Being that your life depends on your car not failing catastrophically while using it, I think your analogy would make more sense if you replaced clay pots with pacemakers.
This is insane. One side is doing everything they can to rig elections and even tried to overthrow the government and end the democratic process. And then the other side is judged for being taken aback by that? Are we supposed to pretend like nothing is happening?
It is about framing the issue. A lot of people perceived the event as a bunch of hillbillies dressed up like Indians that illegally stormed a building, rather than an actually believable threat to the democratic process. They don't see anything that is even look like the end of the democratic process.
It is one of the many political topics that has a strong polarizing effect, which in turn results in hate and anger.
"The Event" isn't the whole of it though, Trump tried a lot of different ways to try to get the result overturned. The events of Jan 6th are only a small part of the picture.
They may not have been a believable threat. But trying to strong-arm more votes out of various places, refusal to concede, throwing around unfounded allegations of mass cheating, constantly, and then the mountain of lawsuits and talking heads... it's beyond the pale.
If they don't see that threat, when would they? Because from here it looks far more like they don't care so long as it's their guy. And that's scary.
Different people will have different thresholds, through I would suspect that people will start to react if the military started to take political sides. I can only speculate, but I think a lot of people tune out when most of the events occur on twitter or in political speeches. I think also that people got a bit desensitized to mountains of lawsuits occurring from the whole period between 2016 and forward (a trend that might have started even earlier). The details are different but if people are toned out then they won't be listening to hear the details.
It is generally hard to make people care about a threat that they don't perceive, and even more if they view the whole process as being done by fools and jesters. The many Capitol Building riots memes is a good example where people are mostly joking about how incompetent the people involved was, rather than portraying a realistic and scary threat.
It is hard to have a more polarization response than one side laughing because they see fools and the other being scared because they see a realistic threat.
Right, but you're still focusing on the capitol building. If that's all that people perceived to have happened then they really weren't paying much attention.
I firmly believe that people from the old establishment abused intelligence work against a political opposition with lies that were picked up by media without a single ounce of sensible criticism. This was such a huge scandal that I cannot condemn anyone that seriously believed that elections were manipulate, maybe Trump himself believed it since it was rather blatant. You are allowed to dislike Trump of course and his behavior relating to giving up power. But that is very much shadowed by using federal agencies to get dirt on people. That isn't democratic at all, it is dirtiest political play and I think more than some people have lost their mask.
I honestly can't tell the difference between when people are talking about QAnon or BlueAnon unless a specific event is stated that would give me more context. Seems like others cannot tell the difference either.
that's not a gaffe. If you assert it's a gaffe, you must now explain a ton more.
>And then the other side is judged for being taken aback by that? Are we supposed to pretend like nothing is happening?
Someone could blame the media but that's beside the point. The USA is more divided today that I have ever seen it. According to articles ive read, the divide is larger today than it has been since the civil war. Thusly probable that another civil war is coming but oh boy is this one ever going to be one sided.
Of course it's a gaffe. Biden is visibly affected by senility. How could you think it's anything but a gaffe? Do you really think that if he was aware of systematic voter fraud strategy being developed that he would actually give a speech about it?
I don't see it that way. Let's discuss the gaffe deeper, as I said it requires significantly more explanation.
>Biden is visibly affected by senility.
I'm not a doctor and haven't diagnosed him this way. I don't believe this is public knowledge that he has been diagnosed as such. What makes you believe he has dementia? What kind? This statement scares me to no end, you believe the person in charge of the largest nuclear weapon arsenal has dementia? That would need to be fixed asap if true. I don't believe it to be true.
>How could you think it's anything but a gaffe?
So lets get into it. If it's a gaffe, what's the gaffe. It would be egregious to give him the benefit of the doubt to the point where you don't even investigate. The gaffe can go either way, he could have just meant that they have an organization to get people engaged and voting. That would be way past the line and not appropriate to jump there.
