Penn in the run-up to the next French election....

What if I am an Irishman, and I call Justin Trudeau and say that he had some serious dirt on his Tory opponent. Can Justin meet with me to see what dirt I have? What's his legal obligation? If Justin agrees to meet with me, has he done something illegal? Wrong?

[Forty Two]

I sometimes think the the internet itself is a mistake. Consider the impact it has had in 25 years or so and how more or less uncontrolled - or at least unplanned it and it’s consequences have been.

If the Galaxians of this world want a half way credible conspiracy to ponder it might be that.

The biggest problem with the internet today is that the large media companies have figured out how to control it. They are locking down youtube as we speak. They already have it so that youtube filters search results not so much now based on popularity and views/subscribers --- you do a search for something on youtube, and you'll start seeing little viewed CNN garbage coming up first, and then the non-traditional youtuber in his home, with 100+ videos at 10 million views each will be three pages in. They're limiting searches and locking down what is permitted.

[Seabass]

Hacking for the noble cause: destroy BIG GOVERNMENT! Government must be removed from our lives. Except from inside the uterus, they have jurisdiction there.

"[T]he sonofabitching thief [Daniel Ellsberg] is made a national hero and is going to get off on a mistrial, and the New York Times gets a Pulitzer Prize for stealing documents...What is the name of God have we come to?"

--President Richard Nixon (Oval Office discussion, May 11, 1973)

Time was, being liberal meant being in favor of truthful, but damaging, information about our government and government officials, being outed, come what may.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Putin is a Whistleblower

The Special Counsel is a Witch Hunt

[Rum]

For now at least, you can find the stuff you want at smaller sites. One doesn’t have to use YouTube, or for that matter any of the biggies, though they are the ones that draw the mass users. The internet is still more or less anybody’s if you know how to use it that way, using VPNs, the dark web and the like.

My issue really was about the way, without anyone being consulted - though of course I’m not sure how we might have been - the internet has transformed so much, from news consumption, to shopping and even personal communications, even quite possibly some of the wiring in the brains of younger people. Even the ability to check what the capital of Uzbekistan is on your phone instantly in the middle of a conversation has questionable value considering it will immediately be forgotten (for example).

My son sent me a picture on messenger two days ago. He and his wife were in New York for a holiday. I didn’t even know they were out of the country and there was the pic of them in Times Square taken seconds earlier. I’m not sure I need that sort of thing in my life.

/endgrumpyoldfart.

[Sean Hayden]

I think the anonymity of the Internet is largely a mistake.

If you're impersonating a Frenchman while lambasting French politicians I'd like to see you exposed as a fraud.

What if I'm not impersonating a Frenchman, but I'm just posting scurrilous memes about Marine Le Penn in the run-up to the next French election....

What if I am an Irishman, and I call Justin Trudeau and say that he had some serious dirt on his Tory opponent. Can Justin meet with me to see what dirt I have? What's his legal obligation? If Justin agrees to meet with me, has he done something illegal? Wrong?

If you're not impersonating a Frenchman, then you're not impersonating a Frenchman.


There's Dr. Laura who studied fat pads on rat testicles, and there's Dr. Laura the psychologist. I'm glad we know which is real, and that others can always find out. It's important.


As for calling about dirt, shame on you, take that shit to the press or to the relevant authorities if necessary. What are you, an 80s bad guy?

[Sean Hayden]

[Jason]

Shit! It's Brad again! Did that guy go to the same school of acting as David Mitchell?

[Sean Hayden]

--fucking Brad.

[Tero]

Better and better. She would match the pompous wordiness of 42 very well in a debate:

On Republicans being cozy with Russia: "There is a big battle over where the Democratic convention will be held," she started, "It's between Houston, Miami and Milwaukee. The GOP also has a dilemma — they're trying to decide between Moscow and Minsk."

On Kavanaugh: "All I know is, if the election [hers] ends up before the Supreme Court. I'm gonna count Brett Kavanaugh as a no."

On her campaign announcement during a snowstorm: "As you all know, I am now officially running for President of the United States. You probably saw my announcement in my permanent snow globe. And yes, I'm the first candidate whose motorcade was led by a Zamboni.

On her campaign tactics: "In the end, how can I lose? My campaign will combine the short, peppy speeches of Joe Biden, the common touch of Mike Bloomberg, the collegiality of Ted Cruz, and the chipper, upbeat personality of Bernie Sanders."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/02/politics ... index.html

[Tero]

Good move, I’d like to take Wisconsin off my shit list
https://www.kios.org/post/2020-democrat ... 16-stumble

[Woodbutcher]

I sometimes think the the internet itself is a mistake. Consider the impact it has had in 25 years or so and how more or less uncontrolled - or at least unplanned it and it’s consequences have been.

If the Galaxians of this world want a half way credible conspiracy to ponder it might be that.

It used to be said that a lie is halfway around the world before truth gets its shoes on. It's easy to believe a lie. It's more work to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[L'Emmerdeur]

First, you might as well go back to claiming that the Democrats weren't hacked, or if they were, it wasn't the Russians.

I never claimed that. I wanted to see evidence.

You approvingly posted a link to an article on the conspiracist site 'Global Research': this one in which it is explicitly claimed that 'No Russian hacking occurred.' You also posted a link to another article which attempts to support the 'no hack, LEAK!!' conspiracy theory, using the supposed findings of an anonymous 'analyst.' That article is accurately described as 'incoherent' and the 'product of a crank,' but you unquestioningly cited it. I believe you've described the claim of Russian hacking as 'bullshit' as well. I was able to find the above after a very brief search, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it, but your profession that you merely 'wanted to see the evidence' is contradicted by posting crud that explicitly supports the 'no hacking' narrative.

This 'attempted hacking' schtick is perhaps even more ridiculous. At least you've got some voices on your side (albeit complete shitheads) with the 'No hack, LEAK!' line of nonsense. Trying to straddle from the world of conspiracy theorist gabbling and the world of accepted fact is rarely a workable tactic.

There is as much "evidence" made public about a leak as there is about a hack. You've not seen evidence, have you?

There has been no credible evidence produced which supports the leak narrative. You've repeatedly claimed that there is 'no evidence' that shows the Russian intelligence agencies were behind the hacking, finding various ways to dismiss and ignore the publicly available evidence of the private cybersecurity firms that shows just that.

Impersonating Americans and disseminating propaganda

Impersonating foreign persons, and disseminating information (propaganda or otherwise) doesn't seem like something I want governments to have the power to stop. One of the beauties of the internet has always been the anonymity -- and the ability to identify as whatever you want. I don't see what could possibly be illegal about me creating an account and saying I'm French, and posting insulting memes against Marine Le Pen in the run up to the French election. Do you?

This is disingenuous, Forty Two. We aren't discussing individuals playing around on the internet here. The topic is a concerted campaign on the part of one country to affect the outcome of the democratic process in another country. Care to address the genuine issue rather than your invented caricature?

and divisive commentary

Divisive commentary is free speech. One party's divisive commentary is another party's call for unity. There is nothing illegal about commenting in a way that calls for division. People have a right to want something other than unity. If I want to call for secession from the union, that's about as divisive as one can get - but, I think I have a right to be that divisive. And, if an Australian, Mexican or Russian wants the American southwest to secede and join Mexico, because they say they think Mexico got a raw deal in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, don't they have a right to be that divisive?

Again, disingenuous reframing of the issue. Your post is full of this, and you've been doing it repeatedly in this discussion. If you don't care to address the actual question, that's fine, but this discussion won't go forward until you do.

Do you see how your position is unworkable in the real world, and is a guarantee of arbitrary and capricious enforcement?

My position is that it is unacceptable for any country to use its intelligence agencies and their adjuncts (like the troll farm) to meddle in the democratic process of another country. You're free to disagree with that position. I don't think I've proposed any way of addressing the issue, let alone an 'unworkable' one.

Stealing information that can be used to the detriment of one candidate and distributing it via proxy while stealing information that is possibly detrimental to the other candidate and keeping it under wraps is interference as well.

Oh, o.k. - well, stealing is wrong. That's different than publishing views, of course. That's the distinction I'm making. As I said, the person who committed a crime by taking information and revealing it to the New York Times committed a crime and should have been prosecuted. The New York Times didn't do anything wrong, though, in publishing it. A la Pentagon Papers. Yet, that interfered the fuck out of American politics. What if the information was dropped off at the Times of London instead? It becomes foreign interference?

If the information had been given to the Soviet Union and selectively released by them or their proxies, that would be foreign interference in American politics.

The Russians were not doing the US any 'service,'

Of course not. They aren't in the business of doing us favors, unless it helps them. My comment in that regard - and you know this - was that revealing truthful, but damaging, information about a candidate to the public is a good thing -- because the alternative - keeping it secret - means we vote not knowing the bad shit the candidate did.

Selectively releasing damaging information about one candidate while withholding damaging information about another is not 'a good thing.' When Trump was lying to the American public about how he had no deals going on in Russia, the Russian government knew he was lying, but they kept quiet.

they were promoting Putin's favoured candidate, and doing their best to harm the prospects of the candidate he bears a marked animosity for.

By speaking, publishing and writing. Yes. I've already addressed the hacking. The speaking, publishing and writing cannot be made unlawful. The hacking yes. If the US wants to address lawful, but undesirable, conduct of the Russian government by diplomatic and geopolitical means, fine - but, that has nothing to do with the candidate that the foreign government is supporting, does it?

If the candidate or members of the candidate's campaign are involved in the work of the opposition government (by, for instance, supplying them with proprietary polling data) then 'nothing to do with the candidate' isn't an accurate description, is it?

Again, reverse the roles - if the Clinton camp got a call from that Russian lawyer lady and the lady said "hey, I have some serious dirt on Trump - he got blowjobs from hookers in the elevator in Moscow in 1996, and he stiffed them on payment, the cheap bastard -- and he won gambling money at a casino in Moscow and didn't declare it on his taxes..." -- if the clinton campaign said 'fuck yeah! get that info over here! Let's have a meeting and see whatcha got!" Has a wrong been committed by Clinton campaign?

Yes. I've cited the relevant US statute already. The spurious legal opinion and bafflegab you posted in response doesn't change the clear language of the statute.

It looks like just because you happen to share Putin's animosity, you choose to believe they did nothing wrong.

I have not said they did nothing wrong. I've said many times, hacking is wrong, and if they committed hacking, then that could very well, depending on the circumstances, rise to the level of an act of war. At a minimum, it's criminal. How is that "believing they did nothing wrong."

Also, lying is wrong - so they can publish lies and I think that would be wrong. But, publishing the truth is not wrong. And, publishing opinion is not wrong. Publishing lies, though, except in the context of fraud, is generally not illegal, and it's a wrong we just have deal with. I mean, if someone posts here that Trump never filed a tax return, that's false - but hardly unlawful, even if stated with the present intent to deceive.

So while the Russian government hacking was illegal and therefore wrong, their release of the damaging information they stole was just fine. Keeping damaging information about Trump quiet was also apparently just fine. OK then.

If a Russian "oligarch" had information that Trump really was Putin's bottom bitch and is a Russian asset, then wouldn't you want him to disclose that information? Shouldn't the public know about it?

You persist in equivocating. The Russians acted covertly; they chose surreptitious means to achieve their ends, interfering with an election. They didn't present any evidence in a straight-forward manner, and none of what they did reveal even came close to the level of treachery in your imaginary scenario. That's not the same thing as a Russian coming forward with relevant evidence and presenting it honestly.

It doesn't matter - it's not an equivocation. Their acting covertly is an issue, because if they committed a crime to get the information, then that should result in a prosecution or political retaliation/action by the US. But, if the oligarch simply had information, lawfully obtained, then releasing it by whatever means - surreptitious or otherwise - is not wrong. There is no requirement that information damaging to a candidate has to be released with good intentions.

There were at least two elements of equivocation in your hypothetical scenario. You (1) ignored the difference between disguising the source of information and presenting it in a straight-forward manner and (2) you chose to put the blame on the oligarch rather than the government. However, we know that pretty much any oligarch who still operates in Russia is under Putin's thumb.

What actions have we been discussing, Forty Two? Perhaps you can search your mind and come up with an honest response.

Can't you just answer a straight question.
The actions we have been discussing are:

1. hacking to get information
2. handing that information over to third parties for publication
3. Third parties publishing that information
4. posting internet memes and opinions with the intent to support donald trump, jill stein and bernie sanders, and some occasions even against donald trump, and even if in support of Hillary Clinton.

I've made my positions clear.

1. Illegal, criminal, prosecutable, depending on how severe, possibly an act of war, if proven.
2. illegal, criminal, prosecutable, depending on how severe, possibly an act of war, if proven.
3. Legal, and if the information is truthful, then it's beneficial to the electoral process. If false, then intentionally deceptive distribution is not cricket, although still probably legal.
4. Freedom of speech, regardless of primary or secondary intent, and as much the right of a foreign person as an American -- as an American, I like to be able to freely comment on foreign elections, too, and post whatever memes I like. If it's a government engaged in a concerted action, then that's a diplomatic matter.
5. Participation by the candidate or campaign in the US -- for 1 and 2, participation could very well be criminal if there was a conspiracy and an overt act - then with 4, however, just knowing about the information and being happy that it exists or is distributed, that can't be a crime.

