Why is it so hard for Most Trump supporters to believe Russia tried to influence our election?

a reply to: ketsuko

HA!

Kind of like how hard so many of us tried to convince them that Hillary's Paid Riot Squads caused the riots, which if they were smart they'd run with that because it gets their lot off the hook for being a bunch of violent savages, and yet they still wont let up about screaming that Hillary didn't do it (despite all of the evidence and the election being over now).

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Everybody thinks their cause is just, even as they silence their own special angels in favor of ferocity.

Light is unforgiving and uncompromising. It wins. It will cut both of us...by measure of honesty.

I know how this story ends. I wish you joy peace and happiness in 2017.

a reply to: Indigo5

Hey, thanks, you too!

PS: I dont wish to be compelled to find any of you to be hopelessly irredeemable. Back during Bush all this foreign policy & propaganda stuff that has been the bulk of my rage (finally) the last several weeks was most of my platform then (outside of technological singularity / transhumanism stuff), and your team always had my back in these very same kinds of arguments in those days. Which now the Dem Party wing of the Ruling Establishment are every bit as guilty of now. These facts are so much of why I'm so dystopic in vision right now and exploding over all this stuff the past couple weeks.

We have to come together in pointing out what is wrong and in combating it no matter whose 'team' it is. The survival of our species depends on it in this Brave New Century.

a reply to: goou111

wheres the proof and supporting evidence. so far all we have is allegation.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

A dark moon is rising. Choose carefully where you stand.

Ddp

a reply to: Indigo5

I always stand the same. The pendulum swings, and the tides shift. I always stand in what is in between. It just never really gets to look like it; not for long. But my wake is always the same.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your balance is askew. I do not doubt your conviction. We are entering an unforgiving sprint. Sincere best wishes in 2017..

There is a difference between finding something plausible and outright believing something. Regardless, you are doing what the MSM does; you are conflating the truth via a non sequitur. The MSM is claiming that Russia hacked the election, and Trump supporters are denying this claim. You then claim that Trump supporters do not believe Russia tried to influence the election.

To summarize, the MSM claims that Russia hacked Podesta's emails and transferred this information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks then released this information to the public. It is assumed that this information swayed enough on-the-fencers such that Trump won. The MSM calls this entire process election hacking. On a side note, A new poll shows that 51% of democrats believe that Russia literally hacked the election. This proves that over half of democrats obtain their information from MSM headlines, but that is another problem entirely. Regarding the original claim of election hacking, Trump supporters deny this.

The non sequitur is the implication that denying allegations of hacking the election is somehow denying allegations of attempted influence. This is simply not the case. Also, there is no proof that Russia influenced the election. Circumstantial events and rhetoric that may lead to suspicion are not evidence, and to pretend that it is is illogical. For this very reason, I do not believe Russia influenced the election, but this does not preclude my ability to find it likely.

From a philosophical standpoint, even if Russia did 'influence' the election, I would consider it counter-influence merely because the release of truthful information is countering the intended influence of disinformation. The suppression of information is obviously done with the intention of influencing the election, and the release of this previously suppressed information is merely undoing the foremost intended influence. In this way, counter-influence can be defined as that influence which restores, or attempts to restore, neutrality.

a reply to: goou111

Why is it so hard for Most Trump supporters to believe Russia tried to influence our election?

Is this for real?

How about because they have no evidence?

Or shall i just call you a pedo and let some friends of mine who work in the media parrot that message and then based on that convict you? You better be ok with that or stop with this endless empty parroting because it is so very desperate.

This is why OP.

a reply to: goou111

Why? Because he got what he wanted, Trump elected.

Not exactly. Putin wants his enemies-- and everyone is potentially his enemy-- to be in the weakest possible position. To do this, he creates political division, making it difficult for enemies to act decisively. This is why Russia financially supports extremist groups at both ends of the spectrum.

Good strategists adopt tactics that address more than one objective; if the first target cannot be reached, there remains a secondary or tertiary target. Putin's primary goal was to weaken the American body politic by manipulating information. He has long been doing this through propaganda mills like RT and globalresearch, but WikiLeaks has given him a platform to use genuine documentation to spread distrust and fear.

