Pages

Sunday, January 15, 2017

I am curious...

What specific information was released due to the Russians hack...
that supposedly was responsible for "changing" the election results?

What changed your mind?

We hear a lot about this in a generic sense. But I have not really seen too much in terms of specifics. In fact, I am not exactly sure which information was hacked by the Russians and which was provided to Wikileaks by insiders? 

Moreover, information like the fact that the DNC and members of the media was in the bag for Hilllary Clinton was always known to be true. Nothing that was leaked did anything other than confirm the obvious. 

So what, exactly, was it?


24 comments:

Commonsense said...

Robby Mook ran the most galactically stupid presidential campaign in modern history so he's busy blaming the Russians, Comey, the weather and anything else to anybody who will listen to dodge his responsibility for the debacle.

There is a lot a blame to go around but it doesn't have anything to do with the Russians or the FBI.

The ultimate responsibility for the shellacking the Democrats received belongs to Barack Obama.

While he may be personally popular it is obvious his policies are not and his administration has been one long record of abject failure.

PNC said...

If the information Russia obtained by hacking and provided to WikiLeaks had no effect on the election results, as Trump's followers are so fond of claiming, then why did Trump spend weeks campaigning on the WikiLeaks releases?

What kind of cognitive dissonance does it take to believe that Trump is a strategic genius who devoted weeks to a campaign strategy that had no effect? This is how new mental disorders are born.

C.H. Truth said...

Perfect...

You provided the classic non-answer answer. You asked a question. So I will ask it a different way.

What did Donald Trump campaign on (that required the help of the Russians) that you believe changed the election outcome?

Hint: Answering with a non-specific "russian hacking" or "wikileaks" is not actually an answer. It's an admission that you had no answer.

C.H. Truth said...

I am not 100% - but fairly sure it was you (pnh) who referred to President Bush as "pResident Bush" because you found him to be not a legitimate President... only to later apologize when you realized how counter productive it was when it was Obama who had his legitimacy questioned.

Now another Republican has been elected President, and once again there are widespread attacks on the "legitimacy" of the election. I hope you understand how much that make the left appear like consistent poor losers who have issues accepting any defeat.

PNC said...

Trump campaigned on hacked/leaked information about Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party that would not have been available without Russian intervention.

Ergo, Russia exerted influence over the campaign, and insofar as Trump saw this as a vote-winning message for his campaign and used it as such, Russia therefore influenced the election results.

PNC said...

I'm PNC, not pnh.

I'm the one who referred to Obama as "White House Resident Obama" back in the day.

C.H. Truth said...

I'm PNC, not pnh.

Ha... so you are.

But you still didn't tell us "what" specific information Trump campaigned on... that would not have been available otherwise?

In other words, there isn't anything you can point to specifically... so you reword your same general claim. A clear admission that you cannot answer the question.

Bottom line: I recall two specific things coming out of wikileaks (who btw still claims the information was inside). One, was that the DNC was in the bag for Clinton. Not exactly a well hidden surprise. Secondly, that the media was in the bag for Clinton and even went so far as to leak debate questions to her. Again, not a well hidden surprise.

Both were true issues... that for all practical purposes "should" be exposed to the public. There is no reason why anyone should suggest that the DNC putting their thumb on the scale for Hillary should have been "covered up". Same with the CNN analyst providing debate questions to Clinton.

It seems like a pretty bad argument that the reason she didn't win the election was because she was not allowed to cheat and keep it the specifics from the public. Perhaps they should have simply run a "fair" campaign without trying to cook the books in their favor.

Roger Amick said...

The specifics wouldn't have changed your mind, no matter what.

If Drudge came out with a story, with proor, that Donald Trump had hired Monica Lewinsky to give him a blow job, you still would have voted for him.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
The specifics wouldn't have changed your mind, no matter what.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

specifics such as the fact that she was and is a pathological liar and the most corrupt presidential candidate of the modern era?

that she and the DNC conspired to fuck bernie out of the nomination before the primary season even began?

that she had self-admitted hacks from the media in her pocket?

if you want to talk specifics, pull up a chair and get comfortable. we could be here for days touting all of the 'specifics' that made her the all-around shittiest, most corrupt, and most deplorable candidate in my lifetime.

she is a vile and reprehensible human being, and it seems only fitting that the clinton graft initiative is tango uniform*.

* that's tits up, rog.

if she were wise, and had even a molecule of humility in her blackened soul, she needs to be using her remaining days to get right with her creator lest she find herself bunking with ted kennedy in the hottest corner of hell when her number is up.


C.H. Truth said...

You are right Roger.

Stories could have come out about Donald Trump hiring Monica Lewinski to give him sexual favors, and it would have not changed my vote.

I still would have voted for Gary Johnson.

Roger Amick said...

Clinton, faults and all, has lead a life of helping the less fortunate. Donald Trump has been a cutthroat business man, who has many times, declined to pay construction companies and their employees. He refuses to release his tax returns. If Clinton had done that, you would have been outraged.

Like I said, "If Drudge Report, released a veritable story, the he paid Monica Lewinsky for a blow job, you would have voted for him."

If there is a Hell, you will be sitting in the front row seat. You hatred and racist remarks would guarantee it!

