Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Putin Gave the Order

YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 5:19:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.

Hasn't the U.S. been under constant cyber attack from Russia, China and numerous other countries? Do you think we haven't done or tried to do the same thing under a different name, counter intelligence or surveillance? Why is this so shocking to everyone? Is the real outrage over what was exposed and we have complete incompetents who fall for phishing? See that should be the real concern, is that it was even successful. We should be terrified that we are that vulnerable and have complete idiots falling for these tactics. What was in the emails was damming otherwise this would be a non issue, yet to this day those emails are just glossed over. If our cyber security is that weak, Hillary's private server needs a more in depth investigation if possible. They were careless and got caught so it stands to reason to shine the light someplace else. We kind of woe Putin a debt of gratitude for exposing this weakness.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 6:07:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.

It's what it smelled like all along. The razor thin margins in the rust belt plausibly would have been in Clinton's favor rather than Trump's had it not been for Russian interference.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 7:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 6:07:05 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.

It's what it smelled like all along. The razor thin margins in the rust belt plausibly would have been in Clinton's favor rather than Trump's had it not been for Russian interference.

Razor-thin margins? You mean like the 44,292 more votes Trump got in Pennsylvania, the 400,000 more votes he got in Ohio, the 300,000 more he got in West Virginia, the 10,000 more he got in Michigan, the 20,000 more he got in Wisconsin, and the 500,000 more he got in Indiana?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Romanii
Posts: 5,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 7:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 6:07:05 PM, Death23 wrote:
The razor thin margins in the rust belt plausibly would have been in Clinton's favor rather than Trump's had it not been for Russian interference.

I'm not denying that Russia was involved in making the WikiLeaks emails available, but that's ridiculous. The reason why Clinton lost the rust belt voters is because Trump had an infinitely stronger focus on economic revival than she did. Her focus was almost exclusively on trying to frame Trump as the second coming of Hitler, and her own analysts admit that it was a huge mistake -- that campaign message only appealed to PC-obsessed, metropolitan liberals (which is why Clinton swept all the big cities and won the popular vote).

The Democrats lost because Trump did a better job of persuading voters than they did. Stop making excuses.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:03:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 7:22:34 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 6:07:05 PM, Death23 wrote:
The razor thin margins in the rust belt plausibly would have been in Clinton's favor rather than Trump's had it not been for Russian interference.

I'm not denying that Russia was involved in making the WikiLeaks emails available, but that's ridiculous. The reason why Clinton lost the rust belt voters is because Trump had an infinitely stronger focus on economic revival than she did. Her focus was almost exclusively on trying to frame Trump as the second coming of Hitler, and her own analysts admit that it was a huge mistake -- that campaign message only appealed to PC-obsessed, metropolitan liberals (which is why Clinton swept all the big cities and won the popular vote).

The Democrats lost because Trump did a better job of persuading voters than they did. Stop making excuses.

If I was Putin or the head of China, any country really I would make it well known that if a citizen brought me important information on another country they would be rewarded greatly, there's some really smart and talented kids every modern country, why not let them do the work, if they get caught, deny, deny, deny, bleach the server and wipe it with a cloth.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:17:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 7:22:34 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 6:07:05 PM, Death23 wrote:
The razor thin margins in the rust belt plausibly would have been in Clinton's favor rather than Trump's had it not been for Russian interference.

I'm not denying that Russia was involved in making the WikiLeaks emails available, but that's ridiculous. The reason why Clinton lost the rust belt voters is because Trump had an infinitely stronger focus on economic revival than she did. Her focus was almost exclusively on trying to frame Trump as the second coming of Hitler, and her own analysts admit that it was a huge mistake -- that campaign message only appealed to PC-obsessed, metropolitan liberals (which is why Clinton swept all the big cities and won the popular vote).

The Democrats lost because Trump did a better job of persuading voters than they did. Stop making excuses.

It's not ridiculous. You don't know that the impact of Russian interference wasn't substantial enough to change the outcome.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:18:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 7:20:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/15/2016 6:07:05 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.

It's what it smelled like all along. The razor thin margins in the rust belt plausibly would have been in Clinton's favor rather than Trump's had it not been for Russian interference.

Razor-thin margins? You mean like the 44,292 more votes Trump got in Pennsylvania, the 400,000 more votes he got in Ohio, the 300,000 more he got in West Virginia, the 10,000 more he got in Michigan, the 20,000 more he got in Wisconsin, and the 500,000 more he got in Indiana?

Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Use percentages. They're more meaningful.
Romanii
Posts: 5,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:17:34 PM, Death23 wrote:
It's not ridiculous. You don't know that the impact of Russian interference wasn't substantial enough to change the outcome.

