CIA Assesment: Putin Helped Trump Win

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2016, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. The flood of unvetted or inadequately vetted sources like the World Net Daily and Drudge and Breitbart, plus fake news of foreign and domestic origin and conspiracy sites like Infowars. People having (rightly I think) relied on the mainstream media more or less successfully for decades have found it easy to transfer credibility to anything that looks like a "real" news site. An unedited platform like Facebook makes it easy to circulate this stuff.

Your chosen examples rather invalidate any point you're trying to make.  An attempt to frame the "fake news" (latest talking point alert!) as purely a right wing or GOP issue merely illustrates a partisan agenda on your point that renders your opinions heavily skewed, and thus not worth as much consideration, to anyone who doesn't fully share your point of view.

(12-10-2016, 08:56 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Depending on what kind and how much proof we have this could be military conflict worthy.

Directly impacting our elections is not some little thing. This is targeting our very foundation.

There comes a time when sanctions are not enough. Sometimes you have to whoop that ass.

Yes, let's start a war with Russia because they hacked the DNC and released what the found, potentially.  First rate thinking, I thought the right were supposed to be the hawks?

(12-11-2016, 12:29 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 2.7 million more. If about 100,000 of those votes were in PA, MI, and WI there is a different prez elect. 

She won 21 states. So not really an ass kicking in the other 48. Especially considering she was a horrible candidate. 

Some states are going to vote blue or red regardless of who the candidate is.  This is hardly new or surprising information.  For a Democrat to lose Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is a major ass kicking given how our elections tend to play out.  Any attempts to frame it otherwise is merely wallpapering over the hole in the wall.



As for the Russian "interference" in our election, quite honestly it's much ado about nothing and I'll explain why.  Let's say, for argument's sake, that the story is 100% true, that Russia hacked the DNC for the sole purpose of finding information they could release that would hurt Clinton as they wanted a Trump victory.  Their plan could not succeed unless there was a smoking gun in the hacked material, i.e. evidence of corruption.  They couldn't release something damaging if no such material existed.  Now, if Russia got caught planting evidence or making something up whole cloth then the outrage would be well placed, but that didn't happen.  They hacked material and released it, the material released was factual.  Revealing what a corrupt organization the DNC is/was and how they colluded with Clinton only damages Clinton because it's true.  

[GMDino]

(12-12-2016, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for the Russian "interference" in our election, quite honestly it's much ado about nothing and I'll explain why.  Let's say, for argument's sake, that the story is 100% true, that Russia hacked the DNC for the sole purpose of finding information they could release that would hurt Clinton as they wanted a Trump victory.  Their plan could not succeed unless there was a smoking gun in the hacked material, i.e. evidence of corruption.  They couldn't release something damaging if no such material existed.  Now, if Russia got caught planting evidence or making something up whole cloth then the outrage would be well placed, but that didn't happen.  They hacked material and released it, the material released was factual.  Revealing what a corrupt organization the DNC is/was and how they colluded with Clinton only damages Clinton because it's true.  

I disagree only because lower educated people might believe Clinton wanted "open borders" or that her conversation about having two faces when arguing for a position was her talking about being two faced rather than the more nuanced answers that involve actually reading beyond the highlighted sentence and doing some research.

The statements were indeed "factual" but the interpretation pushed by the opposition was not.

Doesn't take a whole lot to switch over enough people based on half-truths and outright lies.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2016, 12:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree only because lower educated people might believe Clinton wanted "open borders" or that her conversation about having two faces when arguing for a position was her talking about being two faced rather than the more nuanced answers that involve actually reading beyond the highlighted sentence and doing some research.

The statements were indeed "factual" but the interpretation pushed by the opposition was not.

Doesn't take a whole lot to switch over enough people based on half-truths and outright lies.

I'm not a fan of the idea that the general populace is so stupid we have to protect them from information they might misinterpret.  The most damaging information in the DNC hacks was the confirmation, long suspected by many, that the DNC was colluding with Hillary to secure the nomination for her.  It was the most damaging because it was true.  Everything else was garnish.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2016, 12:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not a fan of the idea that the general populace is so stupid we have to protect them from information they might misinterpret.  The most damaging information in the DNC hacks was the confirmation, long suspected by many, that the DNC was colluding with Hillary to secure the nomination for her.  It was the most damaging because it was true.  Everything else was garnish.

So you think that Trump supporters were turned off by Clinton because the DNC wanted her to win more than Sanders?

I don't think any of my friends cared about that whether they supported Clinton or Trump.  It was all what was in her speeches, open borders, and whatever the new headline from Wikileaks was whether they looked into it or not.  

