Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

osmiumartist

Count Dooku wrote: »

Not yet, CIA calls for new vote
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn

Next they'll produce some of the supposed evidence to back up their Russian hacking claims.
Oh silly me, what was I thinking!

Yourself isit

Christy42 wrote: »

In fairness that is someone who was in the CIA as opposed to the CIA itself calling for the vote. Will be interesting to see what would be done if it is proven. A new election could be difficult with the obvious backlash coming from Trump supporters but you obviously can't have elections interfered with like that and call yourself a democracy.

There would be very few democracies if that rule were universal.

osmiumartist

It's also interesting that the CIA (or some spook there) would be demanding a re-election on the basis that the voting public were provided with too much information about one of the candidates...

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

It's also interesting that the CIA (or some spook there) would be demanding a re-election on the basis that the voting public were provided with too much information about one of the candidates...

I'd call that spin "disingenuous", but that would be too kind.

The issue is not that the voting public had too much information about one of the candidates; the issue is that a foreign government favoured one of the candidates, and apparently actively orchestrated the leaking of information with the conscious aim of damaging the other candidate.

Of course, Trump denies that any such interference happened. And, predictably, his acolytes are demanding evidence of be produced, all the while cheerfully accepting his word at face value.

The CIA says that Russia interfered with the election, and the Trumpettes demand that classified information be published before they'll believe it. Trump says that Russia had no involvement, and his disciples say "well, that's good enough for me".

Can anyone explain to me why they believe Trump knows more about Russia's involvement or otherwise in influencing the election than the intelligence agencies whose job it is to know these things?



/awaits the inevitable "WMDs in Iraq" deflection...

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd call that spin "disingenuous", but that would be too kind.

The issue is not that the voting public had too much information about one of the candidates; the issue is that a foreign government favoured one of the candidates, and apparently actively orchestrated the leaking of information with the conscious aim of damaging the other candidate.

Of course, Trump denies that any such interference happened. And, predictably, his acolytes are demanding evidence of be produced, all the while cheerfully accepting his word at face value.

The CIA says that Russia interfered with the election, and the Trumpettes demand that classified information be published before they'll believe it. Trump says that Russia had no involvement, and his disciples say "well, that's good enough for me".

Can anyone explain to me why they believe Trump knows more about Russia's involvement or otherwise in influencing the election than the intelligence agencies whose job it is to know these things?



/awaits the inevitable "WMDs in Iraq" deflection...

I think the idiotic anti-Trump buffoons are simply parroting the same vague meandering tripe that's being peddled by anonymous "sources" which have not and will never be backed with any evidence whatsoever. I don't blame them for clutching at straws though as they are obviously very upset at the cognitive dissonance of people not simply agreeing that they are right.

Christy42

Oliver Beetroot wrote: »

Allegedly 'interfered with'.

No interfered with.

I started off my statement with if it is proven in case you missed it. If it was proven then there would certainly be no allegedly. This is why I started with if.

I notice that it is one side leading these sentences appropriately. See the recount started with we should see if fraud took place not claiming absolutely that it did sends Trump supporters up in arms due to a lack of proof while millions of people voted illegally is cool and requires no proof what so ever to be provided.

Inquitus

If both the RNC and the DNC were hacked by Russia, as seems likely, and only the DNC stuff damaging to Hillary was released, Russia has clearly tried to influence the outcome of the election in Trump's favour. I really don't see what can be done about it however.

ligerdub

Influenced by spreading something dangerous named "the truth". Shocker.

Inquitus

ligerdub wrote: »

Influenced by spreading something dangerous named "the truth". Shocker.

By showing only "Truths" about the DNC, and witholding those "Truths" negative to the Trump campaign which clearly would have been in the RNC files, given how unpopular he was with the RNC until his nomination, they have influenced the election and it's coverage.

ligerdub

Inquitus wrote:

By showing only "Truths" about the DNC, and witholding those "Truths" negative to the Trump campaign which clearly would have been in the RNC files, given how unpopular he was with the RNC until his nomination, they have influenced the election and it's coverage.

