Did Russia "hack" the election? Four questions.

[Redfish]

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

You, and your candidate, lost playing by the rules of the contest that everyone was aware of.

Na-Uh... silly wabbit, the rules only count when the Democrats win.

I enjoy watching all the dem snowflakes melt.

This from the guy who

1. Still claims Trump won the popular vote.

2. Doesn't believe there was a recession in 2008

3. Thinks the BLS fabricates all its employment numbers

1. he may have, or may not have, it doesn't matter
2. there was no recession in 2008, it was a market correction driven by bad mortgage policies
3. Right, and "we landed under sniper fire" is true. The government, in many ways, is a propaganda machine.

 

[Redfish]

coupla things

1. wikileaks is not Russia
2. the truth about DNC corruption did hurt Hillary
3. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible human being
4. The voters rejected: the establishment, the lying media, the lying pollsters, Hillary, Obama, and liberalism in general
5. Trump was a vote for real change, enforcement of laws, and economic sanity.

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

And that is the system by which the vote of the people of the NATION, for the leader of the NATION, can be overturned.

what?

 

[Redfish]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.

nope, her lying and corruption was her doom.

 

[imawhosure]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.

No offense NY, but I thought it was the DNCs doom. I was under the impression that the e-mails released by the government were Clintons doom, as all the Trump people insisted that the polls were wrong!

From mid August, all I read on here when I did come on was that the polls were wrong, and Clinton was doomed because of the C word in the e-mails. That being said, this is a small sample, with that I agree, but still and all...............the only thing that might have screwed Clinton was that the Bernie people shunned her. Now that could be!

 

[Redfish]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.

No offense NY, but I thought it was the DNCs doom. I was under the impression that the e-mails released by the government were Clintons doom, as all the Trump people insisted that the polls were wrong!

From mid August, all I read on here when I did come on was that the polls were wrong, and Clinton was doomed because of the C word in the e-mails. That being said, this is a small sample, with that I agree, but still and all...............the only thing that might have screwed Clinton was that the Bernie people shunned her. Now that could be!

were the polls wrong or were the pollsters lying? I think its the latter.

 

[Lewdog]

Funny how many "Americans" there are here that all of a sudden don't care about people having the right to privacy and the right against illegally gained evidence to be used against them.

Politics and political affiliation is one of the most evil things in this country. It causes people to act extremely irrationally. These same people that say they don't care how the DNC emails were uncovered, would be the same people crying a fucking river if they got pulled over and a cop illegally searched their car and found drugs or weapons that could be used against them in a court of law.

 

[Fueri]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

 

[NightFox]

And that is the system by which the vote of the people of the NATION, for the leader of the NATION, can be overturned.

Good luck with that, let me know how it works out for you. Of course getting it "overturned" will require you and your left wing warrior brethren to put down those keyboards and get up off your fat asses and actually go do something which I place the chances of happening at somewhere between nil and zero, since it would require effort, taking personal responsibility and commitment.

Happy Trails.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." -- Article V, U.S. Constitution

 

[Lewdog]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

 

[imawhosure]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.

No offense NY, but I thought it was the DNCs doom. I was under the impression that the e-mails released by the government were Clintons doom, as all the Trump people insisted that the polls were wrong!

From mid August, all I read on here when I did come on was that the polls were wrong, and Clinton was doomed because of the C word in the e-mails. That being said, this is a small sample, with that I agree, but still and all...............the only thing that might have screwed Clinton was that the Bernie people shunned her. Now that could be!

were the polls wrong or were the pollsters lying? I think its the latter.

Well, that answer is up to you!

If you believe that the pollsters are Conservatives, then maybe they did all lie. But if you think the pollsters are mostly libs, then no, they didn't, because every pollster knew that Trump supporters were chomping at the bit to get to the polls to cast their vote, and if showing Clinton had it since many on the left did not like Clinton, that would mean they would NOT show to save America from Trump by casting a vote for Hildy because they didn't like her. They figured.....let the far left handle this election, so I can wash my hands of that corrupt bitch!

 

[Redfish]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

actually the truth is that most of the pollsters were pro-Hillary and were lying to us about what the American voters were telling them. Our media is corrupt, we should all know that by now.

 

[Iceweasel]

And that is the system by which the vote of the people of the NATION, for the leader of the NATION, can be overturned.

Run with that, Scooter. Go get the votes to throw Trump out of office. Put some playing cards in your spokes to dazzle the onlookers.

