Of course we all know who the real villain is. And she's a goer!
Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge. Wink wink. Say no more!
It was devastating. Absolutely devastating. It's hard to imagine anyone surviving such a shocking revelation. But they probably will of course. Thanks to their connections, if you know what I mean. What are we talking about? Take your pick because election season is upon us and everyone, absolutely everyone is up to no good …
Of course we all know who the real villain is. And she's a goer!
Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge. Wink wink. Say no more!
Also, where are all the birth certificates?! We need to cross-ref those with the United Federation of Planet's List of Questionable Alien Life Forms Currently Loose and Possibly Running for Office in a Nearby Star System That Should Only Be Used For food-class Human Farming. There was a inadvertent release, and now the local's are intending on voting virus-class aliens into high office! This wasn't supposed to happen! Cancel the invasion, this place is not going to survive past seedling stage.
I've barely woken up, and hear you are starting my day by giving me the mental image of Hillary "gittin it oooorn".
Damn you sir. Damn you to the bottom of your sick, twisted soul.
GASP! The fix was in all along? And the DNC top leadership is anti-Semetic? And the rules were manipulated to keep Bernie from winning? And the top DNC leadership rigged the system so Hillary would win?
Anyone who has had even a passing interest in this race cannot be surprised by any of this. It's so bad, for the first time in modern history the DNC chairperson will not be addressing the convention, being forced tor resign in shame and recuse herself from political life.
And El Reg is spinning this faster than a rigged roulette wheel to desperately downplay this whole disgusting turn of corrupt events?
Here's a quote from the new Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile: "I will cuss out the Sanders camp!"
Big John, is that you?
You don't mean... Melania Trump!!!
Y'know James, I'm not the only person in the world who doesn't think correctly like you.
But I prefer to stay out of a thread built on an article so transparently written to ridicule the enemies of the Left (and Hillary). Smart people can see it for what it is, and then, well, there's the rest of you.
Ah. A non-denial denial. So it was you, and you're just too chickenshit to admit it.
Melania has demonstrated that she's more intelligent than wolf-killer Sarah Palin. After all, she can read, and in a language not her own.
The real villian?
It the modern 'Bonnie and Clyde' team.
The other irony is that while everyone talks about Trump being an anti-Semite, his daughter converted to Judaism because her husband is Jewish.
I didn't expect that he would admit anything. He has yet to produce anything to support his 'black thug' statements from a few days back. I rather expect that he isn't going to, because he has no supporting evidence.
and re his Parthian shot... I do find his type to be amusing. I'm sufficiently conservative to have voted for Maggie Thatcher back when I still had a vote in the UK. The main reason I'll be voting for (shudder) the Big Hill is so that if the Orange One wins, it won't be because I didn't do my bit to stop him. Hill's dangerous. I don't like her at all. Don's a feckless waste of skin. I like him way less. I'd vote for Bernie before I'd vote for Don. I'd even vote for Jeb Bush before I'd vote for Don, though it'd be close.
I find it a little difficult to swallow the idea that you would be even a bit conservative, and at the same time be able to consider voting for someone with so much obvious corruption in her resume. So, Don's policy stances are SO bad that it outweighs hundreds of millions in bribes to the Clintons? And also the way they crushed Bernie like a bug, using insider leverage? Really?
You seem rather easily bought and sold for a conservative.
I know her to be completely honest. Same as my other 12532658 relatives out there!
a. In what coin is Mr. O'Shea bought and sold for saying less bad things about Clinton? Register up-votes? As far as I know those aren't good at the supermarket.
b. Are we to infer that in 1972 you voted for George McGovern as the more honest, and therefore more conservative candidate?
Trump doesn't have policy stances. His statements are often contradict each other, and he will promise things that either are not possible, or require the rewriting of the constitution or are so light on details that it's so much meaningless hot air. It's a blank slate allowing people to project what they want onto it, and he'll say whatever will score some laughs. He's a demagogue, so will say what the mob wants to hear.
Trump is also (from all accounts) not actually planning on doing any of that boring presidential stuff, aiming to hive off foreign and domestic policy onto his veep, while he goes around being presidential "making America great again".
