Or, nervous desperation: how the American Left has not only left it’s senses, but left them at a dirty truck stop bathroom 500 miles away.
Today, a joint press conference took place in Helsinki between Trump and Putin and the American media, commentators, and anyone with a twitter is absolutely outraged.
Of course they would have been disgusted no matter what went down at this press conference, but they were particularly fit to be tied over the treasonous implication that Trump took Russia’s word on election interference over our own intelligence agencies. I have read the transcript of this thing and maybe I’ve just grown really cool headed (thanks to all of the 788 edibles?) but it seems fair and reasonable to me. There was no glowing neon treason. In fact, there wasn’t anything objectionable at all.
Besides, of course, the left looks for anything from ice cream servings to ketchup on steak to foment their outrage. So for a few moments, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of someone who was bursting with anger at what was said at the press conference today.
First, you have to accept the Russian Election interference narrative. To do this, you would also accept the following evidence:
- The Russians hacked the DNC and persons therein and leaked the information gained from these hacks. On one hand, the accounts were hacked and the information was indeed leaked. But it is merely “attributed” to the Russians. Also, to prove that it influenced enough to alter the results, you have to believe that: A) Hillary would have otherwise won the presidency (which cannot be proven) or B) that the information did anything other than convince people who were voting for Trump anyway. We’ve examined the reasons Trump won here before, and I don’t personally believe that the “emails” had anything to do with it. Dissemination of compromising facts about Trump wasn’t considered unfair, but rather good journalism. Besides, no matter the source, the emails were there and they contained questionable information – are we supposed to ignore that?
- Hacking into voter systems and databases. Again, we are “confident” in the “attribution” but where’s the concrete evidence? In the small print on the wikipedia page about election interference, it counters it’s own assertions: “Although the hackers did not appear to alter or manipulate data, Illinois officials reported that information on up to 200,000 registered voters was stolen. Further on: “California Secretary of State Alex Padilla stated that ‘California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State’s election infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors… Our notification from DHS last Friday was not only a year late, it also turned out to be bad information.'” And finally: “Infiltrators ‘could have altered or deleted voter registration data’ although they lacked the ability to manipulate individual votes or vote tallies.” So there it is: we are simultaneously claiming that the Russians hacked our voter system, but that they didn’t alter results. So did they hack the election? No, at least when it comes to the final results.
- Internet Trolls. My favorite. Yes, a bunch of facebook accounts changed the course of the election. Now there certainly is substance to the fact that some facebook propaganda did originate from Russian sources, but we cannot connect it to actors of the Russian State, nor considering that much of it was aimed at conservatives, that it significantly altered or changed people’s opinions. Furthermore, it’s not like we’re above propagandizing or interfering in the elections of other countries, so all of this comes with a definite double standard.
- Putin. It is now in vogue to read the minds of people and surmise their motivations without corroborating evidence and documentation. It’s obvious that Putin preferred the electoral victory of Donald Trump. Was it because, A) he wanted to retaliate because of a personal grudge against Hillary, or B) because Clinton’s tenure of secretary of state was an absolute disaster, and he didn’t want to see the world plunged into further chaos?
Our evidence is full of holes. It cannot really stand up to even casual scruitiny. It’s based solely on assumptions and attributions by people who are biased against Trump to begin with. If this doesn’t discredit these findings, we should absolutely take them with a grain of salt – and not to let them affect diplomacy on the international stage, which has far more reaching implications than a few little American elections.
What are they trying to accomplish?
Political points for 2018 and 2020; the complete discreditation of Trump’s presidency.
What are they actually accomplishing?
Headaches and friction in diplomacy between the two most powerful countries in the world which would have otherwise friendly and productive relations. I’m not going to assert that this will lead to war or conflict (the Russians see through this nonsense, as well as, thankfully, our top decision makers) but it doesn’t make accomplishing things easier.
What do these leftists really want?
Would they be willing to go so far as to demand a war with another powerful nation so that they could win political points?
Do you see the leftists protesting in the streets? The leftists firing off tweets? Can they fight a war? No, they’d run home crying before they could finish a week of boot camp.