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: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian



I do believe Trump critics, and Russia critics are deflecting still.

Simply because they can't own up to their loss.


That's the whole Russia story in a nutshell.
Even after investigations are complete we will be no closer to the truth
I know it
You know it
The author of the OP knows it.
So why all the fuss?
My opinion is simple
The leaders in the Democrat party are scared witless
8 years ago they held the Presidency
Both houses of Congress
A majority of the Governorships
A standoff in the State Houses
AND THEY BLEW IT
How long will it be until younger democrats with the ability to take leadership begin to point this out?
How long until they emerge from the cocoon of shock from the election to realize that their party's leaders fudged up a brilliant chance to win over all Americans only to pander to minority special interest groups willing to invest money?
That's what this is all about...control of their troops
Because once things settle down then reality will slowly set in
The GOP holds the presidency, both houses of Congress
The SCOTUS
A majority of the governorships and State Houses
And things could actually get worse in 2018
When some young, charismatic DEM leaders start to capitalize on this , they're done
The Clintons
The Obamas
Pelosi
Brazile
Wasserman Shultz
Emanuel
They are all done
That's what this is about
Keep the troops angry and focused on Trump
edit on 19-12-2016 by Arizonaguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
As of a half an hour ago, with the EC voting completed in 43 states, President-elect Donald J Trump had 259 electoral votes to 156 for Hillary Clinton. As predicted by myself and other non-hysterical posters, there was no great number of faithless electors. The much hyped fake "coup" scaremongering proved to be just more clickbait for the easily clickbaited.

All the Internet tough guy self-styled revolutionaries blathering ominously about their guns ended up getting their panties in a bunch over nothing.

Now with the EC paranoia behind us, will the hysterical denialism over Russian interference during our presidential election also become a thing of a past? Will we be able to have reasoned discussions about the evidence of the Russian goverment attempting to effect the election? How about their continued attempts to influence US politics? The implications of this sort of meddling and manipulation and what the appropriate response should be?

Or is still too soon and too likely to trigger some folks?

What will it take? Acceptance by President-elect Trump? Does the cult need to be given the okay to believe objective reality again? Will President-elect Trump stop lying long enough to let his faitful followers off the hook?



Ironically enough this is what VP-elect Pence was saying back on October 16th:


On Sunday, Pence for the second time in recent weeks broke from Trump on Russia, this time on that country's possible involvement in email hacks tied to the U.S. election, saying Moscow should face "severe consequences" if it has compromised U.S. email security.

"I think there's no question that the evidence continues to point in that direction," Pence said. "There should be severe consequences to Russia or any sovereign nation that is compromising the privacy or the security of the United States of America," Pence said on "Fox News Sunday."


Can we really talk about it when you're convinced, while most are only saying it's possible? Can we really talk about it without glossing over Uranium One or Obama's "more flexible after the election" comment?

How about we talk when someone, somewhere, has concrete proof it was Russia. As of right now it's just as likely it was disgruntled DNC underlings. And this discussion should in no way overshadow what those leaks revealed.

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?



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

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.


edit on 109Monday000000America/ChicagoDec000000MondayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I would just like to thank you on another clickbait partisan hack thread.

I really admire your work and I hope you keep it going like the energizer bunny!

So thank you again and remember... Keep FOCUSED!!!!

Everyone everywhere needs to see what CTRL-Left means.



Oh! And no need to respond, as your reply doesn't really matter.


edit on 19Mon, 19 Dec 2016 19:49:38 -0600America/Chicago16th2016-12-19T19:49:38-06:00pmMondayAmerica/Chicago by GreyScale because: Added no need to reply!



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Say it with me. 8 years of god damned making America great again!!! Enjoy the loss of every governmental position held by a democrat.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
It wasn't Russia that tried to influence the election.

It was SNL, Colbert, John Oliver, George Soros, Saudi Arabia, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Twitter algorithms, Illegals voting etc. - LET'S HAVE A REAL INVESTIGATION.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




As predicted by myself and other non-hysterical posters, there was no great number of faithless electors. The much hyped fake "coup" scaremongering

First for "yourself" you might want to fact check with your own threads and posts
Second - propaganda from the left...