I do, and I just explained how I know. In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:28:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:17:34 PM, Death23 wrote:
It's not ridiculous. You don't know that the impact of Russian interference wasn't substantial enough to change the outcome.

I do, and I just explained how I know. In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.

You don't know. You're either lying or delusional. There's no compelling evidence indicating how substantial the impact of Russian interference was on the election. Faced with that lack of evidence, you somehow conclude that it wasn't substantial enough to have changed the outcome. That reasoning is ridiculous.
lannan13
Posts: 24,704
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:36:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:28:12 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:17:34 PM, Death23 wrote:
It's not ridiculous. You don't know that the impact of Russian interference wasn't substantial enough to change the outcome.

I do, and I just explained how I know. In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.

You don't know. You're either lying or delusional. There's no compelling evidence indicating how substantial the impact of Russian interference was on the election. Faced with that lack of evidence, you somehow conclude that it wasn't substantial enough to have changed the outcome. That reasoning is ridiculous.

You would have to be an absolute fool to think that Russian involvements and leaks of DNC reports as well as leaking info to Wikileaks didn't substantially impact the election.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

"Sometimes it is hell, trying to get to heaven."- Undertaker

Keep a Positive Mental Attitude!

DDO Hall of Famer
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:36:32 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:28:12 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:17:34 PM, Death23 wrote:
It's not ridiculous. You don't know that the impact of Russian interference wasn't substantial enough to change the outcome.

I do, and I just explained how I know. In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.

You don't know. You're either lying or delusional. There's no compelling evidence indicating how substantial the impact of Russian interference was on the election. Faced with that lack of evidence, you somehow conclude that it wasn't substantial enough to have changed the outcome. That reasoning is ridiculous.

You would have to be an absolute fool to think that Russian involvements and leaks of DNC reports as well as leaking info to Wikileaks didn't substantially impact the election.

Apparently, that's exactly what he thinks.
Scruggs
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:40:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I suggest you read Shapiro's article on this subject:

4 Reasons Russia Didn't Swing The Election To Trump

1. Hillary Tanked Because Of Comey.
When FBI Director James Comey announced on October 28 that the FBI had reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, the iceberg hit the Titanic. The gushing hole the FBI announcement represented can't be overstated. As Nate Silver pointed out over the weekend, "Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA." According to Silver, "Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter)." The Comey reopening happened because of discoveries made during the Anthony Weiner investigation, not because of WikiLeaks.

2. Hillary Was Wildly Unpopular The Entire Election Cycle.
The notion that WikiLeaks pushed Hillary's unpopularity is unsupported by the evidence. An Economist/YouGov poll taken January 15-January 19, 2016 showed that just 38 percent of voters saw Hillary favorably, compared with 56 percent who viewed her unfavorably; that same poll showed her at 43 percent to 56 percent on November 4 through November 7. Hillary was always an awful candidate, and most Americans knew that for the entire election cycle.

3. The Major WikiLeaks Revelations Weren't Major Enough.
The most serious WikiLeaks revelations about Clinton broke late in the campaign: Donna Brazile channeling debate questions to Hillary Clinton during her campaign with Bernie Sanders, Hillary aides attacking Catholics, Hillary working with the Clinton Foundation. But none of those had any marked impact on her poll numbers. It was the Comey revelations that damaged her severely " she seemed to be stabilizing just before the Comey news broke.

4. It Wasn't Putin's Fault Hillary Didn't Visit The Swing States.
Hillary's team blew it. She didn't show up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. According to Huffington Post, "In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004". A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign's state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks." Hillary assumed she had the campaign in the bag, and in the final weeks, she treated it that way, spending time in states that weren't competitive rather than those that were.

http://www.dailywire.com...
"You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." - Jonathan Edwards
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:44:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:40:50 PM, Scruggs wrote:
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I suggest you read Shapiro's article on this subject:

4 Reasons Russia Didn't Swing The Election To Trump

It's not responsive to what I wrote, so I don't care.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:44:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:40:50 PM, Scruggs wrote:
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I suggest you read Shapiro's article on this subject:

4 Reasons Russia Didn't Swing The Election To Trump

1. Hillary Tanked Because Of Comey.
When FBI Director James Comey announced on October 28 that the FBI had reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, the iceberg hit the Titanic. The gushing hole the FBI announcement represented can't be overstated. As Nate Silver pointed out over the weekend, "Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA." According to Silver, "Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter)." The Comey reopening happened because of discoveries made during the Anthony Weiner investigation, not because of WikiLeaks.

