By the Democrats:
1. dredge up all the dirt you can from the past on the Republican candidate (even make stuff if you like);
2. target it all at a particular section of society, e.g. women, who make up approx 50% of the voters);
3. claim to be the candidate of that target, e.g. women.
By the Republicans:
1. employ the Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone, who is experienced at rigging U S Presidential elections having rigged the 1980 and 2000 elections in favour of the Republicans;
2. the Republican candidate then encourages Russia to hack particular websites and email systems;
3. the dirty trickster then indicates that in the pipeline is some information from Wikileaks;
4. Wikileaks then releases that information which appears to have been hacked by 'someone'.
Who has been more criminal in this scenario?
The Democrats could have made some stuff up.
But if Russia has indeed hacked into particular websites and email systems and passed that on as a Wikileak?
No comments:
Post a Comment