The Media Bias

[Play Angry]

You think the Russians interfered in our election?

I mean...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-idUSKBN14S0O6

[shocka khan]

You think the Russians interfered in our election?

To the extent that they could, yes. It was a disinformation campaign, it violated federal laws regarding hacking as well. Not that Hillary didn't deserve some of it, LOL, but really, do you think the Russians ought to get a free pass for attempting to hijack our election?

I don't. And I do not trust them. And I really don't trust Trump's actions in this whole mess.

Whether he was part of it or not, we'll have to wait to see. I am very happy we have a special prosecutor. Muller is a apolitical guy, I'm glad Rosenstein chose him.

What I do see from Trump that alarms me is his obvious attempts to interfere with the investigation.

At the end of the day, like Nixon, it might not be what he did initially that trips him up, but rather what he did later to protect his staffers that will trip him up.

But it is pretty alarming to me when he makes statements to the Russians he 'felt relieved' about the Russian investigation after he fired Comey. And the WH has not denied he said it (they jjust have not confirmed it yet).

[MoValley John]

To the extent that they could, yes. It was a disinformation campaign, it violated federal laws regarding hacking as well. Not that Hillary didn't deserve some of it, LOL, but really, do you think the Russians ought to get a free pass for attempting to hijack our election?

I don't. And I do not trust them. And I really don't trust Trump's actions in this whole mess.

Whether he was part of it or not, we'll have to wait to see. I am very happy we have a special prosecutor. Muller is a apolitical guy, I'm glad Rosenstein chose him.

What I do see from Trump that alarms me is his obvious attempts to interfere with the investigation.

At the end of the day, like Nixon, it might not be what he did initially that trips him up, but rather what he did later to protect his staffers that will trip him up.

But it is pretty alarming to me when he makes statements to the Russians he 'felt relieved' about the Russian investigation after he fired Comey. And the WH has not denied he said it (they jjust have not confirmed it yet).

Russia tried to interfere, they always do. It's what powerful countries always do. I would expect it. Canada tries to interfere.

Good God, we try to interfere with everybody else's elections!

It's what countries do.

Usually, we don't whine about it. Also, the end result was that AUTHENTIC emails were released to the American public. Americans got to see exactly how little Hillary Clinton thought of the American people. And in the end, had Podesta not been so completely incompetent in computer security, little would have been leaked. Also, had the powers that be in the DNC not been so stupid as to share their passwords with each other, little more than Podesta's information would have been compromized.

But no, all the Dems knew each other's passwords, they gave them out on emails, Podesta trusted a Microsoft popup, and we all blame the Russians.

I hate Donald Trump, but are we all so collectively stupid as to keep blaming the Russians? We got what we deserved.

[pinstripers]

http://clashdaily.com/2017/05/dear-cnn-circulation-false-information-sabotage-presidency-felony/?utm_campaign=lasmpfb&utm_source=referral&utm_medium=facebook.com

[ShockingButTrue]

See?... The President is not afflicted with islamophobia. ******* cnn. No?

[ShockingButTrue]

I mean...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14S0O6

Has any evidence been uncovered in the 5 months since this article was written? Serious question. Time to pull out the tin foil hats.

[Play Angry]

Has any evidence been uncovered in the 5 months since this article was written? Serious question. Time to pull out the tin foil hats.

Has any evidence been found to contradict their statements, or are you saying Trump's team was lying at that time?

[shocka khan]

Has any evidence been found to contradict their statements, or are you saying Trump's team was lying at that time?

Yup, looks like someone's saying 'don't confuse me with the facts, I live in my own reality'. Perhaps a therapist and a pharmacological solution are in order?

[MoValley John]

Here is what I want to know, and so far, nobody from the left has explained.

Just what did the Russians do to sabbotage the election?

Was it more than hacking into the DNC's computers? Was it more than releasing all of the DNC's and HRC's emails?

If not, it's long past time to move on.

I don't condone hacking. I don't condone any crimes the Russians may have committed. But really, all they did was allowed the American people to see the ugly side of HRC that she and the DNC tried to hide. The email leak didn't contain a single "fake" email, not one single lie, just raw information. The "fake news stories" claimed to be produced by the Russians was nothing more than authentic emails being released. Nothing more, nothing less.

