Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

I agree, but what me off is Washington's stance on this.

The USA is well within its rights to take action against foreign powers inteferring in American elections, but it's the whiter than white, holier than thou approach radiating out of Washington that gets my goat.

Of course Russia tried to interfere in the US election, and I would respect the US government for admitting they've been doing it for years to other countries, which they have.

Stop pretending to be the wimpy kid, America, you own this planet

I'm rambling here, but did 19th century Victorian Britain feel ashamed of the British Empire? Hell no, they reveled in their strength, make the world England was their ethos.

Super powers make their own rules, they always have, they always will.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

I agree, but what me off is Washington's stance on this.

The USA is well within its rights to take action against foreign powers inteferring in American elections, but it's the whiter than white, holier than thou approach radiating out of Washington that gets my goat.

Of course Russia tried to interfere in the US election, and I would respect the US government for admitting they've been doing it for years to other countries, which they have.

Stop pretending to be the wimpy kid, America, you own this planet

I'm rambling here, but did 19th century Victorian Britain feel ashamed of the British Empire? Hell no, they reveled in their strength, make the world England was their ethos.

Super powers make their own rules, they always have, they always will.

Well, that's a part of our problem. We're supposed to feel ashamed for our hegemony.

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

I agree, but what me off is Washington's stance on this.

The USA is well within its rights to take action against foreign powers inteferring in American elections, but it's the whiter than white, holier than thou approach radiating out of Washington that gets my goat.

Of course Russia tried to interfere in the US election, and I would respect the US government for admitting they've been doing it for years to other countries, which they have.

Stop pretending to be the wimpy kid, America, you own this planet

I'm rambling here, but did 19th century Victorian Britain feel ashamed of the British Empire? Hell no, they reveled in their strength, make the world England was their ethos.

Super powers make their own rules, they always have, they always will.

Well, that's a part of our problem. We're supposed to feel ashamed for our hegemony.

As a student of American history, it always amused me when reading about early 1900s America and their refusal to admit they now had an empire.

Yes, we went from 13 colonies to 50 states, grabbed Hawaii, Alaska and the Philippines, but we're definitely NOT an empire

I generalize, but there's nothing wrong with hegemony. Roman Empire, Pax Britannia: when one country rules the roost, stability usually ensues for a long time.

And now Pax Americana, which has been the case since the fall of the Berlin wall.

I have been hugely critical of US foreign policy over the years, but at least the USA is a democracy grounded in the rule of law, with a strong tradition of freedom, free speech, liberty etc etc

It's not perfect, far from it, but I would rather live in a world dominated by that, than some of the political ideologies we've had in human history.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

I agree, but what me off is Washington's stance on this.

The USA is well within its rights to take action against foreign powers inteferring in American elections, but it's the whiter than white, holier than thou approach radiating out of Washington that gets my goat.

Of course Russia tried to interfere in the US election, and I would respect the US government for admitting they've been doing it for years to other countries, which they have.

Stop pretending to be the wimpy kid, America, you own this planet

I'm rambling here, but did 19th century Victorian Britain feel ashamed of the British Empire? Hell no, they reveled in their strength, make the world England was their ethos.

Super powers make their own rules, they always have, they always will.

I think many would agree with some of those statements, the US has absolutely done stuff like this to other nations and those nations are well within their rights to tell the US to fark off when such occurs (though accusations of such are probably more common than actual US efforts to do so). I havent looked too much into this incident with Russia and am not claiming to know what really happened, just the way things are different from the media vs a foreign nation.

That said, the US always has had a weird streak about openly revelling in our power and our choices, we've had to live with weird contradictions since our inception. We do bad things, but we feel bad about them collectively if not individually. South Park did a wonderful episode on that

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The acceptance of a foreign power illegally obtaining information that did influence the election for the highest office in the land is disturbing. Whats even more disturbing is the handwaving and acceptance of it because it benefited 'your guy'

Both sides should be sharing outrage that a hostile foreign power had this much influence in our election

and what do you propose as a response? War?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

Colluding with the Clinton campaign, to include giving her debate questions and having her staff edit/approve articles is NOT 'releasing information in the interests of informing the public'. In fact, it is the opposite.

