# Russian election hacking - help?



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

ok - so cud 1 of you brainiacs in here please give me a 'Coles Notes' version of just how the russians got trump elected? what'd they do? hypnotize people? send out robot voters? or what? I can seem to make the connection of how the (alleged) hacking of emails translates into more votes for Trump?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Here you go


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The story goes like this:

Hillary lost because she is a liar and a cheater

The voters got wise to her because more than 10,000 Emails from her campaign staff were leaked

The leaked emails revealed how they cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination, how they illegally got the questions before the debates, and other things

The CIA is trying to make out that Vladimir Putin hacked Hillary's emails because Donald Trump is a Communist and he and Putin are working hand in glove

Meanwhile Wikileaks says they are the source of the emails, and they got them from a disgruntled Hillary campaign worker who was disgusted at how crooked she is. In other words it was a leak not a hack. There was no hack.

In all this fuss, nobody denies that the Emails are genuine, nobody denies that Hillary is a crook who rigged the nomination and tried to rig the election. Nobody denies that the leaked Emails damaged her election chances. Nobody denies that she deserved to lose. All they are trying to do is put the blame on Putin to make Trump look bad.

What makes this especially hilarious is the CIA and the mainstream media are trying to connect their fake news to a big publicity campaign against fake news. It seems only 15% of the American public trusts the mainstream media because they have been lied to so many times. So now the fakers are trying to prevent alternative media from telling the truth by calling them fake.

By the way CNN was so strong for Hillary all through the election campaign that they became a joke. They became known as the Clinton News Network they were so biased. But even they are having a hard job swallowing the Russian hacking story. Notice the above CNN story where they push the CIA line, then back off farther down the page. Evidently they don't want to be standing too close when this pile of **** blows up.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

> what'd they do? hypnotize people? send out robot voters?


The Russians hacked Clinton's campaign advisor John Podesta's emails. These were revealed repeatedly on Wikileaks and other sites
in the runup to the election. These leaks gave an unflattering portrayal of Clinton. The media pounced on these leaks . So there was a 
constant buzz of criticism of HRC. For example ,there was a November 2 story titled

WikiLeaks: Clinton Foundation Plagued by Corruption and Conflict
The Foundation serves as a means to network with wealthy interests and boost the Clinton brand

http://observer.com/2016/11/wikileaks-clinton-foundation-plagued-by-corruption-and-conflict/


The idea is that this negative publicity may have decreased her vote.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Russian hacking in this election won't affect the outcome, but it has brought the issue to a head.

Trump's ties to Russia, and those of his appointments are of concern to US security experts.

The overarching concern for the Americans is Russian interference in a US election, corporations and private citizens.

It is cyber warfare and the US is going to respond, according to President Obama.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

There is no proof...the sore losers on the left (both the media and Democrats) simply refuse to accept the fact that they lost. It's always easier to blame others than to look in the mirror.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

This is why I started the fake news thread because it has become a huge issue in the propaganda war. The mainstream media and establishment is having a very difficult time selling their propaganda because people can access other forms of news and get counter information.

The US has hacked, monitored and interfered with many countries and now they have some competition and they don't like it. This cyber war thing could be very dangerous even to your portfolio if they start hacking and shutting down banks and so on.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

You don't have to look at anything but the mainstream media to learn they are liars. All you need is a good memory and some common sense.

For example Hillary's home made email server, when she was Secretary of State, was wide open to being hacked but according to her, this is a non issue because there was no danger of being hacked and no problem if she was.

Now, all of a sudden, much less sensitive material being hacked is a HUGE deal.

And still no one is asking how anybody hacked a secure email server, or why Hillary was not using a secure server, and what that says about her fitness for a sensitive government job.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Everyone is missing the obvious...why would Putin want Trump in power instead of Hillary? Under Obama for the last 8 years, Putin has done whatever he pleased with no repercussions from the US...why would he attempt to "hack" an election to put an unknown hardliner in office when he already knows that he could do whatever he wanted with the Democrats in power?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

bass player said:


> Everyone is missing the obvious...why would Putin want Trump in power instead of Hillary? Under Obama for the last 8 years, Putin has done whatever he pleased with no repercussions from the US...why would he attempt to "hack" an election to put an unknown hardliner in office when he already knows that he could do whatever he wanted with the Democrats in power?


exactly what i was thinking bp ..... all still sounds a little far-fetched to me....(something like 'climate change' ...hahaha!)


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> And still no one is asking how anybody hacked a secure email server, or why Hillary was not using a secure server, and what that says about her fitness for a sensitive government job.


What secure server? Hillary's unsecured server was thoroughly investigated by the FBI and she was not charged. Many people found
that hard to understand but that's what happened. Whatever that says about her fitness is beside the point: she lost the election.

