Political Predictions 2016

[DBowling]

I have a feeling the next Wikileaks leak will land Hillary in all sorts of strife.
Waiting, patiently, for what it must be.

That Blivet is above the law.

If she's not in trouble for what she's already done, she could probably pull an OJ, and get away with it.

I think i have made it clear that I am not a fan of either Donald or Hillary. But I am incredibly disturbed by the direct interference of foreign powers engaged in espionage against our country to deliberately influence an American Presidential election.

We have Julian Assange engaged in a personal vendetta against the former Secretary of State who chose to prosecute him for espionage against the State Department in 2010 working together with Russian government hackers in illegal activity against our country to disrupt an American election.

Regardless of whether a person is a Republican or Democrat, nothing good can come from the illegal interference of foreign powers working to influence the outcome of an American election.

my .02

[Kurieuo]

You didn't know espionage happened DB? But, I really think foreign powers giving a rats is just diversionary from the real issue which, again, is the Democrats own [mis]management of security, deceitfulness and purposeful manipulation they did.

What I've seen leads me to think it is actually someone within the Democratic party that leaked information, though Assange called their protection like swiss cheese and said many have hacked them, and they've been notified of the issues numerously in the past but noone seems to care or understand. So then, Russia I'm sure did so, as well as China and anyone one else who probably cared to.

Illegal interference of foreign powers? I think you're just swallowing the story being fed in your media by regressive liberals. What's illegal about espionage, countries do it, the US does it, Russia does it, I don't know if Australia does it but we're not a super power; I'm sure we do on behalf of the US. A few years back, a different election, it was Republicans files being published on Wikileaks. Evidently, you don't know how Wikileaks works if you think it's a conspiracy against the Democrats. The points seems clear to me, that Democrats suck at security as it keeps getting underscored over and over again.

And Hillary, one reason ISIS are so strong is due to Hillary putting the weapons in their hands, as seems to be coming out. Trump's an ****, but Hillary, there will be a world war if the Democrats get in again. And Australia, well we'll probably be at the forefront given our proximity to China. So foreign countries, especially like my own allied with US, well, we'll be the first recipients of any nuking China does which seems clear in their recent threats to Australia, all due to security mismanagement in the US and vacant threats by current administration which do nothing by aggistate other super powers by the current administration.

You know Russia is now sending warships to basically our sea "backyard", and the playground of every other country in the pacific, to the China Sea to play war games with China? They're prepping for war. It's clear. China has the islands in strategically in place, Russia is getting more on edge with US activities, they're doing something RIGHT NOW in preparing for war. Russia has told the US to remove their missile launchers from bordering European countries and the US are saying, "Oh, but they're to defend against Iran" (who the US came to an agreement with). Yeah right, switch in a war head, and US can directly bomb Russia. Think that's not concerning to Russia? So Russia is arming up, China's is arming up, it seems something will soon happen.

I really don't want Democrats leading us to WW3. With Trump, saying he wants to negotiate with Putin, that's the way out of war. Standing side-by-side rather than playing silly "we're a super power and everything is rosey" games. And this, at Europe's beck and call which is starting to implode. Trump is right on this front, and it's another important front to be right about in addition to being anti-PC. Mark my words, if Democrats get in, then Russia will invade Europe and take out the missiles the US are setting up. Putin has warned as much, that they have no option but to arm up and do what is necessary to defend Russia. From there, everything will go to hell.

Seriously, I'm not normally alarmist, but I'm seeing the writing on the wall. Russia and the US need to get over whatever it is they have against each other, and Democrats keep treating Russia as the enemy even though Russia fought on our side in the world wars. Trump, seems to be the only one who sees Russia is better and ally than enemy.

Hmm, k. Guess that was a little rant. Rant over.

[DBowling]

You didn't know espionage happened DB?

I don't think anyone can dispute that Assange and Russia have engaged in espionage against the United States multiple times.

Illegal interference of foreign powers? I think you're just swallowing the story being fed in your media by regressive liberals. What's illegal about espionage, countries do it, the US does it, Russia does it

Yes... all countries engage in espionage against other countries. That doesn't make it legal. And I'm unaware of any country that doesn't consider espionage against their country to be a crime. Russia may not consider espionage against the United States to be illegal. But within the United States legal system espionage against the United States is a crime... and a pretty serious one.

That is why the State Department decided to prosecute Assange for his espionage against the United States back in 2010. Which led to Assange's personal vendetta against Clinton.

