Is denial that Russia influenced our elctions reaching flat earth levels of stupid?

I think it has been for a long time, but our egotistical idiot in chief has been on this train for a long time.

absolutely.

as a lefty I will admit to having bias but oh my god nothing remotely as hard core as these folks

Can this thread be moved....I thought this was pg.

@Byshop

Moved from OT to PG.

-Byshop

@Mercenary848: Recall that this is the same man who drove the birther controversy for years. He's no stranger to stupid.

It wasn't a deciding factor, let's put it that way.

@Byshop: Thank you

yes

Yeah at this point if you don't believe the facts then you are beyond ridiculous.

Yup, you have to be a flat out moron if you think Russia didn't meddle in our elections.

Putin clearly has something on him. Pee pee tape, money laundering?

So care to explain all this astounding evidence we have that Russia had a significant impact on the 2016 election? Cause all I got is those 12 Russian hackers that hacked the DNC servers which had nothing to do with influencing votes and was during when Obama was in office.. An then there was supposed Russian ads they found on Facebook which where mostly all pro Hillary and other such ridiculous imagery like that Jesus Christ vs the devil image lol.. Or maybe the evidence is in the recent Trump / Putin summit that took place where Trump shook Putins hand and agreed for world peace. So suspicious omg.

I really hope we can nail this bastard before election season rolls around, because if we can't it's just fuel for him and his voters "Oh they're out to get me, I'm the victim!" and "My second term is when we get shit done, I was a victim my first term, elect me again".

@LordQuorthon: "Terrorism!" Lol good video. CNN aren't even trying anymore.

Dear pro-Democrats, or how ever you call yourself, your autistic screeching is not an argument that proves the collusion. Get back when you have tangible evidence that can be used in a court of law. Until then your fake anti-Trump self righteousness will be ignored

Nobody mentioned collusion in this thread. But Russians did try to interfere in the election process.

The question you should ask yourself, why did Russians attack the Democratic Party?

I don't know what is worse, blaming Russia for Trump winning the election (especially after saying it was wrong to say elections can be stolen), or ignoring the real reasons why Trump won (HC the worse presidential candidate in history, ignoring the mid west, and identity politics).

I havent heard anyone on the left really talk much about that actually.

and I watch 'Russia stuff' a lot.

The concern is Kompromat which is why these laws are in place to begin with

I could believe that argument if HC didn't have the popular vote so that negates your entire statement.

Yeah, except for the fact that she lost to Trump, that instantly makes her the worse candidate in a presidential election.

Bringing up the popular vote negates anything you are trying to say, as the presidential election has a structure that is followed.

that is horseshit logic.

but regardless, its getting off topic in my opinion

She won the popular vote, but she was only able to get three millions votes more than President Trump while he had all of the baggage against him leading up to the election and was the first major candidate to win with no previous government or military experience.

President Obama beat Senator McCain by ten million votes eight years earlier, so that should say something about her.

What actually happened isn't a concern of those of his ilk, its all about the formation and continuance of a shared narrative, one that speaks from the perspective of a victim.

honestly...none of that matters to the core of the discussion frankly.

yes he won, no he didnt win by popular vote and yes that matters but not in the system of how elections work in this country, of which should change, and yes Trump got enough votes to show strong evidence that much of America are rather stupid but that is who we are so we got who we deserve.

ok..so lets move on.

you mean like 'witch hunt' etc etc etc

Yes, that includes all people of his ilk (like yourself) who play teams (any team, left, right, green, blue) and don't know how to have a conversation that consist of varying perspectives.

For the record, this will be my last response to you as in the past few of weeks that I have actively posted on this board, I've found you to be hypocritical and a disingenuous faux - conversationalist.

I honestly dont care what you think of me and what you think of me is not related to the conversation.

'witch hunt' was a reference to Trump crying all the time about how he is a victim depsite being the President of the United States with both houses in his parties control and yet he STILL plays the victim card every time he opens his mouth

The only influence they had was giving the sore losers an security hug for why they lost.

I'm sorry, but no, it is not. Flaties are on a much higer scale of crazy

Which will likely give Trump an open rode to a re-elections, as the root of the issues will not be solved, and the same errors will be repeated.

Correct.

@ad1x2 In 2018...........

@chrischronos: World peace on Russia's terms? Seriously?

its not as outrageous as one might instinctively think. Not an option I would select, but it very well maybe the only major option left.

What I mean is, I think Russia has its claws deep in GOP politics and might even be able to rig this next election not as in influence but as in actually change the vote count. So with that, learning a bit of Russian history from the perspective of the Russians can make ones blood pressure drop a bit

I don't know - maybe they did; maybe they didn't, but for my money, Hilary just wasn't the right opposition candidate. The way I see it, Trump won because his team better understood voters' motivations, which were becoming increasingly radical: All the talk about draining swamps while Hilary was depicted knee-deep in trying to turn her husband's ex-presidency into a Democrat mandate to rule most likely hit home with a lot of disaffected voters. I'd be more concerned about the lack of any meaningful opposition at crunch than I would the threat of foreign intervention, but maybe that's just me being naive.