It's also the big pony show (presidential race) that gets liberals all fired up (because hollywood tells us the president is magic), while the actual business of government that affects your lives is about congress and state senates. The GOP plan seems to be much more focus on those races, especially at state level, to push their desired laws through and segregate the country (all the gays to blue states etc). It's why mid terms are important, but get ignored by those lazy lefties :)
Clinton does seem to be the more "conservative" candidate from my perspective, in that she's pretty keen on maintaining much of the status quo. I have *no* idea what Trump would actually do as president, since he doesn't really seem to have a party backing him, and he's all over the place on his "hot button" issues. But whoever gets elected, their ability to work with congress is going to matter more than anything they are spouting now.
Hill's bad. Don's worse. Yes, he is that much worse that he simply must be stopped. Part of the reason why he's worse is because he enables people like, well, like _you_. part of the reason why he's worse is that he has yet to actually state anything like a real policy on anything. Screaming about putting up a wall and making the Mexicans pay for it is not a policy. Screaming about deporting illegal immigrants _and their American citizen children_ is not policy... and is unconstitutional. Screaming about religious tests is not policy, and is also unconstitutional. I could go on, but no doubt it'll just bounce right off, people of your ilk simply never see the problems. I can see lots of problems with Hill. Given any choice at all, I would not vote for her. However, the choice is her or Don, the libertarian has no chance whatsoever, a vote for him amounts to a vote for Don. And Don is far more dangerous to the republic than Hill is.
Follow me. Follow me. That's good, that's good! A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!
Part of the reason why he's worse is because he enables people like, well, like _you_.
"Muahahaha! Igor, open the window! I must FEED!"
And Big John still hasn't said anything further on his non-denial denial. Yep, guilty, guilty, guilty. And guilty of being a twit in other ways, too. Johnny-boy, I voted Republican in every election I've voted in _except_ 2012, where I couldn't bring myself to vote for Mitt. I even voted for McCain, despite his having wolf-killer Palin the self-confessed pit bull bitch (quote: "What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? The lipstick") on the ticket. I will not be voting for Trump. I'm the kind of voter Trump wants: white, owns firearms (yes, that's an 's' on the end) and have been registered Republican starting with the very first time it was legal for me to vote. I may not vote for Hillary. I will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, vote for Trump.
The last time I expressed my true opinion of Trump I got myself banned from the forum where I expressed it. Apparently some Trump-lovers do not believe that anyone should be allowed to point out that their god has feet of clay. (Daniel 2:33, for you heathen out there.)
@big John, he's conservative like the GOP elite were 'conservative' which is why they got run over by the Trump train, people can see through their 'conservatism' and aren't going to take it anymore.
@James O'Shea... a religious test is NOT unconstitutional, it is already part of US immigration law with respect to refugee claimants - Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a)(42).
"@big John, he's conservative like the GOP elite were 'conservative' which is why they got run over by the Trump train, people can see through their 'conservatism' and aren't going to take it anymore."
Tut tut. I'll have you know I intend to vote Trump come November. Okay, he's way too liberal, but he's not an actual crime boss, and that's good enough at this point.
Immigration and Nationality Act 101(a)(42): err, that defines what a "refugee" is. The only 'religious test' established there is, it says it is possible to be a refugee if you are fleeing persecution on religious grounds.
I'm not clear what you're trying to establish with that reference.
If the current presidential race proves anything - it is that there isn't a secret omniscient omnipotent organisation running things.
Possibly a completely incompetent, shadowy organisation, possibly the Milk Marketing Board or the Bately town women's guild
Unless they are SO good at what they do that they can make finely honed conspiracy look like a comedy of errors to an outside observer. Sort of the statecraft equivalent of drunken boxing.
If Jar Jar can possibly turn out to be the power behind the Emperor's throne in Star Wars 1-3, then this can be true too :)
> "Unless they are SO good at what they do that they can make finely honed conspiracy look like a comedy of errors to an outside observer."
That would imply we are ALREADY the Idiocracy and just don't know it yet.
"If the current presidential race proves anything - it is that there isn't a secret omniscient omnipotent organisation running things."
