3 ms·

People like Taibbi and Greenwald have not changed their principles one iota. The rest of the left was driven so crazy by the MAGA movement that principles went

People like Taibbi and Greenwald have not changed their principles one iota. The rest of the left was driven so crazy by the MAGA movement that principles went out the window in 2016. Trump got down in the mud, no surprise, but the left got right down there with him by denying the results of the 2016 election and using US intelligence apparatus to push a conspiracy theory (among other things). Meanwhile, the sensible people are just looking around at each other shaking their heads wishing you all would just stop.

runarberg 4y ago
Can you tell me what you mean by “the left [...] denying the results of the 2016 election”? Are you talking about the theory of Russian interference? If so, that is not the same as denying the results, that is questioning the integrity. The difference is huge. The later calls into question bad actors and asks for reforms going forward, the former calls into action the removal of the elected president in favor of the looser. Now as for the conspiracy of meddling with the election. I thought that was pretty well documented fact. We have stuff like the Cambridge Analytica leaks that show actual manipulation of voters.
- hammock 4y ago
  +1 to this. Hillary Clinton even said as much in her concession speech
- macinjosh 4y ago
  There is no difference when the end result is destroying people's trust in elections. You are clearly biased. Maybe you should look into how the US meddles in foreign elections. It is something countries do to each other. Russia has always done that and so have we. There was nothing special about 2016. These complaints about CA are the left's equivalent of when the right says there is mass voter fraud because of one or two minor instances of election fraud.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    > destroying people's trust in elections. I don’t understand, do you think we should have blind trust in election, that there shouldn’t be partisan and independent observers, that security measures shouldn’t be scrutinized? And if we find a fault, we shouldn’t call for reforms. We should just “trust” the system? No, this is not the same as denying the results without evidence. There is no equivalence here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

runarberg 4y ago

Can you tell me what you mean by “the left [...] denying the results of the 2016 election”? Are you talking about the theory of Russian interference? If so, that is not the same as denying the results, that is questioning the integrity. The difference is huge. The later calls into question bad actors and asks for reforms going forward, the former calls into action the removal of the elected president in favor of the looser. Now as for the conspiracy of meddling with the election. I thought that was pretty well documented fact. We have stuff like the Cambridge Analytica leaks that show actual manipulation of voters.

hammock 4y ago
+1 to this. Hillary Clinton even said as much in her concession speech
macinjosh 4y ago
There is no difference when the end result is destroying people's trust in elections. You are clearly biased. Maybe you should look into how the US meddles in foreign elections. It is something countries do to each other. Russia has always done that and so have we. There was nothing special about 2016. These complaints about CA are the left's equivalent of when the right says there is mass voter fraud because of one or two minor instances of election fraud.
- runarberg 4y ago
  > destroying people's trust in elections. I don’t understand, do you think we should have blind trust in election, that there shouldn’t be partisan and independent observers, that security measures shouldn’t be scrutinized? And if we find a fault, we shouldn’t call for reforms. We should just “trust” the system? No, this is not the same as denying the results without evidence. There is no equivalence here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]