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

And the North American media did things to get Hillary elected.



Around the Network

The USA constantly antagonizes Russia and blames everything on it. But the USA and Russia are birds of a feather in many ways. America has more in common with Russia then probably any other country



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

double post, sorry.



Soundwave said:

Follow the money.

Russia has massive oil interests that were crippled by sanctions from the US in response to the Crimea situation in Ukraine.

Exxon Mobil in particular had been hard hit as they had business contracts with the Russian government. The sanctions cost them $1 billion at least.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/02/27/heres-what-exxons-lost-from-russia-sanctions/#1d7214a856b3

They also have other significant interests in the Russian oil business. In fact I believe Exxon Mobil has technology, without this tech Russia can't actively drill oil properly in certain regions.

So, guess who Trump's pick for Secretary of State is? The president of Exxon Mobile (lol) who was given a "friendship" award by Putin.

It's fairly obvious and even transparent what happened here. And really it was a great investment on the Russian's part, those sanctions on Russia which could were crippling their economy are as good as gone now. Even if they paid a few hundred million or channelled the money into some of Trump's Russian business assets (which would be hard/impossible to trace), it's a slam dunk investment, because the return is far greater. 

You can blame Clinton as much as you want for donor money, but enough with the "holier than thou" bullshit that Trump wasn't bought either. He was, just from different sources, and many of the same ones on top of that (don't tell me all those Goldman Sachs people just coincidentally got high level positions in Trump's cabinet).

You've quoted a source and then modified the language to fit your point of view. 

They said...

Exxon said its “maximum exposure” to loss from these joint ventures was $1 billion. A spokesman from the company said that the figure represented “potential and not actual” losses.

You said they said

Exxon Mobil in particular had been hard hit as they had business contracts with the Russian government. The sanctions cost them $1 billion at least.

 

Trump would be pointing at you right now, so dishonest.



I wonder how many real journalists are left in this country? Assange is one that comes to mind...

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793268442329735168?lang=en




Around the Network
numberwang said:
I wonder how many real journalists are left in this country? Assange is one that comes to mind...

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793268442329735168?lang=en


Now that's what I call a reliable source. They're clearly unbiased considering everything they have revealed about Trump, unlike them evil leftist media that dare quote him.



If somebody does not like wikileaks he can read the NYT about the Clinton-Russian-Uranium dealing - a real "hacking" of the election.

 

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1

 



CosmicSex said:
Locknuts said:

Americans have something much more dangerous, much closer to home: The mainstream media. They are more dangerous because they are trusted and so obviously pushing a leftist agenda.

Very few Americans believe what the Russians say or do unless they come armed with facts, as they (apparently) did in this case.

Also, as you say: every country does this. So how did 17 intelligence agencies allow this to happen? The more I hear and read about this, the more doubts I have that Russia was involved.

Julian Assange has flat out denied that the Russian government was involved in any way, and implied heavily that a DNC staffer that was murdered under suspicious circumstances was a source. He can't reveal his sources of course, but I don't think he could have implied it more strongly.

You wrong the general public by insisting that we are too dumb to know that the media is biased.  There is no leftist agenda as such beyond supporting individuals that align with their viewpoints.  This is something all of the media does.  Its called having an oponion.  But to say that we are helpless.  That I buy into Bill ORiley's bigotry simply because he is given a platform, is insane.

And you are only half right about the media, they legitimized Trump by refusing to stay on topic and talk about the issues.  They have turned the election into a freakshow.  They talked about Trump nonstop... but not about his policies.  They allowed him to get away with inviting the Russian's into the election. 

Julian Assange is lying.  It is the Russians.  Do you really think the CIA would 'kill a staffer' so they could frame Russia?  We also know that both the DNC and RNC were hacked.  Giving you part of the truth without the whole truth is how people like Julian seek to exert his influence for his own personal reasons.  He did it for him.  Make no mistake. 

We are now in that time where we have ignored so much, that Trump is gonna feel like a king.  Even if he did cheat, if Russia hacked machines or whatever, it would never matter to some folks and that is scary.  By the same tolken I know some are that devoted to Democratic causes.  But you are all crazy if you can't tell that something is wrong here. 

I actually gave Americans credit for being smart enough not to believe foreign entities unless they come armed with facts.

They were smart enough to make the right call in the election, so I have a great deal of respect for them and wouldn't accuse them of being dumb. Stop putting words in my mouth. 

The CIA have done some completely disgusting things in the past, but no in this case it was probably someone affiliated with the DNC that killed the staffer if he was the source.

Julian Assange has a perfect record on getting his facts right so if anyone's lying about all this, I'd say it's the MSM.



numberwang said:
I wonder how many real journalists are left in this country? Assange is one that comes to mind...

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793268442329735168?lang=en


Well he's just doing what investigative journalists used to do before they all drank the leftist cool aid.



UnderstatedCornHole said:
deskpro2k3 said:

 

bravo, I've got to give you a round of applause for sticking to your hunches, or feelings or whatever.

Anyways what does "I will keep you in suspense" mean? Mind you, It was a plain question which required a yes or no answer when he was asked if he'll accept the results. In other words, he won't say if he'll accept the result. What he was doing is called "beating around the bush" and I might add without evidence he said the general election has been rigged against him, and he twice refused to say that he would accept its result.

the irony in all this is that the results favored him instead, but now there is a possible reason why, and that is under investigation.

I call you out and it turns out you were making things up and what he said was quite different to what you said he said.

Who said it required a yes or no answer? What on earth makes you think that!?

"I will keep you in suspense", was the answer he gave when pushed to provide an answer on if he will accept the results, his first answer was "I will decide at the time", which is the same thing except in a jokey humanistic way.

Every presidential nominee has the right to contest the results of an election if the results appear irregular, Donald Trump was reserving that right. What on earth is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, you know it, I know it. Everyone knows it.

 

 

 

Now you're basically saying what's the problem if he didn't give an answer.. see how easy you switch gears to help your own rambling?

Let me hit you with some facts, and then we'll stay on topic. he is the first president nominee to refuse to say he'll accept the results. okay? What does that tell you about what he thinks about democracy? Don't even try to sugar-coat that because you might just eat that up too.

Answer that if you will, but I ain't going to listen to any of your hunches or gut feelings on this anymore, this is getting no where.