Elections, Hacking, Russia, And Trump: This Is Serious

[Opfornia]

I don't think any of us will know the real answer to that question, but I'm sure you have a friendly link to some MSM site that is telling you how much, with the completely honest truth.

I don't, actually. Do you know? This kind of thing is required to be public record. Of course, the list of contributions made by the foundation 2016 may not be available yet, since it's still early in the new year. Here is where their financial reports are available: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about ... al-reports. You can keep an eye on it and let us know when they post 2016's report, and tell us how much they contributed.

Yes, I'm sure Clinton will make that information available to us, thank you!

[The Gurcistani Respublika]

It's not a matter of right or wrong. This is about whether the USA is a strong state or an impotent one which allows itself to be manipulated by foreigners. Strangely the right wingers would like nothing to be done and see the country get cucked by Ivan.

I take it you are also against all foreign donations to presidential candidates as well.

The only people who got ""cucked"" to quote your words, were the DNC.

When it is from countries who aren't geopolitical rivals, it doesn't matter. Was Stalin "cucked" when he allowed Western industrialists to come into the USSR for mutual benefit?

Trump on the other hand... I'm worried that my secretary of state might be an oil exec (lol) and national security advisor gets his bribes from an Islamist regime which actually acts against US interests. Not the Saudis of course, the Turks. I'd have problems with the Saudis if I weren't a foreign policy realist. Would you?

[Farnhamia]

I don't, actually. Do you know? This kind of thing is required to be public record. Of course, the list of contributions made by the foundation 2016 may not be available yet, since it's still early in the new year. Here is where their financial reports are available: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about ... al-reports. You can keep an eye on it and let us know when they post 2016's report, and tell us how much they contributed.

Yes, I'm sure Clinton will make that information available to us, thank you!

If it's ... secret information, how do you know?

[Opfornia]

They never took one look at the DNC server. For all intents and purposes they outsourced it to a group of ideological hacks.

What's your evidence in support of this claim?

The FBI https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... port%3Famp

[Opfornia]

Yes, I'm sure Clinton will make that information available to us, thank you!

If it's ... secret information, how do you know?

You're adorable.

[Vassenor]

What's your evidence in support of this claim?

Do you people really need everything to be repeated from under a headline just magically be invested with confidence.

Here's an NSG-friendly one: https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/th ... er-servers

I thought we'd agreed BuzzFeed isn't a credible news source.

Or is it only one when it suits the Right?

[Farnhamia]

If it's ... secret information, how do you know?

You're adorable.

Thank you. If you have actual evidence showing contributions from the Clinton Foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. If you have actual evidence documenting clandestine transfers of funds from the foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. We'll wait here.

[Opfornia]

Do you people really need everything to be repeated from under a headline just magically be invested with confidence.

Here's an NSG-friendly one: https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/th ... er-servers

I thought we'd agreed BuzzFeed isn't a credible news source.

Or is it only one when it suits the Right?

But you lefties love it, I'm so confused. Either way, I already provided a link to the Hill;
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... port%3Famp

[Opfornia]

You're adorable.

Thank you. If you have actual evidence showing contributions from the Clinton Foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. If you have actual evidence documenting clandestine transfers of funds from the foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. We'll wait here.

Okay, hold tight, let me just get secret money laundering information...

[Gauthier]

Even a thread discussing how Russia hacked into US servers and stole files to leak along with conducting an outright propaganda war to shill for Trump is pockmarked with clucks of "BUT BUT BWCAWK CLINTON!"

[The Rich Port]

You're adorable.

Thank you. If you have actual evidence showing contributions from the Clinton Foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. If you have actual evidence documenting clandestine transfers of funds from the foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. We'll wait here.

... Maybe he is Hillary Clinton?

[Grave_n_idle]

"He-he-he guys you know we're a bunch of sleazy arseholes but that doesn't matter because PUTIN WAS THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU!" Seriously, why am I supposed to care? I'm genuinely curious.

When Comey claimed that new e-mail had come to light that directly linked to Weinergate, there were three significant problems.

First: the FBI had already closed a year long investigation having decided there were no charges to file. Even if there had been significant new data in the alleged e-mails, this had nothing to do with the investigation that had already been completed.

Second: although Comey rushed to release, it transpired that there was absolutely nothing incriminating in the e-mails. Comey, therefore, made public an investigation that had no real reason to be linked to the election cycle, AND which proved to have no substance.

Third: Perhaps most importantly, since the days of Mukasey, at least, there has been an FBI policy of not only not interfering in election processes, but also taking extraspecial care to be seen NOT to interfere.

What Comey did definitely had some consequence on the elections, was definitely in breach of established protocol, and definitely had partisan effect.


Of course, Comey isn't what we are specifically discussing here... so why did I bring it up?

Clinton HAD been investigated. The e-mails DID exist. The FBI are absolutely legitimately RIGHT to investigate such a link, if it exists...

But even with all that being true - it was still wrong for the FBI to disclose an investigation on such flimsy grounds, so close to an election. It was still wrong for the FBI to interfere in the democratic process - even if EVERY claim made along the way is valid.


And this is why it matters that Russia deliberately interfered with the democratic process. Even if everything they did was legal and right (which, clearly, is not the case), and even if the only effect was to release and emphasize certain actions of active parties - the interference in the democratic process is still wrong.

[Opfornia]

Thank you. If you have actual evidence showing contributions from the Clinton Foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. If you have actual evidence documenting clandestine transfers of funds from the foundation to Hillary's campaign, show us. We'll wait here.

... Maybe he is Hillary Clinton?

It would explain why a loathe most of my fellow Americans.

