CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[Axulus]

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?

Why can't we blame both? Also, don't you agree that people are more candid in private than in public? Are you saying that a person should expect every private conversation to be made public, so better always be extra guarded in what one says in private?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Both the parties received lots negative media attention.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Both the parties received lots negative media attention.

You're misunderstanding. The negative media attention directed at Trump was the good kind of negative attention, because he is literally Hitler and kicked a kitten. The negative media attention directed at Clinton was the bad kind of negative attention, because she has a vagina and she was already preordained by the laws of the universe to be president.

 

[dismal]

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?

Why can't we blame both? Also, don't you agree that people are more candid in private than in public? Are you saying that a person should expect every private conversation to be made public, so better always be extra guarded in what one says in private?

I've been told maybe a hundred times never put something in an email you don't want read in public.

Also, not to use "password" as a password.

Maybe the Democrats should learn this sort of shit before trying to run our lives.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Both the parties received lots negative media attention.

You're misunderstanding. The negative media attention directed at Trump was the good kind of negative attention, because he is literally Hitler and kicked a kitten. The negative media attention directed at Clinton was the bad kind of negative attention, because she has a vagina and she was already preordained by the laws of the universe to be president.

I thought the election was to see who the public thought was the worst.

 

[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.

Both the parties received lots negative media attention.

Red herring. We are talking about media attention on information obtained from hacks and the impact that may have had on the election results.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Both the parties received lots negative media attention.

Red herring. We are talking about media attention on information obtained from hacks and the impact that may have had on the election results.

I don't think Clinton needed any hacks to lose the election for a majority of US States. (She won the majority of votes however). This claim that hacks may have had an impact on the election results seems to be the actual red herring.

 

[Axulus]

Red herring. We are talking about media attention on information obtained from hacks and the impact that may have had on the election results.

I don't think Clinton needed any hacks to lose the election for a majority of US States. (She won the majority of votes however). This claim that hacks may have had an impact on the election results seems to be the actual red herring.

Based on what? Your say so? Why should you be believed?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't think Clinton needed any hacks to lose the election for a majority of US States. (She won the majority of votes however). This claim that hacks may have had an impact on the election results seems to be the actual red herring.

Based on what? Your say so? Why should you be believed?

The claim that the Russians have somehow influenced the election results has no concrete basis. If there was there would be conclusions by the FBI and not speculation.

 

[Elixir]

The claim that the Russians have somehow influenced the election results has no concrete basis. If there was there would be conclusions by the FBI and not speculation.

Right, because you are always privy to all the evidence available to US intelligence agencies.
Here we see delusions of grandeur raised to new heights...

 

[barbos]

I don't think Clinton needed any hacks to lose the election for a majority of US States. (She won the majority of votes however). This claim that hacks may have had an impact on the election results seems to be the actual red herring.

Based on what? Your say so? Why should you be believed?

Based on sources in russian intelligence

 

[whichphilosophy]

Based on what? Your say so? Why should you be believed?

Based on sources in russian intelligence

I regard Russian Intelligence, and American Intelligence as almost oxymoron in meaning (like military intelligence). Clinton missed a few states where she thought she could easily win (Democrat blue collar states). There was negative information about both candidates and both didn't rate well in the polls with respect to being trusted.

 

[Elixir]

Based on sources in russian intelligence

There was negative information about both candidates and both didn't rate well in the polls with respect to being trusted.

Therefore, any claim that hacks may have had an impact on the election results must be bogus.
Scientologic?

The truth is that ANYTHING - hacks, fake news, Hillary's bad breath on the day before the election - could have been enough to sway the election, given that it was "won" by a fraction of a percent in the deciding districts. Anyone claiming to know what was or was not a factor - including misinformed Europeans - is not only indulging in eye-popping hubris, but must also have a really aggrandized view of their own perspective on American elections.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[whichphilosophy]

There was negative information about both candidates and both didn't rate well in the polls with respect to being trusted.

Therefore, any claim that hacks may have had an impact on the election results must be bogus.
Scientologic?

The truth is that ANYTHING - hacks, fake news, Hillary's bad breath on the day before the election - could have been enough to sway the election, given that it was "won" by a fraction of a percent in the deciding districts. Anyone claiming to know what was or was not a factor - including misinformed Europeans - is not only indulging in eye-popping hubris, but must also have a really aggrandized view of their own perspective on American elections.

the
There was so much garbage going on by both sides about each other (or often fringe media on their behalf) I don't think much swayed people either way. Had the candidates concentrated on the issues and not on each other then perhaps there could have been an election based on issues.

It's clearer looking at this from a distance. One thing is for sure and that is there is no evidence to date showing the Russians swayed the election.

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 9257

There is a presumption of fact which has not been established (tampering). The members of Pussy Riot is of course another issue but Russia is perhaps not an ideal place for someone who is looking to move to somewhere new.

 

[Elixir]

There is a presumption of fact which has not been established by whichphilosophy (tampering).

Fixed that for you...

Russia is perhaps not an ideal place for someone who is looking to move to somewhere new.

Duh. No place is ideal for anyone looking to be elsewhere or they wouldn't be looking to be elsewhere.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Fixed that for you...

Russia is perhaps not an ideal place for someone who is looking to move to somewhere new.

Duh. No place is ideal for anyone looking to be elsewhere or they wouldn't be looking to be elsewhere.

The burden of proof rests with the accuser (claims of tampering). There is no need to disprove a negative which goes against our evidence based societal philosophy.

I said somewhere new. However we have more in common with Russia than we do with ISIS, hence we should be working together (West and Russia).

 

[Elixir]

The burden of proof rests with the accuser

Nobody has a burden to prove anything to YOU. Young earth creationists make similar demands when confronted with the actual age of the earth. They seem to think that if science can't prove the age of the earth to THEIR personal satisfaction, then their ignorance is just as good as anyone else's knowledge.
What I know is that numerous agencies, any one of which I'd consider more authoritative than your illustrious self, have, according to numerous mainstream media, reached a consensus that is contrary to your uninformed opinion of what happened. So whine and cry all you want, WP. Your opinion remains what it is: uninformed and at odds with the consensus opinions of those who are - or at least should be - more informed.

 

[barbos]

View attachment 9257

Yes that's how it was reported in the west.
Formally they went to prison for "singing" (I would not call that singing) songs in church. In any case these women are crazy. Especially the one in the center. Also US have been meddling in russian, ukrainian and other elections too.