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

[Revoltingest]

I never saw her as someone who profited from war ie, a war monger. Wanting to protect America and war mongering are two different things. Not that I expect anyone who voted for Trump to be able to discern such nuances in the English language, but it needs to be noted. If you feel she did profit from war, I would love to see your evidence. But like almost every negative thing said about Clinton, there's only bluster and incredibly little supporting evidence. You wrap yourself in Trump's con job like a security blanket. You cling to the lies and the hate like your tenuous grasp to reality depended on it. Oh snap. It does.

You're wrong about the definition of "war monger".
But I'm here to help you learn.....
the definition of warmonger

noun
1.
a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

As you see in this typical definition, it's about orientation towards war.....not profit.
Since you're wrong about even basic definitions, you should reconsider all the other things you misunderstand.

So, what's Trump hiding that he's so afraid of what the CIA is finding? Disparaging the CIA is not usually a Republican value.

I don't hold Republican values, so disparaging the CIA is OK.

 

[Underhill]

No one here has claimed evidence the Russians did not do as you claim.
But you're the one leaping to belief, based upon evidence which even
the supposed experts are only speculating Russian hacking.
it's like asking me to believe in Allah because I've no proof he isn't God.

I don't believe US gov claims the Ruskies did it, and
I don't believe Russian claims they didn't do it.

It's clear someone did. The Russians have the capability. Are known to have done this kind of thing before. Their signature is all over this. And there are obviously massive policy decisions at stake than could affect Russia in a big way.

Feel free to point out anyone else who meets those criteria.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's clear someone did. The Russians have the capability. Are known to have done this kind of thing before. Their signature is all over this. And there are obviously massive policy decisions at stake than could affect Russia in a big way.
Feel free to point out anyone else who meets those criteria.

Any number of entities could mimic what the anonymous experts claim
is a Russian signature....Chinese, N Koreans, CIA, NSA, Israelis, etc.
If the Obama admin has as strong a desire to believe as Hillary's fans do,
then they'll see what they what they want to see, ie, Evil Ivan.

I reject the leap to certainty based upon faith in the honesty & competence
of a government run by someone who needs it to be true.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're wrong about the definition of "war monger".

I'm not wrong. I just have a more comprehensive understanding of the vocabulary.

Monger
noun
1. a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way (usually used in combination): a gossipmonger.
2. Chiefly British. a dealer in or trader of a commodity (usually used in combination): fishmonger.
verb (used with object)
3. to sell; hawk.

So, again, I simply don't see her as a monger, much less a warmonger. Not in the same way I would classify Trump as a gossipmonger or worse: a fearmonger. You would have to demonstrate how she would benefit financially or other petty way from simply voting for a war.

The real problem is trying to broaden a definition enough to include people who would not normally be included. While it might be politically expedient to do so, I find it intellectually dishonest... not that you have a problem with such dishonesty when it supports your beliefs. It's like Trump calling Clinton a bigot during the campaign. How ludicrous was that.

I don't hold Republican values, so disparaging the CIA is OK.

You keep saying that and yet you espouse the very same schlock as any Republican I know. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and (ewww) smells like a duck, then I'm going to call it a duck. Your denial is duly noted and mocked.

 

[tytlyf]

What did the russians do? Hacked America. That's not OK.

Additionally, they created tons of fake news articles and everything else to scare the American populace into supporting who Russia/Putin wants as president. Facebook is not a news source, too many people believe the stuff they read.

 

[Neo Deist]

And you think I would disagree with that?

But let me also add to the above that people should also look very carefully into the issues that are involved and that this is typically more important than just having some sort of popularity contest. Do you agree with that?

Yes.

As an army vet as well as a police officer, I took an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution, our laws, and our country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Hillary botched Benghazi, disregarded federal law and used a private email server that she could control, and ignored federal subpoenas while opting to destroy evidence. She basically spat on the very Constitution and oaths that I took. She acted against everything that I stand for. In my mind, she was a domestic enemy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Additionally, they created tons of fake news articles

Lets call 'em Faketoids... like factoids, only invented by someone like @Revoltingest to support their illogical and slanted view of the world!

 

[Neo Deist]

I'm not wrong. I just have a more comprehensive understanding of the vocabulary.

Monger
noun
1. a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way (usually used in combination): a gossipmonger.
2. Chiefly British. a dealer in or trader of a commodity (usually used in combination): fishmonger.
verb (used with object)
3. to sell; hawk.

