Originally posted by Blindside12
Obama worked with Bibi's opponent and spent tax payer money to do it, did you care then?Also where is your Proof Trump worked with Putin?
Okay, you're just going to throw out red herrings after red herrings because you can't handle the fact that Mueller's investigation isn't a "democrat message" /issue
Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, you're just going to throw out red herrings after red herrings because you can't handle the fact that Mueller's investigation isn't a "democrat message" /issue
Its not a red herring.
La times: The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
Originally posted by darthgooberMuch more than influencing the election. According to our intelligence agencies, Russia’s goal was to instill division and chaos and mistrust in our government, to deligitimize our fair and democratic elections, to use fake news as a tool of frenzy.
Oh God... trying to influence us isn't attacking our democracy because the choice is still ours to make. That's not to say that they didn't try to influence or election, but that's different than actually attacking the democracy itself. There was basically zero chance of our democracy becoming a different form of government due to their actions.
Essentially, Russia was trying to bring America down into the sewer so Putin can say to his people “see, those Americans are corrupt too”!! He keeps his own power through corruption and unfair elections, so to keep power he can’t have Russians thinking of revolution.
If Russians see fair elections in America, they’re gonna want that too. So attacking our elections is about so much more
Originally posted by Blindside12
Its not a red herring.La times: The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
Granted, I don't think we should be doing it either, regardless of who's in office. But that doesn't excuse Russia doing it in 2016, likely doing it in 2018 and us sitting back and doing nothing because oddly Trump refuses to act.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to do the "well we do it, so Russia's okay in doing it to us" Trumper marching order thing, cool. I don't agree though.Granted, I don't think we should be doing it either, regardless of who's in office. But that doesn't excuse Russia doing it in 2016, likely doing it in 2018 and us sitting back and doing nothing because oddly Trump refuses to act.
You dont agree now, but you didnt care before Trump was in office, so if you didnt care then why do you care now? And why didnt you condemn Obama for doing it?
Originally posted by Robtard
Err, a foreign entity trying to influence who the American people pick to best benefit them would be an 'attack on our democracy', regardless if it worked or not.It's like saying you can launch missiles at a country, but if you don't kill anyone or destroy a building, the attack doesn't count; when we both know it does.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Much more than influencing the election. According to our intelligence agencies, Russia’s goal was to instill division and chaos and mistrust in our government, to deligitimize our fair and democratic elections, to use fake news as a tool of frenzy.Essentially, Russia was trying to bring America down into the sewer so Putin can say to his people “see, those Americans are corrupt too”!! He keeps his own power through corruption and unfair elections, so to keep power he can’t have Russians thinking of revolution.
If Russians see fair elections in America, they’re gonna want that too. So attacking our elections is about so much more
Imagine a bunch of hungry dogs in a pit somewhere. Someone comes along and throws a pork chop into the pit and causes a massive fight between the dogs that ends in several of those dogs deaths. Now you can say a lot of things about the who threw in the pork chop and be accurate, but what you can't say is that the guy attacked those dogs...
Originally posted by darthgoober
No it's not. An "attack on the democracy" threatens the democracy itself. In 3 years the plan is still to have a democratic election. Stop exaggerating what happened for shock value, it undermines your overall position. It's every bit as silly as saying that Trump is the next Hitler...
Dissagreed again. An "attack" doesn't have to destroy our entire democratic process to be effective and to be an attack. You seem to be adding much more to "attack" than is needed.
edit: Let's let Mrs. Merriam Webster tell us: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack
Definition of attack
transitive verb
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
attack an enemy fortification
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
a politician verbally attacked by critics
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
plants attacked by aphids
4 : to set to work on
attack a problem
5 chess : to threaten (a piece) with immediate capture
Yup, seems fitting.
Originally posted by Robtard
Dissagreed again. An "attack" doesn't have to destroy our entire democratic process to be effective and to be an attack. You seem to be adding much more to "attack" than is needed.edit: Let's let Mrs. Merriam Webster tell us: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack
Definition of attack
transitive verb
1 : to set upon or work against forcefullyattack an enemy fortification
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
a politician verbally attacked by critics
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
plants attacked by aphids
4 : to set to work on
attack a problem
5 chess : to threaten (a piece) with immediate capture
Yup, seems fitting.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Imagine a bunch of hungry dogs in a pit somewhere. Someone comes along and throws a pork chop into the pit and causes a massive fight between the dogs that ends in several of those dogs deaths. Now you can say a lot of things about the who threw in the pork chop and be accurate, but what you can't say is that the guy attacked those dogs...
Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm not denying the multiple possible meanings of the word attack, I'm addressing the most obvious implication. Also the targeting. Again...
Imho, my analogy was ridiculously more accurate than yours and I don't think FF saying "attack on our democracy" is inaccurate considering. We've yet to fully see how successful said attack was, maybe we will never know either way. But we'll just have to agree to dissagree as I don't think either of us is being swayed.
Also, as far as the "Trump is the next Hitler", I said the opposite actually, Hitler was immensely more intelligent and charismatic than Trump. Trump could never accomplish what he did nor could he command the mass loyalty required to do so. People saying that now is really no different than the 8 years in how the people who became Trumpers used to refer to Obama as "Hitler".
Originally posted by Blindside12
People on this very forum attack our democracy daily, Rob is one of those people who thinks the Electoral College needs to tossed out.
Weird. But let me clarify.
I do think elections/voting should go down to one citizen = one vote and the candidate who has the most votes wins. But I'd want the EC to go away because the masses voted on it going away, I wouldn't want it to be stripped away against the majority of the people's wishes. That's about as pro democracy as you can get, comrade.