Russian Hacking - What Will Trump Do When He Learns It's Real?
Donald Trump, as late as January 1, 2017, has refused to acknowledge what most everybody, Democrats and Republicans (less Trump supporters) alike know to be true ... Vladimir Putin is behind the arguably successful attack on America's democracy by swaying American voters to vote for Trump rather than Clinton.
Trump appears to have staked his legitimacy on the belief Russia didn't attack America/ All of our intelligence agencies, as well as private cyber-security firms, agree Russia is behind the massive, year-long hacking and disinformation campaign in opposition to Clinton. YET, Donald Trump claims that because they have been wrong before, out intelligence is no longer trustworthy but the word of Putin is.
Trump says he will finally talk to the heads of intelligence to ascertain the truth of the matter. But what does he do when they prove to him Putin did it? He has so boxed himself in, how can he now say the intelligence was right all along and that he, Donald Trump, was wrong? Somehow, I don't think so.
(BTW, the Vermont utility company found the same Russian malware on their computers that was used in Putin's political hacking.)"Vladimir Putin is behind the arguably successful attack on America's democracy by swaying American voters to vote for Trump rather than Clinton."
LOL Typical liberal rhetoric - empty and without truth.
I haven't heard a single interview with anyone at all saying that Putin said or did a single thing that caused them to change their vote to Trump. Have you?
Do you really think liberals are smart enough to change their vote because the DNC is shown to be corrupt? Heck, everybody in the country already knew that - pointing it out didn't change anything at all!Have I read the classified documents? No. What I have heard and read is everyone of our intelligence agencies say he did it. I have also read Putin say he didn't. Which do you choose to believe? I chose our intelligence community. #NoMandateTrump chose to believe Putin.
As to the DNC, yes, some Sanders' supporters probably did change their votes because of Wasserman-Shultz; and many liberals probably didn't vote as well. Most affected were white males with less than a college degree. The RNC is even more corrupt if you are to believe Trump (but since 70% of what he says is False, why would you)
What I was talking about is the post-Dean atrophy of the juggernaut ground game he put together for Obama. The media only talked down about the RNC lack of preparedness, wrongly as it turns out. They totally missed that the DNC had let theirs whither away."As to the DNC, yes, some Sanders' supporters probably did change their votes because of Wasserman-Shultz; and many liberals probably didn't vote as well. Most affected were white males with less than a college degree."
"arguably successful attack on America's democracy by swaying American voters to vote for Trump rather than Clinton."
So now that you think some people probably changed from Clinton to Bernie, and some people probably changed from Clinton to Trump justifies saying Russia swayed American voters? Got a pretty high opinion of your own unsupported opinions, don't you? Still, wouldn't it be wise to find a few thousand or million voters that agree Putin changed their vote, don't you think? Instead of just saying it probably happened and concluding that therefore Russia swayed voters?
And I stand by my own opinion that finding a corrupt DNC didn't change a single vote - that any reasoning adult already knew that and was willing to vote for their candidate anyway.Considering the fact that our own intelligence agency (the NSA) lied to the American people about spying on us all, and being in front of congress when they did it, and having spent time dealing with an NSA officer's 'suspect' actions myself, I would definately NOT simply take anything they say as absolute truth.
Since Trumps' comment of knowing more about what was going on in the middle east than our intelligence community it's no wonder that they were involved in the 'hacking' story.
Our intelligence agencies are too concerned with spying on us than they are with Russia.
All assumptions ! When there is proof - then he will act . The left needs to get over their shock that Russian political ideologies are something new, I live in Vermont and the electric company "hacking " isn't even provable. Only the left would or will legitimize a computer bug as international hacking .
Exactly how do you know the Vermont hack isn't provable, do you read classified intel reports? What they did find and report was the malware found your electric companies computer was one identified as belonging to Russia.
You must be reading the CIA's and FBI's classified reports to know all their data is assumptions, (to paraphrase Wilderness, "typical conservative responses")?
You chose, like #NoMandateTrump, to believe Putin more than your own intelligence Community. I don't.
In terms of Myers-Briggs personality types, you and Wilderness are very strong S-types (Senors) and probably T-types (Thinkers), Those are neither derogatory nor laudatory, byt goggle MBTI if your curious. The reason we rarely see eye-to-eye is I am just as strong I-type (intuitor) as well as a T-type.All of that , And you still lack the common sense of true realists , computer experts in Vermont say there is NO proof its anything but a virus acquirable through any laptop e mail contact - read up and stop being such a leftist reactionary and conspiracy theorist .
I need to see your sources for the virus theory. I will agree that yesterday the Post reported that it might not be the Russians behind it, or possibly nobody nefarious. BUT, they DID find Malware on the laptop as well as " they have found on the device a package of software tools commonly used by online criminals to deliver malware. The package, known as Neutrino, does not appear to be connected with Grizzly Steppe, which U.S. officials have identified as the Russian hacking operation. " And the IP address found was associated with Russian hacking among other users of it.
As to being a conspiracy theorist, it will take me another lifetime to catch up to where the Right is at this moment. And in any case, while Russian hacking and disinformation efforts are a conspiracy between Putin, Assauge and others is real and not a theory. So was the invasion of the utilities' laptop by somebody.
The Vermont Electric Co. just stated AGAIN -, there is no "proof " of Russian hacking , Can you spell 'Fake News '? How about 'Fake Forum ' issues ?
That ship has sailed. Now it's whether Trump or his team colluded with Putin. The Sen Intel Committee is investigated it starting today.
Onward! New horizons and new accusations. You were a lackey yesterday, today you are conspirator, never mind the lackey stuff.
MyEsoteric, I have had interesting conversations with you before, and you always meet expectations, but a little authentic conviction would go far regarding the validity of your 'convictions'
GA
Your post prompted me to check with my 'inside' sources, (namely Google search), but unfortunately I am just as clueless now as before I checked.
I found references to "digital fingerprints and Cryllic keyboards" and intelligence community consensus - but that was about it. I can certainly believe that Russia, (or perhaps other nations), would jump at an opportunity to influence our elections, but beyond the thought of violating the sanctity of a nation's election integrity, (gasp!), what did the Russians do that can be tied to their efforts alone?
What "disinformation" did they manage to insert into our election dialog? What other acts did they do?
And, to ask an obvious question; "What makes you more confident in this intelligence agencies consensus than Bush's intelligence community WMD consensus?
GAThey DID hack the DNC (and probably the RNC as well but wouldn't help Trump's election.
