I just love that Hillary has murder but Russia doesn’t
And a number of the people on this list
It is possible to not like Hillary and recognise that she may as well be a saint in comparison to ⊥rump and Putin. It’s just more projection from the US far-right.
Many of the accusations against Hillary Clinton can be categorized as projection.
If I was in control of a charity, I’d definitely siphon money from the top.
If I could have someone killed, I’d definitely use the option.
If was affiliated with a University, I’d definitely scam people out of their tuition…
I said exactly zero of these things.
Zero.
But that was a good example of twisting someone’s position and words to support one’s own, so I’ll thank you for it 
It seems like that’s what everyone’s doing. The failure of the Democratic party to win the election is their own fault, they ran the wrong candidate. But it seems the Democratic leadership has decided to revive anti-Russian fear-mongering instead of accepting responsibility for their failure and putting their own house in order.
Fair cop - I have been, so far. But until I see actual evidence that Russia actually physically changed vote totals I am going to continue to laugh at grandiose claims that Putin “hacked the election”.
This guy Warner needs a thick sheaf of paper to wave about when he makes these claims, to complete the Wiley Catt resemblance.
Restating your argument as its understood is not a manipulation of speech, it’s providing an opportunity to elaborate on the context and minutiae of your argument. I’m not seeing the difference in what you are saying and what @fitzador is paraphrasing. You did say that if Putin’s regime did hack the DNC and get the docs published he deserves praise, and that you don’t care if Russia did interfere.
I think this is a fair enough statement about some of the Russia coverage– I think there is a fringe of hardcore Dem supporters who really do believe the most outrageous “puppet-master” grand conspiracies just so they don’t suffer too much cognitive dissonance. I remember similar ones about W.
However, the fact that some amount of Russia theories are bunk doesn’t mean they all are. The news organizations are fanning the flames on the most outlandish claims, but there are very concerning basic facts about what the Trumpsters have been doing– it’s not entirely spin. Don’t let them off the hook because you want to litigate the Democratic party. You could just as easily say that the GOP picked the wrong candidate; one who surrounded himself with the corrupt and self-serving, and who’s not smart enough to hide it.
Your basic premise that “there’s nothing to see here” just doesn’t hold water and your tacit support of anti-democratic acts is really misguided. We get that you hate the democratic establishment (for whatever perceived treachery), but it’s blinding you to countless facts in front of your face. The enemy of your enemy is sometimes just another enemy. It’s all about picking the least-bad option.
Accepted, but until I see real credible proof of actual activities - rather than laughable non-evidence and furious hand-waving that is clearly politically motivated rather than evidence-driven - I choose not to be part of any jingoistic anti-Russian mob mentality.
I want Russia to have stronger, closer ties to the USA; I want American culture to influence Russia positively, I want the Russian people to see in me an example of how their culture could become more tolerant and accepting, rather than providing to them an example of intolerance and extravagant nationalism cloaked in partisan patriotism.
Again, I have never said that.
I have said that the anti-Russian rhetoric issuing from the Democratic Party is a foolish and shortsighted attempt to distract the American people from the failings of the same people who are pushing the anti-Russian memes.
This conversation started because someone (correctly) pointed out that the people who voted for Trump are bored and unimpressed by anti-Russian fearmongering. I chimed in to say it’s not just the people who voted for Trump! Arguing about whether my personal attitudes are intelligent and virtuous won’t change the information I was trying to share with y’all.
Then either you need to look closer, or I have once again demonstrated my poor writing skills.
I said the former, but not the latter, because I reject the “Russia interfered” and “Russia hacked the election” phrasings. I don’t care if Russia publishes things that are true about political parties, nor do I consider that interference. It is possible that Russians, or people in the employ of the Russian state, hacked some computers - the allegations are very weak, but may be true - but that’s still not hacking an election. Hacking an election is when you have your big business cronies change the voting machine totals in Florida.
You won’t. Ever*. This is a case being pursued within the bowels of the national security apparatus. There will probably be evidence that the public never sees. This is regrettable. It’s not the way it should be in an ideal Universe, but this isn’t one of those. We, unfortunately, are going to have a certain degree of trust in both our government agencies specializing in secrecy and the reporters with sources within those agencies. And what we’re hearing in these drips and drabs is significant.
Also, i feel that i have to point out that what you said here
is probably why people are getting the impression that you’re saying “there’s nothing to see here”. Id est, you seeming to claim that you know that the motivation of the Democrats is distraction rather than that they might know something that the general public hasn’t been told.
* Unless you have or receive security clearance higher than you could reveal here.
I once had a reasonably high security clearance, but that was a very long time ago.
I see your point about the difficulty of interpreting my rationale, thanks!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
