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

a reply to: everyone

What is your evidence that russia made trump win.

I never said Russia made Trump win. Why the strawman?

a reply to: goou111


The story came right out of the same sh*t bag of bull all the other BS was coming out of. Thats why. And wow where in the hell was all this bitching about outside involvement when Clinton was getting millions from international interests?

a reply to: gottaknow

You're wasting your time. There's very little hope for anyone who thinks that:

-Russia putting out propaganda is absolutely unacceptable and is a cause for grave national concern, the formation of a bonafide 1984 style Ministry of Truth, and wide scale censoring of the Internet.
-Hillary's attempted overthrow the government of Syria is totally cool, despite the hundreds of thousands killed, and ten million+ whose lives have been completely destroyed.

In fact, anyone buying too far into either one of those is pretty far gone, so when the same person is ALL-in on both of those points simultaneously, they live completely separated from both realty & humanity and should probably be avoided at all costs.

a reply to: goou111

I tend to think that information never hurts. I don't really care where it comes from. If the information was hacked and leaked by the Russians, and some Americans were intelligent enough to find it and it influenced their votes, then those are votes influenced for the betterment of the country. Personally, I do not think it was all the Russians. I think our own intelligence services are involved, but there are other threads devoted to that already.

If the Russians helped us get good information that otherwise would remain hidden, GO RUSSIANS

Please help us some more, even!

pbs.twimg.com...

In case you haven't seen it

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fleabit

Were the leaked emails also fake? Did the Russians write them or was the stuff in those emails true?

Are you simply going to own that the DNC cheated Sanders out of a straight shot at the nomination? Are you going to own evidence that the Clinton Foundation is involved in large pay for play deals with foreign actors to sell access to our government? Are you going to own that Podesta was heavily involved in planting campaign-friendly stories in the press all during Clinton's campaign and the press was letting him do it, even going so far as to let the campaign have final editorial discretion in some cases?

Which is dirtier? Leaking the evidence of that corruption -or- that corruption?

How does ANY of that have to do with Russia hacking the election? Which is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of focusing on the hacking of the election, the diversion is to point to.. Clinton.. and Podesta.. and anything else that doesn't have to do with Russian hacking of the election.

Imo Clinton stupidly had an email server because she didn't know better. As an IT manager with 30 years in the field, I've seen this plenty. Wasn't malicious.. just stupid. Still her fault, not excusable, but not malicious per se. But.. this has absolutely nothing to do with Russian hacking the election. In what way does an email server or other corrupt political agenda have to do with the topic of RUSSIAN HACKING OF ELECTION?

None. Nothing at all. Yet you and others bring it up as if it somehow negates it. It doesn't. Stop being blinded by your bias. No matter how much you support Trump, or hate Clinton, this has nothing to do with Russian attempts to corrupt our election system.

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fleabit

Were the leaked emails also fake? Did the Russians write them or was the stuff in those emails true?

Are you simply going to own that the DNC cheated Sanders out of a straight shot at the nomination? Are you going to own evidence that the Clinton Foundation is involved in large pay for play deals with foreign actors to sell access to our government? Are you going to own that Podesta was heavily involved in planting campaign-friendly stories in the press all during Clinton's campaign and the press was letting him do it, even going so far as to let the campaign have final editorial discretion in some cases?

Which is dirtier? Leaking the evidence of that corruption -or- that corruption?

How does ANY of that have to do with Russia hacking the election? Which is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of focusing on the hacking of the election, the diversion is to point to.. Clinton.. and Podesta.. and anything else that doesn't have to do with Russian hacking of the election.

Imo Clinton stupidly had an email server because she didn't know better. As an IT manager with 30 years in the field, I've seen this plenty. Wasn't malicious.. just stupid. Still her fault, not excusable, but not malicious per se. But.. this has absolutely nothing to do with Russian hacking the election. In what way does an email server or other corrupt political agenda have to do with the topic of RUSSIAN HACKING OF ELECTION?

None. Nothing at all. Yet you and others bring it up as if it somehow negates it. It doesn't. Stop being blinded by your bias. No matter how much you support Trump, or hate Clinton, this has nothing to do with Russian attempts to corrupt our election system.

Russia did not hack the election.
They allegedly hacked the DNC and Podesta, though we're still waiting for evidence of that.

What is different with Russia attempting to access US government information from what all countries have done throughout history, including the US government? Countries have tried to keep their government data secret from the beginning of time, that is why codes were developed. Encryption has become more technical and sophisticated as we move forward. It is what all the countries have always done and will always continue to do.

Most Americans did not vote for Trump or Hillary, and it is not that they don't believe that Russia would attempt access to government secrets, they just don't believe the hype that it had any impact on the election.

The question here should not be if Russia hacked our information. It should be, how did we allow Russia to access our information, and why are they trying to convince the American people that this age old practice is suddenly new, and justifies an aggressive response.

Man has created codes to keep secrets and has broken codes to learn those secrets since the time of the Pharaohs. For 4,000 years, fierce battles have been waged between codemakers and codebreakers, and the story of these battles is civilization's secret history, the hidden account of how wars were won and lost, diplomatic intrigues foiled, business secrets stolen, governments ruined, computers hacked. From the XYZ Affair to the Dreyfus Affair, from the Gallic War to the Persian Gulf, from Druidic runes and the kaballah to outer space, from the Zimmermann telegram to Enigma to the Manhattan Project, codebreaking has shaped the course of human events to an extent beyond any easy reckoning. Once a government monopoly, cryptology today touches everybody.

a reply to: canuckster

Hahaha ... thanks for that!

I had forgotten about that. Turnabout is certainly fair play, if the Russians were indeed at all involved.

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fleabit

Were the leaked emails also fake? Did the Russians write them or was the stuff in those emails true?

