And the useful idiots think that Mrs. Clinton is their friend.
As a European I'm not a fan of either of the candidates, but do we have any reason to assume Trump is any better?
Well, for starters, please don't mistake this as an endorsement. Though I know I can't vote for her, I don't think I'll be able to vote for him when I'm standing in the booth. I'd have to look in the mirror the next morning and I'll need to explain to my kids how I could do that and still have principles.
That out of the way, if Hillary gets elected she will be corrupt. I base that on past behavior. She will not meet meaningful resistance from the Legislature or Judicial. I base that on prior, recent observations. She won't have any resistance from federal investigators and will likely be shielded by them. I base that on recent observations and the fact that they will answer to her. Misdeeds will not be investigated or meaningfully be reported by the major media outlets. Most likely the worst details will be buried. I base that on prior, recent observations.
Trump has no friends in the Legislature. The Democrats do not like him. Many Republicans can't even tolerate him when pinching their nose. (Again, I'm referring to the Legislature, not the voting public.) I doubt the Judicial will give in to Trump's feeble "Reality Distortion Field" either. The press despise him and will be ready to report every misdeed, misstatement, breach of etiquette, fashion faux pas, inopportune sneeze, twitch and blemish non-stop around the clock. Trump will not be able to get away with picking his nose while standing in front of a window at the White House.
tl;dr Trump might be better because he will not be allowed to get away with anything. He would probably even make impeachment fashionable again. In contrast, Hillary is the favorite daughter of the Illuminati.
I still don't think I could vote for either of them.
Glenn Greenwald seems to disagree. Is he a just a hater?
Russian official hacking into a US server is probably an act of war, much as if the Russian army were to shoot a US citizen on US soil. It doesn't matter what roles the server or citizen have. So, hacking into the DNC server is probably an act of war, as would hacking into the RNC server, the NSA, or my laptop. I completely fail to see why it's a difficult concept that the US government is supposed to defend its citizens and assets from attacks by other countries, regardless of who the citizens are and what they're doing.
Doubt at this point I'd be able to explain it. We aren't seeing eye to eye on this one. But if enough of the world agrees with you, the US better start looking over it's shoulder. We've been very good at breaking into the computers all over the world. And we don't just add transparency to electoral processes, reveal evidence press organizations acting as political propaganda agencies and expose federal justice agencies bent over backwards protecting suspects who happen to be government officials. Unlike what has been revealed about the DNC hack so far, we've spied on governments (friend and foe) and have done destructive hacks. Heaven help us if the world ever holds us to your standard.
Now that I think of it, you've only acknowledged the bias of the DNC. You keep ignoring all the other corruption that's been revealed and that no one is denying. Guess we're just going to ignoring all that. The press certainly has.
As far as the dead body and burglar analogy, it depends on which you think is more important, I guess. I'm not particularly bothered by some unsavory politics in a nomination campaign, because that's pretty much what normally happens. I'm positive you'd see similar if you were to hack into the RNC. I consider the expectation of really clean politics everywhere to be much like Communism, libertarianism, or expecting users to be aware of computer security: would be nice, and you're much better off not expecting it. I do think state-sponsored hacking attacks on the US are a big deal, particularly when intended to influence US elections. I'm not at all happy with the messing with other people's governments the US has done, either, including Cold War interventions and the assorted coups on behalf of fruit companies, but I have a particular interest in defense of the US.
I don't doubt the RNC has it's own corruption. I don't consider that an excuse for ignoring what is now proven. I'm sad that you consider a process as corrupt as we have discovered in recent years is acceptable and that you believe we are better off giving up on propriety in our government. Really, if we can't have that, then what do you think it is we would be protecting from the Russians? You can't say it's the presidential election when you've already said it's ok that the on-ramp is controlled by corrupt political parties.
I'll agree we've gone off the rails in our actions in some other countries. I wish we'd keep trying to address the corruption at home though. I want this country to stay something worth protecting. That requires maintaining the principles you've apparently already given up on.
The proper investigative agencies seem to be pretty well convinced it's a Russian attack, and they will not normally publicize all the evidence. I am puzzled, however, in that you don't trust the US government to investigate these things, but you trust whatever the Russian government comes up with. Russia is a lot more corrupt than the US.
