It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EC Voting Almost Over, Can We Talk About Russian Intervention Now?

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Natas0114
Wikileaks leader Julian assange said himself "it did not come from the russians". Why is this so hard to digest?


Because it doesn't agree with the narrative that needs to be pushed. Ergo, it gets ignored.


Actually, it hasn't been ignored at all. I've addressed it on multiple occassions. I've even addressed the multiple conflicts in the purportedly corroborating statements made by Craig Murray when they've been brought up recently.

Saying that it's been ignored is completely untrue.


If the fake news cycle has shown us anything, it's that saying something is true or untrue doesn't make it so, no?

You've addressed it. Super. Who are you again? Somebody with a "non-partisan" (the hilarity of your claim that you're non-partisan is monumental) hard-on for Trump on an internet board.

Wonderful.
I haven't seen you address it anywhere. The media sure as hell isn't going out of their way to address it. My statement was that it's being ignored. Which it is, because people are ignoring it. I didn't say ALL THE PEOPLE EVER are ignoring it. Only that it's being ignored.

So no, it's not completely untrue. No matter how many times you say it's completely untrue, it's not completely untrue.
edit on 20-12-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Where did you say the efforts of Hollywood, politicians and grass roots organizations to thwart the EC vote for Trump would come to naught? This i need to see.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How's electric universe theory treating you lately? Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't change a damn thing. The evidence that you're claiming I pulled out of a "magic hat" has all been known (and forcefully ignored) since mid-June, starting with Dmitri Alperovitch's post on June 14th. I first posted in detail about it back on October 1st.

I expounded on the evidene relating to Fancy Bear/APT28 six days ago.

You choose to ignore it because you choose to be in denial.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: theantediluvian
As far as I can tell (being an outsider) the Russian intervention seems to have consisted of stepping in, gratuitously, to force open cupboard doors and reveal the skeletons inside.
The most effective ways of making this more difficult in future would be
stronger cupboard doors
fewer skeletons


A great point.I notice the left isn't denying the truth of the incriminating emails.Their obsessed with HOW they were gotten.Sad.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Ironically enough, I said it to you directly 5 days ago:


I have no expectation that the electors will elect anyone but Donald J Trump and I think that's exactly what should happen but I can't help but shake my head at the cognitive dissonance of triggered Trump supporters who want to have their not-a-direct-democracy-cake and eat it too.


I said it the day before here:


I came to terms with the fact that Donald Trump would be inaugurated in January way back on November 9th at 3 AM. A number of you on the other hand are so desperate to not discuss the hacks because you have an irrational fear that facing objective reality might somehow result in Hillary Clinton becoming the President.

It won't. Stop being such a reactionary. Maybe you'll be comfortable discussing this once Dear Leader is sworn in?


And before then, I even predicted that it would only be an elector or two:


And really, calm the hell down. The electors are not going to elect Hillary Clinton. There may be a faithless elector or two but not thirty-seven.


edit on 2016-12-20 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How's electric universe theory treating you lately? Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't change a damn thing. The evidence that you're claiming I pulled out of a "magic hat" has all been known (and forcefully ignored) since mid-June, starting with Dmitri Alperovitch's post on June 14th. I first posted in detail about it back on October 1st.

I expounded on the evidene relating to Fancy Bear/APT28 six days ago.

You choose to ignore it because you choose to be in denial.


Wait wait wait, I thought so long as you were talking about something then it's "completely untrue" that it's being ignored.

Or is "completely untrue" a subjective thing now, and it's completely untrue only so long as it's your point being ignored, and not anybody else's?



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


You've addressed it. Super. Who are you again? Somebody with a "non-partisan" (the hilarity of your claim that you're non-partisan is monumental) hard-on for Trump on an internet board.


First off, I don't refer to myself as non-partisan. I am a liberal progressive and as I've stated numerous times, I registered as a Democrat this year to vote for Sanders in the primary. I do tend to vote for far more Democrats than Republicans but I will and have voted for a Republicans though I have never voted for one in the presidential election.


