When I mention NWO I'm simply referring to the fact that as the US has ruined its own reputation, Russia and China have developed a stronger position with the rest of the world. If we ever got to a place where Putin-led Russia was considered more of a leader in the international community than the US it would be bad for almost everyone. Likewise, although China has made slow and steady progress towards being less terrible, if they were suddenly more influential to the rest of the world it too would be bad for almost everyone. No one says "Man I wish the rest of the world would wake up and start operating like China and Russia, that's really the model that freedom loving people everywhere should aspire to." Russian and Chinese people are just as good as anyone else, but in spite of our government being pretty shitty in many ways, their governments are still atrocious in comparison.
Its not about communism. Its about Russia's obviously hostile intent towards western civilization and Wikileaks selling out their integrity to support it simply because they don't like the US.
Yet you attribute that to WikiLeaks (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18848920): "If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us."
Can we also likewise agree that the democratic party's misdeeds themselves hurt the democratic party and helped russia?
If so, why is it reasonable to connect "wikileaks getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO, but not reasonable to connect "the DNC getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO?
You're still oversimplifying it. I'm saying that they were trying to manipulate people with selective, perfectly timed releases designed to achieve a specific political goal while at the same time receiving information from and potentially coordinating with foreign intelligence agents and lying about it. You're trying to refer to that scenario as "I don't know why anyone's mad, all they did was tell us about a bad thing that happened."
I agree the information should have become public. I disagree that it needed to be intentionally weaponized in an active attempt to interfere with a sovereign nation's election by hostile actors.
>Can we also likewise agree that the democratic party's misdeeds themselves hurt the democratic party and helped russia?
I can agree wholeheartedly that any time anyone attempts to game one of our election systems that they are undermining the security of the US and helping the US' enemies. I don't think the US is even close to being a perfect country, but if it were successfully destabilized to the point where it could not be fixed it would be one of the worst possible outcomes for not only us, but almost every single country on the planet.
>If so, why is it reasonable to connect "wikileaks getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO, but not reasonable to connect "the DNC getting their way" to a Russia/China NWO?
Well, for one thing, Hillary is notably more hostile towards Putin than Trump. She's also infinitely more capable of coming up with adult solutions for dealing with them. Trump doesn't even believe all of the shit that we know for a fact Russia is doing to intentionally hurt us. His ignorance might not be legal treason but ethically its absolutely treasonous. And I say this as a person that didn't vote for Hillary Clinton or Trump. I voted for a fairly liberal libertarian (as far as libertarians go which is not very progressive) that I thought was terrible, but less terrible than either of them. If we had a decent moderate conservative that wasn't a religious nut or a decent progressive I would have voted for one of them, but unfortunately that was not the case.
Aside from that, if the DNC was doing something unethical (which IMO they were), its more than fair to call them out for it.
There is no evidence of this. it is pure narrative based upon what you perceive as motives.
> some hillary vs trump stuff, who you voted for
not relevant to this discussion at all...
There is plenty of evidence to suggest it. What you're looking for is a smoking gun that definitively proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, such as a leaked, signed email from Assange outlining his entire strategy or a video of him at a coffee shop with Russian Agents wearing nametags that say "Guccifer 2.0". When it comes to international espionage, that's a pretty high standard.
> Who I voted for.
So many people take sides on the Russian election interference issue based on whether or not they identify as a Republican or a Democrat. Perhaps it shouldn't be necessary, but because that's the way most of these conversations go, I thought it would be relevant to mention that I don't support either of the people that ran in 2016.
"taking sides" is a convenient diversion of narrative-based discussion
Compare and contrast the release of the State Department cables. Because the bulk dump took the politics of delicate international negotiations out of the hands of the SD and laid them bare for everyone to see, the Libyan people saw how what they were told by their government about international perception of them was a lie, and they followed their anger about that lie into civil war... And the country has not recovered stability. It's still unclear whether a world where Libyans unseated their government is going to shake out to be better for Libyans or the rest of the international community than the world that came before.
International politics is a delicate process full of egos and carefully-chosen words. It does not lend itself well to open-government-style action. This is irrelevant to Wikileaks, and (lacking any counterweights) it's quite possible that the end result is a shift in the balance of power to the nations that are still capable of running their international policy with their cards held close to their chests.
It was an attempt to allow you to connect the dots for me, by starting from the (in my opinion) reasonable act which is implied to be the smoking gun.