Trump's fitness or unfitness for the job is obvious.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

m3s said:


> Here you go




funny! when russia invaded crimea, did the west need to wait around until a piece of paper signed by vladimir putin saying Commence the Invasion showed up, to know that the well-armed masked soldiers in sevastopol were russian military?

in the work you are doing now, is anyone waiting around until a signed piece of paper shows up, to know that the work is necessary?

.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Propaganda and media control is at the centre of everything and they are losing control. This is what the war is about it is to control the public and the financial system. They rely on wars, regime changes and acceptance of fiat money and on and on all controlled by their information getting out the and the public believing it. It goes very deep and would take many words to describe it all.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Lots of propaganda on Ukraine as well and again we are not being sold the entire story here. Just think for yourself and wonder why these things always just rise up out of nowhere.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Meanwhile Wikileaks says they are the source of the emails, and they got them from a disgruntled Hillary campaign worker who was disgusted at how crooked she is. In other words it was a leak not a hack. There was no hack.


According to the security agencies of the US government there was a Russian hack of the US election and the emails were released to Wikileaks and other sites.



https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsr...23-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement




> DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
> WASHINGTON, DC 20511
> 
> October 07, 2016
> ...


Yesterday Obama's press secretary linked the hacks to Putin.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/15/white-house-putin-russia-hacking-us-election-trump



> White House says Vladimir Putin had direct role in hacking US election
> 
> The White House on Thursday went its furthest yet in joining the dots between Donald Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
> 
> ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

new dog said:


> Lots of propaganda on Ukraine as well and again we are not being sold the entire story here. Just think for yourself and wonder why these things always just rise up out of nowhere.



any good researcher with even a fragment of a brain can accurately piece together large parts of both sides of the ukraine story. There is a great deal that can legitimately be said for both the west's point of view & also for russia's point of view.

only a mordantly fanatical rightwing propaganda machine would complain that he doesn't have the story.

dogcom i'm left wondering why you never try looking objectively at all sides of a story? there are always at least 2 sides to every story, so why not observe a total situation? why stick to one faked-up propaganda stream taken from one well-known creepsite only? that zerohedge bilge that you try to sell so ardently here in cmf forum steals all its news, on a highly selective basis, from the big media wire services.

.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Paper ballots and voter ID would all but eliminate any voter fraud or attempted election "hacks". But, the Democrats are 100% against these measures.

Based on that stance, they have no interest in voter integrity and their complaints should be ignored.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> You don't have to look at anything but the mainstream media to learn they are liars. All you need is a good memory and some common sense.
> 
> For example Hillary's home made email server, when she was Secretary of State, was wide open to being hacked but according to her, this is a non issue because there was no danger of being hacked and no problem if she was.
> 
> ...




ummm, hillary isn't running for a sensitive government job, why not stop fixating on this ancient story & look forward to reality & to the future?

nobody other than a few morbid oldsters cares any more about this old old old story. Hillary Clinton was cleared by the FBI. End of story. Isn't it time for you to deal with it.


.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

It's very simple. 

- Russia hacked DNC and Pedesta emails and released them through wikileaks - a few a day for maximum impact. 
- Russian state propaganda sites, with the resources of the Russian government behind them, created fake news and released them through alt-right/fake news sites
- Russia employed people to participate in chat rooms and promote the Donald. 
- Vladimir Putin authorized it.

Nobody really knows the impact of Russia's efforts. Given that Trump lost the popular vote but won the technical vote by the slimmest of margins, it might have made the difference. Who knows? 

If the Russia had assisted Hillary Clinton, most right wingers on here would be demanding that the election be invalidated. But they helped Trump. So the reaction ranges from denial to "huh, I don't get it".


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Meanwhile Wikileaks says they are the source of the emails, and they got them from a disgruntled Hillary campaign worker who was disgusted at how crooked she is.



what an obvious & pathetic lie

what is the name of the hillary clinton campaign worker who - so you claim - did this?

of course, you could always try the anthony weiner theme again. It's been 100% discredited, but it might still serve for another poke by parties who like to dwell in the past.


.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

The Russian's hacked the US election!!
Fake alt-right news won the election!!

Hilarious!!


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

I am sure Seth Rich if he could have lived his life over again would have never tried to do the right thing-the braindead sheep aren't worth it http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

The Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta.
Russian propagandists make sh-t up for alt-right fake news sites. 

Pretty simple. Are right wing parrots on this site feigning incomprehension?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta.


Fake news.



olivaw said:


> Russian propagandists make sh-t up for alt-right fake news sites.


More fake news.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta.
> Russian propagandists make sh-t up for alt-right fake news sites.
> 
> Pretty simple. Are right wing parrots on this site feigning incomprehension?


