Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know that only 11 or 12 Russians were indited by DOJ and that Facebook had deleted about 35k accounts. So how did 11 or so Russians post on that many accounts. Somehow no one has cover that little problem.I'm still waiting . . . . has a single Leftard given just ONE clear example yet of exactly where and when Russia affected and changed votes as per the OP of this thread?
Nah, still didn't think so. . . .
The actual affects aren't quantifiable but logic informs us that it didn't need to be very many whose votes were influenced by Russian efforts.
Just their social media operations alone reached over 126 million people. Trump won the three key electoral states by a margin of only 77k votes.
77k/126 m =.0006%
That is the percentage that needed to be affected to get the desired outcome. Certainly within reason.
I'm not impressed and I'm not even in this war. You had a handful of Russian trolls posting pics of Hillary in a witch outfit and spending a GRAND TOTAL on Facebook of LESS than $80K.. And AFTER the election, these jokers started to organize anti-Trump activities !!!!
So -- it's INCONCEIVABLE that a prank campaign like that had ANY effect on ANY votes. It DID NOT REACH that many people. Just like the nuisance ads here at USMB. How many of those have YOU clicked on?
Now lets compare that "election meddling" damage to Hillary/DNC hiring a foreign national and a bunch of Russian Intel pros to compile a "Trump dossier" that was a POS. The POS dossier was MARKETED AND RELEASED with the conspiracy help of Brennan/Clapper/FBI. FBI was even paying Steele. THAT STORY made front page national news and airtime for the 2 weeks before the vote.
Was that a 1000 times more influential? Or only 100 times more influential?
I know that only 11 or 12 Russians were indited by DOJ and that Facebook had deleted about 35k accounts. So how did 11 or so Russians post on that many accounts. Somehow no one has cover that little problem.I'm still waiting . . . . has a single Leftard given just ONE clear example yet of exactly where and when Russia affected and changed votes as per the OP of this thread?
Nah, still didn't think so. . . .
The actual affects aren't quantifiable but logic informs us that it didn't need to be very many whose votes were influenced by Russian efforts.
Just their social media operations alone reached over 126 million people. Trump won the three key electoral states by a margin of only 77k votes.
77k/126 m =.0006%
That is the percentage that needed to be affected to get the desired outcome. Certainly within reason.
I'm not impressed and I'm not even in this war. You had a handful of Russian trolls posting pics of Hillary in a witch outfit and spending a GRAND TOTAL on Facebook of LESS than $80K.. And AFTER the election, these jokers started to organize anti-Trump activities !!!!
So -- it's INCONCEIVABLE that a prank campaign like that had ANY effect on ANY votes. It DID NOT REACH that many people. Just like the nuisance ads here at USMB. How many of those have YOU clicked on?
Now lets compare that "election meddling" damage to Hillary/DNC hiring a foreign national and a bunch of Russian Intel pros to compile a "Trump dossier" that was a POS. The POS dossier was MARKETED AND RELEASED with the conspiracy help of Brennan/Clapper/FBI. FBI was even paying Steele. THAT STORY made front page national news and airtime for the 2 weeks before the vote.
Was that a 1000 times more influential? Or only 100 times more influential?
Really, How the fuck is making a donation to a foundation money laundering? Come on smsrt guy. Tell us., The Clintons take no money from their foundation.
I hope you're being facetious.
or totally stupid. where does he think Chelsea's 900K salary comes from?
Again, the question was, what did russia do, dope?
You stated that it was spelled out in the indictment. What indictment.
The latest one, dope. Read it!
Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
No one corroborated their intelligence, moron. What part of "unverified" didn't you understand? Even if someone was doing it, they would only be a minute fraction of the personnel in the FBI.They're the one's obtaining and corroborating the intelligence, dope. Do you imagine the intel chiefs do all that themselves?Oh, ok. So just the "idiots at the top" perpetrated all of this and the thousands of others just what, go along?
Sure, dope.
They are powerless to do anything about it, moron. Furthermore, most of them ddidn't know anything about it.
So, you believe all of the thousands of every day intel folks in the trenches are oblivious to the plans of their " masters" ?
What a sad QTARD you are.
Yes. That's obvious. Why would they know everything a few scumbags are doing?
What a dope.