They did hack, or try to anyway, the voter registration rolls of three States. They did disseminate the information gained from the hack of Podesta's computer trying to embarrass the Clinton campaign with private thoughts contained in emails. They did publish information embarrassing the Democratic candidates http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/po … .html?_r=0
Your, since your are an American, intelligence community has been clear that Russia DID interfere with US elections in favor of Trump and the GOP.
You can choose to believe Putin or not, I certainly don't.I don't choose to believe either side just yet. I don't know enough about it.
I lean to the intelligence services statements, but it is just a lean at this point. I am not doubtful that it might have been the Russians, but it could also be someone else. It seems that these cyber-forensic evaluations frequently change. One possible example might be the Vermont(?), utility co. laptop issue, which seems to be stepping back from the earlier "cyber-forensic" positive ID of the malware.
There is also the consideration that 'the Russians did it!" declarations look like a Democrat excuse for Hillary's loss. So even if the declarations are true, for now they warrant a bit of caution
GAThen why does the entire intelligence community have no doubt it was the Russians and their purpose was to influence the election in favor of Trump.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … /92514592/
The utility's laptop did have malware on it, it also contained tools hackers use to implant malware, the malware did use an IP address on the DHS's warning letter. What they didn't know, and which came out Tuesday, was that others use that IP to hide their activity as well as the Russians.
Was something going on? Clearly there was, but figuring out who it was may take awhile.Come on My Esoteric, "the entire intelligence community," really?
From your side of the spectrum, how does that jibe with the entire intelligence community agreeing that Iraq had WMDs?
But, I recall a recent post of yours that this is old news - doesn't matter, because you now have a new accusation - the Russians blackmailed Pres.-elect Trump. Whether the intelligence is right or wrong no longer matters on that point.
Geesh! Man up. You either have standards or you don't. At least the Republicans did not abandon their issues every time a new accusation came along. Hell, they are still carrying the 'birther' card.
GA
I can Guarantee you that Putin never 'swayed " anyone on the right away from being a Clinton voter ! Even IF he did have the power to inject his influence . Why ? As you should know and probably ignore for whatever reason, - Americans are pretty much permanently divided by political ideologies.
If Putin's government even did try to hack , influence or otherwise alter the US. election process , He could have done NO MORE damage than the fake news media or the phony social media sights ! Want some advice ?
Get real !And I agree that Putin didn't sway anyone on the Right. But then that wasn't his target, was it. His target was Is and Ds; that is where he probably succeeded. Keep in mind, only a total of 100,000 (0.76%) non-voters who decided to vote for #IllegitimateTrump OR 100,000 Clinton voters who decided not to vote or 50,000 (0.38%) Clinton votes who decided to vote for Trump out of over 13 million cast in three critical states was what made the difference.
All that was needed was to change the mind of between 1 out of every 135 and 1 out of 270 votes cast in MI, WI, and PA. Given that most Americans react to emotion and not reason, those aren't insurmountable numbers.
I think that was very doable given the amount of effort Putin put into it. Therefore, I am Real!And you seriously believe that the rural "real " America that elected Trump even needed the influence of Putin ? AND you fail to account for the political suicide of Hillary and Bill themselves .
A valuable lesson to the left --Because the media basically toasted you - you STILL want to believe them ?
Why is it so hard to admit the most obvious reason of all -A massive political failure so obvious, to most of us ,right from the very beginning ?There are those who live in rural America who don't agree with radical, non-thinking conservatism but are nevertheless persuadable by determined propaganda.
And no I didn't. I identified five factors that led to her lose. If any ONE of them hadn't happened, she would be President and not the self-destructive #NoMandateTrump. To repeat myself, they are, in no particular order:
1. Russian Propaganda
2. FBI Dir Comey
3. Hillary fumbling the server thing
4. Hillary's insistence not to learn from her near disaster with Sanders (the same dynamics that led to Sanders' amazing showing are the same ones that led to Trump's win)
5. The DNC abandoning the ground game in many of the states, particularly PA, MI, and WIIt was massive in that Clinton should have won it, but didn't win the electoral votes; she Clobbered Trump in actual votes, almost 3 million of them.
Indeed. She Clobbered Trump, getting 2% more of the registered voters than he did. An Absolute, Massive Clobbering.
While Trump's paltry 14% win is not worthy of such grandiose terminology. Got it. Perception and spin is all important, isn't it?
(What term would you use for Obama's 2008 win? "Atomic Like Total Destruction, Hiroshima Revisited!", with nearly 10M difference, or 7% compared to Trump's 14% EC supremacy, in popular vote?)Let's see what the facts say (I haven't looked yet):
Remember Trump won and Hillary lost yet see got 3 million more votes.
Using electoral votes to create percentages is statistically nonviable because of the wide variability in votes per state. The ONLY thing that makes any sense is to look at how much Trump won those three states - by and Extremely small margin.
Trump won Pennsylvanian by a Whopping 44,000 (0.7%)
Trump won Wisconsin by a not so impressive 23,000 votes (0.7%)
Trump won Michigan by a not so impressive 10,000 votes (0.3%)
WOW! Trump won by an average of 0.6% - THAT is NOT impressive at all. Yet Hillary beat Trump by 2.1%, almost 4 times Trumps margin.
- Obama beat Romney by 126 EV and 3.9% vice Trumps 77 EV and Hillary's 2.1% PV
- Obama beat McCain by 192 EV and 7.2% PV
- Bush beat Kerry by 35 EV and 2.4% PV
- Bush beat Gore by 5 EV and lost to Gore by 0.5% PV
- Clinton beat Dole by 220 EV and 8.5% PV
- Clinton beat Bush by 202 EV and 5.6% PV
Need I say more? #NoMandateTrump is a one-off with the help of the Russians and Comey." The ONLY thing that makes any sense is to look at how much Trump won those three states - by and Extremely small margin."
True...IF you wish pure democracy. If you wish a modified version then the comment makes no sense. As we HAVE that modified version (the EC), the only proper attitude is to consider his win as what it was; a victory by a 14% margin. Not 0.7%, not 0.6% and not 0.3% (if you pick the right states you will probably find even smaller amounts, but then you can choose states with much, much larger figures as well).
You might consider, as well, the immense improbability of Clinton winning not 1, not 2, but all three of those states. Suddenly a small margin becomes a very, very large one.
What is going on here is a desperate attempt to disparage the legitimacy of Trumps victory. You'll do it by glorifying an irrelevant figure produced by Clinton, by showing other wins by other figures with both lower and higher figures. Even the completely irrelevant actions of another country will be brought into play. What you will fail to do, however, is produce the single figure that matters: that Trump won by receiving 31% more EC votes, the only ones that matter, than his opponent did.
