When The Russian Hoax Is Exposed, Should The Democrats Be Held Accountable?

I find that hard to believe, since I have seen many right wingers work that theme here, seen Fox Noise talking heads make that claim and right wingers on my FB page say the same thing.

But, I see from looking down the thread, that you're clinging to the lie like a security blanket (without ever providing any evidence to refute the claim).

 

Don't confuse them with facts! It just makes them angry!

 

If you could post some links corroborating your claim, I would welcome it. Otherwise I must conclude that it's my original complaint. I've not seen anyone before me complain about it.

Tell me, which "lie" am I clinging to?

 

The number Putin has...is the White House

 

I don't think that there is a single Trumpster who won't go the most extreme lengths to continue to deny the mountain of evidence that something is very wrong.

Yes, there is no doubt that Putin is trolling.

Has he read the classified report, or is he just trolling? I doubt that it matters.

He knows what his people did, and he's posturing to both stir the pot and leave Trump holding the bag if it comes to that. By now, Putin understands that Trump isn't very smart.

But Vladimir Putin was not the guy who asked Comey and several others to deep six the Russia investigation.

Putin was not the guy who fired Comey, Yates, Barerra for the same reason. Nor did he admit on national television that he fired Comey for that reason.

Putin is not the guy who is ordering his staff not to cooperate with Investigating Committees.

Putin is not the guy who enlisted Devin Nunes in an embarrassing attempt to derail the investigation.

And Vladimir Putin is not mulling over trying to prevent a key witness from testifying before Congress.

All of these things make a complete mockery of your assertion.

"He seemed to be confirming the interference while denying responsibility. What better way to bring smoke pouring from progressive ears, and screams of ‘He’s covering for Trump.’"

I have no idea why anyone would draw that conclusion!

He is clearly NOT covering for Trump. In fact, he is confirming what the US intelligence agencies already know and throwing Trump under the bus.

Trump has blustered, bungled, lied and mismanaged this entire issue from the start.

It is clear to the Russians that Trump has put himself in a political position that will prevent Trump from doing anything for the Russians at this point. Therefore, his potential usefulness to Putin is at an end.

I suspect that Putin's real reaction to all this is pretty much along the lines of the SNL's Beck Bennett's bare chested portrayal of him....."Donald, we thought you had this!"

 

Humm, out of one side of your mouth you claim that this is your original idea.

In the next paragraph, you ask what claim I'm referring to!

Amazing!

 

1. So no evidence, check

2. You said that I lied, I'd asked you to tell me what lie, you failed...and check.

 

Evidence was already cited, as you well know. You're just playing games.

Even after I posted well documented evidence that your claim that 17 intelligence agencies did not endorse the idea that Trump may have been in bed with the Russians, you continued to pretend that your claim is true (which makes it a lie, not a claim).

 

I haven't seen evidence of Russian meddling.

The critical left maintains Hillary lost the election due to disclosures on Wikileaks of highly compromising emails to and from her and her campaign team with the DNC, the Obama administration and others. However, at the time of those disclosures the critical lefties I discussed this with dismissed those leaks as trivial, suspected they were fraudulent and interpreted with gross exaggeration, were certain they'd have no impact on her certain victory.

I think Hillary lost because most didn't want "four more years" and that was what Hillary stood for, continuity, more of the same, advancing LGBT rights, facilitating immigration, more regulations, expanding mandated healthcare, enhanced environmental protections... All of this animates urbanized coastal critical lefty bubble dwellers, in "flyover country" those "deplorables" were not at all excited about the prodpect of another four years of what they'd endured under Obama.

People who blame Russian meddling and accuse Trump of collusion find it inconceivable anyone wouldn't want advancing LGBT rights, facilitating immigration, more regulations, expanding mandated healthcare, enhanced environmental protections... Since to them these are all such attractive policies, Russian meddling is the only way to explain how Hillary could lose.

 

But most people did want four more years, which is why more than five million more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. He won because of a quirk in our system, not because he was the people's choice.

Not that it matters.

The election is over and Hillary is not President. Why Trump and his right wing base keep reliving the election is beyond me.

The Russia issue is about a possibility that a presidential candidate colluded with agents of a foreign power to manipulate American domestic politics.

It would be an issue, even if Trump had lost.

 

It would not be an issue if Trump lost. If he had lost, what purpose would it serve? The purpose of the Russia Hoax is to do as much damage as possible. I Hillary had won, she could do the damage without the need for the hoax.

 

No, the Russia issue is about holding a cloud over Trump, promoting the notion he was illegitimately elected to justify resisting anything he does.

 

So in other words...
1 You refuse to cite any evidence...check
2 You could not detail the lie...check

 

The Democrats of today are what Stalin called "useful idiots".

Putin plays them like marionettes!

 

We don't elect the President based on popular votes. The Founding Fathers made sure of that. According to the minutes of the Constitutional Convention most of the states didn't want to be dominated by Pennsylvania and Virginia, the two most populous states at the time by far. So they instituted the Electoral College we have today to prevent mob rule and the tyranny of the majority in the election of the President. The President would have to make a case to *most* of the states, including the less populous ones if he wanted to be elected.

Something the Marxist Democrats of today, including Hillary, simply didn't understand during the campaign and, based on your words, simply don't understand even today!

 

That isn't factually incorrect, because the Intelligence Community makes up 17 agencies. When the Director Of National Security says the Intelligence Community is confident that Russia meddled in our elections, he is referring to the agencies that make up the Intelligence Community. If you were taking that statement to mean something else (like a claim that there was a joint investigation from the IC, or that each agency individually made their own statement) then that is your own doing. No one in here ever made such a claim. You were arguing with your own misinterpretation

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

Exposing the efforts of a foreign power to interfere in the domestic politics of the United States in a large scale, ongoing manner "serves no purpose" if it didn't succeed??????

So, it's OK for a foreign power to try and manipulate our political process as long as they don't succeed????

That's what you're telling us.

Are you listening to yourself?

Is this representative of the absurd levels of rationalization that Trumpster are prepared to stoop to?

 

It is the face of cognitive dissonance. Trumpsters don't like facts.

 

It's not obvious that you even know what "cognitive dissonance" *is*. It doesn't have anything to do with facts. Don't use big words you don't understand.

 

I'm sorry for not being clear. What I mean is that the idea that the Trump campaign colluded with any Russian agents is a hoax.

 

lol wait just a minute, you come in here and post your arguments, then change your position to say you were arguing against the notion that each agency made their own individual statements. Then when it is pointed out to you that no one ever made such a claim..you can't address that? Uh.. yeah.. if that was your argument from the beginning, then you have to acknowledge that you were arguing with your own misinterpretation. Why is this being repeated? because you are unable to acknowledge it. Instead of saying "oh my bad" you try and spin it around to make it is everyone else's fault for misinterpreting you. Well yeah, people misinterpret you when you start arguing against a claim that was never made to begin with (not to mention your self contradictions)

The fact check concludes that the joint statement published by the National Security Director was a consensus from 17 agencies. You accept this now.. it sure as hell didn't seem like you were accepting it before(you said it was only 2 agencies) but now you're saying the statement addresses a consensus from 17 agencies, but the 17 agencies didn't separately make this conclusion.

I never disagreed that the 17 agencies did not separately come to this conclusion. You've been arguing with something that I never once claimed. You're not going to acknowledge this... are you?

 

I've never changed my argument. I've simply made it over and over and over and over again for several days. I get it if you don't agree with it, but you don't even understand it or are able to articulate it. So after all this time, it's clear what more can I do? I gave you the links to the two joint messages, and if you refuse to read them and refuse to accept them, there really isn't anything I can do about it.

 

Saying that the consensus includes only two agencies, and then saying that the following fact check is accurate is DEFINITELY a position change

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

Once again, the statement that was fact checked was "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election"

When this is pointed out to you, you try and spin it all around and say that the fact check backs what you are saying, and goes against what I was saying. You justify this notion by accusing me of making claims that I never made. When it's pointed out to you that I never made such claims, you flat out refuse to acknowledge any of it.

 

I didn't spin it. I quoted the actual part that I agreed with, and will do it again since you seem to have forgotten:

"The 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said that this cuts against Clinton’s point, saying, "It is unlikely that all 16 of the agencies had looked independently at the Russian connection, which is what Clinton seemed to indicate." "

There. That proves my point.

The "fact" that Politfact rated Clinton's statement true, "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

is an amusing example of fake news since clearly Clinton said 17 agencies concluded, even though we know that "17 Agencies" Didn't in fact conclude that. I've already provided the links of the actual agencies involved, and hint, it wasn't 17.

However at this point you are too ideologically committed to your talking points so continue and rebut away for the next week or so.