Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where's the bucket!? Start bailing water...









Which is it, her official website or her campaign's official website?

I guess only time will tell if www.hillaryclinton.com will remain her website after this campaign.

FreudianSlippers

Amerika wrote: »

I guess only time will tell if www.hillaryclinton.com will remain her website after this campaign.

Now we're mixing in futurology!

ligerdub

Risky game that.

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-polls-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-leading-battleground-states-win-lose-670x388.jpg

Jan_de_Bakker

"Do the right thing" ???

Yeah in their OPINION !!!
one of my colleagues is organizing (ex Pat American) lots of letter writing to urge them to "do the right thing and save America" .... I mean how arrogant ?

Imagine if Hillary won and Trump supporters were saying "Save America ..."
think about the uproar!! .

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Now we're mixing in futurology!

Think about it. The campaign is over... Hillary lost. Why is it not shut down if it was merely a website to be utilized just for Hillary's campaign? Apparently we just might be in the future.

Count Dooku

Amerika wrote: »

Think about it. The campaign is over... Hillary lost. .

Not yet, CIA calls for new vote
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn

Christy42

Count Dooku wrote: »

Not yet, CIA calls for new vote
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn

In fairness that is someone who was in the CIA as opposed to the CIA itself calling for the vote. Will be interesting to see what would be done if it is proven. A new election could be difficult with the obvious backlash coming from Trump supporters but you obviously can't have elections interfered with like that and call yourself a democracy.

Oliver Beetroot

Count Dooku wrote: »

Not yet, CIA calls for new vote

Fake post alert!

Oliver Beetroot

Christy42 wrote: »

In fairness that is someone who was in the CIA as opposed to the CIA itself calling for the vote. Will be interesting to see what would be done if it is proven. A new election could be difficult with the obvious backlash coming from Trump supporters but you obviously can't have elections interfered with like that and call yourself a democracy.

Allegedly 'interfered with'.

...And Justice

Amerika wrote: »

I guess only time will tell if www.hillaryclinton.com will remain her website after this campaign.

Just suck it up, trump is going to be the president, same thing happened in 2000, al Gore was technically president until Jeb used inmates votes in Florida to make sure George got there in the end.

osmiumartist

Count Dooku wrote: »

Not yet, CIA calls for new vote
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn

Next they'll produce some of the supposed evidence to back up their Russian hacking claims.
Oh silly me, what was I thinking!

Yourself isit

Christy42 wrote: »

In fairness that is someone who was in the CIA as opposed to the CIA itself calling for the vote. Will be interesting to see what would be done if it is proven. A new election could be difficult with the obvious backlash coming from Trump supporters but you obviously can't have elections interfered with like that and call yourself a democracy.

There would be very few democracies if that rule were universal.

osmiumartist

It's also interesting that the CIA (or some spook there) would be demanding a re-election on the basis that the voting public were provided with too much information about one of the candidates...

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

It's also interesting that the CIA (or some spook there) would be demanding a re-election on the basis that the voting public were provided with too much information about one of the candidates...

I'd call that spin "disingenuous", but that would be too kind.

The issue is not that the voting public had too much information about one of the candidates; the issue is that a foreign government favoured one of the candidates, and apparently actively orchestrated the leaking of information with the conscious aim of damaging the other candidate.

Of course, Trump denies that any such interference happened. And, predictably, his acolytes are demanding evidence of be produced, all the while cheerfully accepting his word at face value.

The CIA says that Russia interfered with the election, and the Trumpettes demand that classified information be published before they'll believe it. Trump says that Russia had no involvement, and his disciples say "well, that's good enough for me".

Can anyone explain to me why they believe Trump knows more about Russia's involvement or otherwise in influencing the election than the intelligence agencies whose job it is to know these things?



/awaits the inevitable "WMDs in Iraq" deflection...

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd call that spin "disingenuous", but that would be too kind.

The issue is not that the voting public had too much information about one of the candidates; the issue is that a foreign government favoured one of the candidates, and apparently actively orchestrated the leaking of information with the conscious aim of damaging the other candidate.

Of course, Trump denies that any such interference happened. And, predictably, his acolytes are demanding evidence of be produced, all the while cheerfully accepting his word at face value.

The CIA says that Russia interfered with the election, and the Trumpettes demand that classified information be published before they'll believe it. Trump says that Russia had no involvement, and his disciples say "well, that's good enough for me".

Can anyone explain to me why they believe Trump knows more about Russia's involvement or otherwise in influencing the election than the intelligence agencies whose job it is to know these things?



/awaits the inevitable "WMDs in Iraq" deflection...

I think the idiotic anti-Trump buffoons are simply parroting the same vague meandering tripe that's being peddled by anonymous "sources" which have not and will never be backed with any evidence whatsoever. I don't blame them for clutching at straws though as they are obviously very upset at the cognitive dissonance of people not simply agreeing that they are right.

Christy42

Oliver Beetroot wrote: »

Allegedly 'interfered with'.

No interfered with.

I started off my statement with if it is proven in case you missed it. If it was proven then there would certainly be no allegedly. This is why I started with if.