[Grave_n_idle]

Weren't you claiming that your source said that they DIDN'T 'hack' Palestine's elections, but should have?

So, shouldn't your quote be "It's not okay when Hillary doesn't do it", etc.

How ridiculous could you possibly be? She was suggesting it was what they should have done, it is indicative of her actions as a politician.

Let me get this straight.

In your world, saying "we DIDN'T do a thing"... means you do?

[The Rich Port]

... Maybe he is Hillary Clinton?

It would explain why a loathe most of my fellow Americans.

No, I think it better explains why you're so damaging to right-wing arguments.

[Opfornia]

How ridiculous could you possibly be? She was suggesting it was what they should have done, it is indicative of her actions as a politician.

Let me get this straight.

In your world, saying "we DIDN'T do a thing"... means you do?

Let me get this straight.

Her saying "we should have rigged the Palestinian elections" ISNT proof that she is fine with rigging elections? I really don't see how you've come to your conclusion, she was for the idea of rigging a democratic election, thankfully she didn't get her way.

[Grave_n_idle]

Let me get this straight.

In your world, saying "we DIDN'T do a thing"... means you do?

Let me get this straight.

Her saying "we should have rigged the Palestinian elections" ISNT proof that she is fine with rigging elections?

That's not the question, is it?

You're saying that such interference DOES take place, and your evidence is someone saying that it didn't.

That's not evidence that supports the claim you're making.

[Opfornia]

It would explain why a loathe most of my fellow Americans.

No, I think it better explains why you're so damaging to right-wing arguments.

Hmm, maybe you guys are right, I was certainly horrible at debating Donald Trump. Honestly the three most embarrassing moments of my life, behind the election of course. #ItWasMyTurn

[Grave_n_idle]

If it's ... secret information, how do you know?

You're adorable.

You know because Farn is adorable?

It's hard to argue against, but I'm not sure it counts as evidence of the claim you made.

[Opfornia]

Let me get this straight.

Her saying "we should have rigged the Palestinian elections" ISNT proof that she is fine with rigging elections?

That's not the question, is it?

You're saying that such interference DOES take place, and your evidence is someone saying that it didn't.

That's not evidence that supports the claim you're making.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest everyone. She wanted to rig an election, she was prevented by people with better judgement, and you want to give that woman the presidency?

[The Rich Port]

No, I think it better explains why you're so damaging to right-wing arguments.

Hmm, maybe you guys are right, I was certainly horrible at debating Donald Trump. Honestly the three most embarrassing moments of my life, behind the election of course. #ItWasMyTurn

Your words, not mine.

Arguing for Trump is horrible by default.

[Sanctissima]

"He-he-he guys you know we're a bunch of sleazy arseholes but that doesn't matter because PUTIN WAS THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU!" Seriously, why am I supposed to care? I'm genuinely curious.

When Comey claimed that new e-mail had come to light that directly linked to Weinergate, there were three significant problems.

First: the FBI had already closed a year long investigation having decided there were no charges to file. Even if there had been significant new data in the alleged e-mails, this had nothing to do with the investigation that had already been completed.

Second: although Comey rushed to release, it transpired that there was absolutely nothing incriminating in the e-mails. Comey, therefore, made public an investigation that had no real reason to be linked to the election cycle, AND which proved to have no substance.

Third: Perhaps most importantly, since the days of Mukasey, at least, there has been an FBI policy of not only not interfering in election processes, but also taking extraspecial care to be seen NOT to interfere.

What Comey did definitely had some consequence on the elections, was definitely in breach of established protocol, and definitely had partisan effect.


Of course, Comey isn't what we are specifically discussing here... so why did I bring it up?

Clinton HAD been investigated. The e-mails DID exist. The FBI are absolutely legitimately RIGHT to investigate such a link, if it exists...

But even with all that being true - it was still wrong for the FBI to disclose an investigation on such flimsy grounds, so close to an election. It was still wrong for the FBI to interfere in the democratic process - even if EVERY claim made along the way is valid.


And this is why it matters that Russia deliberately interfered with the democratic process. Even if everything they did was legal and right (which, clearly, is not the case), and even if the only effect was to release and emphasize certain actions of active parties - the interference in the democratic process is still wrong.

In terms of Russia, while I agree that there was obviously Russian interference in the elections, I'd like to point out that it's a bit hypocritical to be upset by Russian involvement in American affairs when the US was doing the exact same thing during Russian federal elections barely a decade prior. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for screwing around with Ivan, but what goes around comes around, and you reap what you sow.

[Opfornia]

You're adorable.

You know because Farn is adorable?

It's hard to argue against, but I'm not sure it counts as evidence of the claim you made.

Damn, you're cute too.

[Opfornia]

Hmm, maybe you guys are right, I was certainly horrible at debating Donald Trump. Honestly the three most embarrassing moments of my life, behind the election of course. #ItWasMyTurn

Your words, not mine.

Arguing for Trump is horrible by default.

Yes, my words, Hillary Clinton's.

[The Gurcistani Respublika]

When it is from countries who aren't geopolitical rivals, it doesn't matter.

And who determines who is and is not a 'geopolitical rival'? ''national interest'', at least in democracies, is a fairly nebulous term dependent on internal factions, so really just means "Russian hacking is against Social-Humanist interests".

If you are a foreign policy realist you should welcome the formal repudiation of the dead babies doctrine of U.S foreign policy.

No, I don't personally have much problem with backing Saudi Arabia if there is a clear advantage to it.

A realist should not be superficial, and not get intoxicated off the super Trump ""realpolitik"" empire. Do you really think Clinton started the Libyan intervention for dead babies?