zlacker

>>Damien+(OP)
I think this story does not need to be flagged, but could benefit from a very constrained discussion ('self-censoring') to not let personal political opinions take over the discussion. I'll try.

Is this a direction more modern, western democracies seem to be heading? I feel a loss of democratic appeal and subsequent machinations of all kinds by apparatuses of state to keep in power. Democratic in name, but the number of options available to the public limited to what is in line with what public officials think of as good sense.

Examples:

-DNC machinating to get Clinton elected as candidate. The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations.

-The unpopular and undemocratic European Union. Examples abound. The best being the EU-constitution: struck down in popular referendums, flown in as a treaty.

-In my country, the Netherlands, a referendum in which the public voted against an EU-agreement with Ukraine (wholy within law, with very obvious machinations by state and political parties), on which both the government and EU reneged

Counter example:

-Brexit

Disclaimers

-Please, don't hit on the 'red herrings' (if any), like 'undemocratic EU'. I see it as both a fact (imho, populus does not recognize European parliament) and an opinion (mostly in the more populist parties over Europe). Not center to my view of democracies limiting decision power of the populus. -The 'public officials' need not be those paid by the state. But more broadly: those aspiring to have their organisations have a say over public policy.

>>wjnc+O3
Since you are Dutch, here's a wonderful act of public service done by your countrymen, getting voting machines to play chess: http://hackaday.com/2006/10/06/voting-machine-chess/

My country, Ireland, briefly flirted with the idea of voting machines areound the same time, and decided to scrap them at enormous expense and go back to paper ballots: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/opposition-condemns-e-voting-...

> The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations.

I'm not convinced the "Russian hackers" angle is correct, it seems like a convenient cover story for the DNC, to draw a distinction between Hillary and Trump with regard to Putin. They know many older voters don't understand this stuff (no offense to older HN readers!) and will likely buy it. It's just like the North Korean hackers story for the Sony hack. It could just as easily have been disgruntled DNC insiders, and Wikileaks is happy to have the real source of the leak disguised.

>>patric+u4
Why assume 'disgruntled' insiders when the established forces are the ones profiting from the hack? Or are you saying that they did it because Sanders would never have gotten through national convention anyways, but they could hurt Hillary by blackening her?

>>m_muel+ll
I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying it's a possibility. The Russian hacker story just seems bizarre and made up, just like the Sony North Korea story.

Here's an interview with Julian Assange when asked about the source of the leaks, with direct quotes from Clinton's campaign manager, quoting unnamed experts: https://youtu.be/axuJfX3cO9Q?t=12m50s

"On Sunday morning, the issue erupted, as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, argued on ABC’s “This Week” that the emails were leaked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump” citing “experts” but offering no other evidence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-r...

I mean anyone can quote anonymous "experts" to craft a narrative. Doesn't make it true.

>>patric+Ir
My point is, at some point you have to assume that the easiest way of all this happening is that either DNC or Hillary's staff is rotten from the top. At this point it seems to be a pattern to me.