Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Agreed. While we were inundated with the Podesta emails on AMT, most American voters don't have any idea who Podesta is, or what any of those emails contained. I think it was mostly insignificant in terms of the general electorate.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this.
I don't believe the Russians swung this election. I do think Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta email hacks. All the memes and "Russia Russia Russia" nonsense are just a distraction.
All those memes are working - they are being used to convince people that there is nothing to worry about and it's all a big joke... Well, it's not. But the memes seem to be working. It's a amazing that America can now be largely swayed by memes, but it really does seem to be the case (JC seems to be a prime example of this; the memes both seem to work on him, and he knows that they work on others. Bravo). Russia swung the election with the DNC and Pedesta email hacks, and did it specifically for that reason .... if it hadn't been for releasing those (and not any RNC ones), I feel pretty certain that Clinton would have won.
I don't. There are a lot of reasons why she lost the race and this certainly was one of them, but I have a hard time believing it was the decisive one.
As for the memes it feels like they are the next logical step. Talk radio gave way to Fox News. Now we have fake news and memes. By 2020 news coverage will become a choose your own adventure style affair.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Agreed. While we were inundated with the Podesta emails on AMT, most American voters don't have any idea who Podesta is, or what any of those emails contained. I think it was mostly insignificant in terms of the general electorate.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Agreed. While we were inundated with the Podesta emails on AMT, most American voters don't have any idea who Podesta is, or what any of those emails contained. I think it was mostly insignificant in terms of the general electorate.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Agreed. While we were inundated with the Podesta emails on AMT, most American voters don't have any idea who Podesta is, or what any of those emails contained. I think it was mostly insignificant in terms of the general electorate.
I don't think that there was anything in there that did much damage. What did more damage was hearing every night on the news, "more Clinton emails leaked from the campaign today". The general public was already wary of Clinton because of the constant scandals and the emails from her SOS days. It's like that theory that it's more torture to tap someone on the forehead continually than just haul off and deck them.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't believe the Russians swung this election. I do think Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta email hacks. All the memes and "Russia Russia Russia" nonsense are just a distraction.
All those memes are working - they are being used to convince people that there is nothing to worry about and it's all a big joke... Well, it's not. But the memes seem to be working. It's a amazing that America can now be largely swayed by memes, but it really does seem to be the case (JC seems to be a prime example of this; the memes both seem to work on him, and he knows that they work on others. Bravo). Russia swung the election with the DNC and Pedesta email hacks, and did it specifically for that reason .... if it hadn't been for releasing those (and not any RNC ones), I feel pretty certain that Clinton would have won.
People forget the massive number of Bernie supporters that were "Never Hillary" and didn't vote for her. Those email hacks only solidified voters' decisions who weren't HRC supporters anyway.
Newsflash: Russia didn't interfere, what we have here is the 2 worst candidates and one of them had to win... even when thousands of voters wouldn't vote for either pres. candidates, only down ballot.
I don't believe the Russians swung this election. I do think Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta email hacks. All the memes and "Russia Russia Russia" nonsense are just a distraction.
All those memes are working - they are being used to convince people that there is nothing to worry about and it's all a big joke... Well, it's not. But the memes seem to be working. It's a amazing that America can now be largely swayed by memes, but it really does seem to be the case (JC seems to be a prime example of this; the memes both seem to work on him, and he knows that they work on others. Bravo). Russia swung the election with the DNC and Pedesta email hacks, and did it specifically for that reason .... if it hadn't been for releasing those (and not any RNC ones), I feel pretty certain that Clinton would have won.
Remember remember the 9 of November? The sky was falling, every non white would be deported, harassing women would be the norm, stocks would plummet and earth would implode.
BTW those memes aren't created by me, I'm too stupid to think of that stuff, I just get them from MySpace.
I don't believe the Russians swung this election. I do think Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta email hacks. All the memes and "Russia Russia Russia" nonsense are just a distraction.
All those memes are working - they are being used to convince people that there is nothing to worry about and it's all a big joke... Well, it's not. But the memes seem to be working. It's a amazing that America can now be largely swayed by memes, but it really does seem to be the case (JC seems to be a prime example of this; the memes both seem to work on him, and he knows that they work on others. Bravo). Russia swung the election with the DNC and Pedesta email hacks, and did it specifically for that reason .... if it hadn't been for releasing those (and not any RNC ones), I feel pretty certain that Clinton would have won.