Honest? Not hardly. Expected? Most certainly. Anything possible to disparage and run down the American President-to-be.Your 2nd paragraph is a non-sequitur; meaning it doesn't follow the fact that your 14% has not mathematical or statistical meaning. Sure you can calculate it, but because the numerator is highly variable. Pick a different set of states won by the slimiest of votes and the "margin" could have been .5% or 30%, depending on the states chosen.
The Real fact is, #NoMandateTrump barely squeaked by in those three states and got beat by HRC by over 2% of the popular vote.
Trump IS illegitimate, period (except maybe by birth, but he will need to prove that). If the factors for Trump winning were only Clinton herself and a faulty DNC, then the win was fair. If the margins of victory in WI, MI, and PA were 2% or higher, then his win would have been legitimate.
But they weren't, his margin were less than 1% in all three states AND Comey and Russia DID interfere on Trump's side; that makes Trump's election illegitimate by any reasonable analysis.
I don't need to "disparage and run down Trump", he does a good enough job of that himself while disparaging and running down the image of America at the same time."The Real fact is, #NoMandateTrump barely squeaked by in those three states and got beat by HRC by over 2% of the popular vote."
And the other "Real fact", the only one that matters, is that Trump took 57% of the EC votes, compared to Clinton's 43%. A difference of 14%, and a difference that absolutely makes Trump the legitimate winner. No single states need apply, no discussion of what individual states did or did not do matters. No claim that it was due to Russia is relevant without proof that whatever they did affected the outcome. It isn't a game where you can use your "intuition" to declare truth when there is nothing but guess work to support it.
Of course you don't disparage Trump. "NoMandate Trump" isn't disparaging at all, is it, especially when he won the vast majority of counties from coast to coast and a very clear majority of the EC votes. No "mandate" from the people at all, is it?
Probably due to illegal voters , dead voters , duplicated voters , computer screw ups ,Too bad we don't exist in a democracy !
Now who is being unreal with your wishful thinking?
My point - What does the popular vote numbers matter -except to unhappy liberals ? Look at the maps , dissect the ideologies of these areas and population bases , the election system worked before this election and works now . It's all pretty simple except to those who wish to rig the unhappy outcomes of any elections.
Let's see now , who would that be ?If popular vote doesn't matter then why did anybody bother going to the polls in WI, MI, PA??
To choose their electors. Why else would anyone go? Not sure I understand the question, though.
But throughout history, the electors, sometimes forced to by state law, vote based on who won the popular vote in a given state ... THAT is why people vote and WHY it matters how they vote.
Of course you remember your reading of the Federalist Papers or Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention the PURPOSE of the electors was to put an Independent check on demagogues like Trump. Unfortunately, 99% of the electors have followed the popular vote rather than do what they were elected for.What I said, isn't it? Most people know that, so what was the point in the first place?
While you might remember that, and only that, from the Federalist papers, written by just one VIP of the time, I actually found other reasons as well. Such as the reason for the makeup of the House - it applies to the EC as well, whether it was part of Madison's or Hamilton's personal reasons for pushing the EC or not. I confess, it's difficult to comprehend why that is so hard to understand - that they were but two of the aristocracy, and not all the group agreed on any specific point. That Hamilton and Madison belong to, and believed in, the elitist concept of the day does NOT mean that it was the sole, or even most important, reason the EC was set up the way it is. It doesn't even mean there was a single other voice on their side!
The popular vote for the 'president' doesn't matter at all, obviously. The way people are SUPPOSED to really elect the president is through their local votes for those who would hold EC seats. So in reality literally voting for the president in November is nothing more than a facade that gives people the illusion of having any real effect on the outcome. All of the 'dismay' by people who voted for Hillary Clinton is symptomatic of the American people at large not understanding the process. That being said, redistricting makes even voting for particular electors a moot cause in our desires for any particular like-minded president. It's all one big crap shoot.
Clearly you have no understanding of how the process works. So long as the electors are not independent actors and only follow the outcome of the state-by-state popular vote (which, with very few exceptions, they have).
IF less than 60,000 votes in PA, 30,000 votes in WI and 20,000 votes in MI had been for Clinton instead of #NoMandateTrump, Hillary Clinton would be President.
How does that FACT fit in with your theory?On the contrary, I have great understanding concerning the process. That's why I find it sickeningly funny that people like you, and there are a great many, who think they know everything about it but in actuality don't know hardly anything about it at all, outside of the fact that you all got to play 'let's vote for the president' in November.
you said; "as the electors are not independent actors and only follow the outcome of the state-by-state popular vote (which, with very few exceptions, they have)."
simply confirms what I said. The fact that you say "very few exceptions" proves that the electors can vote for whoever THEY choose to, George W. Bush anyone!, And no, regardless of your "If less than 60,000 votes" belief goes, Clinton would STILL not be the President of the United States. Get over it.
"How does that FACT fit in with your theory?"
Well, first off it's not a theory. Secondly, "If" is not a fact, it's wishful thinking when the light of truth shines in your face. You are just another lost soul Clinton voter who, like all Clinton voters, actually thought their votes in November would get her elected. If you had ANY inkling of how the process actually worked, 1; you wouldn't have wasted your time voting for Clinton, and I know you did, this past November and, 2: You wouldn't be so irritated by the fact that your vote meant squat!
So, you and all of the other disheartened Hillary Clinton voters can get together and commiserate amongst yourselves over your ignorance of the process.Are you happy with how Trump is trying to raise the price of the food you eat, the gas you buy, the cars you drive while costing millions of Americans their jobs who supply what America exports to Mexico with the Trade War he started today?
Last I heard, America was a net exporter of oil. Why would the price of gas go up then?
Yes I am. You see, I know that I don't live in an imaginary world where everything is peachy keen and perfect. I understand that the necessities of life cost money and I understand that costs rise indefinately. Therefore, I don't complain as I have the choice of living within a society that provides the things I need as long as I can pay for them or, I can go live in the woods somewhere and hope I'm capable enough to kill the animals I eat and grow my own vegetables...I choose to pay as I go. It's a much more 'doable' lifestyle.
As far as Trump raising the price of gas...More anti-Trump nonsense. We have as much oil and gas right here in the good 'ole U.S. of A. than just about any other country in the world. So, higher gas prices, if any, will be a matter of foriegn oil companies, not Trump.
And Americans losing their jobs...Mexico is not in a position to 'barter'. They will continue to export to America and if they don't, whatever they DO wish to export here will be taxed into oblivion. You see, we here in America absolutely do not need a thing from Mexico. They do however, need our financial help. All of these countries claiming 'trade war' are what my father calls "full of sh*t". They're just worried that the onesided trade deals that they have enjoyed over the last several presidencies is about to come to an abrupt end.
