Okay, let's examine that. Even if you suppose that were true, why do you suppose Russia would've preferred that? Compared to, say, a Clinton Administration? Likewise, could there be any explanation for that as a Russian foreign policy goal found in post-Cold War history, do you think? What are the chances that the U.S. may've at some point in the open sea of history have ever itselfinterfered in foreign elections? I mean, I know there are literally tens and hundreds of thousands of private Russian dollars being discussed here, but compared to the American money spent on the election that's still not one percent of one percent of election spending. Is it possible — just possible — that this or that other country may've been involved in American politics before, conceivably even more so than Boris and Natasha? Has it crossed your mind that this paranoid, hysterical, guilt-by-association, McCarthyist, Cold War-fanaticist blood fever may be the teensiest bit hypocritical? Or that there might be other things going bump in the night? You know, since now apparently anyone that might've opposed Hillary Kissinger in 2016 is a Russian agent.
Edit: Me, I think maybe this demented Russophobic witch hunt for enemies within may reflect poorly on Hillary Clinton's leadership of the Democratic Party. Doesn't reflect too well on her presidency-that-never-was either.
Is your position that a Putin-led, Russian government-funded, organized effort to subvert the 2016 US presidential elections is a complete and utter fabrication and that the reason Trump won the election is solely through a combination of Clinton incompetence, DNC corruption and luck?
Now that anyone and everyone that opposed Clinton is a suspected Russian agent, maybe we should 'investigate' Clinton. After all, nobody did more to get Trump elected than she did.
You've ignored all I've said, ignored everything I've linked, and now demand an answer whether I agree with your intellectually dishonest gross misunderstanding. Huh.
In my defense, you routinely post 3 links per sentence and each of those contains a thousand sentences at a rate of 3 links per sentence. I could spend a week going down a rabbithole of random stranger's of political views on a topic which I only follow half-heartedly (mostly because the media blast radius makes it virtually impossible to avoid) but instead I divide my attention to other topics that interest me.
So having read your latest (or perhaps - pahm-pahm-pahhhhhhm - final?) comment I think it's fair to say that you have a flair for both the semantic as well as the dramatic.
Holy walls of text, Batman! And to what end? What is the tl;dr;? To explain that:
"Yes, Trump had assistance from Russian connections in exchange for promising to ease trade embargo sanctions but, while that is treasonous, it is not technically equivalent to exact degree of dead-on-balls-accurateness as per the de facto, officially ordained definition of 'Putin rigged the election'"
Well excuse me, your ladyship. Us simple folk always miss subtle nuances of "tom-eh-to, tom-ah-to" on the count of the other gorillion current affairs going on.
If you’re into selective understanding as a hobby, you’ll love what happens when Mueller’s report starts landing on desks in Washington. Here’s something else you can’t or — c'mon, let’s be honest — just won’t read, about hypocrisy:
The Steele dossier was a Clinton/DNC-funded operation supported by the FBI and influenced heavily by Russian operatives in the Kremlin
The country has spent the last year with Obama intelligence officials, the media, and Democratic leaders pushing a narrative of Trump collusion with Russia to steal an election that was supposed to be won by Hillary Clinton. A meeting between Trump officials and a Russian who falsely promised dirt on Hillary Clinton is the best evidence — by far — to support this narrative.
Yet here we have the realization that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the FBI all worked wittingly or unwittingly with Russians to affect the results of the 2016 election. Far from just meeting with a Russian and not getting dirt on a political opponent, these groups wittingly or unwittingly paid Russian operatives for disinformation to harm Trump during the 2016 election and beyond.
One dead giveaway Clinton and company are Diet Republicans is their reliance on Rovian projection. You can bet your last nickel that if Clinton accuses anyone of anything, she herself either did it or would’ve for one red cent. We return you now to your regularly-scheduled mindless Cold War hysteria.
