I’ve read them. And again. And again. And concluded the following:
That anyone who believes that the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of all people would decide on a whim to visit a fucking gold decorated Trump Tower in downtown Manhattan is either narcissistic and delusional or extremely gullible.
Why do you feel the need to abrasively interject when you haven’t been bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of the subject? The questions you have posed are readily accessible if you took the effort to look. IT security experts in the private sector and the US intelligence community have stated that the forensic evidence leads them to conclude the Russia’s GRU and FSB are responsible for the hack and subsequent leak.
A Trump presidency would be a geopolitical windfall for Moscow given his comments on issues in world politics. It’s ridiculous to say “well, maybe they’re trying to hurt Hilary” because 1) what hurts Hilary helps Trump 2) it’s clearly evident that American losses from a Trump presidency would be proportionate Russian gains. And no, that isn’t speculation. Trump has publically and repeatively espoused positions that are antithetical to the core pillars of the American world order.
First off, it’s fucking Manhattan. That idea isn’t all that strange.
Second, it’s business. Better to lavish praise on a look-a-like and say “oops” after, than make the mistake of doing nothing for fear of looking “narcissistic and delusional or extremely gullible”.
People sometimes here have trouble differentiating between personal opinion and fact.
Here you go, from Ukraine’s investigative journalist Taras Kuzio. Please note that the term “Ukrainian” in the quote refers to Russian puppets.
On the Democratic Party side there are Ukrainian skeletons in the closet as well. The Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk nurtured good relations with former President Bill Clinton by providing a donation to the Clinton Library and financially supporting the William J. Clinton Foundation’s programme to combat HIV/AIDS. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013, the Clinton foundation received 8.6 million US dollars from the Pinchuk Foundation.
In addition to Weber, the ECFMU hired the Podesta Group to lobby Yanukovych’s public image in Washington DC. Anthony (Tony) Podesta, like Weber, is among to the top lobbyists in the US and is close to the Democratic Party, while his brother, John Podesta, is a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton’s administration and an advisor to President Barack Obama who is also Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.
Podesta Group staffers Tony Podesta plus Stephen Rademaker and David Adams, the last two former assistant secretaries of state, are also US lobbyists for Russia’s biggest bank Sberbank. As reported in Observer, the Podesta Group lobbies to “lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector”. More importantly, Sberbank is controlled by Russia’s Central Bank, making it “functionally an arm of the Kremlin, although it’s ostensibly a private institution.” Sberbank is allegedly “used to support clandestine Russian intelligence operations, while the bank uses its offices abroad as cover for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR”. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has accused Sberbank of channelling funds to separatists in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas.
Please link substantive proof Russians linked the emails. My google must be broken.
Not “concluded” not “assumed” not “suspected”… Proof.
Jesus H Cristo you’re smarter than this.
I doubt, very much, anyone outside this board and Trump Supporters think he actually has a snowball shot in hell to win. Dude can’t even raise money form his own party.
What hurts Hilary, hurts Hilary.
Your statement is akin to the dumb shits that love to rail on about “if you dont’ vote for Trump, it’s a vote for Hilary”. No. A vote for Johnson/Stein is a vote fo Johnson/Stein.
And?
You think Putin/Russian are so out of touch with human nature that they actually thought these leaked emails would win Trump Florida?
L.M.F.A.O.
Election night will be over by 10pm when FL is projected solid ass blue for Hillary.
So I guess Romney was right then?
You know, his whole Russian comments?
As of Yesterday at 3pm EST
The Obama administration has resisted publicly naming Russia despite evidence gathered by U.S. government investigators
At the State Department Monday, spokesman John Kirby refused to say Russia was responsible, citing the ongoing investigation.
think we need to let the FBI do their work before we try to form any conclusions here in terms of what happened and what the motivation was behind it. The FBI’s spoken to this. We’re going to respect that process."
From
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/democratic-convention-dnc-emails-russia/
So in less in the alst 24 hours all that changed, which post it and I’ll retract everything and proudly state you were right and I was wrong…
I apparently do, in fact, have a “rudimentary” grasp of the subject, and am NOT the one wildly speculating.
Trump’s release the emails comment just got Hillary to admit her Email scandal was a major security risk.
I really fear that I may become impotent, if someone doesn’t tell Putin that we are going to nuke his face off if he doesn’t bow to the West soon!
Gooooo, Team Entangling Alliances!
Also: this election is great entertainment. Nobody seems to want either of the two candidates with realistic chances of becoming the next President of the U.S.
