2016 Postmortem

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)

19. Hey...

Reply to duncang (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:03 AM

Jul 2016

You might be on to something there!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Russia's Apparent Attempt To Hijack the U.S. Presidential Election Is the Biggest Story of the Year [View all] workinclasszero Jul 2016 OP

FWIW, snopes doesn't seem to think Russia's involvement has been substantiated. merrily Jul 2016 #1

Apparently the FBI thinks there is something to it workinclasszero Jul 2016 #2

Yes! And it ought to be investigated. treestar Jul 2016 #47

Two things: (1) "something to it" and "suspects" is not the same as "Russia did this." merrily Jul 2016 #54

Oh I think it can and will be. Demsrule86 Jul 2016 #5

Did I say it would not be proven conclusively? Please see Reply 54. Thanks. merrily Jul 2016 #59

Snopes political coverage is garbage. Kim LaCapria retweets Glenn Greenwald of all people. DanTex Jul 2016 #6

Sorry but this is not political coverage. It's determining whether evidence exists. merrily Jul 2016 #7

Yes it is. She's getting her info from Glenn Greenwald, ignoring credible sources. DanTex Jul 2016 #8

And I'm not surprised that you go immediately to baseless assumptions and ad homs. merrily Jul 2016 #9

Not baseless, you posted a link to yourself talking about how great snopes political coverage is. DanTex Jul 2016 #10

Yes ad homs and baseless assumptions. The Daily Banter's use of "apparent" is not substantiation. merrily Jul 2016 #11

Does trying to play down Russia's meddling in our elections make you fell better that Bernie lost? DanTex Jul 2016 #13

More ad homs, no link to any substantiation, though. That's what I thought. merrily Jul 2016 #14

The link is in the OP. Did you even read it? I doubt it, you prefer the Greenwald spin. DanTex Jul 2016 #15

Again, "apparent" Russian involvement is not substantiation. merrily Jul 2016 #17

LOL. So you only read the title. Figures. Yes, Greenwald and LaCapria are more your speed. DanTex Jul 2016 #18

Clearly ad homs and baseless assumptions are your speed. I not only looked at the Banter article, I merrily Jul 2016 #21

Clearly actually reading beyond headlines is not part of your routine. DanTex Jul 2016 #22

Jaysu, "almost certainly" is not a flat statement that Russia is involved. What part of that escapes merrily Jul 2016 #26

No, for the supporting evidence you have to read further, and follow the links to the other DanTex Jul 2016 #27

Um, no supporting evidence is not the issue. The issue is a flat, unequivocal statement that Russia merrily Jul 2016 #28

You are absolutely right, merrily. There is no more than weak circumstancial evidence Ghost Dog Jul 2016 #31

That is not what I said, Ghost Dog. merrily Jul 2016 #55

Of course supporting evidence is the issue. DanTex Jul 2016 #33

Well done. NurseJackie Jul 2016 #48

LOL! He insults me repeatedly, but can't prove his claim. merrily Jul 2016 #58

Please see Reply 54. merrily Jul 2016 #56

That's a lot of bullshit you're shoveling there, DanTex! John Poet Jul 2016 #61

The credible sources are the emails themselves. avaistheone1 Jul 2016 #29

The content of the emails is irrelevant to the question of who hacked them. DanTex Jul 2016 #34

Quite the opposite. It is about the message not the messenger. avaistheone1 Jul 2016 #36

Russia is meddling in our elections. That's a huge deal. DanTex Jul 2016 #37

I stopped using scopes as a good source when they DLCWIdem Jul 2016 #20

Thanks, but that does not relate to this instance. merrily Jul 2016 #24

merely that snopes is not a "good source" that uses critical thinking. DLCWIdem Jul 2016 #46

Yes, I got your point. There may be some flies on me, but not a swarm. merrily Jul 2016 #51

matching code from know russian hacks BlueStateLib Jul 2016 #53

Please see Reply 54. Thanks. merrily Jul 2016 #57

Yes, the Russians hacked the DNC - There is no doubt about that UCmeNdc Jul 2016 #62

Not sure which part of the edit to Reply 1 and Reply 54 were unclear to you. merrily Jul 2016 #64

And word is that Trump's campaign is being bankrolled by Russian banks. nt Demsrule86 Jul 2016 #3

WORSE than Watergate TrishaJ Jul 2016 #12

And, wikileaks be all denying it.. lol Cha Jul 2016 #4

Another possibility duncang Jul 2016 #16

Hey... workinclasszero Jul 2016 #19

Apparency is never a big story and often a lie to cover a truth. L. Coyote Jul 2016 #23

How much do you want to bet that it's Putin's troll army fueling places like Reddit's r/The_Donald? backscatter712 Jul 2016 #25

I wouldn't doubt it workinclasszero Jul 2016 #32

I agree .... it seems that this is the conclusion of all security analysts in and out ..... etherealtruth Jul 2016 #30

American media is not paying sufficient attention, and if posts/links at DU are any indication.... Hekate Jul 2016 #35

"...neither is the American Left." workinclasszero Jul 2016 #38

I appreciate you and the other handful of DUers who are keeping this topic going here. Hekate Jul 2016 #39

That's cause they are always the thief workinclasszero Jul 2016 #40

In order for it to blow open the media MUST pay attention and stop chasing shiny objects... Hekate Jul 2016 #42

True workinclasszero Jul 2016 #43

But will FBI investigations come in time to stop Nixon's (sic) election? Especially since Comey... Hekate Jul 2016 #44

That's a good question workinclasszero Jul 2016 #45

Interesting isn't it? RonniePudding Jul 2016 #49

Ok, so how does this not make our party look incompetent.....?? Sivart Jul 2016 #41

Y'all can start telling me I was right any time now Blue_Tires Jul 2016 #50

K & R for exposure. SunSeeker Jul 2016 #52

I think Black Lives Matter lovemydog Jul 2016 #60

A lot of people here completely missing the point. baldguy Jul 2016 #63