Would you provide your view on each of those items?

That wasn't so hard, was it?

We more or less agree on 1 and 2. However, though perhaps your claim that they're 'acts of war' was merely rhetorical, I don't think it's supported by the legal definition of the term. The Russian government has no intention to provoke a war as far as I know, and neither of those actions would be likely to provoke a war.

As for 3, we again confront the issue of selective release of information. Assange appears to have been the willing stooge of the Russian government, but I agree that his publishing the information wasn't illegal. On the other hand Russia was by no means merely engaged in an honest delivery of relevant information.

Regarding 4, a Russian government supported campaign of disinformation and propaganda disguised as coming from American citizens is technically an exercise in free speech, but I consider it highly problematic at best. I would agree with a US government reprisal against such action through legal means such as sanctions. To borrow and modify your phraseology, the troll farm was engaged in acts of covert information warfare.

I never said they did a "service to America."

Right. You claimed that the Russian stand-in 'Mexicans' in your fairy tale did 'a service to America there, getting information out that is relevant.'

Sure, I didn't say they intended to do a service - I don't know what someone's subjective intent is - but, the release of truthful information is a good thing. That's the kind of service I was talking about. If it's something really nasty about Trump, I want foreign people to release that information. I'm not saying that justifies illegally stealing data, but if someone happens to have security footage of Trump pissing on hookers in the room Obama slept in, then I think that would be a service to us to have that released. It is a disservice to have it hidden or kept secret. Get it?

We aren't discussing intent here. Your claim was the the Russian proxy 'Mexicans' did a service to the US. I don't consider selective release of information to be any sort of service. It's an intentional attempt to meddle in the politics of another nation. See above.

Quite possibly hacking and other computer crimes. That wold be criminal, and possibly an act of war - as I have said more than once.

However, you don't believe they committed any crime, do you?

I suspect they probably did, but I don't know. It's quite possible. Certainly not out of character, and not beyond the capacity and willingness to undertake nefarious deeds of any government of which I am aware.

I don't "believe" things, as I'm not religious. I have not seen evidence, have you?

It seems to me that your position has evolved since we last discussed this question some months ago, and I think that's a good thing. You still refuse to accept that there's publicly available evidence, but, baby steps.

[Seabass]

Global Research? Another one? Where does he find this shit?!

Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories.[9][10][11][12]

In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of pro-Russian propaganda.

The Centre for Research on Globalization promotes a variety of conspiracy theories and falsehoods.[7][19][8][20][21][22][23] It has reported that the September 11 attacks were a false flag attack planned by the CIA,[2] that the United States and its allies fund al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and that Sarin Gas was not used in the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, which globalresearch.ca articles characterized as a false flag operation orchestrated by terrorists opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.[6][19] Other articles published on the site have asserted that the 7 July 2005 London bombings were perpetrated by the United States, Israel, and United Kingdom.[11] Chossudovsky has himself posted articles on the site which suggested that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset, and accusing the United States, Israel and Britain of plotting to conquer the world.[11] The Centre has also promoted the Irish slavery myth, prompting a letter by more than 80 scholars debunking the myth.[23]

According to PolitiFact, the Centre "has advanced specious conspiracy theories on topics like 9/11, vaccines and global warming."[8] Foreign Policy notes that the Centre "sells books and videos that 'expose' how the September 11 terrorist attacks were 'most likely a special covert action' to 'further the goals of corporate globalization.'"[20] A 2010 study categorized the website as a source of anti-vaccine misinformation.[21] The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab described it as "pro-Putin and anti-NATO".[24] The Jewish Tribune described the Centre as being "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial."[25] Writing for the New Republic, Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, Lecturer in Digital Journalism at the University of Stirling, describes the Centre's website as a "conspiracy site".[22]

In November 2017, The Globe and Mail reported that the Centre's website was "in the sights" of NATO information warfare specialists investigating "the online spread of pro-Russia propaganda and of disinformation." According to the Globe, NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom) believed that the site was playing a "key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed by the Kremlin" and the Syrian regime of Bashar Al-Assad. The report described the site as an "online refuge for conspiracy theorists" and suggested that NATO specialists viewed it as "a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media—as well as the North American and European public's trust in government and public institutions."[6] Asked to comment on the report, Chossudovsky responded through his lawyer, saying that the Centre did not have ties to pro-Russia or pro-Assad networks, was not "affiliated with governmental organizations" and did not benefit from their support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky


More here:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

Good lord, this one's pretty bad. So globalresearch.ca is sort of like a Canadian Infowars...