The other way the gaffe can be seen. There is a voting fraud organization and plan and the gaffe is that he accidentally admitted to it. He shouldn't have admitted to it. I could believe this level of gaffe, it's not unreasonable. It unfortunately admits to voted fraud.
>Do you really think that if he was aware of systematic voter fraud strategy being developed that he would actually give a speech about it?
He wasn't giving a speech about it. It was an accidental admission. Slip of the tongue, freudian slip, whatever you would like to call it. It has nothing to do with dementia. He was under immense pressure running an election during a pandemic. The hallmark of a freudian slip is that they generate out of thought supressions. He knew he can't admit to voting fraud, and was trying to suppress the thought.
Now here's the thing. It's simple to solve this problem. Elections have far more to do with appearance. Democrats having heard Biden admit to voting fraud had to come out and be above board. The entire process needed to be beyond question. No drama, no nothing. They needed to make sure the process was transparent as possible. Give the republicans nothing that might question the legitimacy of the election.
Unfortunately they didnt do that. They hated trump so much they needed him to lose.
Nytimes is obviously biased, but stuff like this however is the opposite of transparent. Literally it's opaque. There's no simple reason, there's no reason at all to block the windows.
Add on top of that they threw out multiple republican observers for various reasons. Most republican observers were denied access.
Nobody will ever know if the election was stolen. As I said above, the republicans made it very clear they believe the election was stolen by their actions.
It's just that right, it sure looks like the election was stolen.
how does the linked NYT article support your position that fraud was committed at that site? Did the bipartisan boards of county and state canvassers review the processes and results?
>how does the linked NYT article support your position that fraud was committed at that site?
I never affirmatively said fraud happened. I have no idea. What the link proves quite conclusively that there is the appearance of some BS going on. Which in the context of where the democrats are forced to make sure things dont look like there's a 'voted fraud org' like biden said.
If biden was telling to the truth. This is exactly what it would look like.
>Did the bipartisan boards of county and state canvassers review the processes and results?
Doesn't matter. Bush vs Gore in 2000 was a big boondoggle. Russian interference allegations in 2016 that is questionable. Now this one?
In recent polls a super majority of US citizens believe the elections are fraudulent. Tremendously low confidence the election system is functioning properly. The republicans are paralyzed from accusing the democrats because it'll blow out democracy. How broken is the system if voting fraud almost certainly happened but did it happen to change the results and you can't call it out?
Every single republican report you will read about keeping democracy intact and the necessity to build a new more robust system and make sure votes are counted properly. They actively changed the rules everywhere they could.
Mind you, after biden said voted fraud org. The onus is on the democrats to prove the election was smooth. That sure as shit didn't happen.
The republicans have made it very clear through their actions they believe the election was fraudulent. 425 bills in 49 states post-election is something pretty significant.
It's interesting that they don't say it. They can't say it can they? Trust in democracy is so low from the democrats saying they republicans stole the elections. If the Michigan republicans came out and said that they believe the election was illegitimate. What happens? Trump isnt getting into office. It's not going to change anything. What are the consequences? The militia folks might go take over the capitol or something? Worse? Civil war? The union splitting? Been seeing lots of that talk.
You dont introduce 39 bills because you feel the election went smoothly. They control the senate and house. Those bills will likely pass.
Interesting they just outright put in the title 'based on lies' but that's needed. They are going to do all this voter supression etc based on lies but it'll happen. It has to happen. If 1 side of the election thinks it wasn't legitimate. The next election will be going much more smoothly.
To get back to your question. The same reason Michigan's republicans say the election was fine with various problems is the same reason you heard of 'no significant fraud found' goes back to being unable to say it.
Mostly aesthetic and cultural differences. Both lie about other countries, threaten war, perform coups and bomb other countries.
The US democrats exist to divert any worker resistance into channels they can then sabotage. In many ways they're more right wing than the US Republicans, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
I think you are mischaracterizing why Julian Assange has lost support. He has not lost support because of exposing corruption in any political parties, he's lost support because its become clear he works with Russian intelligence services.