It's all a bit of a farce either way. Hasn't influencing foreign national elections been a core strategy of international diplomacy for the goodies and the baddies for at least the last century? How deep is anyone actually motivated to dig?

there are two things you guys are missing here.

1. you cant skip for denying that its happened, straight to 'well it didnt matter anyway'. you have to own the facts first.

2. The issue is much less about was the win stolen from Hillary or is Trump a better choice anyway or even 'people had the information to make a choice. that is not the issue', never really was. The reason its illegal is because of kompromat. That is why its illegal, that is why it matters. Its painfully clear he is compromised, its so clear it hurts to hear people deny it. but the question is, what exactly is being compromised

@tryit: Oi, I'm not one of those guys.

dude..how stupid do you think I am?

nobody and no indictment of any kind is making this assertion 'appreciable influence on the US election result'

that is not the claim nor the question, you make it painfully obvious that you are avoiding the source question by 1. pretending to not understand 2. diverting attention away from it and now 3. actually changing the claim itself.

its a simple question, it can have a straightforward simple answer and you know it.

in short

'Is denial that Russia influenced our elctions still happening?'

yes absolutely. but in addition to denying it happened they also want to start talking about how that which did not happen (as they believe) is not a big deal.

folks...do not fall for that trap, do not allow them to talk about the value position of something they refuse to even admit happened in the first place

@tryit: So tell me how you understand "influencing an election", if it didn't have an influence on the result? What kind of a weasel interpretation of a question is that?

nothing remotely 'weasel' about it.

the 'defense' (for the lack of a better word) that you are building is that trying to rob a bank is not a crime, only if you are successful is it a crime.

'TRYING to influence the election' is the issue, not SUCCEDING in influencing the election. TRYING to steal from a bank is a crime

but again...we cant talk about that in depth because you claim it never happened in the first place. no attempt was made, no hack, no DCLeaking stealing, no 500,000 voter roles stolen, none of it, that is currently your position until you correct is, is that what the indictments are saying in detail did not happen.

do you care to correct that position?

Dang, trumpkins came in full swing. Deflection, feigned ignorance, moved goal posts, false narratives, whataboutism, etc. you prags brought the whole arsenal today. I hope you guys aren’t this bad at discussing things irl.

the real irony in it all is that the tactic of 'yeah it happened but why is it so bad' would be MUCH easier, and MUCH more effective for them. but they trapped themselves with the denial becaues you cant have that debate without admitting that it happened in the first place.

@tryit: Politics is grubby business. I'd rather not make any pretense to know how it operates. But that is an interesting question: how do you differentiate between planning a crime, conspiring to commit a crime, attempting to commit a crime and committing a crime. I'm coming at this as a layman, not a legal or political expert, and just assumed TC would be open to a humble layman's thoughts on the 'influences' behind Hilary's dramatic failure at the last election. My apologies if their coarseness offends you.

a few things.

many of these question are already answered in law. its not like this is the first time the defense of 'I failed at the attempt therefore i am innocent' has come up. How many terrorists do you think would try to make that argument? is only commiting a terrorist act a crime? but not the planning of one?

same goes for 'planning' I dont know exactly where the line is but they (the law) knows all the tricks.

Regarding any and all subjects related to Hillary, Hillary being guilty of ANYTHING from a traffic ticket to running secret concentration camps, is not going to make the question of these investigations become non-facts by some sort of magic. they are either factual or they are not.

so many on the right are dancing around it (and not doing a very good job) they want a persons character who says a fact to actually change a fact (it doesnt), they want the motivation of a person who is investigating to change a fact without showing eveidence that the fact is now wrong because of it.

fact is a fact, its really about as immutable as you can get, its hard to make a fact into a non fact by pointing in really any direction other than the fact itself.

Yes, I see now that influencing something doesn't necessitate anything or anyone being influenced and that I was mistakenly looking for effects of interference rather than reasons to believe. I'm going to crawl back into my hole now and look forward to reading the full unabridged facts in 30 years or whenever.

much of it you can read now.

I encourage you to read the indictments from Monday as well as yesterday.

as full disclosure, i have not, so you can find some ammo in their for your view I am willing to bet.

that said, I think i will read them tonight, its not long from my understanding

The "Your name is Reek." Meme going viral isn't random.

It was truly embarrassing to have the leader of the free world, the "art of the deal" , and "Fire and Fury" president stand on that stage and blame Americans for 40 min, and be a complete pantywaste in front of a dictator. Backpeddle master.

Not only that, but try and rebuke 40 min with one world and being "mis-spoken" and his cult base gobbles it up.