On many levels, I have a real problem with this type of thinking. Nothing is closed for debate and nothing, especially something we have very little overall knowledge about, should go unquestioned and be deemed as settled. Throughout the history of mankind, we've made some pretty shitty declarations about what is and isn't "open for debate" and have been proven to be on the wrong side of the argument more often than not. Do I think Trump is doing this for some strategic benefit to really examine the validity of climate change? No, absolutely not. However, for you to make the above statement tells me you are willing to accept it as a closed matter, needing no further investigation, and you'll accept whatever is proposed to make changes regardless of their effectiveness or cost as long as it is coming from scientists.
You sound like the shitty lawyer for an automotive company right now and I have no idea why. Your logic here is no less stupid than that of anti-Vaccine crusaders. They have done over forty four thousand scientifically researched studies and climate change, and seven came back negative. And here you are, defending those seven as one of those "I Don't Think The Science Is There" sceptics. Because we all know how scientists got into science just to be billionaire playboy science stars. They're just scamming us by making the earth cleaner and better. They love living in the freezing Arctic and Antarctic all year, taking core samples and carbon dating day after day filming glaciers of five million-year-old ice break apart like bulsa wood-- what an INCREDIBLE coincidence that we are here to witness that. It's almost as if we had some sort of effect on that five million year old ice breaking apart. Or had an effect on things like Superdraughts, all-year wildfire seasons with and rising ocean lines, so something never known in recorded history. If you want to deny this as fact go ahead. Then when we fuck up the planet and turn it into a second Venus (proof of a greenhouse effect gone berzerk) you'll no doubt turn it around and blame it on the same scientific community for not being informative enough.
I've said this before; there's no doubt that global climate has changed somewhat, but nobody knows for certain what the long term effects will be.
I'm a little surprised we aren't talking more about this. The implications, if true, are insane. In addition, more information is coming out from the CIA saying that the RNC was also hacked but they are sitting on the info they have. It doesn't mean Trump didn't get the votes he got, but if it could be proven that he was colluding with the Russians, that would be it for him. In addition, Mitch McConnell knew there was intel on this situation and threatened to turn it into a partisan shitstorm if they went public. And since then, his wife has now been made a cabinet member. It also looks like a lot of the republicans don't really give a shit because their guy won. I can only imagine how they would feel if the situation were reversed. It would make the Hillary's emails and Benghazi look like a high school class president scandal.
I am curious what would happen if the CIA turned something up. if the election was manipulated then what?
I wonder what would happen if it came to light that the US had actively helped foreign leaders come to power in their respective countries? Similar outrage by the local populace?
So the outrage is that Wikileaks exposed real emails that influenced the election, which may or may not have been supplied by Russia? I don't see how that's different than blaming a whistleblower. Granted if there's collusion between Trump and Russia that's huge, but is there currently any evidence supporting that?
This is kind of where I am about it. The fact that it was our own dirty laundry used against us just doesn't set off the same alarm bells even though it was released in a partisan effort. Had the Russians been hacking voting stations or pouring money in directly on the ground, it would be some serious shit. Republicans would be banging war drums if the situation was reversed.
My impression right now is that it's a case of them hacking a bunch of information but didn't tell anyone about it. Or if they did, they were particular about what they shared. Can't say I'm too pissed off over that. Typical Democrat response, though... don't be pissed at the cause or content of the info, accuse people of colluding with Russia because that's who brought it to light.
Maybe I should have put an "/s" after that comment... yes, I'm fairly aware that foreign manipulation is a major component of the US foreign policy, so it's a bit ironic/funny to see the "outrage". Or at least the attempt at generating outrage over the accusations.
And it's indicative of the Democrats biggest tactical problem: They dial the outrage up to 11 every time something happens they don't like. People have gotten numb to it.
When Hillary was confronted with the information during the debates, she went sooooo out of her way to NOT address it, it was almost laughable. All she focused on was how Trump was colluding with the Russians, and how the Russians were supplying him with that information. It was one of the most obvious deflection attempts I've ever seen, and a typical "lawyer 101" tactic... never make a public statement about something, be it true or fabrication, because then you have it on the record and you reduce your choice of direction of the narrative later on.
