CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[Elixir]

There's lots more where that came from - but nothing that you'd ever take to heart.
Fact is, Russians are quite proud of their hackers and the way they have sowed doubt from within about the US electoral process. IMHO, that is much greater point of pride for them than than having caused the election of a fat orange dork. And the reports are consistent with that.

More than few? 10?

If you think I have means to post the opinions of the majority of individual Russians, you are sorely deluded - as I would be if I thought that doing so would budge your a priori opinion one iota.
The fact remains - Russians are generally proud of what their country has accomplish vis-a-vis the US elections, and the resulting attitudes about it amongst Americans.

 

[barbos]

More than few? 10?

If you think I have means to post the opinions of the majority of individual Russians, you are sorely deluded - as I would be if I thought that doing so would budge your a priori opinion one iota.
The fact remains - Russians are generally proud of what their country has accomplish vis-a-vis the US elections, and the resulting attitudes about it amongst Americans.

There is no such fact, especially about government being involved. Would they be proud if they believed it was a fact? most certainly yes. But so far, they don't believe that is the case. You are deluded if they believe western media theories. In general, russian hackers have been interested in making money.

 

[Elixir]

There is no such fact...

I won't ask you to prove a negative, barbos. Neither will I accept your naked assertion as authoritative. I have posted a little bit of material to support my assertion, while you have just posted your assertion. Maybe you can find something to support it, then we can talk.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So you are judging russians by a few 15 year old internet trolls?

There's lots more where that came from - but nothing that you'd ever take to heart.
Fact is, Russians are quite proud of their hackers and the way they have sowed doubt from within about the US electoral process. IMHO, that is much greater point of pride for them than than having caused the election of a fat orange dork. And the reports are consistent with that.

There's lots of unsupported drivel but nothing indefeasible that could even be allowed to file a case let alone laughed out of court if anything ever made it in front of a judge.

 

[skepticalbip]

More than few? 10?

If you think I have means to post the opinions of the majority of individual Russians, you are sorely deluded - as I would be if I thought that doing so would budge your a priori opinion one iota.
The fact remains - Russians are generally proud of what their country has accomplish

Absolutely they are proud of how much Russia has recovered since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They give much of the credit for their recovery to Putin.

vis-a-vis the US elections, and the resulting attitudes about it amongst Americans.

Do you mean how many Democrats are in a panic and denial believing that only "hacking the election" could have caused Clinton to lose? Dude, many Democrats are still in denial that Gore lost the 2000 election, claiming it was stolen.

 

[dismal]

I'm curious which of the Democrat emails are supposed to be so bad they cost Hillary the election.

I don't recall a "oh no this email is so bad it's going to cost Hillary the election" thread here. Did I miss it?

 

[arkirk]

If you think I have means to post the opinions of the majority of individual Russians, you are sorely deluded - as I would be if I thought that doing so would budge your a priori opinion one iota.
The fact remains - Russians are generally proud of what their country has accomplish

Absolutely they are proud of how much Russia has recovered since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They give much of the credit for their recovery to Putin.

vis-a-vis the US elections, and the resulting attitudes about it amongst Americans.

Do you mean how many Democrats are in a panic and denial believing that only "hacking the election" could have caused Clinton to lose? Dude, many Democrats are still in denial that Gore lost the 2000 election, claiming it was stolen.

Confidencemen International Assn. This outfit is nothing but a pack of paid liars. We have them to thank for not keeping us out of the Iraq war...and about every other war. They and the NSA are more apt to spy on you than any enemy. They make the enemies.

 

[Elixir]

Do you mean how many Democrats are in a panic and denial believing that only "hacking the election" could have caused Clinton to lose?

I don't know any such Democrats, but if you say you do I'll believe you. There is an abundance of idiots on both sides of the proverbial aisle. I tend to think that the Dems lost the election due to their own behavior - which may or may not have included playing into the hands of Russian propaganda. fake news sites etc.

Dude, many Democrats are still in denial that Gore lost the 2000 election, claiming it was stolen.

It may have been 'stolen', depending on how one defines stolen, and what actually happened (which we will never know). Do you hear any Democrats (or Republicans) saying we should be doing something about that now? If not ... did you have a point? Both the hand-wringing on the left and the gloating on the right are rather unbecoming IMHO.

View attachment 9189

 

[Axulus]

I'm curious which of the Democrat emails are supposed to be so bad they cost Hillary the election.

I don't recall a "oh no this email is so bad it's going to cost Hillary the election" thread here. Did I miss it?

The "open borders" one was taken out of context, but I'm sure that the allegation that Hillary wants open borders as indicated by her bank speech cost her some votes in the three key mid-west states.

The "pay-to-play" leaks.

The trashing of Bernie.

Etc.

 

[Trausti]

I'm curious which of the Democrat emails are supposed to be so bad they cost Hillary the election.

I don't recall a "oh no this email is so bad it's going to cost Hillary the election" thread here. Did I miss it?

The "open borders" one was taken out of context, but I'm sure that the allegation that Hillary wants open borders as indicated by her bank speech cost her some votes in the three key mid-west states.

The "pay-to-play" leaks.

The trashing of Bernie.

Etc.

Did that sway your vote?

 

[Axulus]

The "open borders" one was taken out of context, but I'm sure that the allegation that Hillary wants open borders as indicated by her bank speech cost her some votes in the three key mid-west states.

The "pay-to-play" leaks.

The trashing of Bernie.

Etc.

Did that sway your vote?

No and that is irrelevant.

There is a lot of good data that Hillary's poll numbers declined following negative media attention from new developments on her emails.