What is it with your visceral reaction? Asking to clarify something is hardly hysterical. Your contemptuous tone towards anyone who is not well versed on all this is baffling. Am I supposed to apologize for not having written a PhD dissertation on the topic of 2016 US election? I’m sorry I don’t follow each and every piece of news about this to the level of meticulousness that is to your satisfaction.
Her candidacy definitely helped Trump, which was the top Russian objective.
Okay, let's examine that. Even if you suppose that were true, why do you suppose Russia would've preferred that? Compared to, say, a Clinton Administration? Likewise, could there be any explanation for that as a Russian foreign policy goal found in post-Cold War history, do you think? What are the chances that the U.S. may've at some point in the open sea of history have ever itself interfered in foreign elections? I mean, I know there are literally tens and hundreds of thousands of private Russian dollars being discussed here, but compared to the American money spent on the election that's still not one percent of one percent of election spending. Is it possible — just possible — that this or that other country may've been involved in American politics before, conceivably even more so than Boris and Natasha? Has it crossed your mind that this paranoid, hysterical, guilt-by-association, McCarthyist, Cold War-fanaticist blood fever may be the teensiest bit hypocritical? Or that there might be other things going bump in the night? You know, since now apparently anyone that might've opposed Hillary Kissinger in 2016 is a Russian agent.
Edit: Me, I think maybe this demented Russophobic witch hunt for enemies within may reflect poorly on Hillary Clinton's leadership of the Democratic Party. Doesn't reflect too well on her presidency-that-never-was either.
Is your position that a Putin-led, Russian government-funded, organized effort to subvert the 2016 US presidential elections is a complete and utter fabrication and that the reason Trump won the election is solely through a combination of Clinton incompetence, DNC corruption and luck?
Now that anyone and everyone that opposed Clinton is a suspected Russian agent, maybe we should 'investigate' Clinton. After all, nobody did more to get Trump elected than she did.
So is that a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
You've ignored all I've said, ignored everything I've linked, and now demand an answer whether I agree with your intellectually dishonest gross misunderstanding. Huh.
Have a super 2018!
In my defense, you routinely post 3 links per sentence and each of those contains a thousand sentences at a rate of 3 links per sentence. I could spend a week going down a rabbithole of random stranger's of political views on a topic which I only follow half-heartedly (mostly because the media blast radius makes it virtually impossible to avoid) but instead I divide my attention to other topics that interest me.
So having read your latest (or perhaps - pahm-pahm-pahhhhhhm - final?) comment I think it's fair to say that you have a flair for both the semantic as well as the dramatic.
Holy walls of text, Batman! And to what end? What is the tl;dr;? To explain that:
"Yes, Trump had assistance from Russian connections in exchange for promising to ease trade embargo sanctions but, while that is treasonous, it is not technically equivalent to exact degree of dead-on-balls-accurateness as per the de facto, officially ordained definition of 'Putin rigged the election'"
Well excuse me, your ladyship. Us simple folk always miss subtle nuances of "tom-eh-to, tom-ah-to" on the count of the other gorillion current affairs going on.
If you’re into selective understanding as a hobby, you’ll love what happens when Mueller’s report starts landing on desks in Washington. Here’s something else you can’t or — c'mon, let’s be honest — just won’t read, about hypocrisy:
One dead giveaway Clinton and company are Diet Republicans is their reliance on Rovian projection. You can bet your last nickel that if Clinton accuses anyone of anything, she herself either did it or would’ve for one red cent. We return you now to your regularly-scheduled mindless Cold War hysteria.
What is it with your visceral reaction? Asking to clarify something is hardly hysterical. Your contemptuous tone towards anyone who is not well versed on all this is baffling. Am I supposed to apologize for not having written a PhD dissertation on the topic of 2016 US election? I’m sorry I don’t follow each and every piece of news about this to the level of meticulousness that is to your satisfaction.
You set a tone. You could’ve chosen differently, but you set one. Maybe, next time..?