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

[Underhill]

This is one of the few times where a question like that is accurate instead of offensive.
Yes....I am entirely missing something here.
Your answer was long, & required much checking, so I skipped that.
I re-did my question to be more effective.

I'm familiar with gerrymandering on the local level.
I just don't see how it can be done in a presidential election.

It isn't a direct correlation. But gerrymandering is why a lot of states are a lot more red than they should be. This allows them to pass voter ID laws, move voting spots to nonsensical locations and other such tomfoolery to benefit the party in both state and national elections.

If you don't think they are capable of that all you need do is look at what is going on in South Carolina right now. It's pathetic.

 

[Revoltingest]

It isn't a direct correlation. But gerrymandering is why a lot of states are a lot more red than they should be. This allows them to pass voter ID laws, move voting spots to nonsensical locations and other such tomfoolery to benefit the party in both state and national elections.

If you don't think they are capable of that all you need do is look at what is going on in South Carolina right now. It's pathetic.

Oh, I agree that gerrymandering is a problem on the local level.
(Just not for presidential elections.)

Related.....
I just heard on the news here that Eastpointe (a burg near Detroit) is being accused of racism
precisely because they don't have any gerrymandering. They use the "at large" type of election,
which allows 3rd parties to participate. But the black folk there want district based voting so that
they'd have more power based upon race.
Odd, ain't it? To oppose raced based gerrymandering is "racist". I can understand their desire.
But I prefer that we be grouped (apportioning power) by ideas rather than skin color.

 

[Underhill]

Oh, I agree that gerrymandering is a problem on the local level.
(Just not for presidential elections.)

Related.....
I just heard on the news here that Eastpointe (a burg near Detroit) is being accused of racism
precisely because they don't have any gerrymandering. They use the "at large" type of election,
which allows 3rd parties to participate. But the black folk there want district based voting so that
they'd have more power based upon race.
Odd, ain't it? To oppose raced based gerrymandering is "racist". I can understand their desire.
But I prefer that we be grouped (apportioning power) by ideas rather than skin color.

I prefer that we not be grouped at all. But if we are it should be proportional to party designation. The notion that a party can get marginal control of a state legislature and then shift the borders to maintain that control almost indefinitely... it flies in the face of everything decent about democratic elections.

 

[Revoltingest]

I prefer that we not be grouped at all. But if we are it should be proportional to party designation. The notion that a party can get marginal control of a state legislature and then shift the borders to maintain that control almost indefinitely... it flies in the face of everything decent about democratic elections.

If there are enuf multiple representatives elected by a population, then it would be pretty proportional.

 

[Revoltingest]

US intervention in other countries' elections is in the news.....
The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails. But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

 

[Underhill]

US intervention in other countries' elections is in the news.....
The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

Yes, but we are the good guys!

 

[YmirGF]

US intervention in other countries' elections is in the news.....
The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

So, if I get the Democrats hysteria about Russia right, it's okie dokie for America to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations but not okie dokie for any other nation to even be seen to trying to shape American opinion. Got it. Frankly, it's the most laughable "outrage" I think I've ever heard.

 

[esmith]

I would still like to see proof that any of the excuses being put forward really did affect the election.
I look at it this way....
Just for you doubters I'm using the Huffington Post Source
In:
Jan of 2009 her ratings were unfavorable 34.2% favorable 56.6%
Jan of 2012 her ratings were unfavorable 32.4% favorable 58.5%012
Jan of 2016 her ratings were unfavorable 52.8% favorable 42.0%.
Jun 27 of 2016 her ratings were unfavorable 55.4% favorable 40.6%
Oct 31 of 2016 her ratings were unfavorable 54.8% favorable 42.0%

Now wikileaks did not post any hacked emails until Jul of 2016. Do you see any major change in her ratings after the DNC emails were released. No as a matter of fact they improved. So how can you say the hacked emails cost her the election. Seems to me Hillary herself lost the election.

