Wisconsin Recount..

[Thumb]

They probebly are didn't some of them globalist republicans vote for Hillary? That graham is one whacked out dude, how many times has he advocated to start www3 now anyway?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca1_1446589694

Yeah, good thing he didn't do anything monumentally stupid like break decades of protocol and piss off the country with the worlds largest standing army.

And also keep mentioning globalists and stuff while chanting "drain the swamp" and idolizing your orange savior for tearing down the DC machinery and rebuilding it with the same cogs and gears as before.

 

[byco42]

RE: Trump, Wikileaks and Putin

 

[Michchamp]

RE: Trump, Wikileaks and Putin

I don't think Wikileaks is a Russian front.

and Snowden didn't intend to go to Russia; the US revoked his passport while he was in transit, and he was stranded there.

I think the Russians interfered in the election, sure, but he (Schindler) is slamming Assange & Snowden because their disclosures undermined the US government's public positions. So I don't really consider him 100% credible. He's got an angle of his own. He's also ignored the times wikileaks has disclosed Russian gov't docs and docs critical of Putin. But pretty much every government slams wikileaks credibility so that when this equal-opportunity leak site releases something that tarnishes their credibility, they can yell "Bias" and "foreign agents" rather than trying to deny the substance of what is revealed.

 

[Michchamp]

Yeah, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, and John McCain are just pissed the Democrats didn't win.

there are more Republican senators than that who have publicly opposed Russia in Ukraine, and support an investigation into Russian interference in this election. in addition to those three, 538.com adds Rubio, Gardner, Portman, Roberts, Ron Johnson. Then there are a bunch that haven't taken a position on Ukraine but still support an investigation. only a handful (Rubio, Graham, McCain, and McConnell) had public beefs with Trump.

and BTW, Trump just appointed McConnel's wife, Elaine Chao, who inherited a shady Chinese shipping company, to be Secretary of Transportation. one time, one of her company's ships was detained at port and found to be loaded with cocaine.

go figure...

 

[Spartanmack]

Revealing the truth about someone's shady dealings by hacking their personal emails is not interfering in an election. It's whistle blowing, pulling up the shades. It's naive to say neither side wants to make this a partisan issue, or one does and the other doesn't. Both sides desperately want it to be.

The focus of the investigation should be on the security of private information, the ability of foreign bad actors to gain access to US citizens' personal data and the mishandling of any US gov't information, not some b.s. like how revealing the truth about what how unqualified and what a horrible human being Clinton is cost her the election.

If the Russians revealing that information cost her the election, it's still 100% her fault, not theirs. You can't lie to everyone and do shady things in secret and then blame someone else for losing the election because they exposed your lies and shady dealings.

 

[Michchamp]

I more or less agree with the 1st 2 paragraphs, but you keep mentioning how unqualified Clinton was for the job; but do you believe Trump - who has never held a public/government job, or held or been elected to office before, and continues to openly flout conflict of interest conventions as he builds his cabinet with similarly inexperienced individuals - is actually more qualified?

 

[byco42]

I cannot sign that it's ok for Russia to hack and slash a presidential candidate's e-mails sourced from the DNC and call it "all's-fair" in politics.

From the article: "Russian hackers working for the Kremlin cyber-pilfered the DNC then passed the purloined data, including thousands of unflattering emails, to Wikileaks, which has shown them to the world."

This is foreign interference at the highest level, with an agenda to put the other guy in office.

 

[tigermud]

hey so now Trump nominated a fast food industry titan who advocated for bringing cheap undocumented workers across the border to cut costs to head the Dept of Labor. And had to pull another nominee when the liberal media pointed out that she was an advocate for bringing in more foreign workers on H1B visas to undercut American workers (but replaced her with another nominee who advocates for the same thing.)

Still happy with your vote? are the token jobs he saved in Indiana worth the steaming heap of shit that's about to be dumped on the American working class?

Absolutely, as long as those nominations represent his agenda it'll be fine. I'm willing to wait and see if that turns out to be the case or not, I have no reason to believe currently that it won't. That steaming pile of shit you smell is globalist panic.

 

[tigermud]

Yeah, good thing he didn't do anything monumentally stupid like break decades of protocol and piss off the country with the worlds largest standing army.

