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

101–110 of 147 posts

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#101

Post by dogma1138 »

rqebmm wrote: post #83
usaphp wrote: post #36

Some interesting articles on 1996 Boris Eltsin election, where Americans claimed their role in his win: 1 - http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris... 2- http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,9848...

American political consultants != American intelligence agencies. When Trump retained a campaign manager with ties to Russian officials[0], it was a minor scandal, not something requiring over government response. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-...

Oh please the US buys and poisons elections world wide including those of allies.

This is a very common thing to do this is what the diplomatic and intelligence services of most nations do all the time.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#102

Post by DrScump »

pavlov wrote: post #94
DrScump wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

Look at the first graphic. It's 46% of Trump voters vs. 17% of Clinton voters (which is still insanely high, for a theory so easily discredited).

The graphic directly conflicts with the text.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

tomohawk wrote: post #80
gipp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> He's starting something he won't be able to finish.

Pretty much every Presidency has some things started late that are known to carry over into the next administration; quite often (especially when there is a change of parties) this something the incoming President would have handled differently.

That's sort of inherent in the nature of having a crisp point-in-time transfer of power.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#104

Post by usaphp »

rqebmm wrote: post #83
usaphp wrote: post #36

Some interesting articles on 1996 Boris Eltsin election, where Americans claimed their role in his win: 1 - http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris... 2- http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,9848...

American political consultants != American intelligence agencies. When Trump retained a campaign manager with ties to Russian officials[0], it was a minor scandal, not something requiring over government response. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-...

American intelligence agencies were definitely involved in Russian election in 1996.

Also the link you posted shows the campaign manager connection to Yanukovich - since when is ex-president of Ukraine considered as "Russian officials"? Do you call ex-president of Canada or France - US Officials too?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#105

Post by mejari »

toehead2000 wrote: post #59
mejari wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Haha I can't believe Im getting downvoted for the comment. Classic hacker news. Anyway, did you read the article? He's kicking out a bunch of ambassadors and closing down diplomatic outposts in a way that will be hard to undo.

That's a thing he did, how can it be seen as sabotage?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#106

Post by etchalon »

chroem- wrote: post #72
etchalon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's hardly post-hoc. There was no evidence revealed in the emails that revealed anything more damning than that DWS, and the DNC, preferred Clinton (the Democrat) to Sanders (not a Democrat).

She stepped down early, and was replaced with DB, an even bigger Clinton fan.

By July 22nd, the entire party was in unity mode, and Sanders was actively being courted for his endorsement. DWS resigned as a sacrifice play.

As for the email question, it wasn't making an excuse for it, so much as it was pointing out it had no effect on the proceedings.

Either way, I believe this thread shows how little the DNC hack revealed.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#107

Post by matt4077 »

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…

I appreciate your self-awareness that you may be "splitting hairs". That sort of nuance is unfortunately absent in the thread you kicked off.

I'm really lost as to how this all-out hatred of "mainstream" media started. But even more so I'm left wondering what kind of media these critics would appreciate? Infowars and Breitbart? .blogspot.com? Does anybody honestly believe they'd be better informed in a world without professional journalism? I'm not just talking about Trump vs. Clinton, but also "the town council's plans for xxx".

I mean, you see these comments glorifying "the press used to be", or saying the NYT "lost all credibility when they endorsed HC" which just leaves me wondering if they're just repeating their side's talking points or if public education has completely failed, possibly beyond the point of no return.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#108

Post by etchalon »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #60
etchalon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's missing the point. Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party. The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself. The Russians are "to blame" because they're the ones who committed the action.

>"Russia, a state-actor, coordinated an cyber-attack on an American political party." Is there any evidence that the hacks came from Russia? From what I've seen, the Russians have just been the scapegoats. Just because something is repeated a lot on the news, doesn't make it true. If there's evidence the hacks were orchestrated by the Russian government (or even involved Russia at all), let's see the evidence. Withou…

Both the FBI and CIA have publicly stated they believe the hacks came from Russia. Whether they'll release their evidence publicly remains to be seen, however, even GOP senators acknowledge it was likely Russia. We can assume they were briefed.

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#109

Post by mejari »

concinds wrote: post #71
mejari wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He asserted that, yes. He didn't really do much to explain his view, other than just repeating that it was "revenge" and "pique". Do you agree with his assessment, and can you provide reasoning for it?

Re: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking

#110

Post by tomohawk »

rqebmm wrote: post #92
tomohawk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OPM hacks did far more damage to the country, but Obama's reaction was - nothing. It was only when some elites of his own party got some egg on their face that he reacted.

> Obama's reaction was - nothing Nothing publicly. There was a public reaction to this issue because when "some elites of his own party got egg on their face" it was front page news for months that potentially effected the integrity of our election process. The OPM hacks were a disaster in terms of information security, but disappeared in a few news cycles because it didn't effect everyday citizens and had nothing to…

Are you kidding? Getting the inside scoop on a very large chunk of the federal workforce has "nothing to do with the fundamentals of our democracy"? This is nothing short of an act of war. What do you think will happen to the US if suddenly a large number of people in the federal workforce wake up to no money in the bank? Do you think the government will be able to respond effectively to whatever crisis (likely involving China) is going on?

If you have some evidence that Obama did something then present it. If not, just wishful thinking.

Post reply on HN