What do you think is really going on? Let's get a little political here.

I assume you've all heard of the recent Vermont power grid "hacking" story. A few days ago a Vermont utility company found a russian virus on some guy's computer and (part of) the press extrapolated the fact, turning it into a so-called proof of a Russian conspiracy to hack the US power grid... That title was a fucking clickbait, and I just knew it. But not just your average buzzshit clickbait, a serious fucking one this time. When you read the article it became clear: pure bullshit. No evidence whatsoever, all that happened is that they found a regular virus on a random guy's computer, which happens a million times a day everywhere in the world. A few hours later they retracted, a lot of other sites and agencies stated that there was no such thing as a power grid hack attempt. Those media outlets jumped to conclusions to serve their own agenda, it seems.

Now regarding the "hacking" of the US election. Several US government agencies are claiming it's real. Are we being lied to? Are the FBI and homeland security and others all following orders of a higher instance or do they have actual evidence?
So far, they haven't shared much with the general public. Last week they released a document, which I read, but if you read it too you will find that it's absolutely empty of evidence. All it states is "we found some IP addresses in the logs" and "we found a bit of code that was used before". That amounts to nothing at all.

So why do they keep going on about this?
Do you think these agencies have insights they cant share with the public? could they have informants within the russian goverment? that's one of the few things I can think of that they would never be able to reveal. Or maybe it is just more political bullshit... but what's the point? Trump will take office soon and all this Russia crap isn't working. Apparently Trump has something to say on the subject that he will reveal on tuesday or wednesday. I wonder what that may be.

 

[coinblock]

All of the information released by Wikileaks is true; all they are guilty of is revealing information to the public. If transparency and exposing corruption is so horrible to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

No, it's not. WikiLeaks is very picky when it comes to who they choose to criticize. The release that made a name for them, "collateral murder", was heavily edited from the original for shock value. Also, as I already pointed out, they have a history of editing their releases to protect Russia, refusing to criticize Russia or Putin at all, while publicly praising both of them with their twitter account (which also now re-tweets Alex Jones posts). U.S. intelligence services and several private experts agree unanimously that the DNC was hacked by groups working on behalf of Russian state services. The information that was stolen was released at the most damaging opportunities by WikiLeaks with the express goal of smearing the political opponent of a man with major personal financial and political ties to Russian elites.

Would you rather people not make make judgements based on the fact that the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders?

Please provide a link to the email that proves this.

WikiLeaks claim to be for "transparency and exposing corruption" but are incredibly selective as to who they target, and when their information is made public to maximize damage to them. Isn't it curious how they seemingly have nothing to expose on the guy who brags about not paying taxes and committing crimes?

Because the US doesn't have any imperialistic ambitions right?

Can you not be critical of one without ignoring the other? No one is unbiased, but what WikiLeaks is choosing to omit or defend is equally important.

 

[JoostinOnline]

After glossing over some of the posts here, I'd like to say

Shit's about to hit the fan

Called it.

 

[Viri]

Did they ever find out how the DNC got hacked?

I know Podesta got hacked, because he's a fucking idiot when it comes to tech, and checked his spam email section which contained a phishing site. I sometimes find those links in my email, and wonder who would be dumb enough to fall for them, and then I remember, lol...

 

[SRKTiberious]

[snip]
What actually happened this election is a hard 180 degree turn. With groups like BLM around causing civil unrest by, basically, enacting acts of terror on American soil that remain unaddressed and a politically correct gestapo doing whatever it can to stifle political dissent by branding people as racists, sexists, misogynists and every other -ist in the book, or the now more popular umbrella term "alt-right" the establishment has alienated its core voting base. People are sick of being called names for merely associating with the right-wing, and I even know a couple of cases of Democrats who voted Trump specifically because the previous government has made their everyday life markedly worse. People want actual change, not just progressive ideas on a paper plate because you can't eat those. I'll admit that Clinton won the popular vote, however one look at the map will tell you exactly why the institution or the electoral college exists and why their decision was to go with Trump. The little slice of America between the two coasts can't be ruled by the handful of densely populated states on each coast - those states are nothing alike. The majority of states voted Trump, and it is only fair that he became president.

As an American who watched this entire election cycle (and voted Trump in the general), what's been said here is 100% truth. I even had the feeling that Trump was going to steamroll the primaries before he even got popular. For me, it was only a question of who he faced, Hillary or Bernie. If he went against Bernie, he'd lose, but I knew he'd win against Hillary.

Over here, in what's generally termed 'flyover country' (one of the states in that giant swath of red in the general election results map), there's real anger over the last 8 years under Obama. Health insurance got more expensive and worse at the same time thanks to ACA, jobs didn't return in the numbers they needed to, and we added more than another $9,000,000,000,000 to the national debt. Beyond that, he reneged on his promises to close Guantanamo Bay, end our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably spent the most time on the golf course than any other President in history. In short, we got more of the same.