Unless of course you are talking about Wikileaks releasing info in the interests of the public about that collusion...

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The acceptance of a foreign power illegally obtaining information that did influence the election for the highest office in the land is disturbing. Whats even more disturbing is the handwaving and acceptance of it because it benefited 'your guy'

Both sides should be sharing outrage that a hostile foreign power had this much influence in our election

and what do you propose as a response? War?

Hopefully a one term president that doesnt make any major changes to anything or big decisions and a for-real-real group of presidential candidates the next time around from both parties?

Probably asking too much, I know

But more seriously, nobody is propoding war, but a sharp rap across the snout, if the allegations are founded, in economic/financial terms may be in order.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The acceptance of a foreign power illegally obtaining information that did influence the election for the highest office in the land is disturbing. Whats even more disturbing is the handwaving and acceptance of it because it benefited 'your guy'

Both sides should be sharing outrage that a hostile foreign power had this much influence in our election

and what do you propose as a response? War?

Dance off, of course.

 CptJake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

Colluding with the Clinton campaign, to include giving her debate questions and having her staff edit/approve articles is NOT 'releasing information in the interests of informing the public'. In fact, it is the opposite.

Unless of course you are talking about Wikileaks releasing info in the interests of the public about that collusion...

was primarily talking about wikileaks type stuff, but even the debate thing is very different from a foreign power doing that sort of thing. That said the debate incident should absolutely be shamed and pointed out to the public, thats fair game that everyone should be irked by as well. Its just not "foreign geopolitical rival" level stuff.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Domestic journalists releasing information in the interests of informing the public (or at least what they view as informing the public) is different from a foreign state with strained relations hacking confidetial data to release in a manner directly intended to influence the election outcome in their favor.

One is (at least ostensibly) an internal "honesty check", the other is an external manipulation. That is the difference.

It's one thing for your sibling to find something in your room and go blab to mom about it when you're arguing over something, it's a totally different story when the next door neighbor breaks in to do so

I agree, but what me off is Washington's stance on this.

The USA is well within its rights to take action against foreign powers inteferring in American elections, but it's the whiter than white, holier than thou approach radiating out of Washington that gets my goat.

Of course Russia tried to interfere in the US election, and I would respect the US government for admitting they've been doing it for years to other countries, which they have.

Stop pretending to be the wimpy kid, America, you own this planet

I'm rambling here, but did 19th century Victorian Britain feel ashamed of the British Empire? Hell no, they reveled in their strength, make the world England was their ethos.

Super powers make their own rules, they always have, they always will.

I think many would agree with some of those statements, the US has absolutely done stuff like this to other nations and those nations are well within their rights to tell the US to fark off when such occurs (though accusations of such are probably more common than actual US efforts to do so). I havent looked too much into this incident with Russia and am not claiming to know what really happened, just the way things are different from the media vs a foreign nation.

That said, the US always has had a weird streak about openly revelling in our power and our choices, we've had to live with weird contradictions since our inception. We do bad things, but we feel bad about them collectively if not individually. South Park did a wonderful episode on that

Months ago, I watched a documentary about Vietnam and how they're still trying to safely remove mines and unexploded bombs from the Vietnam war. To be fair to the USA, they do provide money, training, and expertise to help with the dangerous clean up job.

Trying not to take this OT, but here in Britain we've had numerous conversations and debates about our Empire and what it did for the world.

Should Britain apologize? should we pay compensation? Some have argued the Empire was a force for good.

Point is, the USA will have to have this conversation one day, and Vietnam and all the other places will be mentioned and you'll be asking the same questions we in Britain have asked ourselves...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The acceptance of a foreign power illegally obtaining information that did influence the election for the highest office in the land is disturbing. Whats even more disturbing is the handwaving and acceptance of it because it benefited 'your guy'

Both sides should be sharing outrage that a hostile foreign power had this much influence in our election

and what do you propose as a response? War?

Dance off, of course.

But if the dance suggested is a crazy Cossack sword dance, with real swords, then what?

Even dancing can be dangerous

@do I not like that: you must have missed all the flak Obama took for his "apology" tour to the Middle East or his more recent visit to Hiroshima.

Absolutely, and in many respects we already do constantly question these sorts of things, going all the way back to slavery and treatment of native peoples. Every empire does.

