Who Ya Voting For?

Who are you voting for?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • I'm going to throw my vote away on a third party/independent

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • I stand above you all because I realize that voting never changes anything

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • Total voters
    24

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
Looks like the whole FBI "reopening" the investigation was a big ball of nothing. In my opinion, the FBI has be completely unprofessional this election cycle. First of all, they dragged their feet on investigating Clinton. This stuff happened years ago and it took them this long to go through it? Secondly, they clearly did not do a thorough investigation of Clinton as they missed a whole bunch of emails that they found from the Weiner investigation. Was their no communication between investigations? Did the people investigating Clinton never think to send a memo to the people investigating Weiner saying: "Hey, Carlos Danger's wife was Clinton's aid, mind checking her comp for suspicious emails? kthx." Then the vague statements made about "re-opening" the investigation when in reality they had no idea what they were going to find.

Come on, this is absolutely ridiculous. I firmly believe that the FBI can investigate politicians to give Americans important info about the candidates without influencing the election result through vague non-statements about almost investigations.

If Clinton clearly broke the law, she should face serious repercussions. If she didn't, then she shouldn't have to go through this bullshit that could affect her campaign. The FBI fucked up on one of those two counts (maybe both).
I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that the FBI fucked this whole thing up pretty big. There were a lot of times they didn't ask questions they clearly should have.

That said, having no idea what you're going to find is exactly when you're meant to investigate. And I really don't think they should have to care about political bullshit in relations to their investigations. I mean, goddamn, America had "16 federal agencies" team up to say Russia is manipulating the election in favour of one candidate that the President has had personal beef with. The FBI just wanted to investigate one of the biggest and dumbest classified material mishandling's in what will hopefully be centuries. Even her own staff talked about how much trouble Hillary had caused in the emails between them.


In other news, Jane Doe dropped her suit against Trump. She was the one that said she was raped at an Epstein party by Trump at 13 years old.

Also in recent news, Epstein is somehow even goddamn weirder than was known before, having what seems to be a Minervan temple on his island, as well as a life-sized cow statue that is regularly moved around the island. Clearly some faggy goddamn bohemian grove shit going on there.

And somehow, the Podesta brothers and their "art" tastes are even goddamn weirder than him. Anyway, here's a video about them, more related to their corruption than weirdness. Gives an explanation of their role in Washington and has a bit about how Podesta profited off of the Uranium One deal.
 

BubBidderskins

Member
Member
I agree generally speaking that the FBI shouldn't worry about "political bullshit" in general. If they found something seriously damning about Clinton they should have revealed it. But they didn't find anything like that--all they found were some emails that may or may not have been relevant. They didn't even know if the emails were pertinent to the case. In that instance there was no reason for the FBI to reveal anything because they found nothing. In sending that letter they themselves were stirring up the "political bullshit."
 

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
I read multiple ones that fit, that include the individuals involved being indicted, losing security clearance, losing rank, or even being jailed. Almost all of them show Clinton got off easy.
In that case, you shouldn't have a problem pointing out just one of them that was successfully prosecuted, while at the same time failing to meet Comey's criteria. As a reminder, those criteria are: "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice."

And don't just say "a case like this totally exists." Actually name one. One where intent could not be demonstrated, and no evidence could be found that the documents in question were exposed to unauthorized personnel, and the number of mishandled documents wasn't about an order of magnitude higher than it was in Clinton's case. You have not yet done so.
Like I said my facts here are a bit messy. Apparently it was 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads. Here's CNN, obviously a very pro-Clinton media outlet, talking about it:
This is an article from something called CNSNews, and is pretty much the most fleshed out one I can find on the matter:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fbi-unable-acquire-any-clintons-13-mobile-devices-aide-says-he-smashed-2
If the phones were smashed before the subpoena - the issue would be that only two were destroyed, and the rest lost. And the ones that were destroyed don't sound to have been destroyed very thoroughly. These devices may have contained, and had access to, classified material.
If the phones were smashed after the subpoena - the problem is pretty obvious.
Alright, but it seems like there's really nothing in particular to suggest foul play here. Just securely disposing of retired State Dept. devices.
They have given, as a government, up to $25mil to her foundation over the span of years. They only stopped when she was Sec of State and gave another contribution after she resigned. Contractors, that made a lot of money off of these deals going through, gave a lot of money to her foundation while she was Sec of State, in some cases just months before a deal would go through. She had access to the 28 pages. She increased arms sales to Saudi Arabia 97% in her time as Sec of State. This is only one of the many atrocious countries to whom she's granted weapons deals after coincidentally receiving donations from multiple parties that would profit from them. That's a very different picture than you paint.
The manufacturer contributions, while certainly "a lot of money" in the sense that I've personally never had my hands on so much of it, are trivial amounts when compared to the foundation's net annual intake. Particularly since you can only, at best, argue that any and all Clintons receive indirect and intangible benefits from those donations, it's a pretty big stretch to suggest that they served as any real motivation for her to alter state policy around.

