- Awards
- 21
Trump's pissed-off over press conference
- Thread starter Snarky Oracle!
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
- Awards
- 21
It must be true -- not only going by Donald Trump's "I'm a germaphobe!" defense, but the KGB still routinely tape outsiders in hotel rooms having sex, and the fact that Wikileaks (as it were) released the Russians' hacking data regarding the DNC and Hillary Clinton, but held onto the Republicans' data they hacked -- as if to hold it for purposes of potential blackmail.
And then the Republicans win both houses of Congress and the White House for the first time in nearly 90 years???
And because those Diebold machines which the GOP wanted rolled out (so Dubya could steal another election) can't be audited or leave a paper trail, we'll never know whether Putin hacked the actual election in the key battleground states or not. At least, not for sure.
But if the Kremlin is holding sex tapes on Trump (and dirt on other Congressman) in order to control their actions, well.... the 2016 election is just a gift that keeps on giving.
Or, to put it this way:
And then the Republicans win both houses of Congress and the White House for the first time in nearly 90 years???
And because those Diebold machines which the GOP wanted rolled out (so Dubya could steal another election) can't be audited or leave a paper trail, we'll never know whether Putin hacked the actual election in the key battleground states or not. At least, not for sure.
But if the Kremlin is holding sex tapes on Trump (and dirt on other Congressman) in order to control their actions, well.... the 2016 election is just a gift that keeps on giving.
Or, to put it this way:
- Awards
- 9
But how certain are we that the CIA is telling the truth about Russia? Our government told us that Iraq had WMDs too...
The fact that evidence of Russia's alleged hacking is classified is suspect too. Obama's increased NSA surveillance was kept hidden from us until Snowden, so I take everything my government tells me with a grain of salt. Obviously somebody hacked and released the emails to Wikileaks, and there have been suspicions that the RNC was hacked as well. Russia just seems like an easy scapegoat because of Trump's ties to Putin.
When Mitt Romney used Russian scare tactics in 2012, he was mocked for it. Now Democrats are doing the same thing. The Diebold machines are another problem entirely, although I have a hard time believing they were hacked so precisely in the states Hillary needed to win. I've also heard that there are ways to tell if the machines have been hacked into, and nothing has come to light in that regard. If any such hacking had been discovered, you can bet your bottom dollar that the DNC would have made it front page news by now. Instead, they have misleading headlines published claiming Russia "hacked" the election instead of the DNC's emails.
Could Russia have done the hacking? Yes. But Democrats have become just as good liars as Republicans, and have failed to give us the transparency they promised. Thus, I'm skeptical of anything they tell me. They also have a vested interest in deflecting blame for their losses. If they can put all of the blame on Russia and deplorable voters, they don't have to take responsibility for their neoliberal policies and poorly run campaigns.
The fact that evidence of Russia's alleged hacking is classified is suspect too. Obama's increased NSA surveillance was kept hidden from us until Snowden, so I take everything my government tells me with a grain of salt. Obviously somebody hacked and released the emails to Wikileaks, and there have been suspicions that the RNC was hacked as well. Russia just seems like an easy scapegoat because of Trump's ties to Putin.
When Mitt Romney used Russian scare tactics in 2012, he was mocked for it. Now Democrats are doing the same thing. The Diebold machines are another problem entirely, although I have a hard time believing they were hacked so precisely in the states Hillary needed to win. I've also heard that there are ways to tell if the machines have been hacked into, and nothing has come to light in that regard. If any such hacking had been discovered, you can bet your bottom dollar that the DNC would have made it front page news by now. Instead, they have misleading headlines published claiming Russia "hacked" the election instead of the DNC's emails.
Could Russia have done the hacking? Yes. But Democrats have become just as good liars as Republicans, and have failed to give us the transparency they promised. Thus, I'm skeptical of anything they tell me. They also have a vested interest in deflecting blame for their losses. If they can put all of the blame on Russia and deplorable voters, they don't have to take responsibility for their neoliberal policies and poorly run campaigns.
- Awards
- 21
So it's all still about Hillary.
- Awards
- 9
Funny how my fellow liberals enjoyed my posts back in the day. There certainly were no complaints that my posts were "all about Bush." To me, being liberal means more than just towing the party line.
That said, very little of what I said here had to do with Hillary. It was mostly about having a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to what the government tells us. Thanks to Wikileaks and whistle blowers, we know the government doesn't always tell us what they're doing behind the scenes. In fact, they sometimes lie to us completely. When it comes to the information released about Trump, Buzzfeed said it was unverified.