Seth Rich wasn't murdered-he is probably living in your basement.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> ummm, hillary isn't running for a sensitive government job, why not stop fixating on this ancient story & look forward to reality & to the future?
> 
> nobody other than a few morbid oldsters cares any more about this old old old story. Hillary Clinton was cleared by the FBI. End of story. Isn't it time for you to deal with it.
> 
> ...


I agree with you 100%. As Barrack Obama said "Elections have consequences. We won. You lost. Deal with it".

Might be interesting to know why the CIA and mainstream media are pushing this non story so hard.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The source of the accusation against Putin is the CIA. They have presented no proof. So what it boils down to is do you trust the CIA or not?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Thank God nothing like this ever went on years ago!!
Like when Nixon was President!!


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Or Kennedy


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Nixon deleted 18 minutes of audio recordings. Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

Nixon was considered a traitor. Hillary was selected by the "morally superior" Democrats to run for president.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nixon didn't go down over 18 minutes of audiotape. He went down because his guys got caught. Then a couple of diligent Washington Post reporters kept digging until they uncovered the top-to-bottom corruption of the Nixon administration. Republicans have hated the "mainstream media" ever since.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Aside from emails, there are reports of voting machines being compromised. The mind boggles that the US uses these things, given their pathetic security.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

These days it would be Alex Jones and ZH reporters digging in and they would be called conspiracy theorists, regarding the Nixon situation.

The mainstream media would be blaming Russia, China or anybody else instead of the Obama administration, if the situation was the same. Behind closed doors even the left would know this to be true but they would never say this out loud.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

And these compromised voting machines were only making errors in Hillary's favour from what I have heard.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Aside from emails, there are reports of voting machines being compromised. The mind boggles that the US uses these things, given their pathetic security.


Putin owns the maker of these voting machines-wait a minute-I stand corrected-it is actually George Soros-SJW and helper of the downtrodden with a 23 billion dollar modest nest egg he accumulated doing God's work.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

new dog said:


> These days it would be Alex Jones and ZH reporters digging in and they would be called conspiracy theorists, regarding the Nixon situation.
> 
> The mainstream media would be blaming Russia, China or anybody else instead of the Obama administration, if the situation was the same. Behind closed doors even the left would know this to be true but they would never say this out loud.



perhaps try to keep your epochs aligned?

the obama administration was not in power while tricky dick was alive

.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Soros also gave to the Hillary campaign but I don't see anything wrong with this. As long as it helps Hillary we can all look the other way.

In fact if Russia did hack the election on Hillary's behalf they could just tell CNN about it and wouldn't have to hide it. Hillary could even be the source of the leak to Russia and just claim she didn't know she was giving it to Russia and all would be fine.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> perhaps try to keep your epochs aligned?
> 
> the obama administration was not in power while tricky dick was alive
> 
> .



Really I didn't know this. Or maybe I was just explaining how things would be today if it were Obama instead of Nixon. I was going to say if the Nixon thing happened today but the media may still have dug in since Nixon was a republican.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Might be interesting to know why the CIA and mainstream media are pushing this non story so hard.



the focus of the CIA & the US government investigation right now is the hacking of a high-level US political leader's e-mails by russia, in an overt attempt by russia to influence a US presidential election.

if the hacked e-mails had been donald trump's, the CIA investigation would be just as intense.

a significant number of important americans were recently hacked by russia. John Podesta, also sitting members of Congress. These are maximum security risks. The breaches are being treated seriously by the CIA & the US government. To dismiss them as a "non-story" appears to be a tad on the frivolous side.

you on the other hand are still fixated on the ancient preceding story, which is what hillary clinton did years ago when she was secretary of state. Nobody cares any more about this old old old chapter. Why not move on.

.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

olivaw said:


> Nixon didn't go down over 18 minutes of audiotape. He went down because his guys got caught. Then a couple of diligent Washington Post reporters kept digging until they uncovered the top-to-bottom corruption of the Nixon administration. Republicans have hated the "mainstream media" ever since.


The Watergate story was handed to Woodward and Bernstein on a plate by an informant they called 'Deep Throat'. It later came out Deep Throat was a senior FBI man named Mark Felt. The Watergate burglars were CIA .


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm not the one who keeps talking about Hillary Clinton. As far as I can see she is through. Her ambition was to be President, that didn't happen. The next Presidential election, she will be 73. She might as well retire right now and bask in the glow of her many past accomplishments. I'm long past being ready to forget her and move on.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I'm not the one who keeps talking about Hillary Clinton. As far as I can see she is through. Her ambition was to be President, that didn't happen. The next Presidential election, she will be 73. She might as well retire right now and bask in the glow of her many past accomplishments. I'm long past being ready to forget her and move on.


