Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_honorentheos]

What? You're saying nothing in the emails was really news?!

[_Some Schmo]

Maybe you can elaborate on the e-mails that sunk Hillary

You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

It wasn't any specific email. It was "Hillary Clinton's emails"... (cue foreboding music). I'm sure just hearing the name of the topic sends a shudder through your soul.

[_Kevin Graham]

I never said he was, or you said he did...again, you stated...

Yes, and that was in the context of my exchange with Kish in which there was no name-calling. But according to you, Kish misunderstands me because he knew I called you an idiot in a previous exchange. That's just a non sequitur.

The reason Kish comes off without picking a fight is that he does not call people idiots and other names on a consistent basis, or at all. It was about how the two of you communicate with people.

First of all, I wasn't talking about Kish, I was talking about how EA comes across making the same points without getting aggressive responses. But I probably spoke to soon because Kish started responding aggressively to EA just the same.

Kish and I go way back, probably close to 20 years now. He and I butted heads over religion on the Fairboards and we both engaged in name-calling and then we apologized to each other and moved on. This was the first time I think we had a tense exchange in over a decade. The misunderstanding had more to do with me not reading everything he posted and trying to respond to quips on my phone.

Whereas when I call you an idiot, it is because you're being one. Like right now.

[_Markk]

You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

It wasn't any specific email. It was "Hillary Clinton's emails"... (cue foreboding music). I'm sure just hearing the name of the topic sends a shudder through your soul.

Can you give me a few of them, then lets read them.

Or are you saying it was just the mention of these emails existing, that swayed those that normally would or should have voted for Hillary.

[_EAllusion]

Dude... you complain about people calling others idiots, and then you post this in direct response to what EAllusion just wrote, as though it made no impression whatsoever.

If you don't want to be called an idiot, you have to meet people halfway.

Huh...I am asking him to simply back up is assertion...?

So far an e-mail about the butt hurt Catholics, that was not really news, does not seem to have effected the election...and some how claiming the press was all over this, instead of Trump is a joke. The press was all over Trump's every move.

Maybe you can elaborate on the e-mails that sunk Hillary

You don't understand what I'm saying. As I have now said multiple times, it is not any particular email story that was harmful per se, but the deluge of them. You keep asking for the drop of rain that left a person soaking wet, then exclaim, "that drop would hardly make a person wet at all!" if any drop is mentioned.

Here's a study showing the combined press coverage of Clinton various emails stories in just 6 days got more newspaper coverage than all policy issues the entire post-convention election season. It also got significantly more coverage than all of Trump's scandals combined.

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news- ... -trump.php

I'm saying that negative sounding hacked emails stories about Clinton, of which the one I linked is an example, combined together to form an impression that she was scandal-plagued even though the content of those emails wasn't all that bad. It didn't help that she had a separate emails scandal-story happening at the exact same time that low-information voters almost certainly conflated with it.

In addition to this, I'm saying that these email stories provided fertile ground for her opponents to lie about them, and people, some of them anyway, believed or were affected by those lies.

I am finally saying that these stories were used to distract and deflect press attention from derogatory information about Trump. It is not a coincidence that the Podesta hacks were dropped by Wikileaks mere hours after the Trump-tape story broke.

[_Kevin Graham]

Just give me a few of the Russian hacked e-mails that the press used, of the thousands, there should be some that are more damaging (by the press) than others...

Still trying to salvage this straw man huh? EA made it perfectly clear the damage was caused by a "drip drip" which is what the Right Wing propaganda machine loves to take advantage of. All they need is some sliver of evidence for a deeper, darker, more sinister conspiracy, and then they completely run with it and it takes over the news cycle until something more interesting comes along.

It is basically the same crap they tried to pull with the FBI "cell phone texts" which they tried to use to prove there was a massive conspiracy against Trump. If it weren't for the fact that we had those texts in context, that meme would still be alive and well.

Wikileaks started releasing hacked emails just a month before the election:

18 revelations from Wikileaks' hacked Clinton emails

[_honorentheos]

Actually, yeah. No one cared about the content of the emails. All people seemed to know was that there was a scandal and it involved emails. people confused her email server investigation, the DNC hack, and all sorts of BS into one general idea - Clinton is shady and can't be trusted...as demonstrated by the daily trickle of emails whose content wasn't actually newsworthy. Shockingly so, actually, given what one should reasonably have expected for campaign emails the senders did not expect would be made public.

[_EAllusion]

What? You're saying nothing in the emails was really news?!

I can't tell if this is a sarcastic reply to Markk or a comment about me. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the press focus on it both in volume and tone was disproportionate to an embarrassing degree. This ended up having a substantial impact on the campaign. Some of the hacked emails stories have journalistic value, but the focus on them was warped.

[_honorentheos]

It's toward Markk.

[_Markk]

First of all, I wasn't talking about Kish, I was talking about how EAllusion comes across making the same points without getting aggressive responses. But I probably spoke to soon because Kish started responding aggressively to EAllusion just the same.

Kish and I go way back, probably close to 20 years now. He and I butted heads over religion on the Fairboards and we both engaged in name-calling and then we apologized to each other and moved on. This was the first time I think we had a tense exchange in over a decade. The misunderstanding had more to do with me not reading everything he posted and trying to respond to quips on my phone.

Whereas when I call you an idiot, it is because you're being one. Like right now.

Your the one that said your posts come off as attacking to "people"...and they do, for the very reasons I wrote. Are your saying they don't? Do you ever re-read what you write and say about people.