Does Fronier Give You A Refund?
Gaming1 min ago
Wisconsin Recount Confirms Trump...
26 Answers
... next front to be opened is the "Russian thumb print on the presidential election" assault. (I do admire that metaphor and its clever innuendo, coming, of course from one of CNN's experts. So unlike the comments by the same channel and its experts when Trump made suggestions of vote-rigging ahead of the result).
Is there a question here? Yes, what do you think of it so far?
Is there a question here? Yes, what do you think of it so far?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vetuste_ennemi. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is no suggestion that the election was 'rigged' - only Trump himself made that accusation, in advance.
The CIA however have revealed that there was outside meddling in the run up due to criminal activity by Russian government-sponsored hackers. Which Trump has rather curiously denied despite being in possession of none or very few of the facts. He also tried to halt the Wisconsin recount interestingly.
The CIA however have revealed that there was outside meddling in the run up due to criminal activity by Russian government-sponsored hackers. Which Trump has rather curiously denied despite being in possession of none or very few of the facts. He also tried to halt the Wisconsin recount interestingly.
//The CIA however have revealed that there was outside meddling in the run up due to criminal activity by Russian government-sponsored hackers. Which Trump has rather curiously denied despite being in possession of none or very few of the facts. He also tried to halt the Wisconsin recount interestingly.//
I think underlying the OP is the question of whom to trust when attempting to gather the truth. I'm not saying ichkeria, what you have posted is entirely wrong, but how can you be sure that it is entirely right, and from where did you gather these 'facts'?
I think underlying the OP is the question of whom to trust when attempting to gather the truth. I'm not saying ichkeria, what you have posted is entirely wrong, but how can you be sure that it is entirely right, and from where did you gather these 'facts'?
Well, put it this way:
Russia has denied having anything to do with it
But:
They lied about invading Ukraine, lied about MH17, lied about bombing civilian convoys in Syria, lied about the most spectacular state-sponsored drugs cheating in the history of sport (move over East Germany)
You cannot trust a word they say.
Then we have Trump, who is a foul mouthed mysogynist who's suddenly found himself in the White House.
Then we have the CIA, who you may mock, but compared with the above are bastions of reliability.
By the way, their allegations also include hints that Russian hackers did indeed attempt to gain access to the voting machines (which if the Wisconsin experience is anything to by seem to be impressively accurate) but no evidence that they succeeded in doing any damage.
At the very least, the President elect should be saying that he will launch a cross-party Senate investigation into this when he becomes president. He seems to be dimissing his own intelligence services and believing the word of the criminals above. And "I don;t need intelligence briefing?" What The Funicular?
He needs an intelligence transplant :-)
Russia has denied having anything to do with it
But:
They lied about invading Ukraine, lied about MH17, lied about bombing civilian convoys in Syria, lied about the most spectacular state-sponsored drugs cheating in the history of sport (move over East Germany)
You cannot trust a word they say.
Then we have Trump, who is a foul mouthed mysogynist who's suddenly found himself in the White House.
Then we have the CIA, who you may mock, but compared with the above are bastions of reliability.
By the way, their allegations also include hints that Russian hackers did indeed attempt to gain access to the voting machines (which if the Wisconsin experience is anything to by seem to be impressively accurate) but no evidence that they succeeded in doing any damage.
At the very least, the President elect should be saying that he will launch a cross-party Senate investigation into this when he becomes president. He seems to be dimissing his own intelligence services and believing the word of the criminals above. And "I don;t need intelligence briefing?" What The Funicular?
He needs an intelligence transplant :-)
That's quite a mouthful ichy, I think many of your 'facts' * wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny, but anything said in attempt to abuse you of your prejudices against Russia and your championing of the likes of CNN and the neocons would be like water off the proverbial.
* eg. Not only did Russia not "bomb civilian convoys", it would have made absolutely no sense for them to do so, the convoys were attacked by insurgents and the Western media scuurriously tried to blame Russia.
* eg. Not only did Russia not "bomb civilian convoys", it would have made absolutely no sense for them to do so, the convoys were attacked by insurgents and the Western media scuurriously tried to blame Russia.
??
I don't watch CNN. It was the OP who raised that.
As for "abuse you of your prejudices against Russia"
well, I mean to say: the facts speak for themselves there. If it was the case that I wanted, gratuitously, reasons to badmouth Russia, then I'd have to class them as "the gift that keeps on giving :-)
I don't watch CNN. It was the OP who raised that.
As for "abuse you of your prejudices against Russia"
well, I mean to say: the facts speak for themselves there. If it was the case that I wanted, gratuitously, reasons to badmouth Russia, then I'd have to class them as "the gift that keeps on giving :-)
ichy; //By the way, their [the CIA] allegations also include hints that Russian hackers did indeed attempt to gain access to the voting machines//
You fall for it every time; "hints", "allegations", you and they don't have a scrap of evidence to substantiate this, attempted hacking may well have taken place, but if it came from a Russian source, absolute proof would be used to demonstrate it with glee.
If there are any "gifts" floating around, I think it is you for the CIA. I'm beginning to wonder if you are not perhaps an undercover agent for them. :0)
You fall for it every time; "hints", "allegations", you and they don't have a scrap of evidence to substantiate this, attempted hacking may well have taken place, but if it came from a Russian source, absolute proof would be used to demonstrate it with glee.
If there are any "gifts" floating around, I think it is you for the CIA. I'm beginning to wonder if you are not perhaps an undercover agent for them. :0)
Yes: the charges about Russian interference are allegations based on who knows what evidence.
You asked me who I would rather believe about this, and I told you.
Probably more than allegations, by the look of it, but regardless it is bizarre, and somewhat worrying, that the President elect dismisses them out of hand. What is the point of having intelligence agencies if you ignore them. I agree it is embarrassing for Trump, but he ought to be able to rise above that: after all it is not his fault if this happened.
The FBI was the spawn of the devil until they decided to investigate Clinton's mails again at the last minute. Then, when they concluded in her favour they were back to "satanic tadpole" status again.
You asked me who I would rather believe about this, and I told you.
Probably more than allegations, by the look of it, but regardless it is bizarre, and somewhat worrying, that the President elect dismisses them out of hand. What is the point of having intelligence agencies if you ignore them. I agree it is embarrassing for Trump, but he ought to be able to rise above that: after all it is not his fault if this happened.
The FBI was the spawn of the devil until they decided to investigate Clinton's mails again at the last minute. Then, when they concluded in her favour they were back to "satanic tadpole" status again.
There you go Gromit, 2.8 million in fact
http://
Which if nothing else should temper some of the more extreme assessments of the mental state of the US electorate.
http://
Which if nothing else should temper some of the more extreme assessments of the mental state of the US electorate.
Yes Gromit and UKIP only had 1 seat for 4 million votes but I seem to recall you found that more than OK.
It' the systems we use, stop harping on about it like a sore looser. Trump is going to be President, get used to it.
I think the question should be what happens next. If UK losers are anything to go by it will be every court in the land and then one out of the land!
It' the systems we use, stop harping on about it like a sore looser. Trump is going to be President, get used to it.
I think the question should be what happens next. If UK losers are anything to go by it will be every court in the land and then one out of the land!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.