Are you fecking kidding me? The coverage it got is one of the major reasons she lost.
It's Trump ties that are now getting scrutinised.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
It's Trump ties that are now getting scrutinised.
Two points. 1) The accusations of corruption were actually mentioned quite a bit during the election. "Crooked Hillary" and all that. Even though many of the accusations against her were rather light in evidence. 2) Obviously people are going to focus on Trump, he is going to be the president. Why on earth would anyone care as much about Clinton now that's she's (relatively) irrelevant?
It's been proven her campaign was corrupt and that the MSM is compromised deeply regarding this election - simply read the leaks if you want to see for yourself.
The details of her wikileaks have been/are being pushed under the bed and instead we're hearing, suddenly, that both this election, and Brexit, 'was the Russians'.
And people are swallowing it despite there being no evidence at present, and all the sources are coming from the same media that should be being swept clean after it JUST being revealed that they (the media) have literally just compromised the integrity of a fecking U.S election!
I'm just saying, as something of a neutral, can't you see that you're being told what you want to hear? And that the source you're receiving it from is highly questionable.
I loathe Farage, and I'm a proud, black British fella, who's battled actual racism since I was about 4, so I don't like UKIP, at all, but I also don't believe that 'the Russians' made Brexit happen - it happened due to the awful policies of the last 17 years. You can feel it in England every day - people are fecking tired of policies that don't serve them and have left them worse off.
And although I'm not American, I picked up the same feeling watching this election unfurl - having a candidate roasting Jeb Bush, shouting at him about the money wasted in an illegal war in Iraq while the crowd goes nuts is the type of thing that won Trump the election. And indeed, won him it while the other candidate was (proven) hand in glove with the mainstream fecking media.
People are tired of the established political elite - they've failed us, and we're in debt due to their actions, while their wealth is unchallenged. The world is a worse place because of their actions, and while I don't think Trump, or fecking UKIP will necessarily solve it, I do believe that people are choosing these options because they are at least an alternative.
It's an incredible coincidence that just as the West, on both sides of the pond, reach levels of clear dissatisfaction with a crumbling, corrupt political order and band together to elect an alternative - is the exact same moment that 'the Russians' manage to intervene and put in place the exact candidate that the people want, but that the established political order don't want.
Maybe it'd be better if UKIP was discredited by being linked with Putin...but I'd still not believe it, and would rather they were discredited because of their short-sighted, reactionary politics.
Likewise, maybe Trump will be an awful President, but from what I see regarding the Clinton campaign, and her political history, the American people are justified in their choice of electing something of an alternative.
I'd like to discuss this in more detail. Should we discuss Clinton in the what next for Hilary thread?
It's not as simple as that. Russia has been accused of covertly funding political parties and movements in Europe to destabilize it - the National Front in France explicitly requested it.
Russia doesn't have to rig an election or referendum to get what it wants.
Yeah, so instead of the established political elite, Trump has thought outside the box and brought in the banking elite and the head of a multi national oil corporation with no political experience to speak of. What could possibly go wrong? Is this the alternative Trump voters wanted? I'm getting similar sheepish vibes from Trump supporters over here the last few days that I got from many Brexit voters the day after the decision was made and they had realised what had happened.
My redcafe ad is currently to buy tickets to Trump national golf course. Feck That!
Lies like this are why Brexit happened....
Leave Campaign -
Leave Voters - Yeah, a better NHS!
Leave Campaign (post election) - we didn't mean we'd actually spend 350mil a week extra on the NHS...lol
Leave voters - oh ok
Leave Campaign -
Leave Voters - Yeah, a better NHS!
Leave Campaign (post election) - we didn't mean we'd actually spend 350mil a week extra on the NHS...lol
Leave voters - oh ok
Very good post.
It's a shame Corbyn wasn't allowed to lead a Left leaning brexit and Bernie was not allowed to change the american political landscape.
I think both would have been the best outcomes but to me the status quo had to go, even though they are rolls of the dice.
The Russian stuff is absurd, but people blindly lap it up.
And China has conducted large scale military and industrial espionage in the West for decades.
Ho hum. Russia and China are not our friends. There's nothing surprising in Russia trying to influence the outcome of Western elections in ways favourable to itself. Putin obviously believed he'd have better relations with a Trump administration than one led by Hilary Clinton. So what? Whether that opinion turns out right or wrong, it doesn't make Trump some kind of Russian agent.
The French National Front borrowed money from a Russian bank after being refused loans by establishment banks in the West for political reasons. It's undesirable, but the refusal of French banks to lend to a political party representing a third of the French people caused the problem.
The old USSR also funded left wing parties and groups in the west back in the day. And of course we know many other nations have found various ways to influence elections, public opinion, etc in other countries, nothing new under the sun. Not that it makes it right, was just making sure it was clear I was not pointing fingers only at USSR/Russia. Because you know how some posters get.
Last edited:
pretty much agree. unless the Russians flipped votes to help Trump win, the election should stand.
