goodolegill wrote: » The information didn't need to sway 60 million people, the partisan nature of a 2 party system already has their soldiers on each side. Trump's "representation" as the head of the Republican party need to bring along staunch republicans and independents. The election came down to 80,000 votes in 3-4 states so don't downplay the role that negative propaganda can do. Why do you think campaigns spend so much time and money on their social media targeting. "The deep democratic party corruption" What exactly is meant by this statement. Did the Democratic Party favour one candidate over another. Damn right they did, Hillary (as flawed as she was) was one of their own, a first lady to a success regime, a secretary of state and a champion for the democratic center. Bernie was none of those, he wasn't even classified as a democrat, he spent his years in congress as an independent. So this notion that this was corruption, they wanted one of their own to win rather than an outsider as sure as I am that the GOP would have favoured Marco Rubio over Trump. Hillary Clinton received 2-3 million more votes than Sanders so was legitimately the Democratic candidate. To conflate - getting the questions ahead of a debate to working with a foreign adversary to arrange a meeting for information on your opponent that was stolen seems ludicrous. But I can rarely make sense of Trump cult members :eek:
Hurrache wrote: » Do you realise you're actually arguing against yourself now?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Your upset that a few fake Russia online accounts supported Trump? Russia has 156 million people are you so sure this was not some lonely Russia girls/guys just showing an interest in the US election? How can a few online accounts push 60 million voters to pick Trump?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Even if the GRU hacked the DNC what the complaint? They exposed corruption at the highest levels. A rigged primary election. Hilary and DNC got exposed for the corrupt people they really are well done Russia. Trump, as far I have seen ran a fair fight with her and he had his own fair share of scandals that would have ended the presidency run just goes to show it was the popular support that won out not Russian intervening in the election.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Funnelling money to Trump campaign. This would be a big deal if Putin was directly funding his campaign what evidence you got for that?
mcmoustache wrote: » The skripal thread was the same. If you can remember, Russia promoted multiple, mutually exclusive alternative theories. He made the same claims despite it not being logically possible for them to all be true.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I don't even know what you on about explain yourself.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Do you not realize why Trump came out with the 'rigged election' angle whilst he was a candidate .
mcmoustache wrote: » I'll repeat it for you.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Freedom of information request for the document: it noted on top of the page.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Of course, and he got criticized for it, by the very people that won't / can't accept that the result went the other way. Sweet sweet irony.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » This is nonsense because Trump won states that go to the Democrat side. He swayed voters on democrat side to switch. Losing these states hilary would have won. You ignoring the DNC deliberately pushed sanders out of the way they even gave her debate questions ahead of time so she looks good on camera against Sanders.
mcmoustache wrote: » I'm not too upset, to be honest. I'm not a big fan of the US in a lot of ways. In any case, Mueller's first round of indictment already confirmed the origin of the social media operation. It wasn't just some patriotic Russians or soldiers on holiday. Who cares about a rigged primary of a private organisation? It's not ideal but it's also not the topic under discussion. I'm glad you finally agree, though, that this was GRU. I remember having to explain to you countless times that this was GRU while you were insisting that Guccifer 2.0 was romanian - despite speaking Romanian who forgets articles. Putin wouldn't send a check signed by himself. He also won't send it directly to the campaign. He instead uses his allies to donate to super PACS and organisations such as the NRA. One example is sanctioned Russian and Putin ally Alexandr Torshin who donated to the NRA and is a lifetime member. Strangely enough, his protege Mariia Butina was arrested over the weekend. I'm not going to dig up liks for you because in the past, you showed that you aren't bothered to read and just throw shít at the wall hoping that something sticke.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Where is that document from? Can you link to where you got it?
WinnyThePoo wrote: » So your video was pointless?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » The video answers it. I know you don't think it does, but it does, from 1m 57s on.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » got it here https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/
goodolegill wrote: » You may be right that some Democrats switched sides but the more nuanced theory is that there was a depressed vote on the Democratic side rather than a change of party affiliation. If the media run stories about how untrustworthy a candidate is - then people don't come out to vote, like what the GOP are trying to do with voter roles, if you can't convince people to vote for you. Make it difficult to vote for the other side. How did I ignore the DNC favouring Hillary, I even mentioned it in my original comment. She was a DEMOCRAT, Bernie was an INDEPENDENT - of course they favoured her. But it is not colluding with a foreign government.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » We have the document that's just nonsense. CIA can say what they like after the invasion but they did say Iraq had WMD. Read the key judgementshttps://fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf
Outlaw Pete wrote: » OAs for meddling alone, which all evidence so far says had no affect on the result: nobody has denied that took place, least of all me, so no need to ask me that question with regards to meddling. Nor Trump for that matter, as he has cited their meddling many many times. Took a pot shot at the Obama administration for letting it happen on their watch a bunch of times too.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Eh, no: How could the clip be pointless, and yet also address a point at the very same time?
12gauge dave wrote: » I dont understand why liberals cant relax and enjoy the ride above all else Donald is a breath of fresh air the underdog who took on a whole political system that hated him and came out on top and is doing things his way. Would you rather listen to hillarys safe and boring regurgitated politically correct approach if she had won??? Enjoy it while it lasts. While i am a supporter i dont agree with everything he does but atleast hes not the same old story and like it or not he has changed the political landscape of america forever. The press has never been on a presidents back so much the man must be wondering what he has to do to get some brownie points with them, would liberals rather he started a war with russia and north korea or what is it they want from the man? Remember when there was outrage when he said he wouldnt accept election result if he lost and it was liberals who in turn couldnt and still cant accept the election result, rioting acting like criminals and throwing their toys out of the pram. If hillary had won republicans wouldnt of put on such an embarassing and rather disgusting show of protests etc and i thought liberals were suppose to be the more educated more open minded people compared to those backward bible belt people? Alot of hypocrisy going on if you ask me.
mcmoustache wrote: » What's with this obsession with liberals? Disliking Trump, a longtime Democrat, doesn't make one a liberal. I understand that it's simpler to interpret the world in binary terms but the world is more complicated than that.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Trump claimed massive voter fraud. There is no evidence to back up his lies.
Russian interference isn't the same.
Yet Mueller is investigating as you know
mcmoustache wrote: » If you're saying that social media campaigns and hacking and releasing information on the opposition doesn't have an effect on voting intentions, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I'm also curious about the claim that the evidence suggests that it had no effect. That's a fairly definitive claim. Particularly as more and more information is becoming available to the public and it's all going in one direction.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » They weren't lies. He may have been wrong, but he wasn't lying. There was some legitimate concerns there. And you think he would be if Hillary won?
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Of course he was lying.
Hillary isn't the president. I thought you knew that. Why do you need to bring her up all the time? wait, don't bother answering. Whataboutry
Outlaw Pete wrote: » If he was lying why would he set up the Commission On Voter Fraud after he was elected? To prove himself wrong? Hardly. There were issues getting certain data from liberal states and they also began to get sued, so it was pointless to carry on. He then instructed the Department of Homeland Security to take up the case but they pretty much ignored it and have been focusing on the efforts of Russian hackers, surprise, surprise, as much like the FBI, they couldn't give a toss about perhaps Trump not getting as many votes as he should have. Hillary on the other hand, different story. Nope. Relevancy.
12gauge dave wrote: » Liberal/democrat/snowflake take your pick
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » That is an amazing stream of consciousness solid block of text. Almost auto-wrtiting I suspect. As an aside, isn't it funny that the only people who seem to spout things like snowflake, triggered, crying for your safe space are right wingers who got triggered because someone criticised Trump? Who's the snowflake here? Great pic on my FB this morning. Trigger Warning!
