• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
confirmed: Russia interfered with USA elections (secret cia assessment)
<<
<
6 of 12
>>
>
Virgil Tracy
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Well look at the content of the leaks.”

I'd be happy to , if you ever provide any !

yet again another bolly claim that you aren't gonna back up .

.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“I'd be happy to , if you ever provide any !

yet again another bolly claim that you aren't gonna back up .

.”

If you don't know what the leaks were, why are you bothering to discuss the hacking.

It's like asking, who is Hillary Clinton?

Why would I reply.
Virgil Tracy
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“If you don't know what the leaks were, why are you bothering to discuss the hacking.

It's like asking, who is Hillary Clinton?

Why would I reply.”

well if that's obvious you'd easily be able to tell me . instead you do endless dodging
.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“well if that's obvious you'd easily be able to tell me . instead you do endless dodging
.”

I assume from your posts that you didn't read what was in the emails, or you read them and think, in some erroneous way that they didn't affect her. Or you wouldn't ask.

This isn't a thread about 'what was in the emails.'

It's a thread about who hacked.

I suggest you read the news articles for background to this topic.
alfamale
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“How is Julian Assange a credible source? Not sure why Murray is a pal of his, considering that he's against torture, and the alt right (that Assange is helping) are in favor of things like extending gitmo.

Just because Murray 'met someone,' doesn't show that an agency didn't help him. How does he know the person isn't an agent? How does he know the information wasn't hacked and then passed to someone to 'leak?' Even pickpockets pass the goods.

Often the authorities will follow someone for a while, not arrest him/her, to observe. The idea that they arrest someone right away is naive.”

You seem to have an agenda. This makes debating with you pointless. Assange and ex british ambassador murray are a more credible sourced than nothing. i.e. there is no other evidence that exists. Otherwise it would have been produced. Even the FBI have no interest because there is no evidence. Arguing against the one source of evidence with stupid hypotheticals won't persuade anyone. I state again i do not believe with 100% certainty what Assange and Murray say, but it is far far more credible than the absolutely nothing the CIA or anyone else has produced to say otherwise. Show me something more meaningful and i will change my opinion (unlike you) because my opinions are formed on fact and evidence along with previous reliability of the source of evidence.
Alrightmate
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“I assume from your posts that you didn't read what was in the emails, or you read them and think, in some erroneous way that they didn't affect her. Or you wouldn't ask.

This isn't a thread about 'what was in the emails.'

It's a thread about who hacked.

I suggest you read the news articles for background to this topic.”

And they have access to the truth based on what exactly?

Let's entertain the thought that Russia did hack the emails.
What difference does it make if they revealed truths which the public would otherwise not have been aware of?
Russia wouldn't have made people vote the way they did, they would have only 'interfered' with the election in respect to revealing information which the public should have had access to to inform their decision making process in the first place.

Hillary and her Democrat friends are complaining that the emails were exposed for the public to consider? Well boo hoo. If they hadn't done anything which would giver the public reason to not vote for Clinton then there wouldn't be a problem.
Then add to the fact that Hillary Clinton used a private email server which put her in a vulnerable position in the first place. It was what the investigation about her was about in the first place. The emails were hacked because of her own doing. That's why email protocol needed to be respected.

If Russia did hack the emails then they were doing the public a service whether that was their intention or not, which is something the American media should have been doing. There has been no scrutiny whatsoever by American journalists. It's only due to people like Snowdon and Assange that the public have been provided with information which is actually useful and informs the American public at all with anything which is important.
So when you suggest to the poster that they should read news articles if they want to find the truth, that's such lopsided advice, as if the last year has told us anything is that the American media are in bed with the Clintons and the Democratic Party. And by a quirk of fate we may never have known that if it wasn't due to the release of the emails.
The news articles you speak of are conceived by the purveyors of most of the 'fake news' which the establishment is currently getting their knickers in a twist over. But the fake news has been the 'news' which has been cheerleading Hillary Clinton for over a year.

It hardly matters who hacked them. What matters is what information was revealed in the emails. That isn't to condone the practice of hacking, it's to say that what information is revealed is far more important. Or should be seen to be. You can't just undermine that information based on who's revealed it. It's either true or it isn't. If it's true then the public made a decision on that information.
If the content of the emails wasn't true, then that'd be a different story and then they would have a valid reason to complain about the outcome of the election. If the outcome of the election was based on the revelation of true facts, then isn't that how it should be?