Because of course Mr Trump received no blanket criticism from the mainstream media.

Forget it, this story is hilarious. I thought people were further down the line in terms of accepting the result, obviously not.

Inquitus

ligerdub wrote: »

Because of course Mr Trump received no blanket criticism from the mainstream media.

Forget it, this story is hilarious. I thought people were further down the line in terms of accepting the result, obviously not.

Well he's clearly unfit to be president, so acceptance may well be a long way off for most.

osmiumartist

Inquitus wrote: »

Well he's clearly unfit to be president

Translation: My personal and currently unsupported opinion is that I think he is unfit to be president.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd call that spin "disingenuous", but that would be too kind.

The issue is not that the voting public had too much information about one of the candidates; the issue is that a foreign government favoured one of the candidates, and apparently actively orchestrated the leaking of information with the conscious aim of damaging the other candidate.

So...? If the leak of the "pussy-grabbing" tape was done by people working for China, does that make it any less damning to Trump? No. Even if it didn't have a foreign government behind it - certainly the coverage given to that tape had political motivations. Similarly if the democratic party emails were leaked by Russian agents does it make them any less true? No.

The publicity own-goals by both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were their own doing. Everyone knew that Bernie Sander's hand had been forced, the email confirming such was merely proof.

It's just amusing seeing two individuals who condone the spying upon people's private business (Trump and Clinton) being themselves bitten by people getting hold of their data.

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

I think the idiotic anti-Trump buffoons are simply parroting the same vague meandering tripe that's being peddled by anonymous "sources" which have not and will never be backed with any evidence whatsoever.

Yeah, that's pretty standard fare in the post-fact world where someone like Trump can win an election: pretend that the considered assessment of the entire US intelligence community is "vague meandering tripe".

Evidence, schmevidence. Evidence is something you demand from the people you disagree with. Your own "facts" don't need evidence.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's pretty standard fare in the post-fact world where someone like Trump can win an election: pretend that the considered assessment of the entire US intelligence community is "vague meandering tripe".

Evidence, schmevidence. Evidence is something you demand from the people you disagree with. Your own "facts" don't need evidence.

What facts? I'm not claiming Russia hacked anybody or that the US Presidential election was interfered with. I don't need to provide you with one single thing.
What have you got? An equally large slice of zilch pie?
This is the "entire US intelligence community" that is so trustworthy it phones up some Clinton backing journos to spill all this supposedly classified information?

...And Justice

Technically Al Gore should have been president, trump won end of. I'm just waiting to see what happens after the 20th of January, hopefully it's not more of the same shíte with the arms industry and wall street war's.

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

I'm not claiming Russia hacked anybody or that the US Presidential election was interfered with.

No; the US intelligence agencies en masse are.

So I'm repeating what the intelligence agencies are saying; you're repeating what Trump is saying. If it suits you to believe that you're on the side with greater credibility, it's unlikely that there's anything that could change your mind.

Oliver Beetroot

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; the US intelligence agencies en masse are.

So I'm repeating what the intelligence agencies are saying; you're repeating what Trump is saying. If it suits you to believe that you're on the side with greater credibility, it's unlikely that there's anything that could change your mind.

Have these agencies provided evidence (yet)?

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; the US intelligence agencies en masse are.

So I'm repeating what the intelligence agencies are saying; you're repeating what Trump is saying. If it suits you to believe that you're on the side with greater credibility, it's unlikely that there's anything that could change your mind.

I'm also guessing you can't point me to one single official statement form any US intelligence agency stating this. Would you care to hazard a guess why this would be so?
I'm also going to guess that you will continue to and indeed never provide any evidence whatsoever to back up these Russian hacking claims.
Hey, but you don't need evidence to make up your mind apparently, do you? Apparently I'm the silly one for asking for it...:rolleyes:

dudara

From what I know, the CIA isn't in the business of issuing press releases on topics like this. Classified material and all that.

The Armed Services committee however, has released a press statement which contains the following excerpt... This would appear to imply that there is classified material supporting this story.

