Ah, so when we influence another country, it's legal and right. When they do it to us, it's illegal and wrong. Is that it?
Russian sanctions approved by Congress halted by white house
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Ah, so when we influence another country, it's legal and right. When they do it to us, it's illegal and wrong. Is that it?
I'm guessing the US probably doesn't engage in those activities in quite the subversive manner that it may have done in the past. I'm guessing it uses a different tack now. Evolution and all that.
So, just to be clear, you're okay with America getting its comeuppance from a sovereign entity when the result suits you?
You don't think US intelligence agencies use social media to influence political dealings in other countries? Hell, in our country? Might want to read a bit into the Arab Spring.
No, what I'm OK with is how that "comeuppance" came to fruition, because making posts on social media doesn't do anything to our electoral process but add more noise. No facebook or twitter bullshit influenced my vote.
Are you saying you're ok with America having it's elections meddled with - even overturned - if it's done through a domestic agency and the results suit you?
It isn't yet clear that Russia's sole involvement was with social media.
Answer my question first, comrade, and then we'll address your complete lack of trust in US intelligence agencies.
Actually, that's the only thing clear at this point. And again, until you have something different, this position is nothing more than speculation - certainly not worthy of putting sanctions on a foreign power.
You're breathlessly trying to draw conclusions before the investigation is concluded. What's your hurry? Got the runs?
You're breathlessly trying to draw conclusions before the investigation is concluded. What's your hurry? Got the runs?
Actually, I'm on a no-carb thing for the last three days. A bit stopped up in the last day or so - a problem with the diet.
I'm not trying to draw conclusions, but as I've said before, not sure if this is as important in Canada as it is here, but as Americans we presume innocence until evidence is presented otherwise.
And if you try to subvert the investigation by discrediting the investigators (i.e., Nunes memo), then you can sidestep either the collection of evidence or its legitimacy. And, as you said, without evidence, there is only innocence. Heads you win, tails they lose.
P.S.
I don't think you're doing yourself any favors.