Because some on the board still deny it..........

I'll accept your inability to refute Russia acted to help get Don elected as an admission they did.

 

I will not accept your inability to respond to the question put to you in post 149.

 

Russia acted in Russia's interest, the American people voted their interests. The two are not directly related to the results. Do you deny that the American voter is responsible for being informed? That is all that matters at the end of the day...

 

I am only considering facts, and the lack of facts, and you have to always add context. When I do this, it leads into what you call denial. Denial of what? Facts? I have not done that. In fact, the facts are what led me to my opinion, and of course the lack of evidence, which is in the realm of facts.

And you cannot say that this is what your foundation is built upon. So, logically that would infer that you are the person in denials, and it is clear as to why you are.

 

Looking forward to you posting proof President Trump was elected because of Russian activities.

 

They don’t predict that. How do you turn a question to random voters on who they are going to vote for into an accurate electoral prediction? The best you can do is take your pops lad vote results and assume that the electoral college will follow like it’s supposed to.

Face reality. All the polls were right, and your Cheeto in chief is only president because of a technicality and against the wishes of the majority of American voters. That will never be forgotten no matter how much you try to muddy the waters.

 

You mean no matter what lies and progaganda was told on hillary, that you would not have cared? That you could not vote for her, no matter what may come? Hey, join the club, me too.

And the truth is, we are just like most voters. So russia, even with them spending money on ads and social media, are not such supermen as to get americans to vote for something they had not already planned on voting for. My money says that russians wasted their money and achieved nothing. And most americans cannot recall seeing a russian ad or propaganda piece against hillary. Hell it would have gotten lost given millions of people were posting negative things on hillary. Too bad you cannot call these americans russian puppets, although I think that has been tried already. ha ha So, it gets so absurd that if you supported and voted for trump, not only are you a racist, but also working for Putin. ha ha ha

But you see people acting and thinking as if Putin hacked voting machines and gave hillary votes to trump!

But to be fair, given I am an Independent and anti partisan, anti party politics, if russia hacked the DNC and turned those emails over to wilkileaks, revealing that the DNC hardly different from a banana republic, anti democratic, then the Truth about the dems hurt hillary. If russia provided that truth, then of course it can be said they actually meddled into our election. For they would have been doing it to beat hillary. Or as some have said, just an intent to create chaos, for they probably believed hillary was the sure fire winner too, as everyone else thought, polling, experts, pundits.

So did the truth coming from wilkileaks hurt hillary? Yes, but not with hillary dems, or trump supporters. It would possibly have hurt hillary getting enough independents in key states to vote for her. And of course, mad sanders supporters realize that they were right when they said it looked like the DNC was rigging and lying about it to help hillary. Which insured his supporters either stayed home, vote for stein, or vote for trump. Some did vote for trump. Not sure how many.

But until I see the evidence that russia hacked the dnc and turned those over to assange, and the statements of Amb Murray disproved, there is no way I will believe, based upon evidence, that russia turned hacked emails over to assange. For there isn't any evidence that we have seen.

 

That is total BS. The polls were wrong because the polls were supposed to give an accurate picture of who would be the president and that had to be within the context of the electoral college, unless liberals and pollsters are both idiots. Its fine, liberals are still stupid enough to rely on the same pollsters using the same broken methodology to predict their 'blue wave'. The disappointment of that failure will be hilarious.

I don't get why liberals are defending broken polling? Its nonsensical, but then again, I guess liberals usually are too...

 

The lefts heart and platform is nearer to communism than the conservatives is to God. And yet the left is going all McCarthy on Trump. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? It's ludicrous....laughably hypocritical. Clearly the entities nearest to collusion and election meddling are Trumps accusers. Two years of wiretaps, spying, a special investigator with unlimited resources supported by the entire Democrat party and half the government, the entire left wing media with all their researchers and experts worldwide, working 24/7 have resulted in zilch against President Trump. The left is using up all of its chips, all of its image, reputation and credibility. It has immolated.

 

Never said they did.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-some-are-still-in-denial-of-this-too.533124/

 

Why do you think it was in Russia's interests to help Don get elected?

 

Ok. So what's the point?

 

When you say Russian meddling occurred.... what sorts of things did they do? and what was their intention in doing these things?

 

The point is many among The Following will not acknowledge the DNI's findings. It fits a pattern of denying objective truth.

Like this...........You DO realize that Republican chairman Burr saying "we see no reason to dispute the conclusions", is NOT in reference to Democrat Senator Warner claiming that "meddling efforts were ordered "for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton."....do you not? Burr was referring to the conclusion that Russia meddled, and he specifically said as much.

 

I think the challenge the pound puppies struggle with, considering all the dog whistles they have been trained to yap at, is the difference between meddling and insuring.

It seems the left believes whatever Russia may have done is responsible for Hillary's defeat. This conclusion appears to have been their mission from the very start.

What can be observed, and you have added evidence to, is the fact nobody has said whatever Russia may have done insured, or otherwise was the direct cause of Hillary's defeat.

I think that fact is what makes it so easy to discount their efforts.