Cheap for Putin, and cheap for Hillary. Your excuse doesn't wash.You mean the $100,000 the spent on Facebook? Yeah, I'm sure that had a big impact compared to the $1.5 billion Hillary spent on her campaign. Hillary only spent 15,000 times more than the Russians spent on bots.The actual affects aren't quantifiable but logic informs us that it didn't need to be very many whose votes were influenced by Russian efforts.
Just their social media operations alone reached over 126 million people. Trump won the three key electoral states by a margin of only 77k votes.
77k/126 m =.0006%
That is the percentage that needed to be affected to get the desired outcome. Certainly within reason.
The phrase "they reached 126 million people" is meaningless. What does "reached" mean, someone may have seen a single tweet? It doesn't mean anything. Where is the evidence for your claim? Are you including the Wikileaks emails which the Russians weren't even responsible for?
No, dope, I'm not including wikileaks. That's why I said, "just their social media operations alone". When you include the entirety of their operations, that number shrinks exponentially. If you add in Comey's contribution it becomes undeniable that the election was influenced against Clinton.
Another dopey trope. Social media advertising is cheap because it is shared by the users of the platforms. One inexpensive item can be shared millions of times accross multiple platforms.
Again, the question was, what did russia do, dope?
You stated that it was spelled out in the indictment. What indictment.
The latest one, dope. Read it!
Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Wasn't really a "criminal" indictment. Turned back over the Intel Groups where the whole thing belonged in the 1st place. Not the job of Special Counsel to do Intel work. In fact, Mueller STOLE all that from outside his group and put his name on it because he's DESPERATE for attention and any hint of his usefulness and self esteem.
Actually, you were the one who first claimed she signed off on it. I was the one who challenged you to prove she did. You failed miserably:
As far as Clinton’s 500K speaking engagement, he often earned that for speeches. Getting as much as 700K for a single speech. 500K was a bargain where the organizers who paid it could easily make a profit.
We know exactly why your oirange POIS leader does niot want to release his tax returns.
1) He is in debt far more than he lets on
2) He in in bed financially with Russian banks controlled by Putin
3) His entire business is a scam
bullshit. If he released his returns (which are hundreds of pages) you assholes on the left would pull out one page, make up lies about it, and it would waste hundreds of hours refuting your lies.
How about the returns from the "tax-exempt" Clinton foundation? Would you be interested in knowing what happened to the millions they collected for Haiti relief after the hurricane? That money never got to Haiti. Do you care about that corruption?
I am merely pointing out the disingenuousness of you liberals.
No, dope. Tax document are just data entered on a form. There is nothing to spin. It's either true and accurate or it's not.
Thirty years of Clinton tax returns are publicly available. Their foundation financials are publicly available. Trump's are not.
Whos hiding what?
I don't think anyone is hiding anything about Trump's taxes. As I said, he gets audited every year, the Obama IRS audited him for 8 years, the same IRS that targeted conservative groups and conservative individuals. If Trump was doing anything illegal it would be public by now.
and you are very naïve if you think that Trump haters could not pull out one page and make up lies about it.
Yes, the Clinton foundation records are available, but they don't show where all the millions collected for Haiti went, we know they didn't go to Haiti, so where do you think they are?
The Clinton foundation financials do show where the money went, dope. Perhaps you should post the portion that you are questioning.
yes, they do show where it went. 10% to Haiti and 90% to salaries and expenses.
It's less harmful to Comey that having it discovered he sat on evidence before the election. It's also less harmful to Hillary than going to jail, which is where she belongs.how did it hurt her?So all of the people Donald Trump appointed to head the Justice Department, and the FBI, are loyal to the Clintons? Then why did Comey announce he was re-opening the Clinton Investigation days before the election.
Your statement makes no sense considering that these agencies were headed by Republicans for 10 of the twenty five years the Clintons have been investigated, and they controlled the House and Senate for 12 more years when Democrats were in the White House.
One would think, given the animus of Republicans towards the Clintons and their investigations and attempts at removing them from office, that there is no loyalty protecting the Clintons at all.
FBI and DOJ corruption is apparently nothing new. But it is very clear that Strzok, Page, McCabe, Comey, and others were trying to rig the election by exonerating Hillary and attacking Trump with false documents paid for by the Clinton campaign.
