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

[dvdjs]

Care to explain how that isn’t advocating for abortion?

You have asked others to apply the standard of *direct advocacy * regarding the environmental destruction that stems from the policies of the right, but vividly retreat from it in this situation. Not surprised.

If you perceive that promoting laws that may allow for abortions to occur as advocacy for abortions, then, in the interests of avoiding double standards, please also allow that promoting laws that may lead to environmental destruction is advocacy for the same.

 

[Michael68]

Were the Russians responsible for Benghazi?
Did the Russians tell Hillary to have an unsecured, private email server in violation of documents she signed in reference to how to handle classified info?
Did the Russians call Trump supporters deplorables?
Did the Russians cause the pathetic turnout for Clinton rallies even though big name stars were there?
Did the Russians come up with the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Asked, yes. Answered? Not so much. Nobody has yet answered why we should blame the Russians for the behavior and attitudes of the DNC.

The problem is not that the DNC emails were revealed. It’s that those emails revealed a pattern of thought and behavior that they didn’t want the public to see.

As said before, it’s the equivalent of a cheating husband’s family being angry with his wife for going through his phone when she found evidence of his adultery.

Spot on!

 

[Michael68]

Did the Russians give Hillary the questions for a debate?
Did the Russians coordinate to make sure Bernie Sanders went nowhere?
Did the Russians tell Hillary to say the religious have to change their thinking?
Do the Russians think it takes a village?

!!!

 

[dvdjs]

Asked, yes. Answered? Not so much. Nobody has yet answered why we should blame the Russians for the behavior and attitudes of the DNC.

The problem is not that the DNC emails were revealed. It’s that those emails revealed a pattern of thought and behavior that they didn’t want the public to see.

A *pattern *of thought an behavior? Think about that.

We have heard claims here that an exchange of two emails between two progressive activists, nether of whom were working for the DNC, revealed the that the DNC was anti-Catholic and was plotting to undermine Catholic doctrine. This idea, with such flimsy foundation, seems to be unshakeable among its advocates.

The email exchange presumably is authentic. The spin and meme that it was used to support is not. The IC, at its highest confidence standards, holds that the government of Russia undertook an extraordinary campaign to bring massive disinformation into the campaign and into the body politic to undermine our nation. In order to have a determining impact on the election, it was only necessary to effetively nudge 0.05% of the electorate. Did their campaign have a determining, that is hard to say. But it is easy to say, that we want to better understand what they did and how they did it to keep them out of the picture in future elections.

 

[Michael68]

A *pattern *of thought an behavior? Think about that.

We have heard claims here that an exchange of two emails between two progressive activists, nether of whom were working for the DNC, revealed the that the DNC was anti-Catholic and was plotting to undermine Catholic doctrine. This idea, with such flimsy foundation, seems to be unshakeable among its advocates.

The email exchange presumably is authentic. The spin and meme that it was used to support is not. The IC, at its highest confidence standards, holds that the government of Russia undertook an extraordinary campaign to bring massive disinformation into the campaign and into the body politic to undermine our nation. In order to have a determining impact on the election, it was only necessary to effetively nudge 0.05% of the electorate. Did their campaign have a determining, that is hard to say. But it is easy to say, that we want to better understand what they did and how they did it to keep them out of the picture in future elections.

Ok, now its a nudge(new one). How did they accomplish this so-called nudge against the most qualified person to ever run for President? How?

 

[Monkey1976]

You have asked others to apply the standard of *direct advocacy * regarding the environmental destruction that stems from the policies of the right, but vividly retreat from it in this situation. Not surprised.

What retreat? Show me the right wing group that is explicitly pushing for the “right” to destroy the environment.

If you perceive that promoting laws that may allow for abortions to occur as advocacy for abortions, then, in the interests of avoiding double standards, please also allow that promoting laws that may lead to environmental destruction is advocacy for the same.

The DNC isn’t pushing for laws that “may allow for abortions”. They are pushing for laws that explicitly enshrine abortion as a “right” more sacred than anything actually enumerated in the Constitution. They fight tooth and nail against anything that might impact the country’s largest provider of abortions - Planned Parenthood. They refuse to countenance anything that might stop even one doctor from performing an abortion - even safety standards in clinics that might save the life of a woman seeking an abortion.

 

[dvdjs]

And as for the follow the trail of dead Russians statement, before anyone in the US intelligence community was saying this, people in alternative right wing media were speculating that Russian diplomats were possibly being murdered by Western agencies.

I would love to see links to this. And were the useful idiots also blaming the west for the murders and attempted murders of Putin’s opponents?

 

[Michael68]

Are the Russians responsible for the Weiner’s behavior?

 

[Michael68]

Are the Russians responsible for Obamacare?

