Russian Hacking is the Left's Benghazi.

[Commodus]

What irks me is that many on the right treat the hacked data as a sort of "get out of election influence concerns free" card.

Is it authentic data? Sure. Does that excuse how and why the data was obtained? Absolutely not. Foreign governments shouldn't have free rein to steal information in a bid to skew the vote. Not only that, but the spin on the information made it sound like there was more to it than there was. There were certainly legit complaints (that the DNC clearly favored Clinton, for example), but they get drowned out by attempts to make scandals out of everything -- witness the people who seriously thought "spirit cooking" was a sign of something nefarious.

The sad part was watching conservatives enthusiastically share leak 'revelations' from RT or Sputnik... you know, news outlets backed by the Russian government. Putin and crew drip-fed propaganda, and people not critical enough to question the sources of that information just lapped it up.

 

[VRAMdemon]

So, everyone who thinks Russia had a hand in meddling in our election is "the left". I guess if your not a Trump voter you on "the left" now

 

[MrSquished]

Benghazi was investigated for over 800 days, twice as long as Pearl Harbor. It was nothing more than a witch hunt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Putin and crew drip-fed propaganda, and people not critical enough to question the sources of that information just lapped it up.

They were on the knob for every new spurt. Repub operatives milked out every last drop for 'em, too.

 

[jackstar7]

To the best of my knowledge very little of her emails were released, mainly those of the people around her. What was insightful though? Public vs private position. Speech transcripts that she was paid a kings ransom for. Her being passed questions prior to the debates. The discussions surrounding how to deal with her email server situation. Shear number of reporters in the media colluding with her campaign before running stories. Blurred lines between campaign and super PAC. That's what comes to mind offhand, I'm sure there's more I can come up with.

Confirmation bias: you found it.

 

[Meghan54]

If Obama is a Muslim, is Trump a Russian spy?


"...when the president-elect persists in a state of denial, siding with the enemy against his own country’s best interests, one is forced to consider that Trump himself poses a threat to national security.

"In Russia, they’d just call it treason."

First, a history refresher: For the past nine years, a smattering of Americans, most recently led by our now president-elect, have insisted that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.

For years, Donald Trump was unrelenting in his insistence that Obama prove beyond existing proof that he was born in Hawaii and not in the African country of his biological father. That Obama said he is a Christian wasn’t enough to persuade Trump’s followers, who apparently know a Christian when they see one.

Noteworthy is that these same Obama doubters weren’t bestirred to suspicion when then-President George W. Bush visited a mosque immediately after 9/11. Nor, thus far, have they expressed any concern about Trump’s cavalier approach to Russia’s cyberattack on the United States.

Given this history and recent evidence, isn’t it about time Trump be declared a Russian spy?

How surreal to realize that the man who soon will become president was long committed to a rumor soaked in paranoia and propagated by conspiracy theorists whose pursuit of truth stops at the point where facts and willful ignorance collide.

What is so obviously a conspiracy of Russian leadership, hackers and spies, Trump has repeatedly dismissed as lousy intelligence. Why would he do such a thing? Is it that he’s so thin-skinned he can’t tolerate anyone thinking that he might have benefited from the cyberattack? Or is it that he knew about it in advance and doesn’t want to be found out? This is how conspiracy theories get started. Then again, sometimes a conspiracy is just a conspiracy — and a fool is just a fool.

Consider what we know: Our best intelligence indicates that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Trump, who has long expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin (once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent), has his doubts.

Obviously, Trump wants to preserve the narrative that he won fair and square. And, clearly, claims of Russian interference would muss his ego. But is that it? Ego and narrative?

Consider further: Trump would rather make common cause with our fiercest geopolitical adversary (hat tip Mitt Romney) than take the word of our best people. Moreover, he has said he won’t receive daily security briefings and reportedly plans to reduce our security agencies.

Pray tell, whose side is this man on? When was the last time you had to ask that question about a president-elect?

In sum, when the president-elect persists in a state of denial, siding with the enemy against his own country’s best interests, one is forced to consider that Trump himself poses a threat to national security.

In Russia, they’d just call it treason.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...-is-trump-a-russian-spy/ar-BBxZrcS?li=BBnb4R7

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LMAO!!!!! As Biden put it, "It's Over"

 

[leper84]

More like Bush v Gore for W.