They're crying about secrets they wanted to remain hidden from the public being exposed. How can anybody have any sympathy with that?
mcg3
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by alfamale:
“You seem to have an agenda. This makes debating with you pointless. Assange and ex british ambassador murray are a more credible sourced than nothing. i.e. there is no other evidence that exists. Otherwise it would have been produced. Even the FBI have no interest because there is no evidence. Arguing against the one source of evidence with stupid hypotheticals won't persuade anyone. I state again i do not believe with 100% certainty what Assange and Murray say, but it is far far more credible than the absolutely nothing the CIA or anyone else has produced to say otherwise. Show me something more meaningful and i will change my opinion (unlike you) because my opinions are formed on fact and evidence along with previous reliability of the source of evidence.”

Bolly would prefer to believe what some demented psychic or ropey remote viewer had to say rather than any evidence.
Alrightmate
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“I assume from your posts that you didn't read what was in the emails, or you read them and think, in some erroneous way that they didn't affect her. Or you wouldn't ask.

This isn't a thread about 'what was in the emails.'

It's a thread about who hacked.

I suggest you read the news articles for background to this topic.”

And who is responsible for putting themselves into a position where they could be hacked?
Yes you can accuse somebody of hacking the emails, but you have to also look at the carelessness which allowed it to happen in the first place.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by alfamale:
“You seem to have an agenda. This makes debating with you pointless. Assange and ex british ambassador murray are a more credible sourced than nothing. i.e. there is no other evidence that exists. Otherwise it would have been produced. Even the FBI have no interest because there is no evidence. Arguing against the one source of evidence with stupid hypotheticals won't persuade anyone. I state again i do not believe with 100% certainty what Assange and Murray say, but it is far far more credible than the absolutely nothing the CIA or anyone else has produced to say otherwise. Show me something more meaningful and i will change my opinion (unlike you) because my opinions are formed on fact and evidence along with previous reliability of the source of evidence.”

Aren't you coming across as having an agenda when you insist Assange, who promised emails that would get Hillary arrested, is 'more credible' than the CIA? Or when you say that the FBI have no evidence?

You don't have facts for either of those. I already explained that the level of evidence needed for the FBI to arrest someone is higher than the CIA having circumstantial evidence. I trust what they say more than Assange, who is a criminal. With the likely agenda of getting Trump elected and getting some deal.

I'm willing to wait for more evidence, but considering that both Democrats AND Republicans are on this, and have consensus, I go with taking the report seriously. There are many more intelligence agencies in the U.S. besides the CIA, and they concur.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“And they have access to the truth based on what exactly?

Let's entertain the thought that Russia did hack the emails.
What difference does it make if they revealed truths which the public would otherwise not have been aware of?
Russia wouldn't have made people vote the way they did, they would have only 'interfered' with the election in respect to revealing information which the public should have had access to to inform their decision making process in the first place.

Hillary and her Democrat friends are complaining that the emails were exposed for the public to consider? Well boo hoo. If they hadn't done anything which would giver the public reason to not vote for Clinton then there wouldn't be a problem.
Then add to the fact that Hillary Clinton used a private email server which put her in a vulnerable position in the first place. It was what the investigation about her was about in the first place. The emails were hacked because of her own doing. That's why email protocol needed to be respected.

If Russia did hack the emails then they were doing the public a service whether that was their intention or not, which is something the American media should have been doing. There has been no scrutiny whatsoever by American journalists. It's only due to people like Snowdon and Assange that the public have been provided with information which is actually useful and informs the American public at all with anything which is important.
So when you suggest to the poster that they should read news articles if they want to find the truth, that's such lopsided advice, as if the last year has told us anything is that the American media are in bed with the Clintons and the Democratic Party. And by a quirk of fate we may never have known that if it wasn't due to the release of the emails.
The news articles you speak of are conceived by the purveyors of most of the 'fake news' which the establishment is currently getting their knickers in a twist over. But the fake news has been the 'news' which has been cheerleading Hillary Clinton for over a year.

It hardly matters who hacked them. What matters is what information was revealed in the emails. That isn't to condone the practice of hacking, it's to say that what information is revealed is far more important. Or should be seen to be. You can't just undermine that information based on who's revealed it. It's either true or it isn't. If it's true then the public made a decision on that information.
If the content of the emails wasn't true, then that'd be a different story and then they would have a valid reason to complain about the outcome of the election. If the outcome of the election was based on the revelation of true facts, then isn't that how it should be?

They're crying about secrets they wanted to remain hidden from the public being exposed. How can anybody have any sympathy with that?”

Of course I disagree with you totally.

