Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am fine with it as the Obama administration has refused to take cyber security seriously even though the White House and all our national security, our utility companies and Intel agencies have been hacked during his presidency. The Dems were warned repeatedly about this.
This is hopefully a wake up call to Dems --- WE NEED SERIOUS CYBER SECURITY IN THIS COUNTRY!
BTW - the RNC was also hacked, but their security was much better than the Dems, so they didn't get any damaging info......
Too bad the hack job appeared to target only the DNC and Podesta.
Would have loved to have seen the RNC emails during the Primary as well as those from inside the Trump campaign.
They did try to hack RNC, but failed. The republicans take cyber security more seriously. WSJ: Russians tried hacking the RNC — but failed « Hot Air
You seriously don't think there were thousands of liberal hackers that weren't trying to get dirt on the republicans???!
I am fine with it as the Obama administration has refused to take cyber security seriously even though the White House and all our national security, our utility companies and Intel agencies have been hacked during his presidency. The Dems were warned repeatedly about this.
This is hopefully a wake up call to Dems --- WE NEED SERIOUS CYBER SECURITY IN THIS COUNTRY!
BTW - the RNC was also hacked, but their security was much better than the Dems, so they didn't get any damaging info......
The POTUS does not control the budget. The congress, after all the Benghazi hearings and deaths, just last week changed the law. Security contracts no longer have to go to the lowest bidder.
Too bad the hack job appeared to target only the DNC and Podesta.
Would have loved to have seen the RNC emails during the Primary as well as those from inside the Trump campaign.
To clear something up here, Podesta's email was not hacked, it was phished. It was a very simple phish emails that says [your email has been compromised, click 'here' to change your password] that everybody knows to just delete. Podesta forwarded it to the Clinton tech expert, Charles Delavan, who responded to an aide of Podesta “This is a legitimate email, John needs to change his password immediately.” Then, Podesta clicked the phish bait. Whoever sent the email to Podesta suddenly had 60,000 emails.
Delavan claimed it was a one character typo, he meant to put an 'i' in front of legitimate . Someone pointed out that illegitimate also has an additional 'l' and the preceding article would have been 'an'. Undeterred, Delavan now says it was a three character typo. After all, he has learned how to lie from the master.
The correct response when receiving this kind of phish email is not to change your email password anyway, it is to just delete the phish email. If his password had already been compromised, they wouldn't be phishing. Delavan is a liar. But I do think his ineptness caused Hillary and Podesta quite a bit of embarrassment.
Are there really some folks out there who believe that what was revealed through Wikileaks is okay? Specifically this particular chain of events:
1) DNC colluding to push Hillary over Bernie - DWS fired for her corruption.
2) Hillary hiring DWS after she was fired for her corruption.
3) Brazille giving questions to Hillary before the debate.
4) The DNC coincidentally hiring Brazille to replace DWS.
Who here is okay with all of this, and will openly admit it?
Anyone?
Are you asking whether people think its ok for Hillary to lie about the emails or are you asking whether its ok for wikileaks to expose Hillary lying. If its the former then no but if its the latter then yes.
Are there really some folks out there who believe that what was revealed through Wikileaks is okay? Specifically this particular chain of events:
1) DNC colluding to push Hillary over Bernie - DWS fired for her corruption.
2) Hillary hiring DWS after she was fired for her corruption.
3) Brazille giving questions to Hillary before the debate.
4) The DNC coincidentally hiring Brazille to replace DWS.
Who here is okay with all of this, and will openly admit it?
Anyone?
the truth will always come out in one form or another. in this case the DNC servers were hacked, and the contents released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg
What makes you think the RNC wasn't colluding against Trump?
the difference though is that the RNC was openly colluding against trump, where as the DNC was doing their deeds behind the scenes.
Are there really some folks out there who believe that what was revealed through Wikileaks is okay? Specifically this particular chain of events:
1) DNC colluding to push Hillary over Bernie - DWS fired for her corruption.
2) Hillary hiring DWS after she was fired for her corruption.
3) Brazille giving questions to Hillary before the debate.
4) The DNC coincidentally hiring Brazille to replace DWS.
Who here is okay with all of this, and will openly admit it?
Anyone?
The only thing that it isn't OK to reveal is information that jeopardizes our safety and security. None of your 4 points have a single thing to do with safety other than the simple fact that we are much safer with Trump than we would ever be with Hillary.
Got to love Republicans with their gerrymandering, voter suppression, FBI and Russian entanglements... talking about fair and square.
That's rich.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.