Maximinus Thrax
Expert
^^Truth^^
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Fake News or Dem pipe dreams? They been huffing over at the post?
- Thread starter CVMA544
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
^^Truth^^
I don't think what wikileaks exposed is why people voted for Trump. I think it impacted people not voting for Hillary though. Not sure to what degree. The most damning thing against Hillary wasn't divulged by wikileaks anyway. She used a private email server to hide from the people her pay for play scheme, and when subpoenaed, she wiped it clean. Most of that information was discovered through investigation.
The wikileaks information provided details confirming what was already known, but probably the biggest impact was not allowing the democratic machine to sweep it under the rug. So maybe it had an effective impact, but maybe when it came down to it, democrats just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary, and Republicans resolved themselves, either eagerly or holding their noses, to Vote for Trump.
If the Russians hacked e-mails and then disclosed them with the intention to influence the election and some people voted for Trump, or NOT for Hillary based on the e-mails....so what?
Someone explain for me why that is a legal basis to overturn the election.
Anyone?
No one?
Buehler?
...and yes I read the OP articles which seem more to me like breathless wishful thinking. In the end, the people voted and there is no hint of fraud, even in what was in the e-mails, let alone actual "interference" in any cognizable fashion.
The concerted full court press makes me strongly suspect the authenticity of their sincerity. I mean they are really driving this too hard, compared with the realistic likelihood that it actually impacted the election.
And I still say we're dealing with two issues. First, Russians hacking the DNC and Podesta emails. Second, the unfavorable facts that were revealed about Clinton and the DNC by the emails. And the conclusion they're trying to drive by conflating those issues, is that the first somehow renders the second irrelevant, that it's not fair to tell the truth about Clinton if they don't have equivalent dirt on Trump, and therefore, the conclusion is that the election results are invalid.
I would like to see the talking heads be honest about this and address the issues separately. There is no doubt that Hillary lost because a lot of people didn't bother voting, because of her corruption. So, the question becomes, did any of the facts revealed by those stolen emails cost her the election?
If we have legitimate evidence that Russians hacked us, yes, we should investigate any cyber attack on US organizations by foreign governments. Unless there is sufficient proof to show that 1) they did try to influence the election, AND 2) there is proof that it did cause Hillary to lose, maybe then they can start talking about invalid election results. But they're a very long ways from that.
Given the depths of corruption already revealed by the FBI investigation, I think it is unlikely they can prove that negative feelings towards Hillary have anything to do with the stolen emails. There's plenty to hate without the facts we learned from Wikileaks.
And I still say we're dealing with two issues. First, Russians hacking the DNC and Podesta emails. Second, the unfavorable facts that were revealed about Clinton and the DNC by the emails. And the conclusion they're trying to drive by conflating those issues, is that the first somehow renders the second irrelevant, that it's not fair to tell the truth about Clinton if they don't have equivalent dirt on Trump, and therefore, the conclusion is that the election results are invalid.
I would like to see the talking heads be honest about this and address the issues separately. There is no doubt that Hillary lost because a lot of people didn't bother voting, because of her corruption. So, the question becomes, did any of the facts revealed by those stolen emails cost her the election?
If we have legitimate evidence that Russians hacked us, yes, we should investigate any cyber attack on US organizations by foreign governments. Unless there is sufficient proof to show that 1) they did try to influence the election, AND 2) there is proof that it did cause Hillary to lose, maybe then they can start talking about invalid election results. But they're a very long ways from that.
Given the depths of corruption already revealed by the FBI investigation, I think it is unlikely they can prove that negative feelings towards Hillary have anything to do with the stolen emails. There's plenty to hate without the facts we learned from Wikileaks.
Chicken and egg. Most people didnt realize just how corrupt she was without those emails.
After Comey announced that there wouldn't be an indictment, a majority of voters thought she should have been indicted. That happened without the emails. The emails may have been helpful after that in not letting the story die. But to say that delegitimizes the election is absurd. People didn't come to the polls from the rural areas in droves because of Wikileaks. They thought they were making America great again.
First of all, people voted the way they did. Period. No one forced or coerced anyone to do anything related to the e-mails. Therefore, where they came from and even their authenticity are irrelevant to the issue of whether the election was valid, which it appears to have been.
Second, it was well known that the e-mails were "stolen" before the election. The Democrats made sure that was out there. What they didn't do, to my knowledge, was challenge the fact that the e-mails were actual DNC e-mails.
Third, it was posited, if not known that Russian hackers were involved in the e-mail release, well before the election.
Fourth, so what if the Russians were trying to influence the election? Unless you cn show actual fraud or involvement in changing the reporting of the actual vote, i don't care that much. Why people voted the way they did is largely irrelevant to the validity of the election with the exception of actual duress or bribery which has not been shown.
Non issue.
Second, it was well known that the e-mails were "stolen" before the election. The Democrats made sure that was out there. What they didn't do, to my knowledge, was challenge the fact that the e-mails were actual DNC e-mails.
Third, it was posited, if not known that Russian hackers were involved in the e-mail release, well before the election.
Fourth, so what if the Russians were trying to influence the election? Unless you cn show actual fraud or involvement in changing the reporting of the actual vote, i don't care that much. Why people voted the way they did is largely irrelevant to the validity of the election with the exception of actual duress or bribery which has not been shown.
Non issue.
That's a hard argument to refute. Everyone knew it going in. People made the choices they made. I think it's legitimate to investigate who hacked them, how, and why, but the outcome of that should be strengthening ourselves against future hacks, and appropriate retaliation.
The election is in the books.
Fortunately it's not up to CNN or the MSM to determine the validity of the election. Apparently it's their job to be the designated whiners for the rest of the liberals. They do that job very well.
I see it regurgitated on FB.
An ad populum logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy. They can think whatever they want, scream and kick and cry as loudly as they want. Doesn't change the fact that by all accounts, the election results are indeed valid (no evidence of fraud, at least on the Republican side, nor tampering with ballots, vote counts, etc..). Unless and until they come up with irrefutable proof that one or more of these things happened, then the election is valid.
I would say that a majority of the public thinks that Hillary should be in jail for violating her duties as SoS. If public opinion = legal opinion, then she'd be in prison. She's not in prison. The election brouhaha is no different.
I agree on all counts.
Yeah. And there's a reason people use them. They sway public opinion using it because it works. I'm not sure exactly what the play is, but it is a play. There isn't this much concerted effort unless there's a play. There's no precedence that I know of for declaring a national election invalid. If they think the nation is divided now, good grief! Maybe it's to persuade the electors to be faithless, and then let congress pick the POTUS.
I still contend that swaying public opinion should have been done before the election, and not after. Hell, I'm not happy that the Colts lost yesterday. If we found enough people that were unhappy with the results of that game, do you think the NFL would change it? No, of course not. Public opinion should have no sway on the outcome of a game or an election. If the game was played by the rules (poor officiating notwithstanding), and if the election was held without widespread fraud or results tampering, then the results must stand, period. Don't like it? Play better next time. Field a better candidate next time. Those are the only two realistic options at this point as far as I know. Can electors be "faithless"? Sure. Is it even remotely likely that enough would be faithless to reverse the results? I would be more than a little bit surprised if that were the case.
I hate to say I agree with jamil on this one has to be an objective to be achieved by the MSM and the DNC.
The latest is Podesta and the HRC machine want the electoral college delegates to receive a intel briefing on Russian hacking.
It sounds like I made that up!
The latest is Podesta and the HRC machine want the electoral college delegates to receive a intel briefing on Russian hacking.
It sounds like I made that up!
