@JeffLambert Here Maria Zaharova discloses some facts. She says that US grounds its anti-russia cyber-attack statements with nothing whereas Russia has an agreement with US prescribing them to investigate cyber-attacks together whenever such accusations appear.

US Homeland security not only did not provided any proof of their accusation but says outright that they are not going to provide any evidence!

You say that it is fine to start 3 WW nuclear war after we accuse Russia recklessly. It is "a sane position". I see what kind of "sanity" Clinton supporters bear in mind. God bless Trump.

@LittleAlien What in the world are you talking about? Who are you to speak to me as "we" if you are from Estonia? And I hope someone blesses Trump because he sure does need it.

And you are to say to me here that there aren't Russians who are threatening us with nuclear war if we don't vote for Trump, and deny that they aren't trying to meddle in our election? reuters.com/article/…

Whether there's evidence of a Russian hack or not is absolutely immaterial. There will always be those who won't believe it and who will believe the charge even without it. The issue is the amount of distrust between both sides which you cannot deny Putin is fomenting with just as much reckless abandon. While the US may not be the moral saviors of the world some here try to paint us as, I will not accept any argument that tries to put Putin on any sort of moral high ground.

And Trump. I'm glad you found someone that you can share some viewpoints with, but don't paint me as 'insane' just because I happen to disagree with a "stranger on the internet" about the politics that are happening in my country.

@JeffLambert Who is am I to analyze the US politicum and highlight the mindset/logic of a group of supporters. Those vassal citizen certainly have no privilege for that.

deny that they aren't trying to meddle in our election?

They have no right to deny antying. The imperialists like you just dictate what they can deny and what they should not.

And you are to say to me here that there aren't Russians who are threatening us with nuclear war if we don't vote for Trump

You just missed something. I told you the same. Why post Zhirinovsky if you just can refer to my own evidence?

Whether there's evidence of a Russian hack or not is absolutely immaterial. There will always be those who won't believe it and who will believe the charge even without it.

As I told, you americans always know better, without any evidence. Just tell outright: we will start the war without any reason. That is a good goal to vote for Clinton. Refusal to explain anything certainly builds the good relationship.

I mean, accusations, when I draw sb a deamon without any explanation or evidence, is a great moral quality.

I will not accept any argument that tries to put Putin on any sort of moral high ground

Basically, I declared my target a deamon and refuse to revise my decision because I think about im as deamon. The blind arrogance supports the american implerialism very well.

And Trump. I'm glad you found someone that you can share some viewpoints with, but don't paint me as 'insane' just because I happen to disagree with a "stranger on the internet" about the politics that are happening in my country.

Yes, who are we to qualify you and your choices. The world, our lives depend on your choices, which means that must keep silent as usual slaves.

We do not trust each other anyway

You do not need to provide any proof when badmouth somebody, especially when you want to attack somebody, like you did with Saddam. You gave 100 reasons to attack Saddam and all were a fraud and make up.

@JeffLambert But, that is fine, because you did not trust him, right?

This reveals how highly sane and moral the Nuke (imperialist) supporters are.

We, out outlandish people, think that even labeling somebody needs extreemly strong evidence. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of not proponent but on the proponent of obviously harm thing. It is obviously harmful to label somebody with dark color. It is obviously dangerous to start a war. You need to be 99% sure, not 100% as you were with all cases blamed to Saddam.

@JeffLambert Our outlandish moral tells us that you need provide evidence always. Just relying on your word is not enough, even if you are 100% truth teller because you do it not for the enemy (the one you desire to destory) but for others, for the history. That is why you have a special process with advocates in the court. You need open evidence to be sure that you do not do dirty things and do not harm the world without the reason.

You say that you are going to inflict ultimate harm without providing any evidence because you are a grown up. Our ethics says that Clinton supporters hold Satan morality.