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

[YmirGF]

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.

Very astute, RevoltingOne. Hey, did you notice how fast they dropped the narrative of the emails being altered before they dropped the narrative altogether? It really is a full court press by the Dems to try and save face.

 

[Revoltingest]

Very astute, RevoltingOne. Hey, did you notice how fast they dropped the narrative of the emails being altered before they dropped the narrative altogether? It really is a full court press by the Dems to try and save face.

A lot of claims are being dropped.
I'm particularly fond of all these accusations of pro-Trump vandalism & abuse turning out to be bogus. But they weren't debunked until after the election, so Hillary reaped the advantage when it counted. I wonder how many voted for her because of emotionally charged 'evidence' that Trump & supporters were all racists?

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I apologise. I should have said some republicans.

And for record, I personally have never said that the hacking was the reason for Clinton losing the election. I don't think there is any way we can ever know that.

 

[YmirGF]

I apologise. I should have said some republicans.

And for record, I personally have never said that the hacking was the reason for Clinton losing the election. I don't think there is any way we can ever know that.

*shrilly screams*
All the more reason for a 9/11 style inquiry to investigate every angle.

 

[esmith]

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.

Then why did the Hillary win the popular vote if the emails were such a devastating blow to the Hillary?
Why have the Democrats lost more Governors, representation in State Government, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representative since the Obama took office.
In 2016 the Democrats went into the election controlling the governorship, the Senate and House in just seven states -- that was their lowest number since the Civil War, when there were 15 fewer states. Now, they control just five states. Ask yourself why? Was it because of the Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta that caused this? I think not.
If the released emails such a devastating blow to the Hillary why did her popularity numbers remain the same before the release, and actually increased.
When you can answer these questions sensibly, without your normal tirade against your personal boogeyman or in your case boogeymedia then I might just consider an intelligent debate with you. Until then all I hear is rounder-bugs.

 

[Underhill]

Then why did the Hillary win the popular vote if the emails were such a devastating blow to the Hillary?

So because she only lost the electoral college it wasn't devastating? Does that make any sense to anyone else?

It doesn't matter if it cost her a quarter of one percent of the vote in key states, it could have been enough to cost her the election.

Why have the Democrats lost more Governors, representation in State Government, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representative since the Obama took office.
In 2016 the Democrats went into the election controlling the governorship, the Senate and House in just seven states -- that was their lowest number since the Civil War, when there were 15 fewer states. Now, they control just five states. Ask yourself why? Was it because of the Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta that caused this? I think not.

No, it was the result of mountains of cash spent by the RNC and their donors to get Republicans into key seats. It was the result of calculated campaigns of half truths and fear mongering. The republican party has become the party of doing whatever it takes to win.

As a result, they are winning.

If the released emails such a devastating blow to the Hillary why did her popularity numbers remain the same before the release, and actually increased.

I'm not sure what that has to do with released emails.

There were a lot of reasons Hillary lost. Partially because she was slandered for the last 20 years, partially because of mistakes she made as SoS and probably partially because of the FBI and the hacked emails. Determining how much of each and what was the final straw is obviously impossible. But there is no denying they all had some impact.

And as you point out, she didn't lose by much.

 

[habiru]

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.

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.

And so, why are we worried about fake news, if everyone has the freedom to express their own opinion that they doesn't needs censorship?

 

[metis]

And so, why are we worried about fake news, if everyone has the freedom to express their own opinion that they doesn't needs censorship?

Who's talking about censorship? But yes, there should be a concern about "fake news" if one really desires that truth should prevail.

 

[habiru]

Who's talking about censorship? But yes, there should be a concern about "fake news" if one really desires that truth should prevail.

Good, now we see eye to eye. And so, why doesn't Hillary sue those that spread fake news about her that has gotten her to lose this election? If she sues them, then that will stop all the spreading of fake news. That they will be scared just thinking about it. But unless she is scared that the news that has been spread about her is true and that people will find out during the lawsuit about what she has been doing. But I believes now that the pople has already finding out about her scandals that is why the majority of her supporters are now saying that she shouldn't run again.

 

[habiru]

That racist Trump had stolen a Black man shoe in this video. And has taken away another black man belt so that he cannot keep his pants up no more.

 

[metis]

And so, why doesn't Hillary sue those that spread fake news about her that has gotten her to lose this election?

I already explained that in post #340.

 

[esmith]

[

So because she only lost the electoral college it wasn't devastating? Does that make any sense to anyone else?
It doesn't matter if it cost her a quarter of one percent of the vote in key states, it could have been enough to cost her the election.

Could it be she didn't campaign in the major electoral states. Making an assumption that since the Obama won them there was no problem....she had it in the bag.
Guess she got it wrong didn't she.