It makes a great deal of difference if on the one hand, you have Comey releasing a letter right before the election suggesting that some other emails will emerge about Hillary, and then Assange promises to release emails that will get Hillary arrested.

Your average working class voter reads that and doesn't look further. Doesn't find out that Hillary's emailgate wasn't considered a prosecutable crime by most lawyers in Washington DC, and that Colin Powell and Condoleeza had private servers.

Stealing isn't doing a public service. Especially when it's used to disrupt an election. Assange put people at risk, as did Snowden. It's naive to think that the public need to know everything or expect there are no behind the scenes

If you read the news, it's said that some of the emails are faked. The legit ones are embarrsssing, but let's see what emails the RNC was sending. Then the playing field will be level. Taking down Hillary is a multi million dollar business in the U.S.
Alrightmate
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Aren't you coming across as having an agenda when you insist Assange, who promised emails that would get Hillary arrested, is 'more credible' than the CIA? Or when you say that the FBI have no evidence?

You don't have facts for either of those. I already explained that the level of evidence needed for the FBI to arrest someone is higher than the CIA having circumstantial evidence. I trust what they say more than Assange, who is a criminal. With the likely agenda of getting Trump elected and getting some deal.

I'm willing to wait for more evidence, but considering that both Democrats AND Republicans are on this, and have consensus, I go with taking the report seriously. There are many more intelligence agencies in the U.S. besides the CIA, and they concur.”

It's staggering that you can say that given the amount of people who tried so hard to get Hillary Clinton elected. It was deafening.
Lots of people had dogs in this fight. You could count to any number of sources to 'blame' people for trying to get a candidate elected.
When it comes to emotional posturing and trying to get somebody to vote for somebody based on how well they can affect their emotions, that's fine. But when actual information comes out which questions actual policy and practices, that's a terrible thing. We can't have the public thinking and exercising any serious level of scrutiny based on real things.

If you think that you will get closer to truth by going with a consensus then that's your prerogative. But I hardly think that you put yourself in a situation where you can criticise somebody else for using other methods for trying to arrive at the truth they seek. You have to ask searching questions to arrive at the truth. You can't expect it to be give to you on a plate. Which is what appealing to a consensus view normally is.
Nodger
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“When conspiracy theories come from a government or the establishment a lot of people tend to believe them.
I'm surprised that so many have forgotten the lessons learned after the war In Iraq just over a decade ago. Or maybe they didn't even learn them in the first place.
Weapons of mass destruction, 45 minute warning, a 12 year olds homework used as evidence, people who had something to gain by offering evidence which was mere hearsay.

And now we've got all this crap from the Democrats about 'fake' news. Which is quite ironic when most mainstream news is based around rumour, 'expert' punditry based on what they think, or reporting on what somebody has said on Twitter as news.
But we're expected to blindly accept it on face value as truth without scrutiny or question.
Look at the title of this thread 'Confirmed'. No evidence required, but its confirmed.
It reminds me of that old episode of Brass Eye, "Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it ... but it is scientific fact"”

The amount of times in recent months that Mrs Nodger and I have referred to Brass Eye as now actually being the reality of so much MSM.

Libby Shuss... reports, reports, reports... apparently.
Alrightmate
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Of course I disagree with you totally.

It makes a great deal of difference if on the one hand, you have Comey releasing a letter right before the election suggesting that some other emails will emerge about Hillary, and then Assange promises to release emails that will get Hillary arrested.

Your average working class voter reads that and doesn't look further. Doesn't find out that Hillary's emailgate wasn't considered a prosecutable crime by most lawyers in Washington DC, and that Colin Powell and Condoleeza had private servers.

Stealing isn't doing a public service. Especially when it's used to disrupt an election. Assange put people at risk, as did Snowden. It's naive to think that the public need to know everything or expect there are no behind the scenes

If you read the news, it's said that some of the emails are faked. The legit ones are embarrsssing, but let's see what emails the RNC was sending. Then the playing field will be level. Taking down Hillary is a multi million dollar business in the U.S.”

Of course.

With James Comey I don't any of us can be sure what has been going on behind the scenes. You seem to have forgotten that he didn't suddenly come up with some charges at the 11th hour. He was previously carrying out an investigation which was previously dropped. If he really had it in for her then he wouldn't have dropped the investigation in the first place. If new information came in then he'd have to act on it.

It's also difficult to know exactly how the public were affected by the swings and roundabouts of the election campaigns. How do you know that the average working class voter didn't look further.
As far as I'm aware the video which MSNBC showed of Trump making his comments about grabbing pussy was watched by a few million viewers, however the amount of people going online to access the Wikileaks emails was something like 100 million.
People always dismiss people for being stupid, but it may turn out that the American public were genuinely looking for useful information which the mainstream media weren't providing for them.

"If you read the news, it's said that some of the emails are faked" ... Why are you still relying on the news? Which news? Just the news in general? Which emails were faked? The ones which the public acted on or the ones which had no bearing on anything?

If you read the news, if you watch the news. Forget the news. Your news is not the oracle of truth you think it to be. It's mostly opinion pieces, gossip, and punditry, often if not always led by the narrative the news organisation in particular wants to promote.
You should have seen enough news over the last year to have worked this out simply by watching it yourself without the help of any outside opinion, consensus opinion or otherwise.
Alrightmate
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Nodger:
“The amount of times in recent months that Mrs Nodger and I have referred to Brass Eye as now actually being the reality of so much MSM.

Libby Shuss... reports, reports, reports... apparently.”

Peter O'hanrahanrahan.
BBWorldWideFan
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by starry_rune:
“Jill Stein and Clinton did get more votes overall than Trump, but he got the popular vote. Not that I'm praising her behaviour of course! Neither have clean hands!”

What are you talking about? Jill Stein did terribly?
Nodger
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Peter O'hanrahanrahan.”

I made a Prestadidwicks Congena reference about a month or so ago when a real life French Politico actually (I mean really actually) tried to use 'it' as his defense for unsheathing a length in public. It fell on near deaf ears, which was a disappointment.

You young'uns reading this exchange... search out all the Brass Eye you can find. Marvellous stuff.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“It's staggering that you can say that given the amount of people who tried so hard to get Hillary Clinton elected. It was deafening.
Lots of people had dogs in this fight. You could count to any number of sources to 'blame' people for trying to get a candidate elected.
When it comes to emotional posturing and trying to get somebody to vote for somebody based on how well they can affect their emotions, that's fine. But when actual information comes out which questions actual policy and practices, that's a terrible thing. We can't have the public thinking and exercising any serious level of scrutiny based on real things.”

It's not a good thing at all if information is released with the motive to disrupt an election. It's treason.

You also don't know that some of the emails, the ones that concern Podesta, weren't fabricated. The director of strategy for Arizona State Universoty Global Security Initiative, said he would be shocked if the emails weren't altered. The same echoed by a lawyer for the Nationsl Security Agency..

You don't have all the facts,either. Just what you prefer to believe.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Of course.

With James Comey I don't any of us can be sure what has been going on behind the scenes. You seem to have forgotten that he didn't suddenly come up with some charges at the 11th hour. He was previously carrying out an investigation which was previously dropped. If he really had it in for her then he wouldn't have dropped the investigation in the first place. If new information came in then he'd have to act on it.

It's also difficult to know exactly how the public were affected by the swings and roundabouts of the election campaigns. How do you know that the average working class voter didn't look further.
As far as I'm aware the video which MSNBC showed of Trump making his comments about grabbing pussy was watched by a few million viewers, however the amount of people going online to access the Wikileaks emails was something like 100 million.
People always dismiss people for being stupid, but it may turn out that the American public were genuinely looking for useful information which the mainstream media weren't providing for them.

"If you read the news, it's said that some of the emails are faked" ... Why are you still relying on the news? Which news? Just the news in general? Which emails were faked? The ones which the public acted on or the ones which had no bearing on anything?

If you read the news, if you watch the news. Forget the news. Your news is not the oracle of truth you think it to be. It's mostly opinion pieces, gossip, and punditry, often if not always led by the narrative the news organisation in particular wants to promote.
You should have seen enough news over the last year to have worked this out simply by watching it yourself without the help of any outside opinion, consensus opinion or otherwise.”

No. Comey wrote a letter at the last minute that gave the impression there was more to come on emailgate. That was blatantly untrue, as was Assange saying he had information to get Hillary arrested.

Odd that none of that ever materialized and yet you're willing to excuse that behavior.

You need to read more about how emails are altered.

Right, I don't say like I'm smart I don't need the news.

It isn't useful information to make it look like one side is a liar and the other lily white. It's deception.

A well respected pollster said that Hillary would easily have won, had the election been before Comey's letter.
IvanIV
12-12-2016
That easy was it? It's a miracle then CIA found out anything.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“That easy was it? It's a miracle then CIA found out anything.”