And also keep mentioning globalists and stuff while chanting "drain the swamp" and idolizing your orange savior for tearing down the DC machinery and rebuilding it with the same cogs and gears as before.

we'll just have to wait and see how that turns out, they don't like him, good. What I find concerning are guys like bear whom I like, (that history channel show hunting hilter is outstanding and will likely lead to a re-writing of the history books IMO) openly calling for new elections over this, over claims with no proof provided. Is this the same CIA that said there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq?


http://lawnewz.com/video/fmr-cia-of...tion-amid-latest-russian-interference-claims/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...election_disruption_chuck_this_is_insane.html

 

[tigermud]

I more or less agree with the 1st 2 paragraphs, but you keep mentioning how unqualified Clinton was for the job; but do you believe Trump - who has never held a public/government job, or held or been elected to office before, and continues to openly flout conflict of interest conventions as he builds his cabinet with similarly inexperienced individuals - is actually more qualified?

Those negative items you list for trump IMO are actually positive things.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think some people are treating this like bad refs in a football game, worrying about whether or not their impact was big enough to change this specific outcome. It's a dumb line of reasoning and another dumb thing to be partisan about. We should try to understand foreign efforts to influence our elections, and if they are significant, generally speaking, we should do something about it.

Same as voter fraud. If there's evidence that it is happening to a significant degree, we should investigate and take practical, appropriate steps to prevent it.

 

[Michchamp]

I think some people are treating this like bad refs in a football game, worrying about whether or not their impact was big enough to change this specific outcome. It's a dumb line of reasoning and another dumb thing to be partisan about. We should try to understand foreign efforts to influence our elections, and if they are significant, generally speaking, we should do something about it.

Same as voter fraud. If there's evidence that it is happening to a significant degree, we should investigate and take practical, appropriate steps to prevent it.

except we already investigated voter fraud. it wasn't happening to a significant degree, far from it actually, but we still took steps to prevent it because we found that would keep African Americans from voting.

 

[Gulo Blue]

except we already investigated voter fraud. it wasn't happening to a significant degree, far from it actually, but we still took steps to prevent it because we found that would keep African Americans from voting.

Yeah. I know.

Just saying there's no need to be partisan about it. If you understood the importance of looking into voter fraud, you should understand the importance of looking into foreign efforts to influence the election.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Well SOMEONE hacked the Clinton campaign's emails. Does that need to be formally investigated? Yes. Should the Feds/CIA publicly disclose whatever evidence they have? yes.

Was the email hack the reason Clinton lost? I don't think so.

Is this whole concept of "fake news" being exploited by unscrupulous actors in the media and government to further confuse people and try to limit access to media outlets they don't like? Yes.

That's exactly it.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Those 3 people are not claiming Trump's win was not legit. They are not claiming the outcome of the election was not who really won.

They are talking about a report from the CIA that says Russian hackers did attempt to influence the outcome of our election. And if you can't understand why those 3 and anyone else for that matter are not deeply disturbed by this, I have been giving you too much credit.

This is not a left vs. right issue, if Hillary had won, we would probably still be having this discussion.

Possibly but I bet Obama wouldn't be all gung ho "lets get it done before I leave office." And I really doubt the WH secretary would say "Hillary called Putin to hack email accounts."

 

[Mitchrapp]

I can't speak for all but it's a gmail account. Don't they have some type of pentagon secured email server for the secretary of state?

 

[tomdalton22]

except we already investigated voter fraud. it wasn't happening to a significant degree, far from it actually, but we still took steps to prevent it because we found that would keep African Americans from voting.

Voter ID laws only impact African Americans?

 

[byco42]

I can't speak for all but it's a gmail account. Don't they have some type of pentagon secured email server for the secretary of state?

state.gov. HRC refused to use it.

 

[jwlcosu]

Damn Russians are everywhere:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...cords-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

 

[Spartanmack]

I more or less agree with the 1st 2 paragraphs, but you keep mentioning how unqualified Clinton was for the job; but do you believe Trump - who has never held a public/government job, or held or been elected to office before, and continues to openly flout conflict of interest conventions as he builds his cabinet with similarly inexperienced individuals - is actually more qualified?

I don't think holding elected office is a prerequisite or something that automatically makes someone more qualified than someone with private sector experience, particularly chief executive experience. I don't think Trump is qualified but I also don't think Trump is less qualified than Clinton.