 

It makes it oh so much easier to win an argument when you decide what the other side thinks.

 

Im sure that you dont need to hear me recite the various ad buys and political rallies that the Russians organized. They were in fact targeted at both sides, but on balance definitely more negative toward Clinton. I dont deny that even remotely.

As far as determining their intention in doing such things however, that is a far more subjective endeavor. It is fairly well accepted that they were trying to sow discord in our election and to cast doubt upon the democratic process in general. My guess would be that they like everyone else in the United States assumed that Hillary would win. I think it is a bit far fetched to assume that they have a better understanding of our electoral process than does the experts that actually run our elections. I also think it is a bit far fetched to believe that a few million dollars in ad buys by Russia somehow invalidated the billions of dollars in ad buys spent on the election. With the assumption that like everyone else they assumed that Hillary would win, it makes perfect sense to me that if they were trying to sow discord, that they would have directed most of their actions at the candidate that they assumed would win, so as to cast doubt upon whom they expected to be the eventual winner.

Conversely, I think that it is a bit far fetched to assume that Russia wanted the unpredictable candidate that vowed to restore strength to our military. I think it is a bit far fetched to assume that Russia wanted the candidate that vowed to increase production of natural gas which is their major export commodity. Clearly there will never be conclusive proof as to their desire, but the notion that they actually wanted Trump doesnt pass the smell test to me. The last thing that any adversary wants is unpredictability, and Trump is as unpredictable as it gets.

Ad buys more heavily targeted toward Clinton does not automatically equate to the Russians wanted Trump to be president, which I presume is the conclusion that you are trying to push. In my opinion, it is far more likely that equates to them wanting to discredit whom they thought would win.

 

If that's the case, I take it by your sarcasm you're admitting you loose just about every argument?

Besides, I wrote "it seems".

Again, it seems to me the left blames Russia for Hillary's loss.

Is it a mistake to believe that?

 

Nope.

Putin Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ Aimed at U.S. Election, Report Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russia-hack-report.html

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have concluded that the president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, personally “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” and turned from seeking to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton to developing “a clear preference for President-elect Drumpf.”

The conclusions were part of a declassified intelligence report, ordered by President Obama, that was released on Friday. Its main determinations were described to Mr. Drumpf by the nation’s top intelligence officials earlier in the day, and he responded by acknowledging, for the first time, that Russia had sought to hack into the Democratic National Committee’s computer systems. But he insisted that the effort had no effect on the election, and he said nothing about the conclusion that Mr. Putin, at some point last year, decided to aid his candidacy.

 

Yet, nobody has conclusively proven Russia's efforts did not effect the election. So discounting their efforts may comfort The Following, indeed clearly it does. It just may be wrong.......a question we'll never know the answer to definitively.

 

Putting aside the argument as to Republican versus Democrat opinion on this issue and what Warner said versus the actual report etc........ You need to read what I actually said. Attacking Hillary does NOT automatically mean that they preferred Trump. It very likely means that they like everyone else assumed that Hillary would win, and they wanted to denigrate whom they assumed would be the eventual winner. That is a fertile topic for debate and short of the emergence of evidence that does not yet exist, is impossible to say conclusively. I am familiar with your posting style however, and have almost no hope that you are capable of such a legitimate discussion bereft of talking points. I do however hope that I can get an honest discussion out of the person to whom I directed that post.

 

Well said, IMO

Let’s say that Russia expected clinton to win, and that she did in fact win.... then what ever they did to support trump would weaken her ability to govern... therefore weaken the USA

But it turned out that trump won... and he is weakened by the mueller probe, etc

, what russis did was good for their objective, no matter who won. they did not expect to elect trump, only weaken the USA regardless of who won. BUT, in this case, supporting trump was a win-win. Strategy, where as supporting clinton would have little benefit

Fwiw, my opinion is that the trump campaign eagerly grabbed at any advantage regardless of its origins.



IMO the worst thing about trumps reaction was NOT that he some how used Russia to win the election. Ironically, the Russian strategy would likely have been similarly effective if his campaign ignored them, or even distanced himself from their efforts.

The worst part of team is trumps reaction was that it amplified the negative impact of Russia’s strategy. Regardless of whether they “colluded” or not, team trump has acted in a way that makes it suspicious that they may have colluded... and that IMO was an unforced error

 

But this does.

and turned from seeking to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton to developing “a clear preference for President-elect Drumpf.”

In order to have a reasoned debate we must first agree to stipulate to the facts.

 

I largely agree with what you have said except perhaps the part about Trumps reaction, but would add one more point. If sowing discord and undermining confidence in democracy was their aim, then the brouhaha that the left has created on this issue made Russia successful beyond their wildest dreams. Every time that Democrats imply that Trump won because of the Russians, their goal is furthered. Lets be honest, they spent a few million dollars. In the big picture that is nothing. Their true payoff in undermining confidence comes from the nonstop coverage of the issue( including Mueller) from the Destroy Trump Media. Appointing a special prosecutor for such a comparatively meaningless intrusion gave them a HUGE gift.

 

Shhhhhhh....the adults are speaking.