Wonderful. I haven't seen you address it anywhere. The media sure as hell isn't going out of their way to address it. My statement was that it's being ignored. Which it is, because people are ignoring it. I didn't say ALL THE PEOPLE EVER are ignoring it. Only that it's being ignored.


What percentage of people who participate in political threads on ATS would you guess don't know that Julian Assange has denied that the Russians were the source? Was Julian Assange not just interviewed saying the same thing again on the top rated show on the top rated cable news channel a few days ago? (Hannity).

USA Today - Assange says WikiLeaks didn't get emails from Russia (Nov 3)
ABC News - WikiLeaks Founder: Russian Government Is Not Our 'Source (Nov 3)
Fortune - Julian Assange Claims Russia Isn't Behind WikiLeaks' Hacked Clinton Emails (Nov 3)
RCP - WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: Russian Government Was Not Source For Podesta, DNC Emails (Dec 15)

It was reported by NBC News, Fox News, Daily Caller, Daily Beast, The Guardian etc. (that's just the first page of Google results).

I'm sure that somebody somewhere is ignoring it though!
edit on 2016-12-20 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Lets say that Russia did definitely hack the DNC and Podesta emails... whats the next step? I know that any amount of hacking is not a good thing (unless the US is doing it, of course =)) and folks should work to strengthen their server security. But other than that, what do we do? More sanctions? The WikiLeaks release of emails has highlighted collusion between DNC and super pacs, collusion and bias between media personanlities and DNC, and collusion to hand the nomination to Clinton over Sanders. The law has been broken, but I find it very hard to shoot the messenger when all they did was expose corruption. How is justice served in this situation?
edit on 20-12-2016 by bmullini because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Since all they really did was give us information that really belonged to taxpayers, they did us a favor.

Most amerikans think the Russians literally hacked voting machines....its sad the way the MSM washes the news for the sheep.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ReakHavik

1. No, emails/documents from the DNC and John Podesta's private email account do not belong to the tax payers.

2. Do you have some evidence that most Americans actually believe that the Russians hacked voting machines? I've seen a number of right-wing pundits and politicians who seem to be deliberately muddying the waters by saying that "there's no evidence that voting machines were hacked" or "I don't believe voting machines were hacked" when I haven't seen anyone claim that they were. In effect, it's a straw man attack by trying to "disprove" a claim that nobody was making.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ReakHavik

But that is how they frame the story. Many articles have been posted about how Russia has "hacked the election". But I guess some fault lies on the folks digesting the info too.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm glad you're a big boy enough to agree that somebody somewhere is ignoring Assange's statement.

Normally you're pretty good about supporting your statements but using your own google search? C'mon man, that's one of the weakest things I've seen you do, and you've been in a perpetual "satirical" jerkfest over Trump for months now. Your google search doesn't mean dick, because when I do a google search, there's not a single mention of Assange's statement about Russia anywhere on the first page.

Why?

Because I used search terms geared to not show any results other than articles about Russia being responsible for the hacks. It's really not that hard to get google to show you exactly what you want it to show you, now is it? And it's not even some overly specific set of search terms, either.

Much like I'm sure you did with your search


Can't wait till you get back to posting crypto-related content with some semblance of regularity instead of letting everybody know how scared you are of the orange man!

edit on 20-12-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bmullini


Lets say that Russia did definitely hack the DNC and Podesta emails... whats the next step? I know that any amount of hacking is not a good thing (unless the US is doing it, of course =)) and folks should work to strengthen their server security. But other than that, what do we do? More sanctions?


Ultimately that will be the decision of the incoming administration. I suggest that the first step is a full investigation with congressional oversight. I don't know that we need to retaliate in kind or impose further sanctions but it should at least be acknowledged and factored into our relations with Russia.

