Stupid election backlash

[Nanker]

 

 

Well..............I did post about it just above........in reply #670..........

No worries. We know what time it is. LA's just reflecting on the MSM's lack of buy-in to a hot false news story - unlike what they've done in the past when the shoe's been on the other foot.

[B-Man]

The entrenched unwillingness to accept defeat is now getting way too funny.

 

The latest batch of moonbattery stems from the New York Times and Washington Post who are now quoting mysterious and secret sources, within the CIA, who claim the Russians were involved in the 2016 presidential election… or something:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

The Hard Left’s War Against Donald Trump Threatens To Terminally Damage The Left.

 

I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to who were lukewarm on Trump, or even anti-Trump, who have swung his way because of the over-the-top attacks by the left since the election.

 

 

138

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

 

THE WASHINGTON POST late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “the CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed.

(snip)

Needless to say, Democrats — still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves — immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

Given the obvious significance of this story — it is certain to shape how people understand the 2016 election and probably foreign policy debates for months if not years to come — it is critical to keep in mind some basic facts about what is known and, more importantly, what is not known:

(1) Nobody has ever opposed investigations to determine if Russia hacked these emails, nor has anyone ever denied the possibility that Russia did that. The source of contention has been quite simple: No accusations should be accepted until there is actual convincing evidence to substantiate those accusations. (2) The reasons no rational person should blindly believe anonymous claims of this sort — even if it is pleasing to believe such claims — should be obvious by now. (3) An important part of this story, quite clearly, is inter-agency feuding between, at the very least, the CIA and the FBI. (4) Even just within the leaks of the last 24 hours, there are multiple grounds of confusion, contradictions, and uncertainty. (5) Contrary to the declarations of self-vindication by supremely smug Democrats, none of this even relates to, let alone negates, the concerns over their election-year McCarthyite behavior and tactics.

 

 

 

An important article to read and digest, the subheadings above have more to them in the actual article.

 

The article also includes this video clip of Adam Schiff which encapsulates so nicely the real issue at play here. I should note that I've been fortunate enough to spend time with Schiff as of late, and he's every bit the drone he comes across as here in private, he's got his marching orders and talking points and won't deviate from them:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDtvYHOY_Uc

[B-Man]

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

 

 

 

 

I think that I'll move this over, out of Gator's "DNC release" thread............

 

 

The NYT reports, citing "senior administration officials."

Quote

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

 

 

How does that evidence support the finding that the Russians were trying to help Trump and hurt Hillary — as opposed to just hacking into everything they could?

Are senior Obama administration officials reliable in making that leap or is this political junk?

 

There's also the evidence that "it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public" (through Wikileaks). You have to interpret that evidence. Republicans say "their networks were not compromised, asserting that only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked." The NYT cites a "senior government official" corroborating that position.

 

The NYT also raises the theory that the Russians — like most people — assumed Hillary was going to win, and they weren't trying to defeat her, but undercut her presidency. In this theory, they weren't so concerned with hurting Trump because they didn't think he'd win.

 

I'm reading these new conclusions as political junk.

[Beef Jerky]

The Hard Left’s War Against Donald Trump Threatens To Terminally Damage The Left.

 

I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to who were lukewarm on Trump, or even anti-Trump, who have swung his way because of the over-the-top attacks by the left since the election.

 

 

 

 

138

 

 

So instead did making decisions about bettering the country they were swayed by words about nothing?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

I think that I'll move this over, out of Gator's "DNC release" thread............

 

 

The NYT reports, citing "senior administration officials."

How does that evidence support the finding that the Russians were trying to help Trump and hurt Hillary — as opposed to just hacking into everything they could?

Are senior Obama administration officials reliable in making that leap or is this political junk?

 

There's also the evidence that "it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public" (through Wikileaks). You have to interpret that evidence. Republicans say "their networks were not compromised, asserting that only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked." The NYT cites a "senior government official" corroborating that position.

 

The NYT also raises the theory that the Russians — like most people — assumed Hillary was going to win, and they weren't trying to defeat her, but undercut her presidency. In this theory, they weren't so concerned with hurting Trump because they didn't think he'd win.

 

I'm reading these new conclusions as political junk.

