Russians accused of interfering in election to get Trump elected

[Smallc]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So now you believe there was WMD in Iraq, as reported by the CIA ?    Glad that is settled.

Are you saying that the CIA is always wrong because they were wrong once (btw, the US military did find not insignificant chemical weapon stockpiles in Iraq).

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The 'assertion' was made by the CIA, and denied by Trump.  I know who I believe.  How about you? 

Tell me what you believe in why.  That's more interesting than a roll call of our opinions I think.  It makes for discussion, about said evidence for example.

[Guest]

Are the CIA good guys now?

Well, I always liked them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't really matter...just another attempt to delegitimize Trump's election victory. 

 

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Tell me what you believe in why.  That's more interesting than a roll call of our opinions I think.  It makes for discussion, about said evidence for example.

I believe that the Russians attempted to interfere in the US election in a way that favoured Trump.  I believe that because the CIA said so. 

 

This website is all about our opinions.  There's no point restating facts that people don't believe anyway. 

[Smallc]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Doesn't really matter...just another attempt to delegitimize Trump's election victory. 

He does a good job of that all on his own. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Smallc said:

  There's no point restating facts that people don't believe anyway. 

But you believe them.  I for one may be convinced if I can see something other than "these people say that those people were behind it".

 

As was pointed out, that was pretty much the same as the WMD statement and I didn't believe that one either.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Good, because that's what matters in the end.   Blind trust is for suckers.

Remember when Dubya was drawn by the allure of Putin's eye's...I guess Putin heard there's a new boi in town.

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

But you believe them.  I for one may be convinced if I can see something other than "these people say that those people were behind it".

 

As was pointed out, that was pretty much the same as the WMD statement and I didn't believe that one either.

well hey, welcome to the side of post facts. 

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, Smallc said:

He does a good job of that all on his own. 

He most certainly does with statements that millions of illegals voted for him, which is absurd but they still seem to buy it down there. Just ask BC.

[Omni]

I see the GOP is getting on board to examine the Russian connection. Good on 'em.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/russia-us-elections-2016/index.html

[Guest]

In my limited understanding of US politics, the Electoral College does not have to give the election to Trump, right?

Given the CIA revelation, and Trump's irrational behaviour, is it possible the GOP could direct enough of them to give their votes to the Democrats to ensure Russia Trump does not win the election after all?

I ask out of a genuine curiosity.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[Topaz]

The CIA has lost creditability ,caused  by the activities of the past, are at the same level as ISIS. I read more books of former CIA agents and what they did/doing. take their words with a grain of salt.  The west needs Russia and China to keep N. Korea in line and isn't it time the world had some sort of peace? 

[Wilber]

Question. If Trump isn't going to get his intelligence from his own agencies, where is he going to get it from? Twitter? The internet? Putin? His own ass? Where?

Edited December 12, 2016 by Wilber

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Topaz said:

The CIA has lost creditability ,caused  by the activities of the past, are at the same level as ISIS. I read more books of former CIA agents and what they did/doing. take their words with a grain of salt.  The west needs Russia and China to keep N. Korea in line and isn't it time the world had some sort of peace? 

We're already living in the most peaceful time in the world's history.   

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence

Edited December 12, 2016 by dialamah
Fix the link

[Omni]

5 hours ago, Topaz said:

The CIA has lost creditability ,caused  by the activities of the past, are at the same level as ISIS. I read more books of former CIA agents and what they did/doing. take their words with a grain of salt.  The west needs Russia and China to keep N. Korea in line and isn't it time the world had some sort of peace? 

If that's true then pissing off China wasn't a smart move.

[Wilber]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So we are supposed to accept assertions from the CIA as fact ?

No, but proper POTUS would demand to see the evidence and ask questions as to how they came to that conclusion, not just dismiss it out of hand because it isn't what he wants to hear. Foreign nations trying to suborn your election process is a national security issue, not a personal irritant. Unless I guess, you are Donald Trump.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Wilber
Rephrased

[Omni]

13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

In my limited understanding of US politics, the Electoral College does not have to give the election to Trump, right?

Given the CIA revelation, and Trump's irrational behaviour, is it possible the GOP could direct enough of them to give their votes to the Democrats to ensure Russia Trump does not win the election after all?

I ask out of a genuine curiosity.

They could in theory give their votes to the dems., but that is highly unlikely. What they could do instead is give their votes to a different Republican to keep Trump out. Clinton could also release her voters with a request to vote for an alternative GOP member. I think both are long shots but who knows, as more is revealed about the Russian influence through hacking etc., eyebrows may be raised. After all if you look at what the function of the EC is, it's to keep crackpots out of the White House. 

[segnosaur]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As was pointed out, that was pretty much the same as the WMD statement and I didn't believe that one either.

Keep in mind that what the CIA said about Iraq, WMD and terrorism may have been slightly different than what the Bush administration claimed.

A CIA report that was used to justify the invasion contained various warnings... that some of the intelligence couldn't be confirmed, or depended on unreliable sources. However, many of those warnings were dropped when the information was passed around to higher-ups. So, the CIA may have actually done its due dilligence on Iraq, but it was others in the chain of command who dropped the ball.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3

 

 

[eyeball]

The contradicting outrage and whining about foreign nations diddling with America's governance while America is more than happy to diddle with others seems like a perfect example of the obliviousness that self–centeredness seems to impart. Is Trump a refection of America's narcissism or is it the other way around?

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by eyeball

[-TSS-]

If many enough electoral college members refuse to vote for Trump so that he loses the majority it may still not mean that they would vote for Hillary instead. They could vote for almost anyone of their choice and the outcome would be a mess.

It would be unforeseen and interesting to see what happens if the electoral college really does not vote Trump. Would that lead to serious social unrest?

 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

If many enough electoral college members refuse to vote for Trump so that he loses the majority it may still not mean that they would vote for Hillary instead. They could vote for almost anyone of their choice and the outcome would be a mess.

They don't have to vote for Hilary for her to get a plurality, although. I believe if an explicit majority is not obtained (ie. 270+ votes) when the joint session of Congress meets in January and counts the votes then they get to decide. A mess is no different than a tie.

[sharkman]

On 11 December, 2016 at 7:50 PM, eyeball said:

Remember when Dubya was drawn by the allure of Putin's eye's...I guess Putin heard there's a new boi in town.

Speaking of which(well  not really), I wonder how the Bushes like Trump now, since they had officially abandoned him before the election.

[sharkman]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

If many enough electoral college members refuse to vote for Trump so that he loses the majority it may still not mean that they would vote for Hillary instead. They could vote for almost anyone of their choice and the outcome would be a mess.

It would be unforeseen and interesting to see what happens if the electoral college really does not vote Trump. Would that lead to serious social unrest?

 

Gee, sounds like a lib fantasy.  Best stick to reality, friend.

[Chrissy1979]

I don't understand why people aren't more upset that Putin interfered with the election. If Obama didn't win the popular vote and only won because Putin interfered, people would be totally freaking out about it and calling him a monkey and a nonAmerican and stuff.