The Democrat Utopia

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

 

Do we change votes when we influence foreign elections? 

No but we actually pick the candidate we want to win and make it happen at times 

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

 

Do we change votes when we influence foreign elections? 

Look at the wording of the Mueller report.  I believe (possible I may be mistaken) it says Russia tried to influence the 2016 election.  It does not say they did influence the election.  I’m pretty sure they were confident Russia had no bearing on our election outcome.   
 

Do you honestly think 2016 is the first election Russia tried to influence?  

[NM11046]

Quote

"... the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Look at the wording of the Mueller report.  I believe (possible I may be mistaken) it says Russia tried to influence the 2016 election.  It does not say they did influence the election.  I’m pretty sure they were confident Russia had no bearing on our election outcome.   
 

Do you honestly think 2016 is the first election Russia tried to influence?  

 

I agree with this.

 

There is zero doubt that Russia interfered in the American election on behalf of Donald Trump, a stooge Putin thought he could play.

 

But let's not underestimate our homegrown ability to share rabid disinformation on the internet.

 

There are a dozen explanations for Trump's victory that make more sense than Russian influence. Harris was stupid to take that bait to appease a radio host.

 

Democrats spent 4 years believing Russia was their smoking gun, when the smoking gun was actually everything Donald Trump was doing in broad daylight.  

[Lorewarn]

8 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

No but we actually pick the candidate we want to win and make it happen at times 

 

Alright then conceptually there is no point in making an emphasis that Russia didn't change individual votes if they did pick a candidate they wanted to win and then acted towards that goal. The only point of conversation is whether they succeeded, and the conclusion isn't based on whether they succeeded in Trump winning, but whether they succeeded in influencing the results.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Look at the wording of the Mueller report.  I believe (possible I may be mistaken) it says Russia tried to influence the 2016 election.  It does not say they did influence the election.  

 

Here's a few things that are factually true and/or in the Mueller report.

 

• The Mueller Report spent hundreds of pages detailing numerous links between Trump's campaign and the Russian government

 

• The report found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

 

• The report found that "a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against Clinton's campaign, and released stolen documents

 

• The report found that "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

 

• The report found that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,”

 

• The report found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in “sweeping and systematic fashion.”

 

• Russians probed at least 21 state voter databases for insecurities, stole voter's personal information, hacked Hilary's campaign and the DNC and shared tens of thousands of emails with Wikileaks,  tried to hack the RNC, spread propaganda across social media via troll farms, and staged rallies in at least two states featuring things such as a hired American actress dressed as Clinton in a prison jumpsuit.

 

• The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia “were able to gain access to restricted elements of election infrastructure” and “were in a position to, at a minimum, alter or delete voter registration data.”

 

 

Now I'm not trying to claim or get you to agree that Trump was an illegitimate President. But I think you can probably at least agree that with this amount of concerted and explicit effort, at the very least, as a starting point, Russia was successful in influencing the election. 

 

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Alright then conceptually there is no point in making an emphasis that Russia didn't change individual votes if they did pick a candidate they wanted to win and then acted towards that goal. The only point of conversation is whether they succeeded, and the conclusion isn't based on whether they succeeded in Trump winning, but whether they succeeded in influencing the results.

 

 

 

 

Here's a few things that are factually true and/or in the Mueller report.

 

• The Mueller Report spent hundreds of pages detailing numerous links between Trump's campaign and the Russian government

 

• The report found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

 

• The report found that "a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against Clinton's campaign, and released stolen documents

 

• The report found that "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

 

• The report found that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,”

 

• The report found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in “sweeping and systematic fashion.”

 

• Russians probed at least 21 state voter databases for insecurities, stole voter's personal information, hacked Hilary's campaign and the DNC and shared tens of thousands of emails with Wikileaks,  tried to hack the RNC, spread propaganda across social media via troll farms, and staged rallies in at least two states featuring things such as a hired American actress dressed as Clinton in a prison jumpsuit.

 

• The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia “were able to gain access to restricted elements of election infrastructure” and “were in a position to, at a minimum, alter or delete voter registration data.”

