Did Any ATS Member - Or Anyone You Know - Vote For Trump Due To Russian Influence.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
And so you pay more for everything. Imported or not.
due to tariffs.

Short term, some prices will go up a little...

Short term minor pain for long term maximum gain.

trump won because Russia helped him. PERIOD.

SAD! LOL

Of course not. The Russian-influenced election angle is the most absurd yet.

And anyone who suggests that that is what occurred either has a cynical view of human nature, or is admitting that they are easily influenced.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

And so you pay more for everything. Imported or not.
due to tariffs.

Which are paid by us and are taxes.

Taxes with options are not exactly in line with the type of involuntary taxation the policies you've supported here lead to.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
Of course not. The Russian-influenced election angle is the most absurd yet.

And anyone who suggests that that is what occurred either has a cynical view of human nature, or is admitting that they are easily influenced.

BUT, Rachel MadCow has said for 2+ years that it was RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, say it ain't so!!!

I'm sorry, my sarcasm switch seems to be stuck in the on position today.



Fred..

originally posted by: carewemust
June 4, 2019

Fox News contributor Donna Brazile says if Russia had not helped President Trump, Hillary Clinton would be U.S. President now.

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Donna Brazile said the reason Hillary Clinton was not president was because “the country was attacked” by Russia.

“The reason Hillary Clinton is not in the White House today is, the country was attacked, and she was the main victim of that attack.”

Source: www.breitbart.com...

Donna Brazile is no more "special" than any other Democrat. I just used her statement, because Democrats in general, seem to feel the same way she does.

Whether it's Brazile, or pseudo-experts on CNN/MSNBC, or Democrats in Congress, they all make this claim, but never bring forth people who voted for Donald Trump due to some fake, negative Hillary Clinton information, fabricated by Russian hackers.

They don't even produce a numerical estimate of how many people voted for candidate Trump, due to negative Hillary info spread by pro-Trump Russians.

So I ask those of you here on ATS, did you (or anyone you know) potentially have your vote swayed to Donald Trump in 2016, or decided to stay home, because (in hindsight), you believed something negative about Hillary, that could have been Russia-planted propaganda?

The one thing we know for sure, is that Vladimir Putin is enjoying the hell out of how, just the mention of his name, causes spasms all across the U.S. Democratic party.

-CareWeMust

Haha, nope! Hillary earned her negative reputation long before the Russians allegedly stirred the pot.

If the Russians really in truly as a matter a fact do that and knowing what I knew about Hillary years ago, then I think we owe Russia a big ol' thank you.

But it's all just scapegoating nonsense.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I know 1000s that were punked into believing Facebook ads and of course I was going to vote for Hillary and then I saw Russia backing Trump and I was like hell ya!! I also think Hillary is hot...

AHHHHH!!!! MY EYES!!!!! AHHHAAAAHHHAAAHHAA!!!!!!

I may be scarred forever now.



Fred..

I voted for Trump way before He was going to run,,because I knew Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull somehow was tied into blaming that crystal skull on those Russians.....It was those their Russians!! Indiana....

originally posted by: carewemust
June 4, 2019

Fox News contributor Donna Brazile says if Russia had not helped President Trump, Hillary Clinton would be U.S. President now.

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Donna Brazile said the reason Hillary Clinton was not president was because “the country was attacked” by Russia.

“The reason Hillary Clinton is not in the White House today is, the country was attacked, and she was the main victim of that attack.”

Source: www.breitbart.com...

Donna Brazile is no more "special" than any other Democrat. I just used her statement, because Democrats in general, seem to feel the same way she does.

Whether it's Brazile, or pseudo-experts on CNN/MSNBC, or Democrats in Congress, they all make this claim, but never bring forth people who voted for Donald Trump due to some fake, negative Hillary Clinton information, fabricated by Russian hackers.

They don't even produce a numerical estimate of how many people voted for candidate Trump, due to negative Hillary info spread by pro-Trump Russians.

So I ask those of you here on ATS, did you (or anyone you know) potentially have your vote swayed to Donald Trump in 2016, or decided to stay home, because (in hindsight), you believed something negative about Hillary, that could have been Russia-planted propaganda?

The one thing we know for sure, is that Vladimir Putin is enjoying the hell out of how, just the mention of his name, causes spasms all across the U.S. Democratic party.