He will never escape the air of illegitimacy.

Only more so because he lost so badly in the popular vote, as well as his currently inexplicable admiration of a hostile foreign power.

All his moves are suspect, and his bungling and ignorance only compounds this.

But yes, a controversy that will endure far beyond Trump's lifetime.

Bush v Gore was close on electoral votes, iirc it came down to counties.

Trump v Clinton was a borderline blowout. Not a good comparison.

Being that the election was decided by electors, the popular vote is irrelevant. Not only would Trump and Clinton have had different campaign strategies, the entire election would be conducted differently for a popular vote. In a direct democracy style popular vote, the federal government would have to run the entire election, not the states. Your vote would be counted and validated by SSN. That leaves much less room for fraud and I expect the popular vote wouldn't have nearly has much of a gap.

Russia picking POTUS is not even in the same ballpark as Benghazi.

America voted for our POTUS. Russia didn't pick a damn thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bush v Gore was close on electoral votes, iirc it came down to counties.

Trump v Clinton was a borderline blowout. Not a good comparison.

Bullshit. It was decided by ~80,000 votes in three states. Trump's electoral college margin was 46th out of all our past presidential elections. the stuff about counties is just a right wing trope.

Being that the election was decided by electors, the popular vote is irrelevant. Not only would Trump and Clinton have had different campaign strategies, the entire election would be conducted differently for a popular vote. In a direct democracy style popular vote, the federal government would have to run the entire election, not the states. Your vote would be counted and validated by SSN. That leaves much less room for fraud and I expect the popular vote wouldn't have nearly has much of a gap.

All the other votes tallied by states are tallied at the precinct level. There's absolutely no reason that the votes for President need to be done differently. There's absolutely no reason to drag voter fraud bullshit into the picture other than to tickle right wing erroneous persecution complex zones, either. Voter fraud is bullshit.

America voted for our POTUS. Russia didn't pick a damn thing.

True, but they did their best to mess with our minds.

 

[Bitek]

Bush v Gore was close on electoral votes, iirc it came down to counties.

Trump v Clinton was a borderline blowout. Not a good comparison.

Being that the election was decided by electors, the popular vote is irrelevant. Not only would Trump and Clinton have had different campaign strategies, the entire election would be conducted differently for a popular vote. In a direct democracy style popular vote, the federal government would have to run the entire election, not the states. Your vote would be counted and validated by SSN. That leaves much less room for fraud and I expect the popular vote wouldn't have nearly has much of a gap.



America voted for our POTUS. Russia didn't pick a damn thing.

Ah, at least two conspiracy theories/myths on one post. The fabled crown jewel "millions of fraudulent votes for Clinton."

I'm always fascinated by the obligatory illogical statement: "but the vote was totally legit."

Further followed "by Trump had 0 help from Russia, his razor thin margin would totally be unchanged, and btw, could have won CA if he tried. (Lost by 30pts)"

Yes it was a blowout. Trump got creamed in the popular vote and only won due to an arcane system where some people's vote counts multiple times more than other peoples due to GPS coordinates.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, at least two conspiracy theories/myths on one post. The fabled crown jewel "millions of fraudulent votes for Clinton."

I'm always fascinated by the obligatory illogical statement: "but the vote was totally legit."

Further followed "by Trump had 0 help from Russia, his razor thin margin would totally be unchanged, and btw, could have won CA if he tried. (Lost by 30pts)"

Yes it was a blowout. Trump got creamed in the popular vote and only won due to an arcane system where some people's vote counts multiple times more than other peoples due to GPS coordinates.

He also bizarrely referenced something called a direct democracy election where we elect representatives. That's not direct democracy. Lol.

 

[Bitek]

He also bizarrely referenced something called a direct democracy election where we elect representatives. That's not direct democracy. Lol.

Going to be a long four years...

 

[Bitek]

Oh, I've got one more difference!

Bengahzi was actually investigated by Congress!

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, I've got one more difference!

Bengahzi was actually investigated by Congress!

Only if you're willing to call a conspiracy theory circus act an investigation.

 

[HomerJS]

Bush v Gore was close on electoral votes, iirc it came down to counties.

Trump v Clinton was a borderline blowout. Not a good comparison.