2. Hillary Was Wildly Unpopular The Entire Election Cycle.
The notion that WikiLeaks pushed Hillary's unpopularity is unsupported by the evidence. An Economist/YouGov poll taken January 15-January 19, 2016 showed that just 38 percent of voters saw Hillary favorably, compared with 56 percent who viewed her unfavorably; that same poll showed her at 43 percent to 56 percent on November 4 through November 7. Hillary was always an awful candidate, and most Americans knew that for the entire election cycle.

3. The Major WikiLeaks Revelations Weren't Major Enough.
The most serious WikiLeaks revelations about Clinton broke late in the campaign: Donna Brazile channeling debate questions to Hillary Clinton during her campaign with Bernie Sanders, Hillary aides attacking Catholics, Hillary working with the Clinton Foundation. But none of those had any marked impact on her poll numbers. It was the Comey revelations that damaged her severely " she seemed to be stabilizing just before the Comey news broke.

4. It Wasn't Putin's Fault Hillary Didn't Visit The Swing States.
Hillary's team blew it. She didn't show up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. According to Huffington Post, "In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004". A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign's state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks." Hillary assumed she had the campaign in the bag, and in the final weeks, she treated it that way, spending time in states that weren't competitive rather than those that were.

http://www.dailywire.com...

I will, however, probably make a post in a unique thread about this.

Any chance to mock Ben Shapiro is certainly not one I'm going to pass on.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:51:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:40:50 PM, Scruggs wrote:
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
I suggest you read Shapiro's article on this subject:

4 Reasons Russia Didn't Swing The Election To Trump

1. Hillary Tanked Because Of Comey.
When FBI Director James Comey announced on October 28 that the FBI had reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, the iceberg hit the Titanic. The gushing hole the FBI announcement represented can't be overstated. As Nate Silver pointed out over the weekend, "Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA." According to Silver, "Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter)." The Comey reopening happened because of discoveries made during the Anthony Weiner investigation, not because of WikiLeaks.

2. Hillary Was Wildly Unpopular The Entire Election Cycle.
The notion that WikiLeaks pushed Hillary's unpopularity is unsupported by the evidence. An Economist/YouGov poll taken January 15-January 19, 2016 showed that just 38 percent of voters saw Hillary favorably, compared with 56 percent who viewed her unfavorably; that same poll showed her at 43 percent to 56 percent on November 4 through November 7. Hillary was always an awful candidate, and most Americans knew that for the entire election cycle.

3. The Major WikiLeaks Revelations Weren't Major Enough.
The most serious WikiLeaks revelations about Clinton broke late in the campaign: Donna Brazile channeling debate questions to Hillary Clinton during her campaign with Bernie Sanders, Hillary aides attacking Catholics, Hillary working with the Clinton Foundation. But none of those had any marked impact on her poll numbers. It was the Comey revelations that damaged her severely " she seemed to be stabilizing just before the Comey news broke.

4. It Wasn't Putin's Fault Hillary Didn't Visit The Swing States.
Hillary's team blew it. She didn't show up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. According to Huffington Post, "In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004". A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign's state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks." Hillary assumed she had the campaign in the bag, and in the final weeks, she treated it that way, spending time in states that weren't competitive rather than those that were.

http://www.dailywire.com...

It's not convincing. This merely draws attention to other factors. What would be convincing is good evidence indicating the extent of the impact of Russian interference in key battleground states. Right now, I don't think that there is any. Lack of evidence = Don't know, but given that the election was close, it is reasonably possible that Russian interference was substantial enough to have altered the outcome.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 9,604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 8:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.

I tend to not belive anything I read from the mainstream media anymore, since it's corruption has been exposed. I also have no trust for the current political machine in America, so I don't believe any of this hacking scandal. However, even though I might be an ingnorant Trump supporter, I am no fool. If hard evidence of Russian interference in the election were to ever be presented to the public, Ithen it would at the least merit a complete recount of votes, or, at this point in the cycle, cancel any electoral votes for Trump in states fraud was detected that actually made a difference in his victory.

If he won a state by 500,000 votes, and 200,000 fradulent votes were detected in that state in his favor, the final result wouldn't have been any different, so those elctoral votes would still be awarded to him.
"If anyone wants to engage in casual anti-Semitism, then whatever." ~Max

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."
Romanii
Posts: 5,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 10:43:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:28:12 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM, Romanii wrote:
In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.
You don't know. You're either lying or delusional. There's no compelling evidence indicating how substantial the impact of Russian interference was on the election. Faced with that lack of evidence, you somehow conclude that it wasn't substantial enough to have changed the outcome. That reasoning is ridiculous.

