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

[habiru]

Hillary is trying to start a war with Russia so that Lockheed Martin can sell our government some high tech weapons that no other countries can afford. But if I were President Trump, that I will send Hillary and all of those that supports her. Send them all over to Russia and let them fight Hillary's war with Putin. But they can only use baseball bats as weapons.

They are doing the very same thing that they were doing back in the 1930"s.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're making the common mistake

We're going to have to agree to agree that you're a troll in this regard.

Let's try warmonger - Wiktionary

A warmonger is literally a seller of war, from monger used as a transitive verb, meaning a peddler.

There's more to it, so please read the entire entry. Suffice it to say, that you have to foment, incite, or otherwise promote war as a viable alternative in order to benefit financially or in other esoteric ways in order to be a warmonger.

A "Hawk" is someone who simply likes war. They don't have to benefit from it in order to like it.

Business men tend to be warmongers. Generals and politicians tend to be hawks. There is some overlap, but Clinton doesn't appear to be a part of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I listed only a few possibles who came to mind.
No doubt, there are other candidates.
Perhaps Israel....I don't know.
But your question (which you too eagerly answered) does not establish Russians as the hackers.

I get it. You are anti war and thus try to downplay everything...

That's a strange claim.
To be anti-war is not to downplay everything.
If anything, I give far more attention to the dangerous aspects of Hillary.
Her fans ignore them.

.....not to mention you voted for the guy.

Yes....and so?

But Russia wants a Trump presidency and they are about the only one on the world stage.

Many millions of Americastanians prefer him to Hillary.
And they have spoken.
Democrats must accept this, instead of pretending that the popular vote rules, or that
election fraud put Trump in office. Ironically, their own fraud sabotaged her campaign.
We're lucky Wikileaks exposed this.

 

[Scuba Pete]

All views are slanted.

Only if your moral compass is broken, ei pointing to Trump.

Look at Pizza Gate. Are you telling me that the fidiot who created that was merely 'slanted'? Hey, I get you were probably holding the ammo for Welch at the Comet Ping Pong, but even you should be able to see that such disinformation is clearly unethical and was created only to smear Clinton. A smear which you bought lock, stock and barrel.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're going to have to agree to agree that you're a troll in this regard.

Let's try warmonger - Wiktionary


There's more to it, so please read the entire entry. Suffice it to say, that you have to foment, incite, or otherwise promote war as a viable alternative in order to benefit financially or in other esoteric ways in order to be a warmonger.

A "Hawk" is someone who simply likes war. They don't have to benefit from it in order to like it.

Business men tend to be warmongers. Generals and politicians tend to be hawks. There is some overlap, but Clinton doesn't appear to be a part of that.

So you believe all these dictionaries are wrong, & that you have superior language authority, eh?
Definition of WARMONGER
the definition of warmonger
warmonger Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
warmonger - definition of warmonger in English | Oxford Dictionaries
warmonger
warmonger American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
Warmonger - Wikipedia
warmonger - Dictionary Definition
Urban Dictionary: warmonger

The word, "warmonger" is indeed correct as I applied it to Hillary, ie, she pursues war.
If you want to become a skilled pedant, you need to more carefully understand the subject.

 

[Underhill]

I listed only a few possibles who came to mind.
No doubt, there are other candidates.
Perhaps Israel....I don't know.
But your question (which you too eagerly answered) does not establish Russians as the hackers.

No, just the expert opinions in 3 different agencies as well as several non governmental private security firms. But what do they know when compared to the raw brain power employed by Republican voters...

That's a strange claim.
To be anti-war is not to downplay everything.
If anything, I give far more attention to the dangerous aspects of Hillary.
Her fans ignore them.

What does any of this to do with Hillary? Obviously this benefited Trump and those who support Trump.

Yes....and so?

You have made it abundantly clear that you are firmly in the Trump camp. You claim otherwise but anytime anything comes up that might undermine his legitimacy you are right there, looking for a reason to undermine the position.

Many millions of Americastanians prefer him to Hillary.
And they have spoken.
Democrats must accept this, instead of pretending that the popular vote rules, or that
election fraud put Trump in office. Ironically, their own fraud sabotaged her campaign.
We're lucky Wikileaks exposed this.