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
Clinton, faults and all, has lead a life of helping the less fortunate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

in what alternative universe do you reside?

the clinton's, all of them, have led a life of helping themselves.

they've EXPLOITED the less fortunate - see haiti - but in reality they haven't done a fucking thing other than line their own pockets.

the clinton's are parasites. they've spent a lifetime feasting off the toils of others, and granny's only real claim to the presidency was that was her consolation prize for staying married to a lecherous piece of shit rapist for 40 years.

their graft initiative is folding, and all the little worms they've had working for them are on the unenjoyment line come april. and i'll bet their severance packages won't buy a week's worth of groceries.



Roger Amick said...

BTW, check out the legacy page. You will be surprised.

rrb said...



LOL.

i gave up on that shitpile since you burned it down.

that's your own little private insane asylum now alky.

enjoy.

KD, Historic Week Love it With US as We Party said...

The specifics wouldn't have changed your mind, no matter what." The Mutt


CHT your answer is they got nothing, but, they are going to cling to the BIG LIE and deny Trump is the Legitimate President.

I say let them stew in their own juices .

Loretta Russo said...

No thanks.

Wallow in your own shit.

wphamilton said...

If you buy into the whole conspiracy fantasy about Comey ruining Clinton's campaign by telling everyone that Clinton "did nothing wrong", while forcing Justice to look the other way, then the DNC hack and reveal provided a political impetus.

Objectively however, can anyone here say they honestly did NOT know that the DNC rigged the Primary for Clinton? Was it not already obvious from instant domination of the Super-Delegates? And the fact that only the scrubs even entered the contest? Was there really any question, in anyone's mind, that the Clinton's were laundering money through their Foundation and selling influence? What did the "hacks" do other than confirm common knowledge?

wphamilton said...

That should answer your question, Mr neocon. All of these issues were low-hanging fruit to begin with, so of course Trump would attack them regardless of any wikileaks support.

caliphate4vr said...

Was it not already obvious from instant domination of the Super-Delegates?

I love seeing donks whine about the electoral college but were fine with super-delegates

Roger Amick said...

Spam for the twit.

Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan
By Robert Costa and Amy Goldstein January 15 at 10:00 PM


Trump declined to reveal specifics in the telephone interview late Saturday with The Washington Post, but any proposals from the incoming president would almost certainly dominate the Republican effort to overhaul federal health policy as he prepares to work with his party’s congressional majorities.

Trump’s plan is likely to face questions from the right, after years of GOP opposition to further expansion of government involvement in the health-care system, and from those on the left, who see his ideas as disruptive to changes brought by the Affordable Care Act that have extended coverage to tens of millions of Americans.

In addition to his replacement plan for the ACA, also known as Obamacare, Trump said he will target pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.

“They’re politically protected, but not anymore,” he said of pharmaceutical companies.

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”resident-elect.
Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid.

Trump declined to reveal specifics in the telephone interview late Saturday with The Washington Post, but any proposals from the incoming president would almost certainly dominate the Republican effort to overhaul federal health policy as he prepares to work with his party’s congressional majorities.

Trump’s plan is likely to face questions from the right, after years of GOP opposition to further expansion of government involvement in the health-care system, and from those on the left, who see his ideas as disruptive to changes brought by the Affordable Care Act that have extended coverage to tens of millions of Americans.

In addition to his replacement plan for the ACA, also known as Obamacare, Trump said he will target pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.

“They’re politically protected, but not anymore,” he said of pharmaceutical companies.

Roger Amick said...

Spam page two.

The devil is in the details. He declined to discuss the details. Reading between the lines, it is in effect, as close to a single payer system that has ever come out from a Republican.

He also said "Trump said he expects Republicans in Congress to move quickly and in unison in the coming weeks on other priorities as well, including enacting sweeping tax cuts and beginning the building of a wall along the Mexican border.

Trump warned Republicans that if the party splinters or slows his agenda, he is ready to use the power of the presidency — and Twitter — to usher his legislation to passage." The interview was conducted on telephone.

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”his is almost the plans proposed by Bernie Sanders. The insurance companies will be required to work with Medicare and Medicaid. They would also require them to accept patients with pre existing conditions and that families would continue coverage until they are 26.

In affect, this is Obama Care with the improvements that may Democrats wanted to do, but they ran into a brick wall from Paul Ryan and the "freedom caucus".

He threatened to use Twitter to apply pressure on the Republicans who would not cooperate. This would not be part of a budget resolution, so it would require 60% votes in the Senate. He said that it's not a single payer system, but in affect, that's what it is. He is a very different form of Republican.
Posted by Roger Amick at 6:50 AM

Loretta Russo said...

Drunken spammer.

Loretta Russo said...

Drunken spammer

rrb said...



He was also asked to address Mr. Trump’s claim to The Washington Post that his plan to replace Obamacare will include “insurance for everybody.”

“His goal is to make sure that everybody’s got health care,” Spicer said, adding that the plan would provide greater accessibility to the marketplace, more competition and would drive costs down. “Not only are they going to have greater access, but they’re going to have greater choice.”

Mr. Trump, Spicer said, will “reinstill a sense of competition and choice in the marketplace,” but he declined to make clear whether the replacement plan would have government pay for everyone’s insurance or would have the government mandate that businesses cover it.

Asked why the president-elect hasn’t presented the details of his replacement plan yet, Spicer said, “Because he’s not president yet.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-spokesman-defends-spat-with-john-lewis-talks-obamacare-replacement/




never trust the WaPo to get it right.

ever.