[Kurieuo]

Espionage happens all the time, and by it's very nature is "illegal" in the country it is done to. Each country does it to each other, so? US spies get arrested, Russian spies get arrested, then they have some drinks together and exchange prisoners. I recall a few years back China intercepted a US spy plane, and they just handed it back to the US. LOL. If it was the other way around, I can just imagine.

As for the white headed guy, Assange, he's not commited espionage. What do you think he did exactly? The US has never got a hold of Assange so there's been no prosecution either. Any vandetta, or victim playing, is simply an act by Clinton trying to divert attention from her and the DCPs own stupidity with emails, and manipulating elections and what-not.

Oh well... I guess we just disagree, but it seems to me many don't understand the current climate around the world. Western media just doesn't like to talk about it, what Putin himself is actually saying to the West. It'd burst too many bubbles that the world is safe and US is in control. Instead, it's more important to people that the US President be politically correct and not call a woman fat or wonder whether there is something more behind a Muslim wife being quiet, as long as they're PC then it doesn't matter if they're secretly handing weapons to terrorists, lying to the public, creating holes in US security... just don't call a woman fat because that's too far.

[Kurieuo]

Will Smith has had enough. "For a man to be able to publicly refer to a woman as a fat pig, that makes me teary."

will-smith.png (117.77 KiB) Viewed 3235 times

Meanwhile, Russia and China are gearing up for war and Clinton is giving away weapons to US enemies. Don't vote Trump, it's unthinkable to because he called a woman a fat pig. (I wonder if anyone has ever publicly called Trump a fat pig )

[Jac3510]

It's idiotic to claim that Trump encouraged espionage. Clinton herself said that all of the emails she deleted were of a personal nature. If, then, she told the truth, there is absolutely NO national security risk or espionage. It may make for bad politics and be wrong on another level, but it isn't espionage.

Of course, if Clinton DID delete a bunch of work related emails, then it still isn't espionage as you're now looking at someone's claimed personal emails, but at that point, that's just ANOTHER reason not to trust Clinton. She's a monster.

[DBowling]

As for the white headed guy, Assange, he's not commited espionage. What do you think he did exactly?

Here's a Wall Street Journal article from 2010 that lays out why the State Department wanted to indict Assange for espionage.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0626335258

The US has never got a hold of Assange so there's been no prosecution either. Any vandetta, or victim playing, is simply an act by Clinton trying to divert attention from her and the DCPs own stupidity with emails

This is not some fabricated victim playing by the Democrats. Assange has admitted that he is deliberately hoping to damage Clinton's Presidential campaign, because she pushed to have him indited.

In the interview, Mr Assange told a British television host, Robert Peston of the ITV network, that his organization had obtained "emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," which he pronounced "great." He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe.
...
First, citing his "personal perspective," Mr. Assange accused Mrs. Clinton of having been among those pushing to indict him after WikiLeaks disseminated a quarter of a million diplomatic cables during her tenure as secretary of state.

From the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/po ... .html?_r=1

[Kurieuo]

As for the white headed guy, Assange, he's not commited espionage. What do you think he did exactly?

Here's a Wall Street Journal article from 2010 that lays out why the State Department wanted to indict Assange for espionage.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0626335258

Technically, it's never happened because they've never got a hold of him. He's never been prosecuted, never had a trial, it's all pending while he hides in the Ecuadorian embassy... from what I can tell the US government is just being its overly paranoid self. Except it's strangely not paranoid with Hillary, who seems to get a free ride so far as breaching security is concerned.

The US has never got a hold of Assange so there's been no prosecution either. Any vandetta, or victim playing, is simply an act by Clinton trying to divert attention from her and the DCPs own stupidity with emails

This is not some fabricated victim playing by the Democrats. Assange has admitted that he is deliberately hoping to damage Clinton's Presidential campaign, because she pushed to have him indited.

In the interview, Mr Assange told a British television host, Robert Peston of the ITV network, that his organization had obtained "emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," which he pronounced "great." He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe.
...
First, citing his "personal perspective," Mr. Assange accused Mrs. Clinton of having been among those pushing to indict him after WikiLeaks disseminated a quarter of a million diplomatic cables during her tenure as secretary of state.

From the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/po ... .html?_r=1

NY Times should really be the Democrat Times, it's typical of much I've read in media and often hyper-exagerated. I've seen interviews first hand with Assange, and he is careful with his words. The spin that he's out to interfere in US politics and very much after Hillary, is extremely exaggerated.

