Now that I’ve read through the rest of the thread, I’m surprised how blasé some posters’ responses are to an American Politician lending credence and fundraising for what in another thread seems to be considered the worlds’ greatest evil.
This is why their wailing and gnashing of teeth seems a bit contrived.
It is pointless as it comes from someone with no morals or values other than to hate Democrats.
So the message is less important than the messenger.
If the messenger has no morals or values than how can they say what is right and wrong?
The only basis they say for it being wrong is because the person is a Democrat.
If a person has no morals and at 6pm they tell you that it’s 6pm, what time is it?
Talking about time is not the same as saying something is wrong. This where people who have lost moral compass to politics get messed up.
Helping people develop technology or infrastructure is not the same thing as turning a blind eye to crime.
So, conversely, if one is virtuous, then what they say must automatically be true.
Is CNN virtuous
Is Jessi Cape virtuous?
See in another thread, it wouldn’t be ‘helping people.’ It would be ‘colluded with russians connected to the kremlin’ (because, you know, they all are. It’s russia).
Interesting bit of karma for Madam Secretary and her global money laundering past.
Did you miss the potential irony of Clinton funding a billion $$ to get the DNC server and Podesta hacked?? If that is what actually happened. Not sure any of these entities really knows.
Never said CNN was virtuous.
See you have lost the point because of politics.
Reagan talked to and helped the Russians as did Bush senior nothing wrong but they had to demonstrate that they were working towards certain values.
Some super INGRATITUDE to help Clinton foes after she dumped all that cash.
Matters not at all.
It is like a High School drama club play. Contrived does not do justice. Forced and reckless is more apt.
I was providing examples.
I haven’t lost the point, especially because of politics. If I was as invested in politics as you guys insist on portraying me, I probably would have responded to that ‘reply in 10 days or your voter registration is cancelled’ letter 6 years ago.
I’ll point out that I haven’t cast aspersions toward YOUR moral compass in this conversation.
Considering that Reagan was long before the incident listed in the OP, it would appear that they met that requirement.
My moral compass has nothing to do with politics. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
For example advertising on Facebook is not wrong.
Pretending to not be an advertisement or lying to people is wrong.
So I would not judge all advertisers the same on Facebook.
So Russia was law abiding before Hillary did that?
But that’s not what you said when I asked you what time it was at 6pm. You said the exact opposite and chose to cast aspersions at MY moral compass.
Now you seemingly misunderstand what is a very clear post.
See. I wasn’t questioning YOUR moral compass. I was calling you out for questioning mine.
When people get emotionally invested, they often have trouble focusing on the words of others.
Russia was the same as Israel.
Because time is not a moral issue. What was was being done was making moral equivalency.
Helping people develop technology is no different than encouraging them to misuse it or turning a blind eye to them doing so
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Choosing to focus on the example vs the point sends signals that you may not be intending.
If that is the case, then I apologize for thinking less than charitably about your contribution to this conversation.
Time to head out. Have a great day. 