[B-Man]

So instead did making decisions about bettering the country they were swayed by words about nothing?

 

 

This is incorrect.

 

There have been countless examples of words and actions since the election by the left, that demonstrate to all the emptiness and bitterness of the now powerless liberals "elite"

 

That is what people are swayed making their decisions on.

[Beef Jerky]

This is incorrect.

 

There have been countless examples of words and actions since the election by the left, that demonstrate to all the emptiness and bitterness of the now powerless liberals "elite"

 

That is what people are swayed making their decisions on.

Making decisions over stupid ****.

[DC Tom]

Trump is going to suffocate everybody:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/trump-and-pruitt-will-make-america-gasp-again.html?partner=msft_msn

Edited December 10, 2016 by DC Tom

[boyst]

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIAs Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

 

 

An important article to read and digest, the subheadings above have more to them in the actual article.

 

The article also includes this video clip of Adam Schiff which encapsulates so nicely the real issue at play here. I should note that I've been fortunate enough to spend time with Schiff as of late, and he's every bit the drone he comes across as here in private, he's got his marching orders and talking points and won't deviate from them:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDtvYHOY_Uc

tucker Carlson is the man. And he doesn't man groom. That's fact.

[keepthefaith]

tucker Carlson is the man. And he doesn't man groom. That's fact.

We'll never know the truth but there is little reason to believe Homeland Security or the CIA (especially Homeland Security) as Obama has used every government agency at his fingertips to further political agendas and rarely have we give given the truth about anything.

Edited December 11, 2016 by keepthefaith

[Deranged Rhino]

(for those keeping track of the real story, the interagency fight within the US intelligence services)

 

Ex-CIA Operative: We may need a new vote

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn/video/playlists/donald-trump-and-russia/

Edited December 11, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[boyst]

We'll never know the truth but there is little reason to believe Homeland Security or the CIA (especially Homeland Security) as Obama has used every government agency at his fingertips to further political agendas and rarely have we give given the truth about anything.

tucker Carlson said this live on the radio ... soooo... I'm pretty sure its true. He also likes Marlboro reds.

[Deranged Rhino]

And now I want to see a reality show where Boyst and Tucker Carlson are forced to live together on Boyst's farm...

 

****, that'd get huge ratings.

[DC Tom]

(for those keeping track of the real story, the interagency fight within the US intelligence services)

 

Ex-CIA Operative: We may need a new vote

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn/video/playlists/donald-trump-and-russia/

 

Which is insane. Unless the ballots were directly tampered with, it would cause more problems that it would solve. And even if they were directly tampered with, it's probably not a solvable problem.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Which is insane. Unless the ballots were directly tampered with, it would cause more problems that it would solve. And even if they were directly tampered with, it's probably not a solvable problem.

 

Absolutely.

 

What he's really advocating for is revolution. Perhaps a purple one?

[Nanker]

Trump is going to suffocate everybody:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/trump-and-pruitt-will-make-america-gasp-again.html?partner=msft_msn

One can only hope Trump starts by suffocating Paul Krugman. :ph3r:

"Everyone who contributed to this outcome — very much, if I may say, including the journalists who elevated the fundamentally trivial issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails into the dominant theme of campaign reporting — bears part of the responsibility for what may end up being a civilization-ending event. No, that’s not hyperbole."

 

 

tucker Carlson is the man. And he doesn't man groom. That's fact.

And you know this how?

 

And now I want to see a reality show where Boyst and Tucker Carlson are forced to live together on Boyst's farm...

 

****, that'd get huge ratings.

Only if President The Donald makes a few "guest" appearances.

[boyst]

One can only hope Trump starts by suffocating Paul Krugman. :ph3r:

 

"Everyone who contributed to this outcome — very much, if I may say, including the journalists who elevated the fundamentally trivial issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails into the dominant theme of campaign reporting — bears part of the responsibility for what may end up being a civilization-ending event. No, that’s not hyperbole."

Rado interview. He did weekly segrments om bubba the love spongue

 

 

And you know this how?

 

 

Only if President The Donald makes a few "guest" appearances.

[B-Man]

BITTER: Congressman begs Electoral College voters to block Trump...