Trump: I don't need daily briefings

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If it's so cut and dried that the Russians had nothing to do with it, you'd think that Trump would be the first to want a thorough investigation to quell this thing. However, he knows full well that Russia is highly likely to have been involved and that it would cast a shadow over his Presidency, both for the hacking and all the positive things and relationships he (and Manafort, Flynn and Tillerson) has said or had with Putin.

Trump doth protest too much. This thing stinks to high heaven.

Indeed.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Based upon what evidence? If it's indeed ridiculous, he should be out front supporting the investigation to support his opinion that doesn't comport with the consensus of the intelligence community about such a serious matter.

Regardless of whether the hacking was intended to simply disrupt the election or discredit our country (and not help Trump directly), both are grievous actions by the Russians and Trump (and his surrogates) shouldn't be so cavalier about dismissing it ("I don't believe it at all.") He should forcefully demand an investigation, not tweet insults about the CIA.

First, in post 35, you engage in a complete flight of fancy about what you believe Trump "knows" about Russian hacking (based apparently on your mind reading skills ), then you challenge me about evidence? Finn, you're unhinged.

Here are a couple of pieces of evidence for you:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Donna Brazille

You might have noticed that both have lost their roles in the DNC due to emails that were intercepted and made public. Whoever grabbed those emails didn't have to falsify a thing. The truth of what each was doing was enough, and it would have been the truth if Trump were a candidate or not.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

First, in post 35, you engage in a complete flight of fancy about what you believe Trump "knows" about Russian hacking (based apparently on your mind reading skills ), then you challenge me about evidence? Finn, you're unhinged.

I said "he knows full well that Russia is highly likely to have been involved." If he (or you) don't believe it is highly likely Russia was involved (given their history and the evidence), you both disagree with the FBI and the CIA on the issue for no other reason that it may be inconvenient.

Here are a couple of pieces of evidence for you:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Donna Brazille

You might have noticed that both have lost their roles in the DNC due to emails that were intercepted and made public. Whoever grabbed those emails didn't have to falsify a thing. The truth of what each was doing was enough, and it would have been the truth if Trump were a candidate or not.

Who said anything about anybody having to falsify anything? That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about hacking private conversations and publishing them, both a crime and an attempt to manipulate the election. If this same party hacked the RNC and Steve Bannon's emails, there would have also been plenty of unsavory sausage-making for the electorate to see, had the hacker favored Hillary's victory. Again, you conveniently miss the point or are simply trying to obfuscate.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I said "he knows full well that Russia is highly likely to have been involved." If he (or you) don't believe it is highly likely Russia was involved (given their history and the evidence), you both disagree with the FBI and the CIA on the issue for no other reason that it may be inconvenient.

There you go again. Your mind reading skills allow you to tell us what Trump knows? Amazing.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Who said anything about anybody having to falsify anything? That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about hacking private conversations and publishing them, both a crime and an attempt to manipulate the election. Again, you conveniently miss the point or are simply trying to obfuscate.

It is precisely relevant. Do you think we'd even know that the DNC email system was hacked if there wasn't something unflattering about the DNC in those emails? Let me help you with that. We absolutely would not. There fact that the emails were hacked quickly became secondary to the inflammatory content about the absurd conduct of the DNC leadership. If there was group working overtime to influence the election, it was the DNC influencing the outcome of the primaries.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

There you go again. Your mind reading skills allow you to tell us what Trump knows? Amazing.




It is precisely relevant. Do you think we'd even know that the DNC email system was hacked if there wasn't something unflattering about the DNC in those emails? Let me help you with that. We absolutely would not. There fact that the emails were hacked quickly became secondary to the inflammatory content about the absurd conduct of the DNC leadership. If there was group working overtime to influence the election, it was the DNC influencing the outcome of the primaries.

Other than the fact that Clinton received 3.6 million more votes than her challenger, you might have a point Mike.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

It is precisely relevant. Do you think we'd even know that the DNC email system was hacked if there wasn't something unflattering about the DNC in those emails? Let me help you with that. We absolutely would not. There fact that the emails were hacked quickly became secondary to the inflammatory content about the absurd conduct of the DNC leadership. If there was group working overtime to influence the election, it was the DNC influencing the outcome of the primaries.

Fucking ridiculous. What happened here was essentially a cyber version of the Watergate break-in. In effect, we had somebody (likely Russian) break in to the DNC headquarters, steal materials, and publish them. And since the pilfered material shows shady/embarrassing conduct, the break-in, theft and publishing of the material should be overlooked? What do you think a complete dump of the RNC and Steve Bannon's private emails would show?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Other than the fact that Clinton received 3.6 million more votes than her challenger, you might have a point Mike.

Other than the fact that the popular vote doesn't decide the Presidency, you might have a point, Bob.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Fucking ridiculous. What happened here was essentially a cyber version of the Watergate break-in. In effect, we had somebody (likely Russian) break in to the DNC headquarters, steal materials, and publish them. And since the pilfered material shows shady/embarrassing conduct, the break-in, theft and publishing of the material should be overlooked? What do you think a complete dump of the RNC and Steve Bannon's private emails would show?

Mind reading a "fucking ridiculous". Suggesting that Trump believes that the hack was Russian based - a thinly veiled suggestion that maybe he wants to protect his "buddies - is fucking ridiculous.

And maybe Steve Bannon and/or the RNC aren't stupid enough to fall for trojan horse emails like the folks at the DNC did.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by MrPots

Fuck Hillary, she's not president elect.

You obviously wish she was.

Originally Posted by MrPots

You should be worried.

I am not in the least bit worried.

I am elated that Trump won.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You have no buddies, because you've turned on every one.

Copernicus was out there by himself too.

I'd rather be right than an accepted member of a deluded herd of sheep.

However, the only place I am isolated is on this tiny little forum.

There are plenty of Trump supporters outside of this little bubble of group thinkers.