So Russia allegedly decided to try to influence our election? Since when is that anything new? Britain and France have been doing it for decades. When did it become against the law to campaign against a certain candidate or for a certain candidate?And the big question... this is Donald Trump's fault, how?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wow, you are lame. This is on a completely different level.
I'm with The Gent on this. I'll even up the ante a bit and ask if anyone honestly believes our own CIA doesn't attempt to monkey with any other nations' elections.That the Russians did things should surprise no one, and unless one of those things was straight-up ballot fraud, it was still the American voters who decided the winner. If a bunch of them made their decision based upon lies, misinformation, and selective reporting of truths, well, that pretty much only made this election like every other one in our lifetimes.That said, if it's ever proven Trump asked for the help and/or his campaign and the Russians colluded, that's an entirely different ballgame.
I pretty much agree with that down the line. You would expect nations to try to influence the election of other nations to produce a result in their best interests. So the Russians were trying to do what's best for Russia? That's what I'd expect. But if OUR guys were trying to do what's best for Russia, well, that's a whole different kettle o' crawdads. (Wow, I'm still thinking in Texan phrases after all these years.)
I don't know what the caution is here. I think the evidence is already pretty strong that the Trump campaign worked with Putin/Russian propagandists during the election.There are already at least the statements from Rudy Giuliani and Roger Stone that showed they had advanced knowledge of hacks into Hillary Clinton's emails, there are the senior Trump campaign officials who had previously worked for Putin or his associates and finally there are the Trump boasts of his relationship with Putin later followed by his denials of any relationship.This probably isn't enough evidence to get a conviction in a court of law, but it's already a lot more factual than the nonsense that Hillary Clinton sold uranium to Putin/Russia (or enabled the sale in order to profit off of it.)Besides the issue of this collaboration is that the media seemed to take it as a given that the Hillary Clinton emails were factual and reported them as such. As it is now becoming increasingly clear that Wikileaks coordinated these releases with Putin/Russia, I think it is very likely that, if the emails weren't fake, that they likely were edited or otherwise altered.So, that would be another case of the media getting played.
Thing is, modern business and politics are incredibly incestuous endeavours. If we assume nefarious behavior simply based upon who once worked for whom and what connections person "a" has to persons "b" and "c," at least 3/4s of D.C. would be in jail.Then again, perhaps they should be.
Most senior people in politics haven't worked for a dictator.