How Exactly Did The Russians Influence The U.S. Elections?

[habiru]

Who is the "they"? Secondly, the election is over. Finally, who said that Hillary had "all the Mexican Americans support"?

The ones that are trying to figure out how to remove President Trump from office. Is it over? then why is there such a big hoopla about Russian hacking? Why doesn't everybody move on and let President Trump do his job? I see that no one has bother Obama when he has enter office. Not even the KKK.
But why they did not make a big hoopla about the KKK supporting Obama?


Ku Klux Klan Endorses Obama
KENTUCKY - USA - Imperial Wizard, Ronald Edwards has stated that, "anything is better than Hillary Clinton." http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-88116

 

[idav]

I see differences., which I've extensively detailed before the election.
The net result.....
He's dangerous.
She's more so.

Sure if you just ignore his posturing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure if you just ignore his posturing.

Don't ignore her record & threats.

Do you look only at Trump's posed danger,
& not compare it to Hillary's? I do.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Your post sound familiar.
So I googled it.
I found....
Enfant Provocateur

Those were funny, but you're only projecting here. However, I did find your character there...

Ferrous Cranus​

For those who care, here is my actual entry...

Eagle Scout​

 

[Revoltingest]

You get me so wrong.
I'm.....

Have I created a Frankenstein's......er, Revoltingest's Monster by introducing you to flamewarriorsguide.com?

 

[Underhill]

You see a connection here.
How does this rise to corruption?
Evidence?

That is the point. If the stuff Clinton did looked bad, this looks much worse. It certainly deserves scrutiny.

But you must have some theme of illegitimacy behind pointing out his losing the popular vote.
And the left has been trumpeting how he has no mandate in a stolen election.

Legitimacy isn't about the election so much as political clout. A president without a mandate should approach things differently than a president who won in a landslide. It probably won't mean much to Trump, but it will matter to congress as many of them face re-election in 2 years.

You're wrong there.
I've never before voted for a presidential candidate who won.
So I'm accustomed to losing....I expect it....I expected him to lose this election.
I don't react badly to losing.
But you may accuse me of being insufferable when winning.

Done.

Maybe I'll get used to winning now, eh?
We'll see if this changes my attitude in 4 years.

That belief is what blinds you to understanding the other side.
If instead, you saw the election as competing judgments & different
values, a different picture would emerge....neither right nor wrong.
I don't claim to be right....only to have reasons for my voting preference.

I do understand that when it comes to political views. This isn't that. This is a foreign power influencing elections.

Democrats remind me of the movie Jesus Camp, when Becky Fischer exclaims....
"...excuse me, but we have the truth!"

Take your pick.....
Hoping the recount would uncover pro-Trump corruption.
Blaming the Russians
Blaming "fake news"
Blaming the "Vast Right Wing conspiracy"
Blaming Wikileaks
Blaming the FBI

But to get the discussion back to Russian hacking....
Where's the evidence?

I doubt it matters. By the time the evidence comes out it will be so mired in partisan nonsense as to be useless. I doubt it will ever be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' anyway. It's the nature of this kind of attack.

We shall see. But just looking at what he is doing, there is obviously a relationship between Trump and Russia. His pick of SoS alone underlines that with an exclamation point.

 

[habiru]

They haven't claimed that. They have claimed that the Russians have interfered with the election. I doubt we'll ever know how much influence they actually had.

And so why are they trying to pick a fight with Russia and calling everyone that Trump picked for his cabinet, Russian's agents? You guys need to let President Trump do his job. The only thing that the Russians were doing, that were so much influencing to president Trump's election, is that they were cheering him on. And I believes that people has the right to cheer anyone on, like the way they cheer at the teams that are playing at the football games. But if that become unlawful to do, then we are under a dictatorship. and dictators are known for starting wars.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the point. If the stuff Clinton did looked bad, this looks much worse. It certainly deserves scrutiny.

I've no problem with watching it closely.
There is indeed potential for mischief.

Legitimacy isn't about the election so much as political clout. A president without a mandate should approach things differently than a president who won in a landslide. It probably won't mean much to Trump, but it will matter to congress as many of them face re-election in 2 years.

"Mandates" are illusory.
Trump will succeed when the many forces align.

Done.

Woo hoo!

I do understand that when it comes to political views. This isn't that. This is a foreign power influencing elections.

How often have Eurostanian nations weighed in to voice their preference for Hillary?
There is the question of extent, but I heard no Democratic objections to their helping her.

I doubt it matters. By the time the evidence comes out it will be so mired in partisan nonsense as to be useless. I doubt it will ever be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' anyway. It's the nature of this kind of attack.

We shall see. But just looking at what he is doing, there is obviously a relationship between Trump and Russia. His pick of SoS alone underlines that with an exclamation point.

Aye, we will see what happens.
I'm sure Wa Po & NYT will find fault, while Fox approves.

 

[habiru]

 

[metis]

Is it over? then why is there such a big hoopla about Russian hacking?

It's called "national security".

But why they did not make a big hoopla about the KKK supporting Obama?

Did you actually read the article because it ain't saying what you're implying? I think everyone here but you well knows that the right-wing hate groups largely went for Trump.

The only thing that the Russians were doing, that were so much influencing to president Trump's election, is that they were cheering him on.

This shows your bias as it is literally impossible for you to know that. And if the Russians haven't done anything wrong, then you have no reason to fear the results of any investigation.

And also let me remind you that many Republicans are now calling for this investigation as well because they know the dangers that could well be involved, regardless of whom they may have hacked into. Maybe you don't mind the Russians or some other country trying to illegally manipulate our electioneering process, but I do believe most Americans do.