Went it comes down to trusting the government, it comes down to one word. Propriety. There isn't even the appearance of it any more. I'd like to believe otherwise but I can't ignore evidence of the contrary. Our government has used all sorts of deceit on the public to hide wrong doing and to redirect public option. And contrary to what the government tells us, the problem isn't that information has leaked of our government acting badly. The problem is that information is true. As a nation, we have slowly given up ever inch of high ground to the point that there is none left.
And no, I don't trust Russia. But the emails stand on their own, regardless of who delivered them. No one is saying they didn't sent or receive any of them. (Must have learned during the Snowden releases that being caught denying the truth is worse than leaving it unanswered.) Then we'd at least have the he-said-she-said we have with Trump. (And I wouldn't doubt that he has done everything they say and worse. I wouldn't doubt that people would make things up to bring him down. We've seen both happen before in US politics and it's shameful we still tolerate it.) Russian is an excellent example of corruption. But what do you think it is that will keep us from become that? Trying to hide the growing corruption we already have? Doesn't feel like a sound bet to me.
We'll it's been a nice conversation. But I've finally blown up into a wall-o-text Probably time I move on to something else. Cheers.
In other words, the fact that Russia committed an act of war isn't as important as thinking just like Putin wants you to think? Does it bother you at all to be played by the FSB?
If swiping data off a server is an act of war, that we are far behind in fighting back against all sorts of parties. There are sparks all over the net and we stand impotent. And if Putin wants me to think a rigged election, news outlets acting as campaign operatives and the DOJ looking the other way when powerful people break laws are bad things, then he's got me pegged. Boy am I a sucker. (I'll even admit I'm not certain that I'm convinced it is the Russians. We've seen more evidence of corruption in our own government than we have of who provided that evidence.)
Really this still looks like accidental transparency and if it took the Russians to get it, then that is embarrassing. I head a metaphor this morning that seems to fit you. "Never mind the brutally murdered body in the room. You realize the body was discovered by a BURGLAR! Doesn't burglary bother you??!? We need to concentrate on this burglar!"
Is having a foreign government tamper with a US election a minor matter, as long as it favors your side? (FWIW, I'd have the same reaction if it had been RNC internal emails, although I wouldn't be as annoyed.)
Now I call foul. I do not have a "side", a "team" or anything of the sort in this race. I don't want to associate with either of the main candidates and the 3rd party candidates aren't that favorable either. The election cycle is miserable. I'm not sure which I could vote for and still look in the mirror. Tell me you are ok with the corruption that is the status quo and I'll respect that, but do not act like I want anything to do with any of these people competing for the White House. You can keep them all.
I don't get what's wrong with the DNC favoring Clinton. *snip*
Some of us see an election and instinctively have a certain expectation of fairness. To do otherwise somewhat lacks a quality of propriety. None the less, some organization and corporations have elections processes where the decisions are largely made by a small body and the bulk of the voters don't really count. The DNC is not at all unique here, but again there is just a natural expectation, especially when this process is a part of the path to a public office.
You know, you raise a good point though. This is a private nominating process and not a general election with a neutral arbiter. In such a case would Russian involvement really an act of war?
Personally, I don't mind if the government defends it's citizens. That's one of it's primary jobs.
I may take issue when the government gets selective about who to defend depending on the circumstances involved. I will take issue if some party takes advantage of such a situation to use it as a smoke screen to conceal corruption. I may take even greater issue when the only outcome of the attack was to reveal the corruption that the concealing party is trying to hide.
No, Russia messing with our political system isn't cool. But the DNC rigging the primary election isn't cool either. The press checking it's stories with the DNC to get them OKed isn't cool. The DOJ colluding with a party it is supposed to be investigating isn't cool.
If your biggest problem here is that Russia may be the one responsible for the unintentional transparency into the electoral and legal processes then you and I have different priorities. It would liken it to taking greater issue with Snowden leaking the information that led to the "much needed conversation" about unconstitutional (but legal(? like that's not an oxymoron)) surveillance than on the fact that there was such unconstitutional activity going on and we would have never known it had Snowden not had the courage to act.
The Russians may still do something worse and we should respond either way if the hack was their work. But I think the corruption is the bigger issue here. I fear our democracy is beyond repair if this isn't obvious to most people.
To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the longest and cost the most.