People forget the massive number of Bernie supporters that were "Never Hillary" and didn't vote for her. Those email hacks only solidified voters' decisions who weren't HRC supporters anyway.
Newsflash: Russia didn't interfere, what we have here is the 2 worst candidates and one of them had to win... even when thousands of voters wouldn't vote for either pres. candidates, only down ballot.
Blind, blind, blind!!! The TRUTH will set you free, free, free!!!
That wasn't the new evil diabolical plot. The plot didn't involve telling Americans the truth about their government. The new evil diabolical plot involved telling Americans the truth about one specific political party.
That wasn't the new evil diabolical plot. The plot didn't involve telling Americans the truth about their government. The new evil diabolical plot involved telling Americans the truth about one specific political party.
I guess but I see it as government as a whole, some on here refer to it as politics as usual or meh both sides do it. Trump is non government and appears not to be politics as usual. Others on here said it's all about winning, he won no matter how. We will see.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Agree about polls and memes but at least the memes are funny. But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Agree about polls and memes but at least the memes are funny. But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
I disagree, the poll numbers were quite humorous in their own right
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Agree about polls and memes but at least the memes are funny. But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
I disagree, the poll numbers were quite humorous in their own right
The polls were within the margin of error. It's a myth they were completely wrong.
You seem to not understand when special prosecutors are necessary. The DNC is a private organization and they have the capacity to sue Russia if they would like. John Podesta could sue as well but having fallen for a basic phishing scam I am not sure how that would play out. Also I am not certain the DNC and Podesta want to be open to discovery because it might reveal a level of incompetence that they just don't want to admit and/or it might link back to non-secure servers that may have provided backdoor entry to the DNC network. At the moment though there is no evidence that somebody within government colluded to aid Russia or direct Russia in the hack so this doesn't warrant a special prosecutor in any way shape or form. People can shout for one if they would like but it will be like wasting a challenge in the first inning. It will go nowhere and it will reduce the opportunity to call for one later as people will just tune the screamers out. You really should save your phony outrage for something real.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Agree about polls and memes but at least the memes are funny. But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
I disagree, the poll numbers were quite humorous in their own right
The polls were within the margin of error. It's a myth they were completely wrong.
If you want to go that route, they were completely accurate based on the samples...they should probably modify the way they collect the samples though... I have a friend that worked in radio and was explaining to me how they sampled their audience. They were only able to sample based on calls to people with land lines. Because of that, they could not really get accurate samples because land line use in and of itself is marginally used more by certain demographics or age groups. I'm guessing that people willing to answer surveys in general are probably correlated to specific demographics more than others especially when a large portion of the population distrusts media and pollsters. I do not know how they can claim that they are getting accurate data.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Agree about polls and memes but at least the memes are funny. But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
I disagree, the poll numbers were quite humorous in their own right
The polls were within the margin of error. It's a myth they were completely wrong.
If you want to go that route, they were completely accurate based on the samples...they should probably modify the way they collect the samples though... I have a friend that worked in radio and was explaining to me how they sampled their audience. They were only able to sample based on calls to people with land lines. Because of that, they could not really get accurate samples because land line use in and of itself is marginally used more my certain demographics or age groups. I'm guessing that people willing to answer surveys in general are probably correlated to specific demographics more than others especially when a large portion of the population distrusts media and pollsters. I do not know how they can claim that they are getting accurate data.
Polling aggregators try to account for all that. They can claim their data is accurate when the results are within their margin of error. The margin of error just happened to swing in Trumps favour in the states that mattered.
It's not an exact science, but it's still a science. And some polls and methods are better than others. Comparing them to miss-informative memes is false.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Agree about polls and memes but at least the memes are funny. But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
I disagree, the poll numbers were quite humorous in their own right
The polls were within the margin of error. It's a myth they were completely wrong.