And of course Benghazi and email servers.  Wish someone would have investigated those more.  

You can't "protect" people from information...but it's still true that enough will blindly believe that if someone throws enough stuff at the wall enough will stick.  Heck two weeks before the election people I know were still sharing photos of Clinton with Osama Bin Laden and insisting they were real.  Dumb people get to vote too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2016, 12:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you think that Trump supporters were turned off by Clinton because the DNC wanted her to win more than Sanders?

I don't think any of my friends cared about that whether they supported Clinton or Trump.  It was all what was in her speeches, open borders, and whatever the new headline from Wikileaks was whether they looked into it or not.  

And of course Benghazi and email servers.  Wish someone would have investigated those more.  

You can't "protect" people from information...but it's still true that enough will blindly believe that if someone throws enough stuff at the wall enough will stick.  Heck two weeks before the election people I know were still sharing photos of Clinton with Osama Bin Laden and insisting they were real.  Dumb people get to vote too.

I think the revealed e-mails went a long way towards reinforcing the opinion that Clinton is corrupt and that's how they really hurt her.  Of course, this is not the first time such allegations have been made against her.  Nor were all those allegations totally without merit.  As for low information voters (I prefer that to the utterly condescending, un-educated) they exist in droves on both sides of the aisle.  One need only look at the current news which is rife with tenuous allegations of antisemitism, white supremacy and fear mongering about the inevitability of a racist police state. 

But back to the topic at hand, the DNC hacks only hurt Hillary because they uncovered evidence of corruption on the part of herself and the DNC.  If no such corruption existed then the hacks wouldn't have hurt her.  That's why the outrage over this is well overblown IMO.  No, we don't want foreign countries interfering in our elections, but they couldn't publish what didn't exist.  The information was damaging because it was true, regardless of whether Russia revealed it or Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-10-2016, 08:50 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Do you think emails are on the same level as a foreign government choosing the leader of our country? Or is one maybe worse than the other?

If the Russian did indeed hack the DNC system and post the information, then it's called turn about is fair play.

We did it to them and we have done it to other countries as well, so we have very little room to ***** about it. This is what happens when you continuously stick your nose where it doesn't belong.

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2016, 01:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If the Russian did indeed hack the DNC system and post the information, then it's called turn about is fair play.

We did it to them and we have done it to other countries as well, so we have very little room to ***** about it. This is what happens when you continuously stick your nose where it doesn't belong.

So you don't think we should be doing it at all, but because we have you think it was okay for Russia to do it to us?

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2016, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the revealed e-mails went a long way towards reinforcing the opinion that Clinton is corrupt and that's how they really hurt her.  Of course, this is not the first time such allegations have been made against her.  Nor were all those allegations totally without merit.  As for low information voters (I prefer that to the utterly condescending, un-educated) they exist in droves on both sides of the aisle.  One need only look at the current news which is rife with tenuous allegations of antisemitism, white supremacy and fear mongering about the inevitability of a racist police state. 

But back to the topic at hand, the DNC hacks only hurt Hillary because they uncovered evidence of corruption on the part of herself and the DNC.  If no such corruption existed then the hacks wouldn't have hurt her.  That's why the outrage over this is well overblown IMO.  No, we don't want foreign countries interfering in our elections, but they couldn't publish what didn't exist.  The information was damaging because it was true, regardless of whether Russia revealed it or Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning.

I have to disagree. I mean, I think Russia's involvement is overblown (though I am still pissed about it for a number of reasons), but I don't think the WikiLeaks emails did the damage you are thinking. It did some, but not enough to turn the tides like that. We knew about that corruption before the debates were over and her polling was growing up until after all of that. It was after the debates and we got the Comey letter and some other things that really did her in.

It's one of the reasons I find it so funny when people talk about the media having such a hard-on for Clinton when they killed her. The constant barrage of misinformation about the Comey letter was more damaging to her than anything else, just my opinion. Media from left, right, and center all reported that in a way that was damaging to her and misrepresented what was actually being stated in the letter.

[*bfine32*]

IF it is found that Russia hacked our secure servers and made that information public; then there should be reprocussions. However the whole: "It caused Hillary the election" slant is absurd. Hillary Clinton costed Hillary Clinton the election.

[*bfine32*]

Is anyone outraged that that "dude" made Cindy Brady's personal message to him, public?

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2016, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IF it is found that Russia hacked our secure servers and made that information public; then there should be reprocussions. However the whole: "It caused Hillary the election" slant is absurd. Hillary Clinton costed Hillary Clinton the election.

