4 ms·

The really shameful part of this is the xenophobic garbage spewed by Democrats who are upset their candidate lost the election. They can't handle the thought th

The really shameful part of this is the xenophobic garbage spewed by Democrats who are upset their candidate lost the election. They can't handle the thought that they simply lost, so now anyone who disagrees with them is an agent planted by Putin.

untog 10y ago
But don't you see that you're doing the same from the opposite side? Any criticism of Putin is attributed to bitter Democrats, so there can be no valid criticism of Putin any more.
- draw_down 10y ago
  There's plenty to criticize Putin for- Democrats just don't want to look at how badly they bungled this election and others. (Ask yourself why since 2010 they've lost over 1000 governorships, state legislature seats, and Congressional seats. It ain't Russia!) And at the same time some of them are saying crap like "Who cares about Russia, their only contribution to the world was the gulag". I'm paraphrasing here, but this is what I was referring to in my post above. In their zeal to denounce a man they see as a racist bigot, they turn to bigotry themselves. Shameful is the word for it. I mean, look at this: https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/809188697002409988 https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/809188697002409988 All in all it's just a startling 180- 4 years ago, Democrats were (correctly) lambasting Romney for BS tough-talk about Russia.
- tomca32 10y ago
  To be fair: "The first sentence of the article directly linked this cyberattack to alleged Russian hacking of the email accounts of the DNC and John Podesta." so really WP already put this in the context of the election.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  The problem is that there isn't any real criticism. Much like their failed election campaign - they focused so much on character assassination, that any valid criticism of Trump could simply be dismissed. If I had to argue a point in a university essay, and argued in the fashion the media has for the last year, any of my profs would have failed me. You'd think educated professionals, in a supposedly intellectual, free society would do better. But nope, just "Putin is a dictator", or "Trump is a racist". It's these journalists' fault no one listens any more.
  - untog 10y ago
    > If I had to argue a point in a university essay, and argued in the fashion the media has for the last year, any of my profs would have failed me. I'd argue that elections have never been won this way. They've always been about identity and attacking your opponent. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but that the 2016 Democratic campaign was not unique in that regard. Hell, Trump's own campaign was run as a referendum on Hillary Clinton as much as it was anything to do with his strengths.
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      Even by that token, they should have taken a different angle on Trump. The guy is shameless, most of his dealings are out there for everyone to see, and they take the one angle that couldn't be proven - that he's racist, based on what, comments about illegal immigration? Had they not stacked the deck against Sanders, they'd have a principled, likeable candidate in the general, and then they could have used the angle of Trump being unprincipled. Unfortunately Hillary is equally unprincipled, and less likeable.
      - woofyman 10y ago
        >he's racist, based on what, comments about illegal immigration? He claimed judge Curiel couldn't do his job because of his ethnicity. He claimed the Central Park five were guilty even though they were cleared by DNA evidence. His company was fined for not renting to blacks and Hispanics. The whole birtherism stuff.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        chillwaves 10y ago
        Seems the democrats did not count on so few people caring that Trump is at least a little racist.
  - woofyman 10y ago
- sergiotapia 10y ago
  REAL criticism is valid of course. People are just tired of democrats calling anything who doesn't agree with them a racist/sexist/islamophobe when the VAST majority of conservatives are none of the above.
  - untog 10y ago
    But again, within one line you've diverted from talking about the actual topic, Putin, to a random attack on a preconceived notion of what "Democrats" are. How is that relevant? (All else aside, "the problem with Democrats is that they stereotype large groups of people" is a fantastically ironic statement to make)
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      Putin isn't involved in this story, so he's not the actual topic.
      - untog 10y ago
        Fair enough - we're talking about Russia, not Putin. But neither have anything to do with Democrats.
        Gargoyle 10y ago
        > But neither have anything to do with Democrats. That's just not true. Democrats have been pushing the narrative that "Russian hackers" are undermining America, and pushing it quite aggressively. So it's completely valid to bring those efforts up in regard to a dramatically over-hyped story about "Russian hackers."
        untog 10y ago
        That's exactly the point I was making in the first place - that it is now not possible to criticise Russia without the Democrats being mentioned. There's clearly a real, valid conversation to be had about Russian intelligence efforts against the US (as there is about Chinese efforts, and anyone else) but that conversation is repeatedly shut down with "yeah but Democrats". It doesn't contribute anything and makes it sound like Democrats are the only ones complaining about it, which isn't remotely true.

