Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Off-Topic Chat' started by Costello, Jan 2, 2017.
I believe it. Funny how Russia has more control over how we vote than we do.
I wonder who has more money, Trump or Soros?
That doesn't mean diddly squat! Soros will get whats coming to him too...
When Trump says "Clean the Swamp" he's also reffering to the rim and the drain of the swamp!
For what it's worth (after 29 pages, I'm glad anyone is still reading), I think this is partially true.
Here's the part that I *don't* believe: that Russia rigged the election by changing votes. It's not that they would be incapable or don't have enough to gain, but all in all, this is pretty risky. After all, rigging an election is an act of war (unless it's the US doing it /sarcasm). In more than a few ways, the US and the UN are already in a second cold war, but they are not in the most strict of senses: the borders aren't drawn. Alliances can still shift and we don't really know who really supports who. The most clear example is Trump being an open Putin supporter. The irony is that this in itself, I would consider to be good news. There's already way too much chaos in the world today without the two largest superpowers being at each others' throats. Should this hacking thing be true, that means that about the only positive thing I can think of on Donald(1) is actually an operation of mutual back scratching.
But I digress...as said, I don't believe they rigged it by changing a couple hundred thousand votes for Hillary into Donald (too risky). But there are more subtle ways to rig things. The leaks are a good one. During the election, I heard people around me saying that USA had to choose between "the plague and the cholera". It wasn't just me disagreeing with that statement, but not understanding how that idea got into people's heads in the first place. On Trump, I couldn't open a newspaper without being slapped with anekdotes on Trump walking the thin line of "this stuff is legal" and stuff that gives free speech a bad name. On Hillary, there was nothing. Or more precise: page filler. So she used an insecure server. Am I supposed to be outraged or something? Christ...I'd be more outraged if she had stolen an apple as a kid. The very fact that the media was digging up this sort of stuff meant that they simply didn't have enough dirt to throw to begin with. Yet somehow, things got represented as if a lifetime in politics was somehow a bad thing when it comes to a job that consists of politics. I'm not a fan of the "free-market"-capitalism(2) either, but voting in someone who got rich by capitalizing on the flaws is just stupid.
I digress again (sorry). What it comes down to is that "hacking" is more than just illegally changing bits on someone else's computer. It's also changing behavior...manipulating things. Either kinds of hacking are hard to spot(3), so it's mostly a matter of what to believe.
The thing that's troubling, though, isn't so much whether someone rigged things or not, but the percentages in which opinions vary. I mean...there were also people denying 9/11, but if those amounted to 2% of the US population, it would be a lot. On topics like this, it's relatively close. On the election, it was even closer (which is all the more troubling considering how different the stances were). I can't but wonder what will come of this. I mean...in 2000 USA voted a dolt over someone who would have taken precautions on global warming. It ended with a war against an innocent country. Now you've got an even larger idiot as president and there are already a lot more people pissed at the US than there used to be. So I'm worried what will happen next time a terrorist attack happens on your soil (and this is more a matter of 'when' than 'if'). It could be war...but it might just as well civil war.
(1): I'm serious, here. The guy despises me in so many ways it was never fun to begin with...but I can't even say "I hate everything about him", because at least he CAN say something positive about someone (even though that someone is someone most Americans consider an enemy, but hey...I'm not a US citizen)
(2): it's between brackets because the current capitalism rules are actually far from really being free. It's just referred to by that name because "winner takes all"-capitalism is harder to sell to people
(3): this whole "why don't they provide evidence?" is somewhat moot. This isn't a case where you can just point out to evidence like weapons of mass destruction (and we all know how well THAT "evidence" turned out to be) or dust for fingerprints. Most hackers got caught because of user error or negligence. If an entire professional team with corporate funding would meddle, the result is more in the lines of stuxnet: incredibly specific, stealthy like a motherfocker, and impossible to trace (it's now six years since then...nobody will ever prove who built that).
Multiple watchdog foundations have put the Clinton Foundation on their watchlist, it's been classified as a slush fund on numerous occasions due to unreasonable overhead costs.
If they wanted to use it as a slush fund, it would have been as simple as making it a private foundation instead of a public one. The Clintons are plenty wealthy without using other people's money, unlike Trump. It's hard not to be skeptical of negative things about the Clintons, republicans have spent millions of taxpayer dollars starting with their smear campaign against the Clintons in the 90s that still continues to this day.
Here are the actual current ratings for CF: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Sure, they're extremely wealthy. Is that why Hillary proclaimed that she and Bill were "dead broke" once he left office? Where did the money come from?
Once you've been president, opportunities arise. Businesses/corporations will pay people ludicrous amounts of money to give speeches at meetings, particularly if they think the person giving the speech might have some insights on "being successful." Shit, sometimes you don't even need any prior achievements to make money this way, you only need an audience dumb enough to buy your bullshitting. Just look at Sarah Palin and Tim Tebow.
America is misleading everyone Russia always Hacks anyways as America and other nation do it too 1 feet away from the Big Red button waiting confirmation of their paranoid thoughts...We living in a Era where peoples take all rumors and what they see on news far too much seriously and fear them....
Even if Russia wasn't responsible for the hacks it doesn't make things better, given that Trump appointed one of Putin's best buddies as Secretary of State. Nor does it change the fact that Russians have been in and around Trump's businesses for decades. The US will be under heavy Russian influence for the next four years regardless.
Don't forget Kim jung Un! America is in a tight situation at the moment.
Sounds to me like once you've been president and your wife is Secretary of State, lots of people will pay you lots of money in "donations" to get shit done by the right people, but you can call it sweet things if you'd like.
Kim Jong Un couldn't hack his way out of a wet paper sack, let's not pretend that North Korea has any clout in the civilised world, even their warheads are mostly fake.
You mean lobbyists and super PACs and campaign contributions are a thing? No WAI?!?!
You genuinely believe that because..? The mainstream media told you?
Apparently, US intelligence agencies are only right when they're investigating the Clintons (and when it's found out they found nothing during investigation they clearly where bribed/threatened to stop).
It's not too much of a stretch to imagine they interfered with the election. Changing votes is out of the question but influencing the people is entirely plausible. All you need is feed them the "right" information.
This is something you'd hope the people may be interested or worried about. A big issue is the fear of globalization and we've got word of foreigners mucking about with us. You can't really say it's just a dirty liberal MSM trick either since even the republicans are convinced.
Nothing much we can do about it now though. Just time to sit back and watch the fire burn as the years are filled with Trump supporters trying to defend everything he does. I guess this is how republicans felt when Obama was in office, only things will actually be visibly worse and not just theoretically worse.
Honestly i really meet in the middle with this, like why would Russians associate with Donald Trump, why would they hack the election and why would they do this to the election when their just another country?And how would Donald Trump convince or make them hack the election?How would Russia make it possible for them to hack the Election. But Donald Trump Thinks the election is rigged which make me meet at the middle with this conspiracy of Russia hacking the Election
Not sure if this has been posted, but here's the government document that demonstrates that Russia influenced the US election, how they did it, why they did it, etc.
Edit: Also, here's my girl Rachel doing a great piece on the report if you don't feel like reading it.
Regardless I agree that we should take it with a grain of salt and be cautious
I would never argue that a claim should be believed because of who is making it. All claims should be accepted or rejected solely because of the evidence.
Nevermeant to imply that you.
But regardless what do I think? Really nothing as US Intel is a pretty complex thing to try to understand.
Although I do think the media is handling the affair horribly as are certain members of Congress (*cough Sen.Graham cough*) especially when considering we also have largely influenced elections for our own desires.
On a side note, if the US wouldn't have a stupid winner-takes-all voting system, there would have been less controversy. I mean, half of the americans voted for Trump, the other half for Hillary. By giving Trump everything and Hillary nothing, basically the system dumped a huge load of crap to half of it's citizen.