-CareWeMust

Asking for a show of hands for how many ATS members changed their vote or know someone who changed their vote due to Russian meddling will reaffirm your confirmation bias, but is useless for determining what effect the Russian meddling had on the presidential election. The main reason is that the small fraction of the ATS membership that is likely to respond to a question like that is not even remotely statistically representative of the population that actually did decide the election. The population that did decide the election are the approximately 78,000 voters in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania who gave the electoral college win to Trump.

Most of the voters in the US live in politically homogeneous districts. That’s actually one of the predictable outcomes of gerrymandering. That means that if you vote Republican, most of the people around you do also. Therefore, if you were going to vote for Trump regardless of what the Russians did or did not do, probably most of the people you know did also. The same is true of Democrat enclaves. If you voted for Hillary, you are very likely surrounded by people who also did. Furthermore, solid Republican voters and solid Democrat voters probably knew which candidate they were going to vote for the day the nominees were announced. So, I believe that the members here on ATS who raise their hands and say that they did not change their vote due to Russian meddling and don’t know anyone who did, are pretty much telling the truth. You are, by definition, not only unpersuadable, but didn’t need to be persuaded.

And that’s irrelevant to the election outcome because all the campaigns (and the Russians) employ sophisticated polling organizations who know how people like you are going to vote long before election day, and they don’t waste time on people who either can’t be persuaded or don’t need to be persuaded to vote for their candidate. Instead, they concentrate their propaganda on that small fraction of the voting population whose opinion can be influenced one way or another. Those are, by definition, the swing voters, and it was well known before the election that the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were the important swing states (AKA Battleground States) for the 2016 election.

Now, it is true that nobody knows for sure whether Russian meddling—especially the timed release by Wikileaks of the Russian hacked DNC emails—was the determining factor that swung Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania for Trump. That’s mainly because no one (that I know of) has done anything like a scientifically valid investigation into the matter. And I will say again, asking for a show of hands on ATS is nothing like a scientifically valid investigation. However, the circumstantial evidence says that it is feasible that that happened. First of all, there were a little over 14 million voters in those three states that gave the electoral college win to Trump. Trump won those three states by a margin of about 78 thousand votes; that means that only about one half of one percent of the voters in those three states had to be persuaded to either vote for Trump, stay home, or vote for a third party. That is exactly what the Russians were trying to make happen through their twitterbot campaign and timed release of the Wikileaks material. What this means is that the Russian effort could have had no effect on 99.5% of the targeted electorate and it STILL would have achieved the desired outcome.

If someone were to claim that they are SURE that the Russian efforts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had no effect on the outcome of the election they are basically claiming that they can tell the difference between a propaganda campaign that was 100% ineffective and one that was only 99.5% ineffective just by sitting in their armchair in, let’s say Georgia, and asking their neighbors for their opinion.

"That’s mainly because no one (that I know of) has done anything like a scientifically valid investigation into the matter."

Because, honestly, I doubt any side really wants to know for sure. If anyone actually did, it would be buried further under the MLK Jr revelations that lasted almost a day on drudge.

No, none of this changed my vote, and nothing that has happened will change my vote in 2020.

Trump 2020 - MAGA!!

Fred..

a reply to: carewemust

Given that Republicans tend to recall Reagan and aren’t exactly pro-Russian to begin with, it would be a very hard sell for Republicans to be influenced by Russians. And that many Republicans think that Democrats are pretty much a bunch of commie bedwetters, that were already in bed with the Russians, since they are both commies, then perhaps it could be sold that Russians influenced Democrats to vote for Trump. Well except that Hillary was the anointed one that all Democrats and Feminists and whatnot were supposed to vote for to be politically correct, which is more important than party unity/identity.

So by simple reasoning, Russians would have a hard road getting votes for Trump versus the easy sell of Hillary. On that note alone, the Russian Collusion narrative falls flat on its face. Unless of course Russia, because and only because, Orange Man Bad. Which is even less proof of Russian manipulation.

Resting on laurels by not campaigning in “solid territory” and calling half the nation deplorable had far greater influence than any Russians on Facebook ever had. I guess that is what really make Orange Man Bad...for winning against a blown campaign. No Russians needed.

