EUSSR trying to meddle in UK elections - but silence from the Hillary fans

[The Iceberg]

Lol Not a word from Pelle, Brian or PWL about how the EUSSR is trying to interfere with the UK general election, even though it was a big headline from our PM Thersea May lol shows how unbiased they are lol.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 5.5.2017 10:32, The Iceberg wrote:
> Lol Not a word from Pelle,

Don't worry, I have posted.

As for the topic line, you're being a bit too clever, if I may say so.
The difference between November and now is that Russia never was an
issue in the elections other than the meddling.

The EUSSR, OTOH, is a part, just about the biggest, of your elections.
All the while the divorce proceedings are under way. It's fair game for
either party to make the most out of it.

To sum it up: "Buu huu huu".

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[The Iceberg]

That must be their tears as they desperately trying to cling to their big EUSSR gravy train!

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.com> Wrote in message:

> On 5.5.2017 10:32, The Iceberg wrote:
>> Lol Not a word from Pelle,
>
> Don't worry, I have posted.
>
> As for the topic line, you're being a bit too clever, if I may say so.
> The difference between November and now is that Russia never was an
> issue in the elections other than the meddling.
>
> The EUSSR, OTOH, is a part, just about the biggest, of your elections.
> All the while the divorce proceedings are under way. It's fair game for
> either party to make the most out of it.
>
> To sum it up: "Buu huu huu".

If you activate your brain you'll see that being threatened with a
gun actually concerns you far more than if you're divorcing
someone.

No?







--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[stephenJ]

On 5/5/2017 4:21 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 5.5.2017 10:32, The Iceberg wrote:
>> Lol Not a word from Pelle,
>
> Don't worry, I have posted.
>
> As for the topic line, you're being a bit too clever, if I may say so.
> The difference between November and now is that Russia never was an
> issue in the elections other than the meddling.

That's pretty silly. US relations with Russia are always important in
the US, and it was a pretty big foreign policy issue in the election.
There were significant tensions with Russia leading up to the vote,
especially once Russia began airstrikes in Syria in late September.

Bottom line is that Hillary supporters have been massively hypocrital
about "meddling". Nary a word of complaint about Obama's attempts to
influence the Brexit vote. Everyone with a stake in an election -
including foreign governments - try to influence them one way or another.

Crossing the line means actually tampering with the mechanisms of voting
- voting rollings, machines, etc. Everything else is just whining.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 5.5.2017 15:09, stephenJ wrote:
> On 5/5/2017 4:21 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 5.5.2017 10:32, The Iceberg wrote:
>>> Lol Not a word from Pelle,
>>
>> Don't worry, I have posted.
>>
>> As for the topic line, you're being a bit too clever, if I may say so.
>> The difference between November and now is that Russia never was an
>> issue in the elections other than the meddling.
>
> That's pretty silly. US relations with Russia are always important in
> the US, and it was a pretty big foreign policy issue in the election.
> There were significant tensions with Russia leading up to the vote,
> especially once Russia began airstrikes in Syria in late September.
>
> Bottom line is that Hillary supporters have been massively hypocrital
> about "meddling". Nary a word of complaint about Obama's attempts to
> influence the Brexit vote.

Why should there have been?

Voicing an opinion is not the "moral equivalent" of illegal breaking
into computers. It's ludicrous to expect a POTUS *not* to have/voice an
opinion on topics like Brexit.

Drawing a parallel between Obama's opinions an Russian tampering is
idiotic. You come up with these DF/court speed correlations a bit too
often for my tastes.

> Everyone with a stake in an election -
> including foreign governments - try to influence them one way or another.
>
> Crossing the line means actually tampering with the mechanisms of voting
> - voting rollings, machines, etc. Everything else is just whining.

What does your attempt at defining what constitutes what have to do with
the present, namely Brexit and the UK vote situation?

Please, keep your eye on the ball. If you don't know what the ball is,
find out.