Well thank you for making my point for me. It makes discussion like this easier. It's clear you couldn't care less if the Russians (or whomever it was) sabotaged the election. Your guy won. Pretty sad if you ask me.

The reality is that every campaign does things and says things behind the scenes that are not for public consumption. The notion that her emails were anything that we haven't seen in other campaigns is laughable. The really absurd thing is, her emails are no worse than many of the statements Trump made publicly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only if your moral compass is broken, ei pointing to Trump.

Look at Pizza Gate. Are you telling me that the fidiot who created that was merely 'slanted'? Hey, I get you were probably holding the ammo for Welch at the Comet Ping Pong, but even you should be able to see that such disinformation is clearly unethical and was created only to smear Clinton. A smear which you bought lock, stock and barrel.

You're not making sense here with this barrage of unsourced references.
If you want to discuss one, then provide some info.
This mere stream of consciousness gainsaying is uninspiring.
Try to be interesting.
You can do it if you try.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Many millions of Americastanians prefer him to Hillary.
And they have spoken.

The delusions are strong with this one. 2.6 million more Americans voted for Clinton. Don't believe me? Here is my . Trump is NOT the people's choice. Did I mention that the election was rigged? Trump thinks so and I agree with him for once.

 

[Watchmen]

It's not that you disagreed with me but the way in which you did it. That pretty much should be common sense, but then...

So,...

1.the election is over.

2.members of Congress have called for an investigation and they belong to both parties and the POTUS agrees; therefore...

3.there's going to be an investigation into what any serious backer of our democracy should support for security reasons.

Now, which of these do you not understand?

That's fine. Have an investigation. Hillary lost because the truth was exposed.

 

[Watchmen]

Apparently, honesty is not your forte. I have never excused Hillary for what I have repeatedly posted here at RF as a "stupid mistake"-- and that's not the only one she made. Since you cannot admit the same about Trump, and since you posted a lie about me, then I would suggest you are serioiusly honesty-challenged. Either way, I have had more than enough of your arrogance and sarcasm, so I'm going to just be dealing with the more adult and honest members here at RF.

What lie did I tell? Go back to school and learn to read.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're not making sense here with this barrage of unsourced references.
If you want to discuss one, then provide some info.
This mere stream of consciousness gainsaying is uninspiring.
Try to be interesting.
You can do it if you try.

What source did you need, o' uninformed one?

Just Google "PizzaGate" and you'll see a lot.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, just the expert opinions in 3 different agencies as well as several non governmental private security firms. But what do they know when compared to the raw brain power employed by Republican voters...

Feel free to provide links & statements which claim more than has been shown so far.
But if you really had them, wouldn't you have already done so, instead of making it
about your low opinion of Republican intelligence? But this is an ironic claim, since
Democrats just lost an election to what should've been an easy to beat Trump.
Who's the dummy here?

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not big on faith.
And simply repeating the same claim over & over doesn't make it more cromulent.

What does any of this to do with Hillary?

You claimed I downplay everything because I'm anti-war.
I offered an example which disproved your claim.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are firmly in the Trump camp.

No, you've misread.
I'm firmly in the anti-Hillary camp.
Voting for Trump (the less dangerous candidate) was simply the path to keeping her out of office.
I'd have voted for Gary Johnson if he had a chance at winning.

I get the impression that you believe everyone who voted for Trump is on his side.
Hoo boy...are you ever wrong about that!

You claim otherwise but anytime anything comes up that might undermine his legitimacy you are right there, looking for a reason to undermine the position.

Now you're sounding petulant.
I'm not "looking for" anything...just offering my views.
He won the election, & is as legitimate as they come, whether we like it or not.

Well thank you for making my point for me. It makes discussion like this easier. It's clear you couldn't care less if the Russians (or whomever it was) sabotaged the election. Your guy won. Pretty sad if you ask me.

Sad for you, the losing side.
But I'm pleased as punch....just trying not to show it too much.
Gloating is such bad form.
But if the Russians actually did keep Hillary out of office by airing accurate
information about her & her minions, then I thank these Russian hackers.

The reality is that every campaign does things and says things behind the scenes that are not for public consumption. The notion that her emails were anything that we haven't seen in other campaigns is laughable. The really absurd thing is, her emails are no worse than many of the statements Trump made publicly.

