The (Semi) Official Trump Election/Inauguration thread...

[BugI02]

How would he know, he's been stuck in an embassy. Do guys who commit crime hacking sensitive information typically sign their names and the organizations they represent? Lol. Sure Jules, sure, you also didn't rape that girl.

Excellent. Looking forward to seeing Kut apply that exact same level of skepticism about claims to know who hacked the DNC and why

Because Kut(is not a hypocrite?)

 

[printcraft]

Hey, if Russia could hack our elections...... why the **** did they allow obama 2 terms?

 

[T.Lex]

Hey, if Russia could hack our elections...... why the **** did they allow obama 2 terms?

Because it was in their best interest.

 

[phylodog]

Still sittin over here waiting for any evidence, or even a claim, that Russia hacked or altered a voting machine which would indicate a legitimate influence on the election. Exposing the DNC for the racist power hungry organization that it is doesn not equal hacking the election.

 

[Libertarian01]

Let us go two (2) steps further.

IF we presume that as a matter of undeniable fact Russia DID hack the emails, can we then prove:

#1) They were the ONLY ones who hacked the emails, and/or;
#2) They released the information to Wikileaks?

Just because you can prove I stole cookies from the cookie jar does NOT mean you can prove I am the one who gave some to the dog and made him poop all over the house.

Or perhaps you can. Either way, I would like to see proof that a clear chain of evidence exists that the Russians performed the hack, they were the only ones who did it, and they were the ones who intentionally leaked the information to Wikileaks.

After all, wouldn't it be fun to prove the Russians did the hack, sat on the info, the NSA hacked the Russians, and it was the NSA that released the info to Wikileaks, thereby setting up the Russians?

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

Excellent. Looking forward to seeing Kut apply that exact same level of skepticism about claims to know who hacked the DNC and why

Because Kut(is not a hypocrite?)

Lol

Kut (reminds you get Printcraft responses)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let us go two (2) steps further.

IF we presume that as a matter of undeniable fact Russia DID hack the emails, can we then prove:

#1) They were the ONLY ones who hacked the emails, and/or;
#2) They released the information to Wikileaks?

Just because you can prove I stole cookies from the cookie jar does NOT mean you can prove I am the one who game some to the dog and made him poop all over the house.

Or perhaps you can. Either way, I would like to see proof that a clear chain of evidence exists that the Russians performed the hack, they were the only ones who did it, and they were the ones who intentionally leaked the information to Wikileaks.

After all, wouldn't it be fun to prove the Russians did the hack, sat on the info, the NSA hacked the Russians, and it was the NSA that released the info to Wikileaks, thereby setting up the Russians?

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

This is a really interesting belief, as it assumes theft without purpose. Do you believe if the Russians hacked whomever, they would simply hold the information and do nothing with it?

Kut (hasn't seen a bank robber who won't spend the money)

 

[Jludo]

This is a really interesting belief, as it assumes theft without purpose. Do you believe if the Russians hacked whomever, they would simply hold the information and do nothing with it?

Kut (hasn't seen a bank robber who won't spend the money)

I have to disagree, I think for intelligence there's a 'collect it all' mentality, no telling how much info gets stolen and sat on or isn't made publicly known. If you get hacked and your info stolen you might never know, banks tend to notice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have to disagree, I think for intelligence there's a 'collect it all' mentality, no telling how much info gets stolen and sat on or isn't made publicly known. If you get hacked and your info stolen you might never know, banks tend to notice.

In most cases yes, but in some cases, intelligence has an expiration date. How long do you think the info hacked would be useful, and what would be the purpose of sitting on it, if it wasn't to be released?

 

[91FXRS]

In most cases yes, but in some cases, intelligence has an expiration date. How long do you think the info hacked would be useful, and what would be the purpose of sitting on it, if it wasn't to be released?

Maybe sit on it thinking she is going to get in office and then its some leverage.

 

[Bennettjh]

[video=youtube;gbjfRypEEYw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbjfRypEEYw[/video]

All of a sudden, the Constitution is the greatest thing ever.

 

[ATM]

All of a sudden, the Constitution is the greatest thing ever.

2nd greatest.

Actors are the greatest thing ever.

 

[Lelliott8]

"I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton."



We know what they really mean...

 

[OakRiver]

This mother****er \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[video=youtube;xpR32nnDU54]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpR32nnDU54[/video]

I absolutely agree with President Obama. Hilary Clinton was not treated fairly. She was given preferential treatment. Whether it was having intent read into a strict liability statute, having he Democrat primary rigged against her opponent, getting questions leaked to her in advance, the majority of the media shilling for her and telling everyone who would listen that resistance was futile, telling the people that it was illegal to read Wikileaks and that instead the media should be trusted to read it and tell the people what was important, the blatant show of bias when supposedly professional journalists literally teared up when Hilary did not win and some blamed racism and a white lash, when CNN planted a cameraman in a crowd of protesters and fed him obviously rehearsed lines.

So in the strictest sense President Obama is correct, Hilary was not treated fairly as significant efforts were made to stack the deck in her favor.

 

[phylodog]

Surely you aren't suggesting that a democrat could be intellectually dishonest are you? Like trying to skew the exposure of the DNC as a racist organization into hacking the election? No way.

 

[printcraft]

Lol
Kut (reminds you get Printcraft responses)

.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;akE2BI1LXDY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akE2BI1LXDY[/video]

 

[printcraft]

Unnamed sources also told harry reid that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years......... how fake news works.

also:

[video=youtube;akE2BI1LXDY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akE2BI1LXDY[/video]

^^^^^ THAT is one pissed off tranny.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;4BX0RC7005I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BX0RC7005I[/video]

 

[Libertarian01]

This is a really interesting belief, as it assumes theft without purpose. Do you believe if the Russians hacked whomever, they would simply hold the information and do nothing with it?

Kut (hasn't seen a bank robber who won't spend the money)

"Do you believe if the Russians hacked whomever, they would simply hold this information and do nothing with it?"

There are two (2) parts to this question. The first part, "Do you believe if the Russians hacked whomever, they would simply hold this informaton..."

Answer: Yes. Absolutely. 100% I believe that.

Responding question: Can you name 5% of the information the CIA, NSA, KGB, GRU, MI5, Mossaid, etc has stolen from other countries? The vast majority of the time information taken by a state security apparatus remains hidden away.

Part two (2) of the question, "...and do nothing with it?"

Answer: Absolutely not. All information taken should be verified to the extent possible, then exploited to the maximum extent possible. However, the Russians are not the only ones around the world that would have a self-serving interest in manipulating the American election. There are many forces, both internal and external, on both sides of the aisle that have interests both pro and con for certain candidates.

In a criminal case we must have a secured chain of evidence to guarantee, to the extent possible, that the alleged evidence has not been tampered with or manipulated in some way. While we are not in a court and public opinion has little primary affect, the secondary affect is the pressure they place on those in power. And that can be significant. Which is all the more reason to stop speculating in public unless and until we have, to the best extent possible, a solid line of evidence showing whomever did whatever with the Emails.

And then, so what? Our glorious American government has helped overthrow several freely, democratically elected national leaders. What moral outrage can we show when we have done it to others...?

But one step at a time. Let us not trust the CIA, an organization that has as part of its mandate the application propaganda and misinformation, without at least verifying such allegations.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug