By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - [Update] CIA & FBI Report: Russia did things to help get Trump elected

bunchanumbers on 10 December 2016
CosmicSex said:
Its like the cold war never ended. They waited a long time but they were finally able to seize power of the US. While disturbing to Americans, it is interesting to point out that this is an impressive victory for them. They get a President put into place that will categorically dismiss its own intelligence. Where the fuck is he gonna get intel from then?

Without firing a single bullet, they embarassed and seized the White House. It is remarkable really.

What do you mean? From Brietbart and from Banon. Right there whispering conspiracy theories in his ear.



Around the Network
Thuglas on 10 December 2016

Julian Assange already said the source of these hacks is not the Russian government. We already know that Russia preferred Trump because Hillary wanted to go to war with them but that doesn't prove that they hacked DNC and Podesta emails. its the word of Julian Assange versus the word of Democratic Senators who claim that anonymous intelligence officials told them something that we actually have proof didn't happen. They claim "secret meetings to select senators" are taking place where all of this "overwhelming" proof exist, and it is simply a coincidence that they are almost all Hillary shills, one of which was her main defender during Benghazi hearings.

Remember last month when Democrats claimed that "17 intelligence agencies have proof that the John Podesta hack could ONLY have been carried out with the resources of the Russian government" then 2 weeks later WIKILEAKS reveals the evidence and it was a very simple phishing scheme that any computer nerd could have done and it in fact originated from an IP address from a city in UKRAIN not RUSSIA!

Later "Motherboard.com" claimed that the url of the phishing email is linked to fancybear, a "we are anonymous" group. This info came from a site who cites another site who cites an anonymous source.... In addition to that, the link between "fancybear" and the Russian goverment hasn't even been proven, it is simply claimed without proof yet again. Every time I researched one of these Russian hack claims, I get sent down a trail of sources citing other sources until I get to the origin which is either an anonymous source or simply a claim with no evidence whatsoever. And to top it off, Fancybear hasn't even taken credit for this despite claiming credit on everything they do.

In this specific case I can only choose to believe Julian Assange or government representatives. Julian Assange has a track record of 100% truth telling on the 10s of MILLIONS of documents he released from governments all around the words (critical Russian documents being the 2nd largest source behind US documents). Elijah Cummings, Clinton's main defender during Benghazi hearings.... hard choice.



Rab on 10 December 2016
CosmicSex said:
Its like the cold war never ended. They waited a long time but they were finally able to seize power of the US. While disturbing to Americans, it is interesting to point out that this is an impressive victory for them. They get a President put into place that will categorically dismiss its own intelligence. Where the fuck is he gonna get intel from then?

Without firing a single bullet, they embarassed and seized the White House. It is remarkable really.

My view on this is the US has been provoking Russia for a long time with anti-Russian talk coming from Hillary, NATO/US troops/bases, and misslie silos installed in Europe right upto the Russian border, if Russia had done the same build up at the Mexico border the US would be really worried, the Russians must feel they have to influence events or it could spell disaster for the World and them  



FunFan on 10 December 2016
CosmicSex said:
FunFan said:
So, all Russia did was expose the truth? lol OMG Russia so meanie, exposing poor corrupt America. Bad Russia.

*Slaps Russia's wrist*

Okay let me try to explain.  it was revealed that  Russia hacked both the  DNC and RNC but only ever leaked DNC material.  and it did it almost every day for months.  it was clear that they wanted Trump elected.  What complicates this is the fact that we know that Trump has undisclosed dealings with Russia.  Its quite interesting to see Russia exerting its influence on the US.  what Russia did was target on of the candidates to help out another candidate that they are financially connected to.  That is corruption.   Also it is obviously cyber espionage.   The concept of facts didn't die off yet.

Sounds like usual world politics to me, if I'm honest. What are you trying to explain to me? What I obviously knew? If doesn't matter if Russia was selective in the truth, they still exposed it. 

" what Russia did was target on of the candidates to help out another candidate that they are financially connected to.  That is corruption." Good, so we can all agree that the US mainstream media is corrupted.

Just out of curiosity, What do you think they could had found on Trump when he has practically no history as a politician?

Also, Do we really know Trump had dealings with Russia? Is that as a politician or as a entrepreneur?



“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).