But, understand WikiLeaks will publish no matter what it gets, so long as it can verify the truthfulness, the information isn't already public knowledge, and it is relevant to "the people" to know. It's done much good, and their papers are even so rudiment, they've been used in court to successfully prosecute the real evil doers. They're actually quite principled, so far as getting truth out there is concerns, and those who like to supress truth feel uncomfortable. *hil-cough cough-lary"

Democrats (who I think someone within leaked the information on Clinton's emails), can equally provide information... and indeed like I said previously papers have been equally release on the Republicans. So long as it meets certain conditions, it too will be carefully analysed, processed and released.

I'm sure Assange has a wry smile, but he's not going to damage his Wikileaks baby, something he's kept himself has had much personal expense over many years over, really, it's just some personal payback? You also have Snowden. Who knows, perhaps he hacked the Democrats emails also. He's a Russian tool now isn't he?

In any case, it is really all irrelevant how the truth got out, what is relevant is that it is the TRUTH. And the people ought to know so that they can be correctly informed in their decisions. The real issue is the truth. It's not a smear campaign, it's a truth campaign. How it is being spun, into an issue of "Oh everyone is out to get Hillary, Russia, Assange, etc" is just a joke. It may be true, but so what? Hillary has a lot to answer for. And if you just read the media, not having Hillary in is going to be the end of the world. I'm surprised, you haven't even acknowledged issues with Hillary and ones that should matter a whole lot more to the US and is quite alarming to people around the world.

[Kurieuo]

Btw, here is the interview mentioned in your Democrats' NY Times article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34giUftE7BI. I'd encourage you to actually listen it and other interviews of Assange (if such interests you), to obtain your information first hand.



You'll miss him saying, "great" I'm sure. Certainly not as the DNY Times puts it, but rather he says very quickly "it is great, Wikileaks has had a very big year..." Damn Assange. So out to get Hillary and he's framed all these emails and published them to Wikileaks to smear her as revenge.

Warning: explicit language

[DBowling]

Btw, here is the interview mentioned in your Democrats' NY Times article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34giUftE7BI. I'd encourage you to actually listen it and other interviews of Assange (if such interests you), to obtain your information first hand.

Will do... thanks

BTW... Just to clarify.
I am not a Democrat.
I do not support Hillary.

However, I am an American who is greatly concerned when foreign powers like Assange and the Russians make such a blatant move to interfere with an American Presidential election.

FBI director James Comey made it very clear in his testimony before Congress that Hillary was careless and untruthful about her email server. James Comey told us all we need to know to make an accurate judgement about Hillary's use of her personal server. IMHO we don't need any foreign interference from Russian hackers and Assange to make an accurate evaluation regarding Hillary's honesty.

I don't think you have to be a partisan liberal or a Democrat to be concerned with that kind of attempted external influence and manipulation in an American election.

My .02

[abelcainsbrother]

Btw, here is the interview mentioned in your Democrats' NY Times article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34giUftE7BI. I'd encourage you to actually listen it and other interviews of Assange (if such interests you), to obtain your information first hand.

Will do... thanks

BTW... Just to clarify.
I am not a Democrat.
I do not support Hillary.

However, I am an American who is greatly concerned when foreign powers like Assange and the Russians make such a blatant move to interfere with an American Presidential election.

FBI director James Comey made it very clear in his testimony before Congress that Hillary was careless and untruthful about her email server. James Comey told us all we need to know to make an accurate judgement about Hillary's use of her personal server. IMHO we don't need any foreign interference from Russian hackers and Assange to make an accurate evaluation regarding Hillary's honesty.

I don't think you have to be a partisan liberal or a Democrat to be concerned with that kind of attempted external influence and manipulation in an American election.

My .02

I think what is in the leaks is more important than who leaked them. If they were leaked by Russia,which I'm not sure that has been proven despite what the media portrays. Even if you don't like Trump you should not forget how biased they are and they are trying to make it like Trump is somehow connected to Putin,when it is Hillary that has dealt with Russia. If it is Russia that leaked these? perhaps he knows he cannot Trust Hillary because he knows she is a liar and could not trust her so he wants to take her out. I also think it is better if America and Russia get along like Trump suggests,as we do not need a war like the Democrats seem to want.Neocons like to fight wars they never win.

[Kurieuo]

Foreign powers like Assange?? Again, I don't really think Russia and Wikileaks are interfering, BUT if lifting the veil on lies and deceit is interfering, then lets see more of it. Right?

