|
||||||||
confirmed: Russia interfered with USA elections (secret cia assessment) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#226 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,918
|
Quote:
Nothing like that. Did you misread my post?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#227 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Well that was rather my implied point, wasn't it? The whole system is corrupt already, so you really can't complain about other people trying to subvert it.
No idea what this means. Not a US forum, remember... That is neither here nor there because we don't know what would have happened had it been another candidate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#228 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
No I was. Assad and hussein were and are dictators. However the countries in question are now a thousand times worse off
|
|
|
|
|
|
#229 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
|
Quote:
I gave a link to the evidence so you don't have to keep saying no evidence.
![]() If you read the link above, it says the agency concurs with the CIA. Just that it was thought to compromise Hillary, not sure to push Trump. 16 other agencies think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#230 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,970
|
Quote:
It means saying what should have been done after the fact.
That is neither here nor there because we don't know what would have happened had it been another candidate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#231 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
|
Quote:
Maybe he thinks what the intelligence agencies found was solid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#232 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,918
|
Quote:
So Obama doesn't support Assad. What is your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#233 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
|
Quote:
Clinton won the popular vote. The issue is that Democrats are grouped in the cities and Republicans are in the suburban and rural areas. Democrats need to tailor their message to uneducated rural voters.
If you break down the votes based on education / geography you get a pretty clear picture of what went wrong. Trump has a populist message that preyed on the grievances of poorly-educated whites. ![]() Many of Trump's voters were no more or no less educated than his opponent's voters generally speaking. According to one or two groups, when you break it down, because after all that's what the losers have a habit of doing nowadays to justify that their vote was more worthy, Trump's supporters were more educated and/or earned more money than some of Clinton's voters. I know that some take some comfort in following the belief that their voting opposites are inferior to them and simply thick, but I understand that they have to find some way to feel better about themselves. These 'educated' voters, educated in political philosophy and history are they? Or have students got an astonishing ability to become intellectual experts in subjects which they never even studied? I went to university and I'm telling you now that most of my fellow students didn't give a shit about politics and were complete fukcwits in many respects. What about the highly intelligent educated people who did vote for Trump? Are they not educated enough? How do they compare to the Hillary voters who are complete morons? Who I'm sure there would be a good few of. |
|
|
|
|
|
#234 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
He's entitled to think whatever he wants. That's what's called having an opinion. You can quote it as evidence or irrefutable proof if you want, but it's just opinion.
"There is also evidence that entities connected to the Russian government were bankrolling "troll farms" that spread fake news about Clinton. Investigators also found digital footprints of individuals tied to the Russian government who had been on intelligence agencies radar before, as was acknowledged when the intelligence agency put out a public statement in October." |
|
|
|
|
|
#235 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
|
Quote:
So you don't think compromising Hillary and implying they had stuff on her they didn't produce yet, didn't affect the outcome of the election?
How is that? ![]() I've already said that there were so many variables involved with the election campaigning that it would be extremely difficult to quantify the result being all down to one reason. Multitudes of points have been discussed at length. The content of the emails being just one of those things. The important thing is whether the content of the emails has any veracity to them. If their contents did affect the outcome of the election how does one measure that? And more to the point how does anyone know if Russia hacked the emails in order to affect the outcome of the election if they even hacked them at all? As I asked before, how could there be intent if they didn't know what the contents of the emails were before they obtained them....if they were responsible for the hacking? |
|
|
|
|
|
#236 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
|
Quote:
There's a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy. Conspiracy theory is a derogatory term. It is used where the covert act goes against accepted understanding. In this case the accepted understanding is that Russia did hack the emails.
This isn't a court of law, so hearsay doesn't apply. This is about our takes on the news. I'd need someone in a responsible position to show that the Dems made this up, to believe it's not as the CIA said. Before the Iraq war there were many who did speak out. The world being a little safer if Clinton won, isn't an advantage? You're totally overlooking that Hillary was deliberately compromised. Not just personal emails but the suggestion by Assange that more was to come. That's hardly the usual spying. I told you that you wouldn't like to see it in that way. But I wasn't meaning to be derogatory towards you, I was speaking about your theory being unsubstantiated. It's a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory in this cases is that Russia hacked the Democrat emails as part of some sort of plot to affect the election result. I suggest to you that if they were the ones responsible IF, then they were doing what they normally do and found a weakness in security which they exploited. They got hold of the information and it was out there. They wouldn't have a clue what was in those emails before they got hold of them. Whoever hacked the emails passed them on to Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been going for years releasing information whether there is an ongoing election or not. Of course it's advantageous for anyone who is an enemy of Clinton to get that information out there. Assange included. It's just that this information came out at this time because much of what was referred in the emails was about the election campaign process and communications between different people about the election. Rather than it being some premeditated plot, I'd argue that it was a mixture of timing and circumstance, coupled with security loopholes which were taken advantage of during this particular time. Less about Russia masterminding some devious plot, and more about Democrats high up in office being guilty of gross stupidity. It wasn't just emails, some Democrat officials were caught on camera admitting to some incredibly idiotic things which they needed to keep their mouth shut about if they didn't want to risk losing the election. This would not make the voting reasons of any of the voters any less valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#237 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 134
|
To be honest, I don't give a **** about the bigger picture of the world. I am only concerned with the smaller world that is my community and myself, as long as I am the best I can be at home, the universe will run fine.
