(01-10-2019 11:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What's hilarious about the oft repeated line by OO about how this investigation is solely born out of the "butt hurt" is that after the election, there were dozens, if not hundreds of articles written explicitly about how HRC lost, and none of them relied on anything but what HRC did wrong and what Trump did right in terms of messaging and outreach. There are even countless books that dig into this issue.

How does that in any way refute "butt hurt"?

Quote:I'm sure there are some people out there that require this boogeyman to process the results, but for the vast majority of Democrats, the investigation is not born out of any "butt hurt" about the loss, but out of the DNC/Podesta hackings, the other overt election interference activities, and the general coziness of the Trump campaign with the country that committed those acts both during the election and well after it.

One thing is certain, anything done after the election almost certainly had nothing to do with the results of the election.

As for the DNC/Podesta "hackings" we still don't know for sure that they were hacked. We have the opinion of three intel officials (not 17), all politically accountable to the blue team at the time, who said that the methods used were consistent with Russian hacking. That's about all intel can give you, a best guess. There is a plausible alternative, and based upon some analysis by computer experts, a more likely alternative. And no law enforcement official took custody of the most persuasive piece of evidence, the servers themselves. I doubt very seriously that any conviction could be obtained in the "hacking" because the evidentiary trail is so weak and custody of evidence is so poor.

All of the things you cite are very likely molehills blown up into mountains by precisely those "butt hurt" people that you seem to downplay. Maybe because you are too sane and sensible to fall for it, but there are plenty of political activists who live off this stuff.

My first comment wasn't intended to refute that Dems were reeling, it was that the reeling didn't manifest itself in accusing Trump of collusion... I mean, after every election the losing side always does some analysis of what went wrong for them, and my point is that the Dems did the same thing and generally came to many conclusions, few (if any) that pointed directly to Trump and Russia as the reason.

And if I'm going to worry about the crazies on the left, I'd be posting a lot more about the crazies on the right like Alex Jones. I kind of figured y'all were in the same boat with respect to that.