You have repeatively made huge gaffes when it comes to world politics. Anyone with a 101 understanding of the subject (to be clear, this isn’t you) would clearly understand that Russia would stand to gain much if Trump acted upon his public speech acts regarding foreign policy. To be clear, the relationship between the US and Russia is largely adversarial.
It’s pretty clear you’re not looking at this with clear eyes.
This is the evidence:
– The consensus among the three cyber-security firms called in to investigate – along with, as of today, a growing chorus of government officials and agencies – is that two separate hacks were carried out by FSB and GRU. Some hard evidence is publicly available, and it is compelling. For example, APT 28 tools confirmed to be so by the Germans after the Bundestag hack were used against the DNC. And so on. You are totally free to say, “we don’t have proof and Obama hasn’t called it one way or another yet.” That’s fine. But the available and specific evidence points to FSB/GRU, and only them, and compellingly so.
– Meanwhile, Paul Manafort (Trump’s campaign chair) and Carter Page (FP advisor) have deep ties to the Kremlin. As I explained earlier, when I say “deep ties,” I mean stuff like “spent years installing a Kremlin puppet in Ukraine, which country was then sucked into violent proxy war with Russia in large part because of the puppethood of the said Kremlin puppet”
– Meanwhile, Trump is running the most pro-Putin American presidential campaign in history. There is pathetically warm rhetoric, but it goes beyond that. Policy is affected. See the Russia-related changes to the GOP platform pushed by the Trump campaign.
– Meanwhile – and this could’ve been included in the previous bullet, but it REALLY deserves its own – Trump is overtly signalling his lack of commitment to the principle of collective defense enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. I get the feeling that there are a lot of people who don’t follow global politics, and don’t understand world history, with enough rigor to process the gravity of this. But grave it is.
This is the evidence. At best it points us to “Putin wants Trump because there are sympathetic advisors in the cretin’s ear and, anyway, he has repeatedly proposed policies that are either overtly good for Russia or fucking catastrophic for the United States (i.e., good for Russia, in Putin’s view).” At worst it points us to – well, you can use your imagination.
So, in your opinion then, he is both, at the same time a total buffoon and moronic, yet masterfully in cohorts with Putin to destroy the entirety of Western Civ?
Got it.
[quote=“smh_23, post:693, topic:218984”]
You are totally free to say, “we don’t have proof and Obama hasn’t called it one way or another yet.” That’s fine. [/quote]
So I’m free to speak the truth?
Sweet. Let Bizmark know that when he tries to toss the ad homs next time.
This is called a straw man. Nobody ever said he is “masterfully in cohorts with Putin to destroy the entirety of Western Civ.” In fact, I literally just finished typing the following:
At best it points us to “Putin wants Trump because there are sympathetic advisors in the cretin’s ear and, anyway, he has repeatedly proposed policies that are either overtly good for Russia or fucking catastrophic for the United States (i.e., good for Russia, in Putin’s view).”
This ^, by the way, being exactly what I believe.
My bad, it was Loppar who posted the slate article saying pretty much that.
I can’t keep up with the whirl wind of Trump hate here.
But also this ^
Open question for you fine folks
[quote=“countingbeans, post:695, topic:218984, full:true”]
Yeah, but you are not free (as in, not free under the demands of rational, non-fallacious argumentation) to ignore the rest of it, which is that as of now the consensus among experts, and the hard evidence available to us, points to FSB/GRU:
I’m not ignoring anything.
Nothing I’ve said was fallacious. In fact the only fallacy was Biz’s ad homs at my 100% true statement.
“All signs point to at this time” printed in any News Paper is great and wonderful, sure. Seems like that is the direction it’s leading in you guys will be proven correct.
That said, we have no definitive proof or corroboration from the agencies necessary for my statements to be in anyway not 100% true.
So I don’t know why he felt the need to abrasively interject fallacy when he hasn’t been bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of proven truths vs speculation, whether said speculation is backed by “evidence” or not.
The real reason smh is concocting this Trump-Putin farce?
He wants to deflect from the effectiveness Trump’s Muslim ban would be in improving America’s safety. After all hasn’t smh admitted to a love affair with these not-so-noble savages and their rectal widening, throat slitting pedo-prophet worshipping ideology? Muslim immigration into non-muslim countries, specifically Western countries has been one of the biggest catastrophes in modern history.
But keep dreaming up Trump-Putin hypotheticals, we all know what you’re doing.
