- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How exactly did Russians influence election
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:11 am to DawgsLife
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:11 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Timed? Possible. but they were released by WikiLeaks, not the Russians.
This COMPLETELY misses the unique timing of bull shite against Trump during his positive times on the trail.
I mean hell. Look at the week after the convention!
Where are all those women? Just disappeared into the ether.
1
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:13 am to The Spleen
quote:
And if any of that influenced people's voting decision, then you have to come to the conclusion that Russians influenced the election. Someone at least gets it.
Hardly. It means the DNC influenced the election when they went full on corrupt. You don't blame the news bearer. You blame the criminal. Had the DNC run a fair election, they MIGHT have won. (I don't really think so, but it's possible)
Liberals want to concentrate on where the information came from when the actual damage was done by the information itself. by what the DNC, and Hillary did. It showed the entire world just how corrupt Hillary was....which a big part of her problem to start with.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:13 am to ShortyRob
Russians didn't think Trump would win. They did it to spread hate, partisanship, and chaos in our election process.
He would have probably won without any Russian influence.
He would have probably won without any Russian influence.
This post was edited on 5/15/17 at 11:28 am
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:14 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I mean hell. Look at the week after the convention!
Where are all those women? Just disappeared into the ether.
All good points. but somehow that was ok, and leaked E-mails were a huge problem.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:14 am to burke985
The argument seems pretty week. "But they posted fake news like we do!"
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:15 am to MizzouBS
quote:
Russians didn't think Trump would win. They did it to spread hate, partisanship, and chaos in our election process.
Could have done that AT LEAST as well by simply releasing all the garbage the day after Hillary got elected.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:16 am to The Spleen
quote:
Because my initial post in this thread(which you didn't quote) that the question was in response to really spoke for itself. His question showed he completely missed the point.
While I responded to your quote, tht was coincidence. We had 2-3 liberal posters on here saying similar..."It's over your head....you missed the point, etc. It just seemed amusing that none seemed to want to respond to direct questions.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:19 am to DawgsLife
quote:
It means the DNC influenced the election
Uh, yeah. That's the DNC's job. The RNC tried to influence the election as well, and no doubt are just as corrupt as the DNC was/is. That you can't see the difference in two US factions working to influence the election, and a foreign country that is hostile towards us influencing it says a lot.
Like I said, to most here the ends justified the means.
quote:
You blame the criminal.
Yes, and the DNC and Podesta emails were obtained illegally. By a foreign entity.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:21 am to shinerfan
quote:
I really fail to see a difference in influencing an election and influencing the outcome of an election.
Your failure doesn't negate my point.
I'll grab some more crayons and stop back later.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:21 am to MizzouBS
quote:
Obama didn't think Trump would win. He did it to spread hate, partisanship, and chaos in our election process.
I fixed that for you
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:22 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Your prose is the issue. Clear up what you are trying to say instead of being a smug dick. 
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:24 am to BBONDS25
Even a mild understanding of the English language clears my point right up.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:28 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Your "point" is completely meaningless. As proven by your inability to elaborate on your claimed distinction.
This post was edited on 5/15/17 at 11:30 am
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:29 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
That's true. Most People believe trump didn't have a chance as well. Trump supporters on this board was right about the election.
This post was edited on 5/15/17 at 11:33 am
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:35 am to ShortyRob
Most Americans address this topic from perhaps too much of a geocentric point of view. In the run up to the election, Putin, like everyone else, assumed Hillary would win. He surely did not want Trump to win. I believe the election provided an opportunity for a Russian preemptive attack to weaken the presumed HRC presidency. Heads probably rolled at the Lubyanka when Trump actually won. Talk about unintended consequences ...
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:36 am to DawgsLife
quote:
I'm sure some of us would. You offered, now provide, please.
The Left's answer is, of course, "a lot" - that the entire email story regarding Hillary Clinton eroded public trust in her and that some Democrats chose not to vote at all and some moderates flipped their votes to Trump or to third party candidates, enough to flip some states and therefor the election.
The Right's answer is, nothing. The Russians didn't do anything, or if they did, it didn't change jack squat. Hillary was already a "dead woman walking", and it would have taken an unlikable, zero charisma pedophile to lose to her in the general election.
The correct answer is, "sort of, but not really". The problem is that public trust in Hillary Clinton should have been eroded, but not because of the email server. That could easily be described as incompetence. Lost in this whole mess was that there were acts that Hillary engaged in while Secretary of State that demonstrated that she was unqualified to be in the highest public office. The problem was that (and all this works under the assumptions that the Russians were the ones to acquire the emails) this was the big story, but it was the WRONG story.
Benghazi, the DNC primary rigging, and a host of other things should have been the main topics. Instead we got tons of meetings on email servers and discussions about her husband's infidelity from the 90s. The email server made for soundbites and silly moments that derailed what could have been otherwise good debates on actual policy (probably one of the few times I agreed with Bernie Sanders - "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails" & "Enough of the emails. Let’s talk about the real issues facing America")
It made for good TV, and good politics of course - why discuss the issues when you can make quips on TV about how she'll be in jail?
In short, yes, it influenced the election, because that was the focus. It SHOULDN'T have, because there were plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary, but the media and the debates focused on the emails way more than anything else that were her flaws. It overshadowed a lot of other things that should have been discussed.
That said, *IF* Trump and his team colluded with a foreign power to influence the election, ESPECIALLY when they had more than enough to go on that didn't have anything to do with the email server, then they shouldn't be in the White House either.
I may be alone, but I viewed the election of Trump vs Clinton as a "Do you prefer death by boiling oil or dunked in acid?" and unfortunately a "none of the above" option was taken off the table (THANKS GARY JOHNSON). This election highlighted SO many things wrong with how our processes occur.
Clinton won a major party nomination despite proof of tampering, and got to KEEP it.
Trump won the other major party nomination despite not acquiring even half of all Republican votes in the primaries.
It could be easily argued that the majority of Americans didn't want EITHER candidate representing their party, but there we have it. A Republican who the majority of Republicans voted against in their primaries vs a Democrat who literally had to cheat despite having a famous name and tons of experience to win hers.
So, yeah, the Russians influenced the election. Big thing is, there really should not have been a need to.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:38 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Your prose is poor. The point is not clear. People with much more education than you are telling you to step up your game. Step it up.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:39 am to Bearlyrelevant
quote:
Bearlyrelevant
Thinking she would win makes releasing it even sillier
If I've got bad info on my enemies, i want to be the ONLY one who knows until i can maximize its usefulness
In fact. I want to use it REPEATEDLY without ever releasing it.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:45 am to skrayper
quote:
skrayper
I've read your wall of text 3 times now, and I'm not really following your point. Are you saying Russians hacked her email server? Because that did not happen. They hacked the DNC servers and got into Podesta's Gmail account through a phishing scam.
Her email server was a big story, and rightfully so. It was shady as hell, and typical for the Clintons.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:45 am to The Spleen
quote:
the DNC and Podesta emails were obtained illegally.
Same argument can be used for illegally leaked emails from the WH. I don't see many people or any of the media raising a stink about that as the argument you use for the DNC debacle.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News