Did Russia "hack" the election? Four questions.

[LoneLaugher]

The DNC did not pay anyone to stir up shit anywhere. You bought lies....and still buy them.

Who is buying into lies?


Undercover video shows Democrats saying they hire agitators to disrupt Donald Trump events

Leaked Emails Show DNC Officials Planned Anti-Trump Protests

You. Nobody paid anyone to do any agitating.

Right. The people caught saying that they paid the rioters are lying and you're telling the truth.

Go play on the freeway.

This was already "litigated" on these pages back when the hidden video was released.

If someone paid someone to riot...then do this.

Tell me who wrote the check, who they wrote it to, and where the payee rioted.

Do that....or **** off. What you claim happened is illegal and would have resulted in arrests. Why no arrests? Asshole.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

This was already "litigated" on these pages back when the hidden video was released.

If someone paid someone to riot...then do this.

Tell me who wrote the check, who they wrote it to, and where the payee rioted.

Do that....or **** off. What you claim happened is illegal and would have resulted in arrests. Why no arrests? Asshole.

Ever heard of cash, fuckwit?

 

[Redfish]

Jesus

Nope, there's no concrete evidence that he was responsible either of course I'd imagine that won't stop you left wing lunatics from trying to blame him for Hillary's loss.

They KNOW the Russians hacked American accounts etc. There's a ton of evidence.

No, what we all know is that wikileaks hacked DNC accounts. Wikileaks is not Russia.
\
What we also know is that that evidence of DNC lying and corruption MAY have cost the hildebeast some votes.

Are voters entitled to the truth?

 

[NightFox]

Jesus

Nope, there's no concrete evidence that he was responsible either of course I'd imagine that won't stop you left wing lunatics from trying to blame him for Hillary's loss.

They KNOW the Russians hacked American accounts etc. There's a ton of evidence.

Uh-Huh, unfortunately all of it is circumstantial and based solely on forensics.

.... now serving: the next gullible, hyper-partisan, nit-wit in line.

"Show me the money !" -- Jerry McGuire

 

[Redfish]

This was already "litigated" on these pages back when the hidden video was released.

If someone paid someone to riot...then do this.

Tell me who wrote the check, who they wrote it to, and where the payee rioted.

Do that....or **** off. What you claim happened is illegal and would have resulted in arrests. Why no arrests? Asshole.

Ever heard of cash, fuckwit?

amazing how dumb these dem/libs are. it is a never ending source or amusement reading the BS that the desperate losers come up with.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This was already "litigated" on these pages back when the hidden video was released.

If someone paid someone to riot...then do this.

Tell me who wrote the check, who they wrote it to, and where the payee rioted.

Do that....or **** off. What you claim happened is illegal and would have resulted in arrests. Why no arrests? Asshole.

Ever heard of cash, fuckwit?

Same questions. Who paid who and for what...exactly? You don't know? Awww...I'm shocked.

You are a dupe. It's not a problem until we understand that there are many, many dupes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

coupla things

1. wikileaks is not Russia
2. the truth about DNC corruption did hurt Hillary
3. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible human being
4. The voters rejected: the establishment, the lying media, the lying pollsters, Hillary, Obama, and liberalism in general
5. Trump was a vote for real change, enforcement of laws, and economic sanity.

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

This was already "litigated" on these pages back when the hidden video was released.

If someone paid someone to riot...then do this.

Tell me who wrote the check, who they wrote it to, and where the payee rioted.

Do that....or **** off. What you claim happened is illegal and would have resulted in arrests. Why no arrests? Asshole.

Ever heard of cash, fuckwit?

Same questions. Who paid who and for what...exactly? You don't know? Awww...I'm shocked.

You are a dupe. It's not a problem until we understand that there are many, many dupes.

Yeah, the rioters all filled out W-4s and got on the payroll, accepted paychecks, which they dutifully posted to their bank accounts and reported as taxable income.

Goddamn gullible nincompoop.

 

[PredFan]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

You've got questions, I've got answers.

1. Yes.
2. I had beard before that they did.
3. Doubtful. I cannot imagine anyone who was going to vote for the far left Hillary, deciding on voting for the far right Trump because of the e-mails. If you are talking strictly about independants then maybe, but the fact is that the accusations of lying and corruption by Hillary didn't start with the Podestra and Weiner e-mails. We have known about Hillary's corruption way before that.
4. Perhaps some would. Not me, I never expected him to win in the first place. It wouldn't be to the level that it is today because the MSM wouldn't be carrying the story like they are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This was already "litigated" on these pages back when the hidden video was released.

If someone paid someone to riot...then do this.

