No announcement yet.

The US Intelligence Community and Trump

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
    People vote in groups. Denser populated areas vote more similarly than dispersed areas. "Popular vote?" Ain't no such thing. In this case, more people in a tiny percentage of the nation as a whole voted for Clinton. But history shows that to allow a geographically small, but dense, region to be the sole determinant of political power over a much broader expanse leads to Balkanization and disunion. The reality is that Clinton simply did not appeal to a broader section of the country (regardless of the vote totals), and that is why she lost.
    The myth of the 'popular vote' is further debunked by the number of votes cast compared to the total number of eligible voters.

    If you look at that, the single largest vote was 'I don't care enough to bother'.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.


    • #32
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      and a post-Brexit UK certainly welcomes him as an alternative to the EU-loving Bobo.
      Evidence please.


      • #33
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        No it's not. The previous info stated that the RNC and GOP sources had not been hack. The new states that is not the case.
        No it didn't. The only thing that changed was the fake news.

        The previous "info" assumed that they both had been hacked.

        The current "info" assumes that the Russians were trying to help Trump win based on anonymous sources, supposedly in the CIA.
        Neither of which are information in the factual sense of the word.

        The facts are that the DNC's email server was hacked, the hackers used malware with "Russian" fingerprints, emails demonstrating that the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders were leaked by Wikileaks. The facts have not changed since the eve of the DNC convention.

        Fake News Detection 101
        Anonymous sourcing

        Donít let sources offer anonymous opinions of others. #
        Unidentified sources should rarely be heard at all and should never be heard attacking or praising others in our reports (with the possible rare exceptions of whistleblowers and individuals making allegations of sexual assault; see the longer discussion of anonymous sources in the section on transparency). While we recognize that some valuable information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a sourceís opinion on a subject of coverage when the sourceís identity and motives are shielded from scrutiny. And of course, we do not include anonymous attacks posted on the Web in our reports.

        Last edited by The Doctor; 12 Dec 16, 06:16.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.


        • #34
          Originally posted by Aber View Post
          Evidence please.
          This is an evidence-free thread... "The US Intelligence Community and Trump"...
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.


          Latest Topics