IMO, the most troubling part of the story is how Trump wants to censor and control the press.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 4
Even Comey's FBI along with 15 other agencies all agree that Russia hacked the elections not to mention Trump finally admitting to it.
How certain are we? How certain can any of us ever be? Do we have any means to verify the findings of the intelligence agencies?
What's the point of having them if their findings are going to be rejected point blank because they don't suit one's political narrative?
And thanks to Julian Assange - who's despised and attempted to harm Hillary Clinton for years - we know even Wikileaks has their own agenda and will gladly withhold information or lie if it suits them. They have zero credibility.
Because the whole purpose of hacking the DNC was influencing the elections. Why else would the Russians hack the DNC then to try to discredit Hillary Clinton and ensure her loss in the election?
The media have clearly reported the intelligence agencies agree there is no evidence of the voting machines actually being penetrated by the Russians.
But the results of the hacking (i.e. the leaking of DNC emails), not to mention Comey's unprecedented 11th hour breaking of the Hatch Act, could have easily pushed Trump over the edge to give him his razor-thin victory margin in EC.
John Lewis is right. Trump is not a legitimate president. How fitting for the era of fake news, the US would get a fake president.
On top of Putin's personal grudge against Clinton (something he and Assange have in common), Russia seems like the culprit because of Exxon's record-breaking 2012 deal giving that company drilling potential that dwarfs what they have in the US, Canda and other countries combined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/b...sian-oil-company-agree-to-joint-projects.html
That deal came to a crashing halt thanks to the sanctions implemented by the Obama administration.
Puttin's buddy Tillerson - who had traveled to Moscow despite State Department's recommendation that he not do so and then publicly mocked Obama's State Department on Russian soil and got a thumbs up from the laughing Russians - was going to be nominated for the SOS position from the get-go despite all that dog and pony show with Romney and others.
Putin - who is as John McCain puts it "a thug and a murderer", because that's how he deals with political opponents - is eager to jump-start his country's struggling economy, not to mention fill his own coffers that already make him the world's richest man. And he would not have been able to do so under Hillary Clinton.
Surprise, surprise... Trump's already talking about lifting those sanctions, saying on Friday: "If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?"
Last edited:
- Awards
- 21
And the award for Soapchat Post of the Year for 2017 goes to Gabriel Maxwell!Even Comey's FBI along with 15 other agencies all agree that Russia hacked the elections not to mention Trump finally admitting to it.
How certain are we? How certain can any of us ever be? Do we have any means to verify the findings of the intelligence agencies?
What's the point of having them if their findings are going to be rejected point blank because they don't suit one's political narrative?
And thanks to Julian Assange - who's despised and attempted to harm Hillary Clinton for years - we know even Wikileaks has their own agenda and will gladly withhold information or lie if it suits them. They have zero credibility.
Because the whole purpose of hacking the DNC was influencing the elections. Why else would the Russians hack the DNC then to try to discredit Hillary Clinton and ensure her loss in the election?
The media have clearly reported the intelligence agencies agree there is no evidence of the voting machines actually being penetrated by the Russians.
But the results of the hacking (i.e. the leaking of DNC emails), not to mention Comey's unprecedented 11th hour breaking of the Hatch Act, could have easily pushed Trump over the edge to give him his razor-thin victory margin in EC.
John Lewis is right. Trump is not a legitimate president. How fitting for the era of fake news, the US would get a fake president.
On top of Putin's personal grudge against Clinton (something he and Assange have in common), Russia seems like the culprit because of Exxon's record-breaking 2012 deal giving that company drilling potential that dwarfs what they have in the US, Canda and other countries combined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/b...sian-oil-company-agree-to-joint-projects.html
That deal came to a crashing halt thanks to the sanctions implemented by the Obama administration.
Puttin's buddy Tillerson - who had traveled to Moscow despite State Department's recommendation that he not do so and then publicly mocked Obama's State Department on Russian soil and got a thumbs up from the laughing Russians - was going to be nominated for the SOS position from the get-go despite all that dog and pony show with Romney and others.
Putin - who is as John McCain puts it "a thug and a murderer", because that's how he deals with political opponents - is eager to jump-start his country's struggling economy, not to mention fill his own coffers that already make him the world's richest man. And he would not have been able to do so under Hillary Clinton.
Surprise, surprise... Trump's already talking about lifting those sanctions, saying on Friday: "If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?"
- Awards
- 9
I never said I rejected them "point blank," I said I was skeptical of the findings. I even said Russia could have done it, but when both sides hide and lie about their activities, it's hard to trust them.
Everybody rolls their eyes at me when I claim that neoliberalism and lack of campaigning in the rust belt contributed to Hillary's loss. Could that be because it doesn't suit the opposing "political narrative" here?
All of that may be true, but the credibility of the information they chose to release is intact. I want transparency across the board, so I do condemn them for withholding information about Trump and the RNC.
Oh, I'm sure the goal was to hurt Hillary's chances. At the same time, it's hard for me to feel sorry for Hillary and the DNC after seeing what was in those emails. I don't condone the method used to obtain them, but it was the sort of transparency I believe we deserve. I just wish we had had the same access to Trump and the RNC's activities. Neither party could be so blatant in their biases if their activities were public.
Although some Democrats still speculate that they did.
I believe a multitude of things pushed Trump over the edge. Until the antiquated electoral college is abolished, I'm afraid Trump's presidency is legitimate. At least he wasn't appointed by the Supreme Court.
You make some excellent points. I never completely dismissed the idea that Russia was behind the hacking. But like you said about Wikileaks lacking credibility, so does the federal government.
Of course, the truth comes out now and then too if it suits them.
- Awards
- 21
Everyone knows the CIA lies at least as much as the Kremlin.
No, everybody doesn't roll their eyes at you for that. But, face it, it's your go-to point for everything. (Yes, of course we bashed Bush like crazy 24/7, but he was president -- in a stolen two-term presidency, no less -- and Hillary won't be in the White House at all. So it's different).BD Calhoun said:
Listen, pretty much everything you've said about Hillary Clinton is true. And some of us have said so. But it's also pretty much the only thing you want to discuss. And if I use the term "myopic" I'm going to sound like one of the rightwingers.
- Awards
- 9
Exactly.
I slip in criticisms of Trump, though they go mostly unnoticed. I've attacked Trump over his treatment of immigrants and Muslims, and said his foreign policy is extremely hawkish. I've also made posts directly about what right wingers want to do to Social Security and Medicare, why Trump's cabinet picks are atrocious, and how his constant need to belittle people is petulant and disgusting. And while we're on the subject of Russia, I even made a post about how it was wrong of Trump to cheer them on in hacking the DNC's emails. I may not post about Trump as often as Hillary, but I've certainly never backed away from criticizing him here either.
If I criticize Hillary and Democrats more, it's because I saw a side of them this election that both surprised and disappointed me. But I'll probably focus on Trump more once he's in office.
- Awards
- 21
Kermit The Boiling Frog chimes in about the questionable nature of the intel reports:
...you'll like the last part.
...you'll like the last part.
- Awards
- 4
Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. Of course it contributed to her loss. But that's their political error, which at the end of the day they are entitled to making. They shouldn't, for their own sake, but they can.
Hacking from a foreign power and the FBI boss abusing his position however is something very different. It's malevolent interference. And Clinton may have won the elections despite the DNC's political errors, had there not been that malevolent interference.
Of course, as the intelligence leadership already underlined, there is unfortunately no definitive way to gauge the extent to which Russian hacking and Comey's dishonorable actions swayed the voters, unless there was a way to re-run the elections in a parallel universe.
Unless evidence comes to light that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians prior to the elections, which would invalidate their victory and trigger a political scandal of Watergate magnitude.
Even if that doesn't happen, I wouldn't mind if people kept pushing Trump's buttons calling him illegitimate and a fake president.
Due to Trump's severe narcissistic personality disorder and complete lack of restraint when faced with even the mildest form of criticism, such repeated provocation could result in an embarrassing public meltdown episode.
I certainly duly note all your criticism of Trump. But you do have a penchant for linking every discussion point to Hillary Clinton. Something you appear to share with Trump's paid shills, though for very different reasons. Yours is persisting bitterness over Bernie, theirs is deflection.
- Awards
- 52
It's not just the CIA and the FBI that uncovered this story, it was also a private intelligence investigator who was a former UK MI6 operative. The international media have know about these allegations for many months and have been investigating them ever since and although they have been unable to confirm the existence of the Trump video tape they have not been able to refute the story either. I don't know whether the story is true or not but it seems that Trump and many others are happy to accept reports from the FBI and CIA when it suits their narrative (e.g. those regarding Hillary's emails and the hacking of the DNC) but are very dismissive when they challenge their thinking. As for the Trump campaign having meeting with Russian officials, that seems very plausible and more than a little bit worrying.
Those that claim that this story has been created by Trump's enemies to discredit his never explain why they didn't release it during the election campaign when it would have derailed his campaign. On a balance of probabilities, I believe these allegations against Trump and that it will eventually lead to President Pence at some stage in the next 4 years.
Those that claim that this story has been created by Trump's enemies to discredit his never explain why they didn't release it during the election campaign when it would have derailed his campaign. On a balance of probabilities, I believe these allegations against Trump and that it will eventually lead to President Pence at some stage in the next 4 years.
Just when I think your posts can't possibly get any more brilliant, you go and prove me wrong!
Honestly, nothing would surprise me at this point. There's not a doubt in my mind that Putin's got something on Trump.
- Awards
- 4
I don't know if the Russians really possess compromising material on Trump or, the Trump organization is simply going to profit from the trillions that ExxonMobil puts their paws on once Trump has the Russian sanctions lifted (not to mention the other business opportunities in Russia) or both, but it is stunning to watch to what brazen extent Trump has parroted Putin's agenda.
After expressing increasingly suspicious admiration for Putin for months, he's now begun talking about lifting the sanctions - something we've expected all along - and today the NATO is being branded obsolete and the EU is not important to him, allegedly being "on the verge of collapse anyway", which of course shocked the European leaders, traditional allies of the US. He's gone to bed with Putin, a dangerous dictator, instead.
Putin's agenda is quite transparent - he thinks the collapse of the Soviet Union, a global superpower, was a mistake, meanwhile the Russian economy is decimated, so he's intent on rebuilding it in same modern shape or form (hence what he did to Ukraine and may do to the other states, e.g. the 3 Baltic countries). NATO and the EU are standing in his way.
The flood of immigrants from the Syrian conflict he's supported has caused trouble across the EU, namely the rise in dangerous right-wing sentiment and the vicious cycle of terrorist attacks and political instability, an added bonus for Putin. And that's just the beginning.
Meanwhile, idiot Trump is intent on helping Putin, at any cost.
- Awards
- 4
March 2014 - when Trump and the Republicans said Russia was "the biggest problem for the US" and "we should definitely do sanctions" and criticized Obama, what else, for not doing something about it.
God, these awful people... I cringe at the very sight of them...
God, these awful people... I cringe at the very sight of them...
- Awards
- 52
Talk about doing a U turn on an issue! Does make you wonder if Russia have something on Trump that forced him to convert into becoming Putin's biggest fan, apologist and cheerleader.
K
Karin Schill
Guest
As for the hacking, I do find it a bit suspect that the recounts Jill Stein filed for were not completed in certain key states and that some discrupties were found between the number of votes logged and actual votes. It does make you wonder what really went on with that election. But I guess we'll never know now.
The fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with over 2 million voters but Donald Trump will still be sworn in President really soon also makes me shake my head in amazement at how the USA, that claims to be the world's leading democrazy in the world, can have such an outdated electoral vote system that allows the loser to win the presidency. It's mind boggling really.
The fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with over 2 million voters but Donald Trump will still be sworn in President really soon also makes me shake my head in amazement at how the USA, that claims to be the world's leading democrazy in the world, can have such an outdated electoral vote system that allows the loser to win the presidency. It's mind boggling really.
- Awards
- 9
But is it not malevolent interference to leak questions to a candidate, to bury the debates during football, or to consider attacking your opponents religion? Maybe it seems more frightening when a foreign power does it, but Democrats and Republicans alike are not above much more direct intrusions into the affairs of other nations. We bomb, we nation build, and Hillary herself said we should have prevented elections in Palestine unless we were able to control the outcome. I hate bringing her up as much as you all hate listening to it, but there are times when there are relevant parallels at hand.
If something like that were to come to light, I would agree with you 100%.
When Trump hinted that he wouldn't accept the election results if he lost, Hillary said “I have to admit, you know, when we were both asked the question, I assumed that he would say what everybody has always said, which is, hey of course, because to say you won’t respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy." Trump was being his typical petulant self by suggesting he wouldn't have accepted the election results if he lost, but this is an instance where I believe Hillary was right. A Trump presidency is far from ideal to say the least, but we ultimately have to deal with the fact that the electoral college exists for the time being.
Persistent bitterness over Bernie? You bet. Because for a year, I got to listen to Hillary supporters tell me that Bernie is too old, too socialist, even too Jewish to win. I got called a sexist "Bernie bro," then was told I supported Jill Stein because I don't like "strong, empowered" women like Hillary (which sounds like misogyny towards Stein). I then saw many Democrats remain silent over the DNC's collusion, while going on about Russia's hacks.
So yeah, I'm admittedly bitter, and it has influenced my posts here. I expected more from the Democratic Party than that, and I feel they have taken too many pages out of the Republicans' playbook.