If there isn't collusion with Trump and Russia, isn't the question instead why can't Hillary and her staff protect their information? You would think she might have learned her lesson before. The 'fake news' thing is especially stupid considering collusion between Hillary and multiple networks was proven. No one who wasn't die hard GOP already took any of the spirit cooking or pedophile ring shit seriously. However, a lot of people did believe in conspiracy theories about Trump. Connection to the KKK after he disavowed them several times and threw them out when they showed up to his rallies. If anything, fake news helped Hillary out, but the democrats are incessantly bitching about it despite it being painfully obvious most publications wanted Hillary to win. This is similar to how she ran against Obama in 2008. She's a dog shit candidate so she launched a conspiracy theory campaign about how Obama was racist against white people and hates America. That's the main reason those primaries were close. I like how a lot of the people losing their shit about Russia releasing the wikileaks are the same people who claimed there was nothing in there. All of that said, the CIA needs to continue investigating this and I hope our other politicians are using train wreck Hillary as inspiration to use some common sense with cyber security.
That's what you think the question is? Not "Why does Putin want Trump so badly? How does a Trump presidency fit into, and push forward, Putin's plans?" or "Were the Russians successful in any of their other election tampering efforts, along the lines of their attempted incursion into the voter rolls of two states from the same report?" or "Did the Russians acquire any other information that they have not yet leaked, and could that information be used for leverage on American congressmen or members of the executive?" But no, let's keep beating the dead Hillary horse. I can't wait until I'm on my deathbed and still listening to Republicans blame Hillary for everything under the sun.
I'm not blaming Hillary for everything under the sun, I'm blaming the dems' loss on her terrible record and poor campaign management, which is a far more relevant reason the democrats lost rather than the constant blame deflection and snobbery. It can never be that Hillary was a career piece of shit, it's always "Trump won because everyone is stupid except us." She barely even bothered making a pitch to the working class, it was more important to propagate conspiracy theories about waves and waves of deplorables. Bernie and Maher pointed this out(the working class side of it at least), but most of the left wing media - who had awful, and I mean awful coverage throughout the election - are now trying to pretend it's the media consumers who are stupid for not buying into every false narrative they propagated. As for Putin, like I said, I think it should be investigated, but the fact that Russia had a preference for who won isn't proof of collusion or that Trump used their resources. I know some people immediately make that leap because they hate Trump, but this is why the CIA doesn't answer to a mob mentality. And yes, if there was deeply intertwined collusion between Trump and Russia he should be impeached, IF. Hillary would still be both a careless idiot and a scumbag. This situation is hardly redeeming for her, the opposite if anything. Is there anything surprising at all about a high ranking American official losing information to wrong hands and then it being used to their advantage? Regarding the blame - the dems should also stop only blaming Bush for the debt. He got it rolling full steam, has been out of office for 8 years, and both sides continue to fuck up. In the meantime we'll see what else the CIA finds...
Yesterday everyone got sanctimonious over the dissemination of fake news. Today, unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed US official who refuses to go on the record are as a good as gospel. Remarkable. The other side of the coin being the Republicans are circling the wagons without an ounce of skepticism they threw toward Hillary.
Maybe because while Hillary was calling for no fly zones in Syria, which may start a US/Russia war, Trump was saying that we need to improve relations with Russia? Maybe the Russians also realize that a US/Russia war would be horrible? I wish we could invoke a policy of isolationism, but I know that's not possible. But as far as the ME is concerned, we need to get out and let them sort it out themselves. They've been at it since recorded history began and us sticking our noses in it isn't helping. Yes, I feel sorry for the innocent people caught in the middle, but no matter what we do they're still going to have a shitty life.
So they risk an actual war just to avoid having to stop pressing their interests in Syria? Putin wouldn't take this kind of risk without far more to gain than Syria.