No, it was the result of mountains of cash spent by the RNC and their donors to get Republicans into key seats. It was the result of calculated campaigns of half truths and fear mongering. The republican party has become the party of doing whatever it takes to win.
As a result, they are winning.

I guess since you and many others have embraced the liberal/progressive ideals that everyone else has.
However, explain the 8 years of loss by the Dem's in State government.
Maybe because the liberal/progressive path has been rejected by the populace.

Oh by the way I have brought this fact up to many here on this forum and as of yet not one can give a reason. Guess the truth hurts.

 

[Underhill]

[

Could it be she didn't campaign in the major electoral states. Making an assumption that since the Obama won them there was no problem....she had it in the bag.
Guess she got it wrong didn't she.

I never claimed she did everything right. That doesn't negate the impact these things probably had on the election.

I guess since you and many others have embraced the liberal/progressive ideals that everyone else has.
However, explain the 8 years of loss by the Dem's in State government.
Maybe because the liberal/progressive path has been rejected by the populace.

I don't think it's about the path. Everything I see says the dems are winning the long game. They still had the majority nation wide in an election where turnout among the young was the lowest in several elections. They control most of the major cities in the country. And the biggest factor is that the young are moving farther to the left. Trump winning will only cement that trend and make more of them get involved.

The single biggest reason Hillary lost is because she couldn't convince those young people to give her the same level of support they did Bernie. But the writing is on the wall. I see this as the last gasp of an aging party. After Trump, everything will have to change.

Oh by the way I have brought this fact up to many here on this forum and as of yet not one can give a reason. Guess the truth hurts.

It's not surprising as it is based upon a false assumption. Republicans are only leading because their major demographic is the old people who always show up to vote. Among the young, who are admittedly more fickle, the shift is unlike anything I have seen. Probably not unlike the 60's...

 

[Revoltingest]

They still had the majority nation wide in an election where turnout among the young was the lowest in several elections.

She didn't win a majority, only a plurality.

They control most of the major cities in the country. And the biggest factor is that the young are moving farther to the left. Trump winning will only cement that trend and make more of them get involved.

This doesn't mean the Democrats will win, only that Republicans will move in the same direction.
Democrats have also changed to become more like Republicans in order to win elections, eg,
they abandoned support for slavery & Jim Crow.
Both parties want power, so they seek 51% of the vote.
This means that several percent in the middle is what they fight over the most.
They'll always tend to seek that middle, wherever it goes.

 

[Underhill]

She didn't win a majority, only a plurality.

This doesn't mean the Democrats will win, only that Republicans will move in the same direction.
Democrats have also changed to become more like Republicans in order to win elections, eg,
they abandoned support for slavery & Jim Crow.
Both parties want power, so they seek 51% of the vote.
This means that several percent in the middle is what they fight over the most.
They'll always tend to seek that middle, wherever it goes.

Sure, and I don't care if the parties move to the left or not. The point is the country as a whole is moving in that direction. I don't buy the notion that the country is disavowing itself of it's more liberal views. If anything I think the opposite is true.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, and I don't care if the parties move to the left or not. The point is the country as a whole is moving in that direction. I don't buy the notion that the country is disavowing itself of it's more liberal views. If anything I think the opposite is true.

Even Trump has his liberal side.

 

[esmith]

Sure, and I don't care if the parties move to the left or not. The point is the country as a whole is moving in that direction. I don't buy the notion that the country is disavowing itself of it's more liberal views. If anything I think the opposite is true.

then why are their a majority of Republicans in all governments. Maybe you should stop and reconsider your opinion. However, we can wait until the 2018 mid-term elections and see what happens. Those elections will either prove or disprove your hypothesis

 

[Underhill]

then why are their a majority of Republicans in all governments. Maybe you should stop and reconsider your opinion. However, we can wait until the 2018 mid-term elections and see what happens. Those elections will either prove or disprove your hypothesis

It's simple. The number of voters in these elections were majority republican.

It's normal when a democrat is in the white house for republicans to gain seats everywhere. The inverse was also true when GWB was in the white house.

 

[Parchment]

Sure, and I don't care if the parties move to the left or not. The point is the country as a whole is moving in that direction. I don't buy the notion that the country is disavowing itself of it's more liberal views. If anything I think the opposite is true.

From what I have personally observed over my brief years of existence on this Earth, I see it as a pendulum, it swings this way and that way- You Wait Your Turn! Don't be greedy or grasping or make sulky faces if you think you lost, and most importantly - don't whine! It just makes you look like sexually unsatisfied groupies on a party bus who had slices of bologna thrown at your butt-cheeks with no orgasm in sight!

 

[Parchment]

Damn I love this girl: