Russian and alt-right Interference in democracies.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Not according to Trump anyway.



Really? Cause congressional Republicans repeatedly call Putin a 'war criminal', Russia 'dangerous'. Don't blame this just on the media.



Well we won't know until they invade, just like they did in Ukraine. Russia is also repeatedly making cyber attacks on Baltic states and has been for years.



Really? Cause I see the work of a "businessman" making corrupt deals with Russia, aswell as having the stick of blackmail behind him.

The won't know until you invade is pure waffle. Did we know that the US was about to launch three invasions post 9/11 in Iraq, Afghanistan & to knock out Libya? Most of the fighting words has been coming out of Congress not the Kremlin. As for the other points the Americans, Brits, French and Danes have been calling Putin out as a war criminal for years now does not make it so. Those same arguments can be thrown right back at Congress once again going back to the aggressive actions taken in the last few years. The media take a very selective view of who constitutes a war criminal and indeed many within the left also throw around the term war criminal at Netanyahu.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The won't know until you invade is pure waffle. Did we know that the US was about to launch three invasions post 9/11 in Iraq, Afghanistan & to knock out Libya? Most of the fighting words has been coming out of Congress not the Kremlin. As for the other points the Americans, Brits, French and Danes have been calling Putin out as a war criminal for years now does not make it so. Those same arguments can be thrown right back at Congress once again going back to the aggressive actions taken in the last few years. The media take a very selective view of who constitutes a war criminal and indeed many within the left also throw around the term war criminal at Netanyahu.

Funny you try to defend the actions of a man who invaded sovereign land, suppresses and murders opposition to him at home and bombs thousands of innocent civilians in Syria. At least we know where your allegiances lie anyway.

Of course you'd defend Netanyahu aswell; the extreme Zionist who holds the people of Gaza hostage, encourages Zionists to take Palestinian lands in their settlements and orders missile strikes on Palestinians after they throw a couple of rocks and tin can rockets over the wall.

You must have a thing for murderous war criminals.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Funny you try to defend the actions of a man who invaded sovereign land, suppresses and murders opposition to him at home and bombs thousands of innocent civilians in Syria. At least we know where your allegiances lie anyway.

Of course you'd defend Netanyahu aswell; the extreme Zionist who holds the people of Gaza hostage, encourages Zionists to take Palestinian lands in their settlements and orders missile strikes on Palestinians after they throw a couple of rocks and tin can rockets over the wall.

You must have a thing for murderous war criminals.

I don't know how you took my post as a defense i merely pointed out the hypocrisy of calling Putin a war criminal when Netanyahu could easily also be called a war criminal. As you say both those leaders are responsible for killing people just like Bashar Al Assad is responsible for killing people. They have all committed war crimes. Unlike on the left i don't place additional crimes onto one country or call out for special treatment certain countries that i dislike.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't know how you took my post as a defense i merely pointed out the hypocrisy of calling Putin a war criminal when Netanyahu could easily also be called a war criminal. As you say both those leaders are responsible for killing people just like Bashar Al Assad is responsible for killing people. They have all committed war crimes. Unlike on the left i don't place additional crimes onto one country or call out for special treatment certain countries that i dislike.

If you think I hate Putin any less than Netanyahu or Assad you thought wrong. They're all murderous war criminals.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If you think I hate Putin any less than Netanyahu or Assad you thought wrong. They're all murderous war criminals.

Well good for you. Their all obviously defending their respective people from the threats that see around them and we know America, Britain and France plays favourites when it comes to these countries.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well good for you. Their all obviously defending their respective people from the threats that see around them and we know America, Britain and France plays favourites when it comes to these countries.

Yeah I'm sure Assad was 'protecting his people' when he used nerve gas on Syrian children.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure Assad was 'protecting his people' when he used nerve gas on Syrian children.

You know all to well the US conspired to attack the country long before Syria was portrayed as a threat to the world and some kind of violator of international law.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You know all to well the US conspired to attack the country long before Syria was portrayed as a threat to the world and some kind of violator of international law.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that Assad used sarin gas on his own people. Nothing can defend that.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Still doesn't detract from the fact that Assad used sarin gas on his own people. Nothing can defend that.

Nor will i attempt to defend actions taken by a country that they regard as in their interest to defend, i would point out which gets very little attention the Syrian gvt agreed to renounce the use of those weapons following the fury of diplomatic activity.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Nor will i attempt to defend actions taken by a country that they regard as in their interest to defend, i would point out which gets very little attention the Syrian gvt agreed to renounce the use of those weapons following the fury of diplomatic activity.

Really? When was that exactly?

Cause they were still doing it last year.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Really? When was that exactly?

Cause they were still doing it last year.

