I know it looks like I'm arguing [i]with[/i] you -- I'm only intending to argue [i]near[/i] you. Right? Like, "Okay, I see how you're responding to this stuff you're talking about -- here's how I respond to that same stuff." I'm not going point-for-point or whatever, but let's clarify a few things all the same.

[quote]it's not to appease the left[/quote]

It's a tactical retreat from a paper tiger. You don't have to do that, paper tigers don't bite.

[quote]"lol hilary did more" is a pretty ebin thing to say when I didn't disagree.[/quote]

I don't know what "ebin" means. I'm not saying "lol hilary did more," I'm saying EVERYBODY does it all the time (thought I was clear on that). So who benefits from isolating Russia's existence and painting it as suddenly a new and disruptive force in the election? That's your spin doctor right there. Again -- not trying to set up a balance and see who had the most interference (though like you said, that would be a fun game for us) -- I'm only pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of the people putting the argument out there in the first place. 

[quote]RT.[/quote]

I don't know what "RT" means..... Rex Tillerson?