All of these things you contribute to President Trump are inevitable aspects of commerce. Prices rise and that's that. America did very well in its nationalist days and I dare say it will fare equally as well, or better now, should President Trump continue to move us in that direction. Like he said, America can no longer support the free ride that the world has taken advantage of for the last 25-30 years nor will it be the fool that receives the dirty end of the 'bad deal' stick.
Trump haters can say what they like, piss and moan as long as they like, but Trump IS the president and so far, he has done more for America than the last three presidents combined. And by the way, on the subject of jobs; Chrysler/Fiat is opening a major auto manufacturing plant in Detroit. Ford; was convinced to keep it's operations here in America, they were however, moving to Mexico when Obama was president. The atrocious Obama Care Act' is being rescinded for a better plan. These are just a few of the many things President Trump has already done for America, Americans and American jobs.
So, all in all, I would say that rather than spread propagandist nonsense about President Trump, be glad that you have an 'America First' president.You said "I understand that costs rise indefinately" - Of Course they do, but why does Trump have to raise them for no good reason?
You said "We have as much oil and gas right here in the good 'ole U.S. of A. than just about any other country in the world. So, higher gas prices, if any, will be a matter of foriegn oil companies, not Trump." - Well, you have your facts wrong. The US doesn't even make the top 10 nations in proven oil reserves. Higher gas prices will come from tariffs on Mexican oil. Fact: The US produces 39% of its own oil, Mexico provides 15% of our oil - a 20% raise in tariffs on Mexico will increase the Mexican oil by 20%
You are quite naive if you really think "Mexico is not in a position to 'barter'. They will continue to import from America and if they don't, whatever they DO wish to import will be taxed into oblivion. You see, we here in America absolutely do not need a thing from Mexico. They do however, need our financial help." - This explains it better than I can: http://www.jsonline.com/story/money/bus … /96011728/
You said "All of these things you contribute to President Trump are inevitable aspects of commerce. " - Again true, but why do you want #NoMandateTrump to speed the process up??
You said "Like he said, America can no longer support the free ride that the world has taken advantage of for the last 25-30 years nor will it be the fool that receives the dirty end of the 'bad deal' stick." - that is an Alt-Right belief and has NO supporting facts and data. Please provide it if you have any. I bet you can't.
You think "The atrocious Obama Care Act' is being rescinded for a better plan." is true? Then why does only 29% of Americans don't want to repeal ACA, while 66% want to either fix, make stronger, or do nothing with ACA? Why do more Americans today favor ACA than oppose it."Of Course they do, but why does Trump have to raise them for no good reason?"
Again, you're blindly blaming President Trump for the inevitable, but I'm glad to say it holds no water.
"Well, you have your facts wrong. The US doesn't even make the top 10 nations in proven oil reserves. Higher gas prices will come from tariffs on Mexican oil. Fact: The US produces 39% of its own oil, Mexico provides 15% of our oil - a 20% raise in tariffs on Mexico will increase the Mexican oil by 20%"
The most important fact that you have overlooked, or simply do not know is; We import oil from others so as to preserve our own for the future. Where there's gas there's oil. America exports more natural gas than most countries, nearly 50 Bcf in 2016 alone. You see how having only half of the truth can really upset your argument?
"You are quite naive if you really think "Mexico is not in a position to 'barter'."
I can assure you that I am far from naive. Mexico is a governmentless(FIGURATIVELY) lump of real estate and were it not for its 'vacation spot' appeal it could drop entirely off the map and have no affect on the United States whatsoever. As far as your linked article goes; you still haven't figured it out yet. Do you even know why America engages in foriegn trade? I'm pretty sure you THINK you know, but do you really? And don't say it's to get things we need because whatever America needs America has. And China, they're just upset that they're gonna take the biggest hit when America stops giving away its GDP to foriegn countries, and I KNOW that you don't know this FACT: Several years back approximately $60 billion Amero's(North America's newest currency) found its way to Chinese hands and no one knows how. I think you can see where I'm going with all this. The fact of the matter is, America needs help from NO other country.
"You said "All of these things you contribute to President Trump are inevitable aspects of commerce. " - Again true, but why do you want #NoMandateTrump to speed the process up??"
You're really showing your 'Hillary skirt' on this one. Don't waste your time saying that I 'want' anything as you definately do NOT speak for me nor do you in any way KNOW what I want. See, your problem, just like most people, is that you want something for nothing for as long as you can get it. Progress takes time and its associated growing pains are great. If temporarily higher costs of living is what it takes to free America from the one sided foriegn trade grip we're now in, then so be it.
"You said "Like he said, America can no longer support the free ride that the world has taken advantage of for the last 25-30 years nor will it be the fool that receives the dirty end of the 'bad deal' stick." - that is an Alt-Right belief and has NO supporting facts and data. Please provide it if you have any. I bet you can't."
No supporting facts? People such as yourself are always saying that. I guess you don't know that NATO has been getting a free ride on America's tab since it's inception, having been an AirForce Intelligence analyst, I know this for a fact. I also guess you didn't know that the trade deficit with China happened because of extremely bad deal making by presidencies of the past. The same goes for the United Nations who, by the way, have refused to pay for even the building thay have occupied for decades. And how do you think Mexico even still exists as a country to this day? we've been handing them money hand over foot for decades with nothing in return except for a surge in our unregistered population growth. Before America gave Mexico it's 'financial free ride' a loaf of bread, if you could find one, cost more peso's than you could carry. Get a grip, man! It's no "Alt-Right" anything, it's absolute truth, whether CNN wishes for you to believe it or not. With Americas GDP, as it relates to our foreign debt, what on earth is it that makes you believe we haven't been taken advantage of?
"In 1993 Mexico's total debt service amounted to US$21 billion, including US$14 billion in principal payments and US$7 billion in interest payments. Mexico's total external debt amounted to 356 percent of GDP in 1993."
Mexico owes its very existence to America.
"You think "The atrocious Obama Care Act' is being rescinded for a better plan." is true? Then why does only 29% of Americans don't want to repeal ACA, while 66% want to either fix, make stronger, or do nothing with ACA? Why do more Americans today favor ACA than oppose it."