They didn't even include the old HRC story from Arkansas, when at the Easter Egg hunt for the mentally disabled, she spouted, "When are they going to get those ****ing retards out of here?"

The left loves to scream the Russians rigged the election. They don't however, like to quantify exactly how. If the left was forced to quantify how the Russians rigged the election, they would be forced to deal with the contents of the emails. That, they don't want to do.

[Play Angry]

I don't think anyone here is saying Russia's interference was determinative. The responses above were provided to two posters who asserted against or questioned the notion they interfered at all.

If we want to move the goalposts and tilt against arguments made on MSNBC but not in this discussion, that's fine, but it's helpful to clarify when doing so.

[jdshock]

I don't condone hacking. I don't condone any crimes the Russians may have committed. But really, all they did was allowed the American people to see the ugly side of HRC that she and the DNC tried to hide. The email leak didn't contain a single "fake" email, not one single lie, just raw information. The "fake news stories" claimed to be produced by the Russians was nothing more than authentic emails being released. Nothing more, nothing less.

It made people believe there was only "dirt" coming from one campaign. If one party's dirty laundry is released, but the other's isn't, it gives the implication that the second party is clean. To act like, "oh, but we just got the truth" makes it sound like the hacking was an act of investigative journalism.

Additionally, and in furtherance of that point, it created a lot of ammunition that actually wasn't that bad. It caused lots of headlines to say things like "CLINTON HATES REGULAR AMERICANS," when that isn't what actually was in those emails. It allowed for lots of quotes to be taken out of context from private emails that weren't supposed to be public. Things that were actually nothing, but only looked bad because context was important. There was the one email everyone freaked out about where the campaign staff was saying they hate the phrase "ordinary americans" or whatever it was. That is a weird strategic thing to be talked about, that I'm sure the campaign would've preferred be kept private because you never want people to see how the sausage gets made, but it also isn't bad at all. But the leak of the emails allowed news outlets to take those sentences out of context. Because nothing was released from the other side, it gave the implication that there weren't similar emails that exist for them.

[MoValley John]

I think some on this board really believe Russian interference determined the election. HRC, while not a poster on this board, does. It has been the narrative.

I have good friends, both right and left, to a man, those on the left still complain about Russian interference. When I ask what the Russians did, they are quick to complain about hacking and posting fake news stories. When I ask about the actual content of the hacking and the fake news stories, they don't want to talk about it anymore. A week later, they complain again, and drop it again when asked about content. It's a never ending cycle.

[MoValley John]

It made people believe there was only "dirt" coming from one campaign. If one party's dirty laundry is released, but the other's isn't, it gives the implication that the second party is clean. To act like, "oh, but we just got the truth" makes it sound like the hacking was an act of investigative journalism.

Additionally, and in furtherance of that point, it created a lot of ammunition that actually wasn't that bad. It caused lots of headlines to say things like "CLINTON HATES REGULAR AMERICANS," when that isn't what actually was in those emails. It allowed for lots of quotes to be taken out of context from private emails that weren't supposed to be public. Things that were actually nothing, but only looked bad because context was important. There was the one email everyone freaked out about where the campaign staff was saying they hate the phrase "ordinary americans" or whatever it was. That is a weird strategic thing to be talked about, that I'm sure the campaign would've preferred be kept private because you never want people to see how the sausage gets made, but it also isn't bad at all. But the leak of the emails allowed news outlets to take those sentences out of context. Because nothing was released from the other side, it gave the implication that there weren't similar emails that exist for them.

So?

Politics is and always has been a dirty business. Furthermore, since the advent of email, we have been told over and over again, to be careful. We have been told that proper context can be difficult to convey, and we have been told to read and reread before hitting the send button. We have also been told that sometimes emails get in the wrong hands.

Apparently, John Podesta and the DNC didn't listen. Or didn't care. They were careless with content and context. They shared passwords. They emailed each other their passwords. And John Podesta fell for the oldest hack trick in the book.

It seems we are blaming the Russians far more than we are a careless Podesta and DNC. If you are playing politics, keep your emails clean.

[wu_shizzle]

I'm interested to see if anything comes from the Seth Rich murder and his roll with the DNC.

[MoValley John]

I'm interested to see if anything comes from the Seth Rich murder and his roll with the DNC.

Nope. But it is also time to move on.