The Telegraph have always had a slant in opposition to the Syrian gvt one of the leading papers in supporting war against Syria. It is extraordinary that major operations like this get very little media exposure or coverage across the world.:rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25810934

Count Dooku

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure Assad was 'protecting his people' when he used nerve gas on Syrian children.

Do you really believe that Assad has total control over all people, who are fighting for survival on his side against NATO sponsored wahhabists?

Count Dooku

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Really? Cause congressional Republicans repeatedly call Putin a 'war criminal', Russia 'dangerous'

especially this one

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Well we won't know until they invade, just like they did in Ukraine. Russia is also repeatedly making cyber attacks on Baltic states and has been for years.

As it has been exposed Snowden, NSA is hacking all world, including Russia, but it doesn't mean that USA is going to invaded every country they hacked

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Really? Cause I see the work of a "businessman" making corrupt deals with Russia, aswell as having the stick of blackmail behind him.

Can it be anything more corrupt than selling 25% of US uranium to Russia for donation to Clinton foundation?

Billy86

Count Dooku wrote: »

Can it be anything more corrupt than selling 25% of US uranium to Russia for donation to Clinton foundation?

Trump violently raping that baby was easily as bad.

Hint: one is as true as the other, don't automatically believe and parrot everything The Leader says.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Telegraph have always had a slant in opposition to the Syrian gvt one of the leading papers in supporting war against Syria. It is extraordinary that major operations like this get very little media exposure or coverage across the world.:rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25810934

So you're saying that video is fake and/or the Telegraph is lying?

MightyMandarin

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you really believe that Assad has total control over all people, who are fighting for survival on his side against NATO sponsored wahhabists?

I don't agree with the way the west assisted the rebels, particularly since Tulsi Gabbard went there and the syrian people she talked to said that there are no democratists among them, they're just extremists or are being led by the extremists.

However, I will not ever support a man who used sarin gas on anybody, especially his own people. Assad is a disgusting human being.

MightyMandarin

Count Dooku wrote: »

especially this one

Again the clowns come out with the George Soros nonsense. Well for the record, it's more than the other man in the photo, McCain. Unless you think they're all backed by this mysterious, wealthy, jewish creature, who seemingly is responsible for every single bad thing that's happening in the world today.

Hank Scorpio

Do we need a new Wikileaks thread or what to discuss things like below? On the topic of interfering in foreign elections

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/832283161304371201

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Again the clowns come out with the George Soros nonsense. Well for the record, it's more than the other man in the photo, McCain. Unless you think they're all backed by this mysterious, wealthy, jewish creature, who seemingly is responsible for every single bad thing that's happening in the world today.

The Soros angle isn't all conspiracy.

Ignoring his funding of certain groups, there's multiple leaked emails in which they show he was telling the state department on how to direct foreign policy, but it wasn't only him. Sidney Blumenthal was also doing it.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The Soros angle isn't all conspiracy.

Ignoring his funding of certain groups, there's multiple leaked emails in which they show he was telling the state department on how to direct foreign policy, but it wasn't only him. Sidney Blumenthal was also doing it.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

Honestly, I know very little about the man other than he's rich, is jewish and the typical clowns who get their news from InfoWars and Breitbart hate him. Who is he actually funding, and what bad stuff is he actually doing?

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

Trump violently raping that baby was easily as bad.

Hint: one is as true as the other, don't automatically believe and parrot everything The Leader says.

Who funds Politifact?

https://www.knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-foundation-announces-200000-support-clinton

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Honestly, I know very little about the man other than he's rich, is jewish and the typical clowns who get their news from InfoWars and Breitbart hate him. Who is he actually funding, and what bad stuff is he actually doing?

Are you gonna brush over the fact that email clearly shows he's directing US foreign policy while not being employed by the state department?

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Are you gonna brush over the fact that email clearly shows he's directing US foreign policy while not being employed by the state department?

Ok read the email and yeah he seems to be directing her to do something in Albania, which begs the question, why does he want her to do something there? What has he got to gain? Or does he have anything to gain at all?

Also, I would like if you would publish some facts on these 'groups' he funds. I'm not going to accept that Soros is the anti-christ over one email.

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Ok read the email and yeah he seems to be directing her to do something in Albania, which begs the question, why does he want her to do something there? What has he got to gain? Or does he have anything to gain at all?

Also, I would like if you would publish some facts on these 'groups' he funds. I'm not going to accept that Soros is the anti-christ over one email.

I haven't claimed him to be the anti christ. What I think is there's a group of people involved who weren't using the normal "channels" ( as mentioned in the email ) directing the state departments foreign policy while HRC was there. Some of it came out in the Benghazi hearings with Sidney Blumenthal and stuff came out in the Wikileaks emails about Soros. What the bigger picture is, I have no idea but something is extremely fishy there.