Besides, you're still conveniently disregarding that Sec. State is just a veto point for those kinds of deals. Separate government departments were responsible for initiating, mediating, and proposing them. Were they all bending to Clinton Foundation donor interests, too? They actually brokered those deals, and Clinton's part was just not to oppose the Pentagon's policy actions on the matter.

Can you explain why their role in those arms trades was totally unremarkable, but hers was totally suspicious AF? Are you really sure you're being objective on the matter? Cause I definitely won't argue that it was shit policy, but I'm also not inclined to come up with some tenuous and speculative justification for pointing all my disapproval at a particular favorite target. Especially one with relatively little involvement in the issue, compared to a number of other parties, to begin with.
He sold a portion of something he owned to a Saudi prince. I think he has some hotels in Saudi Arabia or something too. I'm actually not trolling. I really don't consider that to be an indication his relationship with Saudi Arabia is anywhere near the Bush/Clinton level.
Which does beg the question of why he hasn't released, and won't release, his tax returns. Because the possibility that he just has more to hide, compared to every other presidential candidate since the 70's, really is the most likely reason. We know for certain that it's not actually any of the reasons he gave us, at various points in the campaign.
Two agencies put out a JOINT statement on behalf of 16 agencies that said that the leaks "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts". Literally nothing, and like all the other times it was literally nothing, Hillary will lie to find a way to start a war over it. What she's doing here is actually pretty disgusting, and pushing it just helps show everyone how disgusting of a person she is.

It could be Russia, but there's no evidence, and it wouldn't matter. The leaks are showing corruption in American politics. The only reason Hillary is afraid is because she is corrupt.
You're right about the first sentence - turns out I'd misrepresented that 16-agency thing pretty heavily. But you're wrong about there not being more. They used large portions of the same code for the malware used, and the metadata featured Russian-language documentation. It was also stated that the scale of the attacks suggested top-tier resources, on the level of a dedicated government effort.

Sure, I can't speak to exactly how meaningful any of that is, and sure, the analysis tends to come out reading a lot more like "most probable culprit" than "proven culprit." But none of the cybersecurity experts who examined the data have presented any alternative hypothesis. Nor have they voiced disagreement with the conclusion that Russia is the most likely suspect. Even when the same experts had expressed skepticism of that conclusion before analyzing the data, in some cases, they ended up conceding that it was probably Russia, or at least stopped suggesting that it likely wasn't.

There's genuinely no basis for me to argue with them. Trump's policy positions have been lining up very strongly with Russia's best interests, (to an unprecedented extent, in the modern history of US campaigns), and Putin's totally got enough gall to pull something like that.

If all available evidence suggests that something is true, it generally follows that you should treat that thing as if it were, in fact, true, at least until evidence to the contrary can be found. That's just sensible.
I think he was being sarcastic on that last part there, suggesting the American press would do their job, but other than that I see no questions being asked, no demands being made, nor, discounting that last bit, anything nonfactual about what he said. The DNC had already been "hacked". He did not ask them to do it like you said.
That's technically true, but it's also just semantics. Why bother? It's not like we're keeping score. Regardless of wording, the implications and intent were quite clear.
If Clinton's mismanagement allowed classified material to get, not only into the wrong hands, but into the hands of what is apparently America's number one threat, then that is a much bigger problem than the one they sold. Comey actually approached that from the opposite way, saying there is no way to prove classified material was ever compromised, not that there was no way to prove it wasn't.
You're misremembering.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
They didn't re-investigate the same aspects of the case. Each investigation led to more questions than answers and they kept finding legitimate need to reopen the investigation.
Yeah, like that time her poll numbers were too high for their liking. ;^)
I don't see what your examples have to do with anything. Did you watch the videos? Also, I made a post in the O'Keefe thread in relation to this. The onus is on the doubters to provide evidence that O'Keefe hired body doubles or something to say the shit they did in the video.
Did you watch the examples? Two different parties go to the same location and sample group, and present completely opposing arguments and impressions just by targeted selection of footage, without full context. What you've got, is a filmmaker infamous for doing exactly that, to a particularly exceptional degree, providing you with his newest selection.