Lol, you're not even attempting to respond to what I said. What I put forth was very basic political analysis. If you're too stupid to understand it and come up with a substantive response, then concede.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 10:43:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:36:32 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:28:12 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:17:34 PM, Death23 wrote:
It's not ridiculous. You don't know that the impact of Russian interference wasn't substantial enough to change the outcome.

I do, and I just explained how I know. In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.

You don't know. You're either lying or delusional. There's no compelling evidence indicating how substantial the impact of Russian interference was on the election. Faced with that lack of evidence, you somehow conclude that it wasn't substantial enough to have changed the outcome. That reasoning is ridiculous.

You would have to be an absolute fool to think that Russian involvements and leaks of DNC reports as well as leaking info to Wikileaks didn't substantially impact the election.

That much is pretty clear, but I don't think anything short of downright vote-rigging by Russian hackers (and on a scale large enough to swing the election) should be enough to disqualify Trump's win.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Romanii
Posts: 5,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 10:52:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:36:32 PM, lannan13 wrote:
You would have to be an absolute fool to think that Russian involvements and leaks of DNC reports as well as leaking info to Wikileaks didn't substantially impact the election.

It impacted the election, but it didn't swing it. Nobody decides their vote on the basis of a single event. They decide their vote on the basis of general conceptions and narratives, which can be corroborated by their interpretations of specific events. All the WikiLeaks emails did was corroborate the "Crooked Hillary" narrative. There simply isn't a significant number of people who would've disbelieved the "Crooked Hillary" narrative in the absence of the WikiLeaks emails -- there was an enormous amount of other supporting material for that narrative.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 10:56:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest unification of our time.

McCarthy would not be amused.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 11:19:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 10:43:28 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:28:12 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM, Romanii wrote:
In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.
You don't know. You're either lying or delusional. There's no compelling evidence indicating how substantial the impact of Russian interference was on the election. Faced with that lack of evidence, you somehow conclude that it wasn't substantial enough to have changed the outcome. That reasoning is ridiculous.

Lol, you're not even attempting to respond to what I said. What I put forth was very basic political analysis. If you're too stupid to understand it and come up with a substantive response, then concede.

You really do suck at arguing.
Romanii
Posts: 5,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 11:26:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 11:19:50 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 10:43:28 PM, Romanii wrote:
Lol, you're not even attempting to respond to what I said. What I put forth was very basic political analysis. If you're too stupid to understand it and come up with a substantive response, then concede.
You really do suck at arguing.

I accept your concession.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 11:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 11:26:33 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 11:19:50 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 10:43:28 PM, Romanii wrote:
Lol, you're not even attempting to respond to what I said. What I put forth was very basic political analysis. If you're too stupid to understand it and come up with a substantive response, then concede.
You really do suck at arguing.

I accept your concession.

You lose.
Fernyx
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 11:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.

Yes, we know this, everyone knows this.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2016 2:13:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 8:21:54 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/15/2016 8:17:34 PM, Death23 wrote:
It's not ridiculous. You don't know that the impact of Russian interference wasn't substantial enough to change the outcome.

I do, and I just explained how I know. In all the most crucial states, factors unrelated to the emails were primarily responsible for Trump's victory. Trying to pin Clinton's loss on anything other than her own incompetence (relative to Trump) is ridiculous.

Remember that professor who predicted all those elections correctly and predicted Trump would win, that was way before the email leak, maybe he was a Russian spy and was trying to warn us!!!! and we didn't know it!!!
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2016 3:54:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2016 5:19:09 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/15/2016 2:36:42 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

American intelligence officials say they are convinced that Russian hacking of our presidential election was approved by President Vladimir Putin. Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.

Republicans now in league with Russians in greatest scandal of our time.

Hasn't the U.S. been under constant cyber attack from Russia, China and numerous other countries? Do you think we haven't done or tried to do the same thing under a different name, counter intelligence or surveillance? Why is this so shocking to everyone? Is the real outrage over what was exposed and we have complete incompetents who fall for phishing? See that should be the real concern, is that it was even successful. We should be terrified that we are that vulnerable and have complete idiots falling for these tactics. What was in the emails was damming otherwise this would be a non issue, yet to this day those emails are just glossed over. If our cyber security is that weak, Hillary's private server needs a more in depth investigation if possible. They were careless and got caught so it stands to reason to shine the light someplace else. We kind of woe Putin a debt of gratitude for exposing this weakness.

Apparently an administrator sent an email titled "This is legitimate" when he meant "illegitimate". It was the fishing email that had the link to reset the account password and he basically prompted Podesta to follow it due to a typo.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.