At the same time, SJWs and black lies matter, clearly under the repressive left's banner, gaining prominence and playing the already-frayed race card to loose fibers just turned more and more people off the left.

So when Trump comes in, despised equally by democrats and republicans, and telling the 'political correctness' crybullies in so many words to take a long walk off a short pier, anyone watching with half a brain cell could see how he'd gain a 'yuuuuuge' following (no, I'm not sorry for that either ).

I do have to give the RNC credit, though, as despite the deals made between the other two front-runners, when it was clear that Trump would win the primary, they did their duty and nominated him for the General. Conversely, the Democrat primary should serve as a giant wake-up call to see just how little they think of their voters, and to show that the people who consider themselves Democrats in this country need to get real grassroots movement going to reform the DNC's primary process to prevent this kind of anointing from on high from happening again (Hint: it happened in 2004 when Obama 'won' over Hillary, but no real fuss was made over it, as it was considered 'historic' at the time).

If you think that the Wikileaks unfairly leaked information that either changed people's mind on faint pretenses or simply convinced them not to vote, do note that the biased media had their own campaign against the other candidate. This election was very much the establishment versus the anti-establishment, and the latter won.
The premise is that by hacking DNC servers and releasing "misinformation" through Wikileaks they've skewed public opinion against Hillary, costing her the election. Of course that premise is stupid, but that's the idea.

The fact that all the 'alphabet soup' news outlets (as well as 'alternative' sources like the young turds) were in shock as states fell to Trump shows just how far in the tank they were for Hillary and the DNC. These people waltzed into the studio with the idea that Hillary was going to win, and all they had to do was kick back and relay the 'good news' as it came in. To me, it was almost cathartic watching these anchors squirm as reality hit them like a ton of bricks.

To borrow an analogy, it was as though the DNC and the left-leaning media shoved all-in and smiled when Trump called, only to see Trump's AA vs. their KK when the first states reported in, and as more cards and states fell, it became clear that despite their posturing, all their speech-play, every last shred of hollywooding was useless against the stone-cold nuts.

In fact, the network I was viewing (CBS) took more than 40 minutes to report from the Associated Press that the last state (Michigan) needed to put Trump over the top had been called. It was as though they refused to face reality until the very bitter end, and then, as the young turds happily show us, the tantrum began in earnest. They continued to triple and quadruple down on the same rhetoric that pushed people further and further away from Hillary and wear their bias proudly.

 

[solarsaturn9]

Aren't all elections rigged?

Depends on what you mean by "rigged." If you are referring to elections in the United States and the fact that not every vote carries the same weight, then yes: they are rigged. The electoral college has some merit in that it is meant to protect the minority but it doesn't seem right that certain states offer more "voting power" than others because of the ratio of voters to electors. Additionally, the "winner take all" system seems to contradict the notion that the electoral college is protecting the minority. Lastly, there is state government's manipulation of the voting system. North Carolina is an excellent example of just how much gerrymandering a state can get away with.

 

[Xzi]

So when Trump comes in, despised equally by democrats and republicans

That's the fantasy, right? It's too bad that in reality, he sold out entirely to the republican establishment within a matter of minutes after being elected. Trump doesn't even take any intelligence briefings now, they all go to Mike Pence on a weekly basis.

 

[solarsaturn9]

At the same time, SJWs and black lies matter, clearly under the repressive left's banner, gaining prominence and playing the already-frayed race card to loose fibers just turned more and more people off the left.

Sounds like someone is in denial about racism.

(Hint: it happened in 2004 when Obama 'won' over Hillary, but no real fuss was made over it, as it was considered 'historic' at the time).

Hint: It would have been historic had Hillary 'won' over Obama.

Health insurance got more expensive and worse at the same time thanks to ACA, jobs didn't return in the numbers they needed to, and we added more than another $9,000,000,000,000 to the national debt. Beyond that, he reneged on his promises to close Guantanamo Bay, end our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably spent the most time on the golf course than any other President in history. In short, we got more of the same.

His administration's health insurance reform was gutted. Many of the key changes that were made will actually be kept under Trump which means Trump actually reneged on his campaign promise to completely replace the ACA. The jobless rate has dropped below the historic median so I'm not sure what "where it needs to be" means. Perhaps if previous administrations hadn't crashed the economy they would be where you deem "they need to be." Given the hand they were dealt, Obama's administration has done miraculous things especially considering the unwillingness of the right to reach across the aisle and compromise to get anything done.

Just as a general observation: it sounds as if you are lumping everyone into two categories. Not everyone is far-left or far-right. Many moderate Democrats were pissed that Bernie was shut out by the DNC. However, when it comes to priorities I just don't understand how a Republican or a Democrat can justify voting against corruption in favor of corruption in addition to narcissism, entitlement, chest-banging, misogyny, and rudeness.

 

[MionissNio]

Trump may not be very liked and stuff but if he won the election he deserved it without a doubt and we cannot say no less I don't think Russia hacked the election.

 

[Sketchy1]

Trump may not be very liked and stuff but if he won the election he deserved it without a doubt and we cannot say no less I don't think Russia hacked the election.

Ofc they didn't, some people just can't take a loss. America would much rather admit voting security was shit rather then trump won fair and square.
And to further add on, technically the "evidence" of these claims dosent actually say anything, but rather only suggest that Russia may have done something. But you know how it goes, mainstream media sees a chance to sensationalize a HUGE headline, and get to try and hate on trump, to boot!

 

[solarsaturn9]

Trump may not be very liked and stuff but if he won the election he deserved it without a doubt

This is your opinion. I happen to think that people who do not play by the rules should not be given such immense responsibility.

 

[Juiss]

This is your opinion. I happen to think that people who do not play by the rules should not be given such immense responsibility.

Are you saying Trump didn't play by the rules?

 

[solarsaturn9]

Are you saying Trump didn't play by the rules?

When you don't pay your taxes you are not playing by the rules.

 

[SRKTiberious]

Depends on what you mean by "rigged." If you are referring to elections in the United States and the fact that not every vote carries the same weight, then yes: they are rigged. The electoral college has some merit in that it is meant to protect the minority but it doesn't seem right that certain states offer more "voting power" than others because of the ratio of voters to electors. Additionally, the "winner take all" system seems to contradict the notion that the electoral college is protecting the minority. Lastly, there is state government's manipulation of the voting system. North Carolina is an excellent example of just how much gerrymandering a state can get away with.

I'll certainly agree that the Electoral College as implemented by 48 of the states is flawed, as winner-take-all does disenfranchise voters, but the solution is amendment, not abolition.

If I had to suggest an alternative system, I would use a modification of the model used by Maine and Nebraska. In those states currently, the overall winner receives 2 EC votes, and the rest are on a congressional district basis.

It's clear, though, that going by district is also flawed, so I'd use this modified version:

For states > 4 EC votes:
- Each state's overall winner receives 2 EC voters.
- All other votes for each state are apportioned based on percentage of votes cast for each candidate, rounded towards overall winner.

For 4 EC voter states:
- Each state's overall winner receives 2 EC voters.
- State winner takes all 4 if ratio is 2:1 or greater (must receive 66.66666666666% of votes).
(yes, this edge case is a blend of the other two scenarios)

For 3 EC voter states:
- State's overall winner receives 1 EC voter.
- State winner takes all 3 if ratio is 2:1 or greater (must receive 66.66666666666% of votes).

The idea here is to balance the power of individual voters with the power of the state as a whole, and essentially put every state into play. Unfortunately for Hillary supporters, this method would still have given Trump the EC, but not by quite so overwhelming a margin, as any gains picked up by one side in states that went the other way in the WTA format would be erased by losses in states won via WTA.

 

[Sketchy1]

When you don't pay your taxes you are not playing by the rules.

Well to be fair, not releasing tax returns doesn't nessicerilly mean not paying taxes, just means he doesn't feel like sharing it :/

 

[solarsaturn9]

If I had to suggest an alternative system, I would use a modification of the model used by Maine and Nebraska. In those states currently, the overall winner receives 2 EC votes, and the rest are on a congressional district basis.

I agree. This seems like a much more reasonable system.

 

[Juiss]

When you don't pay your taxes you are not playing by the rules.

Exploiting a loophole =/= not playing by the rules. Trump is playing by the rules, he's even abusing them.

 

[solarsaturn9]

Well to be fair, not releasing tax returns doesn't nessicerilly mean not paying taxes, just means he doesn't feel like sharing it :/

I'll say the same thing that the right says about Hillary's private server: there's only one reason to have a private server and that is to hide something you've done wrong. There is a reason he doesn't feel like sharing.

 

[Sketchy1]

I'll say the same thing that the right says about Hillary's private server: there's only one reason to have a private server and that is to hide something you've done wrong. There is a reason he doesn't feel like sharing.

You're right, but at the end of the day,
Both candidates had something to hide, so because of the lack of "none of the above" options of voting, america is forced to either not vote or choose whoever seems less shitty. Guess in this case it happens to be trump

 

[SRKTiberious]

I agree. This seems like a much more reasonable system.

Except I clearly did not advocate going by congressional district, as that opens the door for gerrymandering and abuse of even that alternative system.

My proposed alternative is based on popular vote on a state-by-state basis regardless of districts. It takes gerrymandering out of the picture entirely.

 

[Juiss]

I'll say the same thing that the right says about Hillary's private server: there's only one reason to have a private server and that is to hide something you've done wrong. There is a reason he doesn't feel like sharing.

Oh so you're actually complaining about his lack of transparency? Trump doesn't owe you his tax returns, he's entitled to his privacy.