"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)

Thuglas on 10 December 2016
pokoko said:
MTZehvor said:

If this happened like, say, four years ago, I think the response would be much different. One of the more interesting recent turns in America's political divide is just how little each side trusts each other. The rise of fake news stories, various stories of corruption involving Trump and Clinton, and myriad of conspiracy theories have all played a role in this. In short, it's not that people discredit it because they vote Trump, it's that they don't believe it because of their political leanings. That is the truly scary part, in my opinion.

And this goes both ways, too. Clinton supporters who were adament that election fraud could not possibly exist were willing to donate millions of dollars to a recount fund after their candidate lost. People's beliefs are changing at a rapid pace to simply suit what's convenient to them. If it's anything the other side says, it's a lie. If it's anything your side says, it's the truth.

As a human being, it's embarrassing.  The only criteria many people seem to care about is if something is good for their "side" or bad for the other "side".  All you need to do is make something up, dress it up a little, post it online, and you'll have people quoting and upvoting you.  They won't question it as long as it is favorable to their own preconceptions.

We've had viral email and talk radio pundits making up things for a long time, of course, but with the internet, we seem to have entered a new level of sheepdom.  The newest bit of obvious manipulation seems to be people who understand that they can't take major news outlets at face value yet, at the same time, they're being absolute puppets to "alt news" organizations.  I can't even wrap my head around that.  

It's one of the reasons I loathe politics.  People aren't just willing to believe fake news, they fall all over themselves in eagerness to spread it.  Even on these forums, we have several members who don't seem to care at all if what they are posting is true or not, as long as it furthers their agenda.  

Question everything--especially if you want to believe it.

So lets take the Podesta emails as an example. In your earlier post you say the issue here isn't about which candidate you support, it is about government security right? but do you know how this hack occured? Russian spies didn't infiltrate a government building at night dressed in all black to retrieve this info. They didn't break into John Podesta's house. Hell, this leaked information isn't even government information, it is from Podesta's PERSONAL gmail account lol. This hack of Podesta's gmail was carried out by a simply scam that said something like "your password has been compromised, follow this link to change it immediately." and his tech support told him it was legit and to follow that email's direction. It wasn't a breach in US security, it wasn't even a breach of GOOGLE security for fuck sakes! John Podesta should have been using 2-step authentication for anything that can be linked to his work. Before even starting the apllication for the lowest level of government security clearance you are HIGHLY encouraged (though not mandated) to use a 2-step authentication program. Podesta acted foolishly

Podesta was being an idiot and his GMAIL got hacked by some guy in the Ukrain who gave his shady secrets to Wikileaks. Our national cyber security hasn't been compromised and this hack didn't include government information. I haven't looked into how the earlier hacks occured but the Podesta email was the main one that got Trump elected so i just talked about that.

also don't preach "Question everything--especially if you want to believe it." and then blindly believe representatives claiming that anonymous CIA agents are showing them mountains of evidence in secret.  I find it funny that you preach that yet the people you are bashing are the ones who are waiting on the evidence before believing the claims in OP article. Do you not see something wrong with your thinking? There is absolutely zero evidence available for me and you to see that supports your claims about this. We only have the word of anonymous CIA officials versus the word of Julian Assange.



Around the Network
Lefil on 10 December 2016

WikiLeaks would seem a lot more legit if the dumps weren't all about the Clintons and DNC . Certainly they could have some info on Trump and GOP unless of course they were just trying to influence an election.



irstupid on 10 December 2016
MTZehvor said:
I find it hilarious how Americans are upset about foreign election intervention when the extent of the reported offense is releasing emails that revealed the corrupt actions of a presidential candidate, considering the United States has been involved in getting and/or keeping numerous brutal dictators into power, including Augusto Pinochet, Islam Karimov, and Fulgencio Batista.

This.

America always has it's hands so far down each countries politics when it's election time. Then whaat did Russia do? They released info. They didn't hack machines and change votes, they didn't release fake news. They released truthful news about one side. (if they did even do that. remember this is the same intteligence that was 100% there was WMD in Iraq.) 

But that was the stupidest thing about our media these days. I remember before the election when the DNC was hacked and we found out all this info about how corrupt they were and how they rigged the primaries and gave hillary questions early, ect. What did the media do? They ignored all of that and just went on a rampage about how evil Russia is, or making sure we find out who hacked it. Who cares who released it. 



pokoko on 11 December 2016
Thuglas said:
pokoko said:

As a human being, it's embarrassing.  The only criteria many people seem to care about is if something is good for their "side" or bad for the other "side".  All you need to do is make something up, dress it up a little, post it online, and you'll have people quoting and upvoting you.  They won't question it as long as it is favorable to their own preconceptions.