Well, her and the DNC. There was damage done by external sources, but the damage would not have been a death blow were it not for the DNC's lack of focus on the working class.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-12-2016, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you don't think we should be doing it at all, but because we have you think it was okay for Russia to do it to us?

I never said it was OK, but you can't whine and moan when someone does it back to you. Suck it up and figure out how to prevent it in the future. If you have never done it to someone else, then you have a valid talking point.

Do you think it's ok for us to try to control the outcome of elections/or interfering in other countries including countries such as Russia? If so, then what is your excuse for tampering in another countries elections?

I find it amusing that the Saudi's have been trying to control US elections for years, and now just because Russia might/might not have tried it, you want to complain? So many hypocrites so little time.

[Aquapod770]

(12-10-2016, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I wouldn't say standards have been destroyed. I think there are still many reliable media news sources.  There is definitely a problem though, and I think it comes from three directions.

[*wildcats forever*]

(12-12-2016, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to disagree. I mean, I think Russia's involvement is overblown (though I am still pissed about it for a number of reasons), but I don't think the WikiLeaks emails did the damage you are thinking. It did some, but not enough to turn the tides like that. We knew about that corruption before the debates were over and her polling was growing up until after all of that. It was after the debates and we got the Comey letter and some other things that really did her in.

It's one of the reasons I find it so funny when people talk about the media having such a hard-on for Clinton when they killed her. The constant barrage of misinformation about the Comey letter was more damaging to her than anything else, just my opinion. Media from left, right, and center all reported that in a way that was damaging to her and misrepresented what was actually being stated in the letter.

The "corruption" by the DNC during the primaries was the beginning of the end for Clinton, as the damage to Sanders was so obvious that it began to undermine any support Clinton was trying to gain. Here we are now, some 6 months later, and all of a sudden this is some big revelation? File this under further distractions, as to divert eyes away from what is really happening with the assemblage of the new regime. 

[GMDino]

(12-12-2016, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is anyone outraged that that "dude" made Cindy Brady's  personal message to him, public?

Little off topic...

But I'm not personally outraged because she used a PM to accuse some of being afraid to do something face to face or in public.

Also it was sent to him.  He didn't get hacked and someone else used it to try and make the sender look bad.

[tigerseye]

The establishment will use every bullet they have to keep Trump out. (Hopefully not literally)

It's amazing.

How dare he say he is going to do what is best for the USA.

The establishment thought they had a death grip on everything and they now refuse to give it up.

The latest attempt "it was the Russians" when that doesn't work it will be something else.

The Main Stream Propaganda use to report verified news, now they make it up. Until there is verified evidence, you have to assume that it is another made up story.

I'm sure that individuals within the CIA are part of the establishment. (TPTB)

Credibility at this point seems to be rare. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2016, 02:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, her and the DNC. There was damage done by external sources, but the damage would not have been a death blow were it not for the DNC's lack of focus on the working class.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Hillary's "deplorables" comment killed her.

[*wildcats forever*]

(12-12-2016, 02:36 PM)tigerseye Wrote: The establishment will use every bullet they have to keep Trump out. (Hopefully not literally)

It's amazing.

How dare he say he is going to do what is best for the USA.

The establishment thought they had a death grip on everything and they now refuse to give it up.

The latest attempt "it was the Russians" when that doesn't work it will be something else.

The Main Stream Propaganda use to report verified news, now they make it up. Until there is verified evidence, you have to assume that it is another made up story.

I'm sure that individuals within the CIA are part of the establishment. (TPTB)

Credibility at this point seems to be rare. 

The "Establishment" is the Senate, the House, and even the majority of all state Governors. They are all GOP. You know, the powers that be. And I can actually believe that 'TPTB' truly do want Trump gone, replaced with Pence. With Pence, they can do some serious time travel back to the '50s.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2016, 02:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: Little off topic...

But I'm not personally outraged because she used a PM to accuse some of being afraid to do something face to face or in public.

Also it was sent to him.  He didn't get hacked and someone else used it to try and make the sender look bad.

Admittedly the relevence is thin until you read reports from Media outlets that feel the need to mention Cindy was a Trump Supporter; then the relevence becomes clearer. Then you have a 3rd party trying to make a 4th party look bad because of a personal correspondence.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2016, 02:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Admittedly the relevence is thin until you read reports from Media outlets that feel the need to mention Cindy was a Trump Supporter; then the relevence becomes clearer. Then you have a 3rd party trying to make a 4th party look bad because of a personal correspondence.

Eh, I read it as she's a ***** and doesn't like when people talk bad about her.  I guess being a Trump supporter would fall in line then.

I don't see it the same as hacked correspondence being used to show someone in a bad light...especially when a lot of the "news" was taken out of context and poorly researched.