Russian Hacking

[toobfreak]

So besides that obscure Russian TV station nobody reported on wikileaks, or put out fake news stories.Or put out any negative information about Clinton. I seem to recall stuff like piizzagate, actually accusing Clinton of running a pedofile ring. Or Fox news as current as a few weeks ago claiming that one of the people on her campaign got assasinated. My point is that the Russians did at the very least try to influence the election. And that fact coupled with, and lets not forget that ,Trumps actions point to something at the very least pretty suspicious, or have you ever heard of any previous president not just firing somebody who is investigating your campaign but than subsequently both inviting the other party under investigation and then doing what you were accused of in the first place,(namely collusion with the Russians). Hilary was deemed to be not worthy of the presidency for objectively less reason.

Man, I really have to start watching more news! And I thought 4 hours a day was good enough. Pizzagate? Never heard of it. Pedophile ring? Never heard of it. Clinton assassination? You mean one Hillary wasn't involved in herself? Never heard of it. Bottom line: None of this crap influenced me, and had I heard it all, it STILL wouldn't have influence me. Only an idiot would believe such stuff and if I was already thinking of voting for Hillary, a pizza, a pedo or another murder (making it 99) associated with the Clintons, if I could live with the TEN-THOUSAND known things already in Hillary's closet and still be willing to vote for her, nothing you've mentioned could possibly change my mind.

How effective can such crap really be anyway? Look at the tons of crap, an avalanche that has been thrown at Trump AND HE STILL WON!!!

Where to start?I'll try to answer your arguments one by one, if I misrepresent your points feel free to correct me.

I did not make any arguments to refute. I merely stated that such stories were minor blips in the night to me, barely noticed, anyone who goes to a pizza shop with a gun over a news story isn't tightly hinged anyway and was bound to snap over something. My only point is that I don't see any of this influencing me to change my vote if I was already in the Hillary camp, nor do I see it changing many other people's. The world is full of anti-Hillary/Trump/Obama stories, some true, some false, just as there are zillions of pro-candidate stories, and in the final analysis, no one can say what effect they have on how many. I go by what MY impression of a candidate is, not what some news story says I should think of them.

 

[forkup]

So besides that obscure Russian TV station nobody reported on wikileaks, or put out fake news stories.Or put out any negative information about Clinton. I seem to recall stuff like piizzagate, actually accusing Clinton of running a pedofile ring. Or Fox news as current as a few weeks ago claiming that one of the people on her campaign got assasinated. My point is that the Russians did at the very least try to influence the election. And that fact coupled with, and lets not forget that ,Trumps actions point to something at the very least pretty suspicious, or have you ever heard of any previous president not just firing somebody who is investigating your campaign but than subsequently both inviting the other party under investigation and then doing what you were accused of in the first place,(namely collusion with the Russians). Hilary was deemed to be not worthy of the presidency for objectively less reason.

Man, I really have to start watching more news! And I thought 4 hours a day was good enough. Pizzagate? Never heard of it. Pedophile ring? Never heard of it. Clinton assassination? You mean one Hillary wasn't involved in herself? Never heard of it. Bottom line: None of this crap influenced me, and had I heard it all, it STILL wouldn't have influence me. Only an idiot would believe such stuff and if I was already thinking of voting for Hillary, a pizza, a pedo or another murder (making it 99) associated with the Clintons, if I could live with the TEN-THOUSAND known things already in Hillary's closet and still be willing to vote for her, nothing you've mentioned could possibly change my mind.

How effective can such crap really be anyway? Look at the tons of crap, an avalanche that has been thrown at Trump AND HE STILL WON!!!

Where to start?I'll try to answer your arguments one by one, if I misrepresent your points feel free to correct me.

I did not make any arguments to refute. I merely stated that such stories were minor blips in the night to me, barely noticed, anyone who goes to a pizza shop with a gun over a news story isn't tightly hinged anyway and was bound to snap over something. My only point is that I don't see any of this influencing me to change my vote if I was already in the Hillary camp, nor do I see it changing many other people's. The world is full of anti-Hillary/Trump/Obama stories, some true, some false, just as there are zillions of pro-candidate stories, and in the final analysis, no one can say what effect they have on how many. I go by what MY impression of a candidate is, not what some news story says I should think of them.

