By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
UnderstatedCornHole on 10 December 2016
Edit Thread
deskpro2k3 said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
Even if this should be true: This is so full of double standards, it's quite amusing:
- Almost every "western" country has tried to influence the election by actively supporting Clinton and vilifying Trump
- The US is constantly trying to influence elections all around the globe, trying to get the candidate/party elected that they prefer and trying to get rid of candidates/parties that they don't like
- Leaking information that is believed to help achieve such goals is a typical for the US as well, actually, there's probably no other country using that strategy so heavily. The difference is that the US usually doesn't need to leak to Wikileaks, they usually leak to journalists directly.

 

UnderstatedCornHole said:

Smoke me a kipper! This! ^

It's absurd the lens that people look through to condem Trump, and give Hillary a pass because they've been brainwashed by the MSM to believe this tripe.

 

Every country that endorsed Hillary, did so formally either in the papers, or on TV, with no back handed tricks.

What did Russia do? Right now they're denying everything, meanwhile all the evidence from the CIA ongoing investigation says otherwise.

 

Of cause USA did things either by force or through diplomatic means to influence elections to establish democracy on other lands, but that is not what this thread is about.

 

That logic is sheer fallacy type thinking and here is why,

There is zero evidence and zero specific accusations against Russia.

Zero, nothing, nada. Just a vague few statements from the democratic staffed offices on democratic payroll who have a conflict of interest.

Without evidence, even a smigen, anything at all to expect, I repeat ANYTHING, no logical person who isn't showing confirmation bias can accept this accusation.

The fact there is absolutely no specifc accusation whatsoever says it all.

Now on the Hillary statement you have fallen into the trap of thinking that all countries that endorsed her, did it formally? Really? What evidence do you have to show that no countries endorsed her behind closed doors? (I'm just using that fallacy to show you what I mean)

Did Morocco endorse her officially with their contribution of 10 million? Did Saudi Arabia officially declare their contributions?

No.

Judge everyone by the same standards and nobody can go far wrong whichever side of the coin you come from. Question everything, or question nothing it doesn't matter but do it for all.