What accomplishments?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I'm not the one who keeps talking about Hillary Clinton. As far as I can see she is through. Her ambition was to be President, that didn't happen. The next Presidential election, she will be 73. She might as well retire right now and bask in the glow of her many past accomplishments. I'm long past being ready to forget her and move on.




oh, but you *are* the one who keeps on talking about hillary clinton. In some posts (for example, 11:40 this am, shown below) you even appear to be obsessing over the lady as if she were still a candidate for the presidency & as if the election had not yet been held.


the above post is the opposite of what you were saying at 3:22 pm this afternoon:



Rusty O'Toole said:


> Might be interesting to know why the CIA and mainstream media are pushing this non story so hard.



also the opposite of what you were saying at 11:40 this morning:



Rusty O'Toole said:


> For example Hillary's home made email server, when she was Secretary of State, was wide open to being hacked but according to her, this is a non issue because there was no danger of being hacked and no problem if she was.
> 
> Now, all of a sudden, much less sensitive material being hacked is a HUGE deal.
> 
> And still no one is asking how anybody hacked a secure email server, or why Hillary was not using a secure server, and what that says about her fitness for a sensitive government job.


.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Y'all know about White PSYOPs right


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Putin owns the maker of these voting machines-wait a minute-I stand corrected-it is actually George Soros-SJW and helper of the downtrodden with a 23 billion dollar modest nest egg he accumulated doing God's work.


You laugh at Putin (the guy who poisons & murders political opponents) as a threat, yet Soros is the boogeyman behind everything in your mind. Soros has 100% ownership stakes in all makers of electronic voting equipment? Does that include Dominion Voting Systems, the Canadian company that acquired Diebold? I swear, it seems you believe everything you read on Facebook.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> You laugh at Putin (the guy who poisons & murders political opponents) as a threat, yet Soros is the boogeyman behind everything in your mind. Soros has 100% ownership stakes in all makers of electronic voting equipment? Does that include Dominion Voting Systems, the Canadian company that acquired Diebold? I swear, it seems you believe everything you read on Facebook.


I thought Fakebook was banning any independent thought-but yeah you are right Putin is the most powerful entity in the entire universe.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> You laugh at Putin (the guy who poisons & murders political opponents) as a threat, *yet Soros is the boogeyman* behind everything in your mind.


Infowars / Alex Jones / ZeroHedge / Breitbart has an obsession with Soros, their poster child for the global elite or illuminati.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

President Obama sent a warning and a blow aimed at Putin's ego at today's press conference.

_Responding to intelligence reports that Russia sought to disrupt the presidential election through cyberattacks, Obama was harsh in his assessment of the Kremlin: “The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us,” he said at his end-of-year press conference on Friday. “They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country, their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. They don't innovate.”_


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

> “The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us,”


This is typical of Obama's minimization of external threats and his deep mis-perception of the dangers that exist for his country.
He said that ISIS was the 'junior varsity' yet they have destabilized Iraq and Syria and even projected terrorism to Europe.
He said domestic terrorism was not an existential threat to the US yet when the 'terrorism ball' was tossed to Trump he ran 50 yards into the end zone for a game -winning touchdown. 

Now he is underestimating the lethality of Russia, which has been called Upper Volta with missiles.

He said he told Putin to cut it out.
Putin didn't listen to him.
He wasn't afraid of Obama.
Maybe he remembers the red line that he didn't honour.

Now he's talking of retaliation yet he only has thirty days left in his presidency.

Russian hacking is a direct threat to Americans' feelings about their own democracy. 
It causes them to devalue it.

Obama's passivity has left his country in a terrible state.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Wraphter Obama basically arms ISIS in his goal to get rid of Assad. The Russian hacking thing is more of an attempt to destabilize Trump in hopes that something comes out of it and they can overturn him.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> oh, but you *are* the one who keeps on talking about hillary clinton. In some posts (for example, 11:40 this am, shown below) you even appear to be obsessing over the lady as if she were still a candidate for the presidency & as if the election had not yet been held.
> 
> 
> the above post is the opposite of what you were saying at 3:22 pm this afternoon:
> ...


Hillary lost, it's you and the MSM that can't get over it.

And according to her it's all because the Russians exposed the truth about her. She reminds me of a Scooby Doo villain " I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-election-says-personal-beef-against-me.html

Oops sorry, forgot you don't believe in the Daily Mail

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-fbi-comey.html


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Trumpettes seem to bring up Hillary a lot.

As humble said, the election is over (save the EC vote). Time now to talk about Trump's blunders and conflicts of interest. Fertile ground.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Good article in the Economist. 