 

[metis]

So, if I get the Democrats hysteria about Russia right, it's okie dokie for America to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations but not okie dokie for any other nation to even be seen to trying to shape American opinion. Got it. Frankly, it's the most laughable "outrage" I think I've ever heard.

Well, what I have a hard time figuring out is why you think it's "laughable" for a foreign country to illegally, by international law, hack into private computers in order to slant an election? I think it's pathetic that any country would do this, including the many times the U.S. has indeed interfered with the electioneering process in other countries.

So, if this is all so "laughable" to you, what if the next election doesn't go your way, and will it still be so "laughable" to you then? For myself, I don't consider either to be "laughable", regardless as to whether the candidates I voted for win or lose.

The election is over, so people should get over it and just move on.

 

[esmith]

Well, what I have a hard time figuring out is why you think it's "laughable" for a foreign country to illegally, by international law, hack into private computers in order to slant an election? I think it's pathetic that any country would do this, including the many times the U.S. has indeed interfered with the electioneering process in other countries.

So, if this is all so "laughable" to you, what if the next election doesn't go your way, and will it still be so "laughable" to you then? For myself, I don't consider either to be "laughable", regardless as to whether the candidates I voted for win or lose.

The election is over, so people should get over it and just move on.

Do you see any indication (see my post #329) that the hacked emails made any difference in Hillary's favorability ratings? I don't

 

[fantome profane]

So, if I get the Democrats hysteria about Russia right, it's okie dokie for America to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations but not okie dokie for any other nation to even be seen to trying to shape American opinion. Got it. Frankly, it's the most laughable "outrage" I think I've ever heard.

I was just thinking how strange the republican position is to accept a Russian attack on the U.S. just because the U.S. has also been involved in hacking. It would have been strange if people in the U.S. during WWII said it was a good thing for Germany to bomb Washington D.C. because the U.S. bombed Berlin.

 

[YmirGF]

I was just thinking how strange the republican position is to accept a Russian attack on the U.S. just because the U.S. has also been involved in hacking. It would have been strange if people in the U.S. during WWII said it was a good thing for Germany to bomb Washington D.C. because the U.S. bombed Berlin.

A nice try, but a not a particularly realistic comparison.

 

[fantome profane]

A nice try, but a not a particularly realistic comparison.

It still is very strange that some Americans don't care about a Russian attack on America.

 

[YmirGF]

It still is very strange that some Americans don't care about a Russian attack on America.

You know, that is the second time, in two days, I've heard this called an attack. Hehe. Too funny.

 

[fantome profane]

You know, that is the second time, in two days, I've heard this called an attack. Hehe. Too funny.

Because it was an attack. I suppose you would call it a "visit"?

 

[habiru]

Well, what I have a hard time figuring out is why you think it's "laughable" for a foreign country to illegally, by international law, hack into private computers in order to slant an election? I think it's pathetic that any country would do this, including the many times the U.S. has indeed interfered with the electioneering process in other countries.

So, if this is all so "laughable" to you, what if the next election doesn't go your way, and will it still be so "laughable" to you then? For myself, I don't consider either to be "laughable", regardless as to whether the candidates I voted for win or lose.

The election is over, so people should get over it and just move on.

Most likely President Trump will be a full two term President. That is why the Democrats has not moved on. They are really preparing the people minds for the next election year. They going to see that President Trump will not succeed, To correct the things that the Democrats has destroyed. Right now they are playing reverse psychology games on the public. Whatever they has been doing, that they accuses President Trump of doing these wrong doings. And so once the Trump's administration has uncovered them, then they will say that the Republicans are lying, that they are the ones that are playing reverse psychology. And so they are reversing what they has reversed.
But I do not understand, if certain media has destroyed Hellary Clinton reputation that has caused her to loses this election. Then why she doesn't sues them for defaming her name with lies that had led her to losing this election? It is because she knows that there weren't any lies at all and the people has the right to report the truth. President Trump was going to sued those that had created stories about him, until the DNC has thrown out into the public that that will be unethical for him to do that if he is the President. But he cannot sued now, because he has to have cause like what they has done, that it had prevented him from winning. But Hillary did not win and which she has a good cause to sued them. And now she has to prove that they has put out lies about her. And Obama can sued the Sheriff that had publicly announced that his birth certificate is a fraud, and which that can cause Obama to lose a lot of book deals and the recent one that is out, that people will stop buying it. And so why he doesn't sued them to restore his reputation, as the way Jesse Ventura had sued those that has made false claims about him in a book.