The first objective accomplished was alienating Sanders voters. None of the emails revealed illegal activities, but they made it explicit that the DNC elders would never allow him to be their candidate. This looked like "cheating," and undercut the younger generation's faith in the democratic process.


The next objective was to disempower the presumptive President Elect, Hillary Clinton. The Kremlin had been doing this online through its online blogosphere. This generally only reached conspiracy theorists ad fellow travelers, but by releasing the emails to WikiLeaks, it became a mainstream story. This allowed politicians like Giuliani to direct low information voters to the videos that created the false impression that Clinton was ill, insane, a double, a robot.... The point being, a larger percentage of the electorate would be mistrustful of her.

Donald Trump foolishly forwarded Russia's agenda by claiming that the elections are "rigged." He did this as a narcissistic defense mechanism. If he didn't win, it was someone else's fault. Ironically, that is exactly the message that the Kremlin wants citizens in liberal democracies to get: democracy is a sham. Trump's victory has done more to spread that belief more than a Clinton victory would have.

Finally, a Trump presidency looks to be a good thing for Russia, and a bad thing for America and the rest of the world. Unless Congress fulfills its constitutional duties, Trump's cabinet choices suggest that the sanctions on Russia will be unconditionally lifted for the benefit of Exxon, and that military adventures against China and Iran may become unavoidable.

In other words, from Putin's perspective, he killed three birds with one stone.

a reply to: everyone

How about because they have no evidence?

Who leaked the phone call between Baltic diplomats discussing the rioting in Ukraine? Do you believe that was "fake news?"

a reply to: DJW001

You summed up Putin's game plan perfectly.

To quote my friend Andre in Croatia when I asked him what Europe thought of Trump: "He's a useful idiot."

One of millions of useful idiots, apparently.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Stand in between? Ha don't make us laugh you are so far right....You will not even critique your new savior.

Amazing how many people care more about why Hillary was exposed instead of focusing on the great many crimes and horrors found within the emails.

If the Russians did it(they didn't) thank you! If the CIA did it, thank you!! If Mr./Mrs. McAnyone did it, then thank you Mr./Mrs. McAnyone!

Be horrified at what was revealed, be thankful they WERE revealed, not how they came about.

a reply to: DJW001


I usually don't agree w you but this post is spot on.....

It's the same tactic as proxy wars, but using the body politic....

I dunno why people think it's a stretch....Putin is and will always be KGB and one hell of a tactition

Everything he does in his governance is calculated and deliberate

originally posted by: gottaknow
Amazing how many people care more about why Hillary was exposed instead of focusing on the great many crimes and horrors found within the emails.

If the Russians did it(they didn't) thank you! If the CIA did it, thank you!! If Mr./Mrs. McAnyone did it, then thank you Mr./Mrs. McAnyone!

Be horrified at what was revealed, be thankful they WERE revealed, not how they came about.

I see the bigger picture still eludes to many

a reply to: gottaknow

Be horrified at what was revealed, be thankful they WERE revealed, not how they came about.

Could you give us an example of the sort of thing that horrifies you in the emails? Making a lunch date? Quoting the latest polls? Joking about Sanders and Trump? What, exactly is horrifying? Or are you just following the script?

a reply to: DJW001

That's a damned good question. I mean, there was more than just dinner dates and yoga. She really did mishandle classified info, had some pretty scummy friends and confidants, and the DNC emails were pretty effed up. But horrifying? I got bored reading most of them, typical soccer mom/granny crap. There was nothing earth shattering. Shocking. Nothing that turned my whole view of the government upside down. Hillary Clinton is not the first, nor will she be the last, government official or politician to get away with things the rest of us do life sentences for. The DNC played the same dirty game both sides play behind the scenes in their backroom party related dealings and activities. Nothing revealed in the emails, besides the classified material, was news to me or anyone else paying attention. Yes, she is corrupt. So are 75% of the power elites in this country.

So now that is settled, you're damned right I want to know who hacked in and why, since only one party was targeted. Only an idiot would pull the Hillary defense and say "At this point, what does it matter?"