We've had viral email and talk radio pundits making up things for a long time, of course, but with the internet, we seem to have entered a new level of sheepdom.  The newest bit of obvious manipulation seems to be people who understand that they can't take major news outlets at face value yet, at the same time, they're being absolute puppets to "alt news" organizations.  I can't even wrap my head around that.  

It's one of the reasons I loathe politics.  People aren't just willing to believe fake news, they fall all over themselves in eagerness to spread it.  Even on these forums, we have several members who don't seem to care at all if what they are posting is true or not, as long as it furthers their agenda.  

Question everything--especially if you want to believe it.

So lets take the Podesta emails as an example. In your earlier post you say the issue here isn't about which candidate you support, it is about government security right? but do you know how this hack occured? Russian spies didn't infiltrate a government building at night dressed in all black to retrieve this info. They didn't break into John Podesta's house. Hell, this leaked information isn't even government information, it is from Podesta's PERSONAL gmail account lol. This hack of Podesta's gmail was carried out by a simply scam that said something like "your password has been compromised, follow this link to change it immediately." and his tech support told him it was legit and to follow that email's direction. It wasn't a breach in US security, it wasn't even a breach of GOOGLE security for fuck sakes! John Podesta should have been using 2-step authentication for anything that can be linked to his work. Before even starting the apllication for the lowest level of government security clearance you are HIGHLY encouraged (though not mandated) to use a 2-step authentication program. Podesta acted foolishly

Podesta was being an idiot and his GMAIL got hacked by some guy in the Ukrain who gave his shady secrets to Wikileaks. Our national cyber security hasn't been compromised and this hack didn't include government information. I haven't looked into how the earlier hacks occured but the Podesta email was the main one that got Trump elected so i just talked about that.

also don't preach "Question everything--especially if you want to believe it." and then blindly believe representatives claiming that anonymous CIA agents are showing them mountains of evidence in secret.  I find it funny that you preach that yet the people you are bashing are the ones who are waiting on the evidence before believing the claims in OP article. Do you not see something wrong with your thinking? There is absolutely zero evidence available for me and you to see that supports your claims about this. We only have the word of anonymous CIA officials versus the word of Julian Assange.

Don't give me that bullshit strawman argument.  The people I'm "bashing" aren't waiting for evidence, they're saying that they don't care because it didn't hurt their side.  This thread is full of comments to that effect and you're lying if you're telling me otherwise.  That's a childish attitude and I have no idea why you would defend that.  



bunchanumbers on 11 December 2016
irstupid said:
MTZehvor said:
I find it hilarious how Americans are upset about foreign election intervention when the extent of the reported offense is releasing emails that revealed the corrupt actions of a presidential candidate, considering the United States has been involved in getting and/or keeping numerous brutal dictators into power, including Augusto Pinochet, Islam Karimov, and Fulgencio Batista.

This.

America always has it's hands so far down each countries politics when it's election time. Then whaat did Russia do? They released info. They didn't hack machines and change votes, they didn't release fake news. They released truthful news about one side. (if they did even do that. remember this is the same intteligence that was 100% there was WMD in Iraq.) 

But that was the stupidest thing about our media these days. I remember before the election when the DNC was hacked and we found out all this info about how corrupt they were and how they rigged the primaries and gave hillary questions early, ect. What did the media do? They ignored all of that and just went on a rampage about how evil Russia is, or making sure we find out who hacked it. Who cares who released it. 

The FBI has already said that there were faked emails. Sorting through the reals and the fakes is a real thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-clinton-emails-investigation-fake-documents_us_581c85f6e4b0d9ce6fbb32fe

If you wanna hate on the fact that its a huffpo article they quoted Reuters as their source. Unless all of a sudden Reuters is considered bad then there should be no issue.



Airaku on 11 December 2016
Baryonyx said:
                                         

Anonymous consist of millions of people and everyone can be a anonymous, which means that every Justice warrior in the world can create and pass on whatever information they want, wether it's someone elses opinions and theories or their own. That being said, even the government can be anonymos, something that happens a lot, there are more fake anonymous channels and outlets then there are real which have been placed there to discredit and destroy the reputation of Anonymous, to discredit everything they stand for bit by bit. 

As far as Wikileaks go, Julian is dead and the CIA now control Wikileaks public account's on Twitter. 

But this is good news for Liberals though, because the truth doesn't matter.. same as the truth doesn't matter to conservatives when it's convinent.. 