I don't know, why don't you tell me. After all, not less than 3 months ago the majority of Americans hated it, go figure. I would say, however, that the same people who hated it then, are the same people who voted for Clinton, and are the same people who are in favor of it now. Can you follow the pathology here? And don't you think it atrocious that when hard working people who can't afford insurance get fined $600.00 and up for not having it while others, who don't work at all, are covered for free, illegal immigrants-covered for free, welfare cheats-covered for free, foriegners can visit here and have all of their medical needs met, for free, and then go back to whatever country they are actually citizens of? And I find it hard to believe that over 300 million Americans were asked how they felt? I'm sure it was probably more of a statistic generated thru averaging, which everyone knows is a crock that can be wholly manipulated to achieve ANY desired outcome. I think a better statistic would be to see how many of those "Americans" that are suddenly in favor of Obamacare, 1: speak english as their first language and 2: voted for Clinton and are STILL upset at President Trumps win at the hands of the EC and therefore will agree to anything as long as President Trump is made to look like the bad guy.
By now you should realize you're not dealing with the average hubpage bandwagoner. Yes, there are some of us here who actually think before posting. I have a brain and I think for myself therefore I don't make a habit of spewing nonsensical, anti-Trump, CNN based hearsay. I know what I know, and I know repetitious propaganda when I hear it whether YOU know your engaging in it or not. However, this being America, the land of the free and the home of...anyone who can sneak in and not get caught for 10 years, you have the right to your opinions...Just don't mistake them for, or allow yourself to be fooled into thinking that, they are facts.You Said "Again, you're blindly blaming President Trump for the inevitable, but I'm glad to say it holds no water." - Since I have a long background in economics (do you?), there is nothing "blindly" about it. What I say is the probable outcome of #NoMandateTrump's actions, should he take it, e.g. Trade War.
Trade wars only have an affect on a country that is dependant on the others products. America is dependant on nothing that it can not produce for itself.
Well, let's see, what possible difficulty could a "trade war" cause for America?...None that I can see. For other countries...Well now that would be their problem, wouldn't it? I think you're associating "evil" with any beneficial deals for America because of the "war" aspect of your "trade war" statement. Right now, America is the recipient of a trade deficit generated by presidencies past. It's almost like you, and the whole world, have gotten so used to it that anything changing it is believed to be dangerous for America. It simply goes to show the efficacy of properly implemented propaganda.
You said "The most important fact that you have overlooked, or simply do not know is; We import oil from others so as to preserve our own for the future. " - No, it is you who is wrong in your belief. The FACTS:
From University of Texas Petroleum and Geosystems Engineers
Q: So why do we still import so much oil?
A: We have built a very large refining capacity especially on the Gulf Coast, and refineries cannot run at half time. They have to run full-time, at 100% capacity. So, we are importing oil, we are exporting oil, and we certainly are exporting finished products. You know, gasoline, lubricants and so on, so that the refineries are running all the time.
You said "Where there's gas there's oil" - The answer to that is ... Sometimes, but not always.
You said "America exports more natural gas than most countries, nearly 50 Bcf in 2016 alone. You see how having only half of the truth can really upset your argument?" - That is probably true, but has nothing to do with my assertions.
You said "Mexico is a governmentless(FIGURATIVELY) lump of real estate..." - Once I stop LOL, I'll clue in to real truth, not your alternate reality. OK, I am done. Your lump is projected in 2020 to be the worlds 11th largest economy (they are currently 15th) ; behind China, US, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, UK, and France. So much for your Fake Lump built on prejudice.
You said, "because whatever America needs America has" - That is SO FALSE it deserves no other response. If what you said were actually true, you couldn't afford to live in America."You said "The most important fact that you have overlooked, or simply do not know is; We import oil from others so as to preserve our own for the future. " - No, it is you who is wrong in your belief. The FACTS:
From University of Texas Petroleum and Geosystems Engineers "
And you think they'll tell Americans the truth? We've been lied to and B.S.'d by the likes of them for ever. But of course, they are "Uinversity" operatives working within a field that is wholly dependant on people believing what they are told. The only thing they could tell me, that I would even want to hear, is that they are out locating more oil deposits in America for us to put to use in the near future, not stories about how refineries need to run 100% of the time. Even fast food restaurants run 100% of the time in some places, it's commerce!
"You said "Mexico is a governmentless(FIGURATIVELY) lump of real estate..." - Once I stop LOL, I'll clue in to real truth, not your alternate reality. OK, I am done. Your lump is projected in 2020 to be the worlds 11th largest economy (they are currently 15th) ; behind China, US, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, UK, and France. So much for your Fake Lump built on prejudice."
Well, actually, you left out the most important part of what I said; Mexico owes its very existence to America, regardless of your comment. They wouldn't be where they are were it not for us, and let their tourism industry bottom out and watch what happens to their top 11 standing, then again, they are still a major illicit drug exporting country. Maybe that'll carry them through. You also fail to recognize that the only way they will fulfill your "2020" projection is if America continues to support them, which President Trump may or may not do. And my "lump" is not fake, as you say. According to the U.S. government there are over 400,000 illegal Mexicans in America, and that's just what they claim to know about. I'm sure there are many more. At what point does America say enough is enough? And if Mexico is doing so well, as you implied, why would so many Mexicans seek greener grass here in America? Now. I'm all for legal immigration to good people. The question is how to determine who is good and who isn't.
"You said, "because whatever America needs America has" - That is SO FALSE it deserves no other response. If what you said were actually true, you couldn't afford to live in America."
Well, that's where YOU are wrong. Firstly, you have no idea of what I can afford. That being said, why don't you tell everybody why America presumably does not have or can not produce everything it needs. And I don't mean frozen fruit from Mexico and cheaply constructed dangerous cars from Japan or cheap clothing made in indonesia by child labor. I'm sure, if you asked them, Americans wouldn't mind paying a little more to keep children from working in sweatshops, besides, with children working for a pittence, those companies that abuse those children are not giving you the 'price break' that you might think. So, we bring the work to America and pay a little more, so what. It'll produce jobs and keep at least some children from being exploited by greedy indifferent company executives.
I know I asked you; why was the EC put into place, but I'll go ahead and tell you; It was put into place because the founding fathers figured the general population was not capable of electing the right person for president. They figured that an ignorant population would elect a person with similar wants and desires as them which was not conducive to maintaining the then status quo, as it were, of whom American government actually worked for, so they wanted to insure that the right person would be seated. Granted, at times even the EC has picked wrong but it is still their choice, one with which we must live with. The fact that so many people ignorantly thought their vote on election day would decide who would become president just goes to show that so many THINK they know so much when in reality they know nothing. So, stop believing everything the powers to be tell you; "Your vote counts"; "We don't have enough of our own oil deposits"; "The trade war will ruin America". It's all propagandized nonsense. Your vote did not and never will count when it comes to electing the president, we absolutely do have enough oil and natural gas of our own to exist on, at least for as long as any other country will exist on fossil fuels, and "trade wars" are nonsense. And even if a "trade war" were to manifest, don't you think it would be better to deal with it now, while we are in a position to do so, than to be wholly bound by monster trade deficits and foriegn debt for the rest of our existence? Do you want your working life to be determined by foriegn interests? It's kind of like a grade school kid having his lunch money taken by bullies. The kid eventually understands his options and either puts an end to it or he suffers his whole life being a pushover. What would you do in that scenario?