If you say that you don't believe the news stories influence how people vote, you are making an argument don't you think? And I can then try to invalidate that argument by giving a counterargument? In my view the whole point of being on a discussion forum, unless you are here to just troll people. I don't think you are one of those people. My question is how do you form an impression of a particular candidate if not by watching media stories?

 

[toobfreak]

If you say that you don't believe the news stories influence how people vote, you are making an argument don't you think?

No. I guess you can't read well. I was just making a STATEMENT about how I PERSONALLY FEEL.

 

[forkup]

If you say that you don't believe the news stories influence how people vote, you are making an argument don't you think?

No. I guess you can't read well. I was just making a STATEMENT about how I PERSONALLY FEEL.

If you say that you don't believe the news stories influence how people vote, you are making an argument don't you think?

No. I guess you can't read well. I was just making a STATEMENT about how I PERSONALLY FEEL.

. My only point is that I don't see any of this influencing me to change my vote if I was already in the Hillary camp, nor do I see it changing many other people's.

Your statement at the very least imposes your opinion onto most other people. Or do I misread that?
And you didn't answer my question. How do you form an impression of people if you claim the media has no influence on how you and by extension most people vote? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I can only reply to how I understand your posts. Maybe I do misread them, but that's how I understand them.

 

[toobfreak]

Or do I misread that?

Yep.

How do you form an impression of people if you claim the media has no influence on how you and by extension most people vote?

I cannot speak to how others choose or vote. I've followed the Clintons since Bill ran for president via both public and non-public avenues of information. I've followed Trump since the late '70's when my uncle got involved with him as a contractor to some of his buildings. Gathering facts, any good person gets them from several different sources independent of each other. The more sources you use the better. If you get news from 7 different sources and most of them report the same things independently, then that increases the chance of accuracy same as if you check the weather and three of them forecast sunny and one forecasts snow, chances are better that it will be sunny.

Over time if those in agreement tend to consistently agree and their reports later mesh well with actual events, etc., that increases the confidence level. So for me, Hillary was never even a contender, I know all too well she is a crook, liar and criminal and her behavior and actions as president would most likely continue in a similar direction from her past, just as when the GOP campaigns first started, I was rather luke-warmingly resigning myself to the fact that the best GOP candidates were likely going to be either Scott Walker, Chris Christi or Rick Perry, though I like Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Santorum and some of the others very much, maybe more, I just don't see them as electable or winnable against Hillary. But When Trump announced he was running, I both liked him as my candidate, and as the most likely to win nomination and to beat Hillary in all of about 5 minutes. I must be doing something right as 99.9% of the professional pundits did not see it that way and I did.

So when a rogue, fleeting story comes along about a goofball in a pizza shop or some nonsense about Trump, it doesn't hold much sway with me. Now, the Seth Rich case, I think there is legs to that and in due time, I think will be found true, even if publicly suppressed. His story might be a case of it being too big to succeed.

 

[federalist50]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

If this investigation ends up as a dry hole, with no evidence of votes being changes, who will have more egg on their face, the news media, or democrats?

 

[forkup]

Or do I misread that?

Yep.

How do you form an impression of people if you claim the media has no influence on how you and by extension most people vote?

I cannot speak to how others choose or vote. I've followed the Clintons since Bill ran for president via both public and non-public avenues of information. I've followed Trump since the late '70's when my uncle got involved with him as a contractor to some of his buildings. Gathering facts, any good person gets them from several different sources independent of each other. The more sources you use the better. If you get news from 7 different sources and most of them report the same things independently, then that increases the chance of accuracy same as if you check the weather and three of them forecast sunny and one forecasts snow, chances are better that it will be sunny.