The supposed Jewish conspiracy that runs the world - if it exists, it hasn't exactly been very successful. As the old joke goes "They got all the oil and all we got was the oranges."
"That would imply we are ALREADY the Idiocracy and just don't know it yet."
You see, not knowing is kind of what defines the Idiot.
Lies and foul slander!
We all know that the Milk Marketing Board are the only ones keeping us safe from the machinations of the Potato Council!
The hack was a few months ago, so if it was someone who wanted Sanders to win they would have released the emails immediately, back when it could have changed the outcome. So obviously whoever got hold of the emails did not want to help Sanders - instead they wanted Clinton to "win dirty", as it were.
However, the timing of the release right after a fairly disastrously run republican convention, when the democrats were all saying "watch what a professionally run convention looks like" seems to have been chosen to maximize the chaos at the democratic convention, and make it look like a repeat of last week (though I have to think the committee will run everyone's speech through anti-plagiarism software before it is approved, to avoid at least one hit the republicans took)
So it looks like it is someone who didn't want Bernie, and also didn't want Hillary. That kind of makes it a pro-Trump hack by default. Putin obviously has reasons to prefer Trump over Hillary, but to the point where he'd do something like this? If a link between the Russian government and the hack could be conclusively proven, even a lot of republicans who would normally cheer anything that hurts Hillary would be upset about a foreign government trying to swing a US presidential election, as patriotism trumps (no pun intended) partisanship.
It sure wouldn't help US/Russian relations, as even a president Trump will still have congress to deal with. The democrats would need only a handful of republicans to go along with them to block Trump from doing egregious things that require congressional approval (not that he seems to realize that he isn't up for election as King) such as withdrawing from NATO or whatever. So I'm skeptical that it was directed by Putin. Perhaps some Russian business interests who think they'll be better off with a president Trump? I imagine Russian billionaires have some contacts within the part of the Russian intelligence service that could organize targeted hacks like this.
Just because the hack originated in Russia doesn't mean it came from the Russian government. Especially since Putin can't possibly like Trump's economic policy as it would weaken the ruble (or whatever the hell currency they use over there).
Anyone with good enough connections, and enough money, can hire a Russian hacker organization to do their dirty work with complete and total anonymity. So who is the list of suspects? Take your pick - Trump, Sanders, Wall Street, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, or any Kennedy Democrat.
Personally while I do not look forward to a Hillary presidency, can you image having Bill as First Gentleman? Imagine the trouble he could get into with less responsibilities and more free time!
While that's true, the FBI said a couple months ago they had evidence it came from the Russian government. Maybe they're wrong, but they appear to be going on more than "it came from a .ru address, it must be Putin!"
The FBI also just decided there was nothing in Mrs. Clinton's Email scandal worth prosecuting. Their credibility is now zilch when it comes to politics of this kind.
"While that's true, the FBI said a couple months ago they had evidence it came from the Russian government."
If the Russian security services are not spying on the US political parties, they should be charged with incompetence. It's their job to try and find out what's going on and keep their government informed. The US might not like it, but considering what the CIA gets up to they would be on shaky moral high grounds.
But leaking the results? Very different matter. And at a convention where the result is in no doubt? Pretty pointless. Vladimir Vladimirovich is not stupid. The time to embarrass the hell out of HRC would be around October, with some carefully selected leaks chosen for maximum effect.
Leaking the results at a convention where the outcome is not in doubt is not pointless. If 10% of Sanders supporters who would have ended up voting Clinton go another direction, that could be enough to swing the election Trump's way.
I wonder if waiting until the week before the election would have been more damaging, or if Sanders supporters would by then have accepted Clinton and not felt the same bitterness they are feeling now.
The timing indicates it was Sanders supporters who are behind this. It may not let him win, but it prevents Sanders from being subsumed easily into the Hillary campaign. True Bernie zealots would rather make Bernie look bad than see him turn to the Dark Side (which he's doing anyway, go figure).
And they certainly won't mind seeing Mrs. Clinton harmed by the new information, heh.
