El Presidente Trump

This fake news stuff is really getting out of control



Pot, meet kettle.

First the recount fails to find any discrepancies, then the cries for internet censorship, now this.

Wakey Wakey people. Keep believing everything the Government tells MSM companies which they own to print, anything is fair game if it tries to discredit Trumps win.

I wonder if it's the same government intelligence who got the media to print about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

If the Russia government did give wikileaks the emails, which wikileaks has denied, the dnc and Clinton campaign can only blame themselves for being involved in such corruption and having terrible security(Podesta clicked a phishing email ffs), but hey once the public don't see it and it remains conspiracy, it's fine.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You managed to conflate a plethora of unrelated theories into one big weird conspiracy theory. From Wikileaks to Moscow to Saddam Hussein. That's pretty generalised paranoia.

You don't think the US have been doing the very thing they accuse Russia of for decades? Influencing elections or hacking foreign intelligence. Is that paranoia?

I don't believe what either Government say. I think they'll do whatever it takes to stop Trump getting in because the stakes are so high.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

First the recount fails to find any discrepancies,

No-one particularly expected any difference. The gap was always too wide to have any concrete effect, and it was entirely Stein's thing. Which she's perfectly entitled to do in a democracy, or at least try to do.

Just for the record, here's where it stands;

Nevada (won by) - Clinton - (recount called by) Roque De La Fuente (independent). (Original) results - landslide against DL Fuente, win by 27.2k out of 1.1m over Trump. Recount Results: in progress

Wisconsin - Trump - Stein (Green). Results: Trump won by ~ 22,000 votes.
Recount: No change in per cent divide, both candidates lost 20 votes each, attempt to have the recount stopped by Trump denied before hearing takes place.

Penn - Trump - Stein. Results: Still not finalised after the original election, Trump's lead shrank a bit with the counting of overseas ballots and the other incidentals, but the difference would need to be <=0.5% to trigger a recount. Stein's lawyers are waiting before doing anything.

Michigan - Trump - Stein. Results: Trump won by 0.02% of the vote. Recount: In progress. Interesting side to this, the Republican-owned state congress have passed a rule that anyone who calls a recount and loses by more than 5% has to pay the full costs of the recount - which will retroactively apply to Stein, who of course will lose by that because she was a minor, fourth-place candidate. That's ..changing the rules mid-game for revenge. That should not have happened and it's a pretty disgraceful attack on democracy (and her democratic right to see a free and fair election confirmed) to do it. If that isn't a wake-up call, god knows what is.

Florida - Trump - Voters (No, I don't know their affiliations, although I suspect Clinton. They are being kept anonymous, which is probably wise.
Results: Trump won by ~112k votes out of 9.2ish million votes.
Recount: In progress.

then the cries for internet censorship, now this.

I can only imagine you're talking about the insane amount of bull**** that flew around this campaign. Mostly it's just the politicians. This year it was fcuking everyone from idiot alt-rights who believe everything they hear to idiot alt-lefts who believe everything they hear to the fcuking Russians. Now, -due- to the leader of the alt-right being Trump who has only the vaguest passing notion of what facts are or what the truth is, most of the bull**** came from over there. Sorry, but it's goddam true. Not all of it, ofc, people being people, but the majority was absolutely from the Republican and pseudoRepublican backyard which currently stinks like a rotting jar of lutefisk and agar.

God forbid people not want supposedly reputable outlets releasing bull**** and lies as truth, or facebook advertising them.

Wakey Wakey people. Keep believing everything the Government tells MSM companies which they own to print, anything is fair game if it tries to discredit Trumps win.

It's very hard to take anyone seriously who uses the phrase "wakey wakey" without irony. Especially when the speaker is drooling over a guy who actually lives in his own reality.

I wonder if it's the same government intelligence who got the media to print about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

If the Russia government did give wikileaks the emails, which wikileaks has denied, the dnc and Clinton campaign can only blame themselves for being involved in such corruption and having terrible security(Podesta clicked a phishing email ffs), but hey once the public don't see it and it remains conspiracy, it's fine.

[/quote]
Did you know that the Republican servers were hacked too, but the information wasn't released as the damage was intended to be against one group rather than the other. Also, are you really actually condoning foreign (and not particularly friendly) powers getting involved in your elections because they helped the guy you liked? Can you really not see how this might go horribly wrong for you in the future?

