If you want to play that game, I’m not pointing out the irony in your statement.

pay $5 to unlock this message

You americans better protect my nut neutrality

To many sjw liberals in this thread for me bye hope you all lose your internet or not idc what happens as long as we dont turn into NK

Well hes not wrong. Its a half truth, there are a lot of big tech companies (google, facebook, amazon etc)that are runned by democrats and a lot are also runned by republicans.

Lmao if Mike Pence is president he's going to drop an elctroshock bomb on your country cause y'all legalised gay marriage.

Lmao this thread is lacking some chromosomes

They do, and with good reason.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This is a direct government source. A paraphrase of it would largely state “The United States Intelligence Community concluded, with high confidence, that the Russian government engaged in electoral interference during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” This is not fake news. I’m not sure what told you that the story is fake news, but I would be interested to know because the only person calling it fake is our president or his associates, and they shouldn’t be trusted in this case because their conflict of interests is incredibly obvious.

good

It is not a Democratic Party website. It is a government domain, and it is the director of national intelligence. Please don’t say it could be a democratic website when it takes just a second to find that is not true. I’ve said nothing about “giving him a chance” or not to. I’m merely saying the story has merit and should not be ignored, and if it turns out (IF) he did collude he should be impeached immediately.

Besides that, i don’t have to give him a chance for him to do his job. This isn’t a real democracy, it’s a representative one. Now that he is in I have little physical control over what goes on. It isn’t like I personally can call for votes on legislation he passes. So no one should feel obligated to give him a chance.

AKA not a thread to read through if you are seeking entertainment and not something that will make you bored out of your mind. It's also not a thread to read if you don't want to see people argue.

Wait until GIT really gets triggered. Popcorn time

already got the butter.

buddy you need to actually read the entire thing. This is a document with accusations not definite proof. When you hear things like We assess with high confidence means we strongly believe, therefore an accusation and not proof. Also in the document they do not talk about how it is done other than the words "hacking" and "cyber tools" and do not go into details. They just give some blanket statement and do not go into details. Then say classified because they know its nothing.
Also another dead giveaway is "Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election" She never had a clear win. All the people who said MUH HILLARY LANDSLIDE clearly never went outside of cities or blue suburbs and went out and traveled and talked to people in the USA enough.
This is worded like a prosecution in a court case, not a report on evidence found. If you want what a conclusion of collective evidence sounds like, listen to James Comey's verdict on the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

>A representative democracy is not a real democracy
That's almost as good as the statement of "Socialism works"

I didn’t say it was proof of collusion... I’m merely saying the story of Russian interference is not fake news. I’m not arguing about what it means, I’m saying that it happened. Just because they did not go into detail does not mean those details do not exist. I’m also not concerned about whether Hillary would’ve won or not; I’m worried about how our elections results were interfered with, regardless of who won. This is about election integrity.

Also, the intelligence committee uses the phrase “high confidence” as in analytic confidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence
“High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and still carries a risk of being wrong” so I trust the judgement and what is implied.

I’m not arguing about Hillary Clinton. I believe that her crimes and feelings of being “above the law” stand in plain sight, and we don’t need to bring them up in this conversation. Besides this, there is evidence of Russian troll accounts on Facebook posting political messages... that is clearly another country attempting to interfere with an election.
I’ll leave this obvious bait statement alone, it has no real connection to what was being said. However, I will add one more statement to my previous one; when national estimates say that 75~ percent of individuals are in favor of Net Neutrality and we are still pushing toward a repeal I think that speaks for itself about how much we are represented.