Sounds like sour grapes.
Hillary has secret info which embarrasses her...
....then she should question why she's doing such things.

 

[Revoltingest]

The delusions are strong with this one. .

You think I'm deluded that Trump won.
(Yes, he did have millions of votes....nearly 60M.)
We'll see who is inaugurated in January.

 

[Neo Deist]

Also, the above is terribly misguided because it doesn't stand up to legal nor logical sense.

Service members have been court marshaled and sentenced to prison for far less than what Hillary did. Yet she walks free. I am not talking about whether or not the emails had classified information. I am referring to the fact that she violated the law just by having a private server, and then gave a big "F-you" to a federal subpoena. She (her team) destroyed evidence. That is enough to send anyone to prison...except her.

Her very existence is a disgrace to everyone that ever served. She spat on the Constitution and her actions were dishonorable. Those of us that took an oath to defend the Constitution have serious issues with someone like her. She made a mockery of the very thing that we swore to defend.

That is not misguided or illogical. If you can't understand it, then perhaps you need a compass recalibration.

 

[Revoltingest]

What source did you need, o' uninformed one?

Just Google "PizzaGate" and you'll see a lot.

Tis insufficient to cry "Pizzagate", & then chortle your win on some unspoken point.
If you want to make an argument about something, the onus is on you to present it.
I don't do your homework for you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So you believe all these dictionaries are wrong, & that you have superior language authority, eh?

Did you even READ all of those definitions? No wait, I forgot who I was dealing with. Did you read ANY of those definitions??? Look at the Urban dictionary about page 4.

warmonger
Someone who engages in war or warlike acts for personal reasons such as: personal fueds, dislike for people of different sexual orientation, re-election, sexual pleasure, or to compensate for a lack of manhood.
See also: bush

I nearly spewed diet coke all over my laptop when I read the last line.

Your argumentum per deluvium has failed in my favor. Only one of those could possibly refer to Clinton because it's so vague.

 

[esmith]

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 above is in response to "Hillary put her personal desire for privacy above the security of the U.S. (private server)"
Did not Hillary admit she made a mistake with her private server. Was not the conclusion that of the FBI that her server did contain classified information see: FBI Statment
thus one can assume that she put personal above country

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

This is in response to "The country is slowly rejecting the Democrats agenda"
Do you disagree with the facts? That statement says that when it came down to it voters have rejected Democrats since Obama took office in "State" elections. Is it not possible that was the case in non-urban areas as far as the Presidential election went. Remember the one fact that Trump won where the Dem's usually win. What does that say? Looks like a rejection to me on both counts

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.

No, what I'm saying is in addition to what President-elect Trump has said is the Dem's are yelling the loudest about what was illegally obtained but factual information. Remember they have not denied the contents only the method. If the contents were fake do you not think they would bring this forward?

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.

This is in response to " Hillary is a very poor politician". Do I dislike her personally? Probably, but I have never met her. Do I dislike her political stance? Yes?
That has nothing to do with the way she conducted herself in the campaigns.

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.

This is in response to: "Trump had a much smarter campaign"
Trump seemed to connect to the mood in the majority of the country (not the majority of the population). Those that he connected with and where he spent most of his time was in the States he needed to win the Electoral Vote not the popular vote. Even the liberal opinions say she screwed up. see" Neglect and Poor Strategy

Care to re-access your points with additional material provided?

 

[Scuba Pete]

If you want to make an argument about something, the onus is on you to present it.

BS. Pure and unmitigated BS at that. You asked for a citation, I asked for which? I can't guess what you don't know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you even READ all of those definitions?

Yes.
The primary definition is the one I used.

Did you read them?

No wait, I forgot who I was dealing with. Did you read ANY of those definitions??? Look at the Urban dictionary about page 4.

So you ignore 3 pages, & seize upon some tertiary definition as the only cromulent one?

I nearly spewed diet coke all over my laptop when I read the last line.

I'd suspected poor hygiene & housekeeping on your part, but I wasn't going to bring it up.

 

[Revoltingest]

BS. Pure and unmitigated BS at that. You asked for a citation, I asked for which? I can't guess what you don't know.

You go thru all the work to find a spurious pic to post,
but you can't articulate the point you want to make.
Is this your way of backing down from a claim?