So, when Comey announced he was reopening the e0mail investigation, you think that was done to help Hillary.
your leftist view on americans is really quite sad. you're just a fking punk that knows nothing.
Really, do I have a dim view of Russia loving assholes like you & Trump? You betcha.
Gee, let me think, Announcing a candidate is back under scrutiny days before the election by the FBI isn't harmful? You can't be that fucking stupid, can you.
Call me a punk all you want. You are just pissed off that I have debunked your posts & pointed out what a dumbass you are. Go fuck yourself you Commie loving, anti-American piece of shit.
It's an excuse for Hillary's utter failure as a candidate.Cheap for Putin, and cheap for Hillary. Your excuse doesn't wash.You mean the $100,000 the spent on Facebook? Yeah, I'm sure that had a big impact compared to the $1.5 billion Hillary spent on her campaign. Hillary only spent 15,000 times more than the Russians spent on bots.The phrase "they reached 126 million people" is meaningless. What does "reached" mean, someone may have seen a single tweet? It doesn't mean anything. Where is the evidence for your claim? Are you including the Wikileaks emails which the Russians weren't even responsible for?
No, dope, I'm not including wikileaks. That's why I said, "just their social media operations alone". When you include the entirety of their operations, that number shrinks exponentially. If you add in Comey's contribution it becomes undeniable that the election was influenced against Clinton.
Another dopey trope. Social media advertising is cheap because it is shared by the users of the platforms. One inexpensive item can be shared millions of times accross multiple platforms.
It's an explanation, not an excuse, dope.
You should probably read the conversations before you post retarded nonsense.
I know that only 11 or 12 Russians were indited by DOJ and that Facebook had deleted about 35k accounts. So how did 11 or so Russians post on that many accounts. Somehow no one has cover that little problem.I'm still waiting . . . . has a single Leftard given just ONE clear example yet of exactly where and when Russia affected and changed votes as per the OP of this thread?
Nah, still didn't think so. . . .
The actual affects aren't quantifiable but logic informs us that it didn't need to be very many whose votes were influenced by Russian efforts.
Just their social media operations alone reached over 126 million people. Trump won the three key electoral states by a margin of only 77k votes.
77k/126 m =.0006%
That is the percentage that needed to be affected to get the desired outcome. Certainly within reason.
I'm not impressed and I'm not even in this war. You had a handful of Russian trolls posting pics of Hillary in a witch outfit and spending a GRAND TOTAL on Facebook of LESS than $80K.. And AFTER the election, these jokers started to organize anti-Trump activities !!!!
So -- it's INCONCEIVABLE that a prank campaign like that had ANY effect on ANY votes. It DID NOT REACH that many people. Just like the nuisance ads here at USMB. How many of those have YOU clicked on?
Now lets compare that "election meddling" damage to Hillary/DNC hiring a foreign national and a bunch of Russian Intel pros to compile a "Trump dossier" that was a POS. The POS dossier was MARKETED AND RELEASED with the conspiracy help of Brennan/Clapper/FBI. FBI was even paying Steele. THAT STORY made front page national news and airtime for the 2 weeks before the vote.
Was that a 1000 times more influential? Or only 100 times more influential?
Hillary obviously has done something illegal. Storing classified documents on a non secure server is a crime, period. It doesn't matter what Comey says. He's a lying douchebag.It's less harmful to Comey that having it discovered he sat on evidence before the election. It's also less harmful to Hillary than going to jail, which is where she belongs.how did it hurt her?FBI and DOJ corruption is apparently nothing new. But it is very clear that Strzok, Page, McCabe, Comey, and others were trying to rig the election by exonerating Hillary and attacking Trump with false documents paid for by the Clinton campaign.
So, when Comey announced he was reopening the e0mail investigation, you think that was done to help Hillary.
your leftist view on americans is really quite sad. you're just a fking punk that knows nothing.
Really, do I have a dim view of Russia loving assholes like you & Trump? You betcha.
Gee, let me think, Announcing a candidate is back under scrutiny days before the election by the FBI isn't harmful? You can't be that fucking stupid, can you.
Call me a punk all you want. You are just pissed off that I have debunked your posts & pointed out what a dumbass you are. Go fuck yourself you Commie loving, anti-American piece of shit.
He could have reopened the investigation, and cleared the file without making that information public.