People have leaked data on Russian corruption to WikiLeaks, which went unpublished. His leaks coincide with what is politically favorable to Russia, not with making all information free to the world.
One niggle I have is that both Snowden and Assange get accused of being agents of Russia.
It's a ridiculously and simplistically too convenient argument and therefore attractive to anyone with the slightest bias against 'information I don't like' (or a tendency towards being a 'shoot the messenger' type of person).
That Assange / Wikileaks don't follow the same bias as the local US media, doesn't mean he's / they're an enemy agent. Thinking of the world in black and white like that is dangerously reductive.
Not to mention the chilling effect that comes with that sentiment. It reminds me of the Rick Rubin style of creating "fuck the system" propaganda. Only complain about the parts of the system that don't actively benefit me if you want to keep your record deal.
I would actually be curious to hear more about that perspective on Rick Rubin. A very cursory Google doesn't come up with much, and I'll dig a bit harder soon, but if you want to elaborate or link to something about this, I'd very much appreciate it!
An article I read years ago blasted him for nepotism and using typical unethical manipulation tactics to get ahead. Unfortunately, ever since Amit Singha left Google, half of the things I look for are no longer accessible.
> One niggle I have is that both Snowden and Assange get accused of being agents of Russia.
I've never seen that about Snowden except in regard to activities after taking io residence in Russia, and even then its usually more “Snowden is subject to influence by Russia” more than “...an agent of Russia”.
Assange is a different story, but the both the uncontroversial facts and the controversial detailed claims on which a conclusion about being a Russian agent might rest about Assange are different.
Well, Snowden actually IS borderline agent of Russia since he was¹ perfectly fine with seeking KGB asylum, so right after exposing the evils of mass surveillance he relocated to... Surveillistan.
¹ Or maybe still is, presumed he's still alive and can move freely, which is highly unlikely.
He's explained that pretty well. He didn't plan on going to Russia, he first went to HK, but he was advised that it wasn't safe for him at the time. He went to Russia because that's the only option he had. It's not just disingenuous to blame him for that, it's downright malicious.
It's still a joke. Even if he is Russian (which is a very convenient boogieman), the fact is he DID expose corruption in US parties.
He may be partisan, he may not be revealing damaging info about Russia. But if the information is true, so what? Shouldn't we be doing something about the corruption he revealed regardless of why he revealed it? I can't believe all you have to do is say the R-word and suddenly people are just willing to ignore everything he says, its ridiculous. Like uhh enemies of the US are more likely to expose damaging information about them as compared to allies, no shit?
4 or 5 people at the top of the DNC resigned because of saying mean things about Sanders and invitations to avante garde art shows? That's not how it works.
The appearance of impropriety is still important to some folks though, so when private emails (that didn't lead to rigging an election, something the DNC has no power to do anyway) that show that folks in the DNC favored one candidate over the other, they resigned.
This isn't the same thing as admitting the impossible (that the DNC somehow got HRC ~4 million more votes)
A link between Wikileaks and the Russian government has never been substantiated. The "didn't publish Russian leaks" smear is one of many.
The "Russian leaks" that Wikileaks declined were sent to them during the DNC/Podesta/Hillary email release when their resources were obviously stretched. The "leaks" were mostly public, were deemed unimportant and were declined. As we know that didn't stop whoever anonymously submitted these documents from immediately using this to orchestrate a smear campaign against Wikileaks with full compliance of the media (funny timing during the DNC email release, wonder who it could have been?)
A little later the "leaks" were fully published elsewhere and nobody cared (but let's not kid ourselves that anybody who claimed to care actually cared at all).
I agree. It seems to me that even after the allegations against Assange were proven wrong, people still refuse to accept his innocence in this case and try to find something else to blame him for. As when you're proven wrong in an argument and then try to defend your ignorance with a fallacy; "yeah you're right about this problem, but you still smoke weed and voted for Trump".
If what he says is true, why does it matter that its politically favorable to Russia? As a liberal democracy we should strive to be more moral and upstanding, hiding those things for politics is the opposite of that.
