Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/10/heres-a-guide-to-the-trumpian-spin-on-the-russian-hacking-report/?utm_term=.1807d2ebbf22

Makes an interesting read, Trumpian tactics defined.

This stuff isn't hard to figure out, IMO. It's not that the intelligence agencies made any assessment on the impact of Russia's activities on the election. It's that morons would try to regard this as proof Russia "hacked" the election.

Which of course is exactly what we saw afterwards. So of course Trump is going to make the distinctions he makes, because he knows how the media operates. The intelligence agencies were attempting to provide information, and Trump wisely saw that others would attempt to use it to delegitimize his presidency.

So I feel his "spin" is actually an important distinction that needs to be made given the way the media and people in general operate these days. The hilarity is that the Washington Post definitely played a role in the lack of faith in the media and the knowledge of how we know they manipulate things.

IOW: "I don't care when Trump spins things out of the original context if it's for the purpose of making him look good." -Surtur



From the article: "In other words, Trump officials are asserting a conclusion that does not exist in the report — because agencies were not asked to make such a conclusion. Because the report is silent on the question of whether the election was swayed, Trump officials falsely state there is “no evidence” that the Russian efforts succeeded.

Given Trump’s narrow election victory — just a switch of 40,000 votes in three states would have altered the outcome — analysts can point to any number of factors. Clinton’s email controversy — and the FBI investigation that resulted – was certainly a major drag on her electoral prospects. But at the same time, during the campaign Trump repeatedly seized on revelations made by WikiLeaks (which U.S. intelligence says came via Russia) to attack Clinton.

The answer will never be known, but it is not a question that U.S. intelligence was asked to explore." -snip

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "I don't care when Trump spins things out of the original context if it's for the purpose of making him look good." -Surtur

But nobody said that at all, I was saying why he made the distinction.

Unless you feel I am wrong and nobody tried to suggest his presidency wasn't legitimate due to this?

Not saying the intelligence agencies ever did that, I am asking if you feel nobody did or that it would be silly for Trump to think some would try?

Originally posted by Stop the hate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/10/heres-a-guide-to-the-trumpian-spin-on-the-russian-hacking-report/?utm_term=.1807d2ebbf22

Makes an interesting read, Trumpian tactics defined.

Interesting.

Originally posted by Surtur
But nobody said that at all, I was saying why he made the distinction.

Unless you feel I am wrong and nobody tried to suggest his presidency wasn't legitimate due to this?

Not saying the intelligence agencies ever did that, I am asking if you feel nobody did or that it would be silly for Trump to think some would try?

If you're going to chop apart my post and then respond to them, in the very least do a clean editing job. Thanks.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to chop apart my post and then respond to them, in the very least do a clean editing job. Thanks.

I got rid of everything that was were just copy and pasted and kept only your "IOW" spiel.

Regardless, did I edit things in a way to which you didn't understand what I was saying?

I did not say you couldn't chop apart my post/edit and then respond to whatever nonsense you created, if such where the case. I simply asked that you do a clean editing job when doing so. Be less #triggered, guy.

Anyhow, going back to the topic, I feel if Trump had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have needed to spin the story. So it's an interesting story.

Originally posted by Robtard
I did not say you couldn't chop apart my post/edit and then respond to whatever nonsense you created, if such where the case. I simply asked that you do a clean editing job when doing so. Be less #triggered, guy.

Nobody is triggered, I'm wondering where I didn't do a clean job. I intended to get rid of everything but your IOW stuff, because the rest of what you pasted could be found in the linked article.

I look at the post and see I didn't accidentally only put half of your "IOW" line, or anything like that. Just saw no need to include stuff pasted from the article already linked.

Now that's a proper edit of my post, you chopped out the parts (ie the topic of Trump, no surprise) you didn't want to respond to and keep the rest looking proper, so thanks.

Originally posted by Robtard
Now that's a proper edit of my post, you chopped out the parts (ie the topic of Trump, no surprise) you didn't want to respond to and keep the rest looking proper, so thanks.

I don't see what doesn't look proper.

Lol wait there is..but no. Surely it's not because in the response you are talking about your quote was not in bold, was it? Is that what has you upset?

With responses like that and you complain that people call you #triggered all the time. Funny stuff.

Originally posted by Robtard
With responses like that and you complain that people call you #triggered all the time. Funny stuff.

Not triggered, just finding it hard to believe you were triggered over the lack of bold. Or was it the lone that bothered you?

It seems like your every other post is to call something triggered now.