No shit. The Kremlin succeeded in getting one of their many sockpuppets into the white house.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 10, 2016, 10:34:26 PM

Quote from: Mr Deplorable on November 10, 2016, 10:31:37 PM

I promoted the concept of Donald Trump being in contact with the Russians.

Quote from: Mr Deplorable on November 10, 2016, 05:48:07 PM

Quote from: Icy on November 10, 2016, 05:46:25 PM

Well yes. Their government can now admit they were in contact with the Trump campaign.

And thank God for that.

Quote from: Mr Deplorable on November 10, 2016, 10:31:37 PM

I support Trump because I do not want foreign entities affecting our politics.

I'm going to stop pretending you have any intellectual credibility, because you don't.

In what way do you think the Russian government has affected our politics aside from A) existing, and B) talking to a candidate? Communicating with a potential President's advisers is not interference. Stop deluding yourself, the reds haven't taken over.

You seem to be confused here.

Read my posts again, because I never made the assertion the Reds are taking over. Russia attempted to sway our politics, and you welcomed that.

WikiLeaks, bless its soul, confirmed mostly what we already knew or guessed about Hillary--that she's an opaque corporatist shill who probably didn't actually believe half the things she campaigned on. After seeing how the election ultimately played out, it's difficult to believe that the leaks, apparently supplied by Russia, swayed the election in any significant way. Hillary was destined to lose.

I don't believe the Trump campaign ever had any direct association with Russia. That was a flimsy theory peddled by Clinton supporters and the liberal MSM at large.

In what way did Russia attempt to sway our politics short of Putin saying "I like this guy" and talking to a candidate who was already promoting a path of isolationism? There is no evidence to suggest that Trump's position on Russia came from anyone but himself, nor was there anything for him to reasonably gain from them for saying what he said. Trump and Putin are only friends as far as their interests align- and they do align quite a bit, which is good for us as well as for them.

I'd say Trump's stance comes more out of ignorance more than ideological agreement, but otherwise I agree.

I have made it very clear that I consider communicating with Russian officials to be different and distinct from taking advice, guidance, money, or orders from them. Trump's statements and proposed policies regarding foreign lobbies in our government are not in Russia's interest; they are in no interest but that of the American people. You may continue accusing me of intellectual contradiction all you want, but I will maintain in response that you are incapable of understanding nuance.

You seem to believe that I've claimed there's a direct relation between Trump and Russia. That is still false however many times you assert it. It also doesn't change the fact that you contradicted yourself under the guise of """""nuance"""""

Confirmed. Confirming these things is very important, yes.

Glad to see we agree on something here.

Allegedly supplied by Russia. They could have come from anywhere- supposedly at least 5 foreign intelligence services accessed her private server.

Five intelligence services? That's scary. Care to provide a link to that?

I'll give it to you that there's scant evidence linking Russia to the WikiLeaks email dumps. The USG hasn't released specifics and it's unlikely that they will.

And if you don't think the constant stream of leaks and the resulting FBI investigations hurt Clinton, you are deluding yourself. Clinton herself is rumored to have blamed her loss in part on the leaks, as well as Obama for not stopping the FBI investigations sooner. Her apparent and confirmed corruption was a huge factor in undermining public opinion of her and alienating the more liberal elements within her own party.

I do think the leaks and investigation hurt her, but after seeing the vote play out, I also think her defeat was inevitable. You seem to think these are mutually exclusive concepts when they're not. But we're in agreement here anyway, so whatever.

Going back on topic, you cheered for a foreign power meddling in our sovereign country's democratic election, regardless of whether or not they actually did. I don't see how any of this digression disputes that fact.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 11, 2016, 12:33:13 AM

Going back on topic, you cheered for a foreign power meddling in our sovereign country's democratic election, regardless of whether or not they actually did. I don't see how any of this digression disputes that fact.

The fact that I never did what you're saying I did, and the post you linked as evidence did not say what you're saying I've said disputes that "fact". I've made myself clear already.

This is not """""nuance"""""

Unless you want to count them ALLEGEDLY aiding Wikileaks in exposing institutional corruption, which would have been a goddamn service to the people of this country.

I support Trump because I do not want foreign entities affecting our politics.

This is a contradiction.

>"I support Trump because I don't want foreign entities affecting our politics"
>"even though a foreign entity affecting our politics would have been doing us a service"

Once again, this is alleged. The only reason we have to believe that it was the Russians and not whoever the fuck else it could have been is that Clinton said so, and the Russians didn't like Clinton. For all we know they could have been internal.

I know that it's alleged, and there's zero solid evidence available to the public about it.

What I find preposterous here is that even if the Russian's email meddling was true, you'd actually support a foreign power doing such a thing, by your own admission.

Further, if you see that as interfering with or obstructing our democracy, you need a reality check. Exposing this kind of information is a boon to democracy. If you had information suggesting that a potential British PM was offering government offices to donors, making millions off of favors done for big businesses, and rigging their party's internal elections, wouldn't you try to inform the British people? I don't even believe in democracy as the ideal political system but come on, how on earth is it better to leave the demos uninformed about extremely important matters like this?

I agree. WikiLeaks did the right thing by revealing these emails, regardless of who provided them. I never meant to sound like I was downplaying WikiLeaks, if that's how I came across.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 11, 2016, 01:23:56 AM

Quote from: Mr Deplorable on November 11, 2016, 01:10:38 AM

Once again, this is alleged. The only reason we have to believe that it was the Russians and not whoever the fuck else it could have been is that Clinton said so, and the Russians didn't like Clinton. For all we know they could have been internal.

I know that it's alleged, and there's zero solid evidence available to the public about it.

What I find preposterous here is that even if the Russian's email meddling was true, you'd actually support Russia doing that, by your own admission.

Quote

Further, if you see that as interfering with or obstructing our democracy, you need a reality check. Exposing this kind of information is a boon to democracy. If you had information suggesting that a potential British PM was offering government offices to donors, making millions off of favors done for big businesses, and rigging their party's internal elections, wouldn't you try to inform the British people? I don't even believe in democracy as the ideal political system but come on, how on earth is it better to leave the demos uninformed about extremely important matters like this?

I agree. WikiLeaks did the right thing by revealing these emails, regardless of who provided them. I never meant to sound like I was downplaying WikiLeaks, if that's how I came across.

I know you're not downplaying Wikileaks, but I really don't see how you can jump from supporting Wikileaks, which is not an American organization (led by an Australian, based mostly in Sweden I believe), to condemning Russia for supplying Wikileaks with information. This isn't like Saudis paying our politicians for favorable treatment in policy, this is the publication of information relevant and important to voters.

WikiLeaks, playing the role of journalist, is obligated to publish their information regardless of the motives of their source. I see no conflict here.

Before I log off for the night, though,

I'm not a Russkie buttbro like Door by any means, but if it's a choice between affable relations with one of the most capable nuclear countries in the world and Cold War 2 Electric Boogaloo, I think it's obvious which one I'm going to choose.