I, for one, wished he (& the GOP) would have acknowledged it from the beginning. It would have made him seem like he actually gives a crap about this country; and could have been a bit of a healing salve on us. Based on his intense denial of this and other 'facts' - along with the fact that he & his crew value 'alternative facts' over reality - my biggest fear about this is that when he finds out the truth, he will twist it like he does so many other things.
Both Trump and his supporters consistently view 'winning' as having a majority of the people's support behind them when that is obviously far from the case. If they would get things in perspective, perhaps some profound realizations might set in and they could accomplish something good out of all this chaos. No, I'm not holding my breath for that, LoL!
There is no smoking gun. It's a best guess scenario. Democrats appeared to believe that fear of Russians could be used to garner votes. They had every reason to insist the Russians were behind it. It was a failed gambit on their part not because the Russians may not have done it but because information leaked was unflattering to the DNC. Certainly wasn't classified. This had nothing to do with national security so all of their protests were because things done were exposed.
I don't see any election manipulation in the hacking incident. Whoever hacked was more of a whistle blower. Those seeking open and transparent government aren't going to support the claims that showing corruption is somehow manipulation and interference.
Basically, I don't care whether Trump says it was the Russians or a couple of toddlers from Minnesota. The only damage done was to bring to light things too embarrassing not to attempt to hide.No smoking gun ... that you know of. It is good enough for me that ALL the intel agencies agree it was Russia and there is nothing credible in the media that contradicts them. Unlike Iraq where there was lots in the media that challenged the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld pronouncements and little support among the intelligence communities. I choose to believe American intel than the word of a Russian dictator and criminal.
- Do you honestly believe if there was a smoking gun it wouldn't have been displayed on every news station?
I have no love of Putin. I am continuously shocked that he came to power. But, I also am a realist. Please tell me, other than sharing embarrassing emails within the DNC, what did the hackers do?
I honestly am amazed at how it appears that no one cares how team Hillary and the powers at the DNC underhandedly worked to put Bernie at a disadvantage. They were the ones who attempted to interfere with the democratic process. Not whoever hacked their server.Yes, because I know the media does not have access to classified information. We will find out in the next few weeks what the intel community will declassify.
Maybe it would be better for you to wait until evidence is presented prior to trying and convicting?
"In terms of Myers-Briggs personality types, you and Wilderness are very strong S-types (Senors) and probably T-types (Thinkers), Those are neither derogatory nor laudatory, byt goggle MBTI if your curious. The reason we rarely see eye-to-eye is I am just as strong I-type (intuitor) as well as a T-type."
(http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1394 … ost2863778)
"Those who prefer intuition pay more attention to things like patterns and impressions. They enjoy thinking about possibilities, imagining the future and abstract theories."
https://www.verywell.com/the-myers-brig … or-2795583
Putting it together: Esoteric says he is an strong "I" thinker, which according to the Meyers-Briggs classification means he does not require evidence but relies on personal theories, imagination, and possibilities to draw conclusions. I suspect he isn't the only one in these forums.
.
Maybe there was a crude and disgusting youtube video that sparked outrage throughout the Russian world and Putin retaliated by hacking Democracy. Ive heard, now its just a rumor mind you, that Democracy only uses msft defender and norton products. Maybe Democracy let their subscription expire.
Edit.
Maybe if they just unplugged it and plugged it back in.
.
Intelligence agencies are not the ones to turn to for the truth of the supposed hacking. The U.S. Army's Cyber Defense unit would be the ones to ask and from what I can see, they're not talking. So, until they do, everything is hearsay, whether it comes from the mouths of intelligence agencies or some internet wannabe looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
I'm not a member of the site so I couldn't see whatever it was you linked to. Could you elaborate?
It opens with
e country's top intelligence official testified to Congress on Thursday that Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went well beyond hacking to include disinformation and the dissemination of "fake news" - an effort, he said, that continues to this day. (Cyber Command was present)Cyber command was there? Did any of THEIR members speak? Confirm? Deny? We all know that high ranking C.I.A. and N.S.A members have already lied directly to . The fact that they "testify" before congress means absolutely nothing, so anything they say has to be taken with much caution and doubt, unless one feels being lied to is better than being told the truth. At any rate, what does it matter? We do that stuff to the Russians, they do it to us, so what? It's the information and technology age; the 'game' is the same, only the methods have changed.
Yes, the head of Cyber Command did in support of claim Russia influenced our elections.
No, we actually don't do that stuff to the Russian political process, you would have heard Putin screaming to the high heavens if we had.
What has CIA and NSA lied about? Sources please?"Yes, the head of Cyber Command did in support of claim Russia influenced our elections. "
Really? The most I've seen is that the Russians probably made an effort to influence - that they actually succeeded no one yet has managed to prove.So what if the claims turn out to be true? What will they really have influenced, the EC? I mean, really? If ever a whole lot of nothing was turned into a whole lot of something, this would be it. You know what I find funny? That people like you can drum up all kinds of information and sources for the things you wish to push or promote but the things you don't, you seem to have much difficulty in finding. Where were you when Mr. Snowden released all that information about the NSA spying on EVERY American right after they lied about it directly to congress? And where were you when the CIA lied to congress about their involvement with the Iran/contra debacle? It's all public domain, all you have to do is look for it rather than look for everything you can to deny it. Besides all of that, have you ever heard of 'clandestine' operations? You know, when a government sponsored (CIA, NSA etc.) operation is of such a highly sensitive nature that should the operatives get 'caught', knowledge or involvement by the government agencies involved is utterly denied. In other words; government spy agencies are notorious liars and they care not who they lie to or when.
At any rate, The instances of these agencies telling lies, that I personally know of, are still classified. So until they are declassified, you will never know about them and by then I will probably have forgotten them.
"No, we actually don't do that stuff to the Russian political process, you would have heard Putin screaming to the high heavens if we had."
