Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_EAllusion]

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

The Strzok texts is almost perfect example of the same story has the hacked Clinton emails covered a little differently. On the one hand, you have slow release of texts leading to multiple stories where journalists could find interesting things to discuss, but aren't particularly important relative to the greater context in which the texts story resides. On the other, you have right-wing media misleading about those texts again and again, only to be shot down when greater context is provided.

The difference here is the mainstream press hasn't run wall-to-wall coverage with this story in a way that reinforces the inherent shadiness of Strzok/the FBI, so it isn't having a Clinton-effect.

[_Markk]

'Bill Clinton Inc'

In a 12-page memo written by Doug Band, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton, he describes using his consulting firm to raise money for the Clinton Global Initiative as well as direct personal income for the former president.

Mr Band rallied clients of his firm, Teneo, to contribute directly to Mr Clinton for "in-kind services for the President and his family - for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like" referring to that fund as "Bill Clinton Inc".

Several companies directly paid the former president for his speeches or advice, as well as making contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative. Republicans have criticised this, saying it allowed corporations to pay for access to the former president.

One client, Coca Cola, received a face-to-face meeting with the former president at his home in 2009, after contributing millions to the non-profit foundation.

EA...How did the press twist this one, that swayed votes?

[_Kevin Graham]

Your the one that said your posts come off as attacking to "people"...

No I said I must come across as if I'm trying to pick a fight, even though I'm not. But Kish responded to a rather innocuous OP calling it "bull___" and there was no commentary on my part, I simply cited the article. I take credit for not reading all of his posts and making an assumption about the source of his anger on the subject. That appears to be the reason why he thought I was trying to pick a fight. It had no relation to you being a legitimate moron.

Are your saying they don't?

I'm saying you're a textbook case of misery loves company. But you and Kish have absolutely nothing in common so far as I can tell.

[_Kevin Graham]

EAllusion...How did the press twist this one, that swayed votes?

Were you living on the moon at the time? I remember this was all the news would talk about for many weeks. The data is already in and it is just a fact that the media focused on this bullcrap story more than anything else. The fact that Trump just admitted on audio that he was a sexual predator took the backseat to the constant "drip drip" from wikileaks. From FOX News to Alex Jones. From Sean Hannity to Brietbart and everyone on talk radio. Every day, all the rage was about guessing what was going to drip next. It just gave the public the impression that she was inherently corrupt, and then two weeks into the drips Comey drops his letter about HC being investigated.

[_Kevin Graham]

The Strzok texts is almost perfect example of the same story has the hacked Clinton emails covered a little differently. On the one hand, you have slow release of texts leading to multiple stories where journalists could find interesting things to discuss, but aren't particularly important relative to the greater context in which the texts story resides. On the other, you have right-wing media misleading about those texts again and again, only to be shot down when greater context is provided.

The difference here is the mainstream press hasn't run wall-to-wall coverage with this story in a way that reinforces the inherent shadiness of Strzok/the FBI, so it isn't having a Clinton-effect.

Exactly. And a similar parallel, thought not exact, is with the Nunes memo. Before it was even released all we heard in the media was how damaging it was going to be to Democrats and the FBI. But it wasn't until it was released that we truly found out how useless the memo really was. In fact, it unwittingly proved that the FBI had already been investigating Pappoudapulous well before the Steele dossier, contrary to the premise of their initial hysteria.

[_Themis]

I answered the question, more than once. The Russians have been trying to upend our elections since WW2.

The Russians hacked emails...and I am sure they do more than we will ever know in every arena as other countries do, and we do to them. It happened under Obama's watch and he even stated it was a joke that they could sway and election. And they may have come from a private server.

You keep asserting other countries having been doing it to the US for a long time but never give any examples so we can compare to what the Russians did in the 2016 election. I can only assume you believe this but have no evidence to back it up.

What e-mail that were hacked, to you think turned the election to DJT. Start with the worse one...what did it reveal?

So you admit Russian's did hack the emails and released them at different times. This of course helped to define some of the important messages in the election that would also affect how people think. Does there have to be a certain e-mail to affect how people think or can the idea being spread by the media and Republicans that there is something bad going on in those e-mail's affect your average voter who is not going to look into these ideas to assess the facts? I suspect you probably read few to any of them. Now this is not the only things the Russians were doing to affect the election, but it was a big story in the election that would not existed without Russian's. That suggests to me they had real influence in the election. I cannot think of anytime in the past they have had this kind of influence in an American election. Can you provide any example that comes close to this?

[_subgenius]

Yes, Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

And he didn’t keep talking about the WikiLeaks emails stolen by Russia because he thought voters didn’t care

An op-ed founded on speculation and anecdotal evidence is not a good foundation upon which to claim "likely".
The actual evidence concludes that Russia did not care who won, mission accomplished because the hair-fires are burning bright.

