4 ms·

> The democrats were claiming fraud 4 years go due to a supposed Russian influence I’m not a fan of either party in the US — they both have glaring fatal flaws

by csa 6y ago

> The democrats were claiming fraud 4 years go due to a supposed Russian influence I’m not a fan of either party in the US — they both have glaring fatal flaws — but this comment is an irresponsible level of whataboutism. The folks commenting on Russian influence in 2016 were doing it with some basis in reality, and it turned out that the facts were confirmed by the current administration’s DoJ. I will add that Russian interference was not their top beef — Comey’s statements seemed to be more disconcerting for these people. The crazy shit that Trump is saying is a figment of his own imagination and nothing more. There is no basis in reality. No one will come in later and confirm that any of his ramblings were actually correct. Free speech has always had limits when it has had the potential to harm others. While the line is not always clear, undermining the mechanics of US democracy with verifiably false accusations can easily be seen as something that is harmful to others.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
Not sure why you are being downvoted. You take a hard stance but it seems factual.
- brighton36 6y ago
  Facts are disgusting. That's what makes them facts.
mistermann 6y ago
> and it turned out that the facts were confirmed by the current administration’s DoJ "The" facts? Is there a master list of facts that I'm not aware of out there somewhere? Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years? > The crazy shit that Trump is saying is a figment of his own imagination and nothing more. Trump says a lot of crazy things - are you suggesting that you've somehow fact-checked all of them, and found every single one to be literally nothing more than a figment of his own imagination? This seems fairly unlikely - might it be possible that the origin of your belief has some similarity to your theory about the origin of Trump's beliefs?
- mullen 6y ago
  > "The" facts? Is there a master list of facts that I'm not aware of out there somewhere? Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years? The DoJ literally published a report outlining the Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The Republican control Senate Intel Committee also published a report outlining the Russian meddling the 2016 election. If you don't believe either of these organizations, then there is nothing left to talk about.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > The folks commenting on Russian influence in 2016 were doing it with some basis in reality Journalists qualify as "folks" I would think. But it's true I suppose, much of what they said had some basis in reality. Nothing to see here. > If you don't believe either of these organizations, then there is nothing left to talk about. There's this: "Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years?" This holier than though "how dare you!" culture when someone asks legitimate questions about legitimate wrongdoing (here I refer to journalists and their tendency to wildly speculate, which clearly exerts psychological influence on belief formation in the public) is annoying. And on top of it I get a [reported]. Nice.
djsumdog 6y ago
You do realize all the Russian 2016 influence turned out to be completely and totally false right? The CIA leaked information to Yahoo News and then used that news story based off their misinformation to get a FISA warrant.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  False statements like yours should be moderated off this site. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-new-report-intel-community-assessment-russian-interference https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea... >The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump >The Committee finds the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case that Russia engaged in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    ICA people wanted Hillary to win. A total attempt at a cue. What happens when the wolf be in charge of who ate the sheep.
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      More bullshit. Do they not ban for bullshit on Hackernews?
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    It's not a false statement. Just look at the Carter Page liable lawsuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qODProeRQ4c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qODProeRQ4c

by csa 6y ago

JKCalhoun 6y ago

Not sure why you are being downvoted. You take a hard stance but it seems factual.

brighton36 6y ago
Facts are disgusting. That's what makes them facts.

mistermann 6y ago

> and it turned out that the facts were confirmed by the current administration’s DoJ "The" facts? Is there a master list of facts that I'm not aware of out there somewhere? Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years? > The crazy shit that Trump is saying is a figment of his own imagination and nothing more. Trump says a lot of crazy things - are you suggesting that you've somehow fact-checked all of them, and found every single one to be literally nothing more than a figment of his own imagination? This seems fairly unlikely - might it be possible that the origin of your belief has some similarity to your theory about the origin of Trump's beliefs?

mullen 6y ago
> "The" facts? Is there a master list of facts that I'm not aware of out there somewhere? Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years? The DoJ literally published a report outlining the Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The Republican control Senate Intel Committee also published a report outlining the Russian meddling the 2016 election. If you don't believe either of these organizations, then there is nothing left to talk about.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > The folks commenting on Russian influence in 2016 were doing it with some basis in reality Journalists qualify as "folks" I would think. But it's true I suppose, much of what they said had some basis in reality. Nothing to see here. > If you don't believe either of these organizations, then there is nothing left to talk about. There's this: "Is it composed of an aggregation of all(!) the "facts" asserted by all respectable, trustworthy journalists and politicians in the last few years?" This holier than though "how dare you!" culture when someone asks legitimate questions about legitimate wrongdoing (here I refer to journalists and their tendency to wildly speculate, which clearly exerts psychological influence on belief formation in the public) is annoying. And on top of it I get a [reported]. Nice.

djsumdog 6y ago

You do realize all the Russian 2016 influence turned out to be completely and totally false right? The CIA leaked information to Yahoo News and then used that news story based off their misinformation to get a FISA warrant.

chillwaves 6y ago
False statements like yours should be moderated off this site. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-new-report-intel-community-assessment-russian-interference https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea... >The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump >The Committee finds the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case that Russia engaged in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
- treeman79 6y ago
  ICA people wanted Hillary to win. A total attempt at a cue. What happens when the wolf be in charge of who ate the sheep.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    More bullshit. Do they not ban for bullshit on Hackernews?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  It's not a false statement. Just look at the Carter Page liable lawsuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qODProeRQ4c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qODProeRQ4c