If you want to go that route, they were completely accurate based on the samples...they should probably modify the way they collect the samples though... I have a friend that worked in radio and was explaining to me how they sampled their audience. They were only able to sample based on calls to people with land lines. Because of that, they could not really get accurate samples because land line use in and of itself is marginally used more my certain demographics or age groups. I'm guessing that people willing to answer surveys in general are probably correlated to specific demographics more than others especially when a large portion of the population distrusts media and pollsters. I do not know how they can claim that they are getting accurate data.
Polling aggregators try to account for all that. They can claim their data is accurate when the results are within their margin of error. The margin of error just happened to swing in Trumps favour in the states that mattered.
It's not an exact science, but it's still a science. And some polls and methods are better than others. Comparing them to miss-informative memes is false.
Nationally it was within the margin of error but I am not sure Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were.
You seem to not understand when special prosecutors are necessary. The DNC is a private organization and they have the capacity to sue Russia if they would like. John Podesta could sue as well but having fallen for a basic phishing scam I am not sure how that would play out. Also I am not certain the DNC and Podesta want to be open to discovery because it might reveal a level of incompetence that they just don't want to admit and/or it might link back to non-secure servers that may have provided backdoor entry to the DNC network. At the moment though there is no evidence that somebody within government colluded to aid Russia or direct Russia in the hack so this doesn't warrant a special prosecutor in any way shape or form. People can shout for one if they would like but it will be like wasting a challenge in the first inning. It will go nowhere and it will reduce the opportunity to call for one later as people will just tune the screamers out. You really should save your phony outrage for something real.
Now something like this just might in time require a special prosecutor. This is one level of government hacking another.
You seem to not understand when special prosecutors are necessary. The DNC is a private organization and they have the capacity to sue Russia if they would like. John Podesta could sue as well but having fallen for a basic phishing scam I am not sure how that would play out. Also I am not certain the DNC and Podesta want to be open to discovery because it might reveal a level of incompetence that they just don't want to admit and/or it might link back to non-secure servers that may have provided backdoor entry to the DNC network. At the moment though there is no evidence that somebody within government colluded to aid Russia or direct Russia in the hack so this doesn't warrant a special prosecutor in any way shape or form. People can shout for one if they would like but it will be like wasting a challenge in the first inning. It will go nowhere and it will reduce the opportunity to call for one later as people will just tune the screamers out. You really should save your phony outrage for something real.
You seem to think when they are or are not necessary as it suits you and your bias. A special prosecutor could subpoena FBI and CIA documents and interview the players, under oath and behind closed doors and then issue a report making recommendations as to whether charges should be filed. Candidate Trump repeatedly made claims of a "rigged" election, against him no less, openly advocated for and celebrated the hacking of Clinton's and Podesta's emails and then turned around and appointed a "friend" of Putin to be SOS. I'd like to know and the American people deserve to know the following:
1. Was Trump aware the Russians were hacking into the DNC, Clinton's and Podesta's email servers? If so, when did he know it? 2. Was there communication between Trump's campaign team and Russian operatives during the campaign? 3. Do any of Trump's business concerns receive funding/loans from Russian banks or individuals? If so, how much and from where and from whom? 4. Was a deal between Trump and Putin/Russia made for the release of DNC emails and an appointment of a pro-Russia/Russia friendly SOS? 5. Follow the money and let the investigation go where it may.
If there is no "there" there, then Trump should have no problem being interviewed under oath, turning over documents and servers and making his inner circle available as well. The DNC and Podesta have already been exposed, claiming an investigation might embarrass them further as grounds for not investigating is ridiculous. This isn't about the DNC, or making Hillary president. This is about an unfriendly foreign power meddling in our democracy and a potential quid pro quo and potential treason. How can Trump take the oath of office if any of what I'd like answers to are true? For someone who was so upset about the annexation of Crimea, you sure don't seem to have a problem with this sudden coziness to Putin, Putin, Putin. There are known knowns. There are known unknowns. And, of course, there are unknown unknowns.
Sorry, Soul. I love you but there's just no evidence to it swaying the election. The Comey letter? I can see that. But not the hacks.
Not hard evidence, but don't you think that common sense suggests that it's the case? Recall the reaction to the whole DNC email hack? Polls clearly showed that they did indeed sway people's feelings about Clinton, and that there was nothing comparable coming from the other side was, evidently, by design. I think that's obvious. There are poll numbers showing that the email hack influenced how people voted, particularly the undecided voters. That is swaying the election.