[_honorentheos]

Yes, Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

And he didn’t keep talking about the WikiLeaks emails stolen by Russia because he thought voters didn’t care

An op-ed founded on speculation and anecdotal evidence is not a good foundation upon which to claim "likely".
The actual evidence concludes that Russia did not care who won, mission accomplished because the hair-fires are burning bright.

The Mueller indictments would indicate otherwise. The Russians clearly had a favorite, even if they were content to accomplish discord and distrust...an attitude your post reflects more than it solves, by the way.

[_Kishkumen]

Clinton's ground-game, whatever you make of it on its own terms, was vastly superior to Trump's.

That's utterly beside the point, since Hillary was running against her own negative image in addition to running against Trump.

In this post you've made a subtle change in argument.

I believe what I have done is clarified my position, not changed my position.

I am in this thread contending that factors cited by Kevin such as voter suppression in key swing states, Russian interference, etc. probably had a decisive impact on the outcome. You have flipped into arguing that Clinton was generally bad, so the election shouldn't have been close enough to have small factors be decisive. None of these, you contend, were the primary cause of her defeat.

That's true. But the primary cause of her defeat was general election conditions. The aggregate of fundamentals models favored the generic Republican by a couple of points. Those models tend to be very accurate. If you are looking at the main reason she lost, that's it. The country was Democrat weary and conditions weren't good enough to overcome that. The fact that Clinton actually beat those projections a little bit suggests, but does not demonstrate, something about either the strength of her or the weakness of Trump. It's almost certainly the weakness of Trump, but it does seem interesting to me that the election ended up right near the sweet spot of what models have been successfully predicting for a while.

So, you think she did as good as any Democrat could have done, and I think she did worse than another candidate might have done. OK. Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. It is encouraging to think that any dope run by either party has the same chance to win depending on the external factors at play.

If you are looking at candidate specific factors, it is obvious the answer is the fact that Clinton was covered like she was in the middle of Watergate for something that did not even begin to approximate deserving that type or level of coverage. The question then becomes how much of that is because of Clinton and how much of that was because of factors outside of Clinton's control. It's a little from both columns, but I think you are really missing the picture if you don't understand how and why the right-wing media ecosystem can drive mainstream coverage this way. Because that part is not Clinton-specific.

Dude, I don't think you know how much we agree. Here's the thing: we all knew about that right-wing media ecosystem and how well it was primed to take out Clinton for a very, very long time. You don't think it is hubristic not to adjust your strategy accordingly? Not to say, maybe the person who has been painted as a child-eating witch for decades is not the best person to run? Yeah, that's not Clinton's fault, but boo hoo. Deal with the reality; don't forge ahead in obliviousness or stubbornness.

[_Markk]

Your the one that said your posts come off as attacking to "people"...

No I said I must come across as if I'm trying to pick a fight, even though I'm not. But Kish responded to a rather innocuous opening post calling it "bull___" and there was no commentary on my part, I simply cited the article. I take credit for not reading all of his posts and making an assumption about the source of his anger on the subject. That appears to be the reason why he thought I was trying to pick a fight. It had no relation to you being a legitimate moron.

Are your saying they don't?

This is what you wrote, and what I addressed...and given you verbally attack just about anyone that is of a different political view verbally...not an attack?

I really have no idea why, but after 20 years of online posting I guess something is just wrong with the way I come across to people. Because you can say the same exact thing I want to say but you can do so without coming across like you're picking a fight.

I'm saying you're a textbook case of misery loves company. But you and Kish have absolutely nothing in common so far as I can tell.

Please explain...I guess because I am an ex-mormon I can me included in company here...after that I am in the minority, just so you know a little about me...I am a independent conservative evangelical who is pro 2nd amendment and pro life, and I am maybe the only person in construction on the whole site. I like classic country music, and classic rock, wear dicky carpenter jeans and a ball cap. I am 6'1. and go about 240, my playing weight was 220. I drive a truck with a lumber rack and have a cattle dog named Rooster J. Cogburn, and have a red neck too many and am a "Cailfornia boy" to others. I surfed and skied for years. I had a street ministry with the homeless for over ten years, and built a trailer with BBQ's to feed them. I played softball, basketball, and soccer well into my 40s, I reffed and coached soccer for many years, and am a Rams, Lakers, USC, and Angels fan. I have a tandem kayak which is rigged for ocean fishing and I love going out a few miles with my son and fish, or just cruise around Newport harbor with my wife. My biggest passion and hobbie is working in my shop where I work with wood and steel, and am "art-see with some of my projects?

Edit...married for over 35 years, beautiful wife...two kids, my son is is law enforcement and my daughter is a respiratory therapist.

It seems to me that if I wanted company I would be posting on another forum?

I tell you what Kevin, tell me a bit about yourself, and maybe we can find common ground that might help us understand and communicate better with each other.


Did I say me and Kish were alike? I doubt we would not have too much in common...of all the folks here he might be the last one I might think we have things in common with.