When truth isn't convinent, then you need to look inward because the battle against evil is in reality against ourselves, it's we who have allowed all of this to happen by letting our own bias, preference, opinions and life-choices go above everyone else, from a small wish to a significant ambitions, we are all doing it wrong. The battle isn't against other pople, the battle is against ourselves, to fight our own inner evil's.. Because if not, we are just spinning around in circles and make enemies of each-other.. The soon as anyone point there finger at anyone else for the same crimes they, themselves have been accused of.. is a part of the problem and you all do it.. It's trump- It's hillary... Bla bla bla.. Everyone pretends to be so much knowledable and sophisticated they forget that they fight over who is less corrupt then the other to the point that both sides refuses to the read the actual evidence... So far we have more evidence on Hillary, if Wikileaks is shitty for being handed tons of evidence to provide to the world that happens to be Hillary.. It's still dumb to ignore evidence of serial crimes on Hillary just because Wikileaks had nothing on Trump... The evidence was real, Hillary didn't deny them, she never did deny the existence of them emails.. So why does it care if the reason was to sway the vote? NO CRIMINALS SHOULD BE PRESIDENT... Arrest her... Instead of being upset over that, you all still have time to collect shit on Trump, real evidence of real crime and get him arrested too.. That should have been the only goal in this fucking election, not protecting criminals, but expose them all... And also, Everyone who identify themselves as Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals or anything, should never identify themselves with the parties, they don't represent what they say they represent, THEY ALL LIE JUST AS MUCH AND THEY DO THE SAME JOB and changes nothing. 

You all have better english then me, but amn you all if you think that is a indication your all smarter then me.. With that said, i didn't say i am smater then you for saying that.. Omg.. These days i have to go as low as pre-defending myself against possible childish recounters and then apologizw for the recounter cuz they can possible use that as a attack to shame me out of the conversation...  But seriously... Time to wake up... if your on either side, you haven't awaken from anything, simply switched side to a basically the same BS.

't

Lol dude I never attacked you once. Heck we've talked in the past a few times and I never attacked you and we had some pretty interesting convos. So there is no need for you to get defensive okay? I never said that you're dumb or that I'm smarter than you or anything. I don't think you really need to apologize for anything here. Although I don't really appreciate being a accused for not being awake.... but that's not really a conversation for this.

Anyhow as for Anonymous. You are absolutely correct about what you said and I've stated in later posts that it's filled with imposters and wannabes these days. There is still some interesting stuff the occurs with the real deal. As for the pastebin link I posted. I have a few suspicions and reasons to believe that the information provided could be accurate, but if you have evidence otherwise I would love to see it. I do not claim to be part of Anonymous in any shape or form and I am not associated with the act or group in any fashion. However, just like Wikileaks, if there is information leaked I may take a peek and use my own discretion. Which is advised for anyone. They have history with Wikileaks that traces all the way back. If you ever read it way back then, then you would know. 2008 was quite a big year for their leaks with the last election. It was crazy, but not quite like what it's been for this election.

I hate political labels with a passion but you somewhat nailed it. I hate the whole labeling of left and right and right and wrong and left is right. Seriously the whole thing is BS at the end of the day. I personally mark as a Libertarian a little to left on the grid. A lot of us Libertarians think we're entitled to the easy but selfish economics of the right and that we must fight for the social status of the left. Have you seen the protests in Dallas? It's crazy and you can bet that that is only the calm before the storm. There's a huge global movement that's been going on for years and this election has really seen the heart of it. Some say the world was watching, I say the whole world was involved. Hundreds of millions of people around the world let their voice be heard. There is no denying this. It's a simple fact and attending any social media website will prove it.

As for Wikileaks... I think their credibility is very much done at this point. Also Julian Assange is not dead. He was seen playing dress up with his cat after that event. That was a false story that went around. However what his fate will be has yet to be seen. I also want to add a little crazy thing at the end for ya incase you thought I was defending Clinton. I was simply stating the obvious about some of the editing and bullshit that has been caught and noted in the Wikileaks e-mail dump. That doesn't instantly make someone clean. After all there was a lot of good stuff in those dumps. Not everything was BS, but people need to use common sense and use reference points with history. Because there's been some pretty serious threats from nobodies on the internet and making dangerous situations based on what? We need more evidence. Also I do believe that anyone who thought Clinton was going to win this election was fooling themselves and quite delusional. I've been saying that to my friends for a long time now... and why don't you look at that. Trump was victorious with amazing attention placed on him. Very well done. Very well played.