 

 

Now I'm not trying to claim or get you to agree that Trump was an illegitimate President. But I think you can probably at least agree that with this amount of concerted and explicit effort, at the very least, as a starting point, Russia was successful in influencing the election. 

 

Did the Mueller report conclude that Russia influenced the outcome of the election?

 

Did the FBI do a forensic analysis of the DNC servers? Or were they not allowed to?  If not why? 
 

Is $200,000 in Facebook ads a “social media campaign?”

 

The” Russian government believed it would benefit from a Trump Presidency” and worked to  get that outcome.   Sounds similar to what the IC’s said about China and Iran for Biden and Russia for Trump in 2020.   Wonder why no 2020 Mueller report.

 

HRC’s campaign manager was phished like a moron.  None of the emails released on Wikileaks were false or with misleading information.  
 

HRC lost because she didn’t campaign in the rust belt.  But Russia must have made her not go there I guess. 

[commando]

i don't recall biden ever asking russia for help and then having his cronies meet with the russians after asking for that help in a campaign.   

[Guy Chamberlin]

6 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

Now I'm not trying to claim or get you to agree that Trump was an illegitimate President. But I think you can probably at least agree that with this amount of concerted and explicit effort, at the very least, as a starting point, Russia was successful in influencing the election. 

 

 

The one thing we can all agree on is that if the situation had been reversed --- the exact same charges and exact same evidence against Hillary Clinton — the Republicans and the conservative media would never ever ever have granted an ounce of legitimacy to her Presidency. 

 

As I recall, they were willing to grind the country to a halt over Benghazi.

 

And, you know, Obama's birth certificate.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

15 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Look at the wording of the Mueller report.  I believe (possible I may be mistaken) it says Russia tried to influence the 2016 election.  It does not say they did influence the election.  I’m pretty sure they were confident Russia had no bearing on our election outcome.   
 

Do you honestly think 2016 is the first election Russia tried to influence?  

 

I believe that while the Mueller Report could not confirm collusion, it listed serious concerns that exceeded the scope of the investigation.  It was also pretty clear that the Trump administration was neck deep in obstruction of justice (something most innocent people don't do) but again, the investigation was limited in what it could pursue. 

 

Rachel Maddow's breathless nightly coverage of Russian subterfuge got people to mistake over-reach for innocence. The Mueller Report basically opens by saying the findings do not exonerate the President. Once again, everyone gets to believe what they want to believe. 

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

The one thing we can all agree on is that if the situation had been reversed --- the exact same charges and exact same evidence against Hillary Clinton — the Republicans and the conservative media would never ever ever have granted an ounce of legitimacy to her Presidency. 

 

As I recall, they were willing to grind the country to a halt over Benghazi.

 

And, you know, Obama's birth certificate.

 

I have no doubt you would be correct here.  
 

Ever since 2000 it’s what political parties have done every election but 2012.  

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I believe that while the Mueller Report could not confirm collusion, it listed serious concerns that exceeded the scope of the investigation.  It was also pretty clear that the Trump administration was neck deep in obstruction of justice (something most innocent people don't do) but again, the investigation was limited in what it could pursue. 

 

Rachel Maddow's breathless nightly coverage of Russian subterfuge got people to mistake over-reach for innocence. The Mueller Report basically opens by saying the findings do not exonerate the President. Once again, everyone gets to believe what they want to believe. 

 

 

 

If there is any there there, well then one would assume the current DOJ would be all over it

[Guy Chamberlin]

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

If there is any there there, well then one would assume the current DOJ would be all over it

 

No s#!t.

 

We touched on this before, and in all seriousness the attempted "prosecutions" of Trump have generally followed the organized crime formula, where the Feds have enough to make a RICO case, but the mob lawyers have enough layers of plausible deniability to keep the godfathers out of jail. 

 

And let's face it, some lower-level guys did get nabbed. It's not like the whole thing was a hoax. 

 

But the impeachments and Reports rarely rose to a legal level. They may not have been enough to put Donald Trump in jail, but they revealed a chronically corrupt man you should never, ever do business with. Some choose to celebrate that as innocence. 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

32 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I have no doubt you would be correct here.  
 

Ever since 2000 it’s what political parties have done every election but 2012.  

