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

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mwigs said:
  1. The DNC denied the FBI access to their servers to determine who hacked their accounts. The FBI did NO independent forensic work on the DNC servers. thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
    twitter.com/mtracey/status/844416493509120000
Click to expand...
đź‘Ť

The FBI needs to analyze the DNC servers. Why did the DNC deny the FBI access to their servers, and only allowed a 3rd party(Crowdstrike) to analyze them, and why hasn’t the FBI gotten access to them?
 
Sojourner003 said:
From the little I have read, they infiltrated Breitbart and inforwars with totally fake news about Hiillary. Many people believed the Russian propaganda. I’m sure there were more sites affected by the Russian fake news.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Have you listened to Breitbart Daily, or read their website? If you did, you would how absurd the claim le you read about Breitbart really is.
 
JonNC said:
:rotfl:

Have you listened to Breitbart Daily, or read their website? If you did, you would how absurd the claim le you read about Breitbart really is.
Click to expand...
My previous Carmelite (OCDS) president has refused to get internet access bec she’s heard that there are so many bad things on the internet – and she’s right.

My husband stays away from all blog & social media sites, including CAF & Facebook, bec he thinks they are a sinful waste of time. He may be right. At least one can say they tend to be addictive.

Obviously I’m willing to sully down into the media swamps a bit more, but from what I’ve heard about Breitbart, I just would never ever go there at all, not even a first time to see what’s going on.
 
lynnvinc said:
My previous Carmelite (OCDS) president has refused to get internet access bec she’s heard that there are so many bad things on the internet – and she’s right.

My husband stays away from all blog & social media sites, including CAF & Facebook, bec he thinks they are a sinful waste of time. He may be right. At least one can say they tend to be addictive.

Obviously I’m willing to sully down into the media swamps a bit more, but from what I’ve heard about Breitbart, I just would never ever go there at all, not even a first time to see what’s going on.
Click to expand...
Then recognize that you have no firsthand information about Breitbart to make a judgment regarding it. When one says “what little I’ve read about …” , it typically means allowing others to make ones decision. I have nothing complimentary to say about Move On, for example, but I occasionally visit the site to see what they actually say, not what others say about them.
When I hear people say Breitbart is fascist, racist, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc. I know they haven’t actually been to the site, or listened to the broadcast.
 
JonNC said:
Then recognize that you have no firsthand information about Breitbart to make a judgment regarding it. When one says “what little I’ve read about …” , it typically means allowing others to make ones decision. I have nothing complimentary to say about Move On, for example, but I occasionally visit the site to see what they actually say, not what others say about them.
When I hear people say Breitbart is fascist, racist, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc. I know they haven’t actually been to the site, or listened to the broadcast.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t drink a bottle of poison marked with a scull and cross-bones just to see if it really were poison or not.

Nothing you can say can make me go over to Breitbart.

I have no firsthand info about it, and am not claiming to be an expert on it, but I’ve heard enough bad things from people I trust, and that’s enough for me.

Don’t make me eat that apple. 🙂
 
lynnvinc said:
I wouldn’t drink a bottle of poison marked with a scull and cross-bones just to see if it really were poison or not.

Nothing you can say can make me go over to Breitbart.

I have no firsthand info about it, and am not claiming to be an expert on it, but I’ve heard enough bad things from people I trust, and that’s enough for me.

Don’t make me eat that apple. 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s me with the MSM. I don’t need to watch it to know its nothing but Democrat propaganda
 
lynnvinc said:
I wouldn’t drink a bottle of poison marked with a scull and cross-bones just to see if it really were poison or not.

Nothing you can say can make me go over to Breitbart.

I have no firsthand info about it, and am not claiming to be an expert on it, but I’ve heard enough bad things from people I trust, and that’s enough for me.

Don’t make me eat that apple. 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s fine. Most of what read from the left about Bannon and Breitbart are factually untrue, slanderous misinformation.
I just take the view that I have to know firsthand what the anti-constitution progressive authoritarians are saying, so I visit Occupy Democrats, Bernie Sanders’ page, etc.
 
I read all news sources including left and right wing extremists and hardline Islamists. It’s good for finding stories that mainstream media often ignore. Never had the slightest fear of anything poisoning my mind.
 
JonNC said:
Then recognize that you have no firsthand information about Breitbart to make a judgment regarding it. When one says “what little I’ve read about …” , it typically means allowing others to make ones decision. I have nothing complimentary to say about Move On, for example, but I occasionally visit the site to see what they actually say, not what others say about them.
When I hear people say Breitbart is fascist, racist, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc. I know they haven’t actually been to the site, or listened to the broadcast.
Click to expand...
Well said, Jon. đź‘Ť
 
Michael68 said:
That’s me with the MSM. I don’t need to watch it to know its nothing but Democrat propaganda
Click to expand...
Again, the problem is you are allowing others to determine what you think about the MSM.
If you want to know what progressives think about a topic, read Alinsky, Marcuse, Sanders and others who they read. Since the MSM speaks for the left, that’s precisely who one should view to find out about the left.
 
JonNC said:
Again, the problem is you are allowing others to determine what you think about the MSM.
If you want to know what progressives think about a topic, read Alinsky, Marcuse, Sanders and others who they read. Since the MSM speaks for the left, that’s precisely who one should view to find out about the left.
Click to expand...
I know enough. I have to take Pepto Bismol when I watch it because it makes me sick!!! I don’t need to watch anymore to know they are trying to bring our President down and that’s their only agenda.
 
If you’re a conservative, you should be watching MSNBC every now and again. If you’re a liberal, you should tune into Fox periodically. We can’t have a national conversation if we all just retreat to our separate bubbles.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
If you’re a conservative, you should be watching MSNBC every now and again. If you’re a liberal, you should tune into Fox periodically. We can’t have a national conversation if we all just retreat to our separate bubbles.
Click to expand...
Can’t stomach the arrogance on MSNBC at all.
 
Vanny said:
People did not want Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
Whenever someone posts about what the Presidential preferences of the people, I like to remind them that about 3 million more people voted for HRC than for her opponent.
However the election turned out, it is at odds with the vote to say that “people did not want Hillary Clinton”.
 
Michael68 said:
Can’t stomach the arrogance on MSNBC at all.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe not MSNBC specifically. They can be a little smarmy. (And Fox has it’s own problems, let’s be fair.)

But I just mean people should try to encounter stuff they don’t necessarily agree with instead of just looking to reinforce what you already think. Applies to both left and right. A narrow mind isn’t a good thing.
 
dvdjs said:
Whenever someone posts about what the Presidential preferences of the people, I like to remind them that about 3 million more people voted for HRC than for her opponent.
However the election turned out, it is at odds with the vote to say that “people did not want Hillary Clinton”.
Click to expand...
You are correct. A majority of of the majorities within the states chose Trump, as it should be
 
dvdjs said:
Whenever someone posts about what the Presidential preferences of the people, I like to remind them that about 3 million more people voted for HRC than for her opponent.
However the election turned out, it is at odds with the vote to say that “people did not want Hillary Clinton”.
Click to expand...
You have no way to verify that number and you only say it because the media says it and they can’t verify that number!

I stayed away from a thread yesterday because of the victory dancing. I am completely convinced we cannot get along and the hatred for our President is alive and well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top