While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/mccain-graham-schumer-reed-joint-statement-on-reports-that-russia-interfered-with-the-2016-election

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

I'm also guessing you can't point me to one single official statement form any US intelligence agency stating this.

Just so we're completely clear: is it your genuinely-held belief that the US intelligence community doesn't believe this to be the case?

RandomName2

osmiumartist wrote: »

I'm also guessing you can't point me to one single official statement form any US intelligence agency stating this. Would you care to hazard a guess why this would be so?
I'm also going to guess that you will continue to and indeed never provide any evidence whatsoever to back up these Russian hacking claims.
Hey, but you don't need evidence to make up your mind apparently, do you? Apparently I'm the silly one for asking for it...:rolleyes:

Ah no, it would be pretty easy to find a US intelligence agency blaming Russia for... well.. anything really. It is the second cold war after all (and visa versa if you follow Sputnik news of course). Now attempting to find a US Intelligence agency publishing evidence is a different matter - they wouldn't do so as a matter of course as it might "compromise our data-gathering methodologies" or some such.

Now the leaks were conducted by the Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear hacker groups, and also the individual "Guccifer 2.0". Are these groups all part of the Russian Governments Intelligence agency? I'm guessing that there's probably some sort of cooperation between them and the Russian government, but the US will want to pin it specifically on the Kremlin. The reality of the situation is probably more complicated than that - but "Reds under the bed" eh?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're completely clear: is it your genuinely-held belief that the US intelligence community doesn't believe this to be the case?

Tut-tut. Dat deflection tho.

Yourself isit

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're completely clear: is it your genuinely-held belief that the US intelligence community doesn't believe this to be the case?

When did the left (well the middle class left) get so enamoured with the CIA?

...And Justice

Yourself isit wrote: »

When did the left (well the middle class left) get so enamoured with the CIA?

When Trump won. They can't take defeat, "Ohh there's something wrong, this can't happen"

It did, deal with it, it's California causing the trouble. 80% blue state for the elite and they up in arms over it.

osmiumartist

dudara wrote: »

From what I know, the CIA isn't in the business of issuing press releases on topics like this. Classified material and all that.

So spooks say nothing (except mysteriously to liberal media. No no secret after all when it suits them).
Evidence? Nah, on yer bike.
And who do we blame for post-fact politics when people demand they need zero evidence to buy a story?

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're completely clear: is it your genuinely-held belief that the US intelligence community doesn't believe this to be the case?

Nice game you made up there, Proving A Negative. Will the boardgame version be available in time for Xmas?
It is my genuinely held belief that the US intelligence community (they're a "community" now? Like an old folks' home or something?) regularly lies to the public. This is well documented.
The Russians do it too. It's part of an agenda, not a public service. People just either don't know or don't care when they're being played.

Yourself isit

Whatever about Trump being dangerous, the anti-Trump forces have gone crazy. Take a look at Louise Menchs time line. Basically a call to impeach and jail trump and war with Russia.

osmiumartist

Yourself isit wrote: »

Whatever about Trump being dangerous, the anti-Trump forces have gone crazy. Take a look at Louise Menchs time line. Basically a call to impeach and jail trump and war with Russia.

Looks like McCain is their new leader. Famously neutral on Trump isn't he? Expect lots of objectivity...

wonderfullife

Trumps reply today on Fox regarding intelligence briefings was pretty scary in the respect he said "for the next 8 years" as opposed to "next 4 years".

He clearly intends on running (and winning) in 2020.

Scary because this man is a control-freak, megalomaniac, narcissist and is surrounding himself with hard-line Generals and Yes-Men.

He may do very well in the next 4 years and win again and if he does, i'll be relieved (that he has done better than I expect). More likely, he oversees the most tumultuous period in human history, causing an already messed-up world to reach new levels of messed-up. Giving Israel and Russia free reign to waltz into Palestine and Ukraine, for a start. The ramifications of that alone will cause a ripple-effect to bring the world into chaos.

Should he lose in 2020, I firmly believe there will not be a smooth nor peaceful transition of power.

He has a cult-like following, predominantly made up of uneducated white people (facts). As soon as he loses in 2020 he will Tweet "ELECTION WAS RIGGED - DO NOT ACCEPT THIS" and blame "illegal immigrants" (i.e. everyone not white) or "voter fraud". His "Deplorables" will hit the streets armed to the teeth looking for non-whites.

Trump, himself, will refuse to acknowledge the result of the election and litigate every state to every highest court as a stalling tactic. When he has exhausted of all those options, designed to appear democratic, he'll just refuse to leave power and will have the might of the military behind him, after spending the next 4 years filling the place top-to-bottom with paid yes-men.

All sounds pretty crazy, outlandish and unthinkable now but his very election was pretty unthinkable.

I predict at least 2 dozen scandals that would lead to the impeachment of any other President in history, but will be like water off a ducks back with Trump.

The only way he is leaving the White House Trump Tower and the Presidency is in death. The Presidency, in the manner he intends to use it, is the golden ticket for a businessman like him.

His clear, and only intent, for the next 4 to 8 years is to build The Trump Empire. If it benefits Americans or the World then it's a by-product. If it harms Americans or the world, it's collateral damage.

A Hillary Clinton Presidency would probably have been more of the same as Obama, deeply flawed, cynical, career politicans running the ship yet ultimately well-meaning, but it sure as hell didn't come with these risks attached.

Anyone not afraid for the immediate future of the world is delusional. Trump has the means and inclination to set America, and the world, back decades in terms of climate, LGBT issues, female equality and the global economy. Putin and Netanyahu have the means and inclination to land-grab. Trump clearly won't give a monkeys if they send the tanks into neighbouring regions and that'll be the start of a bleak time.

I truly hope Trump does well and I eat my words. I'll come back to this post in 4 years if the earth is still spinning on its axis.

ligerdub

Ah yes, the just make it up rant of the Trump opponents.

Yourself isit

wonderfullife wrote: »

Trumps reply today on Fox regarding intelligence briefings was pretty scary in the respect he said "for the next 8 years" as opposed to "next 4 years".

He clearly intends on running (and winning) in 2020.

Scary because this man is a control-freak, megalomaniac, narcissist and is surrounding himself with hard-line Generals and Yes-Men.

He may do very well in the next 4 years and win again and if he does, i'll be relieved (that he has done better than I expect). More likely, he oversees the most tumultuous period in human history, causing an already messed-up world to reach new levels of messed-up. Giving Israel and Russia free reign to waltz into Palestine and Ukraine, for a start. The ramifications of that alone will cause a ripple-effect to bring the world into chaos.

Should he lose in 2020, I firmly believe there will not be a smooth nor peaceful transition of power.

He has a cult-like following, predominantly made up of uneducated white people (facts). As soon as he loses in 2020 he will Tweet "ELECTION WAS RIGGED - DO NOT ACCEPT THIS" and blame "illegal immigrants" (i.e. everyone not white) or "voter fraud". His "Deplorables" will hit the streets armed to the teeth looking for non-whites.

Trump, himself, will refuse to acknowledge the result of the election and litigate every state to every highest court as a stalling tactic. When he has exhausted of all those options, designed to appear democratic, he'll just refuse to leave power and will have the might of the military behind him, after spending the next 4 years filling the place top-to-bottom with paid yes-men.

All sounds pretty crazy, outlandish and unthinkable now but his very election was pretty unthinkable.

I predict at least 2 dozen scandals that would lead to the impeachment of any other President in history, but will be like water off a ducks back with Trump.

The only way he is leaving the White House Trump Tower and the Presidency is in death. The Presidency, in the manner he intends to use it, is the golden ticket for a businessman like him.

His clear, and only intent, for the next 4 to 8 years is to build The Trump Empire. If it benefits Americans or the World then it's a by-product. If it harms Americans or the world, it's collateral damage.

A Hillary Clinton Presidency would probably have been more of the same as Obama, deeply flawed, cynical, career politicans running the ship yet ultimately well-meaning, but it sure as hell didn't come with these risks attached.