Regardless, Nate Silver believes Comey's letter had the biggest impact:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate...nly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter

It doesn't take a large swing to change the election results when the three key states of PA, MI and WI held such a thin margin of victory for Trump.

 

[Trausti]

Did that sway your vote?

No and that is irrelevant.

There is a lot of good data that Hillary's poll numbers declined following negative media attention from new developments on her emails.

Regardless, Nate Silver believes Comey's letter had the biggest impact:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate...nly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter

It doesn't take a large swing to change the election results when the three key states of PA, MI and WI held such a thin margin of victory for Trump.

If your vote was impervious to being swayed by this information, why do you assume that others don't also have the same ability not to be so easily swayed? Why would the voters in PA, MI, and WI that gave Trump the victory care about the emails at all?

 

[Axulus]

No and that is irrelevant.

There is a lot of good data that Hillary's poll numbers declined following negative media attention from new developments on her emails.

Regardless, Nate Silver believes Comey's letter had the biggest impact:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate...nly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter

It doesn't take a large swing to change the election results when the three key states of PA, MI and WI held such a thin margin of victory for Trump.

If your vote was impervious to being swayed by this information, why do you assume that others don't also have the same ability not to be so easily swayed? Why would the voters in PA, MI, and WI that gave Trump the victory care about the emails at all?

Because of evidence demonstrating it to be so. Additionally, there were undecided people in the days before the election - I was not one of them. These people are more likely to be swayed by new developments. Did you read the Nate Silver link in my previous post?

 

[Juma]

Putin has been interfering in US presidential politics for a long time.

Looks very much to be fake. The grays in his face doesnt fit with the rest.

 

[Trausti]

If your vote was impervious to being swayed by this information, why do you assume that others don't also have the same ability not to be so easily swayed? Why would the voters in PA, MI, and WI that gave Trump the victory care about the emails at all?

Because of evidence demonstrating it to be so. Additionally, there were undecided people in the days before the election - I was not one of them. These people are more likely to be swayed by new developments. Did you read the Nate Silver link in my previous post?

Eh, did it have an effect on the Blue Wall? That Trump appealed to these voters was no secret, even if the Clinton camp tried to ignore it. These voters cared about the economy, stupid (that's what Bill ran on in '92!). The only people who gnashed about emails were people who were already partisan.

 

[Axulus]

Because of evidence demonstrating it to be so. Additionally, there were undecided people in the days before the election - I was not one of them. These people are more likely to be swayed by new developments. Did you read the Nate Silver link in my previous post?

Eh, did it have an effect on the Blue Wall? That Trump appealed to these voters was no secret, even if the Clinton camp tried to ignore it. These voters cared about the economy, stupid (that's what Bill ran on in '92!). The only people who gnashed about emails were people who were already partisan.

A significant number of people voted _against_ Clintion rather than _for_ Trump. These types would be more easily swayed in the direction of Trump with any additional perception/visibility of Hillary being a corrupt establishment candidate.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/...ge-voters-voting-not-won-last-four-elections/

When you only lose by 1% in a state, a small effect on any constituency can alter the election. The white working class was not the sole source of votes for Trump in those states. Also note that it doesn't need to flip a vote, either. Someone who was originally going to vote for Hillary may decide to stay home as a result of additional negative news against her.

 

[Trausti]

Putin has been interfering in US presidential politics for a long time.

Looks very much to be fake. The grays in his face doesnt fit with the rest.

Good catch!

 

[arkirk]

Because of evidence demonstrating it to be so. Additionally, there were undecided people in the days before the election - I was not one of them. These people are more likely to be swayed by new developments. Did you read the Nate Silver link in my previous post?

Eh, did it have an effect on the Blue Wall? That Trump appealed to these voters was no secret, even if the Clinton camp tried to ignore it. These voters cared about the economy, stupid (that's what Bill ran on in '92!). The only people who gnashed about emails were people who were already partisan.

I don't know...the speech she gave to the bankers where she said it was necessary to have both a public position and a private one may have driven a few votes away. I was outside the loop in an allegedly safe state and voted third party. Clinton and her loyal party of idiots really in the cards for me voting this time. What they did to Sanders was quite enough to convince me it would do no particular good if Clinton prevailed anyway. The problem is that Trump intends to entirely reorganize government for the sake of outfits like Exxon. Some choice we had...war mongering or pollution mongering. This system is broken and there really is no sense crying over spilled milk and proffering a lot of phony excuses.

 

[Trausti]

When you only lose by 1% in a state, a small effect on any constituency can alter the election. The white working class was not the sole source of votes for Trump in those states. Also note that it doesn't need to flip a vote, either. Someone who was originally going to vote for Hillary may decide to stay home as a result of additional negative news against her.

Let's agree to disagree.

http://www.ddorn.net/papers/ADHM-President2016.pdf

 

[dismal]

No and that is irrelevant.

There is a lot of good data that Hillary's poll numbers declined following negative media attention from new developments on her emails.

Regardless, Nate Silver believes Comey's letter had the biggest impact:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate...nly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter

It doesn't take a large swing to change the election results when the three key states of PA, MI and WI held such a thin margin of victory for Trump.

If your vote was impervious to being swayed by this information, why do you assume that others don't also have the same ability not to be so easily swayed? Why would the voters in PA, MI, and WI that gave Trump the victory care about the emails at all?

I'd bet a tiny number of voters were aware of those emails, and a double super tiny number of mildly engaged swing voters knew about them.

But if those emails cost Hillary the election should we blame the people who sent them first?