Russia has been trying to interfere in elections since Soviet times, They pushed very hard against Reagan. And they hacked into McCain's campaign. 

In general, they are like a parasite. The flesh has to be already sick for Russian hacking and propaganda to have any effect,


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

^
This is the first time that Russian interference has gained such notoriety and become a factor influencing the outcome of an
American election. 

Obama has painted himself into a corner. He has promised to retaliate for the Russian hacking yet he has only a month left in office. 

If he doesn't do anything in the coming month he will be seen as weak. If he takes action he will be blamed by Putin since
he made a public announcement. 

Putin denies his own involvement with the hacking.

Obama has promised a report will be produced before he leaves office. This will put pressure on Trump who 
has denied Russian involvement in the hacking. 

These events are unprecedented. There has never been such prominent interference in an American election
by a foreign power in recent history. It was never discussed so openly before. 

Trump appears to pledge allegiance to another country and prefer it to his own .


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Obama's threats are sure to make Putin&co shake in their boots. 

Anyway, wasn't it Obama who reset the relationship with Putin after Bush spoilt it? Wasn't it Obama who laughed off Romney stating that Russia is a geopolitical enemy by suggesting that Romney was stuck in the Cold War past? Wasn't it Obama who smugly suggested that Putin was going to have a quagmire in Syria? It's a quagmire alright, and a mass murder to boot and a boost to Putin. 

What's Obama so upset about now? Is he stuck in the Cold War? 

Russian regime is a much more serious threat now than it has been and Obama with his utterly moronic foreign policy is personally responsible.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> Good article in the Economist.
> 
> Russia has been trying to interfere in elections since Soviet times, They pushed very hard against Reagan. And they hacked into McCain's campaign.
> 
> In general, they are like a parasite. The flesh has to be already sick for Russian hacking and propaganda to have any effect,


Yes-the MSM propaganda promoting Crooked Hillary was relentless-she had a huge cash infusion from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Commie China-the NYT, WaPo, almost all the TV networks pumping out propaganda 24/7-AND STILL LOST.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

mordko said:


> Obama's threats are sure to make Putin&co shake in their boots.
> 
> Anyway, wasn't it Obama who reset the relationship with Putin after Bush spoilt it? Wasn't it Obama who laughed off Romney stating that Russia is a geopolitical enemy by suggesting that Romney was stuck in the Cold War past? Wasn't it Obama who smugly suggested that Putin was going to have a quagmire in Syria? It's a quagmire alright, and a mass murder to boot and a boost to Putin.
> 
> ...


The only thing Obozo got right in his speech is that Russia is a very minor threat in comparison to Communist China.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Yes-the MSM propaganda promoting Crooked Hillary was relentless-she had a huge cash infusion from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Commie China-the NYT, WaPo, almost all the TV networks pumping out propaganda 24/7-AND STILL LOST.


Trump got tonnes of free press, and the bulk of Hillary coverage was negative (email scandal got more coverage than everything else combined).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> The only thing Obozo got right in his speech is that Russia is a very minor threat in comparison to Communist China.


Trump's response to China is to abandon US strategic interests in the Western Pacific and give China everything it wants.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

We don't know if Russian hacking had much of an impact on the American election. We just know that the Russians were trying to help the Trump campaign. Why?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> We don't know if Russian hacking had much of an impact on the American election. We just know that the Russians were trying to help the Trump campaign. Why?


I asked that question previously...why would Putin want Trump in power when under the last 8 years of Democrat rule he has done anything he wanted with no repercussion from the US? If anything, he would want more of the same, which is Hillary.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

The economic sanctions were a repercussion. A possible explanation for Putin's risky interference is that he was desperate to have the sanctions lifted. Trump may *lift them for him*.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The economic sanctions were a repercussion. A possible explanation for Putin's risky interference is that he was desperate to have the sanctions lifted. Trump may *lift them for him*.


Although the MSM worked overtime to cover it up, the disgusting behaviour of Crooked Hillary and her MSM cronies leaked out anyway-this Putin B/S is all about pretending no wrongdoing occurred-it is only working on the braindead sheep.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The economic sanctions were a repercussion. A possible explanation for Putin's risky interference is that he was desperate to have the sanctions lifted. Trump may *lift them for him*.


1. No one has proven Russian interference in the election.
2. Silly claims made by Democrats on what Trump "might" do prove nothing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw said:


> We don't know if Russian hacking had much of an impact on the American election. We just know that the Russians were trying to help the Trump campaign. Why?




here's an interesting NY times piece where journo Mark Fisher deals with precisely this issue. He describes the prevailing & deep-rooted attitudes of fear & apprehension which moscow has harboured & still harbours for both clintons, hillary & bill, across 2 decades of time.

fisher quotes russia expert Mark Galeotti who says that putin & his peers believe - rightly or wrongly - that the US particularly under the clintons has sought to de-stabilize russia, in fact to push the country back into the depression of the 1990s.

fisher & galeotti describe how russia's cyber sabotage of US authorities during the past several years - culminating in the hacked theft of thousands of e-mails which russia handed over to Wikileaks - was driven by russia's concern for its own safety. Moscow's view was that any candidate other than hillary clinton would be safer for russia, say fisher & galeotti.

what drove moscow to cyber sabotage hillary clinton so fiercely was not personal putin pique, says galeotti. It was a broad & deliberate anti-clinton policy.

galeotti describes how this super-apprehension over US motives dates far back in time, to the presidency of Bill Clinton. Historians, of course, will show how it dates much further back. Think Catherine the Great. Think Josef Stalin.

was there ever a time when russia trusted the west? or vice versa?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/w...ws-event/russian-election-hackingspecifically 


.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

^^

Facts are important...except to those who look to taint Trump every chance they get.

NO ONE has proven that Russia hacked either Hillary or the election. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

bass player said:


> Facts are important...except to those who look to taint Trump every chance they get.



my goodness. What are you talking about. No one said anything about donald trump. That NY Times article is a key, nodal, vital piece. It doesn't taint donald trump in the least.

what it says is that longtime clinton power in the US has always been hyper-resented by russia. Moscow's goal in hacking the democratic apparatus was to damage hillary, not to promote trump per se but rather to promote any republican who would be running, in order to prevent another clinton presidency.

it's a fascinating theory that makes good sense. A key driver would be the NATO nuclear missile shield that is in the midst of construction up & down russia's western border. Obviously the NATO decision to build the same was made many years ago, although i don't know if it had its roots in bill clinton's presidency.

it's not difficult to understand that russia powerfully fears & loathes the missile shield on its border. I myself am at a loss to understand how it - the missile shield - even came about. But its existence played a big role in russia's decision to invade crimea, in order to secure their only year-round naval base at sebastopol.

what's going on right now is a classic arms race. Russia feels threatened, works to invade & attach former iron curtain countries as a buffer barrier zone to her west & to her south.

then the west feels threatened so increases NATO forces & weapons.

then russia feels more threatened so masses regiments at the finland border & runs nuclear submarines through the baltic sea.

then the west feels even more threatened so begins re-arming the old cold war radar stations in northern US & canada.

arms races classically end badly, i'm not aware of one that historically ended without war.

.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Anyone can see the desperate propaganda being pumped out relentlessly-their problem is that it didn't stop Brexit or Trump or Italy and won't stop France or Germany from rejecting the destruction of society.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Nelley said:


> Anyone can see the desperate propaganda being pumped out relentlessly-their problem is that it didn't stop Brexit or Trump or Italy and won't stop France or Germany from rejecting the destruction of society.



too funny!

nelley is a living flesh-&-blood caricature

.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

The NY Times link that Humble posted is an informative read. The Kremlin was not so much pro-Trump as anti-Clinton. Definitely worth a read.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The NY Times link that Humble posted is an informative read. The Kremlin was not so much pro-Trump as anti-Clinton. Definitely worth a read.


YUP-Carlos Slim is known as a truthteller-I wonder what Carlos thinks of Trump's wall-LOL.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The NY Times link that Humble posted is an informative read. The Kremlin was not so much pro-Trump as anti-Clinton. Definitely worth a read.


Yes, let's all just blindly accept Hillary's silly claim that Russia was "scared" her, lol. 

If Hillary said the sky was blue, I would look up before accepting that.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

I think Putin has seized control of the mental giants at NEWSWEEK-listen to this babbling rep of the MSM-it is hilarious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZovxfhI6VKc


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> what's going on right now is a classic arms race. Russia feels threatened, works to invade & attach former iron curtain countries as a buffer barrier zone to her west & to her south.
> 
> then the west feels threatened so increases NATO forces & weapons.
> 
> ...


From my perspective Russia and NATO/NORAD were getting along historically swell post 9/11

At its peak, we were exercising cross border ops procedures of hijacked aircraft flying across our borders etc

NATO governments were slashing military bases and programs left and right because "it's not the Cold War anymore"

Commanders faced insurmountable friction to get any modern military equipment because there was no perceivable immediate threat

Truth is, Russia seems to be the only way to justify any advanced military expenditures even though they are not necessarily the threat

China is militarizing space and governments be like "forget maintaining military defences folks, it's not the Cold War anymore mmm'kay.."

Homeland defences serve as deliberate deterrence to war. If someone pushed Russia to the brink, Canada sits with zero fixed defences..