Nonetheless, I have a feeling many people a thinking me alarmist in some of the things I've mentioned. So then, let me inject sources to some information I've been mentioning.

Going back to forum held in June 2016, Putin seemed resigned to the fact that war with the US was inevitable. He said Russia don't want it, but the US is militarizing with missile systems in Europe, so that means Russia has to militarize also to ensure adequate defenses to protect itself. The peace that has happened in the last few decades was due to agreements to disarm, and that is the preferred thing to do, but it's not something the US is doing any longer. That, was essentially his speech. Watch Alex Jones' take here.

Do you think I'm lying or exaggerating DB about China and Russia? China and Russia are starting their largest ever navel war games together, in the disputed China sea (China, Russia set up for naval war games in South China Sea). China has built islands on sea reefs with launching pads for aeroplanes, fighters and the like. They are no doubt set for a strong air campaign, these islands are crucial strategic points that need to be protected, and I'm sure they'll do anything to keep them.

In any case, what I'm saying is Russia don't really care, Putin already has the worst case scenario mapped out, and seems intent on going with it. If Clinton gets in again, well, back in June this year he seemed quite resigned to an inevitable war. Putin said to the Western/European media:

"Your people do not feel a sense of the impending danger. How can you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? That's the problem. Meanwhile, they pretend that nothing's going on... I don't know how to get through to you anymore. And they [the US] justify this as a "defense" system, not weaponry that is used for the purposes of an offense. Systems that "prevent aggression." This is absolutely not true. A missile defense system is one element of the whole system of offensive military potential."

Once the US develops the capabilities to send missiles 1000km, which he say they know the year the US is set to achieve such, and the US knows Russia knows. Russia isn't going to wait and let that happen, isn't going to stand by and let the US setup these "defense" systems that can be easily turned into offensive missile launchers with nukes and fired into the heart of Russia. They will lash out. Putin has been as clear as he possibly can be. We're not talking some media outlet, or commentator, but rather the leader of Russia saying we have no choice by war.

And the Democrats, with their stupid worldwide politics, and they want to continue villainizing Russia rather than be more diplomatic? You'd think Democrat leaders would be more diplomatic, but it seems here Trump is actually being far more diplomatic. Trump's idea to actually stand side-by-side with Russia and be friends seems a heck of a lot more better, if such is possible. It's just scoffed at by Western media, Obama, Clinton, etc. Seriously, I don't know what the US under Democrat administration is thinking here.

So then, Russia playing with US politics? No. Perhaps. Either way, Putin seems quite resigned that war is inevitable. And China, like a chihuahua puppy seems to be starting to draw lines, poking sticks at the US and its allies, making more war-like statements (Major Chinese state paper calls for a military strike on Australian ships that enter the South China Sea), it seems to be provoking like it wants a war. They'd only do that, if they knew they had another powerful nation on board, and that is clearly Russia.

So Russia doesn't care if Clinton or Trump, in his mind the direction is irreversible. Perhaps with Trump there might be a pleasant surprise. I've been follow these things closely of late, but Putin actually seems a bit more positive of Trump, given Trump's comments right? You read it in the media just how cozy they are to each other. Yet, Putin is still about Russia. If war can be avoided, and Russia's best interests still be served great, if not then war it is. He's been talking this for the past 10 years, and things are starting to reach that point of no return.

[B. W.]

Btw, here is the interview mentioned in your Democrats' NY Times article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34giUftE7BI. I'd encourage you to actually listen it and other interviews of Assange (if such interests you), to obtain your information first hand.

Will do... thanks

BTW... Just to clarify.
I am not a Democrat.
I do not support Hillary.

However, I am an American who is greatly concerned when foreign powers like Assange and the Russians make such a blatant move to interfere with an American Presidential election.

FBI director James Comey made it very clear in his testimony before Congress that Hillary was careless and untruthful about her email server. James Comey told us all we need to know to make an accurate judgement about Hillary's use of her personal server. IMHO we don't need any foreign interference from Russian hackers and Assange to make an accurate evaluation regarding Hillary's honesty.

I don't think you have to be a partisan liberal or a Democrat to be concerned with that kind of attempted external influence and manipulation in an American election.

My .02

On James Comey relations with the Clinton's...

[edwardmurphy]

Am I missing something, or does it seem like Trump is trying to lose?

[Kurieuo]

Trump's trying to lose, Hillary's trying to get behind bars.