And you actually believe that? Why do you think Russia gets away with their 'trickery'? Because we are doing the same thing to them. It's one way the world keeps a particular balance. Could you imagine if we really DIDN'T tamper with Russia's politics? For what ever reason there may be, you seem to refuse to grasp how the world powers really work. I will say that the way it does work is terrible, but it's all there is at present."And you actually believe that?"
Of course he doesn't believe it - no one with the intelligence to feed themselves could.
But it makes a fine talking point, doesn't it? We haven't been caught - yet - so we obviously don't do it.
I remember reading about Georgia reporting election hacking of state computers. They tracked the IP address down to that of DHS. That quickly got swept under the rug by MSM,and most likely wasn't reported by them at all, but the reports are out there. Reportedly there were around twenty sates that election hacking occurred, but I haven't taken the time to research it all. People on it!
One thing Trump will need to address is the election hacking, rigging, fraud and racketeering that took place, that there is proof of.
What came out in the DNC emails should be the focus, and undercover videos by Project Veritas of the racketeering, rigging, and fraud, because it was the truth that was revealed.
To influence an election there needs to be tampering, or false information, lying.
For proof of violations by the DNC to be verified, is not influencing an election, because it is truth.
It doesn't matter who revealed the proof of all the corruption, what matters is what is going to be done about the corruption. We can't have that going on, and someone needs to be held accountable.
Blame the Russians, blame Trump, its the blame game.
It was a leak by an insider, not a hack from what I understand.
Notice, the DNC and the Clinton campaign has not denied anything that was revealed, because it is true. That would be plausible denial.There were tens of thousands of Obama voters in 2008 and 2012, that flipped their votes for Trump. I think Trump pretty much flipped three states from decades of voting Democrat to voting Republican.
I believe that is because people want real change and a better direction. Status quo wasn't going to make it happen.He'll dismiss it. He won. Why would he prolong the discussion? How it affects the rest of our elections is not his concern - well, maybe his re-election. But it worked for him once, so why should he care? Because is he concerned for the greater good? I'll believe that when I see it.
"But it worked for him once..."
I keep seeing this insinuation - that Russia somehow affected the election. But there is zero indication that they hacked into voting machines and changed the votes. There is zero indication that they changed paper ballots somehow, or got the machines to read them wrong. I haven't even seen a single person say that they changed their vote to Trump because of the information released, or because Russia hacked the DNC and made public it's corruption.
So why do I keep hearing that it had any affect at all? Outside of political maneuvering and tears that Russia was the reason Clinton lost the Russians don't seem to have accomplished a thing?Nope, you are right, no indication of voting machines being hacked.
Of course you wouldn't have heard a single person say they changed their vote, most people you know, I suspect, were voting for Trump in the first place.
You need to study up on how propaganda attacks work.I think I'm getting it - how propaganda attacks work. An incident, guilty or innocent, is chosen and it is declared that it had an adverse affect somewhere. Whether it did or not is irrelevant - it is the (many times repeated) claim that is what counts. A propaganda attack, in other words - shame on liberals in indulging in such tactics.
Why did we keep hearing about Hillary's emails and Benghazi? The other side wouldn't accept the answers. The problem is: right now we don't know any of the answers.
?? Of course we know the answers: the FBI gave them to us. Hillary used a (actually, several) private, unsecured servers for emails with classified information. She deleted emails required to remain forever on government servers. And used highly susceptible (as in phones) devices in areas of the world known for hacking.
Benghazi, though, is another matter.And now Comey and FBI are under IG investigation for improperly flapping their gums.
First you (and Comey) says it is a private server and then you say it is a government server ... which is it??
Nobody has said Clinton's private server was unsecured, you are making that up. Even Comey said it was secure; his question was whether it was secure enough. The answer is "it must have been" since the Russian's didn't release any material that was on it to help Trump win. We all know they would have leaked it because that would have sealed the deal against Clinton. But it didn't happen so her server must have been VERY secure.Sorry - should have said that official business emails are required to remain forever. Not anything on a govt. server (which Clinton did not have anyway).
I have not seen anything anywhere that said the Clinton server in question was secure. You been smoking something, or assuming that because she used McAfee or some such it was secure?
There is no way PE Trump was in the loop consider the repercussions for the incoming admin. Stop trying to parse hairs Trump won! Get over it. Let's all get over it, and get on with it.
There is no way of knowing yet whether #NoMandateTrump, personally, and Putin are in cahoots. but I have little doubt that people in his campaign were.
I will not get over the fact that Trump is President now, it was a horrible outcome helped by the Russians and Comey.
There is no doubt in anybody's mind, well maybe yours, that Trump has lied about not knowing Putin, he does and quite well if you are to believe his comments made several years ago. There is also no question Paul Manafort and apparently a few others, dealt frequently with Putin
I don't want to get on with it because Trump must be stopped before destroying America. Your side made up things to hate Obama about (including his color for many of you)
On the other hand, Trump's campaign made it very clear he is incapable of running an organization he isn't king of where everybody (including Congress) Must do his bidding. We all know Congress will not cooperate, and when they won't Trump will become unglued.
Trump is already the worst embarrassment for America for a year already. Trump has already made America the laughing-stock of the World, in case you haven't noticed."Trump is already the worst embarrassment for America for a year already. Trump has already made America the laughing-stock of the World, in case you haven't noticed."
First of all, Get off the 'hate Trump' bandwagon and pay attention to what he is doing. Secondly; I think you are the one who hasn't noticed things. Trump has made a deal with mexico to get them to ultimately pay for 'the wall'. He has made a deal with Chrysler/fiat in which they will re-open and greatly expand an auto building factory in detroit. He has single handedly kept Ford from moving to mexico. He and his appointees have all ready come up with a fiscally responsible replacement for obama care. He has told the world that CNN is corupt(as if we didn't already know that) He has put on notice all of the countries that previous administrations have sold America out to, that the old one sided anti-american bad foreign trade deals are on the way out etc. etc. etc.
So I would say that your comment of "Trump is already the worst embarrassment for America for a year already. Trump has already made America the laughing-stock of the World, in case you haven't noticed."
Is one of a nonsensical ignoramus who is just going along with all the other nonsensical ignoramuses for the sake of belonging. And I'll tell you this, the world is definately NOT laughing at Trump but rather they are shaking in their boots because they know he means business. They are afraid of him and his business expertise because they know the 'America screwing' deals they have enjoyed over the last several presidencies are about to come to an end.
Considering the fact that President Elect Trump has gotten more accomplished before his innauguration than Obama and Both Big and Little idiots George Bush, had managed to do in the 24 years between them, I'd say you, like many other chuckleheads, are barking up the wrong tree.