Sanders supporters used the same complex malware that has been used by the Russian government, which has instructions and error messages in Cyrillic? Pull the other one. I could believe Israel or China might do something like this and be able to fake things well enough to make it look like the Russian government (though not sure why) but no non-state actor possibly could. From the information we have now, it looks like a question of "which government did this".
As for the timing of the release, that's a bit more clear now. Assange stated he was the one who chose the timing of the release. He does not like Hillary at all, and while a President Trump isn't likely to change his situation WRT to fearing extradition to the US any, I'm sure it gave him some personal satisfaction to screw her.
He's claimed he has more information (presumably from yet another source) that will put her in jail. So I wouldn't be surprised to see another document release in early November, timed to tilt the election Trump's way. Not because he wants Trump to win, but he wants Hillary to lose. It doesn't have to put her in jail, something bad enough to drop democratic turnout a few points is all that would be required to make her lose.
That still leaves the motives of why the Russian government would release these documents to wikileaks. Regardless of whether Putin prefers Trump over Hillary, there are plenty of business interests in Russia who have a history with Trump and would definitely prefer him. One of them probably had sources in the Russian government and managed to get a copy.
Hell, the yanks had a Hollywood actor as President!
While he had been a fair actor, Reagan also had long been a political speaker, and had served for two terms as governor of one of the larger states, so was better qualified than most of those eager to become candidates this year, and better qualified than any of the current bunch except possibly for Gary Johnson, who at least has served in an elected executive position, although as governor of a less complex and populous state.
I remember Tom Lehrer's song on the matter when George Murphy was active
"Hollywood's often tried to mix show business with politics
From Helen Gahagan to [pause, quizzical voice] Ronald Reagan "
Hell, the yanks had a Hollywood actor as President! .... Anonymous Coward
What more does one need to know, to know everything about the daily couch potato soap opera that is American style politics, AC? And why so many folk would think that the players are important to them and mindful of them, is a madness they need treatment for, methinks, although a lack of future working brainpower is something which is difficult to impossible to correct and/or overcome, and so thoroughly condemns one to being endlessly exploited and taken inequitable advantage of, ... but such does inevitably very quickly and surprisingly in smarter intelligence system circles with globalised networks create an inexorable revolutionary zeal which always has resulted in the past in a carefully targeted and violent correction to replace the base problem and erase the core nucleus of sub-prime information supply.
And I am reminded of the well enough known quote .... "Politics is show business for ugly people." .... Paul Begala
Am I the only one who hears that name and thinks of Sgt. Schultz?
"I see nothing!"
...then realized my beer was salty with tears for the future of humanity.
I even searched the whole article for "garland of flowers"
Also +1 Intenet for the term 'goat rodeo'.
Thanks, Vlad! Your contributions to our nation's future are greatly appreciated!
(because, U.S. law enforcement is all too blatantly, all too corrupt at the moment to do a proper investigation of the Clintons, the DNC, and all of their dirty dealings, so it takes a foreign government that "has it in" for the Clintons to do it on our behalf)
MI6, you guys wanna give it a go as well?
They are all crisis actors in a false flag election, I tell you!
Didn't JulsDawg threaten this about a month ago?
Both he and Kimbo Dotcom mentioned that something like this would happen - the rest of us were just waiting for it.
The real reveal would be the emails stolen from Clinton's server implicating her in whatever.
The more worrying thing about this is that it might serve as a pretext for Clinton to attempt to "liberate" Crimea, much like Libya, Egypt and Syria have been liberated.
> "The real reveal would be the emails stolen from Clinton's server implicating her in whatever."
Yes. And apparently more email dirt is on the way. If Hillary's 'deleted' emails do show up it will only continue the "Death by a thousand (self inflicted) cuts" she's been enduring for so long.
And yet the Dems will have to try to drag that flayed carcass across the finish line somehow.
Meanwhile the Clown Prince exults, pointing and making rude noises.
Oh, it's going to be a long summer...
Gotta love that the DNC and Hillary surrogates are blaming the Russians.
In doing so, they are freely admitting that the Russans are smarter than Hillary.
Smarter because their best crackers bested Hillary's best security.
Not Hillary's security (this time). Probably the same sources for SAs as hers, though.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017