2 people run for office, both committed a crime. 1 of them supports Russia in their ongoing aggression. So Russia has WikiLeaks post only the information on the candidate they don't like, securing the election for a politically favorable but perhaps even more corrupt person.
How and what information is being presented is an incredibly important part of "the truth" as a whole.
There are 4 things he could have done:
1. Don't reveal any secrets.
2A Reveal secrets that harm candidate A.
2B Reveal secrets that harm candidate B.
3. Reveal all secrets that harm candidate A and candidate B.
I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. You seem to think option 1 is preferable to both options 2A and 2B. GP and I seem to think the opposite.
I can understand your argument that half the truth can be worse than no truth at all. But as there are very few sources for information like WikiLeaks I think in cases like this, half the truth might be all the public can get and it at least gives you a basic idea of what is happening when nobody is looking.
> I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options.
From context, ITYM "disputes", not "argues". Or least that's the only way your comment makes sense; "argues" a position generally refers to supporting that position.
> So Russia has WikiLeaks post only the information on the candidate they don't like, securing the election for a politically favorable but perhaps even more corrupt person.
There are three answers for that: If Wikileaks has a bias than it can easily explained by the fact that Assange's woes were caused by the Obama admistration. And even if they didn't have a bias, most of their staff at Wikileaks do not speak Russian and they try to verify every piece they publish; as opposed to making claims based on partisan funded opposition research. It's also far harder to leak from Russia and other authoritarian/mafious states and also because their intelligence agencies use mechanical typewriters.
Disclaimer: I dont have much of an opinion on the topic of Assange himself since years after in his "embassy prison" he certainly went nuts in a way. It's not the same person you could talk with on IRC years ago. He was also pretty much okay back in 2011 durign his iterview with Eric Schmidt.
Yet here is the idea for your mind: all around the world including Russia political leaders of authoritarian countries trying to sell bullshit like every single problem their regime has is caused by some US conspiracy. They'll of course tell you that all independent journalist and activists work for US and spread only lies.
Does Snowden going for asylum in Russia make what he exposed unimportant? What if famous Iraq civilians killing video would be provided not by someone from US, but Russian FSB or Islaeli Mossad? Will it make people less dead?
So obviously any whistleblower or journalist can be biased and some country will benefit more than other. There is absolutely no point of arguing who working for whom - only facts are important.
> all around the world including Russia political leaders of authoritarian countries trying to sell bullshit like every single problem their regime has is caused by some US conspiracy.
This "bullshit" has a Pentagon-sized kernel of truth to it.
Washington is the only regime with hundreds of foreign military bases.
Washington is the only regime that directly funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in resources to foreign rebel groups through channels such as NED, DRL.
Washington is the only regime capable of unilaterally blockading entire economies through crushing sanctions.
So yes, it does really matter to 90%+ of the world population if the "journalists" they trust are actually paid couriers of Washington's foreign agendas.
"There is absolutely no point of arguing who working for whom - only facts are important."
I don't think so.
There's generally no such thing as 'individual blocks of truth' as independent things. The truth is always contextual.
New Orgs have biases that exhibit themselves in all sorts of ways, and they matter.
I'm not fully sure if either of these things are fully true but if 1) Assange was actively trying to help people steal sensitive information form the US and 2) has some kind of implied relationship with an American adversary whereupon they support him politically or with information - and whereby he returns the favour by suppressing leaks on their behalf - then what does this look like? This person basically becomes a foreign agent, intent on discrediting one party over another. The 'facts' released are ultimately selective. It'd be 'journalism' in the same way that Putin could use his powers to 'uncover' information and then frame and leak the information selectively. Again: I don't know if 1 and 2 are true.
I'm also not fully on board with the notion that information about Assange is suppressed in the conspiratorial sense it'd be interesting to see more behind the scenes mechanics of how that might work.
> There's generally no such thing as 'individual blocks of truth' as independent things. The truth is always contextual.