I notice that it is one side leading these sentences appropriately. See the recount started with we should see if fraud took place not claiming absolutely that it did sends Trump supporters up in arms due to a lack of proof while millions of people voted illegally is cool and requires no proof what so ever to be provided.

Inquitus

If both the RNC and the DNC were hacked by Russia, as seems likely, and only the DNC stuff damaging to Hillary was released, Russia has clearly tried to influence the outcome of the election in Trump's favour. I really don't see what can be done about it however.

ligerdub

Influenced by spreading something dangerous named "the truth". Shocker.

Inquitus

ligerdub wrote: »

Influenced by spreading something dangerous named "the truth". Shocker.

By showing only "Truths" about the DNC, and witholding those "Truths" negative to the Trump campaign which clearly would have been in the RNC files, given how unpopular he was with the RNC until his nomination, they have influenced the election and it's coverage.

ligerdub

Inquitus wrote:

By showing only "Truths" about the DNC, and witholding those "Truths" negative to the Trump campaign which clearly would have been in the RNC files, given how unpopular he was with the RNC until his nomination, they have influenced the election and it's coverage.

Because of course Mr Trump received no blanket criticism from the mainstream media.

Forget it, this story is hilarious. I thought people were further down the line in terms of accepting the result, obviously not.

Inquitus

ligerdub wrote: »

Because of course Mr Trump received no blanket criticism from the mainstream media.

Forget it, this story is hilarious. I thought people were further down the line in terms of accepting the result, obviously not.

Well he's clearly unfit to be president, so acceptance may well be a long way off for most.

osmiumartist

Inquitus wrote: »

Well he's clearly unfit to be president

Translation: My personal and currently unsupported opinion is that I think he is unfit to be president.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd call that spin "disingenuous", but that would be too kind.

The issue is not that the voting public had too much information about one of the candidates; the issue is that a foreign government favoured one of the candidates, and apparently actively orchestrated the leaking of information with the conscious aim of damaging the other candidate.

So...? If the leak of the "pussy-grabbing" tape was done by people working for China, does that make it any less damning to Trump? No. Even if it didn't have a foreign government behind it - certainly the coverage given to that tape had political motivations. Similarly if the democratic party emails were leaked by Russian agents does it make them any less true? No.

The publicity own-goals by both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were their own doing. Everyone knew that Bernie Sander's hand had been forced, the email confirming such was merely proof.

It's just amusing seeing two individuals who condone the spying upon people's private business (Trump and Clinton) being themselves bitten by people getting hold of their data.

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

I think the idiotic anti-Trump buffoons are simply parroting the same vague meandering tripe that's being peddled by anonymous "sources" which have not and will never be backed with any evidence whatsoever.

Yeah, that's pretty standard fare in the post-fact world where someone like Trump can win an election: pretend that the considered assessment of the entire US intelligence community is "vague meandering tripe".

Evidence, schmevidence. Evidence is something you demand from the people you disagree with. Your own "facts" don't need evidence.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's pretty standard fare in the post-fact world where someone like Trump can win an election: pretend that the considered assessment of the entire US intelligence community is "vague meandering tripe".

Evidence, schmevidence. Evidence is something you demand from the people you disagree with. Your own "facts" don't need evidence.

What facts? I'm not claiming Russia hacked anybody or that the US Presidential election was interfered with. I don't need to provide you with one single thing.
What have you got? An equally large slice of zilch pie?
This is the "entire US intelligence community" that is so trustworthy it phones up some Clinton backing journos to spill all this supposedly classified information?

...And Justice

Technically Al Gore should have been president, trump won end of. I'm just waiting to see what happens after the 20th of January, hopefully it's not more of the same shíte with the arms industry and wall street war's.

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

I'm not claiming Russia hacked anybody or that the US Presidential election was interfered with.

No; the US intelligence agencies en masse are.

So I'm repeating what the intelligence agencies are saying; you're repeating what Trump is saying. If it suits you to believe that you're on the side with greater credibility, it's unlikely that there's anything that could change your mind.

Oliver Beetroot

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; the US intelligence agencies en masse are.

So I'm repeating what the intelligence agencies are saying; you're repeating what Trump is saying. If it suits you to believe that you're on the side with greater credibility, it's unlikely that there's anything that could change your mind.

Have these agencies provided evidence (yet)?

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; the US intelligence agencies en masse are.

So I'm repeating what the intelligence agencies are saying; you're repeating what Trump is saying. If it suits you to believe that you're on the side with greater credibility, it's unlikely that there's anything that could change your mind.

I'm also guessing you can't point me to one single official statement form any US intelligence agency stating this. Would you care to hazard a guess why this would be so?
I'm also going to guess that you will continue to and indeed never provide any evidence whatsoever to back up these Russian hacking claims.
Hey, but you don't need evidence to make up your mind apparently, do you? Apparently I'm the silly one for asking for it...:rolleyes:

dudara

From what I know, the CIA isn't in the business of issuing press releases on topics like this. Classified material and all that.

The Armed Services committee however, has released a press statement which contains the following excerpt... This would appear to imply that there is classified material supporting this story.

While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/mccain-graham-schumer-reed-joint-statement-on-reports-that-russia-interfered-with-the-2016-election