![]() |
Russia and our election - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Russia and our election (/Thread-Russia-and-our-election) |
Russia and our election - ballsofsteel - 07-06-2017 Good morning. 17 of our intelligence agencies reported that Russia interfered in our elections. This is a fact that even the right doesn't deny now. Correct me if I'm mistaken. By "interfering" , the Russians hacked and released emails of Hillary Clinton's and her staff saying negative and inflammatory things about different people. They also put out thousands of FAKE news stories on facebook and various websites, claiming Clinton or people associated with Clinton did unsavory things. OK so far? This fact. There is no evidence that Trump or his campaign had anything to do with this. At least at this time. The Trump mouthpieces insist that all this Russian meddling had no outcome on the elections and the Russians Tampering didn't change any of the votes cast. By "didn't change any of the votes", the Trumpsters keep referring to the fact that the Russians didn't hack into any of the voting machine to physically change any votes in Trump's favor. So far accurate? Now your telling me that all that ONE SIDED negative email leaking and derogatory fake news about Clinton didn't change anyone's mind about who they were going to vote for before they walked into that voting booth? I say bullshit. Clinton's poor campaigning had nothing to do with the above. Minds were changed. You had two bad candidates. There were alot of people on the bubble in the two weeks leading up to Nov. 7. For Right to act like this is no big deal is amazing. RE: Russia and our election - Benton - 07-06-2017 I don't think it had much of an impact. Clinton wasn't a good opponent. There was a huge chunk that wasn't going to vote for her period. There were people who wouldn't vote for a woman, people who wouldn't vote for a democrat, people who were pretty mislead by the anti-obama propaganda. Anyone dumb enough to vote for a candidate vowing to repeal his lone healthcare source because he thinks nothing is better than something is not going to look too much into email scandals. RE: Russia and our election - GMDino - 07-06-2017 NPR had a story this morning that 25% of people still don't even believe the Russians were involved. RE: Russia and our election - Vlad - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 07:11 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Good morning. 17 of our intelligence agencies reported that Russia interfered in our elections. This is a fact that even the right doesn't deny now. Her blaming the Russians is in there somewhere. ![]() What you need to understand is that leaks are different from fake news. Leaks are pretty much truth. The attempt to undermine the Bernie Sanders campaign by the corrupt DNC was real. James Comey's testifying that Hillary indeed was in violation of her handling of sensitive emails was not fake news. Hillary is a scheming self serving wench who thought she was entitled to the presidency. She was rightfully exposed, and only then did people know what they were getting. With Trump at least you knew what you were getting from the beginning. RE: Russia and our election - GMDino - 07-06-2017 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/06/trump-eve-putin-meeting-says-nobody-really-knows-russian-hacking/454436001/ Quote:Trump, on eve of Putin meeting, says 'nobody really knows' about Russian hacking RE: Russia and our election - Dill - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 09:07 AM)Vlad Wrote: What you need to understand is that leaks are different from fake news. Yes, a vindictive man child who knows nothing about how the government works or how to govern. "Self-serving" and "scheming" don't bother you at all if you voted for Trump, who is setting presidential records for profiting while in office. And Trump does not agree that "leaks are pretty much truth"--not when they are coming from his own White House. No one who calls the entire MSM "fake news" is interested in "truth." When it comes to Hillary, Trumpsters have no problem seeing her behavior as a source of her problems, even when reported by "anonymous sources." Suddenly "truth" and "facts" are everywhere. But its fake news when the MSM reports what Donald publicly says and does. RE: Russia and our election - Dill - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 07:11 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Two quick points: 1. There is more to the Russian interference: 1) there was a decided effort to hack into state elections, and a company providing software for state elections was hacked.https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/13/15791744/russia-election-39-states-hack-putin-trump-sessions. 2) One recent strand of investigation follows the trail of long time Clinton foe Peter Smith (now deceased) who was apparently seeking hacked emails to funnel to General Flynn. https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851 2. I agree that the Russian interference had a great deal of influence on the election (though Comey's actions might have had more). The Trump campaign and Fox evidently thought the hacked emails had an effect on the election because they campaigned on them. Do you campaign on an issue that you think won't make a difference? It is only after the election, to shore up Trump's legitimacy, do we now get the counter narrative that it had no effect. Hillary was the front runner in fall of 2015, but the fallout from the Benghazi investigation plus the Russian interference gave Trump the victory. Now we have an incompetent reality show star in office. This one is really on the American voters, both those who voted for Trump and those who decided not to vote at all. Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - StLucieBengal - 07-06-2017 http://www.dailywire.com/news/18162/another-day-another-russia-retraction-—-time-john-nolte Not 17 agencies..... just 4. Quote:Another Day, Another Russia Retraction — This Time From Maggie Haberman At NYT RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - michaelsean - 07-06-2017 Real journalism just keeps dying. She obviously did nothing to corroborate this. She just assumed it was true, and really wanted it to be true. The stupid thing is that the 4 that signed off on it are a pretty big 4 and would have made it no less compelling. RE: Russia and our election - michaelsean - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 07:11 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Good morning. 17 of our intelligence agencies reported that Russia interfered in our elections. This is a fact that even the right doesn't deny now. Which 17? (i unbolded the part I am referring to.) RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - GMDino - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 12:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Real journalism just keeps dying. She obviously did nothing to corroborate this. She just assumed it was true, and really wanted it to be true. The stupid thing is that the 4 that signed off on it are a pretty big 4 and would have made it no less compelling. Actually it had been verified that all 17 contributed but not all 17 signed off on it. But hey...Clinton. RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - michaelsean - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually it had been verified that all 17 contributed but not all 17 signed off on it. Correct and ? RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - Belsnickel - 07-06-2017 Isn't Haberman the only one at NYT that Trump likes? Or am I thinking of someone else? RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - StLucieBengal - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Isn't Haberman the only one at NYT that Trump likes? Or am I thinking of someone else? She was shown to be one of the Clinton sympathizers at the NYT. Through the Wikileaks emails. RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - michaelsean - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually it had been verified that all 17 contributed but not all 17 signed off on it. There's a few of the 17 that I'd be asking why they were involved. RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - GMDino - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 03:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There's a few of the 17 that I'd be asking why they were involved. Which? http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-17-intelligence-agencies-20170112-story.html And why? RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - michaelsean - 07-06-2017 I didn't need no link. I'm not some crazy out there yelling 17 AGENCIES!!!!!!! without knowing who they are. DEA. Dept of Energy. Geo-Spatial Intelligence. Air Force Intelligence. Marine Corp Intelligence. Dept of Treasury Intelligence. NRO RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - GMDino - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 03:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't need no link. I'm not some crazy out there yelling 17 AGENCIES!!!!!!! without knowing who they are. DEA: I'm thinking it had to be just to get their opinion of the info that had been gathered to that point. Geo-Spatial: Was that to figure the areas the data was coming from? AF Intelligence: Same as above? Marine Corp: From the link: " intercept and translate radio and electronic signals, analyze images collected from sensors and carry out counterintelligence." Dept of Treasury: Again, from the link: "Today the Office of Intelligence and Analysis sits within the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which works to prevent sanctioned countries, money launderers, terrorists, drug kingpins and purveyors of weapons of mass destruction from parking or moving their money through the U.S. financial system." NRO: Again from the link: "The office designs, builds and operates the nation’s reconnaissance satellites, providing the Pentagon, CIA and others precision navigation, early warning of missile launches and near real-time imagery to support anti-terrorism activities." So maybe it was a group effort. Maybe it was to make sure what they had was what they had? I'd say the more people involved without some giant disagreement just adds to the certainty. RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - michaelsean - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 04:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: DEA: I'm thinking it had to be just to get their opinion of the info that had been gathered to that point. I'm happy with the big 3 or 4 saying something. I'm thinking several of those had little or nothing to do with it which is fine. I'm not more impressed because the Coast Guard agrees. RE: Another Russia retraction: this time by the NYT - GMDino - 07-06-2017 (07-06-2017, 04:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm happy with the big 3 or 4 saying something. I'm thinking several of those had little or nothing to do with it which is fine. I'm not more impressed because the Coast Guard agrees. I wonder if that is why the POTUS doesn't believe it? ![]() |