On the one hand, I absolutely agree with this statement in isolation. On the other, I don’t need him to be unbiased, as he isn’t the only journalist in the world — if he wants (or needs) to keep Russia happy, so long as he has a counterpart that doesn’t, between them the public is informed.
Yes. And why is the USA trying to take him into custody? While in the USA for a US citizen to work as a foreign agent is illegal, I fail to see why Assange, who is a citizen of Australia and mostly has resided in other countries, should be arrested by yet another country and shipped to the USA. Did Assange commit a crime in the USA? Wasn't it Manning who got the supposed "classified" info and gave it to Assange?
How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA? This whole Assange thing is just a streaming shit-show of nonsense and a shameful attempt to drive one man to ruin and worse.
Both Democrats and Republicans have other problems to worry about every day b/c they don't have their acts together. All this trouble comes b/c a cabal of jerks somewhere (probably the intelligence community) has a hard-on to fuck Assange over and is somehow tolerated.
Just for comparison: would it be ethical for the USA to bushwhack and extradite a street vendor in Egypt who cries "Kill the USA!" and burns Uncle Sam in effigy? Hell No! This stuff happens all the time. The USA bureaucracy is like an information sieve. If you wanna fix it, find a better way to work.
Give Assange his freedom. Drag into the sunlight those fools who are perpetuating this nonsense and terminate their employment. Brand their foreheads with a giant letter "A" so they're identifiable forever. Anything Assange has revealed is by now "water under the bridge". To use another metaphor, "the genie is out of the bottle" and you can't put it back. Grow up!
> How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA?
In theory, that’d be the job of the court case he’s fighting an extradition to not face.
And, to be clear where I stand, in the (unlikely) event that anyone’s secret services care what I think, they’d have to be a lot more open and honest about their mistakes for me to trust them when they say “we need X secret, trust us” — almost everything that people like me get to hear about them are their mistakes, and a whole lot of hubris to go with those mistakes; while I like to assume they can’t all be that bad, the fact is I can only form opinions by what I learn, and whatever good any of them might do is kept secret (or so vague it might as well be) and is unlearnable, while the bad stuff is writ large.
(None of this is relevant to the judicial systems in any country or Assange).
Water under the bridge or not, they don't want people doing it again or supporting Russia. It could be as much as a message to the next potential Assange - don't even try. If you believe he's an enemy of your interests and working with your enemy to hurt you, I have a hard time seeing a calculation they would make that says leave him alone since what's done is done. They are going to make his life miserable forever and hope it's a deterrent. That's the realpolitik of the situation - morals ignored.
He's not a US citizen, he was outside the USA. So what?
If we tried to arrest every person outside the USA who is trying to do something to/in the USA we'd have to put out arrest warrants for millions of people. We'd be, and are, the laughingstock of the diplomatic world.
Aside: we apparently assassinate hundreds of individuals outside the USA every year (something that Obama complained about IIRC ) with God-knows-what justification. We're well on our way down the Road to Ruin.
I'm hardly a bleeding-heart, but for the USA intelligence agencies to dog Assange to death is immoral, unethical and illegal even under our legal system.
Pursuing Assange is the worst of all causes: a fishing expedition, a routine overextension of international and national law, legal malpractice, and a giant fool's errand for every man involved in this.
Only a psychopath would put the pursuit of Assange on their resume. Of course we likely have plenty of those working for us. Apparently they float to the top, like shit.
jollybean says>"I think your comment implies an general ignorance of the situation."
Nope. But your reasoning above amply demonstrates a bit of how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual. You should write an "Anti-Declaration of Independence" for spies that outlines their grievances against free agents and how they should be able to kill/maim/wound/harm anyone, anywhere just b/c they are irritated with those agents' behavior.
An honest leader would publicly fire with malice every asshole who participated in or encouraged this shitfest and make sure the government never employed them again. Of course, that would be a bit (but only a bit) similar to doing to them what is being done to Assange! Perhaps that would be justice. I'll have to think about it.
