No it isn't. Even with perfect information and unlimited compute resources you cannot determine the outcome of a simple Bell Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
The same is not true for CM. QM absolutely allows for true randomness. This has been proven time and time again. I encourage you and the original author to read the above. Look at the Feynman lectures. There are no hidden local variables. This is true randomness.
Namely that when an observer observes a quantum mechanical system, you get a quantum mechanical system that can be described as a superposition of parallel observers who each think that they saw something different. Those parallel observers cannot meaningfully interact thanks to thermodynamic considerations.
Of course accepting this description involves believing in quantum mechanics a little more than most feel comfortable believing in it...
There is a wonderful lecture by Harvard Professor Sidney Coleman, called "Quantum Mechanics in Your Face"[1]. In it, he essentially leads into precisely this. It's what happens when you take quantum mechanics seriously.
My issue is that I can't take quantum mechanics seriously, or expect that it's interpretational issues can be sorted out within itself. The problem is that quantum mechanics is "merely" an extremely excellent approximation to quantum field theory. It can be thought of as an "effective theory" in a very similar way to QFTs as low-energy versions of other QFTs. Which means naturally that we should expect the framework of QFT to answer the interpretational issues, especially to provide guidance as to how the changes due to the approximations change the interpretation.
This is all a fine idea, but quantum field theories have even worse interpretational problems.
But there could be non-local ones. The Bohm theory, which is perfectly consistent with standard QM, is fully deterministic.
Important point. It is quite unfair to say "nya nya local hidden variable theories cannot replicate QM", when QM is itself radically non-local.
No. The standard formulation of QM posits a measurement using a pseudo-classical device which generates a probabilistic outcome. This is at the very core. Source: any text on QM.
The wave function evolution is deterministic but that is only a part of the theory.