Putin Personally Involved in Hack

[WilliamSeger]

Third, I'm still having a hard time getting excited about the release of accurate, non-classified information.

How do you feel about Trump exaggerating and flat-out lying about the emails? Do you think that had any effect on the election?

 

[Ziggurat]

Different discussion than the one we're having. Why don't you address the points I made instead of regressing?

Because I want to know how honest your objection actually is. And it looks like it's not, since you can't even give a simple "yes" before moving on.

Is this the game plan? You folks are going to replay the 2016 election for the next four years

Wow. Talk about projecting. It's the left that keeps trying to come up with excuses for why it lost, and reasons to try to delegitimize the results.

My question remains. You aver that you're a conservative?

No, actually, as a matter of fact I don't. There's some overlap between me and conservatives on many issues, but there's also some overlap between me and liberals on others, so I don't think I fit all that well into any one label. I doubt that matters to you, but you asked.

You find that it's all okay that the Russians (or the Freedonians) made a professional and concerted effort to hack into private correspondence and selectively release material that was damaging to one side only.

No, it's not OK. It's not OK for anyone to hack into someone else's system without permission.

But on the scale of things to worry about, this is kind of low. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a much bigger issue. Their selling air defense systems to Iran is a bigger issue. Their use of civilians in Syria for target practice is a bigger issue.

Hell, even if we want to restrict the conversation just to hacking, the State Dept. hack is a bigger issue. And the hack of the Office of Personnel Management is perhaps the biggest of all.

As for releasing the information publicly, well, that's about the most benign use they could put any of this to. Better to have it all made public then for them to possibly use it as leverage. As the Chinese will undoubtedly do with all that sensitive OPM data.

So while I think it's not a good thing that the Russians hacked the Democrats, I think the amount of attention it's getting compared to other stuff is not because of its actual seriousness, but because it serves the Democratic party agenda.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you feel about Trump exaggerating and flat-out lying about the emails? Do you think that had any effect on the election?

I feel about the same as I felt about Hillary exaggerating and flat-out lying about emails. No idea what effect either had.

How do you feel about Harry Reid flat-out lying about Romney's taxes? Do you think that had any effect on the election?

 

[WilliamSeger]

I feel about the same as I felt about Hillary exaggerating and flat-out lying about emails. No idea what effect either had.

I can show you Trump's lies about the emails -- actual things he said that are demonstrably false, not just my belief that they were false -- but you go first and we'll compare notes. Maybe you won't feel the same after that, but I doubt it.

How do you feel about Harry Reid flat-out lying about Romney's taxes? Do you think that had any effect on the election?

Maybe if it had been a close election, it would have had an effect, but it wasn't close. Reid repeated a rumor -- obviously a very bad idea and it can't be condoned -- but it was a believable rumor because Romney was so adamant about refusing to release his tax returns, which should cause justifiable suspicion. In fact, he never did release anything but a summary of two years, so I still have a suspicion that Reid wasn't that far off, and we still don't know what he was hiding.

That the best you got? Reid lied four years ago in a Senate speech, so Democrats are obliged to accept Trump's "unpresidented" lie-a-minute mendacity now? Anyway, you completely missed my point, so I'll reiterate it: My comment was to address the comments about how, if the emails were "damaging" then that "transparency" was for the better. What was actually in them was pretty tame until Trump used them to falsely claim criminal conduct. If Reid had repeatedly led rally crowds chanting "lock him up" you might be closer to a serviceable deflection, but we still have the problem that Trump is a sociopathic liar who won a very close election.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can show you Trump's lies about the emails

I don't doubt that.

but you go first and we'll compare notes.

No. Not worth my time, there are threads on it already.

Reid repeated a rumor -- obviously a very bad idea and it can't be condoned -- but it was a believable rumor because Romney was so adamant about refusing to release his tax returns, which should cause justifiable suspicion.

Reid lied. He knew the accusation was baseless. And his explicit justification for doing so was that it worked.

That the best you got? Reid lied four years ago in a Senate speech, so Democrats are obliged to accept Trump's "unpresidented" lie-a-minute mendacity now?

Nobody is obliged to "accept" anything. But your complaints are clearly self-interested, not principled. And I will take that into consideration when I decide how much I should be concerned about them.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Nobody is obliged to "accept" anything. But your complaints are clearly self-interested, not principled. And I will take that into consideration when I decide how much I should be concerned about them.

And once again, you dodge my point by trying to deflect with false equivalence. Why is it that that's the best you can ever do to defend the Boy King? I have to assume it's because he's indefensible.

 

[Ziggurat]

And once again, you dodge my point by trying to deflect with false equivalence. Why is it that that's the best you can ever do to defend the Boy King? I have to assume it's because he's indefensible.

Again, I'm not trying to defend Trump. There are plenty of good reasons to criticize him, and I never liked him to begin with.

