cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Those immoral defects are not issued. lolStandard issue for a politician these days.
Those immoral defects are not issued. lolStandard issue for a politician these days.
Since when is the Washington Post a "fake news site"?
I wish people would stop posting what he denies/accepts. He denies everything that is bad about him and agrees with everything that is good. He hasn't got an honest bone in his body. Standard issue for a politician these days.
Dude, I am not going to argue with you.Agreed! Personally, I see people who think it is demeaning to their favorite, but don't seem to care in the least that there may have been interference in our election process.
I don't care who got elected. If there WAS interference, every US Citizen deserves to know. An investigation should not be quashed just because it might reveal the results of such actions favored one candidate or another. The point is, IF there was interference, it IS dangerous to our democracy. And, in fact, an investigation now has bipartisan support - as it should, IMO.
I agree with you that Russia would not have wanted HRC in office. Yet, there are also stories about Trump business ties to Russia, and Exxon certainly has ties there - so why would Trump be considering the CEO of Exxon for Secretary of State when there is so great a potential for conflict of interest?
He doesn't have business ties to Russia. He's done business with people from Russia. To say this amounts to having business ties to a foreign country is like saying anyone on this forum who has used an immigrant contractor for landscaping or duct cleaning has business ties to Mexico.
As for the Exxon CEO...I don't care about potential conflict of interest. There are more important things to be concerned with at the moment. I care about the ability of the SoS to engage in successful diplomacy and avoid calamities like ISIS et. al. In this respect, being Exxon CEO is a plus because he has experience negotiating with the applicable parties and working with the applicable governments and actually getting results.
While in general I agree with what you said, I do not see any reason to believe that Russia would necessarily expose truth. I question Russian honesty from the get go as they may (or may not) have doctored things to discredit the side they wanted to lose. As I see it, Americans should be hopping mad IF there was ANY Russian influence at all whether that exposed actual truth, and Americans should be absolutely furious if Russians doctored things to favor one side over the other and then those same Americans fell for it.
Democrats didn't deny the contents of any of the emails and people who were specifically named in them (Donna Brazile, for example) were fired once the emails were leaked. Russia isn't the enemy. The U.S. media, establishment politicians, and large parts of corporate America are.
Nobody needs to trust a single thing out of Russia when we get to see the narrative crafted before our very eyes.
Since they said Trump's comments about unregulated immigration bringing in rapists and murderers were incorrect. And this, among other things.
I'd pull more links, but I've hit the monthly limit for "free" reads and will have to wait for January view further WaPo content.
He said he would win. He did. He said he would get Carrier to keep jobs in the US. He did. He said he would renegotiate NAFTA, Mexico and Canada have stepped up to the plate.
That's a lot of follow-through for someone who only tells lies. Methinks you need to go back to college and retake that marketing class you skipped.
Read the title, a few lines in and knew exactly who posted this... Rob Thubron.
Can we please keep politics out of this tech site? Everyone has their opinion and ready to argue it. Why start a firestorm?
I agree with Bigtruckseries.
And seefizzle is talking out of both sides of his mouth; oh boy...and then he links to Washington Compost. I feel queasy.
First you link to a fake news site...
That's a lot of follow-through for someone who only tells lies. Methinks you need to go back to college and retake that marketing class you skipped.
Dude, I am not going to argue with you.
From your comments, you seem to think that Trump, though he is not even in office yet, has accomplished all his campaign promises.
This is just a desperate attempt by the Establishment media to con the public into thinking that criminal Hillary Clinton should be the President.
If you repeat a LIE enough eventually you'll get weak minded people to believe it. There's no way to hack voting machines globally simply because they are "standalone units" without a central network.
Hackers would have to physically be at each machine ready to hack them simultaneously.
That is the reason why individual polling places have to report the numbers. There is no networking that allows them all to simply communicate with some central server.
This is just a failed attempt to cast more doubt on the system in order to attempt to undermine it.
Yet another failure in a string of failures.
Hillary's private (illegal) server got hacked. Had she NOT had the server, it would've been far more difficult to hack the Government servers. But she didn't want us hearing or seeing what she was doing- which in my mind: disqualified her from being POTUS. She committed a crime by destroying government property and obstruction of justice.
I'd love to have someone from The View, Bill Maher Real Time, CNN or MSNBC- on live television to explain exactly how the computer technology in the voting booth actually works.
I already know that they can't, but it would be fun just to watch them try.
Maybe the president should actually settle down on the excuse as to why he feels that Hillary lost (again) and stick to it.
So far I've heard:
A) unfair media attention
B) racist white voters
C) sexist male voters
D) The electoral college is unfair
And a whole list of other bullshit that I didn't believe either...
I don't think anyone is claiming that Russia hacked all the voting machines so you can just stop with that nonsense.
Hillary's server did get hacked, (probably by the russians) but that's not even what anyone is talking about either.
The two biggest issues I've been hearing about are how the DNC's servers were hacked and the data subsequently releaesed, and how the Russians were planting fake news stories and had armies of trolls posting comments all over American websites. You have said nothing to address these issues. If you'd like here's a link that explains the fake news stories. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...3903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html
What you've done with your comment is to simply create a series of positions to defend against, none of which have much bearing on what's actually going on right now. It's easy to defend against someone else's position when you make up that position for them.
Currently, it is not in question whether or not the Russians interfered with this election, the only thing that's debatable is the degree to which they did. The fact that a foreign country is interfering in our elections should enrage every single American. Trump seems to ignore all of this, while chastising the intelligence community, all the while having deep business ties in Russia. There are a lot of facts that one would have to ignore to think that there is nothing wrong here.
You're chastising the other poster for his claims, yet you make numerous claims without any proof? Are you on the DNC's payroll or something? The CIA claims Russia was involved, yet it says they don't have any evidence and can name no persons responsible. The FBI doesn't even agree with them. That's pretty shaky having no evidence...yet you believe it? That's akin to all the fake rape accusers without any evidence...then later admit they made up the story. Or all the hoax hate/race crimes liberals are reporting...then admit they did it themselves. The OP is correct...this is just another excuse, in a long list of failed excuses, for why Hillary lost. They're also trying to divert attention away from all the corruption & lies found in the exposed emails of Hillary and the DNC.
You can keep your head in the sand all you want and blame it on the whiners. Personally I don't give a **** who is president. I'm glad Hillary lost. I voted for Deez Nuts. That said, here is some more proof. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/ You might also listen to this: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-12-12/investigations-of-russian-election-related-hacking
You, my friend, are the one with his head in the sand by making claims and denouncing others when there is no proof. And your links are not proof that trump the CIA's admission that they have no evidence or persons responsible. No reputable attorney, DA, or AG would walk into court with that.
You can keep your head in the sand all you want and blame it on the whiners. Personally I don't give a **** who is president. I'm glad Hillary lost. I voted for Deez Nuts. That said, here is some more proof. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/ You might also listen to this: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-12-12/investigations-of-russian-election-related-hacking
You, my friend, are the one with his head in the sand by making claims and denouncing others when there is no proof. And your links are not proof that trump the CIA's admission that they have no evidence or persons responsible. No reputable attorney, DA, or AG would walk into court with that.
You, my friend, are the one with his head in the sand by making claims and denouncing others when there is no proof. And your links are not proof that trump the CIA's admission that they have no evidence or persons responsible. No reputable attorney, DA, or AG would walk into court with that.
You clearly didn't listen to that program. It's 48 minutes long. There's no way that you could have listened to it. Someone during the show states very clearly, exactly in the manner that you have that there is no proof... one of the security experts on the panel then goes on and on and lists a lot of very technical proof. Technical to the degree that a reader on this site could probably appreciate. If you're not interested in hearing it, that's on you.
Did you see the movie "Man of the Year" with Robin Williams? He plays a John Stewart type that runs for president. Later, he finds out that he won because there was an error in the voting machines. He abdicates the results and goes back to his private life.
Here's what I'm getting at: The integrity of the system is far more important than if Trump or Hillary won. Just look at the many developing countries that constantly dispute election results or have endless riots as a result. The US doesn't do that.
If Russia has succeeded in hacking the voting system then that is a grave and persistent threat to America. At best it will undermine the integrity of the democratic process. At worst it will lead to puppet leaders (like electing a man who has deep ties with Russian oligarchs (and hence Putin) for capital financing...)
You clearly didn't listen to that program. It's 48 minutes long. There's no way that you could have listened to it. Someone during the show states very clearly, exactly in the manner that you have that there is no proof... one of the security experts on the panel then goes on and on and lists a lot of very technical proof. Technical to the degree that a reader on this site could probably appreciate. If you're not interested in hearing it, that's on you.
Do you think anything happens from all this Russia hacking bullshit? Or do you think it will all blow over? I'm not interested in arguing over semantics all night. I think bottom line, the only thing that matters is whether or not something comes out of it. In that regard, I don't think anything will happen so none of this **** matters all that much. In the meantime, Trump hasn't even taken office, yet he's already managed to piss off the Chinese. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/1...after-trump-taiwan-call-us-officials-say.html
We have at least 4 years of embarrassing bullshit to look forward to.
Factcheck.org is a highly reputable website. It cites 19 different sources that have reached the same conclusion. As an attorney, I'd say the vast majority of cases I get have far less credible evidence then this to go by.