untog 10y ago

But don't you see that you're doing the same from the opposite side? Any criticism of Putin is attributed to bitter Democrats, so there can be no valid criticism of Putin any more.

draw_down 10y ago
There's plenty to criticize Putin for- Democrats just don't want to look at how badly they bungled this election and others. (Ask yourself why since 2010 they've lost over 1000 governorships, state legislature seats, and Congressional seats. It ain't Russia!) And at the same time some of them are saying crap like "Who cares about Russia, their only contribution to the world was the gulag". I'm paraphrasing here, but this is what I was referring to in my post above. In their zeal to denounce a man they see as a racist bigot, they turn to bigotry themselves. Shameful is the word for it. I mean, look at this: https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/809188697002409988 https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/809188697002409988 All in all it's just a startling 180- 4 years ago, Democrats were (correctly) lambasting Romney for BS tough-talk about Russia.
tomca32 10y ago
To be fair: "The first sentence of the article directly linked this cyberattack to alleged Russian hacking of the email accounts of the DNC and John Podesta." so really WP already put this in the context of the election.
Mikeb85 10y ago
The problem is that there isn't any real criticism. Much like their failed election campaign - they focused so much on character assassination, that any valid criticism of Trump could simply be dismissed. If I had to argue a point in a university essay, and argued in the fashion the media has for the last year, any of my profs would have failed me. You'd think educated professionals, in a supposedly intellectual, free society would do better. But nope, just "Putin is a dictator", or "Trump is a racist". It's these journalists' fault no one listens any more.
- untog 10y ago
  > If I had to argue a point in a university essay, and argued in the fashion the media has for the last year, any of my profs would have failed me. I'd argue that elections have never been won this way. They've always been about identity and attacking your opponent. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but that the 2016 Democratic campaign was not unique in that regard. Hell, Trump's own campaign was run as a referendum on Hillary Clinton as much as it was anything to do with his strengths.
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    Even by that token, they should have taken a different angle on Trump. The guy is shameless, most of his dealings are out there for everyone to see, and they take the one angle that couldn't be proven - that he's racist, based on what, comments about illegal immigration? Had they not stacked the deck against Sanders, they'd have a principled, likeable candidate in the general, and then they could have used the angle of Trump being unprincipled. Unfortunately Hillary is equally unprincipled, and less likeable.
    - woofyman 10y ago
      >he's racist, based on what, comments about illegal immigration? He claimed judge Curiel couldn't do his job because of his ethnicity. He claimed the Central Park five were guilty even though they were cleared by DNA evidence. His company was fined for not renting to blacks and Hispanics. The whole birtherism stuff.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - chillwaves 10y ago
        Seems the democrats did not count on so few people caring that Trump is at least a little racist.
- woofyman 10y ago
sergiotapia 10y ago
REAL criticism is valid of course. People are just tired of democrats calling anything who doesn't agree with them a racist/sexist/islamophobe when the VAST majority of conservatives are none of the above.
- untog 10y ago
  But again, within one line you've diverted from talking about the actual topic, Putin, to a random attack on a preconceived notion of what "Democrats" are. How is that relevant? (All else aside, "the problem with Democrats is that they stereotype large groups of people" is a fantastically ironic statement to make)
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    Putin isn't involved in this story, so he's not the actual topic.
    - untog 10y ago
      Fair enough - we're talking about Russia, not Putin. But neither have anything to do with Democrats.
      - Gargoyle 10y ago
        > But neither have anything to do with Democrats. That's just not true. Democrats have been pushing the narrative that "Russian hackers" are undermining America, and pushing it quite aggressively. So it's completely valid to bring those efforts up in regard to a dramatically over-hyped story about "Russian hackers."
        untog 10y ago
        That's exactly the point I was making in the first place - that it is now not possible to criticise Russia without the Democrats being mentioned. There's clearly a real, valid conversation to be had about Russian intelligence efforts against the US (as there is about Chinese efforts, and anyone else) but that conversation is repeatedly shut down with "yeah but Democrats". It doesn't contribute anything and makes it sound like Democrats are the only ones complaining about it, which isn't remotely true.