Did Russians interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections and is such interference acceptable?

[7_Sorrows]

Of course they are totally biased. But they are honest about it. Same with Move On and the like. I respect that. What I don’t respect is a network like NBC that claims to be unbiased and obviously isn’t.

Breitbart is a political website. Today’s headlines are not totally biased towards Trump.
I don’t understand the claims it is connected to racists and anti-semites. That sounds very inflammatory.

 

[joshman1]

Breitbart is a political website. Today’s headlines are not totally biased towards Trump.
I don’t understand the claims it is connected to racists and anti-semites. That sounds very inflammatory.

Well… racism and anti-semitism are more inflammatory. Why do they track black crime? Why are they beloved by the alt-right? Why are they connected to white nationalism?

 

[dshix]

**The President instead should “want to get to the bottom of this,” Mr Bernstein said.
**

I find this particularly amusing. I’m sure the president would love to get to the bottom of it, since doing so would clear him.

So how exactly does one “get to the bottom of” something that did not happen? Like the allegation that the Russians have the President in their back pocket?

Even if Trump did something ridiculous and made his entire emailing history public, the media would still accuse him of “hiding the real thing” that lurks beneath. It doesn’t matter what he reveals, there will always be new allegations that he did something that they can’t prove.

And thus, Trumps responds exactly as he should: he ignores it all.

 

[mwigs]

What the FEC reports are the official tallies, certified by officials of the states. Do you have some idea that there are states that failed to count the votes cast? Is there foundation for that idea?

All the votes cast were not counted. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules on when they only count absentee ballots. Absentee ballots favor Republicans and because of the rules, a large majority of absentee ballots were not counted. There is no way of knowing for a fact that Hillary indeed won the popular vote.

 

[mwigs]

That might be reasonable if Trump is claiming he represents lots of states. But he is claiming he represents lots of people. To check if that is true or not, you count people, not states.

And as explained before not all of the “people” votes were counted because of the rules re: when absentee ballots are counted.

 

[mwigs]

There is no way of knowing if Russian interfered with the election due to the simple fact that NO US intelligence agency analyzed or has even had access to the DNC servers. Our intelligence agencies are simply accepting a report from a 3rd party cyber software agency, an agency which is unreliable with past analysis, and which was hired BY THE DNC.The DNC REFUSED to hand over their servers to the FBI. Even the agency claimed they were only “moderately confident” Russians hacked the DNC servers.

 

[dvdjs]

All the votes cast were not counted. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules on when they only count absentee ballots. Absentee ballots favor Republicans and because of the rules, a large majority of absentee ballots were not counted.

Can you link to these rules? And to data that indicate Trump was favored in ostensibly uncounted absentee ballots.

When searching for them, I found some links that assert otherwise:
fvap.gov/vao/vag/appendix/faq
help.vote.org/article/8-are-absentee-ballots-counted
snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote/

 

[dvdjs]

There is no way of knowing if Russian interfered with the election due to the simple fact that NO US intelligence agency analyzed or has even had access to the DNC servers. Our intelligence agencies are simply accepting a report from a 3rd party cyber software agency, an agency which is unreliable with past analysis, and which was hired BY THE DNC.The DNC REFUSED to hand over their servers to the FBI. Even the agency claimed they were only “moderately confident” Russians hacked the DNC servers.

The FBI and the NSA flatly disagree with your assessment.
Here, in searchable text, are the transcripts of the sworn testimony of Comey and Rogers to the house Oversight Committee.

washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/

 

[JonNC]

Enough to win the election, not enough to win a plurality of voters. That distinction belongs to another.

He won a majority of voter in a majority of states, earning a majority of electoral votes. The national plebiscite means nothing

 

[JonNC]

That might be reasonable if Trump is claiming he represents lots of states. But he is claiming he represents lots of people. To check if that is true or not, you count people, not states.

Yeah, I’m not agreeing with that.

 

[JonNC]

That is a measure of support of the people in those 30 states only. So if Trump wants to claim popular support from the people in those 30 states, then fine.

No, that is a measure of support of the majority of people in the majority of states earning a majority of electoral votes. That is how the republic chooses the president.