It's worthless. O'Keefe cannot be trusted to provide all relevant context, and so his products must be taken with the full size of salt-grain necessary to accommodate the potential importance of any and all relevant context.

Is it likely that the actual events shown were preceded by something like: "Okay, so let's just do a quick improv session for laughs: pretend like you're actually a bunch of guys conspiring to fuck with a Trump rally?" No. But since this is O'Keefe, instead of almost literally anyone else, you actually can't even rule that out. (Let alone any number of other, more plausible and realistic scenarios that could have a similar weight of impact.)
He's been in favor of some of them, certainly no where near to all of them. If you're referring to that "he supported Iraq" thing Clinton's been doing to Trump, I am well aware of the story. It's a good troll on Trump.
I dunno. He seems like a fan.
How does "eliminate the need for loopholes by lowering corporate tax rates" not line up with eliminating loopholes? I really don't get your argument at all. If it's that he won't be able to get his policies passed the way he's outlined them, that's probably true. But that'd be true of anyone that is elected.
What? What need?

It seems like your confusion here stems from the fundamental assumption that people like Trump only take advantage of tax loopholes when they absolutely have to.
For example, in that very first Cruz "lie", the reasoning they gave was that transgender boys aren't girls, clearly attempting to imply he was using identifiers of gender. When Cruz said what he said, it should be clear to absolutely any sane minded English speaking individual that he meant boy and girl as sexual identifiers. Now they have this counted against him as a lie, when it was clearly either a mistake, or willful bias on their part.

The very concept of politifact's meter is flawed and inherently not only opens itself up to opinion based outcomes, it pretty much necessitates them. Things are either right or wrong. True or false. They designed their meter to have the wiggle room to input their own narrative and bias. Their meter makes it necessary for them to discern the intention behind the inaccurate statement.
I see.

Disagreed on the meter, though. It's a good thing to have. They just didn't didn't use it at all on the Cruz example, when they absolutely should have.
 
Last edited:

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
The FBI just wanted to investigate one of the biggest and dumbest classified material mishandling's in what will hopefully be centuries.
Er.

Literally what.

It's objectively several times smaller than the biggest and dumbest classified material mishandling of last year. And I don't say that lightly.
And somehow, the Podesta brothers and their "art" tastes are even goddamn weirder than him.
You... you know that story's bullshit, right?
I agree generally speaking that the FBI shouldn't worry about "political bullshit" in general. If they found something seriously damning about Clinton they should have revealed it. But they didn't find anything like that--all they found were some emails that may or may not have been relevant. They didn't even know if the emails were pertinent to the case. In that instance there was no reason for the FBI to reveal anything because they found nothing. In sending that letter they themselves were stirring up the "political bullshit."
Thing is, with Clinton seemingly a solid lock for victory at the time, and the Trump camp crying about unfair treatment, Comey also had to worry that following standard FBI policy in this matter would stir up accusations of helping "rig" the vote by "covering up" for Clinton if/when Trump ended up being a sore loser, afterwards. I think he should've just bitten the bullet on that, but it was a tough call to make, and I can understand why he chose to break with tradition and act as he did.

Would've been better if the goddamn head of FBI didn't let a dipshit pundit's baseless mudslinging influence his decision making like that, though.
 
Last edited:

Ibix

Well-Known Member
Member
That massive .25%~ popular vote loss has been hitting people pretty hard.
 

Tirin

God-Emperor of Tealkind
Moderator
I don't blame them. The way your voting system works is pretty fucking awful, especially since it effectively means that third parties basically don't get shit in an election.
 