Anyone not afraid for the immediate future of the world is delusional. Trump has the means and inclination to set America, and the world, back decades in terms of climate, LGBT issues, female equality and the global economy. Putin and Netanyahu have the means and inclination to land-grab. Trump clearly won't give a monkeys if they send the tanks into neighbouring regions and that'll be the start of a bleak time.

I truly hope Trump does well and I eat my words. I'll come back to this post in 4 years if the earth is still spinning on its axis.

I notice you don't seem too concerned with American imperialism. Just trump "allowing"Israel and Putin to invade places - phraseology that indicates America is a genuine world imperial power. These concerns are exagarated of course. He's not anti Israel but neither is he controlled by Aipac's donations. He will probably oppose any Palestinian war.

On the other hand the forces opposed to trump are the top neo conservative, pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian/Russian politicians in the US - in particular the signaturies of today's release (and the Washington post)

osmiumartist

wonderfullife wrote: »

Anyone not afraid for the immediate future of the world is delusional.

Yeah, we'd all be safer with Hillary shooting down Russian planes over Syria and arming jihadi decapitation squads.
Hyperbole much?

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Tut-tut. Dat deflection tho.

Well, no. It's a genuine question, because there's a certain amount of point in discussing something who holds the opposing view from your own. If, on the other hand, someone is vigorously attacking one point of view while not in fact holding a different view himself, then arguing with them is, frankly, just an exercise in feeding their ego.

As for deflection, learn from the master:

osmiumartist wrote: »

Nice game you made up there, Proving A Negative. Will the boardgame version be available in time for Xmas?

Note: question carefully evaded. Note as well the well-honed straw man tactic: I didn't ask anyone to prove a negative, but it's easier to accuse me of doing so than to answer the question that was asked.

But, in a way, I got my answer anyway.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

Note: question carefully evaded. Note as well the well-honed straw man tactic: I didn't ask anyone to prove a negative, but it's easier to accuse me of doing so than to answer the question that was asked.

But, in a way, I got my answer anyway.

Yes, you got your answer: you will be caught out every last time you flail about with rubbish like "prove they don't think this". Give up on it. Utterly transparent you've got nothing.
How's that evidence of Russian hacking coming along? Still on tea break?

Count Dooku

Yourself isit wrote: »

Whatever about Trump being dangerous, the anti-Trump forces have gone crazy. Take a look at Louise Menchs time line. Basically a call to impeach and jail trump and war with Russia.

Whole WaPo looks now like illustration to what happens if somebody will provide free unlimited internet in mental hospital
Trump’s election stole my desire to look for a partner - The Washington Post
Liberal loonies don't understand that they are doing for undermining democracy more than anybody else


Louise Mensch makes a perfect illustration for average Hillary supporter
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/807727912153710594

no surprise that Trump’s win is causing a surge in demand for mental health services

osmiumartist wrote: »

Looks like McCain is their new leader.

looks like plan B for Soros

Rainman16

Legal Means That Can Still Make Hillary Clinton The Next U.S. President
http://www.inquisitr.com/3786797/legal-means-that-can-still-make-hillary-clinton-the-next-u-s-president/

ligerdub

hahaha ah yes

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. It's a genuine question, because there's a certain amount of point in discussing something who holds the opposing view from your own. If, on the other hand, someone is vigorously attacking one point of view while not in fact holding a different view himself, then arguing with them is, frankly, just an exercise in feeding their ego.

I've no doubt the question was genuine. It's just that we aren't working in a character tight environment - you can both answer and ask a question in the same post.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for deflection, learn from the master:

To be fair he says

It is my genuinely held belief that the US intelligence community (they're a "community" now? Like an old folks' home or something?) regularly lies to the public.

There is your answer: that it doesn't matter what the US intelligence community says they purport to think, because they are probably making it up. Not sure if that is the case in reality, but the statement deftly gets around your bait for his obvious misstep (because the CIA has been quite forthcoming about its opinion on the matter.... a touch too forthcoming perhaps). By doing so he redefined the parameters of the conversation: but not really a straw man in all honesty.

