American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems (Vol 2)

[anonymous-user]

It should be absolutely expected that a foreign power who has a vested interest, should be trying to change the results to suit their own agenda.

The issue here isn't that the Russians may have been hacking servers and releasing incriminating information.

The issue here is that firstly they could do that, i.e. the USA is not good enough at protecting its information, and secondly, there are practices taking place that shouldn't be, with the disclosure of that having a material impact.

That isn't Russia's fault, that is the USA in general and certain USA individuals doing a stty job.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

minimoog said:

Sounds about right to me.

You however seem to regard anyone who isn't a Trump supporter to be a snowflake. Meaning there's something approaching 60 million snowflakes in the USA alone, never mind the horrified ROW. Which I'm afraid rather takes the sting out of your would-be insult. Sorry about that.

It would seem to sting, IMO. You've posted twice about it.

The Russian conspiracy is classic Clinton, and has been done before (I previously linked to another excellent Greenwald piece on this). Unless they are going to post actual solid evidence of tampering, it is relegated to the category of SJW outrage.

Furthermore, even if the the claim could be backed up, the entire topic is a red herring to distract from the very real information on Clinton corruption provided to voters. So, we go full circle to realize, again, that the problem would appear to be Hillary Clinton.

You seem somewhat obsessed with the awfulness of Clinton and blind to the idea that Trump might be somewhat dirty like her.

Are you also suggesting that unless there's compelling evidence of something, then we should ignore it completely (or call it SJW outrage)? The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.

[amusingduck]

jsf said:

The issue here isn't that the Russians may have been hacking servers and releasing incriminating information.

rscott said:

The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

CraigMurray said:

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

Was the DNC hacked? Or was the data leaked by an insider?

It all comes down to who you find more credible, CIA/FBI et al, or Wikileaks.

[rscott]

amusingduck said:

Was the DNC hacked? Or was the data leaked by an insider?

It all comes down to who you find more credible, CIA/FBI et al, or Wikileaks.

I don't particularly find any of them overly credible. They've all got agendas of their own.

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.

Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?

https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-...

Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 13th December 10:58

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.

Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?

Restored the other half of the post. Then it makes more sense.

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.

Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?

Restored the other half of the post. Then it makes more sense.

Is there evidence in the other half of the post?

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.

Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?

Restored the other half of the post. Then it makes more sense.

Is there evidence in the other half of the post?

Is there evidence they weren't hacked?

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

Is there evidence they weren't hacked?

The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. Where is your evidence?

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Is there evidence they weren't hacked?

The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. Where is your evidence?

Go back to my post - I never said they definitely were or weren't. Only that the idea that they might have been wasn't unreasonable. There's a bunch of news reports over the past week alleging they have been. Whether they're true or not we don't know, but surely it's worth further investigation?

[Nom de ploom]

I wonder how trump voters are reacting to his selections of staff positions?

part of the mass rejection of HRC was anti establishment and not wanting more of the same....

Are Trumps appointments starting to look like cronyism? Ex Exxon mobil chief now appointed as secretary of state???

[jmorgan]

If I were the Trump dude I would would be asking the security services to dig into the accusations knowing damn well that I am in the clear as I must be cos I had so many votes and the previous comments on the opposition rigging the system was obviously a hissy fit.

[BlackLabel]

Putin's mate becomes Secretary of State.

"US President-elect Donald Trump announces Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson as his choice for secretary of state."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...

[Funkycoldribena]

jmorgan said:

If I were the Trump dude I would would be asking the security services to dig into the accusations knowing damn well that I am in the clear as I must be cos I had so many votes and the previous comments on the opposition rigging the system was obviously a hissy fit.

http://www.gizoogle.net/textilizer.php

Edited by Funkycoldribena on Tuesday 13th December 11:58

[jmorgan]

Funkycoldribena said:

http://www.gizoogle.net/textilizer.php

Edited by Funkycoldribena on Tuesday 13th December 11:58

meh

[amusingduck]

Funkycoldribena said:

http://www.gizoogle.net/textilizer.php

unrepentant said:

Yo ass do KNOW dat Trump is goin ta lose by at least 100 electoral college votes, probably nuff more, biatch? Yo ass do KNOW dat he even stopped campaignin up in nuff swin states n' is concentratin on tryin desperately ta shore up his vote up in red states dat he now standz a phat chizzle of losing, biatch? His campaign is only bout preventin a humiliation now, biatch? Do you have tha slightest clue bout anythang dat you write, biatch? Yo ass just look dumb.

[AreOut]

BlackLabel said:

Putin's mate becomes Secretary of State.

"US President-elect Donald Trump announces Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson as his choice for secretary of state."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...

if they did business that doesn't mean they are mates, people sometimes do business with those they absolutely can't stand (see POTUS)

[jimmyjimjim]

amusingduck said:

Funkycoldribena said:

http://www.gizoogle.net/textilizer.php

unrepentant said:

Yo ass do KNOW dat Trump is goin ta lose by at least 100 electoral college votes, probably nuff more, biatch? Yo ass do KNOW dat he even stopped campaignin up in nuff swin states n' is concentratin on tryin desperately ta shore up his vote up in red states dat he now standz a phat chizzle of losing, biatch? His campaign is only bout preventin a humiliation now, biatch? Do you have tha slightest clue bout anythang dat you write, biatch? Yo ass just look dumb.

A member for 14 years, 18k posts, and he's not been back since....still reading the first few pages of volume 2 is amusing.

[Funkycoldribena]

jimmyjimjim said:

amusingduck said:

Funkycoldribena said:

http://www.gizoogle.net/textilizer.php

unrepentant said:

Yo ass do KNOW dat Trump is goin ta lose by at least 100 electoral college votes, probably nuff more, biatch? Yo ass do KNOW dat he even stopped campaignin up in nuff swin states n' is concentratin on tryin desperately ta shore up his vote up in red states dat he now standz a phat chizzle of losing, biatch? His campaign is only bout preventin a humiliation now, biatch? Do you have tha slightest clue bout anythang dat you write, biatch? Yo ass just look dumb.

A member for 14 years, 18k posts, and he's not been back since....still reading the first few pages of volume 2 is amusing.

Would you?

[BlackLabel]

AreOut said:

BlackLabel said:

Putin's mate becomes Secretary of State.

"US President-elect Donald Trump announces Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson as his choice for secretary of state."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...

if they did business that doesn't mean they are mates, people sometimes do business with those they absolutely can't stand (see POTUS)

Sure but Putin even bestowed the order of friendship on Tillerson a couple of years ago. Then again the former Archibishop of Canterbury and Prince Michael of Kent also hold that title.

I'm not complaining too much as I'd like to see less hostility between Russia and Nato however I wonder what experience Tillerson actually has when it comes to diplomacy?