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Exactly m3s they need Russia as a threat to justify ramping up advanced military expenditures. Every where you turn they are poking Russia in some way. Syria was great because the west armed ISIS indirectly and rebels to overthrow Assad and drag Russia in. After this Russia and Assad blow up things and then they can complain about all the dead people. If people can remember the west started this mess so they are the ones responsible for it.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

> Truth is, Russia seems to be the only way to justify any advanced military expenditures even though they are not necessarily the threat


The old USSR is back in business. It is now called Russia and it feels threatened by an advancing NATO which has increased its membership
to now include the Baltic states and Poland. This has reduced Russia's buffer against Western invasion which has been its history.

Then Ukraine became restive . Russia's satrap in Ukraine Viktor Yanukovitch was overthrown in the Maidan Revolution and
then there was talk of Ukraine joining NATO. This was too much . Putin occupied Crimea and started an insurgency in the Donbas.
Then he intervened in Syria.

Russia wants to be treated as a player on the world stage. It wants a return to the days of power and prestige that the USSR 
enjoyed. Putin has engaged in cyberwar against the US. He frequently makes reference to Russia's nuclear weapons in order 
to intimidate Western observers. He is a short man who is hyper-aggressive. He wants to make Russia great again.

A confrontation with the West is inevitable.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

It's all about good ol' Russian imperialism. Nothing to do with being "threatened", nobody thinks that Ukraine or Latvia or US would want to grab a piece of Russian territory, that's nuts. In fact it's Russia who is the threat to sovereign countries, as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldavia have discovered. 

Meanwhile Russian GDP is contracting which pushes Putin to play the nationalist card even more.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

The world is a mess and you have Bush and Obama to thank for it. The mess is so bad now, along with a financial mess sure to come, that I am not sure what Trump can do to make it better.

Luckily, the only thing that would have been worse is if Hillary was there, so at least we have something going in the right direction.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

You can't blame the American president for everything wrong in the world. You can't even blame the American president for everything wrong in America. They're powerful but not _that_ powerful. 

You have to blame Putin's Russia for hacking American political parties and individuals in an attempt to influence the outcome of an American election. If there is no response, Putin will do it again - with UK, Canada, Europe. Trump's response is to put his fingers in his ears and yell "_nya nya nya nya_". That's exactly what Putin wants. He and his cronies must be having a good belly laugh at the naiveté of the incoming American president.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> You can't blame the American president for everything wrong in the world. You can't even blame the American president for everything wrong in America. They're powerful but not _that_ powerful.
> 
> You have to blame Putin's Russia for hacking American political parties and individuals in an attempt to influence the outcome of an American election. If there is no response, Putin will do it again - with UK, Canada, Europe. Trump's response is to put his fingers in his ears and yell "_nya nya nya nya_". That's exactly what Putin wants. He and his cronies must be having a good belly laugh at the naiveté of the incoming American president.


I guess we are supposed to be unaware that the sheep never mentioned Putin's name until a couple weeks ago when their masters started yelling it.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> You can't blame the American president for everything wrong in the world. You can't even blame the American president for everything wrong in America. They're powerful but not _that_ powerful.
> 
> You have to blame Putin's Russia for hacking American political parties and individuals in an attempt to influence the outcome of an American election. If there is no response, Putin will do it again - with UK, Canada, Europe. Trump's response is to put his fingers in his ears and yell "_nya nya nya nya_". That's exactly what Putin wants. He and his cronies must be having a good belly laugh at the naiveté of the incoming American president.


You probably have forgotten already, but Obama is still in power. Please tell us exactly what steps he has taken to prevent Putin from stuffing the ballot box in the future.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^Glad you asked. 

President Obama knows that his successor will deny Russia's cyberattacks. He has taken steps to ensure that the American public is fully aware of what transpired. That put's pressure on congress to act. 

A side effect is that people are asking questions about Trump's ties to Russia. He has even been referred to as The Russia's Poodle. Ouch. 

Thanks Obama.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

What steps are those? The truth is that Obama has done nothing...just like he has for the last 8 years. I think he confuses giving long-winded speeches telling everyone how awesome he is with actually doing something, lol.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw said:


> That's exactly what Putin wants. He and his cronies must be having a good belly laugh at the naiveté of the incoming American president.



it's a dream come true for the kremlin. There'll be no incoming presidential gray matter this coming january. Just an impulse-ridden psychopath despised by more than half the voters.


PS not that it matters, but have we had a go at donald trump's attire? me i appreciate the cut of a fine handsewn bespoke suit upon a silver gentleman, but the PEOTUS wears nothing but loose garment bags & orange fright wigs  
.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bass player said:


> ^^
> 
> Facts are important...except to those who look to taint Trump every chance they get.
> 
> NO ONE has proven that Russia hacked either Hillary or the election. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.


