It was okay a few weeks ago to politicize Comey's letter on the Clinton e-mail scandal, but not this? Interesting...
And just to point it out, this issue has already been investigated. More work clearly needs to be done, but both the FBI and CIA are very confident that there was Russian involvement in the DNC leaks and that they also hacked GOP groups yet released none of that information.
Bear in mind, I am not defending hackers here, nor am I defending Russia, nor advocating "hactivism".
That said, the "hacks" whoever perpetrated them, be they from Russia, or an internal issue with the DNC, demonstrated without any real argument that the DNC was cheating from the get go. They demonstrated that the DNC refused to acknowledge Bernie Sanders as an option, that they took votes from him, etc. They demonstrated that the DNC will not and can not play by the rules.
So how exactly do these hacks "invalidate" the election? Because they got caught trying to rig the election, so now they're blaming someone else for stealing it?
I agree, the hacks do need to be looked into, among many other things. I really don't have a problem politicizing the hacks, but I think they're being misdirected in the wrong direction. As far as I can tell, the Trump campaign, the RNC in general, and Trump personally haven't done any wrong here. They didn't steal elections, they didn't tamper with votes, and the hack was about as effective in demoralizing the DNC base as Hillary's emails were, as in not very. Yes, it amped up those of us who are against corruption by a major political party, but the left wing of the country poo pooed it all as inconsequential, when the truth is that Clinton's deleted emails were and are a MUCH bigger deal than made out to be by the media.
So yes, investigate it. Politicize it. But really, what have the Republicans done wrong here?
---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------
I've never been one to say that the Electoral College is a bad thing. I've understood for a VERY long time that it is designed to balance things so that places like California, New York, and Chicago don't get to choose the president every election.
Look at the sheer number of people in California, and how a huge portion of them (in the large, heavily populated cities) voted Clinton, yet almost every single rural area in the entire nation voted Trump. Yet, Clinton STILL won the "popular" vote based on numbers alone.
That kind of win isn't the "will of the nation". It's the will of very heavily populated pockets of the nation, where the vast majority of the map voted Trump.
That's why we NEED the electoral college.
Is the electoral college flawed? Yes. I wouldn't be opposed to every state splitting it up like Maine and Nebraska do, where it's not a winner take all state, but the electoral college can be split between the groups depending on what areas get won. Is that perfect? No, but again, as it sits the electoral college does a pretty fair job of seeing the will of the nation get put forward vs the will of the big cities.