
The New Yorker Reveals Five Uncomfortable Truths About U.S. And Russia - DiabloD3
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/the-new-yorkers-big-cover-story-reveals-five-uncomfortable-truths-about-u-s-and-russia/
======
tptacek
This isn't very compelling or even really coherent:

1\. Obama and Clinton disagreed on Russia, with Clinton being the more hawkish
of the two, but maybe they don't anymore.

2\. It would be bad if there was another Cold War.

3\. It's likely we interfere in their politics too.

4\. The authors are unsatisfied with the evidence behind the DNC hack Russia
attribution.

5\. Russia is a distraction from other problems.

Even if you accept all the authors premises, what does this add up to?

~~~
bostik
> _Even if you accept all the authors premises, what does this add up to?_

That both sides engage in jingoism?

(The article in New Yorker is a tiring and annoying read. I may not always
like Greenwald's rhetoric but in this case, he correctly highlights the lack
of evidence. In an age of rumours and unfounded - but indeed plausible -
accusations, the referenced piece seemingly lacks sense of irony.)

~~~
avmich
It's interesting how the same article can support different opinions just
because of context. The points which Greenwald - a serious professional, to
say the least - makes may look just strange enough to suspect that each one of
them is left unfinished, and questions regarding them unanswered - and so the
whole impression is - not there. For example, lack of evidence - as soon as
you think you have one, you're left to wonder what to do with that piece of
evidence, if the proposition of the article relies on the absence of something
in which you aren't sure.

------
jstewartmobile
DiabloD3: What's the typical reaction when you share Intercept posts with
people?

Most of Greenwald's stuff has the ring of truth to it, but you'd never guess
that from the way people react. Not agreement, not disagreement, but more like
when someone just politely keeps talking after you've farted audibly.

Do you get the same reaction?

~~~
DiabloD3
I don't really read Greenwald. I just share articles on here that I think the
SV community on here would find interesting, and certainly do affect them and
their ability to do business.

Disclaimer: I do not support any political candidate that is too far off the
edges of the map, ie, both Clinton and Trump were bad picks if you're pro-
SV... and Trump has already proved that in the scant time he's been in the
White House.

------
bobwaycott
> _its lead cartoon dystopically depicting a UFO-like Red Square hovering over
> and phallically invading the White House_

I'm sorry, what? Am I the only one who thought it was a clear nod to
_Independence Day_?

------
fixxer
Wow. Journalism.

------
fixxer
"This article challenges my beliefs, so I guess I'll flag it."

Pathetic.

~~~
3131s
I do a search almost every day for "US", "Trump", "Obama", etc. because I am
curious about what Hacker News thinks about the US political situation, yet I
know that these discussions will be flagged instantly before I see them on the
front page. It's really unfortunate because Hacker News is probably the most
intelligent moderately-large online community I've ever found, and I'd like to
both learn from others and share my own knowledge on these topics. I
appreciate the mods, but I don't like the throw-their-hands-up response that
these threads always become uncivil. Some topics are so important that they
need to be discussed regardless, and the denizens of Hacker News are not just
bystanders to these issues but instead are the highly intelligent and
influential builders of these apparatuses that underlie modern society and
facilitate the abuses of governments.

------
nyar
pls stop posting political propaganda #fakenews to a hacker site