That said for as far as the excesses of great empires go, I'd take the US over just about all others, with the British Empire as second choice. I certainly would not want to see how say, the Assyrians would have dealt with a 9/11, or the 1930's Japanese would have handled an Iraq war, or how the Romans would have handled a trade war with China, or how the late 19th century Belgians would have treated the Afghans. Whether the US empire will ultimately be a force for good in the long run, I dont know. I suspect it will be through its innovations and culture of sharing ideas and largely living in internal harmony with such a diverse population and creation of many wondrous technologies from medicines to computer networks and many others, which would largely be in spite of its political actions

 Vaktathi wrote:
Absolutely, and in many respects we already do constantly question these sorts of things, going all the way back to slavery and treatment of native peoples. Every empire does.

That said for as far as the excesses of great empires go, I'd take the US over just about all others, with the British Empire as second choice. I certainly would not want to see how say, the Assyrians would have dealt with a 9/11, or the 1930's Japanese would have handled an Iraq war, or how the Romans would have handled a trade war with China, or how the late 19th century Belgians would have treated the Afghans. Whether the US empire will ultimately be a force for good in the long run, I dont know. I suspect it will be through its innovations and culture of sharing ideas and largely living in internal harmony with such a diverse population and creation of many wondrous technologies from medicines to computer networks and many others, which would largely be in spite of its political actions

And it is that very questioning that leads to the idiotic perception of a poster a number of pages ago that "liberals hate America".

Yeah that kind of thing is silly. Asking if America did the right thing or pointing out we did the wrong thing and should do something to fix it is absolutely not the same thing as "hating" America

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@do I not like that: you must have missed all the flak Obama took for his "apology" tour to the Middle East or his more recent visit to Hiroshima.

I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly, the Middle East apology part was undermined by the fact that Obama sold weapons to the Saudis when he was meant to be apologizing. Sort of undermined the intention

Hiroshima was more complex as the two nations were obviously involved in a state of war, but Obama did get a fair hearing in some quarters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Absolutely, and in many respects we already do constantly question these sorts of things, going all the way back to slavery and treatment of native peoples. Every empire does.

That said for as far as the excesses of great empires go, I'd take the US over just about all others, with the British Empire as second choice. I certainly would not want to see how say, the Assyrians would have dealt with a 9/11, or the 1930's Japanese would have handled an Iraq war, or how the Romans would have handled a trade war with China, or how the late 19th century Belgians would have treated the Afghans. Whether the US empire will ultimately be a force for good in the long run, I dont know. I suspect it will be through its innovations and culture of sharing ideas and largely living in internal harmony with such a diverse population and creation of many wondrous technologies from medicines to computer networks and many others, which would largely be in spite of its political actions

Last post for the day from me, and although the money involved in US politics shocks me, and the foreign policy often leaves me shaking my head, the foundations of the USA are good, built as they are on liberty and democracy.

I do admire the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, so a nation with those always has a chance of building something good, despite electing people like Trump from time to time.

Well, Putin has responded to the expulsion of Russian diplomats, and it was pretty much exactly what I expected:


Basically, he looked at a calendar to see what day the inauguration is, and did the math.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

I haven´t been keeping up on this, Has there been any actual proof of this yet or is this one of those "post-facts" things?

There have been a number of news reports about the CIA and FBI statements on the matter. It is not a "post-fact" thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Russians hacked the election.

It's like saying if you shoot the tyres out of a fast car, you aren't increasing the chance of an accident, only damaging the tyres.

No, they hacked the DNC, and enabled the publishing of private records. They didn't "hack the election".

You are evading the point. The Russians illegally hacked the Democrats (and probably the Republicans) in order to get material that they released in order to affect the course of the election. No-one would even have know they had hacked the DNC records if they had not released them.

I am frankly astonished that you guys are happy with this intrusion by a foreign government into your national elections. What's next, the North Koreans get to hack your state level elections?