Ibix

Well-Known Member
Member
We definitely need a more proportional system. It's just so close that I find it funny it's their MAIN point; First past the post system for the presidency in my view is even less healthy for the republic than the current system. By 2020 onward it'd become a one party seat because the Republicans can't win the cities. We need a complete reform of the electoral system so we can have several parties.
 

Tirin

God-Emperor of Tealkind
Moderator
That way you wouldn't have to deal with corrupt Democrats and corrupt Republicans from old money or old politics fucking you over all the time.

Shame it'll never happen, since the Democrats and Republicans are the ones in charge!
 

Requiem

Well-Known Member
Member
Yeah, I'd hope that most people know what needs to be changed, but even if that were the case, getting it to happen would be next to impossible. A change like that is so unlikely when you've got a system that's so ingrained within itself that no change is possible. Sure, we've got checks and balances so that America doesn't fuck itself over, but we don't have much chance for meaningful growth within the system unless something changes from without it. This country, man.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
I bet everyone here thought America was a democracy. By the way, Youma called the faithless elector shit way back in the primaries and deserves some god damn credit for it.

In that case, you shouldn't have a problem pointing out just one of them that was successfully prosecuted, while at the same time failing to meet Comey's criteria. As a reminder, those criteria are: "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice."

And don't just say "a case like this totally exists." Actually name one. One where intent could not be demonstrated, and no evidence could be found that the documents in question were exposed to unauthorized personnel, and the number of mishandled documents wasn't about an order of magnitude higher than it was in Clinton's case. You have not yet done so.
Hillary had generated classified material while speaking to Blumenthal, had her security compromised in China, and had numerous devices that are now missing. An IT guy, apparently given immunity before agreeing on any terms of what relevant info he'd have to offer for said immunity, deleted a multitude of emails after the order was given to preserve them. I'd say that's orders of magnitude above taking a picture in a sub and throwing it away. Again, I can bring up about half of these, explain how some detail's are similar, you'll say how some details are not, and we'll get nowhere. The actual point I'm making is that most of these people had a chance to suffer the consequences of their actions, most were at least just about to be charged or even tried, before they were saved through extraordinary circumstances, like a Presidential pardon. What Hillary did, was certainly worse than what many of them did. If I wanted to shape each case up point for point, I wouldn't have linked 20 of them and a google search. Obviously not what I was getting at. And intentional misconduct isn't needed for a negligence charge.

Also, her aide had access to the server without clearance. As many as 10 people did. She explicitly allowed it.
Alright, but it seems like there's really nothing in particular to suggest foul play here. Just securely disposing of retired State Dept. devices.
That link agrees with me, Easy. They likely did not securely destroy the devices. The aides claim was "breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer." That's still assuming they destroyed them before they had knowledge of the investigation. I haven't seen anyone even ask the question, so I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did.
Besides, you're still conveniently disregarding that Sec. State is just a veto point for those kinds of deals. Separate government departments were responsible for initiating, mediating, and proposing them. Were they all bending to Clinton Foundation donor interests, too? They actually brokered those deals, and Clinton's part was just not to oppose the Pentagon's policy actions on the matter.
Her ties to Saudi Arabia are worse than allowing billions of dollars in arms deals to go through. The Clinton's are one of the main players in propping up certain powerful Wahhabist families, they've negotiated and pushed for the freedom of known Wahhabi terrorists, they've subversively pitted Middle Eastern factions against each other to aid their allies. She had access to the 28 pages showing the Saudi link to 9/11 a loong fucking time ago, the plans she not only wanted to continue, but to ramp up, are pretty much what got the ME in the mess it's in, and by extension the EU in the mess it's in. And the only motivation I've ever been able to discern from ANY of it, is war.

She either doesn't care about being pushed into war by the influences she surrounds herself with, or she benefits from it too.

I think it's worth pointing out, an ACTUAL attack on US soil and US citizens has closer ties to the government of your "close ally" Saudi Arabia, than any of this Russia hacking shit has to their government.
Which does beg the question of why he hasn't released, and won't release, his tax returns. Because the possibility that he just has more to hide, compared to every other presidential candidate since the 70's, really is the most likely reason. We know for certain that it's not actually any of the reasons he gave us, at various points in the campaign.
Probably a bunch of shit in there he doesn't want people to see. But I kind of look at this like speaking to cops. Why give anything to people who's only intent is to gather everything they can against you?