 

[Redfish]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.

No offense NY, but I thought it was the DNCs doom. I was under the impression that the e-mails released by the government were Clintons doom, as all the Trump people insisted that the polls were wrong!

From mid August, all I read on here when I did come on was that the polls were wrong, and Clinton was doomed because of the C word in the e-mails. That being said, this is a small sample, with that I agree, but still and all...............the only thing that might have screwed Clinton was that the Bernie people shunned her. Now that could be!

were the polls wrong or were the pollsters lying? I think its the latter.

Well, that answer is up to you!

If you believe that the pollsters are Conservatives, then maybe they did all lie. But if you think the pollsters are mostly libs, then no, they didn't, because every pollster knew that Trump supporters were chomping at the bit to get to the polls to cast their vote, and if showing Clinton had it since many on the left did not like Clinton, that would mean they would NOT show to save America from Trump by casting a vote for Hildy because they didn't like her. They figured.....let the far left handle this election, so I can wash my hands of that corrupt bitch!

don't think so. The pollsters were almost all pro-dem. they lied in a failed attempt to suppress the Trump vote.

 

[Redfish]

And that is the system by which the vote of the people of the NATION, for the leader of the NATION, can be overturned.

Run with that, Scooter. Go get the votes to throw Trump out of office. Put some playing cards in your spokes to dazzle the onlookers.

more snowflakes melting every day. NY carbonhead, our resident lesbian, has had a complete meltdown.

 

[Fueri]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

and?

Although I would agree with that, and stated early on, and since, that there were studies showing exactly that, and posted links to those studies more than once on this board, there are plenty of people that were running around claiming that those same polls showing her that far ahead, coupled with exit polling showing similar leads, was enough to indicate some sort of rigging. For some that is yet another tinfoil hat factory in the 'illegitimate' tangent for those that want to believe that. Nothing is settled with respect to this election in the minds of some.

 

[Iceweasel]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

 

[Lewdog]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

Did you really see that? Or is that just what people on the Law Enforcement forum told you?

 

[Redfish]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

I saw Putin pulling up Hillary signs in the Fla panhandle.

 

[imawhosure]

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.

No offense NY, but I thought it was the DNCs doom. I was under the impression that the e-mails released by the government were Clintons doom, as all the Trump people insisted that the polls were wrong!

From mid August, all I read on here when I did come on was that the polls were wrong, and Clinton was doomed because of the C word in the e-mails. That being said, this is a small sample, with that I agree, but still and all...............the only thing that might have screwed Clinton was that the Bernie people shunned her. Now that could be!

were the polls wrong or were the pollsters lying? I think its the latter.

Well, that answer is up to you!

If you believe that the pollsters are Conservatives, then maybe they did all lie. But if you think the pollsters are mostly libs, then no, they didn't, because every pollster knew that Trump supporters were chomping at the bit to get to the polls to cast their vote, and if showing Clinton had it since many on the left did not like Clinton, that would mean they would NOT show to save America from Trump by casting a vote for Hildy because they didn't like her. They figured.....let the far left handle this election, so I can wash my hands of that corrupt bitch!

don't think so. The pollsters were almost all pro-dem. they lied in a failed attempt to suppress the Trump vote.

You have it bassackwards, ask others if you disagree---------->with what they were saying, and the unlikability of both candidates, they suppressed the Hildy vote by proclaiming she had it in the bag.

When you really want someone to win, don't you watch the game closely, root for, and do everything for them to win! Did we NOT see that with both Trump and Bernie supporters?

Now, what about Hildy supporters? Did we see her rallies? The only way to bring in MORE HILDY supporters was because they HATED TRUMP MORE than Hildy. Well guess what! They were told Hildy had it in the bag, so basically, no need to show up. Trumps ass was kicked! 370 to 400 EC votes for Hildy, don't even worry about Trump. Does that sound familiar on here, on television, on the radio, all over the internet. So, just by rally size alone, who was going to go vote for their person?

The pollsters, the TV pundits, and yes.....the USMB lefties outsmarted themselves through arrogance. Check out what most experts have to say, and you will see which side the proclamation of Hildy having it all sewed up, actually suppressed-)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Hacking is one thing and a side issue in this case. The other side of the coin NOT being examined is an antagonistic foreign agency interfering in the election process of another country and that interference constituting a de facto act of war! That aspect is being purposefully overlooked by many..