Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
They alledgedly copied public voter rolls.
Didnt change or alter in any way.
Meaningless
Anyone have a moron translator for this boorish word salad. This dunce is super triggered.
How do you know that?
And why would they just copy the voter rolls after you just said one post ago that they "were effected [sic]":
So you moved the bar. You said that the voter rolls were affected, but then you said they were just "copied".
Why would Russia copy voter rolls? That makes no sense.
You literally said in the last post that they were "effected [sic]".
How does copying them "effect [sic]" them?
Why would Russia just copy the lists? What purpose does that serve them?
You really fucked up. You just gave away the whole game. Well done, numbskull.
Why did Paul Manafort share polling data with Kilimnik for months when Manafort was campaign manager?
You didn't answer that question.
horseshit.. You are making it up that up out of thin air
So Trump's people went there with the intention of colluding, but were hoodwinked?
Why then did Trump have his son lie about the reason for that meeting?
Oh, they absolutely did change their platform at the RNC.
2016 RNC Delegate: Drumpf Directed Change To Party Platform On Ukraine Support
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/5683...d-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support
So you lied about the platform changing.
Why are you lying?
it was never addressed in court so I can only speculate.
I think it was because Manafort wanted to help the guy who took over as advisor for the
Ukraine Party of Regions -but that's just my guess. Or maybe he owed him a favor.
It doesn't matter since Kilimnik did not report to Russia
That's the excuse you're going with?
Explain the rhetoric about asking Russia to find Clinton's e-mails days after a meeting where her e-mails were the topic of discussion?
fake news. WAPO published the same garbage. Read my link- it debunks the matter
You're the one who was wrong about Russia hacking at all.
For two years, you said -repeatedly- that Russia didn't hack anything.
Then about four months ago, once Mueller's report came out and it detailed the Russian hacking that you couldn't deny, you changed all that to now admit that they hacked, but you're going with the line that they didn't alter or change anything.
So your judgment was wrong once about this subject for two years...so why would it be right now?
do you think if Trump had true nefarious intentions and "collusion" with Russia he would announce it at a campaign rally?
It was Trump bombastic playing to the crowd
deflection asked and answered.
I gotta go swimming -enjoy your nothing burger in the meantime
Well, about 8-9 million of Trump's voters did vote for Obama and I supplied you many links to prove this. You attempted to refute it by claiming the math showed that would be too many voters. I then refuted your math by showing you did not count the (larger number) of third-party voters.
They were cool about Obama but not Clinton because: 1) Obama was a newcomer without all the negative baggage of Hillary; 2) people voted for Obama because he promised "change." Like all candidates who promise change, it never happens.
Brand identification. Even corporations admit half of their advertising is wasted--they just don't know which half.
Corporations often have products we all want (restaurants, cell phones, cars, homes) while nobody likes politicians.
Have you ever changed your mind based on advertising; or, have you loyally voted Democratic for many years in the past and future? Campaign ads are aimed at reinforcing the support of their side by telling us how terrible the other side is and by attempting to influence the undecided. In 2016 there were more voters who were late deciders because of the high negative ratings of both candidates thus subject to more influence and explaining the larger third party vote.
I agree. Voting for both Obama and Trump prove it.
What favor?
And how does sharing polling data on US elections repay a favor unless that data was to be used in some way to interfere in the election?
Come on...you know what the answer is...just say it.
How does sharing polling data from MI, WI, and PA "repay" Kilimnik for a favor he did?
And what favor did Kilimnik do that caused Manafort to feel obligated to share seemingly random polling data with a guy who has nothing to do with the US election?
Your weirdo explanation is only opening up more difficult questions for you to answer.
Actually, you don't know that. He looks to have been reporting to both sides because that's what untrustworthy people do.
It's only "fake news" because it completely demolishes your lies.
That's straight from the mouth of a GOP delegate.
Your link is the fake news...and your link also says the platform was changed to be more pro-Russia, and the GOP went along with it anyway!