[stephenJ]

On 5/5/2017 7:55 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 5.5.2017 15:09, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 5/5/2017 4:21 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>>> On 5.5.2017 10:32, The Iceberg wrote:
>>>> Lol Not a word from Pelle,
>>>
>>> Don't worry, I have posted.
>>>
>>> As for the topic line, you're being a bit too clever, if I may say so.
>>> The difference between November and now is that Russia never was an
>>> issue in the elections other than the meddling.
>>
>> That's pretty silly. US relations with Russia are always important in
>> the US, and it was a pretty big foreign policy issue in the election.
>> There were significant tensions with Russia leading up to the vote,
>> especially once Russia began airstrikes in Syria in late September.
>>
>> Bottom line is that Hillary supporters have been massively hypocrital
>> about "meddling". Nary a word of complaint about Obama's attempts to
>> influence the Brexit vote.
>
> Why should there have been?
>
> Voicing an opinion is not the "moral equivalent" of illegal breaking
> into computers. It's ludicrous to expect a POTUS *not* to have/voice an
> opinion on topics like Brexit.

Sad that you would have to invoke "illegality" of methods here, as that
is and was manifestly not what Hillary-loving complainers about Russian
meddling complained about. The issue here is a foreign entity's attempt
to impact another country's election, not the method used. Obama
attempted to sway the Brexit vote in a much more overt and public way
than the Russians did the US vote via hacking. Is public more effective
than covert email hacking? I don't know, but the attempted impact was
the same, and the moral equivalence is clear.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 5.5.2017 16:25, stephenJ wrote:
> On 5/5/2017 7:55 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 5.5.2017 15:09, stephenJ wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2017 4:21 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>>>> On 5.5.2017 10:32, The Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> Lol Not a word from Pelle,
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry, I have posted.
>>>>
>>>> As for the topic line, you're being a bit too clever, if I may say so.
>>>> The difference between November and now is that Russia never was an
>>>> issue in the elections other than the meddling.
>>>
>>> That's pretty silly. US relations with Russia are always important in
>>> the US, and it was a pretty big foreign policy issue in the election.
>>> There were significant tensions with Russia leading up to the vote,
>>> especially once Russia began airstrikes in Syria in late September.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is that Hillary supporters have been massively hypocrital
>>> about "meddling". Nary a word of complaint about Obama's attempts to
>>> influence the Brexit vote.
>>
>> Why should there have been?
>>
>> Voicing an opinion is not the "moral equivalent" of illegal breaking
>> into computers. It's ludicrous to expect a POTUS *not* to have/voice an
>> opinion on topics like Brexit.
>
> Sad that you would have to invoke "illegality" of methods here, as that
> is and was manifestly not what Hillary-loving complainers about Russian
> meddling complained about.

I can't be answering what "Hillary-loving complainers" are supposedly
doing. But it's clear as a whistle that the end does not justify means.

There's also the possibility that Obama was simply voicing the truth
about who is in what place in the trade queue. Initially, Trump-o was
eager to reverse what Obama said but has now come to the Obama stance.
Maybe after somebody told him the EU is 300 and the UK 60 M.

If you see saying the truth as manipulating, so be it. But this line of
discussion is completely irrelevant to the UK vote and EU's place in
that. You'll be discussing it alone.

The EU OTOH is a reluctant but a Cameroon invited guest in the UK
election. None of us would care a hoot unless ...

[stephenJ]

If you want to prosecute the Russian hacker for "unauthorized access of
a computer", a misdemeanor in most states, or even sentence him/her to a
year in prison like Sarah Palin's email hacker got a few years back
(most libs thought that punishment was WAY too harsh and motivated by
political vindictive, btw), sure, I'm on board with that. But is it a
good use of tax dollars to spend millions of dollars investigating it?

>
> There's also the possibility that Obama was simply voicing the truth
> about who is in what place in the trade queue.

So far, there's no evidence that the Russian hackers fabricated any
emails, as far as we know, they just revealed their truthful contents.

[The Iceberg]

You are a Hillary lover so you should know, also Obama was lying about us being last in the queue too, as anybody with sense knows that is being the 5th biggest economy in the world wouldn't be last in the queue, truth telling Trump said the polar opposite.