I'd personally go a step higher and say "What's the point that people are trying to get at?" What, that the US and Russia are involved in dirty tricks with one another in terms cultural propaganda? Wake me up when there's actual news. The largest hack of US intelligence data by a foreign power was China, but we hear didly squat about that. Maybe the US will drop a drone strike on the Ecuadorian embassy in London and solve their foreign espionage issues :rolleyes:

RandomName2

osmiumartist wrote: »

Looks like McCain is their new leader. Famously neutral on Trump isn't he? Expect lots of objectivity...

Well the main thing to remember is that McCain hates, (and I mean absolutely hates) anything remotely Communist related. Putin, as a former KGB officer, is everything that McCain despises. If even a whiff of Putin is found on someone McCain will attempt to savage them. He is a very sincere guy, and puts principle before politics, but he can also be quite blind and single-minded in this endeavour - as can be seen in his views on the Arab Spring (in particular the Syrian Civil War). Cut the guy in half and you'd see Vietnam written through him like a stick of Brighton rock

Manic Moran

I think the question people are missing is "so what, if the Russians tried to interfere?"
The first thing is that the Trump voters had plenty enough issues to dislike Hillary to begin with. From NAFTA to firearms, attitude to 'gender over jobs', it didn't take Russian leaks of DNC emails (assuming this is how they came out) to change their opinions. And it's not as if an FSB agent showed up at my door and told me to vote for anyone in particular.
Secondly, unless they planted false information, which I've not heard anyone claim, then the question becomes 'so what'? You put something on email, you run the risk of it getting out. From Governor Christie's 'Bridgegate' to this the concept stands: the Democrats loaded the gun and pointed it at their feet: It only took a negligent discharge regardless of source for that sword of damocles to come down upon them.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think the question people are missing is "so what, if the Russians tried to interfere?"
The first thing is that the Trump voters had plenty enough issues to dislike Hillary to begin with. From NAFTA to firearms, attitude to 'gender over jobs', it didn't take Russian leaks of DNC emails (assuming this is how they came out) to change their opinions. And it's not as if an FSB agent showed up at my door and told me to vote for anyone in particular.
Secondly, unless they planted false information, which I've not heard anyone claim, then the question becomes 'so what'? You put something on email, you run the risk of it getting out. From Governor Christie's 'Bridgegate' to this the concept stands: the Democrats loaded the gun and pointed it at their feet: It only took a negligent discharge regardless of source for that sword of damocles to come down upon them.

I can't believe I just read that. You are absolutely cool with a foreign power covertly influencing an election for its own ends?

While msm is not perfect there is at least some oversight. Russia is not a newspaper. While I don't think America should respond with violence- hacking information from a political party is an act of war and aggression. Who knows what else they have access to if this was them?

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

I can't believe I just read that. You are absolutely cool with a foreign power covertly influencing an election for its own ends?

While msm is not perfect there is at least some oversight. Russia is not a newspaper. While I don't think America should respond with violence- hacking information from a political party is an act of war and aggression. Who knows what else they have access to if this was them?

Snowden was dubbed a Russia spy without proof, even Crooked Hillary was fear mongering the Putin line back then. If you don't think the US have been influencing elections for decades or stealing information from other Governments you are foolish imo. There's a massive cyber war behind the scenes. Obama was giving speeches in the UK before brexit that the UK would be pushed to the back of the line if they voted leave, that isn't influencing an election?.

If the Russia "interference" is true then obviously it's not to be condoned. But it's all if's and "sources" said. The FBI have been saying the opposite about Russian interference, and denied the Republicans emails were hacked. If there's actual proof then say it, otherwise it's a nothing story.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Snowden was dubbed a Russia spy without proof, even Crooked Hillary was fear mongering the Putin line back then. If you don't think the US have been influencing elections for decades or stealing information from other Governments you are foolish imo. There's a massive cyber war behind the scenes. Obama was giving speeches in the UK before brexit that the UK would be pushed to the back of the line if they voted leave, that isn't influencing an election?.

If the Russia "interference" is true then obviously it's not to be condoned. But it's all if's and "sources" said. The FBI have been saying the opposite about Russian interference, and denied the Republicans emails were hacked. If there's actual proof then say it, otherwise it's a nothing story.

