Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Oct 31, 2016.
Don't tell Hillary supporters this. They are having a hard enough week already.
Thehill is probably a Russian op
The Hill --> Pravda.
it does not say they have not found one but that they have not yet found one. lets wait till it is over.
Common deflection technique by the Democrats to wikileaks and other emails.
There's a hill in Russia. Easier connection.
Considering the fact that the link that tops this very thread says that Russia is involved in disrupting the election, albeit not through Trump, kinda does hint that they may have a point.
But hey, I guess it's alright when a foreign nation screws with us, so long as your guys are benefiting from it.
It's nothing new. I would be shocked to know that other countries - especially Russia - are not trying to influence the elections and the elected.
Thats known as an "Argument from Ignorance" It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false. In which ignorance represents a lack of contrary evidence.
The Hill is Russian?
Or they're at least welcoming of fellow communists
I have not heard any complaints about any of the other foreign leaders who have openly voiced their horror of Trump. Aren't they trying to influence the election too?
Seems like the left's playbook has dwindled down to one remaining page.
Play 1: When something bad happens for Hillary, try to connect Trump to Russia.
Play 2: See Play 1.
Example of practical use: If HRC stubs her toe on a sidewalk, have our connections in the media float the idea of a connection between Trump, Russia, and the contractor who poured the concrete.
Is it better to hide the truth to avoid "Messing with the election"? Let the truth out.
Have those other leaders been implying nuclear war if their mutt doesn't win?
Not sure, but Obama himself involved himself in Italian politics when last week he invited PM Renzi and gave him full support for a very controversial Referendum (a-la Brexit), saying that it is very important that the referendum passes. It is clearly a breach of national sovereignty, and I was utterly disappointed.
Not exactly, but then neither has Putin, as far as I know.
Did you really expect them to ? Russia is messing with our elections because they can. Think of it as trolling by Russia.
Wait you're telling me that the new Cold War the Neocons (regardless of party) are trying to stir up is just propaganda that will surely spiral out of control?
Color me....pissed that people still fall for this ********. War 2017 here we come.
Can you provide any evidence for this? Any at all?
How is a foreign nation screwing with an election any better or worse than domestic agents screwing with an election?
On a gut level invoking the Russians is pretty damn serious but there's been quite a few examples this year of internal chicanery and it gets a free pass from whichever side benefits at the time.
The US hasn't done the same thing for like ... forever???
There's a huge difference between petty intraparty politicking, and a bunch of foreign hackers, either state sponsored or not, breaking into the personal correspondences of one of our parties exclusively, exposing them for all the world to see.
See, I have no problem with keeping our politicians on their toes. Transparency is a good thing. But when it so greatly favors one party over another, it doesn't become a expose of truth and justice, it's a murky half transparency, becoming yet another campaigning tool, one more dirty and underhanded that most. If both sides aren't being raked through the mud, it's only presenting a half truth, mere propaganda with a truthful bent. At best, it lowers the quality and sanctity of political discourse to a free for all melee, where any and all tactics can be justified during an election season. At worst, it's flat out espionage committed with the intent of sowing confusion.
Wow, it's the first time that I vehemently disagree with you. The philosophy underneath this post is all wrong (repent!).
You are saying that for some reason that both A and B should be "uncovered", otherwise what we say about A is less relevant.
A and B are two different cases, not linked. If we know that A is dirty, that doesn't mean that in order to validate my judgment of A I also need dirt on B. B might not have dirt, or at least not even closely to the same level. Whatever happens to B does not invalidate A.