subgenius wrote: ....it has become clear, by the evidence, that the intrusion into our election system by outsiders was not so shallow as to (1) get a single person elected or not-elected but rather to (2) allow weak minded individuals to erode the system from within.
canpakes wrote:It would seem that the second item above can directly relate to the first. If you believe that the second can occur, then the first can also occur.
subgenius wrote:It may seem that way, but it is not that way. The erosion of the system does not conclude with the outcome (eg who won) but rather degenerates the integrity of that victory.
You've lost track of your own line of thought. We were talking about whether or not Russian interference can result in either or both of these two options:
(1) get a single person elected or not-elected
(2) allow weak minded individuals to erode the system from within.
I haven't addressed what
concludes x, and neither did you. Rather I've asserted that both factors above that you
did mention can be present and occur. In light of the fact that we've seen recent elections hinge on literally a handful of votes, do you dispute this?
subgenius wrote:For example, the Russian interference has hindered the Trump Presidency which is seriously counter-intuitive to a goal of having him elected to begin with. Point being, even if Hillary Clinton were sworn in as President her presidency would be suffering from the same distraction and ballast that Trump's is suffering from currently.
It hinders it because there are
Americans asking questions about Russian interference that was arguably calculated to bolster Trump's popularity and standing, or damage Clinton's. If you believe that Hillary would be subject to the same level of examination post-election (presumably by Republicans), please give examples of similar scale that would demonstrate this. I'm open to examining your claim.
subgenius wrote:You have been played, put some water on that hair....unless your hair is greasy, then apply flour.
subs, there is one person between the two of us who believes things such as there being 'no proof' of Nazis having gassed anyone during WWII, or that the Clinton's ran a
madly efficient killing machine that slayed over a hundred people that
may have at one point sort of known them. These are the sorts of claims that dance about within the 4chan realm of alternate facts and show either 'hair on fire' or outright deception - you can choose which is the better description. So,
someone here
has been played, but you're probably not comfortable enough to admit it.
subgenius wrote:neither of these were a "case in point" because shallow idiots were targeted on both sides....the point of #2 is that the system itself would be attacked, that "doubt" would be sown...allowing people to discern information, rumors, and conspiracies for themselves and then vote freely is what is being questioned, what is being doubted. But all the while a blind eye is turned to Hillary Clinton cheating at debate questions and a DNC rigging primary elections to have a result that was contrary to the will of their voters...how ironic that Hillary Clinton voters complain about her winning the popular vote in the wake of her denying that same concept from Sanders.
Because knowing about a debate question before being asked it, and the DNC not preferring a non-Democrat to win its primary, are equal in scope and impact to Russians openly gaming our media and electoral system, right? ; )