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

CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

media.ccc.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#51

Post by briantakita »

shadowgovt wrote: post #43
px43 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The illegal coordination between the Hillary campaign and the DNC was kind of a big deal, and did trigger a wave of corruption getting flushed out of the DNC. I voted for Hillary in 2016, she was by far the better candidate, but I also seeded the fuck out of those Podesta emails because DNC corruption is absolutely inexcusable.

It wasn't illegal; DNC is a private org and sets its own rules. Name someone who went to jail over the content of the emails? The emails do demonstrate that the party game is rigged (i.e. parties have favorites and tilt the scales in their favor). That's not only legal, it's intended---the point of parties is to coalesce political power. The GOP demonstrates why the DNC is set up to tilt scales. GOP has fewer mechani…

So all this talk about Democracy is just one big show...

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#54

Post by [deleted] »

briantakita wrote: post #51
shadowgovt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't illegal; DNC is a private org and sets its own rules. Name someone who went to jail over the content of the emails? The emails do demonstrate that the party game is rigged (i.e. parties have favorites and tilt the scales in their favor). That's not only legal, it's intended---the point of parties is to coalesce political power. The GOP demonstrates why the DNC is set up to tilt scales. GOP has fewer mechani…

So all this talk about Democracy is just one big show...

[deleted]

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#55

Post by Fnoord »

gonzo41 wrote: post #9
roenxi wrote: post #2

One of several advantages military/policing/etc forces have is detailed records of what worked & what didn't in a confrontation, and the other doesn't even necessarily know that they are fighting. That and purpose-built gear which nearly goes without saying. Something I've noticed with the riots in Europe/America/China/the Middle East/Africa is that we now have first hand video footage of how situations play out. Oft…

The main advantage 'the man' has is organization and unit cohesion. Riots look fun on TV. and then you're in one. And you've only met these protesters casually a few times. Are you ready to take a beat down for them? And are you willing to fight hard against a tight unit like LEO or the military who have a lot more weapons to escalate with.

I believe a better question to ask yourself in such a situation is "Are you ready to avoid senseless violence?" ie. "is this worth it?" I don't believe is worth fighting police during a demonstration. I'm biased, sure, but still if you are in such situation you need to stop for a moment and think about such questions.

Whenever I went to demonstrations -and, granted, its been a while since War in Iraq started- I made a very conscious decision about this beforehand. Its part of planning, because it might affect your OPSEC (things such as your possessions and your planned behavior).

I also believe its not a valid comparison between physical violence and emotional violence (such as threats). I'm currently reading Ronan Farrow's Catch and Kill, and I keep thinking: "now this is a fight worth fighting for". I'm at 2/3 and I have not read about physical violence [against the reporter, Farrow; not referring to the violated women!] as of yet.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#56

Post by tremon »

raverbashing wrote: post #23
implements wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To risk assess wether you have strong roots in the UK, and so are unlikely to overstay and work illegally in whatever country you’re visiting.

Yes, and? Countries have the right to decide who they want to let in or not

That's a peculiar use of right though. People have rights; countries have sovereignty.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#57

Post by thakoppno »

eli wrote: post #17
sunshinerag wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you did not care about the content of the DNC campaign mails? And you are asserting an order of events that hasn't be established... is that what ran in your mind?

What was newsworthy in the campaign emails that justified dumping a guy’s whole inbox?

the part that stands out to me is that the Clinton campaign and the media coordinated to elevate the candidacy of Trump, believing that he’d be easier to defeat in a general election

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#58

Post by eli »

thakoppno wrote: post #57
eli wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was newsworthy in the campaign emails that justified dumping a guy’s whole inbox?

the part that stands out to me is that the Clinton campaign and the media coordinated to elevate the candidacy of Trump, believing that he’d be easier to defeat in a general election

An email said they wanted to elevate Trump, Cruz and Ben Carson. At the time those seemed like the easiest people to beat. That’s the big scandal?

I guess that’s newsworthy in a very inside-baseball kind of way but I don’t think it justifies posting someone’s whole inbox online.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#59

Post by shadowgovt »

briantakita wrote: post #51
shadowgovt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't illegal; DNC is a private org and sets its own rules. Name someone who went to jail over the content of the emails? The emails do demonstrate that the party game is rigged (i.e. parties have favorites and tilt the scales in their favor). That's not only legal, it's intended---the point of parties is to coalesce political power. The GOP demonstrates why the DNC is set up to tilt scales. GOP has fewer mechani…

So all this talk about Democracy is just one big show...

Democratic elections are how we choose between the candidates sponsored by the parties. Hypothetically, there's nothing actually stopping those elections from choosing someone outside the party, but when we're talking in election over a population of 350 million people, even getting an individual's name in front of the voters such that they think to write them in requires a level of organization on par with a national party. Popular votes also inform, but do not single-handedly control, who the parties sponsor.

But the story of the parties themselves is a story of slowly widening democratic representation. The DNC system was even more tilted towards party insiders before the McGovern election. It's been pulling in popular vote over the decades, but it's not a mobocracy. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC, after Trump, modifies its rules to add some kind of backstop against a television celebrity having so easy a path to the Presidency over career politicians.

Post reply on HN