False. A true desire for fairness does not include ignoring cheating when favored towards my side on a level playing field. I can take losing fairly (just like 2008 and 2012), but cannot stand being cheated...plain and simple.
A perfect example is football, I'm the first guy to call out my own team when clearly committing a penalty, even if it wipes out a big score.
However if earlier in the game the opponent scored and a penalty was grossly committed and ignored, I will excuse my team's later infraction as evening up the score.
I'm all about fairness in football and in life.
I was strongly opposed to Obama in 2012, but if Russia had clearly pulled out similar tactics only favoring Romney I'd have considered it an unfair meddling that deserved investigation and dealing with.
My only justification for writing off this cycle (and I still haven't seen proof Russia was responsible for Wikileaks) is the gross cheating by the other side with zero penalties or repercussions even after the massive attempt to steal the election was revealed.
You're playing the game just as I described. Rather than looking at objective facts, you're making your judgments based on the conduct of somebody else. Football is a game, and its outcome is relatively inconsequential. Criminal acts are real life, and the enforcement of criminal laws determine whether you live in an orderly society or not. That is consequential.
Furthermore, though the media was especially unfair to Trump, they were also unfair to Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and every Republican nominee since probably the 1920s (with perhaps the exception of Dwight Eisenhower). The degree of the unfairness was higher in 2016, but the presence of it was nothing new.
People who cheat have no right to throw temper tantrums when losing from similar tactics. Which weren't even similar because HRC's team had a hand in her cheating, while DT didn't work with Russia or whoever on anything that helped his side.
Here's the problem. The media doesn't have to be fair to Donald Trump. They should be, but the First Amendment allows them not to be if they so choose. It's sleazy, but it's not illegal. The remedy for it is the marketplace of ideas, not the jailhouse. Hacking people's email accounts and then publicizing their contents is illegal.
Furthermore, this isn't about who's throwing temper tantrums. Again, this is you diverting your attention away from possible wrongdoing based on your opponent rather than facts and evidence. We don't investigate possible wrongdoing based on temper tantrums. We investigate it based on whether there's reason to believe a crime was committed.
Finally, you don't know if DT worked with the Russians. I'm not saying that he did, but you can't say that he didn't. That's pure speculation. The matter should be investigated. Will it lead to Trump? It might, and it might not. There's no way to know unless we look.
Any sane, honest person knows HRC would've been toast if the media would've covered the emails and Clinton Foundation like any small scandal they could drum up on DT. If DT had a Clinton Foundation scale and type charity he'd be under the jail.
You are correct, but again, HRC's possible wrongdoing doesn't excuse someone else's wrongdoing. The wise thing to do is investigate both possible acts of wrongdoing, not to ignore one or both.
What's funny is the thought "we better address this outside election meddling now" so it won't happen again. They knew of this since 2015 so BO says. But now it's suddenly a monumental problem. If HRC would've won like the thieves were so certain of, we wouldn't have heard a peep after election night about Russia meddling.
Another diversion. So what if Obama says he knew about this in 2015? That's of political relevance, but it's not of legal relevance.
I get ignoring Russia's potential role now is a risk with a 'lead from behind', all talk, reactive Prez like Obama. But come Jan a proactive leader takes over who'll actually attack a future similar problem when symptoms arise.
Lol. You're making this too easy. You'd fear Russian interference if the winning candidate was someone you think (and I generally think) was a bad President. But because the alleged interference likely benefited a guy in whom you have confidence, you're cool with it. You don't see a problem with this mentality???
Honestly, I'm not here to pick on you. Most Americans who follow politics think like you do. And HRC supporters bent over backwards to ignore her ethical problems based on the same rationales you're applying here and did so repeatedly. However, conservatives are supposed to be better than this. They're supposed to believe in the supremacy of the rule of law and the enforcement of the laws without regard to politics. It's sad and dangerous to be losing that moral authority.