Nobody is looking to escalate this into a military conflict but have you considered the implications of no response at all? No response is a response and it's one that conveys weakness.


The WikiLeaks release of emails has highlighted collusion between DNC and super pacs, collusion and bias between media personanlities and DNC, and collusion to hand the nomination to Clinton over Sanders. The law has been broken, but I find it very hard to shoot the messenger when all they did was expose corruption.


DWS is out. Donna Brazile won't ever be even interim chairperson of the DNC again after this stint. Whatever laws were broken should be a matter for the courts but understand the legal doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree — nothing from WikiLeaks will be admissible in court. Media bias and "collusion" with the media aren't illegal, aren't new and they're certainly not something that only exists on one side of the aisle, are they?

There are no simple answers. There rarely are.


How is justice served in this situation?


There are considerations beyond how justice is best served. Chiefly, how are we the people best served. Clearly the DNC got a black eye and they should clean house. However, artificially elevating the influence of the RNC by airing the dirty laundry of the DNC and not that of the RNC threatens to upset the balance of power between the two.

You know what's worse than two-party rule? One party ruling unchallenged.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

As of right now it's just as likely it was disgruntled DNC underlings.


That is a very irresponsible and selfish bit of armchair theorizing. You aren't privy to the info that made for a unanimous intelligence community.


Also, regarding "appropriate response": Clinton wanted to use military force in retaliation for hacking. Meaning she'd have gone to war as president had her unsecured server been hacked after the election. The left is tired of war, so why do they seem so quick to start one with Russia?



The right is vicious and cruel, so why do they seem so afraid of war? Not that H would have actually started one.



All anyone can say is "might have". theorizing is all we have.

That second bit is a very irresponsible and selfish bit of armchair theorizing.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

As of right now it's just as likely it was disgruntled DNC underlings.


That is a very irresponsible and selfish bit of armchair theorizing. You aren't privy to the info that made for a unanimous intelligence community.


Also, regarding "appropriate response": Clinton wanted to use military force in retaliation for hacking. Meaning she'd have gone to war as president had her unsecured server been hacked after the election. The left is tired of war, so why do they seem so quick to start one with Russia?



The right is vicious and cruel, so why do they seem so afraid of war? Not that H would have actually started one.



All anyone can say is "might have". theorizing is all we have.

That second bit is a very irresponsible and selfish bit of armchair theorizing.


Yea but it's different when "the other side" does it.

"The other side" being a phrase that's 100% interchangeable, depending on who's using it of course



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




What list? Oh, because some group put up a website, that's THE list? And since that's THE list and it included WikiLeaks then there is no such thing as fake news. Which of those 5 fake news stories wasn't a hoax?


It does not matter if the stories are fake or not. You are defending the loss of freedom of speech. If 911 happened today and people questioned the status quo it would be labelled fake news. There is nothing wrong with healthy dialogue and discussion.
This is a tool for the removal of critical opposition. It is dangerous line to cross and not the weight of a healthy and free society.
These are tools that will offer no safety they grant control over the cyber gateways of information. You really think this will not be abused.
People fought hard for us to have the freedoms we have today. Why are so willing to give up your freedoms for protection so readily.
Do yo not thing you should have the ability to make your own mind up regarding what fake news is. Soon 'fakenews' will be pushed so far down google searches and social media you many never have a choice.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I have a stomach ache. The Russians must have gave me bad food.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Ironically enough, I said it to you directly 5 days ago:


I have no expectation that the electors will elect anyone but Donald J Trump and I think that's exactly what should happen but I can't help but shake my head at the cognitive dissonance of triggered Trump supporters who want to have their not-a-direct-democracy-cake and eat it too.


I said it the day before here:


I came to terms with the fact that Donald Trump would be inaugurated in January way back on November 9th at 3 AM. A number of you on the other hand are so desperate to not discuss the hacks because you have an irrational fear that facing objective reality might somehow result in Hillary Clinton becoming the President.

