Originally Posted by bollywood:
“You don't think then that Russia benefiting from Trump being elected President, Tillerson who has a great relationship with Russia, and Assange hoping for a break from Trump, has any bearing?
That's what we call circumstantial evidence in the U.S. Put the puzzle pieces together. You don't always need the smoking gun.”
Yes, well that's what you'd call a conspiracy theory.
I know that you probably won't like to see it like that, but I don't see the term as necessarily derogatory.
You may be right though, conspiracy theories are sometimes true. The problem with them though is that until they have been proven then they are still a theory.
The evidence you're presenting to convince people with is several posts saying the MI6 say this, and expert says that, a news article says it's true, lots of consensus from other people which agree.
This isn't evidence. It's hearsay. It's conspiracy theory. It's about people's opinions rather than consisting of substantiated evidence or facts.
Having said that the theory is plausible though. Unless someone can convince me otherwise.
I think it's plausible that Russia may have hacked the emails. Was it to influence the result of the election? Well as I have said before lots of foreign entities have tried to influence the election in Clinton's favour. I don't see any criticism of that. Certainly not at the time when absolutely no one had a problem telling other people that Trump is literally Hitler. And as I have also said, how do you quantify something like this when so many different variable were already in play?
Can we accuse the American media of colluding with the Democratic party with the intention of securing a result for her, and could we accuse their journalistic practices of using what could be described as little more than embedded journalists who never asked challenging question of Hillary Clinton?
But yes, I can imagine that in one respect I can see how Russia may have benefited. And that would be that they may have dodged a bullet by Hillary Clinton not becoming president. As she was warmongering against them for months.
But apart from that I don't really see any other reason. It's not going to make a huge amount of difference to them in most other ways other than the world possibly being a little safer than if Clinton won.
But I think it's important to examine the premise from which the accusation is made and see if there are faults with it. For example, it assumes that Russia have been spying on America for the purposes of this election. What, like as if Russia have only just started spying on America. Like it's a precedent, and they're new to this? Like they probably don't spy all the time anyway? Like the KGB didn't even exist and they just decided to have a go at this spying thing?
No, if they did hack the emails, which I'm not saying they definitely did or didn't, it is a flawed premise from the start to assume that they haven't been trying to hack into secrets for years. There's a lot of speculation that Russia have only been trying to hack into secrets only for the purpose of this election and its result.
But realistically we'd have to accept that Russia are not exactly new to this spying game. Neither are the USA, who neither should we be surprised if it came to light that they have an equivalent counterintelligence program. Why wouldn't they? These two countries will have been trying to spy on each other for decades.
We are expected to take it on face value from them that Russia have been spying on America only for the purposes of this election and trying to hack into secrets this time only. Like they wouldn't do it at any other time. And that's only IF they are responsible.
No, I don't buy that. I think it would be more realistic to assume that if they did hack into the emails then it would be par for the course and they would always be trying to hack into servers with or without an election. If they did get hold of these emails I think that it was probably more opportunistic and in a wider sense where they would just try and get what they can, anything. Rather than it necessarily being about a plan to influence the election, as they wouldn't have been certain what information they'd get hold of until they'd already obtained it.
I think Clinton is such an egocentric power obsessed narcissist that she thinks everything is about her.