I don't get it. The Democrats loved Russia when it was the Soviet Union. Now they're all mad.

There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

You want to know why people don't care? Because it wasn't like the hacks exposed secret DNC strategy. It exposed the DNC as lying, deceitful, corrupt and crooked, and it confirmed the widespread opinion that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media weren't that way then the hacks don't amount to a hill of beans.

(01-05-2017 10:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

You want to know why people don't care? Because it wasn't like the hacks exposed secret DNC strategy. It exposed the DNC as lying, deceitful, corrupt and crooked, and it confirmed the widespread opinion that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media weren't that way then the hacks don't amount to a hill of beans.

I didn't ask why people don't care. But thanks for the diatribe, an enjoyable read.

Hmmm: FBI, CIA never examined DNC servers?

The FBI Never Asked For Access To Hacked Computer Servers

Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee
They knew back in June and nothing happened until after the election?

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

I didn't hear any outrage from you liberals when Obama tried to get Netanyahu voted out of office by supporting his opponent(s) in the last Isreali Prime Minster election.

Just so I'm clear....Russia allegedly hacking the USA = Bad? Obama spending taxpayer dollars to unseat a sitting Isreali PM because he had the temerity to oppose the Gilded One = Good?

(01-05-2017 10:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

You want to know why people don't care? Because it wasn't like the hacks exposed secret DNC strategy. It exposed the DNC as lying, deceitful, corrupt and crooked, and it confirmed the widespread opinion that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media weren't that way then the hacks don't amount to a hill of beans.

well said

If they weren't stuffing ballot boxes, so to speak, then there was no election hacking.

The DNC leak is their own fault.

(01-05-2017 10:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

You want to know why people don't care? Because it wasn't like the hacks exposed secret DNC strategy. It exposed the DNC as lying, deceitful, corrupt and crooked, and it confirmed the widespread opinion that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media weren't that way then the hacks don't amount to a hill of beans.

Not every Democrat politicians were on the side of The wicked witch who lost to the unstable Trump. Not everybody on the left trust Hillary Clinton.

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

The hacking took place long before the campaign.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(01-05-2017 01:08 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/u...li=BBnb7Kz

I'M looking forward to Trump ignoring intelligence for four years. It couldn't possibly end bad for all of us.

We should just get rid of the FBI, CIA and other organizations all together and just listen to Trump's gut.

No.....But at least We are finally getting rid of Their old Boss, Whom ran those agencies on His agenda.

(01-05-2017 10:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

You want to know why people don't care? Because it wasn't like the hacks exposed secret DNC strategy. It exposed the DNC as lying, deceitful, corrupt and crooked, and it confirmed the widespread opinion that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media weren't that way then the hacks don't amount to a hill of beans.

One other thing. We've seen no, repeat no, evidence, including no, repeat no, comments by any of the intel leaders, that a foreign state engaged in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate. If that comes out in the further report, then so be it. But there's been nothing evidencing that. What has been said is that the Russians appear to have engaged in certain activities, including hacking, for the purposes of disrupting or interfering in our election process. That's a far cry from engaging in activity on behalf of one candidate.

(01-05-2017 07:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I wonder if Russia ever hacked George Stephanopolis and his NBC tools? Apparently NBC gets ALL the inside scoop. NBC makes CNN look legit. What a farce.

Stephanopolous is ABC.

(01-06-2017 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

You want to know why people don't care? Because it wasn't like the hacks exposed secret DNC strategy. It exposed the DNC as lying, deceitful, corrupt and crooked, and it confirmed the widespread opinion that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media weren't that way then the hacks don't amount to a hill of beans.

One other thing. We've seen no, repeat no, evidence, including no, repeat no, comments by any of the intel leaders, that a foreign state engaged in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate. If that comes out in the further report, then so be it. But there's been nothing evidencing that. What has been said is that the Russians appear to have engaged in certain activities, including hacking, for the purposes of disrupting or interfering in our election process. That's a far cry from engaging in activity on behalf of one candidate.

Well said.

And the Dems main complaint, that they hacked the DNC, is contradicted by Assange.

Now the claim is: "...well, well...uh, they are very good at covering their tracks, and, ...um, deceiving people."

Would this be a story if Hillary had won?

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-06-2017 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  There is no strong evidence that the hacking influenced the election outcome. But when a foreign state engages in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate, it should give us worry. Nixon used domestic intelligence and most agreed he was wrong. Trump asked for foreign intelligence to hack his opponent, and most don't care.

You want to know why people don't care? Because it wasn't like the hacks exposed secret DNC strategy. It exposed the DNC as lying, deceitful, corrupt and crooked, and it confirmed the widespread opinion that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the mainstream media weren't that way then the hacks don't amount to a hill of beans.

One other thing. We've seen no, repeat no, evidence, including no, repeat no, comments by any of the intel leaders, that a foreign state engaged in illegal activity on behalf of one candidate. If that comes out in the further report, then so be it. But there's been nothing evidencing that. What has been said is that the Russians appear to have engaged in certain activities, including hacking, for the purposes of disrupting or interfering in our election process. That's a far cry from engaging in activity on behalf of one candidate.

I have a problem with the Russians doing that regardless of whom won the election. I'm also sure we do the same.

Evidently the CIA can identify the go between.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/i...index.html

(01-06-2017 08:59 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Evidently the CIA can identify the go between.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/i...index.html

Sounds like more fake news. Remember, you are quoting CNN. You need something with more credibility like the National Enquirer.

Wow.. "this' is proof now?

Quote:Included in that new information were intercepted conversations of Russian officials expressing happiness at Trump's win. Another official described some of the messages as congratulatory

Really? *THAT'S* proof? Wow... what happened to CONCRETE proof of evidence? Hell, I think there were Americans who were thrilled to see Brexit get voted in... Guess the US hacked THAT election?

Quote:Officials reiterated that there is no single intercepted communication that qualifies as a "smoking gun" on Russia's intention to benefit Trump's candidacy or to claim credit for doing so.

this is just shameful right now... If the Russians did hack something, then drop the hammer on them. But right now there is _zilch_ to say they did.

(01-06-2017 08:29 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Would this be a story if Hillary had won?

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes because she would probably try to bomb them for this.