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

[BugI02]

Lol

Kut (reminds you get Printcraft responses)

I am absolutely inconsolable because of that

Kut (can tell, can't he?)

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am absolutely inconsolable because of that

Kut (can tell, can't he?)

Lol

 

[Kutnupe14]

"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

Solid post, but I'll remind you of the saying "strike while the anvil is hot." You'd have a hard time proving that the information being held concerning Clinton, could be used against her at a more opportune time.

 

[hopper68]

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

And so HER presidential campaign begins.......


If she wins, will she appoint Barack to the Supreme Court? Many would applaud the historic event.

 

[KLB]

Solid post, but I'll remind you of the saying "strike while the anvil is hot." You'd have a hard time proving that the information being held concerning Clinton, could be used against her at a more opportune time.

You seem to be going on the assumption that if they did it, they knew what they would find. They didn't know what they would find until they got the info. Once they got it, they would have to decide how they could best use it. In the case of these emails it would seem the best use was to make Clinton look bad. I doubt they ever really thought that she would lose the election because of it. I wonder if there wasn't something worse that was held back for after the election. The pre-election release would work like a warning that they had everything and she better listen or else more will follow now that she is President.

 

[Trigger Time]

And so HER presidential campaign begins.......


If she wins, will she appoint Barack to the Supreme Court? Many would applaud the historic event.

her mouth and face remind me of this;

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[BugI02]

Solid post, but I'll remind you of the saying "strike while the anvil is hot." You'd have a hard time proving that the information being held concerning Clinton, could be used against her at a more opportune time.

"The colourful idiom to strike while the iron is hot means to act decisively and quickly because you have an advantage of some kind. The origin of the phrase is in the art of blacksmithing or working with metal to make tools and implements, in which the metal has to be shaped while it is hot and flexible."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Obama on Russia: "They're a small country, they're a weak country, they don't produce anything that anybody wants to buy."

This sounds like a Trump tweet.

 

[sharkey]

It continues:

Russian Hackers May Have Interfered With Vote On Church Potluck, Local Man Suspects | The Babylon Bee

 

[printcraft]

It continues:

Russian Hackers May Have Interfered With Vote On Church Potluck, Local Man Suspects | The Babylon Bee

I like his style.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;dTgGNNpEvkw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgGNNpEvkw&t=4s[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...based-us-russian-oil-company?CMP=share_btn_tw

Tillerson shows up in the Panama Papers as a director of Bahamas-based US-Russian oil company

 

[Libertarian01]

The more I read, the more I think the chickens have come home to roost (presuming the alleged hacks can be proven with evidence to come from a Russian State security apparatus.)

We interfered in the RUSSIAN election between Boris Yeltsin and Gennady Zyuganov back in 1996. Link: Moscow Journal;The Americans Who Saved Yeltsin (Or Did They?) - The New York Times

We interfered in the Ukrainian internal affairs in 2014. Link: Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call - BBC News

Just this year President Obama spoke directly about the harm voting for Brexit would cause, thus interfering in the United Kingdoms internal affairs.

We interfered in the Italian vote on a Constitutional referendum, also in 2016 by having our glorious leader speak for strengthening their central government. In both Brexit and Italy our leaders words went unheeded, but were meant to sway their votes.

For several years now Moscow has been pushing for "...codifying international practices that would restrict what countries can do in cyberspace." The United States government has constantly ignored or rebuffed these concepts because it would limit what WE could do to foreign powers. Link: Russia Is Neither Friend Nor Foe | The National Interest

It would seem we want to talk about respecting others but don't really want to be put on a leash. The bully/hypocrisy runs strong with us.

Ever since the end of WWII we have significantly interfered in the internal politics of nations around the world. We have gotten away with such interference due to our military might alone. That does not reflect high moral character but the tool of the bullies. We should not speak about respect of others, the strength of democratically elected governments, and other values if we are not willing to walk the walk. Failing to do so only undermines our credibility and demeans our character.

Maybe now that it has obviously(????) been done to us will we understand the chickens have come home to roost and our practices should be altered.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[Alpo]

Shocking! I thought the USA was the only country legally allowed to interfere with foreign elections to foster regime changes?

IMO, Putin didn't change the situation very much. The democrats should have been able to run an armadillo and beat Trump. Unfortunately, they ran a non-charismatic greedy old bag.

 

[Libertarian01]

Shocking! I thought the USA was the only country legally allowed to interfere with foreign elections to foster regime changes?

IMO, Putin didn't change the situation very much. The democrats should have been able to run an armadillo and beat Trump. Unfortunately, they ran a non-charismatic greedy old bag.

On your first point that is apparently what the CIA has thought for, well, since it was born.

On the second point I also agree. Had HRC not illegally set up her own server, had HRC not intentionally destroyed her emails, had HRC not lied about all of this the issue would not have existed. Had she even just told the truth she could have ameliorated the PR damage, but to what extent I don't know.

I still believe that had Sen Bernie Sanders won the primary the outcome would have been significantly different. I cannot imagine Sanders losing Michigan, which he won from Hillary in the primary. I believe he would have fared better in Pennsylvania.

And let us not forget that it was internal DNC forces at play to undermine a fair election within their own party. They rigged against Sanders but cry like a spoiled child when it is done to them.

Sad all around...

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[KG1]

Shocking! I thought the USA was the only country legally allowed to interfere with foreign elections to foster regime changes?

IMO, Putin didn't change the situation very much. The democrats should have been able to run an armadillo and beat Trump. Unfortunately, they ran a non-charismatic greedy old bag.

The dems have a problem with confronting the real reason they lost the election. It couldn't have been because of their arrogant fatally flawed candidate and the way they buggered up the campaign. And by saying "democrats" I'm not meaning to lump you in with that bunch Alpo. Even though we might not agree on much I have enough respect for your willingness to acknowledge the flaws within certain factions of the democrat party that cost them the election.

 

[Alpo]

I was watching a series on Netflix last night called "Nobel". It is a Norwegian film...subject not all that important to this observation. What struck me was how far removed from our mental picture of the Vikings (also a good series) the Norwegians have become. They have become so PC that even their Minister of Defense cannot understand (or defend) the actions and mindset of a soldier.

I've got lots of issues with the democratic party. SJW's being at the top of the list. However, I'd never go in for an empathy wipe to become a republican.

 

[bwframe]

^^^ Exactly why we won! ^^^

 

[Route 45]

I was watching a series on Netflix last night called "Nobel". It is a Norwegian film...subject not all that important to this observation. What struck me was how far removed from our mental picture of the Vikings (also a good series) the Norwegians have become. They have become so PC that even their Minister of Defense cannot understand (or defend) the actions and mindset of a soldier.

 

[bwframe]

You can have the men. A shield maiden for me thank you: