Trump

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can't answer! Shocker!

I suppose you think getting aid from his Russian friends is acceptable and fair.

Since you dismiss or encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 US election then explain how you’re now tough on Russia on Ukraine. The two acts are part of the same Putin plan to undermine rule of law & the West - aggression that goes back at least to Georgia in 2008.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I suppose you think getting aid from his Russian friends is acceptable and fair.

Since you dismiss or encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 US election then explain how you’re now tough on Russia on Ukraine. The two acts are part of the same Putin plan to undermine rule of law & the West - aggression that goes back at least to Georgia in 2008.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it's acceptable, but I'm certain it didn't effect the outcome.

If I combed through Hilary's donor list, I'm quite certainI'd find some loathsome people.

Anyway, I knew full well there was no way you'd give me a yes or no answer. You can't. If you say it was fair, you're going against the Narrative, and you can't do that.

If you say it wasn't fair, you know you sound exactly as nutty as Trump when he says 2020 wasn't fair.

I backed you into a corner, you couldn't escape with a direct answer, so you dodged.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't think it's acceptable, but I'm certain it didn't effect the outcome.

If I combed through Hilary's donor list, I'm quite certainI'd find some loathsome people.

Anyway, I knew full well there was no way you'd give me a yes or no answer. You can't. If you say it was fair, you're going against the Narrative, and you can't do that.

If you say it wasn't fair, you know you sound exactly as nutty as Trump when he says 2020 wasn't fair.

The difference is there is no evidence of the 2020 election being unfair, there is plenty of evidence that the Russians interfered with both the 2016 and 2020 elections

I backed you into a corner, you couldn't escape with a direct answer, so you dodged.

Yes, both elections had significant evidence of russian interference.

But just keep repeating the Russian propaganda and claiming that what is clearly visible is fake news.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yes, both elections had significant evidence of russian interference.

But just keep repeating the Russian propaganda and claiming that what is clearly visible is fake news.

i’m not denying the russians interfered. i asked what evidence there is, that russian interference impacted the outcome in any way.

pretty simple question. you’ve obviously concluded that it had an effect.

there’s no evidence to support that. but you still believe it, because it supports the narrative
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not denying the russians interfered. i asked what evidence there is, that russian interference impacted the outcome in any way.

pretty simple question. you’ve obviously concluded that it had an effect.

there’s no evidence to support that. but you still believe it, because it supports the narrative
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There’s plenty of demonstrative, documentary and digital evidence that Russia’s million plus a month spending on a disinformation campaign to aid Trump had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election, what would you find acceptable as evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s plenty of demonstrative, documentary and digital evidence that Russia’s million plus a month spending on a disinformation campaign to aid Trump had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election, what would you find acceptable as evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russia's spending is not enough evidence. The Dems raised 40 million dollars more in campaign money. The media propaganda was heavily in favor of the Dems. There's no telling how much influence money was spent by other countries and for whom. The polls, which should have reflected how much influence the spending (including Russia's) had on public opinion, were massively favoring the Dems.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Russia's spending is not enough evidence. The Dems raised 40 million dollars more in campaign money. The media propaganda was heavily in favor of the Dems. There's no telling how much influence money was spent by other countries and for whom. The polls, which should have reflected how much influence the spending (including Russia's) had on public opinion, were massively favoring the Dems.

Both US intelligence agencies and Mueller’s investigation affirmed that Russian hackers wanted to help Trump win office and committed crimes toward that end. Trump even acknowledged it at one point.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Thursday indicated that beyond hacking and propaganda campaigns, the Kremlin’s efforts included attempts to penetrate elections systems in all 50 states. It also affirms there is no evidence Russian hackers messed with vote totals or were able to change votes. So in that very narrow sense, the claim that Russia didn’t affect the outcome of the election is defensible.

University of Tennessee Knoxville study funded by the Defense Department found that Trump’s polling upticks during the 2016 campaign correlated with social media activity by Russian trolls and bots. According to the study, every 25,000 retweets from troll and bot accounts connected with Russia’s Internet Research Agency predicted a 1 percent bump in Trump’s polling.

Damian Ruck, the study’s lead researcher, told NBC’s Ken Dilanian that his findings indicate Russia played a very key role in Trump’s victory:

In an interview with NBC News, Ruck said the research suggests that Russian trolls helped shift U.S public opinion in Trump’s favor. As to whether it affected the outcome of the election: “The answer is that we still don’t know, but we can’t rule it out.”

Given that the election turned on 75,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, “it is a prospect that should be taken seriously,” Ruck wrote, adding that more study was needed in those swing states.

He points out that 13 percent of voters didn’t make their final choice until the last week before the election.

There is also a strong argument to be made that WikiLeaks, which published the first tranche of emails purloined from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta by Russian hackers just hours after the Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape of Trump on October 7, swayed voters during the final month of the campaign. In this period, Trump overcame a string of sexual misconduct allegations and a 7-point deficit in the polls to win the election.

As Harry Enten noted for FiveThirtyEight in an analysis of WikiLeaks’ impact during the campaign’s closing stretch, the case remains circumstantial, but Americans were definitely paying attention to WikiLeaks. Enten found that for much of October, there was almost twice as much search interest in WikiLeaks than there was in the FBI, which was also in the news that month because of a letter then-Director James Comey sent to Congress publicizing the Clinton email investigation. Here are a couple additional important data points from Enten’s piece:

Trump, for instance, won among voters who decided who to vote for in October 51 percent to 37 percent, according to national exit polls. That’s Trump’s best time period. He carried voters who decided in the final week, when you might expect Comey’s letter to have had the largest impact, 45 percent to 42 percent.
It’s worth remembering that Trump’s closing message centered largely around WikiLeaks. He mentioned Julian Assange’s operation about five days a day during the campaign’s final month, but now pretends that never happened. (“Problematic is an understatement,” Mueller said on Wednesday about Trump’s promotion of WikiLeaks.) Is it possible the Clinton campaign email dumps and Trump’s relentless hyping of them on the campaign trail had no impact on the outcome of the election? It seems exceedingly unlikely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s plenty of demonstrative, documentary and digital evidence that Russia’s million plus a month spending on a disinformation campaign to aid Trump had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election, what would you find acceptable as evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

something other than your say-so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device