 

[JonNC]

I suppose that is true for someone who is so far right he is about to fall off the table.

Right there with Madison and Washington and the other framers. Good company, by and large

 

[JonNC]

That is true. I realized that I was not responding exclusively to you. But your suggestion of reading far left publications to find out what the perspective of the left is reminded me of this “averaging” position that I have heard expressed before. Sorry if I made it sound like I was accusing you of taking that position.

Well, I do watch ABC to see what the moderate left thinks, too

 

[JonNC]

Breitbart is a political website. Today’s headlines are not totally biased towards Trump.
I don’t understand the claims it is connected to racists and anti-semites. That sounds very inflammatory.

Those making the claims intend them to be inflammatory.

 

[JonNC]

There is no way of knowing if Russian interfered with the election due to the simple fact that NO US intelligence agency analyzed or has even had access to the DNC servers. Our intelligence agencies are simply accepting a report from a 3rd party cyber software agency, an agency which is unreliable with past analysis, and which was hired BY THE DNC.The DNC REFUSED to hand over their servers to the FBI. Even the agency claimed they were only “moderately confident” Russians hacked the DNC servers.

No votes were tampered with. No voting machines hacked. No one prevented from voting, or paid or coerced to vote a certain way. In short, there was no tampering with the election. There is far more evidence that Obama tried to influence the Israeli election, and Brexit.

 

[Theo520]

The question is a strawman since ‘interfere’ is not defined.

Is trying to access secure networks and gather intel considered ‘interfering’? That’s what the NSA does for a living, they even record the private phone calls of the leaders of our allies.

Is donating money to political groups that favor one candidate considering interfering? This is a common occurrence here, and I believe the US does it with public funds in foreign countries.

I also know the CIA has operated political polling firms in foreign countries where the ‘surveys’ were used to persuade candidates to run for a specific office or take certain policy positions. The CIA has also managed the press abroad to push positions favorable to the US.

I’d say all the above is fair game. I don’t like it, but it’s also unavoidable.

What’s not acceptable is if a foreign govt is effectively stuffing ballot boxes and perverting the vote of people entitled to vote.

With Russia, I’ve seen not evidence of tampering with the actual election. We don’t even have evidence they leaked all those true but damaging emails that hurt Hillary.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

He won a majority of voter in a majority of states, earning a majority of electoral votes. The national plebiscite means nothing

It means a lot if the question is “who received the most votes?” It just doesn’t mean anything if the question is “who won the election?”

No one is disputing that Trump won the most electoral votes and, therefore, the election.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, that is a measure of support of the majority of people in the majority of states earning a majority of electoral votes. That is how the republic chooses the president.

Yes, those are the rules for choosing a president. That does not mean those are good measures of popular support. A bare majority of a bare majority can be as small as 26%. Even smaller if you allow for various state sizes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No votes were tampered with. No voting machines hacked. No one prevented from voting, or paid or coerced to vote a certain way.

Listing the ways in which the election was not tampered with does nothing to prove it was not tampered with. So you cannot conclude:

In short, there was no tampering with the election.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The question is a strawman since ‘interfere’ is not defined.

Is trying to access secure networks and gather intel considered ‘interfering’? That’s what the NSA does for a living, they even record the private phone calls of the leaders of our allies.

Is donating money to political groups that favor one candidate considering interfering? This is a common occurrence here, and I believe the US does it with public funds in foreign countries.

I also know the CIA has operated political polling firms in foreign countries where the ‘surveys’ were used to persuade candidates to run for a specific office or take certain policy positions. The CIA has also managed the press abroad to push positions favorable to the US.

I’d say all the above is fair game. I don’t like it, but it’s also unavoidable.

What’s not acceptable is if a foreign govt is effectively stuffing ballot boxes and perverting the vote of people entitled to vote.

With Russia, I’ve seen not evidence of tampering with the actual election. We don’t even have evidence they leaked all those true but damaging emails that hurt Hillary.

Attempting to influence an election per se is not necessarily bad. As you point out, many people and groups do it all the time in a variety of ways. But when the influence is performed through illegal means and presented in such a way as to hide the identity of the agents of influence, it becomes problematic.