4 ms·

You've obviously made up your mind, so I'm not going to reason with you. As far as I am concerned, who leaked things should not be the point of discussion. The

You've obviously made up your mind, so I'm not going to reason with you. As far as I am concerned, who leaked things should not be the point of discussion. The point of discussion should be if it is truthful or not. If it is, then the problem is not Russia, it is the internal corruption. Calling something par the course does not make it right. I am not invested in any of the candidates, but I think just because it was unfair in the past, it should be unfair now. I don't want to go into the whole email discussion, but it was proved multiple times that the private server wasn't an accident but intentional setup and that confidential material was transmitted. How is there no ramification for that?

travmatt 10y ago
You seem to be caught in the notion that you acquire information in a vacuum, and that propagandists don't subtly alter or omit information as to further their own interests. Best of luck with that. With regards to Sanders, as best I can tell, you seem to be upset that your candidate wasn't exempted from both the political process and the democratic process. I'm unsympathetic to people who cry after they lose a game and want the rules changed for themselves, which is essentially what you're arguing for now. Sanders joined public service at the same time the Clintons did, if he wanted to gain power on a national stage there was nothing stopping him. The tricks utilized against him are nothing compared to the sustained attacks the Clintons have weathered for 25+ years, much less what Barack overcame in a single election. Everyone else seems to get along just fine, but for some reason we're all supposed to stop and rewrite human nature when Sanders supporters learn how the world actually works. If you think all these games are unfair, they are - and so what? They're nothing compared to the politics played on the international stage by Putin, Xi Jingping et al. There's no imaginary referee that you can go run to whenever someone is mean to you internationally, just as there isn't one in an election locally. I expect my president to find ways to adapt, just as I would when a hostile nation tries to sabotage their political process. FWIW, Sanders himself understands this fully, hasn't complained or cried about it, and is using his opportunity to the fullest to effect positive change in the world. The final fact you seem keen to ignore is that Clinton won her nomination by over 3,000,000 votes. For some reason the clear will of the electorate isn't a good enough reason for you to accept her nomination, and instead you insist that this process be ignored so your preferred candidate is instead nominated. As for the email 'scandal', I'll again pass. I'm equally unsympathetic to people who try and change topics to avoid admitting they're wrong.
- vaishaksuresh 10y ago
  You seem to think I am invested in Sanders, which I can tell you is not true. Heck, I can't even vote. You go on your elaborate rant about how the system has always been unfair and Clintons are brilliant to utilize it in their favor and nobody should complain about it, yet you fail to feel the same way about Trump or Putin. Propaganda has always been used and misinformation has been used to influence large groups of people to do stupid stuff. If the large group decides to buy into the propaganda and elect Trump, why are you complaining? I am digressing here from my original point that people are too focussed about the source and not enough about the contents and its validity, but going by what you've already said, you seem to be ok with everything being wrong as long as it favors Clintons. I am done discussing this.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    You seem to keep straw-manning my argument - again I never proposed that voters aren't entitled to the information contained in the emails. The notion that you seem to be arguing against is Putin is a skilled propagandist who subtly alters and omits information to further his agenda - again which is solely to weaken the United States. Again, he has a proven track record of doing this. That's why I advocate learning about issues from multiple reputed sources who can vet information and contextualize it, and not take as fact random Wordpress sites set up by Russian intelligence services. Lastly, if you've read my last few replies they are all saying that these are fair tactics, and candidates who can't respond to them probably don't deserve our votes. I'm sorry you took this as meaning I'm pro-Clinton and against everyone else, but I'm usually for people basing their votes and opinions on facts.

travmatt 10y ago

You seem to be caught in the notion that you acquire information in a vacuum, and that propagandists don't subtly alter or omit information as to further their own interests. Best of luck with that. With regards to Sanders, as best I can tell, you seem to be upset that your candidate wasn't exempted from both the political process and the democratic process. I'm unsympathetic to people who cry after they lose a game and want the rules changed for themselves, which is essentially what you're arguing for now. Sanders joined public service at the same time the Clintons did, if he wanted to gain power on a national stage there was nothing stopping him. The tricks utilized against him are nothing compared to the sustained attacks the Clintons have weathered for 25+ years, much less what Barack overcame in a single election. Everyone else seems to get along just fine, but for some reason we're all supposed to stop and rewrite human nature when Sanders supporters learn how the world actually works. If you think all these games are unfair, they are - and so what? They're nothing compared to the politics played on the international stage by Putin, Xi Jingping et al. There's no imaginary referee that you can go run to whenever someone is mean to you internationally, just as there isn't one in an election locally. I expect my president to find ways to adapt, just as I would when a hostile nation tries to sabotage their political process. FWIW, Sanders himself understands this fully, hasn't complained or cried about it, and is using his opportunity to the fullest to effect positive change in the world. The final fact you seem keen to ignore is that Clinton won her nomination by over 3,000,000 votes. For some reason the clear will of the electorate isn't a good enough reason for you to accept her nomination, and instead you insist that this process be ignored so your preferred candidate is instead nominated. As for the email 'scandal', I'll again pass. I'm equally unsympathetic to people who try and change topics to avoid admitting they're wrong.

vaishaksuresh 10y ago
You seem to think I am invested in Sanders, which I can tell you is not true. Heck, I can't even vote. You go on your elaborate rant about how the system has always been unfair and Clintons are brilliant to utilize it in their favor and nobody should complain about it, yet you fail to feel the same way about Trump or Putin. Propaganda has always been used and misinformation has been used to influence large groups of people to do stupid stuff. If the large group decides to buy into the propaganda and elect Trump, why are you complaining? I am digressing here from my original point that people are too focussed about the source and not enough about the contents and its validity, but going by what you've already said, you seem to be ok with everything being wrong as long as it favors Clintons. I am done discussing this.
- travmatt 10y ago
  You seem to keep straw-manning my argument - again I never proposed that voters aren't entitled to the information contained in the emails. The notion that you seem to be arguing against is Putin is a skilled propagandist who subtly alters and omits information to further his agenda - again which is solely to weaken the United States. Again, he has a proven track record of doing this. That's why I advocate learning about issues from multiple reputed sources who can vet information and contextualize it, and not take as fact random Wordpress sites set up by Russian intelligence services. Lastly, if you've read my last few replies they are all saying that these are fair tactics, and candidates who can't respond to them probably don't deserve our votes. I'm sorry you took this as meaning I'm pro-Clinton and against everyone else, but I'm usually for people basing their votes and opinions on facts.