And I still praise whatever group that exposed the level of corruption with Hillary and within the DNC. Dirty job but someone had to do it.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I seem to recall a poll that said people didn't care what the emails said. They were voting for Trump or Clinton based on existing issues, not DNC corruption.

So exactly what did Russia intervene on? Did they give those extra votes to Hillary?

Heh... the DNC can see Russia from their servers...



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: ketsuko
Well, thanks to you I looked up Eich. I found no indication that he in any way was the target of a government run pogrom such as Mccarthyism. Do you wish to display your grand intelligence and knowledge base for us dummies who cannot see the connection that you seem to? Or did you just toss out that name because you like the way it sounds.


I'm sorry. The Hollywood blacklist that prevented celebrities from working was not government via any mandate or law. It was simply understood that these suspect individuals would not work.


Are you deliberately being obtuse here KET? Of course you know Tailgunner Joe and his government hunt for commies. His hearings are the very kind of government over reach you rail against day after day. Now to suggest that, who, Hollywood, just voluntaryliy told these people they could not work? I think not. It was the threats of investigations into the Hollywood empires by government that put the pressure on the entertainment corporations that then caused the blacklisting of people.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
The Russians obviously got electors drunk, which is just another way in which they influenced this elections


stop...giving...them...ideas...

@OP There was no Russian Influence...



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll be happy to discuss it the moment someone actually "owns" it.

Thus far, no one is willing to do that. They even snubbed their nose at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

What a crock of sh#t.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
It wasn't Russia that tried to influence the election.

It was SNL, Colbert, John Oliver, George Soros, Saudi Arabia, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Twitter algorithms, Illegals voting etc. - LET'S HAVE A REAL INVESTIGATION.


Lol! I think this is what is called "butthurt".
edit on 12/19/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
A liberal wants an investigation. Others agree.
A conservatives wants an investigation. Liberals falsely call it "butthurt".

The hypocrisy is entertaining though. It'd be boring if our victory didn't cause a triggering effect.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I'm STILL WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION. What did the Russians do to change the results of the election? In order to interfere they have to have changed the outcome. Did they hack voting machines? did they hack election offices? So far the only evidence ive seen of election hacking was from homeland security. So to Put it simply what did the Russians do that had any effect on the outcome??????????????????????????????????????



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

DNC hacks....so they claim, but beyond anonymous sources from agencies I don't think we can trust and no actual evidence they have nothing.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Man, milking it for all its worth, huh? That bag is long empty.

Trump is our president. The EC is over with. Nothing more but to celebrate.

In regards to Russian hacking, provide solid proof please. SOLID.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Sure, lets talk about the hacking. First off, what was the information that was released?

second, was any of it untrue?

Third, how did the release of that information change the outcome of the election?

fourth, I thought it was Comey's fault? Who will get blamed next week?


That it?

Have you ever seen me state or even imply that any of the documents released by Wikileaks were inauthentic? No, you haven't. Have you seen me claim that barring the hacks/releases, the outcome of the election would have been different? No, you haven't. You sure do seem eager to misrepresent my position though.

Do you honestly believe that if RNC emails or those of one of the campaign managers of Trump had been released, they wouldn't have been as bad or worse? You can't possibly be that naive.

Just so we're clear though — you have no problem with foreign governments using hacking in an attempt to influence the outcome of our elections in general? That's something you support?

edit on 2016-12-19 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
If the Russian government did hack the DNC (I'm not sure if advanced methods consistent with Russian government is proof of Russian government intervention), they did no more than shine a light on the truth.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
A liberal wants an investigation. Others agree.
A conservatives wants an investigation. Liberals falsely call it "butthurt".

The hypocrisy is entertaining though. It'd be boring if our victory didn't cause a triggering effect.


Do you care to source this or provide context for this?

Do you think that a few people adequately represent the 150 million some that voted?

Yeah, the hipocrocy is real entertaining.



new topics




 
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join