Over time if those in agreement tend to consistently agree and their reports later mesh well with actual events, etc., that increases the confidence level. So for me, Hillary was never even a contender, I know all too well she is a crook, liar and criminal and her behavior and actions as president would most likely continue in a similar direction from her past, just as when the GOP campaigns first started, I was rather luke-warmingly resigning myself to the fact that the best GOP candidates were likely going to be either Scott Walker, Chris Christi or Rick Perry, though I like Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Santorum and some of the others very much, maybe more, I just don't see them as electable or winnable against Hillary. But When Trump announced he was running, I both liked him as my candidate, and as the most likely to win nomination and to beat Hillary in all of about 5 minutes. I must be doing something right as 99.9% of the professional pundits did not see it that way and I did.

So when a rogue, fleeting story comes along about a goofball in a pizza shop or some nonsense about Trump, it doesn't hold much sway with me. Now, the Seth Rich case, I think there is legs to that and in due time, I think will be found true, even if publicly suppressed. His story might be a case of it being too big to succeed.

As long as you approach this from a personal standpoint and don't try to mirror your personal opinion onto people you can't speak for, I can't really fault you. We both have completely different viewpoints, which is fine. I do however want to point out this.

Not necessarily, it is a simple matter of where you get information.

If these are the sole sources of information you accept, nothing would sound outrageous after a while.

This seems the case with you and the Seth Rich story. Like I pointed out the story isn't supported by the police, the victims family and even FOX retracted it. There is no evidence just a vague conspiracy theory. Yet here you are not just saying you believe it but that the reason the story isn't taken seriously is that it's being actively suppressed. You say

So when a rogue, fleeting story comes along about a goofball in a pizza shop or some nonsense about Trump, it doesn't hold much sway with me.

But it seems to me that when a rogue, fleeting story comes along about Clinton ordering the assassination of a campaign operative , you are more then happy to believe it.

 

[forkup]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

If this investigation ends up as a dry hole, with no evidence of votes being changes, who will have more egg on their face, the news media, or democrats?

I don't know, how did the Republicans react to Comey not wanting to prosecute Clinton? I seem to remember a whole lot of people still chanting "Lock her up" afterwards. If you came out and said then. " Well lets just drop it" you can speak about this hypothetical.

 

[toobfreak]

Like I pointed out the story isn't supported by the police,

Well, that seals the deal! The police have never distorted or covered up info, planted evidence, etc.!

Yet here you are not just saying you believe it but that the reason the story isn't taken seriously is that it's being actively suppressed.

You don't give enough credit for INSTINCTS. Sometimes instincts will take you further than anything else.

 

[forkup]

Like I pointed out the story isn't supported by the police,

Well, that seals the deal! The police have never distorted or covered up info, planted evidence, etc.!

Yet here you are not just saying you believe it but that the reason the story isn't taken seriously is that it's being actively suppressed.

You don't give enough credit for INSTINCTS. Sometimes instincts will take you further than anything else.

Believing something because of instinct is faith and for the same reason. You believe the story because you want to believe it. I fits into your world view, so it has to be true. It's the exact same as someone believing that Hillary ran a pedophile ring out of the basement of a pizza shop. Which is my point.

 

[toobfreak]

Believing something because of instinct is faith and for the same reason.

Boy, you just like to be wrong a lot, don't you?

INSTINCT is recognized as intuition, a sixth sense. A perception of our surroundings beyond the ordinary five senses.

FAITH is just a belief system. Somewhat akin to TRUST.

Like apples and oranges.

You can have faith and trust without having intuition. But people sometimes they say they trust their instincts because they are two separate things. First you have the instinct, then you decide whether to trust them or not. I have good instincts so I trust them. Their past pattern of accuracy and reliability have justified my faith in them.

 

[forkup]

Believing something because of instinct is faith and for the same reason.

Boy, you just like to be wrong a lot, don't you?

INSTINCT is recognized as intuition, a sixth sense. A perception of our surroundings beyond the ordinary five senses.

FAITH is just a belief system. Somewhat akin to TRUST.

Like apples and oranges.

You can have faith and trust without having intuition. But people sometimes they say they trust their instincts because they are two separate things. First you have the instinct, then you decide whether to trust them or not. I have good instincts so I trust them. Their past pattern of accuracy and reliability have justified my faith in them.

I play poker and have instincts for bluffing, only that instinct is nothing supernatural. It is my brain recognising something I've seen before even if I can't recall it consciously. It's the same for a cop's instinct I presume. He recognises something that is of on a crime scene or a particular case without being able to pinpoint it. What you call instinct is nothing of the sort. You are not a cop who has seen crime scenes or actual criminal cases I presume. You are a person who has certain preconceptions, and those preconceptions color the way you look at the world.

 

[DOTR]

who will have more egg on their face, the news media, or democrats?

There's a difference?

 

[DOTR]

Haha this is getting good. Now it's the Russians fault we don't trust the media!

Russian Hackers Are Using ‘Tainted’ Leaks to Sow Disinformation

 

[Theowl32]

Even engaging the left at this point about any of this bullshit means they have us where they want us.

Let the chickens cluck away. It is all about crippling the Trump presidency. It is about sabotage.

Democrats and their followers are evil traitorous pigs and don't even hide their globalist agendas.

Like the half black marxist lying smoking snake today telling Europe how bad the entire notion of borders is.

They are all liars and worthy of a traitors death. All of them.

Has the entire world media already gotten away from the attack by radical islam? Yeah, they sure have. Now back to the globalist agenda.

 

[DOTR]

Even engaging the left at this point about any of this bullshit means they have us where they want us.

Let the chickens cluck away. It is all about crippling the Trump presidency. It is about sabotage.

Democrats and their followers are evil traitorous pigs and don't even hide their globalist agendas.

Like the half black marxist lying smoking snake today telling Europe how bad the entire notion of borders is.

They are all liars and worthy of a traitors death. All of them.

Has the entire world media already gotten away from the attack by radical islam? Yeah, they sure have. Now back to the globalist agenda.

You are absolutely correct. Marxists aren't worth engaging because there is no way to change the liberal mind...it being a diseased mind and a waste of grey matter. My point is rather intended for those decent people reading who suffer under the constant media barrage from the elites on TVs, radio stations, magazines and newspapers. And it isn't going to stop. The richest most powerful corporations and financiers the world has ever seen have dedicated themselves to destroying Trump...not because of who he is but because of who he represents.
It's the rare billionaire or the Wall Street firm that hasn't pulled out all stops to undo the election

It does no good to yell back at the TV. You cant stop the bimbos on MSNBC from saying "russian hack" and moving on as if it is fact but here, and Twitter and Reddit, you can say "hold on. What hack?" and watch their minions writhe.

I think the display is important.

And yes I agree they are traitors. But the day for dealing with that hasn't come yet.

 

[g5000]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

That's funny. All last summer and fall the pseudocons were claiming the leaks were making all the difference.

You tards are positively schizophrenic.

 

[g5000]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.
One example! Is it that hard?

So...basically...retard, you are telling us you have not watched any of the Capitol Hill testimony, and have studiously avoided reading any news about said testimony, and you have not read any of the reports which have been available online for months.

In short, you are telling us you are a willfully blind and stupid monkey.

ME SEE NO EVIDENCE!!!

 

[g5000]

Trump won Michigan by 0.2 percent. He won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percent. He won Wisconsin by 0.8 percent.


80,000 vote difference when you add all three states.

If Clinton had won those states, she'd be President.

Don't tell me the leaks made no difference.

 

[g5000]

Wisconsin:
United States presidential election in Wisconsin, 2016 - Wikipedia
United States presidential election in Wisconsin, 2012 - Wikipedia

Same Republican turnout in 2016 and 2012.
Much lower Democratic turnout in 2016 than in 2012.


Pennsylvania:
United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2016 - Wikipedia
United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2012 - Wikipedia

Higher Republican turnout in 2016.
Lower Democratic turnout in 2016.

Michigan:
United States presidential election in Michigan, 2016 - Wikipedia
United States presidential election in Michigan, 2012 - Wikipedia

Higher Republican turnout in 2016.
Lower Democratic turnout in 2016.


National voter turnout for Democrats was about 100,000 less voters in 2016, than 2012. Republicans had about 2 million more voters turn out.


As I said many, many times on this forum, elections are being determined by how many of your opponent's voters you can convince to stay home.