3 ms·

> I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice. > The assertion coming fr

> I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice. > The assertion coming from the Clinton camp "Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection. > Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability. Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
Serious question: Do you really think it's whataboutism to point out what one of the parties we're talking about was publicly saying on the campaign trail at the time in question? The roles could be reversed and I'd still make the same statement. "Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  Yes, because i'm not pushing the political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2016. You however are pushing political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2020 (but will never go away because of a single man's ego).
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    In retrospect I was being too kind. This claim: > And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... Is false. It's a lie. And giving lies equal time as the truth, to be "debated", is one of the reasons why we are in this collective mess. First, virtually none of what appeared in the recent filing from Durham’s office is new information. Here’s a New York Times story from over four months ago with basically all of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-ba... Second, nothing in the filing supports breathless claims technically illiterate cable hosts are making. It does not allege anyone “hacked” Trump computers, or was paid to “infiltrate” networks, or that anyone “intercepted e-mails and text messages." You mindlessly repeat these claims hoping people aren't looking critically enough to see through them. You either don't understand these matters yourself, or you know they are lies and repeat them anyways. I personally view the second outcome as much worse.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

Serious question: Do you really think it's whataboutism to point out what one of the parties we're talking about was publicly saying on the campaign trail at the time in question? The roles could be reversed and I'd still make the same statement. "Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.

fortuna86 5y ago
Yes, because i'm not pushing the political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2016. You however are pushing political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2020 (but will never go away because of a single man's ego).
- fortuna86 5y ago
  In retrospect I was being too kind. This claim: > And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... Is false. It's a lie. And giving lies equal time as the truth, to be "debated", is one of the reasons why we are in this collective mess. First, virtually none of what appeared in the recent filing from Durham’s office is new information. Here’s a New York Times story from over four months ago with basically all of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-ba... Second, nothing in the filing supports breathless claims technically illiterate cable hosts are making. It does not allege anyone “hacked” Trump computers, or was paid to “infiltrate” networks, or that anyone “intercepted e-mails and text messages." You mindlessly repeat these claims hoping people aren't looking critically enough to see through them. You either don't understand these matters yourself, or you know they are lies and repeat them anyways. I personally view the second outcome as much worse.