Tell me who wrote the check, who they wrote it to, and where the payee rioted.

Do that....or **** off. What you claim happened is illegal and would have resulted in arrests. Why no arrests? Asshole.

Ever heard of cash, fuckwit?

Same questions. Who paid who and for what...exactly? You don't know? Awww...I'm shocked.

You are a dupe. It's not a problem until we understand that there are many, many dupes.

Yeah, the rioters all filled out W-4s and got on the payroll, accepted paychecks, which they dutifully posted to their bank accounts and reported as taxable income.

Goddamn gullible nincompoop.

You have no proof that anyone paid anyone for any agitating. But you keep saying it as though it actually happened. That's what nutbags do.

 

[Redfish]

coupla things

1. wikileaks is not Russia
2. the truth about DNC corruption did hurt Hillary
3. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible human being
4. The voters rejected: the establishment, the lying media, the lying pollsters, Hillary, Obama, and liberalism in general
5. Trump was a vote for real change, enforcement of laws, and economic sanity.

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

You, and your candidate, lost playing by the rules of the contest that everyone was aware of.

Now, if we take California and its probable 3M illegal votes out of the equation, Trump won the PV.

There are lots of ways to spin this, but Trump will be president in 14 days. Hillary Clinton will never be president and will forever be known as a two time loser (once to the half black guy, and once to the businessman). History will record her as a LOSER, LIAR, and THE MOST CORRUPT HUMAN BEING EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

 

[deltex1]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Russia hacked. Podesta coughed. Hillary barfed. Donald ate their lunch. Tough shit.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

coupla things

1. wikileaks is not Russia
2. the truth about DNC corruption did hurt Hillary
3. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible human being
4. The voters rejected: the establishment, the lying media, the lying pollsters, Hillary, Obama, and liberalism in general
5. Trump was a vote for real change, enforcement of laws, and economic sanity.

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

You, and your candidate, lost playing by the rules of the contest that everyone was aware of.

Now, if we take California and its probable 3M illegal votes out of the equation, Trump won the PV.

There are lots of ways to spin this, but Trump will be president in 14 days. Hillary Clinton will never be president and will forever be known as a two time loser (once to the half black guy, and once to the businessman). History will record her as a LOSER, LIAR, and THE MOST CORRUPT HUMAN BEING EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

 

[eflatminor]

I for one am glad the hackers, whoever they were, exposed the ignorance, corruption and bigotry of the DNC.

 

[NightFox]

coupla things

1. wikileaks is not Russia
2. the truth about DNC corruption did hurt Hillary
3. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible human being
4. The voters rejected: the establishment, the lying media, the lying pollsters, Hillary, Obama, and liberalism in general
5. Trump was a vote for real change, enforcement of laws, and economic sanity.

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

You, and your candidate, lost playing by the rules of the contest that everyone was aware of.

Na-Uh... silly wabbit, the rules only count when the Democrats win.

 

[Redfish]

coupla things

1. wikileaks is not Russia
2. the truth about DNC corruption did hurt Hillary
3. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible human being
4. The voters rejected: the establishment, the lying media, the lying pollsters, Hillary, Obama, and liberalism in general
5. Trump was a vote for real change, enforcement of laws, and economic sanity.

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

You, and your candidate, lost playing by the rules of the contest that everyone was aware of.

Na-Uh... silly wabbit, the rules only count when the Democrats win.

I enjoy watching all the dem snowflakes melt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

You, and your candidate, lost playing by the rules of the contest that everyone was aware of.

Na-Uh... silly wabbit, the rules only count when the Democrats win.

I enjoy watching all the dem snowflakes melt.

This from the guy who

1. Still claims Trump won the popular vote.

2. Doesn't believe there was a recession in 2008

3. Thinks the BLS fabricates all its employment numbers

 

[imawhosure]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

coupla things

1. wikileaks is not Russia
2. the truth about DNC corruption did hurt Hillary
3. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible human being
4. The voters rejected: the establishment, the lying media, the lying pollsters, Hillary, Obama, and liberalism in general
5. Trump was a vote for real change, enforcement of laws, and economic sanity.

The voters gave the election to Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

Doesn't matter. We have been down this road. She lost by the rules of the game that both candidates were completely aware of.

But, if field goals counted as 5 points, the Saints would be in the playoffs. I demand a retroactive rule change.

You said the VOTERS rejected her. That's the popular vote. NO, they did not.

Oh come on. She lost by the voters of the electoral college. The EC electors were elected by the voters in each state (that's the way the constitution set it up).

And that is the system by which the vote of the people of the NATION, for the leader of the NATION, can be overturned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.