Who gives a **** about Putin or Trump anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
#238 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
I don't know how it is. What are you asking me for?
![]() I've already said that there were so many variables involved with the election campaigning that it would be extremely difficult to quantify the result being all down to one reason. Multitudes of points have been discussed at length. The content of the emails being just one of those things. The important thing is whether the content of the emails has any veracity to them. If their contents did affect the outcome of the election how does one measure that? And more to the point how does anyone know if Russia hacked the emails in order to affect the outcome of the election if they even hacked them at all? As I asked before, how could there be intent if they didn't know what the contents of the emails were before they obtained them....if they were responsible for the hacking? No, it's not just about the content of one set of emails, it's that the RNC was hacked but nothing released. Now it defies logic that the Republicans didn't say things that would be embarrassing to release. To do the public this favor. I don't know how you can suggest that holding back Rep emails doesn't show their focus. Further 'troll farms' were putting out false information. I said already that downing Hillary was big business in the U.S. U.S intelligence is 'increasingly confidant' (CNN) that the hacks were aimed at helping Trump. |
|
|
|
|
|
#239 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
A conspiracy theory is a theory of a conspiracy without any actual evidence. What you appear to be calling circumstantial evidence.
I told you that you wouldn't like to see it in that way. But I wasn't meaning to be derogatory towards you, I was speaking about your theory being unsubstantiated. It's a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory in this cases is that Russia hacked the Democrat emails as part of some sort of plot to affect the election result. I suggest to you that if they were the ones responsible IF, then they were doing what they normally do and found a weakness in security which they exploited. They got hold of the information and it was out there. They wouldn't have a clue what was in those emails before they got hold of them. Whoever hacked the emails passed them on to Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been going for years releasing information whether there is an ongoing election or not. Of course it's advantageous for anyone who is an enemy of Clinton to get that information out there. Assange included. It's just that this information came out at this time because much of what was referred in the emails was about the election campaign process and communications between different people about the election. Rather than it being some premeditated plot, I'd argue that it was a mixture of timing and circumstance, coupled with security loopholes which were taken advantage of during this particular time. Less about Russia masterminding some devious plot, and more about Democrats high up in office being guilty of gross stupidity. It wasn't just emails, some Democrat officials were caught on camera admitting to some incredibly idiotic things which they needed to keep their mouth shut about if they didn't want to risk losing the election. This would not make the voting reasons of any of the voters any less valid. Are you saying Assange didn't personally target Hillary? That defies logic. Yep politicians do stupid things. One of them is to get caught creating fake news stories. |
|
|
|
|
|
#240 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: usa
Posts: 2,419
|
Quote:
My point is without bloody American interfering nonsense these countries wouldn't be in such dire straits
|
|
|
|
|
|
#241 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Nothing of the sort, said before the election on this very forum that a candidate without the murky past of Clinton would stomp Trump, so not a new thought at all...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#242 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
and you said that they leaked dirt on the Democrats , but after repeatedly replying to me you still haven't produced any examples of what this 'dirt' was .
it's a common tactic you use - you make some claim then when asked for evidence you say we should go and find it , it's not up to me to produce evidence to back up your claims [u]it's up to you [/U . . |
|
|
|
|
|
#243 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Did Bollywood actually say this?! Haha.
The cognitive dissonance is strong in him... Here you can see that Obama didn't want to escalate with Russia and keep the door open to negotiating with them on Syria: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/13/po...inkId=32360602 He also didn't want Russia to do worse (release forged letters and documents). That's what I mean when I say conflict avoider (when possible). Obviously as President he can't totally avoid conflict. Now it's all over the news that Russia fed Wikileaks and that Assange specifically released stuff he thought would hurt Clinton. And promised more that he never delivered, or doing damage by making the public believe he had a smoking gun. |
|
|
|
|
|
#244 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Well that was rather my implied point, wasn't it? The whole system is corrupt already, so you really can't complain about other people trying to subvert it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#245 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,918
|
Quote:
Oh yeah, these countries were all paradise on earth before the Americans became involved. Time to hit your history books, mate.
I didn't say they were paradise. I said they're a thousand times worse off now |
|
|
|
|
|
#246 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,011
|
Quote:
Is anyone (except you) suggesting that the email leaks weren't dishing dirt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#247 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 619
|
I think this is all about Obama suddenly acquiring some "balls" for change, and wishing to leave Office on a bit of a high
And then there is Michelle being prepared to run for the Office in four years or whenever the next election happens |
|
|
|
|
|
#248 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
and still another dodge , how many is that now ? you still haven't presented any examples of these leaked emails .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#249 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 40,632
|
I didn't want Hilary Clinton to win either, so if she had, due to Russian 'interference', I would have been equally disappointed.
Whether or not the original premise is true, I reckon the USA electorate were getting fed up with the Bush and Clinton show, so didn't want a fourth one of either. |
|
|
|
|
|
#250 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
I didn't want Hilary Clinton to win either, so if she had, due to Russian 'interference', I would have been equally disappointed.
Whether or not the original premise is true, I reckon the USA electorate were getting fed up with the Bush and Clinton show, so didn't want a fourth one of either in a row. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:57.