 

[esmith]

I was just thinking how strange the republican position is to accept a Russian attack on the U.S. just because the U.S. has also been involved in hacking. It would have been strange if people in the U.S. during WWII said it was a good thing for Germany to bomb Washington D.C. because the U.S. bombed Berlin.

No I and others also see hacking, whether it is by a nation states or individuals, as an indication that the cyber security of the U.S. sucks and needs to be addressed. What we don't see and have shown is that this hacking you are all blaming on the reason Hillary lost the election is a false premise. Until the facts can be shown that the hacked emails had any affect on the election your continued blaming everything else but the truth is not going to be taken seriously. How about looking inward vice making up false accusations.

 

[tytlyf]

No I and others also see hacking, whether it is by a nation states or individuals, as an indication that the cyber security of the U.S. sucks and needs to be addressed. What we don't see and have shown is that this hacking you are all blaming on the reason Hillary lost the election is a false premise. Until the facts can be shown that the hacked emails had any affect on the election your continued blaming everything else but the truth is not going to be taken seriously. How about looking inward vice making up false accusations.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the russian hacks were used by RW media to further propagandize the election. People vote based on fear, that's all the proof you need. Find one person who thinks the Clinton Foundation is a criminal crime ring........there's your proof.

 

[metis]

Most likely President Trump will be a full two term President. That is why the Democrats has not moved on. They are really preparing the people minds for the next election year. They going to see that President Trump will not succeed, To correct the things that the Democrats has destroyed. Right now they are playing reverse psychology games on the public. Whatever they has been doing, that they accuses President Trump of doing these wrong doings. And so once the Trump's administration has uncovered them, then they will say that the Republicans are lying, that they are the ones that are playing reverse psychology. And so they are reversing what they has reversed.
But I do not understand, if certain media has destroyed Hellary Clinton reputation that has caused her to loses this election. Then why she doesn't sues them for defaming her name with lies that had led her to losing this election? It is because she knows that there weren't any lies at all and the people has the right to report the truth. President Trump was going to sued those that had created stories about him, until the DNC has thrown out into the public that that will be unethical for him to do that if he is the President. But he cannot sued now, because he has to have cause like what they has done, that it had prevented him from winning. But Hillary did not win and which she has a good cause to sued them. And now she has to prove that they has put out lies about her. And Obama can sued the Sheriff that had publicly announced that his birth certificate is a fraud, and which that can cause Obama to lose a lot of book deals and the recent one that is out, that people will stop buying it. And so why he doesn't sued them to restore his reputation, as the way Jesse Ventura had sued those that has made false claims about him in a book.

Let me just say that it is almost impossible to sue a politician for what (s)he says during a campaign because we want the freedom for them and others commenting on them to not have undo restrictions that could stifle free exchanges.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know, that is the second time, in two days, I've heard this called an attack. Hehe. Too funny.

It is an attack.
Think about it....
Someone (Evil Ivan, they say) gets real information (by hacking,
they say) on Democratic corruption, & makes it public.
It's clearly an attack on the country, just like....
- Deep Throat revealing the Watergate conspiracy
- Matt Drudge exposing Monicagate

Our country shouldn't have to endure exposure of corruption.
It runs so much more smoothly when not exposed to the light of day.
So whether it was Putin's hack or a disgruntled Democrat's leak,
I say thank you for attacking us with information.