Wakey wakey is goddam right.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The stakes are very high. Already he's beginning to surround himself with nutters, generals and bankers, with a sprinkling of nutters amongst the generals. Anyone with half a brain would see that this is not going to be a good government for US society. Sadly, no matter what 'they' come up with, Trump is President. Unless he's impeached, which is a distinct possibility.

You do know Obama's entire cabinet was chosen for him by Citigroup right?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/15/wiki-o15.html

"One month before the presidential election of 2008, the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup submitted to the Obama campaign a list of its preferred candidates for cabinet positions in an Obama administration. This list corresponds almost exactly to the eventual composition of Barack Obama’s cabinet."

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Er...how is that related?


Well, the CIA, and I think we can all agree that they're not really on Clinton's side, reckons so due to their investigations. I don't really get what you need for this? The Russians to throw a "We Voted Trump" parade? Do you really think it was some guy in Korea, or "it might be China" as Trump put it. All the evidence at the moment points to Russia. But yeah, sure, you're never going to get Putin to call to your house and tell you otherwise. It comes down to balance of evidence eventually.



The problem with the "insecure private server" is that it was A Bad Thing, but not criminal and not unprecedented. Given there were very similar circumstances with Rice, Powell, Bush, Rove and the rest, it's a bit dubious to call her out specifically. It was even more likely that she would given she's been plagued with FOIs for decades. Wrong? Yes. So are spurious FOIs (and they delegitimize entirely appropriate FOIs). Now, the server itself is more unusual because she was in a position, as former First Lady that she actually -had- one. Problem is, I can absolutely see the logic that lead to it, even if it turned into a complete ****storm. It shouldn't have been done, but it has been done on a number of occasions and the ****storm resulting has mostly hit one person. On the plus side, I think it can be just about guaranteed that it won't happen any more!

I can't give much opinion on the Wikileaks comments although (and yes, this has as little proof as any of the other "gut feelings" regarding this whole mess on both sides), the KGB have had a long-standing tradition of mischief with information being released. Releasing true info and a bit of false mixed in is a very good way to get it all accepted as fact. But it doesn't change that the DNC isn't the group that completed this investigation, it was the CIA, and if anything, the CIA has shown itself a lot less kindly towards the Clinton run than the Trump run.

I guess I don't know what would constitute any sort of proof to you. It's all down to balance of evidence and at the moment, the balance is decidedly Russian.

It's related because imo you shouldn't believe everything that's printed as fact, unless it's shown as such. Everything is pushed one way or another for an agenda. I've worked in networking for years and I find it very hard to believe if an attack did happen, any evidence linking Putin or the Kremlin to it would show up, they wouldn't be that stupid to use IP addresses from Russia let alone their buildings for a start. It would be done covertly probably from another country, such that it's done anomalously. Wikileaks has denied Russia gave them emails, would they risk their entire reputation if it was true? Maybe, we don't know, but it's something to consider.

If anything we've seen this election utter corruption inside the US government, the doj emailing and colluding with Hillary before her congress hearings telling her what they're going to ask her, Bill Clinton meeting with AG Loretta Lynch in the back of a plane, the collusion between the MSM and the DNC doing everything they could to get Hillary elected.

I just find it very hard to believe what the governments stance is on certain things when I know it's rotten to the core and working side by side with major banks and elites. The FBI was manipulated so I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the CIA could push a false narrative or take a leap of faith to continue this disruption post election.

I get your perspective too and maybe it's the more logical one and the easiest one to go with. A year ago I would have been the same, and that's not to say it's wrong, I'm trying to say that after seeing all the corruption and lies that were exposed by email leaks I've started to question things. I'm happy to agree to disagree until more info comes out.

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Never new you were a communist!. No wonder you defend Fraud Trump and Putin...putting up links from "World Socialist Web Site"

Jesus how long did take you to find this site, you are embarrassing yourself

How so? Here's the proposed list, you can find it in the attachment. I read it months ago.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190

Here's another link

https://www.rt.com/usa/362836-emails-citigroup-obama-cabinet/

What I find embarrassing is people who ignore wikileaks then discredit anything said about corruption or defamatory comments about there favored party or individual where there's actual proof of wrongdoing or at least questionable information.