This appears to be a legitimate list of organisations he's funding.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewsubcategory.asp?id=1237

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I haven't claimed him to be the anti christ. What I think is there's a group of people involved who weren't using the normal "channels" ( as mentioned in the email ) directing the state departments foreign policy while HRC was there. Some of it came out in the Benghazi hearings with Sidney Blumenthal and stuff came out in the Wikileaks emails about Soros. What the bigger picture is, I have no idea but something is extremely fishy there.

This appears to be a legitimate list of organisations he's funding.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewsubcategory.asp?id=1237

No doubt it's fishy, but then again, so are a lot of things involved with Hillary. Still, it doesn't mean there's 'fishy' stuff going on with Donald and Putin either.

Also I laughed after reading about this 'Discover the Networks' site that compiled the list and the fact you called it 'legitimate'. A 10sec google search led me to the 'David Horowitz Freedom Center' who runs the site and is a conservative think tank. I mean come on even the banner on the website says 'A guide to the political left' ffs.

I won't even bother reading that list as I know it's going to be full of trash.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Who funds Politifact?

https://www.knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-foundation-announces-200000-support-clinton

You should try addressing the points made, but since you don't want to (funny given your comment in your very next post, literally two minutes later, complaining about another poster 'brushing over' a link you had posted), so here are more:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.6c282afb034b
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-false-corruption-claim/

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No doubt it's fishy, but then again, so are a lot of things involved with Hillary. Still, it doesn't mean there's 'fishy' stuff going on with Donald and Putin either.

Also I laughed after reading about this 'Discover the Networks' site that compiled the list and the fact you called it 'legitimate'. A 10sec google search led me to the 'David Horowitz Freedom Center' who runs the site and is a conservative think tank. I mean come on even the banner on the website says 'A guide to the political left' ffs.

I won't even bother reading that list as I know it's going to be full of trash.

Because it's a Conservative site?

It's a simple list of organisations that he's funding.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/05/billionaires-battle-over-media-influence-koch-bros-murdoch-vs-sorosbuffettge/#73640ad183ea

It’s hard to argue with the notion that money can buy lots of influence. Consider George Soros for example, a big spender with ties to more than 30 predominantly liberal news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $48 million funding media properties…often funding foundations which in turn, fund other organizations. This arrangement makes complete outside accounting nearly impossible because the media component of the support is hard to track.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/billionaire-soros-funding-groups-fighting-to-repeal-irish-abortion-ban-34980624.html

The Pro Life Campaign cried foul of Mr Soros's intervention.

"These revelations are extremely disturbing," said spokeswoman Cora Sherlock.
"The fact that an outside body is talking about funding and coordinating groups in Ireland to dismantle protection for the unborn child represents a gross interference and is an attack on democracy.

I think most people want to see a fair debate regardless of where they stand on the issue."

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

You should try addressing the points made, but since you don't want to (funny given your comment in your very next post, literally two minutes later, complaining about another poster 'brushing over' a link you had posted), so here are more:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.6c282afb034b
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-false-corruption-claim/

So you think there's nothing to the story?

"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

Sept 2005

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

2006

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Because it's a Conservative site?

No, because having done some research on this David Horowitz, it's pretty clear who he supports, who he hangs around with and the ideology he follows.

Just like the other clowns of the Alt-Right, I won't be taking his word as reliable, sorry.

That said, yeah this Soros guy likes to throw his money at political causes and media outlets, most likely to exert his power. He seems like a shady enough character tbh.

Tell me though, would you say the same of the Koch's? or what about the Dick De Vos, who donated 200m and then his wife pocketed herself a nice job she was grossly unqualified for? Are they not in the same realm as Soros, just on the opposite side?

Hank Scorpio

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No, because having done some research on this David Horowitz, it's pretty clear who he supports, who he hangs around with and the ideology he follows.

Just like the other clowns of the Alt-Right, I won't be taking his word as reliable, sorry.

That said, yeah this Soros guy likes to throw his money at political causes and media outlets, most likely to exert his power. He seems like a shady enough character tbh.

Tell me though, would you say the same of the Koch's? or what about the Dick De Vos, who donated 200m and then his wife pocketed herself a nice job she was grossly unqualified for? Are they not in the same realm as Soros, just on the opposite side?

Isn't the whole political debate about ideology?

I haven't claimed Soros to be some under the bed monster, what I do think is something is extremely wrong when people outside the state department, like Soros and Blumenthal, are influencing foreign policy.

Bold part, I don't agree with her landing the job and it's one of his choices I have no problem with people scrutinizing.