Not releasing didn't seem to hurt him much. I'd imagine he'd have some shit to explain if he did.
That's technically true, but it's also just semantics. Why bother? It's not like we're keeping score. Regardless of wording, the implications and intent were quite clear.
I still disagree with the premise that what he said was any kind of call to action for Russia to hack ANYTHING. As a non-politician running for the presidency, he's of course interested in what's in the emails, and interested in Wikileaks doing what it does.

Don't worry, if it means the much to you, I bet it will change now.
Yeah, like that time her poll numbers were too high for their liking. ;^)
Or like that time they found a bunch of new evidence and they had to reopen the case long enough to take it and bury it all.

So which is it anyway? Was it the letter that did her in, or was it Russia hacking into the American mainframe? Or was it that she was just absolutely an awful, low-energy representative for her own voter-base who was only in the position she was in because Tim Kaine stepped down as chair of the DNC, allowing Wasserman Schultz to take his place, who did nothing but discuss Bernie as a problem that needed to step aside for her turn?
I still disagree that invoking his name is enough to undo the evidence there. The PACs in the videos undoubtedly paid agitators to go to Trump rallies and start fights, and plenty of independent evidence exists of it. I don't see how your video compares to catching someone on tape saying they were hired by a man that works for a Clinton pac to agitate Trump voters, said man confirming he hires agitators to try and get themselves punched in the face, and multiple independent, unaffiliated sources finding some of these very individuals who claim they are paid to get facially punched attempting to do exactly that. I'm aware of O'Keefe and his shit. I looked it all up before I posted a single video, that's why there were three out by the time I did. There's no comparison between what you posted and the evidence that exists of what the PACs were doing. Just how unreasonable and ignorant of evidence are you supposed make yourself when the name O'Keefe is spoken?

That said, one major issue I saw with it was that the PACs and Hillary's campaign were communicating, which in '12, and I think '08 was a pretty big thing. Although they absolutely were, and it's still legally shady business, the law seems to be a lot more lenient towards it now.

Bird-dogging is still fucked and this is a good chance to spread awareness and make sure laws are passed that prevent politicians from doing this. Creamer's relationship with Obama, and his initial denial of it, was still concerning.
What? What need?

It seems like your confusion here stems from the fundamental assumption that people like Trump only take advantage of tax loopholes when they absolutely have to.
Nope. I think they take advantage of loopholes whenever they get the chance. And they should.

Try that one again. Who makes those tax loopholes? And what, partly bullshit, justification do they give?
Er.

Literally what.

It's objectively several times smaller than the biggest and dumbest classified material mishandling of last year. And I don't say that lightly.
Which was what?
You... you know that story's bullshit, right?
No it isn't. Making up bullshit about factual things being bullshit is what gets people believing in shit like pizzagate. Knock it off. Pedophiles exist. Epstein is one of them. He happens to party with elites and probably fucked some cutie 14yo girls with a couple of them.

The Podesta's are art collectors and like edgy shit. They've also been known to hang out with pedophiles, even on a Japanese island. Shit might sound weird but that's all true.

The funny thing is, the Epstein island temple thing is actually what's worth doubting, and the only reason I took it seriously is because I know about his stupid cow and the various mysterious projects he undertakes every few years.
Thing is, with Clinton seemingly a solid lock for victory at the time, and the Trump camp crying about unfair treatment, Comey also had to worry that following standard FBI policy in this matter would stir up accusations of helping "rig" the vote by "covering up" for Clinton if/when Trump ended up being a sore loser, afterwards. I think he should've just bitten the bullet on that, but it was a tough call to make, and I can understand why he chose to break with tradition and act as he did.

Would've been better if the goddamn head of FBI didn't let a dipshit pundit's baseless mudslinging influence his decision making like that, though.
Yup, he was hated by at least half the voting population at all times, gave no shits, tried to do his job anyway, and ended up with everyone hating him. What a terrible dishonest man he is.
 
Last edited:

13thforsworn

Well-Known Member
Member
The first clip is just... wow... Not a Trump supporter but WTF was that...

As for the Russia image, do you dispute the Russians hacking the DNC/RNC in order to sway the election, or do you dispute the notion that 'interfering' constituted Russia tampered with the actual voting process i.e. fucking with voting machines, etc.?
 