You're not grounded in material reality of the situation.
When a crime is committed, justice is pursued.
The nationality of the individual doesn't matter that much. American or not, if they've committed a crime against the US, then they will face justice.
If he possibly raped a woman in Sweden, then he's extradited to Sweden to face justice for that crime.
If he possibly robbed someone in Switzerland, then he's extradited to face justice there.
Since it looks like he conspired with Pt. Manning to steal classified data from the US Military, he's going to be extradited to the US to face trial.
" how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual."
This is not some YouTube conspiracy story, for the most part it's really not that complicated.
There is already reasonable evidence in the public domain that a crime was committed, he's going to have to get a lawyer and face a judge so we can find out the truth.
I see no crime. Find another way to employ the multitude of overpaid and useless intelligence agents than siccing(1) them on the citizens of the USA and other nations.
The laws of the USA apply only within the boundaries of the USA with minor exceptions by treaty. Application of USA law outside the USA is illegal, delusional and megalomanical. Furthermore, other nations will either object (the only reasonable response) or expect full reciprocation. Imagine life in a country where USA, French, British, Scottish, South African, Russian, Chinese, etc. law all simultaneously applied? Your suggestions are nonsensical and self-contradictory.
(1) To sic, to attack (used especially in commanding a dog):to incite to attack (usually followed by on).
Ironically, though the latter’s position is reversed with regard to Assange himself and the former’s famous intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations, Henry Kissinger would agree with you that law stops at the border, while Amnesty International would disagree and say certain crimes have universal justification.
And indeed, the USA isn’t the only nation claiming universal jurisdiction for various offences.
I think it's would make sense to take into account who specific person working for in situation when we have proven facts about them. Unfortunately it's almost always impossible to get those unbiased facts since there is so much of misinformation everywhere.
And even if you knew for sure that Assange knowingly working for Russia you will never know why he doing it. After all US wants to get him on US soil and to put him in prison (for 300 years) to make him an example of US power and "justice".
And on other hand Putin's regime can just threat to kill his friends and family since they totally capable of doing it, no defending against it in UK court.
Oh, looks like i posted some funny conspiracy here. Conclusion: when we try to dig into information about specific people we end up with conspiracy mess. That information impossible to check and it doesn't prove anything.
On other side when activists or journalists publish stories about something like war crime, PRISM or Panama Papers facts can usually be verified because when it's leaked it's too big to hide.
Doesn't leaking information that exposes flaws of a country make it more resilient in the future against bigger attacks? So even if he is helping Russia spread their propaganda isn't it making us stronger to find this out and plan against it instead of an all out information war? How does Russia win here.
> Doesn't leaking information that exposes flaws of a country make it more resilient in the future against bigger attacks?
Not necessarily, obviously. For instance: if someone leaks information to an enemy about a fatal flaw in their nation's military equipment, and the enemy nation attacks and exploits that flaw to victory; all the leak did was make their country weaker and more vulnerable.
I'm not aware of any improvements in the resiliency of the US in response to Assange's leaks, except that the Democratic party has better opsec now (e.g. uses 2FA and has anti-phishing drills). They may have locked down their secret-level networks in response to Manning's activities, but that could arguably make the US less resilient.
Of course it does. In addition, it should true the course of the country to its ideals. Clearly there are some who wish to hide information from our own citizens, lest public opinion root them out of their sinecures.
Please don't break the site guidelines when posting here. It only makes things worse. I realize it's extremely frustrating when you're representing a minority/contrarian viewpoint and it feels like the majority is not only wrong but ganging up on you. But there's not much that can constructively be done about it other than to patiently present your substantive points (or, failing that, ignore).
Public information in a language none of their staff speaks.
People say Wikileaks is wrong that all the information offered to them was public, but none of the published chat logs show anyone explaining to Wikileaks that there are unpublished leaks in there.
> It’s not like anyone still holds the opinion that Russia is even a semi-democracy.
