- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I didn't say there was a problem. I merely answered the thread title. :shrug:
So . . . in all the Russian hacking, there is no problem?
No, it didn't. That's the point.
:roll: Because you think I gave it more weight than I did. Which is based on your erroneous reading of the thread subject line, which was not mine. It was the headline of the NBC.com piece.
There's NO WAY you don't understand this by now.
You are the one who started the thread. You do realize this, correct?
So?
I'm not dishonestly reading you because you are not correct. That's absurd.
What, specifically, am I not correct about? That overconfidence in the election outcome led to passivity?
You'll need to take that up with NBC News, because that's not my assertion. It came directly from the story.
Or are you STILL stuck on the idea that I considered it the be-all, end-all reason?
That's your own dishonesty. That's not my problem. Once it's explained to you, if you continue saying the same thing, then it's because you're lying.
Had Trump not been alleging an unfair election, the CNN article suggests it wouldn't have mattered HOW overconfident the White House was in a victory, they would have released it.
Thus, it's less the level of confidence, and more about avoiding the appearance of undue influence. As you said, "I already said this. At this point, you're just dishonestly reading me."
. . . .
So it completely changes the narrative. You're trying to claim it was overconfidence. But it was more about avoiding the appearance of undue influence. It's completely different.
Dude. Just. Stop.
I never said that was the only reason, I quoted the claim from NBC News, so it's not even MY claim, and at BEST, what you have here is NBC and CNN disagreeing with each other on that specific point. You've decided CNN is superior, for whatever reason.
But in actuality, the points don't even contradict each other. He could have been BOTH overconfident of the result, and ALSO concerned about some appearance of impropriety. You claim the one cancels out the other. Or, at the very least, you claim one overrides the other, but that's not established.
Fair enough. It seemed that way, but if it's not what you meant, then I'll take your word for it. But then, your comment about "you'd like it to" doesn't make much sense. If you aren't insinuating I'm a Clinton supporter, then why would I care? Doesn't make much sense.
Your motives are irrelevant; for some reason, you want to dismiss any notion of Obama's overconfidence in the election being a factor. I don't really care why.
Yes, but you also negated the WHY he didn't, instead opting for saying, "I.E., he was successfully intimidated by their aggression?".
I didn't "negate" anything. Where did I deny the reasons he wouldn't want to get into a cyber-war? I said that he didn't.
That's suggestive and you know it. You're seemingly trying to play into the "Obama is a weak leader" narrative and even if you aren't, certainly it can be easily construed that way by those with whom you tend to align politically. By filling in the gaps, the CNN article debunks that theory.
I in fact DO suggest he's a weak leader, and I DO consider the reasons you cite to be insufficient when national security is at stake, as if we should roll over when the Russians hack us because of a theoretical imbalance of vulnerability. That, my friend, is giving in to intimidation.
I especially consider him a weak leader when he makes threats of serious consequences that he doesn't follow up on; I wouldn't consider that especially controversial of a position to take.
No, it doesn't. That's stupid. Understanding our infrastructure relied more heavily upon network capabilities and trying to negotiate with Russia over Syria is not intimidation. That's such a childish way to look at it and far beneath someone who is as seemingly intelligent as you. This isn't junior high school.
See above.
:roll:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't speak in general terms about something everyone already knows. Fine, allow me to rephrase, "hadn't refused to ACCEPT the results of the election IF HE LOST".
You're the one who's been really pedantic about language throughout this exchange.
Umm, it is LITERALLY in the part I quoted. I'll post it again:
Fair enough; that was my mistake.