It won't. Stop being such a reactionary. Maybe you'll be comfortable discussing this once Dear Leader is sworn in?


And before then, I even predicted that it would only be an elector or two:


And really, calm the hell down. The electors are not going to elect Hillary Clinton. There may be a faithless elector or two but not thirty-seven.

The point being that triggered Hill supporters were demanding just that....direct democracy in the popular vote and undermining the electoral college...what more can we say about this election cycle? This response was for your comment on having non direct demicracy cake....the post shortened it
edit on 21-12-2016 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

If the DNC had won. If they could have succeeded in forcing Hillary on us all. Then you really would have had that single party unopposed. The Republican Party was a hairs breath of falling apart, a loss of which would have cemented it, and had Hillary won despite being the clear establishment pick in a country trying to rail against it, thus Bernie's support and Jeb being kicked so decisively to the curb, then it'd become really clear who was in control.

Trump winning was an upset, it wasn't supposed to happen. I'm not sure he's the right person for the job, but he was the peoples choice. Anyone but Hillary and the death of the democratic republic that would have come with her victory. The DNC, the media, the establishment, establishment members of the republican party, bought and paid for celebrities, scared illegals ALL went all in to force in Hillary the establishment pick and it still wasn't enough. The people spoke, the establishment lost, they simply could not stack things in their favor enough to win when the people finally said NO.

What's scary though is, they almost succeeded, and are still trying.

I just hope Trump proves my fears wrong and is at least somewhat real. If he's a complete and utter failure in every way, then we are truly screwed. I'm not sure I trust or like Trump, I didn't vote for him. But he has my support and I hope he's one of the most successful presidents ever, because if he's the opposite we're all in a lot of trouble.

So crossing my fingers he's on a quest to leave a legacy as one of the US greatest presidents when we needed him most. And it's not some BS con on we the citizens of the US.

If, however your fear was one party unopposed, you should be celebrating the Republican win, cause had Hillary won you would have gotten just that.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: bmullini


Lets say that Russia did definitely hack the DNC and Podesta emails... whats the next step? I know that any amount of hacking is not a good thing (unless the US is doing it, of course =)) and folks should work to strengthen their server security. But other than that, what do we do? More sanctions?


Ultimately that will be the decision of the incoming administration. I suggest that the first step is a full investigation with congressional oversight. I don't know that we need to retaliate in kind or impose further sanctions but it should at least be acknowledged and factored into our relations with Russia.

Nobody is looking to escalate this into a military conflict but have you considered the implications of no response at all? No response is a response and it's one that conveys weakness.


The WikiLeaks release of emails has highlighted collusion between DNC and super pacs, collusion and bias between media personanlities and DNC, and collusion to hand the nomination to Clinton over Sanders. The law has been broken, but I find it very hard to shoot the messenger when all they did was expose corruption.


DWS is out. Donna Brazile won't ever be even interim chairperson of the DNC again after this stint. Whatever laws were broken should be a matter for the courts but understand the legal doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree — nothing from WikiLeaks will be admissible in court. Media bias and "collusion" with the media aren't illegal, aren't new and they're certainly not something that only exists on one side of the aisle, are they?

There are no simple answers. There rarely are.


How is justice served in this situation?


There are considerations beyond how justice is best served. Chiefly, how are we the people best served. Clearly the DNC got a black eye and they should clean house. However, artificially elevating the influence of the RNC by airing the dirty laundry of the DNC and not that of the RNC threatens to upset the balance of power between the two.

You know what's worse than two-party rule? One party ruling unchallenged.


Everything in the investigation should be happening behind closed doors. I see no reason, other than to spread propaganda, that the CIA would be leaking information to the Washington Post. Trying to defend against cyber warfare in public is just a tad daft.
One would actually hope that the US was on constant guard against hacking and cyber warfare, as opposed to needing an investigation to be played out in the media after a hack.




top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join