This is why I said covertly. If people know where the information/opinion is from then they can make their own decision. If Putin wants to come out in favour of Trump then I don't care. I really don't.

Covertly revealing information on the other is an issue as people can't evaluate it properly. Is it because wikileaks want to reveal the truth or because Russia wants to be more aggressive in eastern Europe. This matters to people's decisions and they should know.

I was arguing against the point that if true it is a null story. I did not say I could guarantee it is true so I don't know what your last paragraph is about. I have always used if when talking about a story that I don't have proper evidence on unlike those talking about Hillary's health or Trump talking about illegal voting.

Hank Scorpio

I don't recall Hillary using if when she branded Trump supporters as racist sexist homophobic xenophobic islamophobic etc. The fabled basket of deplorable's

On a serious note, how is revealing real information worse than openly colluding with the media to gain an unfair advantage? Is it the same? Do you condone the collusion the DNC had with them? It's interesting to think about anyway. You could say the leaks 1'upped the advantage, regardless of who provided the information.

Wikileaks is also a news source. It has to go both ways imo.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't recall Hillary using if when she branded Trump supporters as racist sexist homophobic xenophobic islamophobic etc. The fabled basket of deplorable's

On a serious note, how is revealing real information worse than openly colluding with the media to gain an unfair advantage? Is it the same? Do you condone the collusion the DNC had with them? It's interesting to think about anyway. You could say the leaks 1'upped the advantage, regardless of who provided the information.

Wikileaks is also a news source. It has to go both ways imo.

Ah yeah http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-of-trumps-supporters-really-are-deplorable/

No need to use if when you can back it up.

Aside from anything they are a foreign military power secretly releasing information about one of the main parties in the states. To begin with they should not even have this information. Not encouraged to do it more. The issue is not the validity. It is that they can release things out of context (look at the number of bull $&#* arguments here over information from them taken out of context) and they can only release one sided information. I also mentioned the issue that people don't know where the information is coming from. If something is coming from so you can figure out biases and motives yourself. Think about it- why didn't the Russians release it themselves (again if it was them).

Both sides colluded with themselves he media- Hillary just colluded with some of the larger ones. I don't condone either. I also hate when a newspaper endorses a candidate. Any of them. However cnn never lied about them being the ones releasing the information and neither are they a major military power in the world. That is the key difference. Cnn don't have an aim to retake eastern Europe or any serious foreign policy goal relating to cnn itself that isn't just more viewers.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Ah yeah http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-of-trumps-supporters-really-are-deplorable/

No need to use if when you can back it up.

Aside from anything they are a foreign military power secretly releasing information about one of the main parties in the states. To begin with they should not even have this information. Not encouraged to do it more. The issue is not the validity. It is that they can release things out of context (look at the number of bull $&#* arguments here over information from them taken out of context) and they can only release one sided information. I also mentioned the issue that people don't know where the information is coming from. If something is coming from so you can figure out biases and motives yourself. Think about it- why didn't the Russians release it themselves (again if it was them).

Both sides colluded with themselves he media- Hillary just colluded with some of the larger ones. I don't condone either. I also hate when a newspaper endorses a candidate. Any of them. However cnn never lied about them being the ones releasing the information and neither are they a major military power in the world. That is the key difference. Cnn don't have an aim to retake eastern Europe or any serious foreign policy goal relating to cnn itself that isn't just more viewers.

A blog post pushing an agenda isn't proof of anything. A video of Trump supporters shouting racist things is meaningless, I can post a video of a neutral black guy saying how there was no racism at the rally he attended, but how there was large groups of Hillary supporters inciting violence and attacking Trump supporters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Bt6b8PPP0 Or videos of BLM, a group Hillary endorses, chanting slogans of killing cops and whites marching in the hundreds.

The bold bit. I don't get the point. Even if it was Russia why would they ever consider releasing it themselves. Why would any individual? I don't get how you can say the emails were out of context. People might take them out of context, the emails are legit. It's no different to how the media take certain lines and mix them together or edit videos to make individuals look bad, Trump said he was going hit back hard and CNN had a headline that he was going to physically attack someone.