But you don't have a lot of credibility on this subject. The official narrative has turned to blaming Putin, so you dutifully follow right along. But there's no consistency, no principles behind it. So, I don't care. Nothing has changed. Trump will be lousy, but that's nothing new.

 

[WilliamSeger]

But you don't have a lot of credibility on this subject. The official narrative has turned to blaming Putin, so you dutifully follow right along. But there's no consistency, no principles behind it. So, I don't care. Nothing has changed. Trump will be lousy, but that's nothing new.

No, I'm not interested in any "official narrative" that doesn't say the main reason Trump won is that he is a deplorable demagogue who pushed all sorts of bigot buttons, and bigots responded. I do believe that Trump's email lies had a small effect, and that Comey's irresponsible insinuation that some scandal was developing had a bigger effect. Have you figured out yet why Putin would prefer Trump, or is that another thing you don't care about?

But anyway, after this election, "principles" and "Republican" are two words that only belong together in punchlines, so back at ya.

 

[logger]

Now Putin is calling the snowflakes sore losers. Are you leftist going to take that?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I'm not interested in any "official narrative" that doesn't say the main reason Trump won is that he is a deplorable demagogue who pushed all sorts of bigot buttons, and bigots responded.

Wow. I didn't expect you to prove my point about the narrowness of your thinking so explicitly.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Clinton was a poor candidate with a poor campaign, but if everything else had gone her way, she might have beaten Donald Trump anyway? I don't think a presidential candidate should have to depend on luck to win an election.

Why do you hate Harry Truman?

I am not sure luck entered into it ... but it might have. Luck is hard to measure.

 

[RobLister]

We should blame Putin no more or less than we blame Snowden.

I can divest responsibility. I hate what Snowden did but the reveilded facts cannot be ignored.

 

[Bob001]

Now Putin is calling the snowflakes sore losers. Are you leftist going to take that?

The "leftists" like Obama are the people who have imposed tough sanctions on Russia and opposed Putin's foreign policy, to a degree that KGB thug Putin regarded "leftist" Hillary Clinton as his personal enemy. It's your guy who's sucking up to Putin, even panting breathlessly about what great leader he is and how much closer he wants to be. Who's the snowflake?

 

[varwoche]

We should blame Putin no more or less than we blame Snowden.

I can divest responsibility. I hate what Snowden did but the reveilded facts cannot be ignored.

Either there are multiple Rob Listers's floating about the skeptical universe, or else welcome back! Good to see you and I hope life is treating you well.

 

[Minoosh]

The official narrative has turned to blaming Putin, so you dutifully follow right along. But there's no consistency, no principles behind it. So, I don't care. Nothing has changed. Trump will be lousy, but that's nothing new.

Whose official narrative?

 

[varwoche]

Hilited: Disclaimer! I hadn't seen your post before composing my above response to The Prestige.

Great minds etc.

 

[Mader Levap]

The "leftists" like Obama are the people who have imposed tough sanctions on Russia and opposed Putin's foreign policy, to a degree that KGB thug Putin regarded "leftist" Hillary Clinton as his personal enemy. It's your guy who's sucking up to Putin, even panting breathlessly about what great leader he is and how much closer he wants to be.

Putin is authoritanian leader and el presidento of biggest banana republic in the world that has Trump as pet. Of course republicans under those circumstances will admire someone that actually has one-party system in his country.

I mean, USA is 1/3 way there already - it has one-party system in House (you can guess which party is that lucky). Pseudo-democracy that will rot now faster than ever, potentially shaping into rightwing authoritanian degeneracy in far future.

 

[logger]

The "leftists" like Obama are the people who have imposed tough sanctions on Russia and opposed Putin's foreign policy, to a degree that KGB thug Putin regarded "leftist" Hillary Clinton as his personal enemy. It's your guy who's sucking up to Putin, even panting breathlessly about what great leader he is and how much closer he wants to be. Who's the snowflake?

Your side wanted a reset button, here's president who seems to know how to do it. Your side talks to NK, Iran, Cuba and other notorious bad actors. Trump starts with a decent relationship with Russia and the left has a complete meltdown. Its only because Putin sunk your old bag!

 

[logger]

Putin is authoritanian leader and el presidento of biggest banana republic in the world that has Trump as pet. Of course republicans under those circumstances will admire someone that actually has one-party system in his country.

I mean, USA is 1/3 way there already - it has one-party system in House (you can guess which party is that lucky). Pseudo-democracy that will rot now faster than ever, potentially shaping into rightwing authoritanian degeneracy in far future.

We aren't a democracy and yes my side is in complete power, it damn sure isnt just the House.

 

[logger]

Look at Putin dems, making your pain even greater. Doesn't he know this 5 stage grief thing is serious!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/23/putin-on-us-elections-dont-blame-me-dems.html