Poll of the Day > News: Senate Intel concludes Russia interfered in 2016 presidential election

(+) Yeah! (+)

Blighboy posted...

Russia is a bit like humanity's collective conscience. It acts as a supernatural force to correct unhealthy aspects of the human superconscious. They're sort of like the Rey, while Trump is the Kylo Ren and Clinton was Snoke.

Forgot the /s.
---

for Zeus
---

Amuseum posted...

anti-Trumpers are really naive.

you think this is the first time Russia interfered with propaganda? like don't you know about the Cold War, and why spy fiction and movies became so popular in that era.

Your post draws more attention to the fact the pro-Trumpers are okay with being manipulated by a foreign government. The films also suggest people have a short attention span.
---

I voted for Hillary Clinton after Bernie, who she screwed over un-Democratically, they've been saying Russia from day one and I've yet to see any real evidence.

I'm still not jumping on this train. It's too easy. The whole thing seems like a sad propaganda campaign for the DNC to pretend that Hillary Clinton (and the system that promoted her) is blameless and perfect.

Until it's proven with things other than "Russia and Wikileaks gave Trump some dirt on Clinton" (oh no), that's where I'm going to stay.

There's real evidence that Hillary Clinton rigged the primaries, but not this. People actually hate her on the level as the least popular president in US history. That's science.
---

Yellow posted...

Until it's proven with things other than "Russia and Wikileaks gave Trump some dirt on Clinton" (oh no), that's where I'm going to stay.

So what is your reasonable bar for "Russia interfered in the election" other than "Russia interfered with the election" because honestly this is the dumbest post I've seen in weeks.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Bugmeat posted...

But anybody who publicly talks shit about a candidate is "interfering".

This is exactly why this would be the exact definition of "fake news". If we're going to use exceedinly loose broad guidelines for "interfering", any celebrity that partook in an effort to get Hillary elected "interfered" in the same regards, if not more. Vicente Fox "interfered" by shit-talking Trump on Twitter. It's all bullshit.

there's a difference between people in the country discussing the election, and a foreign country intentionally working towards altering the outcome.

whether or not you think that's a problem is one issue, but how one cannot see the difference is beyond me.

Blighboy posted...

Yellow posted...

Until it's proven with things other than "Russia and Wikileaks gave Trump some dirt on Clinton" (oh no), that's where I'm going to stay.

So what is your reasonable bar for "Russia interfered in the election" other than "Russia interfered with the election" because honestly this is the dumbest post I've seen in weeks.

If Russia told Trump information about Clinton, that's not rigging anything. Hacking our voting machines is interference. WikiLeaks leaking Hillarys emails isn't rigging anything.

Dumbest post you've seen in weeks, Jesus. You must have just joined today.

These Russia fits are really pathetic.

You probably don't know the specifics of what they're claiming.
---

Yellow posted...

Blighboy posted...

Yellow posted...

Until it's proven with things other than "Russia and Wikileaks gave Trump some dirt on Clinton" (oh no), that's where I'm going to stay.

So what is your reasonable bar for "Russia interfered in the election" other than "Russia interfered with the election" because honestly this is the dumbest post I've seen in weeks.

If Russia told Trump information about Clinton, that's not rigging anything. Hacking our voting machines is interference. WikiLeaks leaking Hillarys emails isn't rigging anything.

Dumbest post you've seen in weeks, Jesus. You must have just joined today.

These Russia fits are really pathetic.

You probably don't know the specifics of what they're claiming.

You are literally the only person discussing rigging though. You don't know the specifics of what anyone is claiming.
---

Fam_Fam posted...

whether or not you think that's a problem is one issue, but how one cannot see the difference is beyond me.

Fundamentally, there isn't really a difference until more information can be given to us. All that exists thus far is extremely vague definitions of interference that are akin to someone like John Oliver saying that Americans can't let Trump become president.
---

Yellow posted...

I voted for Hillary Clinton after Bernie, who she screwed over un-Democratically, they've been saying Russia from day one and I've yet to see any real evidence.

I'm still not jumping on this train. It's too easy. The whole thing seems like a sad propaganda campaign for the DNC to pretend that Hillary Clinton (and the system that promoted her) is blameless and perfect.

Until it's proven with things other than "Russia and Wikileaks gave Trump some dirt on Clinton" (oh no), that's where I'm going to stay.

There's real evidence that Hillary Clinton rigged the primaries, but not this. People actually hate her on the level as the least popular president in US history. That's science.

Yeah, I'm sure the bipartisan, republican led council is totally trying to make Hillary Clinton and the DNC look like angels. Yeah, that makes total sense.
---

The orange man can do no wrong
---

Blighboy posted...

You are literally the only person discussing rigging though. You don't know the specifics of what anyone is claiming.

Literally replace every time I say rigged with interfere.

The difference between me and the rest of this topic is I don't stick to a tribe and believe shit just because my group said it. It's been nothing but "Russia, we got em this time!" since day one, and every time I get a little more annoyed.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate-intel-russia-interfered-2016-election-preferred-trump-over-clinton

Like you are going to hold me not knowing wtf they're even talking about against me. Tell me, where in this fluff piece does it actually say what they found? Where is this evidence?

You want to read this shit?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

I certainly don't care.

Hillary lost because she sucked and people aren't idiots. I voted for her because I thought Trump was worse.
---

Yellow posted...

If Russia told Trump information about Clinton, that's not rigging anything.

Yellow posted...

Literally replace every time I say rigged with interfere.

Yellow posted...

If Russia told Trump information about Clinton, that's not interfering with anything.

---

If Russia told Trump information about Clinton, that's not interfering with anything.

Uh, yeah... and?

If you really want to dilute the word "interfere" like that.

Can Putin not say anything mean about Clinton? Is Wikileaks not allowed to be mean to Clinton? Is that why the DNC is suing Wikileaks? Interfering?
---

There's also the millions they spent on propaganda but if you want to allow foreign governments to sponsor presidential candidates you're free to open that floodgate. Would probably improve America in the long run.

But yes, that is literally what interfering means my dude. It's simply the most obvious example that has attracted the most attention but as the entire intelligence community has been investigating this for the past two years there's a tad more to the story than that.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

whether or not you think that's a problem is one issue, but how one cannot see the difference is beyond me.

Fundamentally, there isn't really a difference until more information can be given to us. All that exists thus far is extremely vague definitions of interference that are akin to someone like John Oliver saying that Americans can't let Trump become president.

But there is...
---

Fam_Fam posted...

whether or not you think that's a problem is one issue, but how one cannot see the difference is beyond me.

Racist color glasses.
---

The Peter Strzok fiasco wrecks the GOPs bogus conspiracy theory

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/12/the-peter-strzok-fiasco-wrecks-the-gops-bogus-conspiracy-theory/

Lol. Figure sources perfect for some posters here.
---

Seriously, this whole thing is a bitch fest over the neo-Conservative Hillary not winning. The whole 2016 election is a reality check to the establishment, the country would rather get fucked voting for a loony Conservative reality star buffoon than a George Bush-lite.

This Russia thing is literally a coverup. Just the way these articles are victimizing poor Hillary, "the true heir to the throne".

"A Russian attack on Americans' faith in the system."
---

Mr America First has blamed Americans for spending years hurting Russian feelings.
---

Blighboy posted...

Mr America First has blamed Americans for spending years hurting Russian feelings.

Russians have feelings?
---