Im trying to figure what the Russians did. The things I have listed are what Hillary did, not some Russians. Russians didn’t have to tell me to vote against Hillary. She spoke loud and clear.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Asked, yes. Answered? Not so much. Nobody has yet answered why we should blame the Russians for the behavior and attitudes of the DNC.

We don’t.

The problem is not that the DNC emails were revealed.

But we didn’t get equal access to seeing the RNC emails revealed. Therefore any conclusions from a one-sided release of emails is bound to be one-sided.

As said before, it’s the equivalent of a cheating husband’s family being angry with his wife for going through his phone when she found evidence of his adultery.

Poor analogy. The DNC emails were embarrassing. That is all.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I admit to not having gone through the entire thread, and the explanations as to ‘how’ the Russians carried this out. However, if the above is the gist of it, then the ‘truth’ hurt their election campaign. Whoops!

You are going to let the opponents of the claim define the gist of it for you??? Do a little reading of what has been said on the other side.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Democrats do not want the question answered, because what is emerging is not that the Russians interfered with the 2016 elections, but that the Democrats have been engaging in violations of the Espionage Statutes.

You can speculate on what Democrats do or do not want, but there is no evidence your speculation is true.

 

[Michael68]

You can speculate on what Democrats do or do not want, but there is no evidence your speculation is true.

As there is no evidence for Russian inteference. Dems still can’t accept the Hillary loss

 

[Michael68]

​

We don’t.

But we didn’t get equal access to seeing the RNC emails revealed. Therefore any conclusions from a one-sided release of emails is bound to be one-sided.

Poor analogy. The DNC emails were embarrassing. That is all.

One sided release? How’s that? You still sticking to that? Very weak argument. I mean really, the truth hurt Hillary? That’s your evidence? The truth hurt Hillary so the Russians told the truth because Hillary would never have.
So you rather we had a fake image of Hillary instead of the real Hillary?

I voted for a real candidate.

How could the Russians have gottten more negative news about Trump out that the media wasn’t already doing?

 

[pepipop]

Were the Russians responsible for Benghazi?
Did the Russians tell Hillary to have an unsecured, private email server in violation of documents she signed in reference to how to handle classified info?
Did the Russians call Trump supporters deplorables?
Did the Russians cause the pathetic turnout for Clinton rallies even though big name stars were there?
Did the Russians come up with the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

As a completely uninterested party in the US elections/politics;-

The video of Hilary Clinton, then acting US Secretary of State, laughing and saying ‘We came, we saw, he died’, in relation to the brutal death of Gadaffi, was one of the most astonishing ‘interviews’, to be witnessed, by a Western senior government official - i.e. to laugh at such a barbaric murder, of a human being.

cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/

That would have been the writing on the wall for many a ‘politician’ running for President/Prime Minister, or leader of a country.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Right, they keep saying its been answered and no it hasn’t. The media did more to interfere than Russia did!

First of all, it was answered in the OP. And then it was answered again here, and for a really long read, try this reference that was linked.

Hacked DNC emails is a big part of it, but so is the flooding of social media with fake news.

You may not like the answers and choose to ignore them, but the question has been extensively answered.

 

[Michael68]

I believe real investigations into the media’s attempt to interfere in our elections with all their fake polls to disuade Trump supporters from voting, need to begin! That’s some serious inteference and downright lying with all their fake polls!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

​

One sided release? How’s that? You still sticking to that? Very weak argument. I mean really, the truth hurt Hillary? That’s your evidence? The truth hurt Hillary so the Russians told the truth because Hillary would never have.
So you rather we had a fake image of Hillary instead of the real Hillary?

I would rather have a full and open and true picture of both Clinton and Trump. But we didn’t get that, did we? Imagine a trial where only on side got to present evidence. Would you call that a fair trial, even if the evidence presented was very embarrassing?

How could the Russians have gottten more negative news about Trump out that the media wasn’t already doing?

Huh? The Russians were favoring Trump because Hillary took a hard line against Russia. Plus they saw (as we are all seeing now) that the election of Trump was more likely to cause chaos in a Western democracy that they wanted to discredit. So having Trump elected and having the world see the chaos and disfunction that results allows them to point to the US and say “See? Western democracy is not so great!”.

 

[Michael68]

I would rather have a full and open and true picture of both Clinton and Trump. But we didn’t get that, did we? Imagine a trial where only on side got to present evidence. Would you call that a fair trial, even if the evidence presented was very embarrassing?

Huh? The Russians were favoring Trump because Hillary took a hard line against Russia. Plus they saw (as we are all seeing now) that the election of Trump was more likely to cause chaos in a Western democracy that they wanted to discredit. So having Trump elected and having the world see the chaos and disfunction that results allows them to point to the US and say “See? Western democracy is not so great!”.

You don’t think the media did their best to give you a picture of Trump?