So, again, I simply don't see her as a monger, much less a warmonger. Not in the same way I would classify Trump as a gossipmonger or worse: a fearmonger. You would have to demonstrate how she would benefit financially or other petty way from simply voting for a war.

The real problem is trying to broaden a definition enough to include people who would not normally be included. While it might be politically expedient to do so, I find it intellectually dishonest... not that you have a problem with such dishonesty when it supports your beliefs. It's like Trump calling Clinton a bigot during the campaign. How ludicrous was that.

You keep saying that and yet you espouse the very same schlock as any Republican I know. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and (ewww) smells like a duck, then I'm going to call it a duck. Your denial is duly noted and mocked.

Jumping in for a second...

A warmonger is someone that pushes for war, or attempts to stir up war. It has absolutely nothing to do with making a profit off war. That would be a war profiteer.

...I'm out

 

[tytlyf]

Lets call 'em Faketoids... like factoids, only invented by someone like @Revoltingest to support their illogical and slanted view of the world!

Tons of people running around America believing the propaganda. It definitely affected the election.

 

[Underhill]

Any number of entities could mimic what the anonymous experts claim
is a Russian signature....Chinese, N Koreans, CIA, NSA, Israelis, etc.
If the Obama admin has as strong a desire to believe as Hillary's fans do,
then they'll see what they what they want to see, ie, Evil Ivan.

I reject the leap to certainty based upon faith in the honesty & competence
of a government run by someone who needs it to be true.

And which of those groups stand to benefit from a Trump presidency? None of them.

I get it. You are anti war and thus try to downplay everything... not to mention you voted for the guy. But Russia wants a Trump presidency and they are about the only one on the world stage.

 

[idav]

I haven't seen one shred of evidence or heard a good argument that would make me believe that Russians somehow got Trump elected. We do know that the same intelligence agencies that are claiming "the Russians did it!" are the same intelligence agencies that got us into the first Iraq war under false pretenses and have used mass surveillance against it's own people for years and lied about it and now we are supposed to trust them with the claim that somehow Russians manipulated the 2016 U.S. election. I'd say there is probably far more evidence and a better case to be made that many of our own domestic media sources attempted to overtly and covertly manipulate public opinion influencing the election in Clinton's favor rather than Russia in Trumps.

So your saying these same people do mass surveillance on us but don't know who hacked us? I don't see the issue when several independent intelligence agencies are saying the same thing. No doubt people need clearance to see what intel our country has. It sounds like an ongoing investigation due to other countries being meddled with. I can understand wanting more info but just calling them wrong is a trump tactic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Tons of people running around America believing the propaganda. It definitely affected the election.

Many of them weren't even that damning. Look at the nature of the wikileaks. They showed what? Not much at all that was really condemning. But, by Gawd, THEY WAS WIKILEAKS, SO THEY HAVE TO BE IMPORTANT.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And which of those groups stand to benefit from a Trump presidency? None of them.

Are you kidding? Look at the guy Trump wants as Secretary of State. He's going to cash in BIG. This is as bad as Haliburton with the war named after him. Trump's already profiteering off of his name after his slim victory.

 

[metis]

Yes.

As an army vet as well as a police officer, I took an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution, our laws, and our country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Hillary botched Benghazi, disregarded federal law and used a private email server that she could control, and ignored federal subpoenas while opting to destroy evidence. She basically spat on the very Constitution and oaths that I took. She acted against everything that I stand for. In my mind, she was a domestic enemy.

The above is not what we were talking about as the issue deals with the investigation. Also, the above is terribly misguided because it doesn't stand up to legal nor logical sense.

I never have cared for Hillary and only voted for her because I didn't want the likes of Trump in. If the election had not been so close, I would have voted for Stein as a protest vote. But the election is over, and that wasn't the issue being discussed that I was involved in.

Finally, because of the bizarre response you posted above, I really don't have any desire to continue forth with this. And your military record and occupation are of no concern to me. But let me just ask that if you had told your commanding officer that it is of no concern to you that a foreign power may have compromised our democratic process and that you were happy a country like Russia did it, I wonder just how long you would have been allowed to stay in the military? That's just a rhetorical question since I have no interest in your response-- it's just for you to decide.

