|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The 2016 United States Presidential Election | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Just realized this is the thread about the election, where off topic posts have been seriously denounced, so I'm removing my post. If LamarkNewAge wants to post his somewhere else I'll answer it there.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Lets move this discussion to Percys new thread.
The Trump Presidency Closing, the election is over. Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Since there's new news about the 2016 US presidential election, I am reopening this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation. Asked what that information included, the president-elect said: You will find out on Tuesday or Wednesday. He did not elaborate, although in a statement released on Thursday in response to Obama’s sanctions, he said he would meet intelligence officials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Assange said it wasn't Russia. Now there is a conflict between two sources. Which one has the truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Assange is a criminal who is fighting extradition to face trial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Assange said it wasn't Russia How would he know this?
Now there is a conflict between two sources. The consensus of the CIA.Fidelis Cybersecurity Crowdstrike Mandiant Which one has the truth? If I learned anything from the right wing about Assange it is that he is a sex crazed cult leader of a traitorous and criminal organisation in 'hiding' from the US government in 'Ecuador' because of his attacks on the CIA and endangering the lives of intelligence agents and other servicemen. If I learned anything from the left wing about Assange it is that Putin has used and defended him for years, and essentially gave him a job on RT and that despite saying he has damaging information regarding the Russian government, has not released it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
At the moment Assange is in favor with the Right, and it was in an interview by Sean Hannity that he said the Russians weren't involved. I'm waiting to see, myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
At the moment Assange is in favor with the Right Yes. They favour him when he is supporting their narrative, they call him a sex mad raping traitor when he does not. I think there's a word for this inconsistency isn't there?
quote: and it was in an interview by Sean Hannity that he said the Russians weren't involved Right - but how would he know? It's not like Russian agents go around telling people they are Russian agents, so how would Assange know the source? How would a man living in a small room for the past several years have better information than the CIA?
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Hrm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
David Knight of Infowars did a report on the report -- I think his segment will be repeated again later -- probably between 4 and 6 or 7 PST if anyone is interested. He's not the only one who pointed out that there is no evidence in the report, just a lot of assertions. The report refers to sources that are years old, two years, four years, eight years. It's unevidenced, it's bogus, it's just part of the anti-Trump program. And according to Knight it's about THEM controlling the voting systems.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
He's not the only one who pointed out that there is no evidence in the report, just a lot of assertions. To clarify: It's a declassified document, I've read it and it seems primarily to be aimed at informing people of signatures to look out for and basic precautions to inhibit the tactics the suspected groups from succeeding. It's not the actual CIA report that Trump and Obama have access to. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2410 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined: |
So is there any actual evidence being presented of Russia doing the hacking or are we just to accept it on faith that the CIA wouldn't lie? Cos I'm pretty suspicious of that lot, to say the least..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So is there any actual evidence being presented of Russia doing the hacking or are we just to accept it on faith that the CIA wouldn't lie? That's an interesting question. All you personally are ever likely to get are summaries of conclusions and descriptions of the evidence. So at some point you are going to have to trust somebody or just call everyone liars. You have individual Congressional representatives who get more access than you do and who have seen more directly the the evidence, have the ability to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and who, nearly to a man/woman, have been convinced. Now that may or may not be enough for you, but with regards to classified information, you are not likely to get anything better. I admit to harboring some doubts that are not going to be assuaged, but my doubts don't include the idea that the intelligence folks are lying. Not that such a thing could not change. Individuals of course are free to make up their minds any way they chose. In some cases that means simply concluding whatever fits in with the rest of your mindset. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
In my view, it is far too big a political risk to lie about something that unequivocal at this stage. As NoNukes has said, they have to present classified evidence to members of the Houses, and for them to lie would be a blatant piece of political suicide. Can't see them being that stupid. They have to have something pretty solid, in order to be that unequivocal in public.
(Just to clarify - I don't think the CIA are incapable of lying (hell, it's an essential skill in that line of work) - I just don't think they'd lie stupidly.) Edited by vimesey, : ClarificationCould there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
It's interesting that during the buildup to the first Gulf War it was not the heads of the FBI & CIA or even the DOD that were coming forward pushing evidence of any threat but rather the political arm. generally member of the Presidential cabinet that were claiming there was evidence.
The actual spooks generally do not come forward publicly if they can avoid it, particularly they don't generally go public with a position that might jeopardize funding.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024