Last edited:

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
Honestly, Lumpy. I'm sure all the stuff Trump's actually done and said, since election day, has got you feeling like you're in a tight spot here, but... raging at me ain't gonna help. I can deal with it just fine.

(Still, though, be cooler. Pretty sure you 'n' me go back a lot further than you 'n' Trump, though I guess that I could be mistaken.)

(Also, I'll get back to you in a few days or so.)
 
Last edited:

Tirin

God-Emperor of Tealkind
Moderator
I bet everyone here thought America was a democracy. By the way, Youma called the faithless elector shit way back in the primaries and deserves some god damn credit for it.
Trump sucks the Russia and fossil fuel cock. If he gets taken out of office by faithless electors, so be it (not that I think Hillary has any real chance of being better). American democracy is a massive failure anyways, so this happening might be a call to overhaul the system, particularly since the Republicans will still control the House and Senate.

I think it's worth pointing out, an ACTUAL attack on US soil and US citizens has closer ties to the government of your "close ally" Saudi Arabia, than any of this Russia hacking shit has to their government.
I think it's worth pointing out that the CIA certainly know a lot more about the origins of any attempts (successful or otherwise) to alter the results of the American election, on account of having way the fuck more resources, manpower, and information than you could even hope to. Or are they not trustworthy when what they say might influence the American election or imply something untoward about Donald Trump and his connections to Russia?
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
The first clip is just... wow... Not a Trump supporter but WTF was that...
Definitely a favourite.
As for the Russia image, do you dispute the Russians hacking the DNC/RNC in order to sway the election, or do you dispute the notion that 'interfering' constituted Russia tampered with the actual voting process i.e. fucking with voting machines, etc.?
The second one. The hacker did absolutely nothing to the vote in the slightest. They found information the American people considered pertinent to their decision.

Unfortunately, Hillary's decision to try and use this as a political tool, long before there was even any form of investigation is what's undermining this. And now, on top of that, she's trying to use this as a ploy to actually circumvent American voters, and get herself installed as President by an incredibly small minority of Americans. It's like she's just accepting that she can only win this now by going full dictator, when she tried so hard to make it seem like Donald would be the one to pull something like this, and already built up an hysteria against it. It's not like this wouldn't cause serious turmoil. It's not like she actually thinks a divided America would fare very well against an aggressive Russia. She wants her turn at any cost or chaos.

There were in fact Trump leaks this election by the way, and none of the mainstream media, nor anti-Trump/pro-Hillary voters cried about the election being undermined then.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
Trump sucks the Russia and fossil fuel cock. If he gets taken out of office by faithless electors, so be it (not that I think Hillary has any real chance of being better). American democracy is a massive failure anyways, so this happening might be a call to overhaul the system, particularly since the Republicans will still control the House and Senate.
Deep down, I can't really disagree with a "So be it" argument, but I'm also the type to feel that way about the freedom fighters and militias that'll start cropping up because of it. Obama was shitting his pants about that stuff and he was actually elected. Who here remembers no hesitation targets and the bullet buy-up?
I think it's worth pointing out that the CIA certainly know a lot more about the origins of any attempts (successful or otherwise) to alter the results of the American election, on account of having way the fuck more resources, manpower, and information than you could even hope to. Or are they not trustworthy when what they say might influence the American election or imply something untoward about Donald Trump and his connections to Russia?
That's why you should probably actually read an article or two before posting, Tirin. I'm going fully off of American released evidence here. They claim the hackers are "one step away" from the Russian government. In other words, they are not members of the Russian government. Some Saudi 9/11 funders and planners were members of the Saudi government. When the 28 pages were released, Obama said he'd veto any bill allowing Americans to sue Saudis for damages. Emails are emails. That shit's fucked.

And no, the GODDAMN CIA is not the most trustworthy of American agencies. I don't need to bring that up though because even they aren't stupid enough to think anyone would just take their word for it.

Also, sorry if I came across as angry at you Easy. Didn't mean to. Mostly just being a cheeky cunt.
 
Last edited:

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
No; those guys are anti-Semitic enough to be totally down with illegal occupations, bombings, and annexations of Palestinian territory by Israel. Which is why they tend to be so supportive of the Trump team.
 
Top Bottom