The way I see it, the DNC got outplayed at their own game. We'll have to wait and see if it was Russia or not, I think the chance of that is low but let's wait for the hearing and investigation.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

A blog post pushing an agenda isn't proof of anything. A video of Trump supporters shouting racist things is meaningless, I can post a video of a neutral black guy saying how there was no racism at the rally he attended, but how there was large groups of Hillary supporters inciting violence and attacking Trump supporters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Bt6b8PPP0 Or videos of BLM, a group Hillary endorses, chanting slogans of killing cops and whites marching in the hundreds.

The bold bit. I don't get the point. Even if it was Russia why would they ever consider releasing it themselves. Why would any individual? I don't get how you can say the emails were out of context. People might take them out of context, the emails are legit. It's no different to how the media take certain lines and mix them together or edit videos to make individuals look bad, Trump said he was going hit back hard and CNN had a headline that he was going to physically attack someone.

The way I see it, the DNC got outplayed at their own game. We'll have to wait and see if it was Russia or not, I think the chance of that is low but let's wait for the hearing and investigation.

The blog inks to studies as they discuss it. Pretty sure a video of Trump supporters saying racist things is also not meaningless. I was going on the polls saying mist of his followers feel black people lack the motivation to get out of poverty (amongst other questions they replied with racist answers to) though as a video does not show the numbers.

You can look up the quote cnn took out of context. You can't look up to see if every email was reported so you have to see the biases of the presenter. You can also see the biases of cnn. Russia is not an individual. I don't get your comparison. If I released them no one would look or believe me for good reason. It is different if Russia released them (or a media outlet).

Hank Scorpio

After the election, I just can't take any poll seriously, especially when it comes to political agendas.

You've lost me on the second part. Nobody would read information I release as a media source because I have no credibility, whereas Wikileaks has impeccable credibility. What do you mean you can't look up if every email was reported?

I'll reply back later, gotta run.

Amerika

Remember not too long ago I was noting that we should be seriously considering the IDP/TIPP poll that had Donald Trump holding a 2 point lead over Hillary Clinton? I had noted that the IDP/TIPP poll was also the most accurate poll in the 2012 election. Everyone kept throwing up the fivethirtyeight data as the national oracle of the gods.

Remember some of Silver’s articles over at fivethirtyeight?

Why Donald Trump Isn’t a Real Candidate, In One Chart
Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll
Donald Trump Is Winning the Polls—And Losing the Nomination
Was the Second Debate The Beginning of the End For Donald Trump?
Republicans Don’t Like Donald Trump As Much As They Used To
Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls

I dunno, seems to me Nate Silver and his fivethirtyeight had no f’*!&#ng idea. Why do ya’ll continue to try and give this thing credence?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Remember not too long ago I was noting that we should be seriously considering the IDP/TIPP poll that had Donald Trump holding a 2 point lead over Hillary Clinton? I had noted that the IDP/TIPP poll was also the most accurate poll in the 2012 election. Everyone kept throwing up the fivethirtyeight data as the national oracle of the gods.

Remember some of Silver’s articles over at fivethirtyeight?

Why Donald Trump Isn’t a Real Candidate, In One Chart
Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll
Donald Trump Is Winning the Polls—And Losing the Nomination
Was the Second Debate The Beginning of the End For Donald Trump?
Republicans Don’t Like Donald Trump As Much As They Used To
Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls

I dunno, seems to me Nate Silver and his fivethirtyeight had no f’*!&#ng idea. Why do ya’ll continue to try and give this thing credence?

Err. In case you didn't notice the poll that gave Trump a win was wrong. Hillary won the vote by 1-2 % but lost the college.

You will need to learn to look past the binary result to see what was accurate and what wasn't. Silver was the closest to predicting a result that no one really predicted well given he pointed out repeatedly the decent odds of Trump winning without the vote. His 3-4% vote win for Hillary was also close to the truth and he pointed out if he was slightly off it could turn the electoral college over without a big vote swing which happened.