So, since most of the allegations against Hillary are not conclusively proven, they should be dismissed? Same with the Hillary Parkinsons/inability to walk nonsense?

Funny that Hillary was seen hiking in the woods after the election. Amazing for someone who supposedly can't walk.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> So, since most of the allegations against Hillary are not conclusively proven, they should be dismissed? Same with the Hillary Parkinsons/inability to walk nonsense?
> 
> Funny that Hillary was seen hiking in the woods after the election. Amazing for someone who supposedly can't walk.


Sheep: You can't actually be that ignorant-Crooked Hillary had a major episode caught on video, put on Youtube and viewed by millions-you obviously know nothing about this subject and are unwilling to learn anything. Parkinsons disease sufferers are not paraplegics Einstein.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There is no evidence that Hillary has Parkinsons. Fainting is not evidence.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

andrewf said:


> So, since most of the allegations against Hillary are not conclusively proven, they should be dismissed? Same with the Hillary Parkinsons/inability to walk nonsense?
> 
> Funny that Hillary was seen hiking in the woods after the election. Amazing for someone who supposedly can't walk.


The staged "walk in the woods" where she conveniently met a supporter? #fakenews


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bass player said:


> The staged "walk in the woods" where she conveniently met a supporter? #fakenews


They live nearby, and go hiking there all the time, there are numerous pictures and eyewitnesses that have met them there over the years. Why the hell would she bother to stage this meeting after she lost the election?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

andrewf said:


> There is no evidence that Hillary has Parkinsons. Fainting is not evidence.


There is also no evidence that Russia hacked the election. Unproven allegations are not evidence.

Have you ever notice that Democrat accusations never need evidence to be immediately accepted by their followers??


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

andrewf said:


> They live nearby, and go hiking there all the time, there are numerous pictures and eyewitnesses that have met them there over the years. Why the hell would she bother to stage this meeting after she lost the election?


Hillary doesn't meet with the common folk. She only meets with people with deep pockets.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> They live nearby, and go hiking there all the time, there are numerous pictures and eyewitnesses that have met them there over the years. Why the hell would she bother to stage this meeting after she lost the election?


What is your point? No one has ever claimed that Hillary Clinton cannot walk in the woods.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> What is your point? No one has ever claimed that Hillary Clinton cannot walk in the woods.


Those bodies have to be buried somewhere...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

where else are the clintons going to walk their dogs, if not in the nearby woods.

it's eerie how fast the far right has fallen upon the expressions "fake news" & "post-truth news" & copycatted these into their own twisted scripts.

now every time somebody posts a tiny factoid that the kryptos don't like, they start screeching Fake News.

.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> it's eerie how fast the far right has fallen upon the expressions "fake news" & "post-truth news" & copycatted these into their own twisted scripts.
> 
> now every time somebody posts a tiny factoid that the kryptos don't like, they start screeching Fake News.
> 
> .


Sorry...I forgot the rules. Only the left can accuse people of fake news


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Humble Pie you have been accusing me of posting fake news as long as I have known you. Does this make you an alt right crypto whatever?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Humble Pie you have been accusing me of posting fake news as long as I have known you. Does this make you an alt right crypto whatever?



no, you've got it backwards

the expression Fake News aka Post-Truth News (british version) was created by moderates when they realized that the alt rights were posting lies in social media. Outright frank lies such as It Was a Disgusted Clinton Staffer who Leaked all the E-Mails to Wikileaks

moderates introduced fact-checkers into news programs. Moderates still rely on double-checked evidence.

meanwhile the alt rights copycatted the terms, having not much else to say for themselves .each:


.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> What is your point? No one has ever claimed that Hillary Clinton cannot walk in the woods.


Plenty of alt-righties tried to claim that Hillary could barely walk unassisted. Same guys who claimed that part of her security detail was a mysterious neurologist.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

What's strange is that alt-righties don't seem to care about facts or truth (same is true of SJWs). People intent on bending reality to their ideology because the ends justify the means. Dangerous stuff.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> What's strange is that alt-righties don't seem to care about facts or truth (same is true of SJWs). People intent on bending reality to their ideology because the ends justify the means. Dangerous stuff.


Is that irony? You just made up total B/S in the post above.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Is that irony? You just made up total B/S in the post above.


I wonder if alt-right radicals believe the fake news that they spread too. Are you intentionally posting falsehoods to mess with us or do you ernestly believe them?

Do you believe that the Kremlin is more trustworthy than 11 US Government security agencies, Euroean Intelligence and Bristish intelligence?


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

For me, I don't trust anybody, no one is out there for our own good.


----------

