It's PUTIN'S FAULT!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.

It is pathetic that you guys are denying this. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. 1st no one seems to care Trump seems like a serial liar and now this (how many times have we heard "what difference does it make what he says" - remember that when you're trying to teach your kids morals. Comparing the hacking of personal emails to someone taping Romney's speach is a joke. I especially like the outrage of "poor Bernie". An independant socialist his whole life runs against a person who has been a Democrat their whole life and people are surprised when the establishment would rather have the person who was a loyal Democrat their whole life.

No one here claims it changed election which is the reason I think you guy's anger is so evident.

The Russians only "interfered", if their actions had some effect, correct? Did the polls change materially after the email releases?

You say the Russians interfered. You can make a pretty good case. I can make an equally good case that what happened, is that the Democrats got caught behaving unethically. If they didn't behave that way, the Russians would have had nothing to gain by giving the emails to WikiLeaks. Funny, no one is talking about that.

If my school tells me that my son is misbehaving, and it turns out that he is in fact misbehaving...the last thing I care about, are the details of how he got caught.

Fix the cyber-security. But why is the left not talking, not even for a second, about the behavior that is brought to light by the emails.

I haven't heard a single person say that the hacking isn't a concern.

No one on the left seems upset by what your side was doing during the primary and the general. All you care about is shooting the messenger (who may deserve to be shot), but you are pretending that the message doesn't exist.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The Russians only "interfered", if their actions had some effect, correct? No, not necessarily, You can try and fail at something.Did the polls change materially after the email releases?They where released in a slow drib and drab way to get maximum news value so if the polls dropped it is tough to say. Comey's anouncement had more of an effect via the polls if you look at before and after.

You say the Russians interfered. You can make a pretty good case. I can make an equally good case that what happened, is that the Democrats got caught behaving unethically. If they didn't behave that way, the Russians would have had nothing to gain by giving the emails to WikiLeaks. Funny, no one is talking about that.Donna Brezile deserved to be fired. The question she released was expected but still releasing it was sleazy. Anyone would have been able to answer that question. It is not surprising that Wasserman Shultz favored Hilary as she was a Dem. for a long time vs Bernie who was an Indep. Plus Hillary was expected to have a better chance.

If my school tells me that my son is misbehaving, and it turns out that he is in fact misbehaving...the last thing I care about, are the details of how he got caught.If he was accused of taking something and hid it by putting it down his pants and was made to drop his pants in public any parent would be upset - not the best example but....Or would Watergate had been ok if it revealed something sleazy/wrong/illegal?

Fix the cyber-securityThe DNC had lousy security and when a FBI called them he was forwarded to a help desk and that person didn't believe he was an FBI agent.. But why is the left not talking, not even for a second, about the behavior that is brought to light by the emails.

I haven't heard a single person say that the hacking isn't a concern. I think there have been threads/post before this downplaying the hacks.

No one on the left seems upset by what your side was doing during the primary and the general. All you care about is shooting the messenger (who may deserve to be shot), but you are pretending that the message doesn't exist.

I'm not ignoring either sides actions but am admittedly giving more weight to a hostile foreign govern. actions then to actions of our own. Is it a double standard that it bothers me more than what we have done in Chile or Argentina when we tried to influence an election – sure. I view the hacking as closer to Watergate than Jimmy Carter’s grandson taping a Milt Romney speech where he was a bartender. The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'm not ignoring either sides actions but am admittedly giving more weight to a hostile foreign govern. actions then to actions of our own. Is it a double standard that it bothers me more than what we have done in Chile or Argentina when we tried to influence an election – sure. I view the hacking as closer to Watergate than Jimmy Carter’s grandson taping a Milt Romney speech where he was a bartender. The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed.

"No, not necessarily, You can try and fail at something"

Well, if they tried to effect the outcome and failed, then they also failed to interfere. Can you ever just admit a conservative has a point? Russia likely tried to interfere. No evidence they succeeded.

"Donna Brezile deserved to be fired. The question she released was expected but still releasing it was sleazy"

Agreed. But her sleazy actions, I noticed, weren't enough to get her fired as the head of the DNC.

"It is not surprising that Wasserman Shultz favored Hilary as she was a Dem. for a long time vs Bernie "

If Deb wants to personally favor Hilary, that's fine. But she went WAY beyond that, she actively sabotaged Bernie's campaign, and actively colluded with the media to lift up Hilary. Correct?

"Plus Hillary was expected to have a better chance"

That's for the voters to decide in the primaries. The DNC isn't supposed to put their thumbs on the scale. But the existence of the superdelegates, is proof that the DNC isn't interested in democracy, they are interested in nominating who the party leaders want to be nominated, voters be damned.

"was made to drop his pants in public any parent would be upset "

Agreed, I would be upset at that. But I would also be upset that he cheated, and no one at NBC, ABC, or CNN, had much to say about what was in those emails. And CNN actually told viewers not to watch coverage of the emails on other networks. They buried the truth, because it made Hilary look bad. That completely undermines the reason why we have a free press. You know how bad Sean Hannity was in the tank for Trump? That's how bad, almost everyone else was, for her.

"The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed. "

Agreed 100%.

If the Dems weren't being so sleazy and underhanded, there would have been no Wikileaks dump.

I have no problem with looking into the leaks. I have issues with the extent to which every network but one, buried the content of the emails.