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

Search the DNC email database

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Search the DNC email database

#71

Post by themartorana »

venomsnake wrote: post #43
pnathan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen Trump's twitter feed? I've rarely seen such spew outside 4chan. Your average software engineer is more qualified, just by the signal virtue of having self control in public. It's widely understood internationally that this is not normative US election wank. I assure you, I'm not a Democrat either. I would probably be a Rockefeller Republican... if such a thing existed today.

Berlusconi was worse. Italy somehow survived.

Italy is in a world of hurt with 12%+ unemployment, a 37% youth unemployment rate, actual problems at the government level with the actual mob, corruption that would make your head spin, and a desperately shrinking economy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-italy-s-economy-is-a...

So no, not so much with the survival.

Re: Search the DNC email database

#73

Post by tanderson92 »

kbenson wrote: post #53
tanderson92 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot possibly be serious. 1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny…

> 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical. Are you talking about political agents being unethical (to which I say, "duh"), or are we talking about what you previously stated, "conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one" ? Those are very different things. Pe…

I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.

Re: Search the DNC email database

#74

Post by kbenson »

tanderson92 wrote: post #73
kbenson wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical. Are you talking about political agents being unethical (to which I say, "duh"), or are we talking about what you previously stated, "conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one" ? Those are very different things. Pe…

I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.

While I agree in this case it's probably bigotry they would be exploiting, how do we differentiate that from an informed view of how someone's thoughts on religion (or birth control, or the belief in evolution, or how to deal with Israeli/Palestinian relations, or trade agreements) might translate into other areas of office? If you think they don't matter, it's bigotry. If you think they do, such as inform as to the character of the person, the personality of the person, how they deal with conflict, etc, then it's not. How to we objectively differentiate between things that matter and things that don't?

Re: Search the DNC email database

#75

Post by slg »

grandalf wrote: post #51
slg wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump offers us a lesson... I hate to be the check your privileged type, but I can't imagine hearing that from any type of minority person. Sure, if you are an upper middle class white guy, like most of us here, the idea of sending a lesson might be attractive. But that lesson isn't worth sacrifices to the rights of women, LGBT people, Muslims, African Americans, and everyone else that would be hurt be a Trump pres…

If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. We've seen an ostensibly moderate president (Obama) uphold and extend the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, killing, mutilating, and devastating all sorts of innocent people throughout the middle east. The lesson we'd learn from a Trump pres…

>If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws.

I think you are being naive if that is your logic. Why care about the president at all if they can't pass laws? The truth is that they do have a large amount of influence on the laws of this country. There is a reason people call it Obamacare and not Pelosicare. You are also not factoring in executive orders which can be used to do a lot of damage. I imagine Trump's immigration ban will attempt to be issued with an executive order for example.

Re: Search the DNC email database

#76

Post by tanderson92 »

drostie wrote: post #70
tanderson92 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot possibly be serious. 1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny…

Ugh. Internet arguments are the worst. 1. I did not say that you said that those emails were about Bernie; I said that those emails could be about Bernie, because it's something that I do regard as a live possibility. I was just being honest about how little content there is there; it could be about Bernie or not. (Also the "I didn't mention Bernie so why did you think it was about Bernie?" card is extremely lame; we…

The information presented is limited, correct. It is, however, more than enough for any reasonable person to conclude 1) it is about Bernie 2) WVA refers to West Virginia 3) It's talking about state primaries 4) they hope to harm his chances.

Everything about Bayes theorem etc and probabilities of various other explanations are disingenuous. Consider what Brad Marshall said when asked for comment:

> “I do not recall this. I can say it would not have been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate.”

(emphasis mine). https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-officia...

Usually when people deny remembering having sent an e-mail that was clearly delivered it's evidence that they're lying.

Your particular approach to engaging on what we don't necessarily know rather than what occurred prima facie makes me think that if you saw a nuclear explosion, you'd point out we don't know whether mushrooms do indeed grow that fast or not.

