(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: As I've been saying for months, I don't think Clinton will win. True I don't understand the US political system all that well, but I do understand that she's horrendously corrupt.
Well, what you'd like to be true has no bearing on reality.
Nate Silver has been freakishly correct on most US elections.
(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: You even have Bernie Sanders now saying he will work AGAINST Clinton with like-minded Senators to get his agenda through!I think he's realised Clinton does not intend to keep the promises she made to him, evidenced by the coaching she requires for her "policies", eg:
Man, do you ever get tired of getting baited by headlines? Do you have even one ounce of skepticism in your brain? Bernie is merely saying he is holding Clinton to the Democratic Party Platform that she is running on.
(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: You can't make that shit up! Anyway, I think the Guardian article makes it pretty clear that Bernie distrusts Clinton's policy positions as evidenced by the fact he made those statements against Hillary just days out from the election.
You can make that shit up. You got click baited. Hope you feel good about that. Bernie was asked a question, and he answered it. He didn't make a statement to the press unprompted. He was asked "What if Clinton reneges on the party platform?" He answered.
(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: I also want to say that the reporting around Wikileaks has been horrendously bad. I've seem a number of news sites in recent days claim that Wikileaks hacked the emails! Plenty more are claiming Assange is trying to help Trump win, and that Russia hacked the emails. We have no idea who hacked them - it could have been China for all we know. It could have been India, it could have been someone in the US, or it could even have been leaked and not hacked. As far as Russia goes, I think that's unlikely. I think Russia would have handed the emails to mainstream media, not to Wikileaks.
It must feel awesome parroting Donald Trump.
To even say that we have "no idea who hacked them" and that it is unlikely that it was Russia---shows once again that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You are making a pretty solid habit of that. I'm starting to think that you are just regularly full of shit. Your MO is to take a grain of reality, load it up with all of your preconceived notions, and then spread it around like it is truth.
You think it's unlikely that it is Russia... which makes you different than all of the US intelligence agencies and most cybersecurity experts.
Politifact Wrote:The tactics of the hack resembled traits of two Russian intelligence groups, dubbed APT28 and APT29, also known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, according to cybersecurity experts who examined the hack.
Following the hackers’ breadcrumb trail, cybersecurity experts have posited that Guccifer 2.0 (not to be confused with the original Guccifer, who is a known lone hacker) is not really an independent hacker. Rather, he is a Russian government decoy to deflect attention from the DNC breach.
The U.S. government is not ready to publicly name the suspected perpetrators behind the DNC hack, but the New York Times has reported that intelligence agencies have "high confidence" regarding the Russian government’s involvement.
Translation: The agencies have likely corroborated the technical evidence with other intelligence, like human or financial sources, said Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution fellow and a former lawyer for the National Security Agency.
As of yet, there’s no evidence anyone other than Russia breached the DNC. So unless someone hacked the Russian agencies, the Russian government is likely WikiLeaks’ source, Hennessey said. Additionally, Assange and the Russian government have a well-documented relationship, for example the fact that Assange has hosted a television show on RT, a state-owned network.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...mail-leak/
So, we're back to false equivalency. You're like a theist who says since we don't know for sure, the answer cloud be God--or in this case fucking India. Why the fuck not. Could be the Australians, right?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
