Comment by DominikR | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DominikR | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is no proof whatsoever that Russia released these materials. In case of the North Korean hacks the US government raised the issue at the UN and provided proof for it to justify sanctions.

None of this happened here. I suspect that the Democrats and the very biased media are attempting to divert attention from the content of these leaks away. (like for example Soros basically telling Hillary what to do regarding protests that were going on in Albania a while back)

On top of that they are spinning the narrative that Trump is somehow connected to Putin, even though Trump never had any business ties to Russia. (while Hillary did, she received millions from Sberbank for allowing the Russians to buy 20% of all US Uranium production)

Edit: If the Russians were really hell bent on destroying the US society as the Soviets did back then they would likely help Hillary win the election and amplify all the SJW insanity and race conflicts that are currently going on. (Obama the uniter!) They also have extensive experience with applied Socialism and its inevitable results so they know that the US would probably be severely weakened by another decade of Democrat Socialist policies.

"Obama is a Socialist" sounds very strange to European ears - he would be a center-right politician at most in the UK or most EU countries.

And if you claim that SJWs are big enough threat to US stability to be a sensible target for a hypothetical Russian intervention then I'm not sure we have enough of a shared world-view to have a sensible discussion.

That probably depends where in Europe. Obama supporting gay marriage, accepting thousands of asylum seekers from the Middle East, and trying to legalize millions of illegal immigrants against the legislature, or the whole HUD programme would certainly be a far-far-left politician in Poland. You will rarely hear a politician like that on TV and their parties usually don't gather 5% of the vote required to have a representation in the parliament. Not to mention winning national elections.

He does some things which are in the interest of large corporations or sponsors but that's less about political views and really more of an acceptable form of corruption. Corrupt politicians are of course in stores everywhere pretending to believe any ideology they need to.

And it's not just Poland. I'm sceptical of this political conversion to metric in general.

Understood but none of things equate to being a socialist beyond the fact that certain bundles of policies tend to get lumped into broad 'left' and 'right' buckets at any given point in time (being in favour of more immigration isn't intrinsically left or right - I'd actually argue that it probably has a more natural home among 'right-wing' laissez-faire economic policies).

My point is that Obama would be regarded as far from being a Socialist outside of the US - with it's own peculiar calibration of the political spectrum.

What does SJW activity actually refer to? People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed? Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies? Both things are just basic human rights.

We'll probably never know for sure who did this release. It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid, but it won't affect the election. If there was a better demagogue than Trump running, it might affect the election.

> What does SJW activity actually refer to?

A new kind of Socialist class warfare where Democrats now divide the population into countless different "identity" classes that struggle against each other.

This reduces cohesion within a society and often leads to violence between these groups.

> People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed?

So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a person running away is not armed?

I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link.

> Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies?

Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries.

I'm not going to promote a part time worker to a high position in my company just because the person is female. I'm going to promote the person that works the hardest and has a skill set that is highly valuable to the company.

> It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid

No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

> , but it won't affect the election.

You contradict your previous statement.

> If there was a better demagogue than Trump running, it might affect the election.

You can believe in whatever you like, but you should be at least intellectually honest and recognise that this statement, like all of the statements in your comment isn't backed by any facts.

>> People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed? >So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without >being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a >person running away is not armed? >I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link.

Shooting fleeing people in the back is not okay, unless there is some imminent danger. I don't know of one is not an adequate answer, imho. The reason cops seems to shoot black teenagers who run away, and no so many white teenagers, is in my opinion due to a fear of those blacks.

>> Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies? >Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries.

Sure, some of it is women taking time off to have families. Don't we want that to be an option? Anyway, this article says you women (who are probably less likely to have taken time off than older women who had more time to have a family) are only suffering 7% lower wages. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay...

>> It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid >No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and >the Clinton Foundation. > , but it won't affect the election.

Hillary did something stupid, but it was something stupid that the last few sec of states did too. The others didn't get investigated by congress multiple times. That's the difference, she did some stupid shit like others, but the dems didn't spend years trying to find something bad after that. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes..., including Colin Powell. I really hate that she did that, and I supported someone else in the primary. But now she's running against a truly evil, scary character, and there's just no choice.

My hope would be new legislation that says all people, including secs of state will lose their security clearance if they use private email. They all want to do it to hide it from prying eyes, but I do hate it.

>Shooting fleeing people in the back is not okay, unless there is some imminent danger

Yes it is. Don't want to get shot? Drop on the ground and surrender.

In general - no it isn't.

Shooting someone who is retreating is illegal and doesn't fall under "Stand Your Ground" laws. If someone is retreating - unless they are shooting blindly behind themselves - you are no longer in a life-threatening situation.

Use of deadly force is only authorized in life-threatening situations or when you reasonably believe your life is in danger. Even then, it may be deemed your situation wasn't life threatening or believed to be life threatening. I believe "threat to others" is included in there for certain situations. Eg. police shooting a known armed suspect who is attempting to flee and may be a danger to others.

Obviously, this may vary slightly from state to state. Some states don't have castle doctrine, IIRC, and others are more strict with what falls under "Stand Your Ground" laws.

I'm talking about police. Either way. It doesn't matter, you have the gun, you make the arrest. They don't get to just flee.

Still no, except with the exceptions I previously mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Furthermore, I think it's an insult to the past Democrats like FDR if you compare them with the likes of Hillary/Obama.

The left leaning presidents of old did not openly participate in corruption of the US Constitution nor did they willfully undermine the American worker for the benefit of Wall St.

Obama? He hired the architect of the Mortgage Crisis, Henry Paulson, as his Treasury Secretary. That's like hiring El Chapo Guzman as the head of the DEA. And it doesn't end there.

I think the entire political spectrum has been captured by corrupt oligarchs. There is no real right or left anymore, just a group of vicious oligarchs battling for supremacy using the old colors so that people accept them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com