Being that the election was decided by electors, the popular vote is irrelevant. Not only would Trump and Clinton have had different campaign strategies, the entire election would be conducted differently for a popular vote. In a direct democracy style popular vote, the federal government would have to run the entire election, not the states. Your vote would be counted and validated by SSN. That leaves much less room for fraud and I expect the popular vote wouldn't have nearly has much of a gap.



America voted for our POTUS. Russia didn't pick a damn thing.

BLOWOUT? Are you serious? Did you know Trump electoral win is in the BOTTOM 5?

 

[Jhhnn]

BLOWOUT? Are you serious? Did you know Trump electoral win is in the BOTTOM 5?

I should have linked this above-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...dential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin

 

[fskimospy]

BLOWOUT? Are you serious? Did you know Trump electoral win is in the BOTTOM 5?

He knows it was a 'blowout' because he's listening to conservative media/Trump who are trying to convince people that it was a blowout. They are concerned that his large popular vote loss combined with the shadiness around Russia, etc, makes him look weak and unpopular.

 

[kage69]

So, everyone who thinks Russia had a hand in meddling in our election is "the left". I guess if your not a Trump voter you on "the left" now

Just another round of what we saw in the last republican administration really. Disagree with George W. Bush and it means you are a dirty lib, possibly one of those 'Merica haters.

On the flip side, people who recall the GOPs abysmal record on... well, pretty much everything, and who connect to the dots from there to the rhetoric of today... are just whining, 'triggered.'

Interesting times! Trump voters want to push the idiocy envelope even harder than the bushies.

 

[kage69]

He knows it was a 'blowout' because he's listening to conservative media/Trump who are trying to convince people that it was a blowout. They are concerned that his large popular vote loss combined with the shadiness around Russia, etc, makes him look weak and unpopular.

QFT!

Nothing makes me laugh more these days than Trump or one of his fluffers using the words 'blowout,' or even better - 'mandate.'

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What irks me is that many on the right treat the hacked data as a sort of "get out of election influence concerns free" card.

Is it authentic data? Sure. Does that excuse how and why the data was obtained? Absolutely not. Foreign governments shouldn't have free rein to steal information in a bid to skew the vote. Not only that, but the spin on the information made it sound like there was more to it than there was. There were certainly legit complaints (that the DNC clearly favored Clinton, for example), but they get drowned out by attempts to make scandals out of everything -- witness the people who seriously thought "spirit cooking" was a sign of something nefarious.

The sad part was watching conservatives enthusiastically share leak 'revelations' from RT or Sputnik... you know, news outlets backed by the Russian government. Putin and crew drip-fed propaganda, and people not critical enough to question the sources of that information just lapped it up.

Whom leaked the data is of zero concern to me. Really. Honestly. I could give 2 shits less.

This is information that should be investigated by our own internal government - or should be reported on our own news media outlets. The problem is, leaking this information themselves serves no purpose overall. The fact that you had the head of the DNC resign over Russia's supposed leaking as well as having that CNN woman resign/fired for leaking debate questions for Hilary is what tells me there is hope still in this world.

I say this as someone that even voted for Hillary - as much as I didn't want to. I knew my investments were safe with her.

 

[jackstar7]

Whom leaked the data is of zero concern to me. Really. Honestly. I could give 2 shits less.

It's fun to see who doesn't care about national security these days.

 

[zinfamous]

The gears turn slowly in the false equivalency machine.

Honestly, this claim should have been made about 3 months ago.

 

[agent00f]

I know this isn't the first time I've told you this but there also wasn't any incriminating or even shady content to any of the emails. But here you are, still duped into believing there was, just like the rest of the retarded half of our nation.

He's not duped, he knows there's nothing there same as benghazi. People like that play dumb or whatever is necessary to further some goal, which here is to obfuscate clarity of the situation.

 

[OrByte]

He knows it was a 'blowout' because he's listening to conservative media/Trump who are trying to convince people that it was a blowout. They are concerned that his large popular vote loss combined with the shadiness around Russia, etc, makes him look weak and unpopular.

They should be concerned because he is weak and he will very soon be unpopular.

I think Putin is just in love with the fact that half of the US population (Republicans) got his back!

 

[zinfamous]

It's fun to see who doesn't care about national security these days.

They sure cared when Hillary had an email server that "could have" leaked disastrous classified information to our enemies!

Now, it's looking more and more like moving her server off-site was, as she said, smart.