The only real outrage, if there was any hacking, is that the Democrats had their dirty laundry aired, followed shortly by losing the election. Like on Dakka, it changed no one's mind about who they were going to vote for, and despite all statements to the contrary, sexism, racism, etc. didn't play a large part in Clinton being defeated. She was a crappy candidate to begin with and a lot of people who kept their opinions to themselves voted against her.
It's ironic that there is this complaint about this nation's election being affected by a foreign government when she was instrumental in toppling the Lybian government and her supporters in this country rioted, harrassed electoral college members, and threaten to kill them if they voted for Trump.

Is anyone really surprised that the same people who posted about all the reasons why Clinton should be in jail, but haven't said anything about Trump doing things, and who cried about pay-to-play with Clinton, but who haven't said anything about Trump doing these things, are now okay with hacking?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The acceptance of a foreign power illegally obtaining information that did influence the election for the highest office in the land is disturbing. Whats even more disturbing is the handwaving and acceptance of it because it benefited 'your guy'

Both sides should be sharing outrage that a hostile foreign power had this much influence in our election

and what do you propose as a response? War?

Dance off, of course.

Respect!

I still don't believe the WikiLeaks emails were as damaging as people want to believe. There was no smoking gun and everything else that was release was stuff we already knew.

I think the general inability to deliver on hope and change and Clinton's unlikeability did more to cause her loss than anything else. Obamacare costs were rising as were the fines. The economy had anemic growth at best (worst of any two-term President or so I'm told). Overall income slipped instead of grew, except for the very rich. Clinton ran as the status quo, meaning more of the same. People have had enough and they decided to punish the Democrats for it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, Putin has responded to the expulsion of Russian diplomats, and it was pretty much exactly what I expected:

Spoiler:

Basically, he looked at a calendar to see what day the inauguration is, and did the math.

Putin's troll level?

Galactic Tsar.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The acceptance of a foreign power illegally obtaining information that did influence the election for the highest office in the land is disturbing. Whats even more disturbing is the handwaving and acceptance of it because it benefited 'your guy'

Both sides should be sharing outrage that a hostile foreign power had this much influence in our election

and what do you propose as a response? War?

Well, messing with the US, they technically messed with Texas, what would you do if someone actually messed with Texas?

 d-usa wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that the same people who posted about all the reasons why Clinton should be in jail, but haven't said anything about Trump doing things, and who cried about pay-to-play with Clinton, but who haven't said anything about Trump doing these things, are now okay with hacking?

Please do provide some evidence tho... because, right now, Trump isn't President.

Also, noone is "happy" that a foreign power hacked (or was the recipient of a leak) of a major US political party having it's dirty laundry aired.

When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Jesus... Hillary Clinton was Obama's fething Secretary of State.

Has any Trump family members Ior himself) held any government positions?

Come back to me when Trumpendo sets up an equivalent homebrew email server at Trump Plaza specifically to circumvent federal records act.

Come back to me when some foreigner lavish mega bucks to Trumps family member, and voila mere months later a favorable ruling is handed down that benefited the donor.

Trump is a scumbag.

Instead of raising the fething hysteria NOW when Trump isn't even PRESIDENT... maybe you should hold off criticisms till something, ya know... actually happens.

All this teeth-gnashing over Trump right now will only DILUTE any valid criticisms in the future.

Keep yo powdah dry boyo!

He'll feth up in short order...

 whembly wrote:
Instead of raising the fething hysteria NOW when Trump isn't even PRESIDENT... maybe you should hold off criticisms till something, ya know... actually happens.

All this teeth-gnashing over Trump right now will only DILUTE any valid criticisms in the future.

And yet somehow this standard wasn't applied to Clinton.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

People don't have to defend Trump, their silence says more than enough.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

Apparently some in this thread believe that not pillaring Trump is the same as defending him.

I was on team "Put Hillary Out To Pasture". My team won. Now I'm on team "Crush George Soros' Hopes And Dreams."

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

So, the people who voted for him?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When was Hillary president?

You can call him Cheeto Jesus all you want, but you have not spend an ounce of effort even pretending to be outraged over him doing everything that made you spam this thread when Clinton did it.

But "go team" I guess.

Maybe because no one in the thread worth talking to was defending Trump?

Apparently some in this thread believe that not pillaring Trump is the same as defending him.

I was on team "Put Hillary Out To Pasture". My team won. Now I'm on team "Crush George Soros' Hopes And Dreams."

Ah, nothing more reasonable than "Vote for not-her!"