I’d heard that from a couple people in the service too. There must have been some highly placed people spreading that propaganda around among the ranks. Poor suckers, they’re epically screwed now by that deceit.
11 Likes
given that by the time the counting is over clinton may well have more votes than obama got in 2012, why don’t we just ratify her compelling victory instead?
5 Likes
Because most of that vote is due to population growth, mixed with a bit of (justified) Trump-phobia driving up the margins in blue states.
Measured by opinion polls, Clinton was the most unpopular candidate in Democratic Party history.
1 Like
McGovern? Mondale?
6 Likes
Who are the Obsidian Order?
4 Likes
1 Like
I guess we wait and see if anyone is carrying around a pair of hemming scissors.
5 Likes
yet measured by popular vote totals she was the second most popular democratic presidential candidate ever. interesting that you and molten rock on earth’s surface find that so utterly uncompelling.
5 Likes
Uhm, no, “half of the nation” didn’t vote for him unless you can show me more than 150 million votes for Trump.
5 Likes
Many people preferred corrupt corporatism to fascism, despite despising both options. I don’t find this particularly surprising.
3 Likes
Citation needed.
3 Likes
In 2012, there was a Presidential candidate who was suspicious of Russia…
That’s a cherry-pick, however; some polls have Trump’s military support as low as 58%.
However you slice it, however, it is undeniable that Trump is supported by the majority of the US military.
1 Like
It goes lower than 58%.
So, among voters, that means that roughly 2 or 3% supported Trump more than in the general population, which is kind of surprising given the overwhelming GOP base of the military.
3 Likes
Zombie Lincoln?
1 Like
Fixed that for you! Fascism usually comes hand in hand with good old fashioned corrupt capitalism. Just look at all the companies that profited under Hitler’s Germany: Volkswagen (used slaves), BERTELSMANN (media company), Kodak (used slaves), Hugo Boss (made all those spiffy Nazi coats), BMW (guess… you were right! Slaves.), Audi (bet you can’t guess this one… slaves.), DEUTSCHE BANK (Nazi money!), Benz (sold some trucks… just kidding. They used slaves.), etc. Turns out corporations really like free labor and military contracts.
It’s basically like being asked if you want a normal sharp stick shoved up your ass or one coated in a potent neurotoxin. They’re really just the same thing, except one of them has a little something extra that’s liable to leave you dead. The other one is just going to leave you bleeding from the ass, which in all honestly you were already doing because you have a tendency to shove good old fashioned sharp sticks up your ass about every 4 years or so.
5 Likes
Did America hack the US Presidential elections?
We all have our own, individual conceptions of “fascist” society.
2 Likes
Julian Assange and Craig Murray say it is a leak not a hack and Murray claims to have met the leaker. The question is whether they are considered credible. I know of no situation where either has been conclusively shown to have lied. No wikileaks release had been shown to be fake. However James Clapper is a documented liar. For that matter the US intelligence establishment has a long and glorious history of lying.
I am not an internet security professional. However I read that the link between APT 27 and Russian state actors was not definitive. It is not always clear that all attacks which areln thought to on be apt 27 are so. It is not always clear that apt 27 is always acting for the Russian authorities. Even if Russians hacked the DNC servers does not mean they released the emails to wikileaks. Similarly even if the French/Chinese/Israelis etc.
One should also ask cui bono. Do the Russians really have a motive? I have seen no really compelling discussion of motive. The best I have seen is a variant of the “joker” argument. That putin wants to see the us burn.
So I really don’t think there is a miniscule chance it wasn’t the Russians. And to be fair it seems that while James Clapper disagrees with me, James Comey appears to agree.
1 Like
Julian Assange has lied enough times that I can’t trust anything he has to say any more. I once respected him, but now he’s dead to me. The deceitful attempt to claim the docs were leaked by a discontent is conveniently forgetting Guccifer 2.0. Even if you could delude yourself into believing that whole insane situation was all peripheral somehow, if the docs were leaked by a discontent the metadata in the docs would make no sense whatsoever. Not one part of that story holds together with the evidence. Assange is a tool covering his ass with yet another lie.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Note: Bob Beckel is not a Clinton strategist. That is an unambiguous bald faced lie. With intent. They post that one fairly often even after being called out, so they know the truth but repeat the lie. Earlier ones attacked CNN as well while posting a Fox News clip, for added layers of deceit.
There’s many more where that came from. If you think Assange is honest you might want to work on your critical thinking skills. He’s not a skilled liar and throughout this election season he’s been dropping obvious whoppers.
I haven’t paid attention to Craig Murray, but I scanned your article and it’s a travesty. Given the mix of the metadata in the leaked docs, and the Guccifer 2.0 thing, he’s clearly a liar, and a poor one at that.
True. We have very solid evidence that both the GRU (based on the crypto keys and C&C IPs, that’s a slam dunk) and the FSB. The docs themselves have metadata that tied them to the Russians, and the Guccifer 2.0 cover story of a lone Romanian hacker attacking the DNC and passing the data to Wikileaks fell apart almost instantly, and has quite a lot pointing it as a front for the Russians trying to cover their asses after they got caught. You can start here, but keep researching, there’s much, much more:
Russia’s fingerprints are on the whole thing from the first hack to the docs you see on Wikileaks. Given Wikileaks has been caught peddling docs manipulated in a manner helpful to Russian interests with likely origins in Russian hacks, the DNC/Podesta docs seem to be more of an ongoing pattern of Russian intelligence releasing documents to attack political opponents and pawning it off as “hacktivism.”
I feel like you’re just being disingenuous here given your strange obsessions with Russia, but in case you haven’t been keeping track, see:
I haven’t really paid much attention to either on this one TBH. The primary data from the attacks and metadata in the docs are germane, as is the analysis by independent security analysts who have nothing to gain from pointing fingers at the wrong party, and much to lose in their reputation-driven field. Among security experts there’s a very strong consensus that the attack and docs posted to Wikileaks originated with Russia, with large amounts of disparate corroborating evidence and no relevant forensic evidence to falsify that position. That’s pretty significant if you think about it. If there was no political motivation to deny Russia’s involvement, there’d be no noe questioning it at all.
Intelligence agencies have some amazingly skilled analysts, but their public face is pure bullshit to present politically useful angles, so you’d have to be a gullible fool to take the CIA or FBI at their word. I think you might want to catch up on current events before praising Comey’s handling of intel on the Russians, though. He’s a remarkably unreliable witness I’d be really, really embarrassed to admit I agreed with on this one given recent context.
I’ve interacted with you in the past. To be honest I expect you’re going to reply with some bullshit quibbles that are barely relevant, perhaps pull in some tangential topics to change the subject, or rathole on some misreading of something I said. So I want to make clear that this is my single reply to you in this thread in advance, since my time’s valuable and better spent on other pursuits.
17 Likes