The poll numbers showed Clinton would win by a landslide too...just saying. You believing in a bunch of random inaccurate public opinion polls is about equivalent to the people that believe the memes...both are derived from inaccurate information and inadequate methods.
Agree about polls and memes but at least the memes are funny. But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
I disagree, the poll numbers were quite humorous in their own right
The polls were within the margin of error. It's a myth they were completely wrong.
If you want to go that route, they were completely accurate based on the samples...they should probably modify the way they collect the samples though... I have a friend that worked in radio and was explaining to me how they sampled their audience. They were only able to sample based on calls to people with land lines. Because of that, they could not really get accurate samples because land line use in and of itself is marginally used more my certain demographics or age groups. I'm guessing that people willing to answer surveys in general are probably correlated to specific demographics more than others especially when a large portion of the population distrusts media and pollsters. I do not know how they can claim that they are getting accurate data.
Polling aggregators try to account for all that. They can claim their data is accurate when the results are within their margin of error. The margin of error just happened to swing in Trumps favour in the states that mattered.
It's not an exact science, but it's still a science. And some polls and methods are better than others. Comparing them to miss-informative memes is false.
Misinformation is misinformation. If you are getting your news from unreliable sources or places where the polling data was greately misinterpreted just because they fit your political opinion, then you are no better than the meme believers. Maybe I'm too much of a media skeptic these days. Who is to say that some of these polling companies do not have their own agenda or pressure to meet deadlines resulting in inaccurate data...wouldn't be the first time the science community pulled data out of of their asses to fit the fancy of their personal agendas. Where is the accountability? If the DNC was hacked, who is to say that the data from polls could not be compromised or tampered with? Anyways, getting way off subject, sorry.
Comments
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
As for the memes it feels like they are the next logical step. Talk radio gave way to Fox News. Now we have fake news and memes. By 2020 news coverage will become a choose your own adventure style affair.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today 3-m&geo=US&q=pizzagate,Podesta
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It's like that theory that it's more torture to tap someone on the forehead continually than just haul off and deck them.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
People forget the massive number of Bernie supporters that were "Never Hillary" and didn't vote for her. Those email hacks only solidified voters' decisions who weren't HRC supporters anyway.
Newsflash: Russia didn't interfere, what we have here is the 2 worst candidates and one of them had to win... even when thousands of voters wouldn't vote for either pres. candidates, only down ballot.
The sky was falling, every non white would be deported, harassing women would be the norm, stocks would plummet and earth would implode.
BTW those memes aren't created by me, I'm too stupid to think of that stuff, I just get them from MySpace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Trump is non government and appears not to be politics as usual. Others on here said it's all about winning, he won no matter how.
We will see.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
But then again I think typing Russia three times is funny.
It's not an exact science, but it's still a science. And some polls and methods are better than others. Comparing them to miss-informative memes is false.
http://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/brian-kemp-seeks-donald-trump-aid-alleged-hacking/njzSSIpqHww8C9dcHlF1PP/
1. Was Trump aware the Russians were hacking into the DNC, Clinton's and Podesta's email servers? If so, when did he know it?
2. Was there communication between Trump's campaign team and Russian operatives during the campaign?
3. Do any of Trump's business concerns receive funding/loans from Russian banks or individuals? If so, how much and from where and from whom?
4. Was a deal between Trump and Putin/Russia made for the release of DNC emails and an appointment of a pro-Russia/Russia friendly SOS?
5. Follow the money and let the investigation go where it may.
If there is no "there" there, then Trump should have no problem being interviewed under oath, turning over documents and servers and making his inner circle available as well. The DNC and Podesta have already been exposed, claiming an investigation might embarrass them further as grounds for not investigating is ridiculous. This isn't about the DNC, or making Hillary president. This is about an unfriendly foreign power meddling in our democracy and a potential quid pro quo and potential treason. How can Trump take the oath of office if any of what I'd like answers to are true? For someone who was so upset about the annexation of Crimea, you sure don't seem to have a problem with this sudden coziness to Putin, Putin, Putin. There are known knowns. There are known unknowns. And, of course, there are unknown unknowns.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©