Re: Search the DNC email database

#77

Post by drostie »

tanderson92 wrote: post #76
drostie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh. Internet arguments are the worst. 1. I did not say that you said that those emails were about Bernie; I said that those emails could be about Bernie, because it's something that I do regard as a live possibility. I was just being honest about how little content there is there; it could be about Bernie or not. (Also the "I didn't mention Bernie so why did you think it was about Bernie?" card is extremely lame; we…

The information presented is limited, correct. It is, however, more than enough for any reasonable person to conclude 1) it is about Bernie 2) WVA refers to West Virginia 3) It's talking about state primaries 4) they hope to harm his chances. Everything about Bayes theorem etc and probabilities of various other explanations are disingenuous. Consider what Brad Marshall said when asked for comment: > “ I do not recall…

I do not know if you are aware of how little sense this comment makes. For example, it is in the very structure of the words "disingenuous" and "consider" that the sentence "X is disingenuous; consider Y" is nonsense for all X and Y; you cannot prove that someone is being insincere by asking them to think about something that they've not thought about before. This is ignoring the bigger issue that people forget things all the time and that it does not usually mark a lie, and that even if someone is lying about some statement somewhere, it doesn't change the basic Bayesian fact that yes, you do need to consider an event in the context of all of the probability-weighted candidate explanations for it, if you want to know whether it's reasonable for a person to conclude it.

I respectfully yield whatever last words are in this exchange to you.

Re: Search the DNC email database

#78

Post by tanderson92 »

kbenson wrote: post #74
tanderson92 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.

While I agree in this case it's probably bigotry they would be exploiting, how do we differentiate that from an informed view of how someone's thoughts on religion (or birth control, or the belief in evolution, or how to deal with Israeli/Palestinian relations, or trade agreements) might translate into other areas of office? If you think they don't matter, it's bigotry. If you think they do, such as inform as to the…

You raise some good points. I'll grant that this is probably not an area where you would want to create legislation or prosecute the violations. I still contend they are violations: just ones we do not necessarily want to set an example of pursuing,

Re: Search the DNC email database

#79

Post by grandalf »

slg wrote: post #75
grandalf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. We've seen an ostensibly moderate president (Obama) uphold and extend the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, killing, mutilating, and devastating all sorts of innocent people throughout the middle east. The lesson we'd learn from a Trump pres…

>If a Trump presidency resulted in any changes to the rights of any of the groups you mention, we'd also have congress to blame. The president does not have the power to make laws. I think you are being naive if that is your logic. Why care about the president at all if they can't pass laws? The truth is that they do have a large amount of influence on the laws of this country. There is a reason people call it Obamac…

> they do have a large amount of influence

Put another way, they are allowed to act unchecked by Congress much of the time.

Why is this?

I think the president and congress play a coordination game through which corrupt legislation is passed.

Take Obamacare. Its passage was a massive success to rent-seeking firms and interest groups. All the interest groups and most of the members of congress who were instrumental in getting it passed were happy to have it called "Obamacare" and not "PhizerCare" or "AbbotCare" or "HalliburtonCare".

Correspondingly, both parties benefit from the notion that Obamacare is somehow leftist or constitutes a big defeat for "greedy firms" and "selfish doctors".

In reality, the program simply modernizes many of the existing flows of rents from the public to firms, and reflects some of the changes in magnitude of influence of some industry subgroups.

This is one reason why the GOP didn't come up with a serious market-based counter-proposal: The spoils of Obamacare were just too appealing to pass up, at least for enough of the GOP's constituents to get the bill passed. The loud crowing about wanting to repeal it is no more meaningful than anything else politicians say to seem principled or to seem consistent.

From the beginning, Obama was far more pragmatic than HRC about pleasing healthcare industry incumbents, which is one reason for his surprising performance in the 2008 Democratic primary.

I strongly agree that executive orders and extralegal actions (which Bush honed and Obama perfected) are quite worrisome... But the core issue is that congress largely agrees with the actions that are undertaken. As a case in point, there was a lot of outrage from Democrats about GWB's extralegal shenanigans during the Iraq war, but then once Obama took office we got the chance to observe that in fact he (and his party) strongly support drone warfare, happily exploit the idea of enemy combatants not having rights, enjoy every clause of the Patriot Act, and utilize every extrajudicial rendition option just as GWB did.

We have one party, and it goes through a little ceremony every few years to see which corporatist warmonger gets the chance to be our figurehead.

Re: Search the DNC email database

#80

Post by dtien »

chatmasta wrote: post #49

Lots of social security numbers, credit card numbers, full names, addresses, and phone numbers of very wealthy donors in there. Also, here's one where the DNC creates fake (satirical) craigslist posts advertising jobs for Trump businesses: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

this actually demonstrates some savvy low level marketing, seems like they were going to redirect 'applicants' to a microsite likely with more satirical anti-Trump stuff.

The desire to keep the 'offensive shit ..verbatim' is also quite interesting ( I think ). 1) again, shows some savvy marketing to not step over the line into smearing 2) does anyone know if the phrases in their posts are actually taken from Trump quotes or anecdotes? They seem plausible but also a bit off the wall.

In any case, somewhat interesting to see the inner workings of US political marketing machinations

Post reply on HN