Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 147 posts

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#71

Post by concinds »

mejari wrote: post #37
toehead2000 wrote: post #13

So is this how US politics will be from now on? Every president spends their lame duck period doing everything possible to sabotage the next guy (if they're the other party)? I seem to recall GWB having a bit more decorum than Obama here but maybe I'm wrong. Is the political climate really more poisonous than ever or does it just seem that way?

What action has Obama done that can be seen as "sabotaging the next guy"?

Dershowitz has argued that Obama's Israel decision from just a few days ago constitutes just that. He went on a round of TV interviews to explain his view.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#72

Post by chroem- »

etchalon wrote: post #49
chroem- wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it was apparently convincing enough for the former DNC chair to lose her job, and for the subsequent DNC chair to be fired from her position at CNN. If you choose to ignore what happened, then that's your own perogative.

First, the former DNC chairwoman was going to lose her job anyway. The DNC chair position alternates every four years. She was "fired" early to make peace with Sanders, who believed (correctly) that DWS favored Clinton. It was a move to give unity to the party, and possibly to get Sanders endorsement. It's hard to say for certain what would have happened if they hadn't. Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Po…

That is a post-hoc rationalization and you know it. DWS was forced to step down amid a firestorm, not voluntarily "to give unity to the party." The same goes for Brazile. The claim that "they could have figured out the answer anyway" doesn't make up for the dishonesty in cheating during the debates.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#73

Post by DrScump »

pavlov wrote: post #45
concinds wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

The same YouGov poll shows that 46% of Trump voters believe the inane "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory is true: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/am... That is a scary example of what we can look forward to. Now that people don't believe in "mainstream" journalism, they'll latch on to wild speculations with no actual research or journalistic ethics. That is net loss for the truth, no matter how m…

The exact quote is:

"On the other hand, nearly half of Trump supporters give at least some credence to the Pizzagate rumors. In contrast, 57% of Clinton voters say that is definitely not true (some, however, answered that it could be true),"

Putting aside the fact that this is shortly after "Pizzagate" was first widely reported and therefore a topic of broad discussion (of whatever quality) at the time...

... the contrast is that "nearly half" of Trump supporters give "at least some credence", as opposed to 43% of Clinton supporters. At most, that a whopping 6 percentage point difference. This is news?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#74

Post by matt4077 »

zigzigzag wrote: post #63
VikingCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we should all probably ignore YouGov, as it has fairly low credibility. Second, it's alarming to watch people on YCombinator not acknowledge that almost always, the best way to hack a system is social engineering. And if you combine actual hacking of people at the top of a political party, with social engineering, it's really not a stretch to call that "election hacking." Sure, it's a little bit sensationalist…

Why does YouGov have low credibility? My sense is the opposite: they were the only polling company to get accurate results in important recent votes.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#75

Post by dmoy »

serf wrote: post #22
cglouch wrote: post #9

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual election / voting process was hacked, which as far as I know did not happen. Perhaps "election-related hacking" would be more accurate. I don't mean to say the DNC and other such hacks weren't a big deal, but I worry that people who just read titles are getting th…

NYT is a media outlet that requires additional personal scrutiny, espescially with regards to any active U.S. government talking points. I'm not the biggest Chomsky fan, but I feel a lot of his opinion about NYT [0] are probably right on. [0]: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_ti...

Similar to that Chomsky criticism is Robert Fisk's constant railing on LA Times (and others') constant use of "US government sources say".

Anything that comes after such a phrase needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#76

Post by rqebmm »

vetinari wrote: post #32
empath75 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That report is due in january.

So keep the accusations private until you can present the evidence together with the accusations. Otherwise, it is you massaging the public opinion and the report won't matter anyway.

There's already public evidence. Circumstantial evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#77

Post by delinka »

pavlov wrote: post #45
concinds wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy o…

The same YouGov poll shows that 46% of Trump voters believe the inane "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory is true: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/am... That is a scary example of what we can look forward to. Now that people don't believe in "mainstream" journalism, they'll latch on to wild speculations with no actual research or journalistic ethics. That is net loss for the truth, no matter how m…

"...wild speculations with no actual research or journalistic ethics."

Which is often what "mainstream journalism" offers. So how do we get back to Ethics in Journalism when what we have is driven by number of visitors?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#78

Post by finid »

golergka wrote: post #35
finid wrote: post #19

So 35 Russian diplomats have been given 72 hours to leave the country, and 2 of their properties will be closed - one in DC and the other in San Francisco. Well, if history is any guide, expect Russia to return the favor. Question is, how long will they wait before announcing that 35 American diplomats have 72 hours to leave Russia?

Why would americans bother with such big diplomatic presence in Russia to begin with?

Because many are spies, just as many of the 35 Russian diplomats are.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#79

Post by VikingCoder »

zigzigzag wrote: post #63
VikingCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we should all probably ignore YouGov, as it has fairly low credibility. Second, it's alarming to watch people on YCombinator not acknowledge that almost always, the best way to hack a system is social engineering. And if you combine actual hacking of people at the top of a political party, with social engineering, it's really not a stretch to call that "election hacking." Sure, it's a little bit sensationalist…

Why does YouGov have low credibility? My sense is the opposite: they were the only polling company to get accurate results in important recent votes.

You think the rest of the poll has high credibility?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/am...

52% of Trump voters believe Obama was born in Kenya?

9% of Trump voters believe Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Trump elected?

31% of Trump voters think vaccines cause autism?

That's a radical shift from the 6% of Americans who thought so according to a Gallup survey:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/gallup-poll-vaccine...

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#80

Post by tomohawk »

gipp wrote: post #26
toehead2000 wrote: post #13

So is this how US politics will be from now on? Every president spends their lame duck period doing everything possible to sabotage the next guy (if they're the other party)? I seem to recall GWB having a bit more decorum than Obama here but maybe I'm wrong. Is the political climate really more poisonous than ever or does it just seem that way?

Taking action in response to foreign aggression is "sabotaging the next guy" now?

He's starting something he won't be able to finish. Not very wise. At this point, the focus should be on an orderly transition of power instead of making waves and creating problems for the next guy to handle. Whether he likes it or not, Trump is the next guy, and Trump's going to have to handle it one way or the other. Trying to cast the die like this is just counterproductive.
Post reply on HN