And btw, I also am opposed to the U.S. doing much the same to other countries. If we can do it to others, then we better not whine if someone does it to us-- and we have, sometimes by force.

 

[Underhill]

I've no problem with watching it closely.
There is indeed potential for mischief.

"Mandates" are illusory.
Trump will succeed when the many forces align.

Woo hoo!

How often have Eurostanian nations weighed in to voice their preference for Hillary?
There is the question of extent, but I heard no Democratic objections to their helping her.

You are going to compare foreigners voicing opinions to the hacking of party computers? Really?

One is, you know, normal and acceptable. The other is criminal. Slight difference there. (*sarcasm)

Aye, we will see what happens.
I'm sure Wa Po & NYT will find fault, while Fox approves.

I'm reasonably sure where you will fall on that map...

 

[McBell]

 

[Underhill]

I love it. The ODNI admits that the Russians hacked both parties, but then says they can't prove motive.

So only releasing democratic emails to wikileaks isn't evidence?

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

 

[Revoltingest]

You are going to compare foreigners voicing opinions to the hacking of party computers? Really?

There's no reason not to look at a range of influences on our election.
But I notice that complaints about Russian hacking are because of the influence.
This raises the question....is influence itself always bad?
Or is it just the supposed Russian method?
What I see is that influence might be good or bad.
The various methods might be either good or bad.
Perhaps even "good" or "bad" are irrelevant concepts.

The hacks which released apparently accurate information strike me as good
because we voters acted upon something which wasn't misrepresentation.
Even our own media were more dishonest at times.
We might say that protecting information is good. Generally, it is.
But what of malefactors? It's good when they cannot protect their info.
Hillary & the DNC got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
This is more significant than who caught them & how.

One is, you know, normal and acceptable. The other is criminal. Slight difference there. (*sarcasm)

What's normal & acceptable to some, might not be to others.
It's normal & legal for Israel to openly lobby us to attack Iran.
But I find it heinous.
It's illegal for whistle blowers to release sensitive gov info.
But I say Snowden is heroic.

Your sarcasm just evaporated.

I'm reasonably sure where you will fall on that map...

Are you?
Take your best guess, & proclaim it, bub.

 

[Revoltingest]

I love it. The ODNI admits that the Russians hacked both parties, but then says they can't prove motive.

So only releasing democratic emails to wikileaks isn't evidence?

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Where does the link support your claim?

 

[Scuba Pete]

And so why are they trying to pick a fight with Russia and calling everyone that Trump picked for his cabinet, Russian's agents?

Where are you getting this crap? From the same people who gave you PizzaGate? Holy Schnieke.

 

[Underhill]

There's no reason not to look at a range of influences on our election.
But I notice that complaints about Russian hacking are because of the influence.
This raises the question....is influence itself always bad?
Or is it just the supposed Russian method?
What I see is that influence might be good or bad.
The various methods might be either good or bad.
Perhaps even "good" or "bad" are irrelevant concepts.

The hacks which released apparently accurate information strike me as good
because we voters acted upon something which wasn't misrepresentation.
Even our own media were more dishonest at times.
We might say that protecting information is good. Generally, it is.
But what of malefactors? It's good when they cannot protect their info.
Hillary & the DNC got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
This is more significant than who caught them & how.

What's normal & acceptable to some, might not be to others.
It's normal & legal for Israel to openly lobby us to attack Iran.
But I find it heinous.
It's illegal for whistle blowers to release sensitive gov info.
But I say Snowden is heroic.

Your sarcasm just evaporated.

Are you?
Take your best guess, & proclaim it, bub.

Screw it then. Let's just legalize all hacking. Get it all out there. Nothing is off limits. Let's turn it into a 24 hour reality show. We should know how many times a day each candidate takes a bowel movement and the consistency.

Hacking is illegal. Hacking to dig up dirt is no different than what Nixons night crews were caught doing. You want it legal, take it up with congress. But most of the sane world sees it as wrong.

At least what Israel is doing is out in the open. I agree it's disgusting. I find it disgusting that more people aren't disgusted by it. But this is not that. This is hacking. Theft. It doesn't matter if the hack helped you.

I suspect you would feel much different if you were on the receiving end.

 

[Underhill]

Where does the link support your claim?

When it says the ODNI admits the parties were hacked. What are you disagreeing with exactly?

 

[Revoltingest]

Screw it then. Let's just legalize all hacking. Get it all out there. Nothing is off limits. Let's turn it into a 24 hour reality show. We should know how many times a day each candidate takes a bowel movement and the consistency.

Take a deep breath.
There...
Let's consider hacking into someone else's system.
It should be illegal.
But I also see the possibility for good...catching the bad guys.
Sometimes what is moral is illegal.

Tell me....which concerns you more.
The corruption of Hillary & the DNC?
Or the method of its exposure?

At least what Israel is doing is out in the open. I agree it's disgusting. I find it disgusting that more people aren't disgusted by it. But this is not that. This is hacking. Theft. It doesn't matter if the hack helped you.

I make a distinction between doing something illegal to achieve something good,
& doing something legal to achieve something bad.
The latter is worse than the former.
But in this case, Hillarites need someone to hate, to blame, & to link to Trump.
So it's being blown out of proportion.

I suspect you would feel much different if you were on the receiving end.

If anyone hacked into my system, they'd die of boredom.

 

[Revoltingest]

When it says the ODNI admits the parties were hacked. What are you disagreeing with exactly?

The underlined claim doesn't match your claim in post #194,
which was "..... The ODNI admits that the Russians hacked both parties....."
Where is this latter claim?