Are you simply going to own that the DNC cheated Sanders out of a straight shot at the nomination? Are you going to own evidence that the Clinton Foundation is involved in large pay for play deals with foreign actors to sell access to our government? Are you going to own that Podesta was heavily involved in planting campaign-friendly stories in the press all during Clinton's campaign and the press was letting him do it, even going so far as to let the campaign have final editorial discretion in some cases?

Which is dirtier? Leaking the evidence of that corruption -or- that corruption?

How does ANY of that have to do with Russia hacking the election? Which is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of focusing on the hacking of the election, the diversion is to point to.. Clinton.. and Podesta.. and anything else that doesn't have to do with Russian hacking of the election.

Imo Clinton stupidly had an email server because she didn't know better. As an IT manager with 30 years in the field, I've seen this plenty. Wasn't malicious.. just stupid. Still her fault, not excusable, but not malicious per se. But.. this has absolutely nothing to do with Russian hacking the election. In what way does an email server or other corrupt political agenda have to do with the topic of RUSSIAN HACKING OF ELECTION?

None. Nothing at all. Yet you and others bring it up as if it somehow negates it. It doesn't. Stop being blinded by your bias. No matter how much you support Trump, or hate Clinton, this has nothing to do with Russian attempts to corrupt our election system.

Hacking the election haha. Give it up bud. Youve got 30 years experience in IT now a big dog "IT manager" and think a phishing email qualifies as hacking the election? Haha ok guy.

originally posted by: goou111
People thought if Hillary were elected we would have WWIII. Putin pretty much said that exactly.

So you guys who think some people were not influenced by the thought of nuclear Armageddon just have your head in the sand.

I know people who voted for Trump only because they were worried about war with Russia. They did not give 2 sh!ts about emails.

That is influence by definition.

So then blame Obama:
Election Corruption Watch: White House Threatens War with Russia for Political Points
and Hillary:
Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Threatens War on Russia and Liberal Media Won’t Even Report on it (VIDEO)

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fleabit

Were the leaked emails also fake? Did the Russians write them or was the stuff in those emails true?

Are you simply going to own that the DNC cheated Sanders out of a straight shot at the nomination? Are you going to own evidence that the Clinton Foundation is involved in large pay for play deals with foreign actors to sell access to our government? Are you going to own that Podesta was heavily involved in planting campaign-friendly stories in the press all during Clinton's campaign and the press was letting him do it, even going so far as to let the campaign have final editorial discretion in some cases?

Which is dirtier? Leaking the evidence of that corruption -or- that corruption?

How does ANY of that have to do with Russia hacking the election? Which is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of focusing on the hacking of the election, the diversion is to point to.. Clinton.. and Podesta.. and anything else that doesn't have to do with Russian hacking of the election.

Imo Clinton stupidly had an email server because she didn't know better. As an IT manager with 30 years in the field, I've seen this plenty. Wasn't malicious.. just stupid. Still her fault, not excusable, but not malicious per se. But.. this has absolutely nothing to do with Russian hacking the election. In what way does an email server or other corrupt political agenda have to do with the topic of RUSSIAN HACKING OF ELECTION?

None. Nothing at all. Yet you and others bring it up as if it somehow negates it. It doesn't. Stop being blinded by your bias. No matter how much you support Trump, or hate Clinton, this has nothing to do with Russian attempts to corrupt our election system.

How is it that deseminating truthful information can be considered "attempts to corrupt" an election?

Russia should be punished for haking our systems (which includes much more than the DNC), this goes with out saying.

However the political theater that goes along with the phrase "Russia Hacked Our Election" is nonsense. The topic should be RUSSIA HACKED THE DNC ...

they than shared that information with the American public. Sure they did so because they think it will benefit them; but at the end of the day the American people still decided who would be their next president... their decision was not hacked. This is true no matter how much you support Clinton or hate Trump.

originally posted by: goou111
People thought if Hillary were elected we would have WWIII. Putin pretty much said that exactly.

So you guys who think some people were not influenced by the thought of nuclear Armageddon just have your head in the sand.

I know people who voted for Trump only because they were worried about war with Russia. They did not give 2 sh!ts about emails.

That is influence by definition.

That blame goes to Hilary and I quote:

We will be ready with serious political, economic and Military Responses

So YIKES! better vote Trump!
Hillary did it to herself.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: goou111

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Please describe the actual "influence" you're referring to, and how relevant it actually was.

You forgot to answer this part.

Show us on the polls when the nuke talk was happening and convince us it had an effect. Like this:

Lmao now the polls are valid?

a reply to: goou111

No tangible evidence, no crime.

a reply to: fleabit

No, you miss my point.

Assuming Russia leaked all of that information in the emails, it was all valid information. No one has contested that.

To me, Russia "hacking the election" means that they somehow created false results by faking something, somewhere.

If the election itself wasn't hacked by creating falsified vote totals and the information in the emails wasn't false, then Russia "hacked" nothing about the election, and it was the DNC and Podesta who were the victims of their own lax cyber security and bad behavior.

Both the DNC and John Podesta are private entities, not government. It is not the US government's responsibility to ensure the integrity of their cyber security.

a reply to: Kettu

I've never read anything more nonsensical nor delusional in my life. Please.. don't ever become a college tutor.

Influence our election, like when Obozo openly encouraged illegals to vote telling them ther'd be no repurcussions in doing so.

originally posted by: Pcfree
Influence our election, like when Obozo openly encouraged illegals to vote telling them ther'd be no repurcussions in doing so.

Fake News

I saw the clip you are talking about and you are twisting it, dissembling reality..

whatever

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: goou111

No tangible evidence, no crime.

So please don't complain if someone picks your pocket.