This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
to whatever it is they want....as I said in the post you quoted. If they don't want Hillary in office (as to why, I have no idea) then they will take what they believe is the easiest path to getting there. I don't listen to or watch Hannity so I really don't care what he's doing/saying. Could possibly be the least legit source in the mainstream media that I can think of. No idea why anyone pays attention to or cares about what he's saying.
That's how a lot of us feel about the media this cycle. All in bed to ensure Hillary wins the election. Not sure there can be more influence than that unless your Foundation takes illegal contributions from terrorist regimes and you are selling Policy / Executive Orders / Assets for campaign contributions.
Again...you understand that the attempts to influence our government and it's behavior are a daily occurrence, right? You really seem surprised. Your naivety towards how politics in this country are puzzling as well. Pro Tip: Hypocrisy knows no bounds in American politics.
We attempt to influence elections. It shouldn't be a surprise that other nations try to influence ours. Hell we oust and install complete governments. Talk about meddling.
Yes it will because it's too convenient. They will all hope there's not another dumb ### that creates her own server though.
Wtf..what is not clear about this point: how do Trump / conservatives come to terms that a hostile government is trying to influence their candidate winning our election. It's a simple question.
you are ridiculous. Trump is so far outside the pale that the only sensible thing to do is oppose him. The lackeys in the republican party who are still clinging to his nutsack deserve to be pilloried for giving up their souls just so their team can claim a victory. Hillary may be bad(although not as bad as your silly attempts try to paint) but Trump is infinitely worse. Get over it, your pollyanish view of the world is a losing proposition.
Haven't entirely kept up. It's a long tiresome election. Give me the links with undeniable proof it is Russia, and then I will proceed.
This is what i don't understand. The repubs are so blind that they think the media is all on hillary because it's hillary. The media is all in on hillary because Trump is a lunatic. if this was Hillary vs. Kaisch, Kaisch would be up 12 points in the polls
Agree it's been long and tedious. I started this with saying I haven't had time to follow the Wikileaks stuff. Haven't had the time to read all of it.
If this is your standard you also have to accept that Hillary Clinton is completely free of any corruption and scandal.
Correct me if I'm wrong but he never said Trump was a better option. That's the hilarious thing about Hillary. Other than a handful of shills here, the best thing the rest of you can say about Hillary is "she's not Trump". That changes nothing about what DD is saying about her either.
Calm down. They come to terms with it like the rest of us do. How do YOU come to terms with it? Why are you singling them out as if they have control over what Russia is doing? I don't know what value you'd get from an answer to this question anyway. A better question is why does it appear our government is doing little about it?
And if it isn't yours, then you need to accept that Hillary Clinton is likely corrupt and doesn't deserve even to be on a school board, much less POTUS.
That's not true for a number of reasons. First, there is much stronger evidence that Russia is responsible for the hacks than there is of Clinton's "corruption" IMO. Second, as indicated by that first sentence, being guilty of "corruption" is a subjective thing, whereas being guilty of hacking and rape aren't so much.
I am calm. Thanks for your concern.
Doesn't this also apply in reverse? The same people shouting that there's no proof that Hillary ever did anything wrong are now 100% positive that the Russians not only hacked the DNC but have faked the contents.
I have a sneaking suspicion that we have different ideas of what "come to terms with" means, but ok.....
Yeah no ####. I'm sure there would be all kinds of hacks on the left that would be all over it like the Lawrence O'Donnell types. What is your point?
I'm not really sure why this 100% thing was turned around on me. It wasn't my test, someone else used it to deny the Russian involvement and the rape charges. I just cited the Clinton thing to point out what a silly standard that is.
The only conspiracy theorists is the guy looking at you in the mirror.
I'm asking questions...trying to understand how you are baffled by the way Hannity is handling the DNC hacks. I'm not trying to make a point....trying to understand
The person who leaked it worked for the armed services. Perhaps he sent the info to WikiLeaks, because he felt the war crimes should be known? He paid the ultimate sacrifice for telling as he now sits in solitary confinement.
Ok I will agree to that. I was thinking more along the lines of the NSA and State Dept. cables but I agree with you on this point.
We are on the same page then with how this wikileak stuff is being handled - some group is trying to disrupt the election. I don't see how this is positive. Of the Wikileaks stuff I read, there didn't seem to be any complete bomb shells. If I got to see the internal workings communicated in what was supposed to be private of any organization I'd expect to see some questionable stuff. Maybe I missed some huge news in all the other noise.I'm asking questions...trying to understand how you are baffled by the way Hannity is handling the DNC hacks. I'm not trying to make a point....trying to understand
I'm not sure it's positive or negative honestly...it just "is" for me. Perhaps it's the way I'm wired and what I see in my day to day life. It's not shocking at all to me that someone is trying to influence our elections. I'd be shocked if there wasn't. I can't get up in arms about it because I know my country does the same thing to other countries and is usually much more blatant about it.We are on the same page then with how this wikileak stuff is being handled - some group is trying to disrupt the election. I don't see how this is positive. Of the Wikileaks stuff I read, there didn't seem to be any complete bomb shells. If I got to see the internal workings communicated in what was supposed to be private of any organization I'd expect to see some questionable stuff. Maybe I missed some huge news in all the other noise.I'm asking questions...trying to understand how you are baffled by the way Hannity is handling the DNC hacks. I'm not trying to make a point....trying to understand
If that's the case then sure, that's all she wrote. Nothing I can really believe otherwise from that point. I don't think we'll find the smoking gun, so until then I have to judge a slimy American presidential campaign against a slimy "rival" nation. Neither option deserves the benefit of the doubt.
It's one person's email. It's not like they hacked the entire DNC. The idiot got phished.
Didn't they hack the DNC account and that's why the Debbie Waserman lady got the boot?
Disrupt the election, don't see how this is positive....it's not positive, it's exposing sleazy unethical behavior, we have every right to know what's been going on behind the curtain.
The amount of evidence showing HRC corruption is stacked higher than Phil Hartman on a pyramid of Colon Blow. We spent years around here proving this again and again, we're not wasting our time trying to teach the unteachable.
