???
I really hope you don't think this was the decisive issue in the election. It was old news months before the election, and during this comment Hillary polled higher than ever. It was only a few days before the election, when the exit polls finished, that Trump's numbers started spiking up - after James Comey re-opened the FBI investigation (publicly) on an issue that did not exis
Feel free to correct me. As far as I can tell, oil prices have been pretty closely linked with the value of the Ruble - as oil dropped in value, so did the Ruble. This is because a huge portion of Russian federal income is tied to these volatile resources.
From the article:
>"Where is the bulk of money made? In oil, gas, metals, other commodities," Putin said in his address
I fuggin hate uplay but the games are pretty good:
Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon
Assassin's Creed III
Beyond Good and Evil
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Rayman Origins
The Crew
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell
No download required (though you need the uplay client if you want to play them).
PC only.
While China isn't Hillary's biggest fan, there's widespread disdain for Trump over there (actually, a widespread disdain for Trump everywhere outside of Russia and half the USA).
Also, Trump's openly campaigned on platforms of threatening Chinese interests, more specifically punishing China for its historic currency manipulation (that it recently scaled down already) and th
Trump calls a Republican reporter a bimbo - a sexist gendered insult. He calls Rosie O'Donnell a "fat loser". He talks about walling off Mexicans, because they're responsible for all the problems in the US. And then the ENTIRE right takes issue at Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment? Hahahaha.
It's kind of telling that the worst actual insult the
Its one thing to interfere, its another thing to be *caught* interfering.
Furthermore, this interference was really blatant and on a scale previously unheard of. Putin wasn't just donating money and material to people he liked (this is legal), he was actively and illegally harming people he didn't like. This is old news to Russians, as Putin's well known for making political riv
You really think the well-connected billionaire wall-street insider who is going to be our next president lacks the "connections" and the "pull" to see justice done? He buy out a hundred Clintons and never feel the pinch. Trump total assets: over 4 billion. Clinton total combined assets: 35 million.
He's not going to bring it to court because the fight would be public,
Nobody went to jail, Hillary had dozens of congressional hearings and multiple FBI investigations and walked out clean as a whistle. Even Trump dropped charges against her after he won the election - at this point, even *he* doesn't buy into the bullshit that Hillary is guilty of anything. It was nothing but a giant circus, with nothing of substance.
China's only beaten in trade volume by the entire EU combined and Canada. Honestly, I doubt Trump will fuck with China too much, he's got too many businesses with close ties to Asia that stand to lose money if he messes with the trade deals. China also has a lot of power over the US economy, it owns nearly 10% of all US debt and could single handedly crash the value of the dollar if
Department of homeland security, department of national intelligence, plus prominent cybersecurity firms like ThreatConnect and CrowdStrike all pointed to APT28 doing the hacks, a group which is well known to be on Russian payroll. Sounds to me like you're not in the loop anymore.
and in order to justify voting for him and investing so much time and energy making him president, you have to make Hillary and the DNC look and sound worse than him and his sexist, racist, white supremacist buddies that he's putting in the cabinet.
Fact of the matter is, although the majority of this message board seems to think the CIA is making shit up and there's no evidence of R
This what you're doing: I think X works like this, I provide Y evidence. You think Y evidence is wrong.
BUT YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN ANYTHING TO ANYONE'S SATISFACTION, YOU'VE JUST DEMANDED MORE DATA.
This is how science operates: I think X theory is wrong, and I have Y and Z to prove it.
This is NOT how science operates: I think X is wrong, because I say so, and now you have t
Its fine to doubt a media narrative if you have another source, just as legitimate, which says differently. This is how science works.
Sad thing is, I've yet to see one in this thread. Skepticism for its own sake is just nothing but masturbation. If I tell you all the media agrees that 1+1=2, are you gonna tell me its just liberal propaganda and 1+1=3? Please.
If you wanna cast doubt o
The only person in this entire thread chiming in with an opinion, who even TRIED to back up that opinion with a legit source, is Paul Ott.
The rest have been engaged in some pseudoscientific bullshit where they pretend all my sources are illegitimate while offering none of their own, which is pretty typical of the Republican party today.
The hilarious thing is, CNN is 100% more legitimate than random faggots on qhcf like you. BUT SINCE YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT...
The same information from other sources - Mitch McConnell believes Russia interfered with the election and wants a congressional investigation:
New York Times:
FOX:
The Guardian:
Washington Post:
CBS:
TIME:
Huffington Post:
USA Today:
Hell, even most of the Republican Party, including senate leader Mitch McConnell think the Russians were manipulating the election: Source:
I mean, I guess if that's not enough for you, and you'd rather believe Kstadita and other random internet anons who have no background and no personal knowledge, I won't stop you. Alternately, if you want to play semantic games and say that
not only do you refuse to offer refutations, but you claim that because my sources are from reputable media organizations, they're suspect, while offering NO sources of your own.
Its so sad how inadequate education has become, nowadays. This has become such a common attack - "I claim your sources are suspect without offering any proof of my own, so my complete lack of any research, d
>You're hilarious as ever. Check out 1996 Presidential elections in Russia for example. Or, like... 2011 Parliament elections in Russia :)
By the CIA? Uhhh... you'll have to try REALLY hard to convince me of this one. I don't think it really had either the budget nor the interest to fuck with Russian politics after the Soviet Union dissolved, since back then the Russian elec
>Psst...if you want to really get your mind blown...*the CIA does the same fucking thing for other country's elections*.
I mean, I know this, but I find it kind of hilarious that a large group of Americans are so vulnerable to such blatant and open manipulation.
They have access to tools, history, and knowledge that most third-world laborers in South America who can barely read and