4 ms·

You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption. Isn't it always "both sides are corrupt"? The key thing is that conservatives don't care about corruption

You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption. Isn't it always "both sides are corrupt"? The key thing is that conservatives don't care about corruption itself, just the opportunity to smear their opponents. I'd be more than fine with even more sunshine exposing the workings of the DNC and addressing what was found. Can you say the same about the GOP? Edit: I'd like to be proven wrong, so tell me what I missed.

mellosouls 4y ago
You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption I read no such implication.
- pstuart 4y ago
  The implication was that DNC emails were evidence of corruption, yet no GOP emails were leaked, ergo no corruption there. Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    That's a strained interpretation for sure. > Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option. Yes, most formally unaffiliated voters are still close to single ticket voters.
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    That implication has no textual basis.
DeWilde 4y ago
Please explain which part of my post led you to believe that? That is not my belief nor the point of my post. I am only stating that the way the NewYorker looks at this is not the same how some other people look at it. Also I'm not from the US nor do I really care about US politics, I do love pointing out obvious things like these :).
- pstuart 4y ago
  > Another perspective is that if the DNC hadn't engaged in corrupt practices then foreign intelligence services wouldn't have anything to leak. There was no leakage of GOP emails, therefore there was nothing to leak, i.e., no corruption of concern. If I misread your intent I apologize, it can be challenging in the most benign situations and it's more so tricky when its a subject of disagreement. But my claim still unfortunately holds. The DNC leak was a political hit job that only intended to smear the opposing party. A better example is Hunter Biden -- his employment really was with corrupt intents and if there really was evidence that corruption was rewarded it should be prosecuted. But if that very concern is legitimate, then it should be applied to all. There's plenty of evidence of that a certain son-in-law engaged in far more egregious affairs and there is not a peep about that. So I couldn't help but read your comment as yet another "gotcha" that fuels this false narrative.

mellosouls 4y ago

You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption I read no such implication.

pstuart 4y ago
The implication was that DNC emails were evidence of corruption, yet no GOP emails were leaked, ergo no corruption there. Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  That's a strained interpretation for sure. > Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option. Yes, most formally unaffiliated voters are still close to single ticket voters.
- l33t2328 4y ago
  That implication has no textual basis.

DeWilde 4y ago

Please explain which part of my post led you to believe that? That is not my belief nor the point of my post. I am only stating that the way the NewYorker looks at this is not the same how some other people look at it. Also I'm not from the US nor do I really care about US politics, I do love pointing out obvious things like these :).

pstuart 4y ago
> Another perspective is that if the DNC hadn't engaged in corrupt practices then foreign intelligence services wouldn't have anything to leak. There was no leakage of GOP emails, therefore there was nothing to leak, i.e., no corruption of concern. If I misread your intent I apologize, it can be challenging in the most benign situations and it's more so tricky when its a subject of disagreement. But my claim still unfortunately holds. The DNC leak was a political hit job that only intended to smear the opposing party. A better example is Hunter Biden -- his employment really was with corrupt intents and if there really was evidence that corruption was rewarded it should be prosecuted. But if that very concern is legitimate, then it should be applied to all. There's plenty of evidence of that a certain son-in-law engaged in far more egregious affairs and there is not a peep about that. So I couldn't help but read your comment as yet another "gotcha" that fuels this false narrative.