Hillary hasn’t done anything illegal. Every investigation has cleared her of any wrongdoing. Yet you continue the lie that she’s a criminal.
Trump is a criminal. His record of “settlements” is Trump settling his way out of going to jail. Fraud, human rights violations, illegal fundraising, “illegal campaign contributions” (bribes), the list is endless.
Again, the question was, what did russia do, dope?
You stated that it was spelled out in the indictment. What indictment.
The latest one, dope. Read it!
Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Again, the question was, what did russia do, dope?
You stated that it was spelled out in the indictment. What indictment.
The latest one, dope. Read it!
Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Wasn't really a "criminal" indictment. Turned back over the Intel Groups where the whole thing belonged in the 1st place. Not the job of Special Counsel to do Intel work. In fact, Mueller STOLE all that from outside his group and put his name on it because he's DESPERATE for attention and any hint of his usefulness and self esteem.
It is indeed a criminal indictment, dope.
The govt agencies work together in counterintelligence matters. Mueller "stole" nothing.
Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:Actually, you were the one who first claimed she signed off on it. I was the one who challenged you to prove she did. You failed miserably:
As far as Clinton’s 500K speaking engagement, he often earned that for speeches. Getting as much as 700K for a single speech. 500K was a bargain where the organizers who paid it could easily make a profit.
Please show us where former President Bill Clinton was being paid $700,000 for a single speech. His going rate at most was $250,000 which is still outrageous.
The Nation did, indeed, dodge a bullet, when Hillary lost.The answer of course is “nothing”. The left just can’t except the fact that they lost. Ironic since they spent so much time pissing their panties because they though Trump wouldn’t except the results if he lost.
The scary thing is to look at HRC... she is such a sore loser now but imagine how sore of a winner she would be! Anyone who didn’t vote for her would face serious retaliation!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hillary obviously has done something illegal. Storing classified documents on a non secure server is a crime, period. It doesn't matter what Comey says. He's a lying douchebag.It's less harmful to Comey that having it discovered he sat on evidence before the election. It's also less harmful to Hillary than going to jail, which is where she belongs.how did it hurt her?So, when Comey announced he was reopening the e0mail investigation, you think that was done to help Hillary.
your leftist view on americans is really quite sad. you're just a fking punk that knows nothing.
Really, do I have a dim view of Russia loving assholes like you & Trump? You betcha.
Gee, let me think, Announcing a candidate is back under scrutiny days before the election by the FBI isn't harmful? You can't be that fucking stupid, can you.
Call me a punk all you want. You are just pissed off that I have debunked your posts & pointed out what a dumbass you are. Go fuck yourself you Commie loving, anti-American piece of shit.
He could have reopened the investigation, and cleared the file without making that information public.
Hillary hasn’t done anything illegal. Every investigation has cleared her of any wrongdoing. Yet you continue the lie that she’s a criminal.
Trump is a criminal. His record of “settlements” is Trump settling his way out of going to jail. Fraud, human rights violations, illegal fundraising, “illegal campaign contributions” (bribes), the list is endless.
Again, the question was, what did russia do, dope?
You stated that it was spelled out in the indictment. What indictment.
The latest one, dope. Read it!
Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Where are the indictments against anyone in the Trump administration who was cooperating with the Russians?
It's an excuse for Hillary's utter failure as a candidate.Cheap for Putin, and cheap for Hillary. Your excuse doesn't wash.You mean the $100,000 the spent on Facebook? Yeah, I'm sure that had a big impact compared to the $1.5 billion Hillary spent on her campaign. Hillary only spent 15,000 times more than the Russians spent on bots.No, dope, I'm not including wikileaks. That's why I said, "just their social media operations alone". When you include the entirety of their operations, that number shrinks exponentially. If you add in Comey's contribution it becomes undeniable that the election was influenced against Clinton.
Another dopey trope. Social media advertising is cheap because it is shared by the users of the platforms. One inexpensive item can be shared millions of times accross multiple platforms.
It's an explanation, not an excuse, dope.
You should probably read the conversations before you post retarded nonsense.
Again, the question was, what did russia do, dope?
You stated that it was spelled out in the indictment. What indictment.
The latest one, dope. Read it!
Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Where are the indictments against anyone in the Trump administration who was cooperating with the Russians?
