- This topic has 19 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
The ‘russians’ may have accessed Rep stuff, but that doesn’t mean wikileaks had an agenda. We dont know where wikileaks got its info from.
Moreover, i dont care if wikileaks had an ‘agenda’. What if they ‘did’ prefer Trump over Hillary? Its not a crime. Its just an agenda. And since they only told the truth about Hillary, it doesn’t seem out of line to me. I mean telling the truth while having an agenda is not the worst thing in the world.
w
vWV, I’m with you on most things political, and have learned a lot from you over the years. In some cases, it took me awhile, but I eventually got there.
;>)
But in this case? I’m not seeing it. And what Assange and the Russian hackers did actually is a “crime.” They stole private information without permission and, as mentioned, none of it, not one iota of it, as far as I can see, tells us anything that benefits us, the planet, the country, or advances the public interest in any way.
For me, it would be different if the exposure included the things I mention above. If it exposed dark and sinister secret plans to wreak havoc on the innocent and the planet. But nothing that came out comes close to any of that. It just gives people the general sense that “these people are uniquely corrupt!” even though no individual email actually shows anything beyond the banal. And the only way that generalized feeling could take hold is the absence of similar leaking of GOP emails.
Chomsky (and ZN) could describe the “semiotic” rationale behind that a hell of a lot better than my feeble attempts. But we humans basically understand the world through language, and we understand language in relation to itself and the world. When language is lopped off in midstream, and given to us in fragments, without context, our understanding is distorted. The more lopped off and fragmented, the more distorted it gets. We need to see X in relation to Y and Z and every other letter to really get a sense of what X means. Throw it out there all alone, and humans can’t “get it.”
In short, I think what Assange, Wikileaks, the Russian hackers, et al did was immoral, unethical and dangerous for the country. It was theft without any benefit to the public whatsoever (in my view), and it helped give us Trump and the hard-right GOP.
Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.
And… statement 1 covers a much broader range of things than statement 2 does.
1: We did not make an assessment of the impact of Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.
2: Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.
Statement 1 is not about or just about voting machines. And in terms of statement 2, saying there is no evidence of a particular action existing is not the same as making an assessment.
The 2 are not equivalent statements.
Oh yes they are when taken in the context of what Trump said. He said that the Russians had no effect upon the election. As in votes. That is fact.
Trump lied about what the report and the intel agencies said. He tried to make it sound like they agree with him. They don’t. Far, far from it. They said, yes, the Russians hacked our system and tried to impact our election. Their purview did not include a study of “did this work or not?” So Trump lied when he claims they said it didn’t impact the election. They were never tasked with an analysis about that and never said it did not.
And you don’t need to gain control of voting machines in order to change the election results. It’s pretty obvious that the endless attention spent by the media on the emails, along with the GOP’s, did change voters’ minds. They actually told us it did.
So, logically, yes, what they did DEFINITELY impacted the results.
Trump just can’t accept the truth, and as a habitual liar, keeps gaslighting the country.
Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.
And… statement 1 covers a much broader range of things than statement 2 does.
1: We did not make an assessment of the impact of Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.
2: Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.
Statement 1 is not about or just about voting machines. And in terms of statement 2, saying there is no evidence of a particular action existing is not the same as making an assessment.
The 2 are not equivalent statements.
Oh yes they are when taken in the context of what Trump said. He said that the Russians had no effect upon the election. As in votes. That is fact.
Trump lied about what the report and the intel agencies said. He tried to make it sound like they agree with him. They don’t. Far, far from it. They said, yes, the Russians hacked our system and tried to impact our election. Their purview did not include a study of “did this work or not?” So Trump lied when he claims they said it didn’t impact the election. They were never tasked with an analysis about that and never said it did not.
And you don’t need to gain control of voting machines in order to change the election results. It’s pretty obvious that the endless attention spent by the media on the emails, along with the GOP’s, did change voters’ minds. They actually told us it did.
So, logically, yes, what they did DEFINITELY impacted the results.
Trump just can’t accept the truth, and as a habitual liar, keeps gaslighting the country.
Complete BS. Trump told the truth. Maddox was again caught in a lie, er FAKE NEWS.
The emails are a big deal. Just like the grabbing pussy video. But crickets about all the time given to that video. Such hypocrisy.
Trump lied again, and the evidence is beyond argument about that. We have the report itself, and his response on tape. There is no way to spin that, bnw, unless you buy into his frame which is a lie to begin with.
It’s a lie to say the report and the intel agencies said there was no impact on the election. Again, they never made that claim or remotely implied that. It wasn’t their job to analyze the actual results of the hacks. As in, did it work or not, and, if so, how much. That was never their task.
As for the relative media time spent on the emails versus the Access Hollywood video? If you take in the entire campaign period, nothing received more time than the emails. Nothing came close. And when Comey broke all precedent and brought it up again at the eleventh hour, it dominated the news again.
There is nothing “hypocritical” about stating the facts. And the facts tell us Trump lied, again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