There's a reason they still conduct elections in Russia, to give the appearance of democracy. Yes, people still think it's a democracy… as long as their favourite leader is in power.
There are precisely 0 slavs alive today who trust their government or politicians. We've been fucked over by our own governments for going on nearly a century at this point, and there's no reality in which anyone other than the old and senile believes elections are anything other than a scam.
In Serbia's last elections, Vucic falsified COVID numbers on the days leading up to voting day so that his party could convince his voterbase, the elderly, to go out in droves to vote. After the election he stopped the reporting of false numbers and put the country into a lockdown because to no one's surprise, the numbers were sky high. There were massive protests because of the lockdown measures, where police brutality ran rampant, all on Vucic's orders. Expired tear gas was used on unarmed civilians protesting peacefully, cops in full riot gear were beating the crap out of unarmed protesters and chasing them down the streets. He goes around poorer regions of the country and bribes people with sandwiches and basic supplies like wheat and flower for a vote. His son is good friends with famous, high profile criminals, and Vucic himself was buddy-buddy with a bunch of the former guard, more than half of which either have been, or are currently standing trial for war crimes committed during the Yugo wars.
This list goes on and on, and similar things happen in most balkan and eastern european country. Nobody sane trusts a single thing these "people" do, and people definitely don't trust elections, so what ends up happening is that people just don't see the point in participating in an obvious scam. None of us actually believe we're living in a democracy, we're all aware it's a farcical facade that dictators put up.
I know several Russians who do trust their government and to a lesser extent their politicians. All claims are met with 'western propaganda' and 'it is the same in the west'. They even deny Soviet atrocities, claiming either that were either made up by the CIA or that they happened due to poor conditions from war, despite the fact they themselves were born in the USSR in the 70s. Don't be so sure that nobody believes the government, plenty do.
I doubt there are many Russians who trust current government, I live in Russia and can't recall anyone. Even kids today are mostly opposite to government due to huge information campaigns. Those who deny Soviets crime are mostly misinformed, like US citizens believing in little green men.
Man... Every Soviet schoolboy knows that the existence of an electoral system does not necessitate a democracy. It's not Russia that is your existential problem in US, it's education.
Yet, we do. Assange would not be able to change that. And really, it is about as "none of our business" as any major criminal activity you could think of.
It is Russians' business, technically, but in practice regular Russians are no better equipped to act on information about it than we are.
The West would have legal standing to sanction, freeze the assets of, and arrest employees of oligarchs who use their wealth to commit financial crimes in the West. So yes, having leaks from Russia is very useful.
>Maybe provide some feedback, so I can understand why you disagree with me?
From your second link "These incidents don’t prove, as some have alleged, that Assange is some kind of paid Russian agent, or that WikiLeaks is a Russian front organization"
Your first link was addressed elsewhere. I can't personally blame Assange for liking Russia more than the country that has spent a decade making his life a living hell. Even if Russia's motives are obviously impure, they are more helpful to furthering Assange's goal.
You're upset that wikileaks didn't report on a leak that was known for 2 years by major western media organizations, and was later forwarded to them? Despite their longstanding policy to not report on leaks that have already been reported on elsewhere?
This blaming Russia thing is way beyond ridiculous now. WHAT "Russian corruption" are you talking about? Is it the same as the "Russian interference in the US elections," i.e. something that has never existed in reality and was just invented by the US mass media for their purposes?
The 12 Russians, and the 3 Russian companies all hired attorneys to represent them and counter sue for defamation. When their attorney went in front of the judge, all charges were dropped by the Justice Dept, refusing document discovery "on issues of national security".
It's all political reality television, from both the right and the left. It's like a cable TV wrestling match.
"""
In January 2019, the federal government accused Concord of violating a protective court order designed to safeguard information shared among lawyers on the case. Prosecutors said a trove of nonclassified information they had turned over to Concord’s defense team had turned up on a website the previous October.
A message on a newly created Twitter account read: “We’ve got access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database as we hacked Russian server with info from the Russian troll case Concord LLC v. Mueller. You can view all the files Mueller had about the IRA and Russian collusion. Enjoy the reading!”