Nate Silver is the 'renowned pollster' who estimated that Hillary would have won by 81%, were the election held on the day before Comey's announcement, and this cost her the 3 swing states.

Comey's letter was the icing on the cake of making it look as if a crime was going to be exposed, that never was. Very dirty.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“And who is responsible for putting themselves into a position where they could be hacked?
Yes you can accuse somebody of hacking the emails, but you have to also look at the carelessness which allowed it to happen in the first place.”

Seriously you think it's the fault of the hackee? What do you think of the RNC putting themselves in a position where they could be hacked?
Doctor_Wibble
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Comey's letter was the icing on the cake of making it look as if a crime was going to be exposed, that never was. Very dirty.”

So does that mean he actually did more damage than the entire Russian cyber-attack fleet?
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Seriously you think it's the fault of the hackee? What do you think of the RNC putting themselves in a position where they could be hacked?”

As far as I'm aware the RNC didn't get hacked.
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“It's not a good thing at all if information is released with the motive to disrupt an election. It's treason.

You also don't know that some of the emails, the ones that concern Podesta, weren't fabricated. The director of strategy for Arizona State Universoty Global Security Initiative, said he would be shocked if the emails weren't altered. The same echoed by a lawyer for the Nationsl Security Agency..

You don't have all the facts,either. Just what you prefer to believe.”

If it was Russia how can it be treason?

How can it be described as disrupting the election if so many variables have influenced the election one way or another? That's like assuming that Hillary Clinton was destined to win and her winning was the default position to take. It's this arrogance which lost them the election. Not from you, I don't mean you, but from them.
They're still trying to blame their loss on anything but their own failings.

I was close to positive that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. But she lost to Donald Trump. I think that says as much about Hillary Clinton as much as it does Donald Trump.
But they want to act like idiotic children and throw tantrums saying that it's not fair.
That will have more bearing on why they lost than putting it down to this fictional fantasy built around Russia. Their own inability to look inwardly and consider what they did wrong themselves is part of the psychological makeup which the public could see throughout the campaign and why they lost. Their own hubris, narcissism and arrogance as a collective.

It's interesting how the public are ridiculed when they come out with their own conspiracy theories which speak to power, but when the government concoct their own conspiracy theories the public are expected to just swallow everything they say without question. Because of course that's what this is, a conspiracy theory. And of course the public SHOULD question it if no evidence has been presented to them. That's a necessity.
When they tried to convince the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled WMD they at least tried to present lots and lots of what appeared to be evidence on the surface, at least it appeared to be plausible. I guess that they aren't bothering with the inconvenience of evidence this time around because time has moved on since then and they perhaps think that the public are so stupid now that they don't require evidence to believe what they say.
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“If it was Russia how can it be treason?

How can it be described as disrupting the election if so many variables have influenced the election one way or another? That's like assuming that Hillary Clinton was destined to win and her winning was the default position to take. It's this arrogance which lost them the election. Not from you, I don't mean you, but from them.
They're still trying to blame their loss on anything but their own failings.

I was close to positive that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. But she lost to Donald Trump. I think that says as much about Hillary Clinton as much as it does Donald Trump.
But they want to act like idiotic children and throw tantrums saying that it's not fair.
That will have more bearing on why they lost than putting it down to this fictional fantasy built around Russia. Their own inability to look inwardly and consider what they did wrong themselves is part of the psychological makeup which the public could see throughout the campaign and why they lost. Their own hubris, narcissism and arrogance as a collective.

It's interesting how the public are ridiculed when they come out with their own conspiracy theories which speak to power, but when the government concoct their own conspiracy theories the public are expected to just swallow everything they say without question. Because of course that's what this is, a conspiracy theory. And of course the public SHOULD question it if no evidence has been presented to them. That's a necessity.
When they tried to convince the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled WMD they at least tried to present lots and lots of what appeared to be evidence on the surface, at least it appeared to be plausible. I guess that they aren't bothering with the inconvenience of evidence this time around because time has moved on since then and they perhaps think that the public are so stupid now that they don't require evidence to believe what they say.”

It's treason if a person in the U.S. was involved in a 'leak.'

Not sure why you keep going on about 'idiotic children' when Republicans also are asking for an investigation.

It's very common to have unnamed sources within an agency release information. There are a number of those in Congress who accept the conclusion and a number of other intelligence agencies who concur. You may ask yourself why Republicans are coming together with Democrats over this issue.

It sounds a lot more like some Alex Jones conspiracy theory to say all those intelligence agencies got together to make it up.
<<
<
6 of 12
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map