I was in Russia on business when I was approached by a shady looking man in a large wooly hat, he grabbed me by the shouldered and probed my arm with a stick, I felt a huge shock and became obsessed with Trump ever since

Strange trip

Yup. The Russians were totally able to influence the major networks during the debates, causing me to a see a totally different version of Hillary, instead of what I'm sure I would have seen if I were in the studio audience.

They boomed me.

They're so good.

a reply to: carewemust

Just more Liberal lies. They've been chanting this Russian mantra for years now and all of it has proven to be a hoax. Just more noise from the Liberal Party of crazy people. We give these nutcases too much attention. That's why they keep talking.

Русские не имеют никакого влияния на меня!

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: carewemust

Putin is laughing because of you my brainwashed fellow.
Do you like Clinton? If you would have fallen for propaganda do you think you would know? Are you not the one who is constantly making outrageous claims about your archnemesis, these democrats and liberals? A lot of people you're putting up a fight with.
But who can blame you? You're just acting out your programming.

Ironically, Putin is likely much more happy with idiots like you who continue his goal of political division in the US. Good job, comrade. The Democrats have done more to help Putin the last 2 and a half years than I ever could.

a reply to: carewemust

I think there is no division between the powers that run the world. Their shared goal is the new world order.
We see their spokespeople, not them.
Trillionares are friends with other trilliionares.

a reply to: carewemust

Hillary lost because she didn't play fairly during the primary and pissed off the Bernie supporters (a loss of 15% of her base).

Hillary lost because she didn't campaign well in the states that she needed to win the Electoral Vote (a loss of 1% of the popular vote in 4 states, leading to a loss of 14% the Electoral Vote.

Hillary lost because enough Democratic voters stayed home when they found out that the FBI reopened the investigation into her emails 11 days before the election.

I don't think that anyone who voted for Trump did so because of the Russian election tampering (which the FBI, DHS and the CIA all confirmed). Dems may have stayed home, because of the hacking, however. Dems may have voted for a third party candidate.

Personally, I don't think Trump was directly involved. I think that some of his election team met with Russian agents. That's illegal. That does not mean that the President is guilty of anything other than choosing bad teammates. It doesn't make him an illegitimate President. But the people that were involved with the Russians should be punished.

Period.

This Russian collusion is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Somehow the Russians swayed the minds over millions of voters. Just the notion of that is ridiculous. I keep seeing Obama and Hillary doing speeches as though they are as clean as a preachers sheets at the same time belittling President Trump. The Bush, Obama and Hillary scandals combined together is absolutely staggering. They have left a wake of destruction behind.

a reply to: carewemust

So I ask those of you here on ATS, did you (or anyone you know) potentially have your vote swayed to Donald Trump in 2016, or decided to stay home,

The way I remember it is a little different. During the morning of the last election the news was trying to tell everyone that Hilary was a shoe in. All the political leaders, Hollywood, social media, all of it was saying this. I even think Trump thought he was going to lose because of the song he walked out to. You Can't Always Get What You Want.
The next morning they were explaining why he won, remember?
Remember how they said that middle America was the reason? That Hilary was not a good candidate after all, when they finally had time to actually crunch the numbers? I decided to vote for Trump the minute I heard him say he would be running.

Let’s define “Russian Influence”

- DNC email hack
1) emails about wronging the Bernie Sanders campaign
2) donor personal info
3) unflattering personal comments

- $45,000 in fake Face Book accounts

What am I missing?

I’m pretty sure the Dems that we’re going to vote for Hillary, did.

I’m pretty sure the Repubs that we’re going to vote for Trump, did.

Was anyone surprised or “OMG” with the content of the emails? Uh, no. DNC playbook.

I keep looking toward the 2020 election;

Trump has done nothing to lose the folks who did vote for him in 2016. He has done enough to get some never Trumpers to vote for him. He has done enough to get some Indy’s to vote for him. He has done enough to get some blue collar moderate Dems to vote for him.

If the Dems run Biden or a hard core Socialist against Trump... is that really what will unseat Trump?

Trump won in 2016 because;

- has a positive message
- worked his butt off on trail
- bashed the media as much as they bashed him
- “drain the swamp” and “build the wall”

Hillary lost in 2016;

- poor message
- did not work hard on trail
- coughing and passing out all the time
- ran an illegal server compromising classified info
- relied on deep state weaponized DOJ to take out Trump