Nobody reasonable is questioning that Russia undermined the US election. The important question is to what extent? If all they did was use email leaks and fake news stories, yeah, that sucks. But it's probably not anything worth starting a cold war over. If they intentionally hacked and manipulated a presidential election? That would be arguably the greatest crime against America in 80 years.
You clearly didn't listen to that program. It's 48 minutes long. There's no way that you could have listened to it. Someone during the show states very clearly, exactly in the manner that you have that there is no proof... one of the security experts on the panel then goes on and on and lists a lot of very technical proof. Technical to the degree that a reader on this site could probably appreciate. If you're not interested in hearing it, that's on you.
Do you think anything happens from all this Russia hacking bullshit? Or do you think it will all blow over? I'm not interested in arguing over semantics all night. I think bottom line, the only thing that matters is whether or not something comes out of it. In that regard, I don't think anything will happen so none of this **** matters all that much. In the meantime, Trump hasn't even taken office, yet he's already managed to piss off the Chinese. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/1...after-trump-taiwan-call-us-officials-say.html
We have at least 4 years of embarrassing bullshit to look forward to.Factcheck.org is a highly reputable website. It cites 19 different sources that have reached the same conclusion. As an attorney, I'd say the vast majority of cases I get have far less credible evidence then this to go by.
Nobody reasonable is questioning that Russia undermined the US election. The important question is to what extent? If all they did was use email leaks and fake news stories, yeah, that sucks. But it's probably not anything worth starting a cold war over. If they intentionally hacked and manipulated a presidential election? That would be arguably the greatest crime against America in 80 years.
Really? You'd go to court with no evidence or proof? Until the CIA presents evidence, all your links and 'experts' are spitballing. It's that simple.
As for pissing off the Chinese...so what? They're sabre rattling and you know it. Why do you cower to the Chinese, like a snowflake grabbing his blanky and safety pin?
And yes...this 'Red Scare' will blow over...as soon as the public gets fed up with this BS. Then the left will move on to another 'crisis'. Or did you miss all the furor over the recount that's petering out because it's a farce too?
Really? You'd go to court with no evidence or proof? Until the CIA presents evidence, all your links and 'experts' are spitballing. It's that simple.
I literally go to court on accusatory instruments with far, far less evidence than this on an almost daily basis. A criminal complaint only requires a person to make an accusation. "He punched me" is enough to charge someone (and convict them) of a assault. You're type of reasoning is what's been coined the "CSI Effect" by criminal law attorneys. You simply don't understand the criminal justice system.
With that said: They have an outstanding amount of evidence. Have you read the private firm research? Have you seen the academic papers that show how you hack these machines? For serious reasons, the CIA will not divulge all of it's sources for security purposes. Suffice to say, they have provided evidence in internal briefings with high ranking federal politicians.
Really? You'd go to court with no evidence or proof? Until the CIA presents evidence, all your links and 'experts' are spitballing. It's that simple.I literally go to court on accusatory instruments with far, far less evidence than this on an almost daily basis. A criminal complaint only requires a person to make an accusation. "He punched me" is enough to charge someone (and convict them) of a assault. You're type of reasoning is what's been coined the "CSI Effect" by criminal law attorneys. You simply don't understand the criminal justice system.
With that said: They have an outstanding amount of evidence. Have you read the private firm research? Have you seen the academic papers that show how you hack these machines? For serious reasons, the CIA will not divulge all of it's sources for security purposes. Suffice to say, they have provided evidence in internal briefings with high ranking federal politicians.
You said:
"He punched me" is enough to charge someone (and convict them) of a assault."
-- Absolute BS. You're not an attorney...you're just pretending to be one to puff yourself up. Or maybe you are an attorney...what we call an 'ambulance chaser' or one that files frivolous suits. Yes, anyone can be charged or sued for just about anything, but proof is required for a conviction. Look it up in your 'Lawyering for Dummies' book.
But let's take your ignorance seriously, just for fun:
1) Under your 'legal expertise', one can be convicted, without proof, based on a claim only. That's exactly what you said. Never mind all that legal stuff about 'innocent until proven guilty', one of the pillars of our legal system, right?
2) So if I accuse you of rape, but have no proof, no witnesses, no evidence...nothing, I can expect that a court & jury will convict you? Based on what? My tearful accusation?
Maybe you live in a banana republic, 3rd world craphole...but that's not the way it works in the US legal system, unless you get a jury of SWJ snowflakes who convict on emotion instead of proof...and that sounds like you, emotionally worked up over this fake Russian vote tampering.
I've wasted enough time with you now. You are dismissed, but have my permission to continue ranting into the wind.
Ignorance and arrogance go together?