Ha. Ask the CIA and the FBI.
Their claim, their burden.
I don't think HRC lost because of Russia. She lost for a mul ude of reasons, many of them under her control, but I don't think that's a good reason not to take foreign influences serioisly. A number of people pooh-poohing Trump's ties to Russia were screeching about HRC's ties to Gulf States through her foundation or James Riady and Johnny Chung back in Bill Clinton's day.
Looks a lot like selective attention to a legit issue.
I don't think it was Russia, but for the sake of argument let's say they did.
What I see is an administration and leftists presidential candidates publicly claiming they want to bring down Putin and hurt Russia. If you were Putin, what would you do?
What measures would the US intelligence community take if Putin was saying he wanted to bring us down?
I don't think it was Russia, but if it was, I most certainly don't blame them. I would say the demonrats did it to themselves in their "holier than though" philosophy.
im asking you because you're taking it as fact and repeating it
if you read through the thread, it's clear I don't take it as a demonstrated fact. I blame HRC for losing the election.
Russian hacking needn't be a demonstrated certainty in order to take it seriously. a lot of Trumpistas are dismissing it lightly because they like the result of the election, but if the election really was ed with, that's a fairly serious matter.
cyberwarfare is real; dismissing the possibility reflexively could be foolish, cynical or both.
it's possible all in the same breath that HRC and no one else is responsible for losing, that whining about Russian interference in the election is sour grapes, and that the Russians really did with us.
if they did, wouldn't you want to know how?
or tweet at 3am when a celebrity hurts his feelings or the media runs an unflattering pic.
I think they had motives. I think their motives could be to with Clinton, not so much the election. Pretty sure Russia had nothing to do with shutting Bernie Sanders out or HRC using "basket of deplorables" comment. All you could accuse Russia of is divulging the truth about just one candidate. I'd say that's ing with Clinton, not with the election.
CNN tampered with the election much more so than did Russia and they got off without a scratch. Donna B gave one candidate an unfair debate advantage. There's your dishonesty. Unveiling that she did it isn't dishonest and it's amusing to see people try to gas light the forum into thinking that somehow removing the smokescreen is tampering.
As for motive, Iraq had motive to have WMDs. Reports said they did. Off we went.
petty vindictiveness has been a constant theme with DJT -- are you sure we're talking about the same Trump?
Oh so true.
The media creates an imbalance that the unflavored candidate has a hard time overcoming.
People want him to be more stoic, isolated and only speak through speech writers. That's not change. You can't always tailor your candidate to your liking. As a country you get what you get. Social media is here to stay, Donald likes it. If Media didn't him for the entire election period maybe they'd have a better shot at getting some canned responses.
If one assumes that all Russia did was to reveal true information about one candidate, then I more or less agree with you. But that's assuming a lot. For example that all the wikileaks material was 100% bona fide and un ed-with, which we don't know.
I don't presume Russia holds itself above promulgating disinformation. Had it done so would you feel just the same about their participation in the presidential campaign?
not acting like a spoiled child would be enough, tbh
Working from what we know isn't assuming a lot. Assuming a lot is to posit other possibilities and dwell on them as if they are known facts. That's a slippery slope that we have no need to employ.
I don't care to speculate how I would feel based on hypotheticals. That kind of thing is how division is created unnecessarily. Visit it when it becomes an issue.I don't presume Russia holds itself above promulgating disinformation. Had it done so would you feel just the same about their participation in the presidential campaign?
In public, you mean? If he was cigar raping his intern would that be better? How about bombing an aspirin factory the day before his impeachment hearing? There are bigger things to worry about than the POTUSe's tweets.
disgusting
As long as they keep the psychotic left out of power I don't care who hacks what. I honestly think this was our last election.
sure, that was some bull . I denounced it on SR at the time.
But it''s silly to pretend the president has a private life on Twitter. If he wants to vent privately, do it privately.
Twitter is social media, not one's closet or the bathroom mirror. What the president says matters no matter where he says it.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-20-2016 at 02:08 AM.
I think you're wrong about that. We lived through Clinton, Bush and Obama to see more elections.
Wanna bet?
But you take possible disinfo and agitprop as a given truth. And refuse to allow that Russian dirty tricks might go beyond leaking true facts about only one candidate.
Supposing the Russians had politically damaging info about Trump and chose not to share it, and instead shared only politically damaging information, true and false, about his opponent, isn't that a thumb on the scale in the supranational electronic sensorium?
How heavily invested is Russia in Trump and vice versa?
Do we deserve to know it?
Why or why not?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