Unity: 73% of Americans Want Trump to Succeed
"57 percent of Democrats hope for the same"
POLL: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … to_succeed
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0Can anyone who's agenda profess' Trumps illegitimacy pronounce S-H-A-L-L-O-W ? Russian hacking is but the historical - hysterical continuance of one more 'big bad wolf ' conspiracy of the left and all of it is but the last ditch hope of a desperate ideology attempt to delegitimize Trump in their shock in suffering their incredibly election loss .
The sobering up of the alt left's failed , festive manipulation of media , it's 'eye's wide open 'educational institutions ownership of incredible bias , the ivory towers ideological failure in manipulation of the election process' and it's fool proof system ; All that the left is doing is jumping from conspiracy to conspiracy , nothing but" Fishing Expeditions " , seeking any and all reasons to
de-legitimize the election results -perfectly shallow !
Noting is going to change , to the entire world , the sobering exposure of the multitude of the left's incredible election failures !
Even re-creating the "big bad wolf" as Putin. 6 Reasons Hillary Clinton’s Nomination Was “NOT LEGITIMATE”
* http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … omination/
1. The Democrats’ rigged primary
2. The Democrat superdelegate system
3. The Democrat money machine
4. The media was part of Clinton’s campaign
5. The law was bent and broken to keep Clinton in the game
6. Democrats try to hack the electorateBut the counties HRC won had 3 million more people in them than #NoMandateTrump, While your statistic is technically true, it has zero meaning.
The only two stats than mean anything are the electoral college, which he won by less than 100,000 votes (0.6%) and became, sadly, President. The other is the popular vote which Hillary won by almost 3,000,000 votes (about 2.1%) which, would have made her president if we didn't have an electoral college.
#NoMandateTrump, in just 11 days, is well on his way to destroying America.Sorry, Esoteric, but the only figure that means anything is the results of the electoral vote, which Trump won by a margin of 14% (57%-43%).
Your number of 100,000 is a trifle misleading; it is just as true to say that if Clinton had picked up an additional 589,000 in Alabama (9 votes) plus 130,000 in Hawaii (4 votes) plus 218,000 in Idaho (4 votes) plus 524,000 in Indiana (11 votes) plus 531,000 in Missouri (10 votes) for a total of 2,000,000 (in very specific states) and 39 EC votes she would have squeaked into the White House.
Or one could say that if a giant asteroid had fallen on Arkansas and taken out the breadbasket of the country she would have won. Or that if the San Andreas let go and killed everyone on California's coastline Trump would have won the common vote (and there would never again be a Democratic president). They're both true, but just like your carefully cherry picked states, and mine, they are irrelevant. They didn't happen, and there are a thousand other "what ifs" to go with those three. All irrelevant, and while technically true all have zero meaning. Including your own 100,000 votes or the "what if" the EC didn't exist.
Yep - President Trump, in just 11 days, has gone further to reclaim America for its owners than the last 4 presidents have. We're tired of "leaders" who treat the country as their personal toy and whose actions are dictated solely by what will gain them votes.Not sure why you included Hawaii, HRC won that state. In the main, however, your example is pointless. It fails because your numbers don't represent how much she won each state by. What would be a proper comparison if you gave us how many votes she theoretically won each state by.
If HRC had won by "one vote" in each state, then she would have won by the thinnest of margins, as #NoMandateTrump did. If she had won by 2% in each state, then that would a decisive win. If by 5% or more, a romp.
By the way, there was no cherry picking. PA, WI, and MI are all blue states that should have easily gone to Hillary and they were the last three states called that turned a Clinton win into a Clinton loss. Try again.
Also, you clearly miss the entire point trying to disprove the obvious. The real point his Trump's legitimacy. Yes, the EC results made him president, unfortunately. It is the very thin margin in votes in those last three states AND the fact he lost the popular vote by almost 3,000,000 (2.1%) votes that make Trump an Illegitimate president.
In just 13 days now, he has turned the world against him and has damaged the fabric of America with his harmful executive order.
(By the way, he is taking away your free TSA pre-board (assuming your fly) and require you to pay to get vetted, some think with an in-person interview.)Might have erred in Hawaii, but I think the point was made. If you pick specific states you can produce almost any figures you want to, but that doesn't make them relevant to an election that depends on the EC.
But she didn't win by one vote, so the "what if" doesn't matter.
And the ones I listed are all red states (except maybe Hawaii) that could have gone to Clinton. That you chose three that had trouble counting or had the law set to late in the day is not relevant. Try again.
Yes, the real point is the legitimacy of the election. The legitimacy of the EC vote - other numbers are meaningless and usefull only for losers to exclaim that they really won but are being cheated. Only in the minds of the losers desperately searching for a way out of their demise does the popular vote have anything to do with anything. To paraphrase, that number means nothing.
Yep - turned the whole world against him. All except the conservatives that understand politicians that fail to do their job need replaced.
I've flown just twice in a decade, and never applied for pre-board. I seem to have gotten it anyway, but you can have it. That's an idea, though - if you want to come into my country you can cover the cost of proving you won't harm it. Because I don't really care if you come in or stay home so why should I pay that price?
I'll add that there never was a "clinton win" no matter how much you wish there was. Leading when only a portion of the votes are in doesn't make it a "win".
Why do you think the EC was even put in place?
We now know the answer to the original question: Nothing.
Related Discussions
- 36
Russia DID NOT Hack The DNC says John McAfee
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
“The whole Russian hacking narrative is either propaganda intended to incite the American people, to anger toward Russia for some reason, or our intelligence community is so ignorant and naive that they should all be replaced.” ~ John McAfee, founder of McAfee virus protection* ...
- 726
What to do About Russia and Ukraine?
by Scott Belford 2 days ago
The consequences of how this aggression by Putin unfolds are enormous. The worst, of course, is the possibility of nuclear war. The best (which would be negatively consequential to Putin) is that Russia has an epiphany and removes its troops from the Ukrainian border. Any move at...
- 140
Should Trump be charged for giving classified info to the Russians?
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
Should Trump be charged for giving classified info to the Russians?When Trump met with the Russians a day after firing Comey as the FBI director he is alleged to have revealed classified info to the Russian obtained from an ally country. This info is said to have put many undercover agents in peril...
- 246
President Obama and his administration spied on President elect Trump?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
- 211
Why is Trump not doing anything about the Russians meddling.
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
With all of Trump's Intel agencies testifying before congress that the Russians meddled in the Presidential election, he has done nothing to prevent this from happening in the future. I cannot imagine any past POTUS ignoring this threat to our country. I realize he doesn't want to bring...
- 4874
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
by Scott Belford 23 minutes ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...