Will you accept the election results?

[Jason]

Sore losers blaming Russia for Hillary's defeat
...Obama also conceded in his partisan, double-speak press conference that the hacked emails were “not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme.” In other words, whoever was behind the leaked emails didn’t change the content. The emails revealed that the DNC was in the tank — from day one — to rig the primary process against Bernie Sanders, to make Hillary the Democrat presidential nominee. And the liberal media was in the tank to do anything and everything possible, including spreading fake news, to help elect Hillary president...

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/20/so ... rys-defeat

[Svartalf]

typical, blame a foreign power and not see that it's the current system that's broken and does not allow the one man one vote principle.

[Tero]

Putin's hackers were already documented when:
Emails between Clinton and top aide, but little else, spurred FBI to resume controversial probe
The bureau argued that Clinton and Abedin were previously on email chains in which classified information was discussed, and so there was probable cause to search a computer belonging to Abedin’s estranged husband, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 81f778a4d0

[JimC]

I'm being slightly ironic when I say Russia is supporting American democratic principles, but only to give the lie to the assertion of the present left-wing propaganda machine that the election was somehow subverted or "hacked". They, the propagandists, are acting deliberately, and in bad faith, to undermine the confidence of the American people (who will believe almost anything it seems - see "Fake News") in what was a legitimate election. Hillary's emails were hacked by someone and that information was released. That information wasn't altered or fabricated. It wasn't part of a move to subvert the public perception of Hillary Clinton. Claiming the election was "hacked" so they can cast a deep shadow of doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency gives the lie to the integrity and credibility of leftist media sources who have proved they'll put anything into the media pipe to support their political agenda. Dedication to truth and journalistic integrity are simple Machiavellian foils they deploy to slip past the intellectual defenses, checks and balances on the truth value of claims made, of their audiences. They've proven only slightly better than the Fake News in that they'll parlay their propaganda with a kernel of reality.

Even given no mis-information, and that it is the equivalent of "Wiki-leaks" for valid public information, if (as seems likely) it was instigated by the Russian state, it remains a dangerous precedent of interference in the political process of a state by another state, for its own self-interested reasons, not for altruistic reasons.

[pErvinalia]

Of course the Russian government would love to influence, or better still, to control, everything everywhere, and it would undoubtedly do exactly that if it was capable and thought it could get away with it. Governments are like that. A lot of human individuals are like that. Yeah, we know. But do we know the Russians hacked email accounts and the US electoral machinery? "The signs are..."? FFS, we can't even speak of a pattern. There is no record to go by.

The double-standard is breathtaking. As 42 has pointed out, if the boot was on the other foot, liberals as well as Democrats would have laughed at those allegations till kingdom come, while the fucktards would have seriously and sincerely believed them to be true. Maybe they are, but in the absence of convincing evidence we have no way of knowing if they are, or not, and it is about time everybody acknowledges that already.

The problem is that before the election Trump's ties to Russia (via his team) were exposed. And you have Putin supporting Trump (for obvious reasons) also before the election. So any subsequent allegations are more believable because of that.

[pErvinalia]

Oh no, I have no doubt the Russians would rather deal with a Trump presidency than a Clinton one. If they were behind it, it was almost certainly calculated to promote a Trump victory.

And there's your answer (if indeed Russia was behind it). All this nonsense about benefiting democracy is just that, nonsense. A foreign power actively trying to elect one person over the other is unacceptable as Hamilton could see clearly.

My point is that even if Russia is behind the hacks, and we have no compelling evidence to prove that they are (at least not that the CIA has deigned to release), no subversion occurred. The democratic process was not compromised. All that happened was the American people were better informed - perhaps to the benefit of Russian designs but that has no bearing on the issue.

Rubbish. Selective release of information isn't being consistent with democratic principles. The issue is simple - a foreign power working to elect one person over another in no ways can be thought to be compatible with a proper democracy.

So how's this for an assessment? - A certain segment of the left adopt simplistic dichotomous thinking and find themselves supporting authoritarian arse-wipes for the primary reason that said arse-wipes are anti-American. It's pretty obvious that this applies to you.

[pErvinalia]

typical, blame a foreign power and not see that it's the current system that's broken and does not allow the one man one vote principle.

False dichotomy. It could easily be both.

[laklak]

typical, blame a foreign power and not see that it's the current system that's broken and does not allow the one man one vote principle.

Some votes are more equal than others.

[Sean Hayden]

Any government that doesn't attempt to influence the elections of other nations to the benefit of its own interests is naive and weak...

It's bullshit all the way down innit?

[Jason]

Selective release of information isn't being consistent with democratic principles. The issue is simple - a foreign power working to elect one person over another in no ways can be thought to be compatible with a proper democracy.

So how's this for an assessment? - A certain segment of the left adopt simplistic dichotomous thinking and find themselves supporting authoritarian arse-wipes for the primary reason that said arse-wipes are anti-American. It's pretty obvious that this applies to you.

Full disclosure is not a principle of democracy, if it were every candidate in the history of every modern democracy would have subverted it in their campaign to obtain office. That's just nonsense.

I don't understand where you're coming from with this assertion of my belonging to a "certain segment" or your bald accusation of "simplistic dichotomous thinking." After all, I take the time to sift through the propaganda, whatever the source, and identify the outright lies - like claiming the election was subverted - that can be shown to be false. I don't simply assert the default position that Russian influence = subversion out of a simplistic adherence to a simplistic dichotomy of "for us" and "against us" which has Russia placed traditionally in the "against us" category. That seems to be a characteristic of your "certain segment."

[Jason]

Any government that doesn't attempt to influence the elections of other nations to the benefit of its own interests is naive and weak...

It's bullshit all the way down innit?

Exactly. Foreign powers have been influencing domestic politics the world over ever since there were foreign governments and domestic politics. There's no precedent being set here.

[JimC]

Any government that doesn't attempt to influence the elections of other nations to the benefit of its own interests is naive and weak...

It's bullshit all the way down innit?

Exactly. Foreign powers have been influencing domestic politics the world over ever since there were foreign governments and domestic politics. There's no precedent being set here.

And those governments who discover that another country has been manipulating their politics don't just give up and take it in the ass, they react, possibly quite forcibly...

Over to you, USA...

[tattuchu]

Any government that doesn't attempt to influence the elections of other nations to the benefit of its own interests is naive and weak...

It's bullshit all the way down innit?

Exactly. Foreign powers have been influencing domestic politics the world over ever since there were foreign governments and domestic politics. There's no precedent being set here.

And those governments who discover that another country has been manipulating their politics don't just give up and take it in the ass, they react, possibly quite forcibly...

Over to you, USA...

Yes, pass the lube, please. I need to swab my butt hole

[L'Emmerdeur]

Over to you, USA...

Given that President Obama is unlikely to initiate anything that could be described as "forcible" (though I expect possibly more stringent sanctions) and Trump professes not to believe that Russia was responsible, the chance that there will be any serious repercussions for Russia from this seems rather small. I think there's a good chance that Trump will lift any sanctions that Obama imposes, as well as those that are currently in place.

[JimC]

Over to you, USA...

Given that President Obama is unlikely to initiate anything that could be described as "forcible" (though I expect possibly more stringent sanctions) and Trump professes not to believe that Russia was responsible, the chance that there will be any serious repercussions for Russia from this seems rather small. I think there's a good chance that Trump will lift any sanctions that Obama imposes, as well as those that are currently in place.

So, the "leader of the free world" will roll over and let Putin tickle its tummy...

Good boy...