5 ms·

Insofar as "Russian military intelligence" is Seth Rich and "fake media cutout" is an independent publisher not beholden to the political interests that prevail

Insofar as "Russian military intelligence" is Seth Rich and "fake media cutout" is an independent publisher not beholden to the political interests that prevail upon large American media companies, then sure. You can dislike Trump all you want, but invoking the Russian boogeyman and smearing honest people like Assange is pretty low. The fact that political parties and major media outlets feel obliged to hide behind such transparently flimsy excuses is commentary on both how far the moral standard has fallen and the empty desperation of our cultural power brokers.

arcticfox 7y ago
Comments like this make me lose faith in humanity. You don't seem like a stupid person, but are willing to believe in an unbelievably complex cover-up that would require hundreds of career public servants to lie for some unknown benefit, as opposed to the obvious scenario: Russia doesn't give the slightest damn about meddling in elections. They're willing to murder people with exotic poisons on foreign soil on a regular basis, why would election meddling be any different?
- cookiecaper 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean because I didn't say anything about a "complex cover-up", and I'm certain that Russia (and most other states, including America) is continuously running operations to sway things in their favor all over the world -- that's what spies and intelligence agencies do. But I don't see how that's relevant here. Seth Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks and Assange is nobody's puppet, and Wikileaks definitely does not deserve to be called a "fake media cutout". Trump won the election because he appealed to a large number of Americans who voted for him because they thought he was the better candidate. Everything else is denial and excuse-making. Who said anything about a conspiracy requiring the coordination of "hundreds of career public servants"?
  - seppin 7y ago
    > Seth Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks > You don't seem like a stupid person Don't give him that. He believes things with no evidence for personal reasons, that's what stupid people do.
    - cookiecaper 7y ago
      I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk, and it's just a very convenient situation for him that this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances and now he can tell everyone that was the source and Rich isn't alive to deny it. But it's not "no evidence" nor is it "personal reasons". If anything, the instantaneous flip against Wikileaks and Assange after they published documents implicating the establishment's favored candidate has a much more arbitrary feel.
      - seppin 7y ago
        > If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk He had a TV show on the Russian state propaganda network where he tore into Hillary Clinton all day. How much more gift-wrapped would you like his intentions to be? > this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances Not only bullshit, but harmful, debunked bullshit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-pare... > I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. See, no it doesn't. It proves absolutely nothing. They can claim whatever they want as a way of distracting from their partnership with the GRU. And they know people like you will accept it as long as it fits their narrative. No evidence needed, hardly any effort either. Just mention his name on Fox News and run with it. I don't care if you can code, only people lacking in critical thought capacity (being diplomatic) believe conspiracy theories with no proof other than it fits their worldview.
        7y ago

arcticfox 7y ago

Comments like this make me lose faith in humanity. You don't seem like a stupid person, but are willing to believe in an unbelievably complex cover-up that would require hundreds of career public servants to lie for some unknown benefit, as opposed to the obvious scenario: Russia doesn't give the slightest damn about meddling in elections. They're willing to murder people with exotic poisons on foreign soil on a regular basis, why would election meddling be any different?

cookiecaper 7y ago
I'm not sure what you mean because I didn't say anything about a "complex cover-up", and I'm certain that Russia (and most other states, including America) is continuously running operations to sway things in their favor all over the world -- that's what spies and intelligence agencies do. But I don't see how that's relevant here. Seth Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks and Assange is nobody's puppet, and Wikileaks definitely does not deserve to be called a "fake media cutout". Trump won the election because he appealed to a large number of Americans who voted for him because they thought he was the better candidate. Everything else is denial and excuse-making. Who said anything about a conspiracy requiring the coordination of "hundreds of career public servants"?
- seppin 7y ago
  > Seth Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks > You don't seem like a stupid person Don't give him that. He believes things with no evidence for personal reasons, that's what stupid people do.
  - cookiecaper 7y ago
    I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk, and it's just a very convenient situation for him that this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances and now he can tell everyone that was the source and Rich isn't alive to deny it. But it's not "no evidence" nor is it "personal reasons". If anything, the instantaneous flip against Wikileaks and Assange after they published documents implicating the establishment's favored candidate has a much more arbitrary feel.
    - seppin 7y ago
      > If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk He had a TV show on the Russian state propaganda network where he tore into Hillary Clinton all day. How much more gift-wrapped would you like his intentions to be? > this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances Not only bullshit, but harmful, debunked bullshit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-pare... > I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. See, no it doesn't. It proves absolutely nothing. They can claim whatever they want as a way of distracting from their partnership with the GRU. And they know people like you will accept it as long as it fits their narrative. No evidence needed, hardly any effort either. Just mention his name on Fox News and run with it. I don't care if you can code, only people lacking in critical thought capacity (being diplomatic) believe conspiracy theories with no proof other than it fits their worldview.
      - 7y ago