Still the FBI/CIA need to get to the bottom of this.
we cannot shrug our shoulders though.
Whatever evidence we find needs to be presented to the Russians...and there needs to be a dialogue with them.
Hopefully we have not done the same in other countries.....
Why do you find it absurd ?
The idea that they hacked into voting machines and changed votes. Some tin foil hatter were saying that about the machines being owned by Soros too changing votes for Clinton - what did you think about that?
Maybe not an active agent, but maybe a useful idiot? One that can easily be manipulated due to his short attention span and temper?
Putin, after all, is ex-KGB and he will know how to manipulate Trump.
That's not what the Russian involvement is about though. Its about a campaign to hack emails and publicize them to discredit one candidate and promote another.
Trumps inner circle have suspicious ties to Russia. Look up Manafort who was his ex campaign chairman.
Any evidence the 'Russians did it'?
Plus if all you have against them is they helped publicise actually facts then i'm not sure what the drama is.
Maybe try not to stitch up an nomination in the first place. Or don't fall for simple phising scams and send the word legitimate email when you mean illegitimate email.....
There is much more evidence that it was internal leaks than this unsourced Russian fiasco.
Intelligence services have the evidence apparently and they are obviously not going to release it as it would allow the Russians to figure out how it was obtained.
What do you mean by this? Who stopped him?
Also if promoting one candidate over another is their crime then the UK, especially Sturgeon is much more culpable not only did she endorse Clinton she did it publicly.
We will have to see i suppose but its only the CIA, not intelligence services, pointedly neither the ODNI or the FBI have endorsed the report .
Reuters are also reporting the CIA conclusion is one of induction with no supporting evidence so far other than only democratic material was leaked.
Hardly concrete is it?
We will have to see i suppose but its only the CIA, not intelligence services, pointedly neither the ODNI or the FBI have endorsed the report .
Reuters are also reporting the CIA conclusion is one of induction with no supporting evidence so far other than only democratic material was leaked.
Hardly concrete is it?
Its as concrete as it gets apparently. The CIA have people leaking bits and bobs to the press on a daily basis.
ODNI have not yet endorsed the CIA claim but they do agree that Russian Government directed the hacks.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national
I wouldn't build a house with it in any case.
Again though, this shooting the messenger while ignoring the message is only doing you and your democratic institutions a disservice.
I'm pretty sure the USA have leaked information on other countries internal democratic process from time to time. Maybe even made things up on occasion.
that in itself does not invalidate the election results.
Was there eveidence the hacked emails were manufactured?
ODNI chief Clapper testified in November that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, so it will be interesting to see what has changed in the last few weeks.
It most certainly calls the election results into question if a foreign government proactively interfered and promoted one candidates and attempted to undercut another. As someone recently said, this was a cyber Pearl Harbor, and a massive retaliation is in order.
All they did is publicize emails that show Democrats saying stupid and political embarssing things. If the Democrats didn't want the people to know how stupid and political embarssing they are they should not have put it in writing.
I understand they also tried to hack the Republicans as well. But where either unable to or choose not to release the information. Or perhaps there was enough stupid and politically embarssing stuff on Trump's twitter they did not fell the need to bother.
I don't really care about the substance of the emails. Most people say things on their emails that would be embarrassing if they were published to the world. I'm more interested in the Russian cyber threat for the purpose of disrupting our elections.
Russian intelligence, and probably all other intelligence agencies, keep dossiers on friends and foes since you never know when one will become the other.
The question isn't really whether the DNC info was accurate or not, it's more why does Russia want Trump over HRC? His cabinet picks seem to answer that question.
Since @Raoul responded I'll assume it is OK to talk Clinton in here. Your first post stated a long deep proven history of fraud. That sounds like an awful lot of material and I've kept hearing similar statements. The problem is I've never seen the evidence. Like you've just said, all I've heard is "just google it". You've mentioned one thing here in your follow up post regarding her campaign. In your mind, what proven fact was the most corrupt part of her campaign? Aside from the campaign corruption, what other proof is there? I see the Russian involvement is being discussed below so I'll leave that part. I'll only add that all 17 agencies have stated their involvement in the hack and the more news being released the worse it looks.
Nope. Only a few months ago Barack Obama openly interfered in the British EU referendum campaign, including making serious threats against the UK if Brexit were to win. I don't recall anyone crying foul.
Then I worry about your memory. I remember lots of it and I rarely recall what I had for breakfast.
and Absolutely never Will, let's face it we're all tired of these experts.
Because Trump didn't call for a no fly zone in Syria?
This has been covered ad infinitum
From the hastily withdrawn GOP comments pre election they definitely did successfully hack the Republican servers as well as the Democrats. Now maybe there was nothing embarrassing to release, maybe it suits them to only embarrass the Democrats because Donald suits their goals better which should be very worrying to everyone and maybe even worse, there is some really embarrassing stuff in there and the Russian's are going to hold onto it so long as Donald does whatever Vlad asks.
And the outcome was?
- Status