"""
RT's claim that these groups are not responsible for these troll farms is not credible. The claim that these organizations were attempting to use the court case to get detailed information on how they were investigated however, is.
As I warned, do what you wish with the RT article.
Didn't take it as a credible source in the matter, but wasn't going to bother with a longer than 2 min. search either for all details.
On a side note, I don't take the NYT to be any less biased that RT. All of them will conveniently forget about the parts of the story which they don't like. They all have favourites in the matter (Trump, Barr, Democrat leadership, Putinistas, etc).
Both. Some people (probably minority) will use self-hosted wallets. Majority will use custodials (banks).
> And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome.
USD will still stay as the official currency of El Salvador. However now merchants have to accept also BTC. The hypotheses is that for example foreign businessmen will bring BTC in form of investments to the country, and people will send BTC via remittances. There is possibility that there isn't actual demand, but there is also possibility that El Salvador might get some serious economical boost because of this.
The original conversation was about how Bitcoin could help the 70% who are unbanked have access to something like a bank account. The proposed mechanism for this is "well, they can go to a bank and register something like a bank account, or else they can be a high-SES self-educated tech person who builds their own bank using computer hardware". I do not think this could help the 70% who are unbanked have access to something like a bank account.
Whether or not it has spinoff economic benefits in terms of tourism or parking capital flight from other countries, you might be right, but that's not what was being discussed, right?
I'd also say it's easier to give everyone the right to an account as in Germany (if the reason is that they can't get one b/c of a missing/bad credit history and not because they don't live to a bank and have no phone), to solve the 70% unbanked problem instead of introducing BTC.
> The original conversation was about how Bitcoin could help the 70% who are unbanked
And this isn't the best argument for bitcoin. The best argument for it is the limited supply.
Considering the BBC has a dog in the fight, I believe that's probably why it doesn't mention the anti-inflationary argument that is the true reason a country would want to transact in BTC.
The USD is available to the US to make more of at any time. Imagine trying to run your government on someone else's currency. You'd always be at a disadvantage.
In the past the US hegemony has regime changed several countries that tried to use their own currency. (See Lybia)
let's not put the cart before the horse? you can't solve the trickiest problem in a day. This news, is a major development and is going to open many, many doors, eventually solving this problem, too
That's the strategy of McDonald's corporate, not the mom and pop franchises. Franchisees do not own the land the franchise is on. The McDonald's corporation buys the land and leases it to the franchisee.
"McDonald’s owns thousands of iconic pieces of real estate around the globe. From New York City’s Times Square to Moscow’s Red Square, McDonald’s has ventured around the world, buying up prime real estate. Franchisees pay McDonald’s a cut of their food sales, but a much larger portion of McDonald’s revenue comes from the rent it’s paid on its real estate. After all, rent in Times Square isn’t cheap, but a Big Mac is.
I'm a developer and spending 1-2 hours a day to commute to an office where I have to microwave a lunch, sit in a cubicle all day, and be forced to overhear coworkers talk about inane things while I'm trying to concentrate sounds like hell to me. Working from home has increased my productivity and made work more enjoyable.
Corporate offices were always terrible but when they removed the cubicles for the "open-office plan" was the last straw. Having my own room for work, at home, is the only way to go.
I would rather my kids interrupt me at my home office than having to hear coworkers chatting and eating all day.
Most major corporations have teams of mixed offshore and onshore developers. If it was okay to have the offshore part of the team working from outside the office before the pandemic, I don't see why onshore developers wouldn't deserve the same treatment now.
It's not even a case of onshore vs offshore, companies that manufacture physical things and have even a shred of vertical integration have always done this. The corporate office is in a different state than the manufacturing facility which is in a different state from the R&D facility which is in a different state than that company that used to be your contractor that you acquired a decade ago, etc. etc. And they've managed to do this successfully even before video chat and email, some of them since before the telephone.
