Clinton campaign hacked

[bshole]

I don't think Trump works for them. I just think that he's such a fool that Putin prefers him over Hillary. Of the 2 Hillary is far more likely to be the tough one, Trump is so hell bent to think of himself as King Shit that he's more likely to just throw everything out with the bathwater. Including all the Alliances that keeps Russia in check.

It appears that Hillary would be willing to shoot down Russian airplanes in Syria if they interfered with her taking down Assad. This was discussed in another thread. I don't think Russia wants to engage America in Syrian air space. That could be a possibility under Clinton.

Sanders was a far better candidate on foreign policy. We have now have no chance of detaching from the Middle East for at least 4 more years...

You heard that during the pre-Christmas Democratic debate, when ABC’s Martha Raddatz tried to pin down Clinton’s advocacy of a no-fly zone in Syria. “ISIS doesn’t have aircraft, Al Qaeda doesn’t have aircraft,” Raddatz pointed out. “So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?” Clinton’s reply was that “I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting air space.” When Raddatz persisted—“But isn’t that a decision you should make now?”—Clinton said that she favored the no-fly zone “because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians.” She sees the dilemma but seems unwilling to deal with it. Without mentioning Iraq or Libya, Sanders put it clearly when he said, “I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change, and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be…. You’ve got to think about what happens the day after.” Clinton didn’t really have a response.

 

[zinfamous]

what planet do you post from?

if Trump has proven anything it is that no one controls him.

Trump is controlled by money. US banks refuse to lend to him (because he is never good for it), so he has long sought the money of Russian oligarchs.

He is controlled by those to whom he is in debt. This fact alone should terrify anyone holding the responsibility to cast a vote in the US presidential election.

 

[werepossum]

Please. Troops were deployed in training exercises for the most part. They're staged to not become shooty. None indicated any threat to the integrity of Russian territory. It's not like Nato lined up the guns on the Polish border.

Clinton also exploited the collapse of the Soviet system to expand Nato to nearly all Warsaw pact nations, so Russia had obvious reasons to be paranoid. That loss annihilated much of their military capability & weakened their strategic position entirely.

Russia has drawn the line on Nato expansion at Georgia & Ukraine. They're in the strategic & geopolitical position to do so unless we want to start WW3.

Truth be told, Ukrainian govt has been so astoundingly shitty since independence that the man in the street would probably be better off had they stayed in the Russian Federation. It's been great for a few people, no doubt-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_oligarchs

Warring & power plays among them is what left Putin with an opening to reclaim Crimea & its ~80% Russian population who are probably happy that he did considering all the shit going on in Kiev.

lol While singing your support of Putin, you totally forgot to accuse Republicans of supporting Putin.

Christ, man, do you even read your own links?


This is all from the Business Insider, about as sober and reputable while also being non-left-wing as you can get.

You fail so hard you should be ashamed.

Are you?

So your defense of Hillary getting millions to allow Russia to buy control over American uranium is that some other people also had to be bought? That seems . . . somewhat less than convincing. You're giving her a green light for corruption as long as there are others in the mix.

Russia sees instability in the EU and the rest of the west as beneficial to their existence. This has been their MO in the post-soviet years.

Previously, their intercessions in international elections were exclusively in support of communist-sympathizing parties and individuals. Now, they tend to support or work in favor of whatever party offers the greatest chance of instability.

Trump is a weak lapdog almost entirely owned by Russian oligarchs who are far, far, far wealthier than he (the only entities in teh world that have been willing to lend him money in a decade).

I would actually be shocked if there were direct ties from Trump to Russian intelligence involved in these hacks (yes, Manafort is a Russian stooge, so it would make sense) because Russia has and does act on their own in these matters.

Let's look at the converse: Hillary (along with Obama and most of the Republicans) has jumped into two Russian vassal states and helped make them anarchic bastions of Islamicism which consume rather than produce Russian resources. Along with Bush and Iraq, that's three for three. Putin doesn't need any reason to piss on Hillary, since even if she wins, she will be much weakened by these attacks, assuming they are Russian.

 

[werepossum]

Trump is controlled by money. US banks refuse to lend to him (because he is never good for it), so he has long sought the money of Russian oligarchs.

He is controlled by those to whom he is in debt. This fact alone should terrify anyone holding the responsibility to cast a vote in the US presidential election.

Explain again why Trump (who has several times taken bankruptcy in specific projects) is "controlled by those to whom he is in debt" but the USA isn't. Or for that matter, why Hillary isn't controlled by those foreigners who have bought her cooperation. So far your reasoning appears to be based solely on their relative party letters. Seems quite strange that people loaning you money have "control" but people giving you money have none.

 

[ivwshane]

Explain again why Trump (who has several times taken bankruptcy in specific projects) is "controlled by those to whom he is in debt" but the USA isn't. Or for that matter, why Hillary isn't controlled by those foreigners who have bought her cooperation. So far your reasoning appears to be based solely on their relative party letters. Seems quite strange that people loaning you money have "control" but people giving you money have none.

Well for one, the majority of our debt is owned by the American people. Second, we can print money and control the supply of money, trump can't say the same. So we are not beholden to our investors, they are beholden to us nor do we need their money, they need ours.

 

[ivwshane]

lol While singing your support of Putin, you totally forgot to accuse Republicans of supporting Putin.


So your defense of Hillary getting millions to allow Russia to buy control over American uranium is that some other people also had to be bought? That seems . . . somewhat less than convincing. You're giving her a green light for corruption as long as there are others in the mix.


Let's look at the converse: Hillary (along with Obama and most of the Republicans) has jumped into two Russian vassal states and helped make them anarchic bastions of Islamicism which consume rather than produce Russian resources. Along with Bush and Iraq, that's three for three. Putin doesn't need any reason to piss on Hillary, since even if she wins, she will be much weakened by these attacks, assuming they are Russian.

No that's simply you coming up with yet another conspiracy to explain your nutty thinking (that's two conspiracies you've come up with in as many posts).

Congrats you are the new legendkiller!