 

Eh, in 2000 it came down to a few electoral votes in a Republican controlled Florida, and a Supreme Court decision that ruled on partisan lines to elect George Bush president despite him losing the popular vote. But when that wrangling was over, there was no orchestrated effort to fight Bush's legitimacy. Some of us blamed Clinton-fatigue and Gore's charisma deficit. Most Democrats moved quickly to opposing Bush's actions, not his legitimacy. 

 

In 2004, the typically accurate exit polls showed Kerry surging, but the final tally did not reflect that. Word had it that the Republican founder of Diebold, the company that made the voting machines, had promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. The conspiracy theory got a bit of traction, but it dissipated quickly. There were plenty of more believable reasons why John Kerry lost the election. But there was every bit as much evidence of electoral malfeasance as there was in 2020. Which is to say almost none. Democrats moved on. Their guy lost. 

 

2008? Well you could say the birther movement against Obama helped spawn the Tea Party, the rise of Donald Trump and an unprecedented run on guns and ammunition.

 

2016? Donald Trump declared the election totally fraudulent prior to election day.  Then he unexpectedly won via the electoral college. Then claimed his 3 million vote deficit to Hillary Clinton was the result of 3 million illegal alien voting illegally. Basically, he could claim whatever he wanted, and his devotees would run with it. 

 

And now having tested the local, state and national mechanisms for over-turning any election they don't like, we have a Republican Party that has won only one Presidency by popular vote this century, and is determined to rule even as a minority. 

 

Don't pretend both parties have handled this the same way. 

[Archy1221]

34 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

No s#!t.

 

We touched on this before, and in all seriousness the attempted "prosecutions" of Trump have generally followed the organized crime formula, where the Feds have enough to make a RICO case, but the mob lawyers have enough layers of plausible deniability to keep the godfathers out of jail. 

 

And let's face it, some lower-level guys did get nabbed. It's not like the whole thing was a hoax. 

 

But the impeachments and Reports rarely rose to a legal level. They may not have been enough to put Donald Trump in jail, but they revealed a chronically corrupt man you should never, ever do business with. Some choose to celebrate that as innocence. 

 

 

You may not have realized this, but the top men in the mob either went to jail or got “whacked”.  RICO actually did get “the Godfather’s.”

 

As far as the hoax goes, what exactly did those lower level guys get nabbed for?  

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Eh, in 2000 it came down to a few electoral votes in a Republican controlled Florida, and a Supreme Court decision that ruled on partisan lines to elect George Bush president despite him losing the popular vote. But when that wrangling was over, there was no orchestrated effort to fight Bush's legitimacy. Some of us blamed Clinton-fatigue and Gore's charisma deficit. Most Democrats moved quickly to opposing Bush's actions, not his legitimacy. 

 

In 2004, the typically accurate exit polls showed Kerry surging, but the final tally did not reflect that. Word had it that the Republican founder of Diebold, the company that made the voting machines, had promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. The conspiracy theory got a bit of traction, but it dissipated quickly. There were plenty of more believable reasons why John Kerry lost the election. But there was every bit as much evidence of electoral malfeasance as there was in 2020. Which is to say almost none. Democrats moved on. Their guy lost. 

 

2008? Well you could say the birther movement against Obama helped spawn the Tea Party, the rise of Donald Trump and an unprecedented run on guns and ammunition.

 

2016? Donald Trump declared the election totally fraudulent prior to election day.  Then he unexpectedly won via the electoral college. Then claimed his 3 million vote deficit to Hillary Clinton was the result of 3 million illegal alien voting illegally. Basically, he could claim whatever he wanted, and his devotees would run with it. 

 

And now having tested the local, state and national mechanisms for over-turning any election they don't like, we have a Republican Party that has won only one Presidency by popular vote this century, and is determined to rule even as a minority. 

 

Don't pretend both parties have handled this the same way. 

Don’t pretend Democrats quickly moved on.   They didn’t.  Unless you think 6 years and still playing the illegitimate card, still blaming the Supreme Court 22 years later, is “quickly moving on”.   I mean, if that’s the case, we still have 21 more years to blame ballot harvesting for the 2020 election.