 

[esmith]

Facts
1. Emails were released by someone or some government. Yes I believe that Russia was involved
2. Hillary lost the election
3. Areas that President Obama won Hillary lost and President-elect Trump won
4. Hillary ignored the recommendations that she should campaign in certain states
5. The Democrats under President Obama have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, and 13 Senate seats and now have lost the Presidency
6. The Democratic base did not turn out to vote as it did for Obama. Those Democrats who stayed home handed the election to Trump(Almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton)
7. The cyber security of the U.S. is ineffective. This includes private, public, and government
.

So what can be assumed from the "facts"
Hillary put her personal desire for privacy above the security of the U.S. (private server)
The country is slowly rejecting the Democrats agenda (see item 5 above)
Hillary was the wrong candidate to run against President-elect Trump
Jill Stein helped Hillary lose the election
People run-off at the mouth and complain when they get caught.
Hillary is a very poor politician
President-elect Trump had a much smarter campaign team than Hillary
A very small number of voters were influenced by the released emails

What should be more worrisome than the possibility that the hacked emails caused Hillary to lose but the cyber security of this country needs to be completely overhauled

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hillary put her personal desire for privacy above the security of the U.S. (private server)

I know this is what the hatriots were screaming, but that simply can not be deduced from the facts at hand. It's a guess at best, and it's my opinion that it's a horrible guess.

The country is slowly rejecting the Democrats agenda

Again, if Trump had won the popular vote, you could make this contention. He didn't so it's merely wishful thinking for Republicans.

Hillary was the wrong candidate to run

Ya think? Profound statement of the obvious, Captain!

People run-off at the mouth and complain when they get caught.

You mean like Trump? I would agree with this. Look at his denial that the Russians were involved. Makes me think he's trying to hide something. The more he denies it, the more it should be looked into.

Hillary is a very poor politician

Yeah, it looks more like you simply don't like her. I don't know why. Perhaps you're caught up in the hatriotic ferver that seem to affect most Republicans.

Trump had a much smarter campaign

Don't confuse cunning with smart. Smart will solve problems. Cunning capitalizes on the weaknesses of others. The constant hatriotism, rumormongering and hatemongering appealed to the disaffected. Don't be fooled, but this is how Adolf got his start in post WWI Germany. Instead of Jews he's vilifying Mexicans. Here's hoping his threats are as empty as his head.

It's my sincere hope that we allow Trump to pursue his business interests uninterrupted. The less he does as President, the better we are off as a nation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not wrong. I just have a more comprehensive understanding of the vocabulary.

Monger
noun
1. a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way (usually used in combination): a gossipmonger.
2. Chiefly British. a dealer in or trader of a commodity (usually used in combination): fishmonger.
verb (used with object)
3. to sell; hawk.

So, again, I simply don't see her as a monger, much less a warmonger. Not in the same way I would classify Trump as a gossipmonger or worse: a fearmonger. You would have to demonstrate how she would benefit financially or other petty way from simply voting for a war.

The real problem is trying to broaden a definition enough to include people who would not normally be included. While it might be politically expedient to do so, I find it intellectually dishonest... not that you have a problem with such dishonesty when it supports your beliefs. It's like Trump calling Clinton a bigot during the campaign. How ludicrous was that.

You keep saying that and yet you espouse the very same schlock as any Republican I know. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and (ewww) smells like a duck, then I'm going to call it a duck. Your denial is duly noted and mocked.

You're making the common mistake of breaking an idiom down into its
components, & then reconstructing a meaning from individual words.
Example:
If I told you how to do something, & finished with..."and Bob's your uncle.",
I'm not telling you that Bob is a sibling of one of your parents.

I really & sincerely hope that you're more careful about getting details
right when diving & teaching others. Lives are at stake. Be careful.

 

[Underhill]

Are you kidding? Look at the guy Trump wants as Secretary of State. He's going to cash in BIG. This is as bad as Haliburton with the war named after him. Trump's already profiteering off of his name after his slim victory.

Okay, so it's either the Russians or Trumps cronies. But I still think the odds on favorite has to be Russians by a mile.

 

[Notanumber]

I haven’t fact checked this but it seems genuine and if it is how come the MSM haven’t broadcast it to the nation.

EDIT:

It is just possible that the Russians might have done us all a big favour.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lets call 'em Faketoids... like factoids, only invented by someone like @Revoltingest to support their illogical and slanted view of the world!

All views are slanted.
What varies is direction, & cromulence.
You leap to certainty at any comforting 'fact', no evidence required.
I'm agnostic with an evidence based cogent argument.
I prefer my slant.
Yours might land you in a cult in Guyana.