POLL: If Russia were to interfere in November...

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ere-in-november.538931/page-5#post-1069469265

 

When did I even mention Putin?

 

I didn't click on the link you gave. I made a claim about hypocrisy, which is self evident and you did not respond to it directly.

 

They aren't hacking the elections, they are testing our systems, we test their systems as well. The crux of the liberal whining about the election 'hacking' are based on the hacking of private emails and WikiLeaks. This is nothing but an excuse for liberals losing an election...

 

...and a bank being robbed is nothing but an excuse for the bank losing all that money.

Open criminality should be prosecuted and punished, not dismissed because it's Republican SOP.

 

Bad analogy, elections are the sole responsibility of the informed voter. Voters have thousands of sources to check and inform themselves, including candidate websites. Saying there is undue influence in any way is nothing but a lie and declaration that Americans are too stupid to figure out who they will or won't vote for...

 

Nobody is saying that Russian interference is wrong while at the same time saying that US interference is okay. You failed to show otherwise.

 

No one is saying it? ha ha. I am not imagining it. It is complicit in what these people are saying. No one will ever admit to being a hypocrite. No one will say, yes, I am a hypocrite, guilty of deep hypocrisy. But their actions and words reveal it. The same way a liar will do the same. Like trump, they will lie and then refuse to admit it. Or like any run of the mill politician. What is plausible deniability, really? What motivates using it? A desire for honesty? Or a desire to be clever, deceitful, in order to cover one's own arse? ha ha

I hope you are not expecting them to do so?

 

Please don't edit my comments. If you would like to emphasize a particular point for reference, emboldening, italicizing or underlining are great ways to do that without effecting the meaning of what I said. Thx

 

What is it exactly that you think I tried to do?

How exactly did it affect the meaning of what you said?

 

No, plenty of people are saying that Russian interference is wrong, but are you saying that they are also saying that US interference is okay?

 

Yes, but it is unacceptable if they do it to us, right? We must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening, while at the same time doing everything in our power to test their systems.

I agree. And you would say that the private email hacking was a problem, right?

 

Well they obviously are implying that. Who on the modern left is railing against russia, for interference, while acknowledging that we are just as wrong for our own historical interference? Hell, you will be hard to find that even here on this forum. And you will not find it in the MSM coverage. Ron Paul, and Greenwald have said it, but MSM? ha ha.

But perhaps, being retired with lots of free time to spend online, I just get out more? So I have more exposure to what our reality is yielding today?

 

I think you're trying to depict Hillary's email exposal as somehow a bad thing.

It didn't necessarily in this case, but it often does. I try to hold everyone to a similar standard. Lets just call it a pet peeve. Thx for correcting

 

I'm saying that foreign interference by an unfriendly country is a bad thing for any country. Would you not agree?

 

Not considering or acknowledging it doesn't mean that they would think that US election interference is okay if they DID consider it. It just means that they haven't even thought about it - and why would they? They're too busy focusing on Russia!