Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?

[LV426]

"The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system."

AT FIRST that is what they did, but as Mueller says in that very section that strategy shifted to support Trump and disparage Clinton.

What does this sentence mean, Flash? The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the US. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Drumpf and disparaged candidate Clinton.

So literally right there, Mueller tells you the strategy shifted once Trump entered the race.

Do words not mean what they mean?

 

[LV426]

Again, not one word about showing a single vote was influenced.

You just said that propaganda influences "a small percentage of voters".

Well, 100,000 is a small percentage of voters, is it not?

 

[LV426]

All the people who went around saying "Hillary did this" or "Hillary did that" were people who already hated her.

How do you know that? You don't know that. You can't presume to know the mindset of those voters, and it's arrogant to assume you do. Lazy arrogance, actually. So, so lazy.

And why did they say "Hillaryt did this" or "Hillary did that"? Because of the propaganda that was effective at making them think that.

None of these people came to the conclusion Clinton "did this" or "did that" on their own; just like you, they were convinced of this by propagandists.

You're saying propaganda does and doesn't work. That's your argument. Not very coherent.

 

[LV426]

True. But you don't know what influenced these voters.

Mueller's report makes it pretty clear that the social media trolling done by Conservative Russians in the states Manafort shared polling data with Kilmnik were effective.

You would know that if you read the report...but you refuse to read the report. Why?

Where do you think you got all the negative information about him?

From the news. What propaganda are you talking about?

Propaganda is information aimed to influence, it can be true.

So propaganda DOES influence people. You just got done screeching that it didn't in PA, MI and WI. So you don't seem to know your own position here.

You're all over the place.

You say propaganda influences people, generally speaking, but then you say the propaganda disseminated in PA, WI, and MI didn't. So that makes no sense.

You seem to be arguing that propaganda is only effective when it suits the lazy, shitty argument you make on this thread.

 

[LV426]

You have no clue that any of these people even saw any of the Russian ads. Many older people do not do social media and these were the most reliable Trump voters.

WRONG!

We actually do know this, and it's detailed in Mueller's report.

You also have the capacity to know if you shared or even liked Russian propaganda on Facebook because they added a tool to let you know if you did.

So Flash, why are you so lazy? That's the thing about you that is the absolute fuckin' worst; your laziness.

You lazily make "both side"s arguments because your mind is so limited, it cannot process that there is no balance. To you, it's impossible to conceive that something is worse than something else because making everything equal is the only way your small mind can wrap itself around it. That's a function of your poor genetics.

 

[LV426]

Many older people do not do social media and these were the most reliable Trump voters.

WTF are you talking about?

Many older people DO use social media.

In 2016, 64% of people age 50-64 used social media.

So you do this thing, Flash, where you subsitute your own shitty judgment for the base standard, and you're so fucking lazy about it, that you don't even bother to research it before you say it.

To say "many older people don't use social media" when 64% of those in the 5-64 demo did in 2016 means you're making shit up off the top of your head because you're a fucking liar, fraud, and intellectual lightweight.

You do that kind of thing all the time. You hurriedly and sloppily say something general, based on your poor judgment, that always turns out to be completely fucking wrong.

Why is that?

 

[LV426]

And remember, Trump did not win by increasing his votes over Romney but by turnout for Clinton that was much lower than Obama received from reliably Democratic groups like blacks.

Trump won because Russians hacked our election systems, and bombarded idiots in key states (the same states Manafort was sharing polling data with Kilmnik) with social media propaganda.

All they needed to do was flip 100,000 votes, and they did.

You said propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters".

Is 100,000 voters across three states a small percentage? Be honest.

 

[LV426]

You didn't see any negative propaganda against Trump in the 2016 election?

What propaganda?

Propaganda is information aimed to influence, it can be true.

So what propaganda are you talking about?

Was there a secret child cannibal sex ring out of a DC pizza shop?

If you didn't see negative information about both Drumpf and Clinton you must have not been paying much attention to the campaign.

So you're post-hoc stretching the definition of "propaganda" now to retcon your argument.

Clinton didn't undertake an effort to disseminate Russian propaganda across social media in key states that Manafort was sharing polling data with Kilmnik. Trump did.

 

[TOP]

Trump won because Russians hacked our election systems, and bombarded idiots in key states (the same states Manafort was sharing polling data with Kilmnik) with social media propaganda.

All they needed to do was flip 100,000 votes, and they did.

You said propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters".

Is 100,000 voters across three states a small percentage? Be honest.

Free borscht for life...who would turn that down? 2020 is free perogies for life...I'm in...again

 

[LV426]

The source clearly said it was not comprehensive

So it was biased.

So you used a biased source.

Why didn't your source include the election fraud in NC-09?

Why did you use a source that wasn't comprehensive?

 

[LV426]

Did you find any errors in that database?

Yes, you fucking liar!

I even said; the NC-09 election fraud committed by Republicans was missing.

Why was it missing?

Why didn't Heritage bother to include it?

It's a pretty big deal since it's resulting in a Special Election next month and directly impacts a Congressional seat; your source didn't include it, why?

 

[LV426]

Do you know of any other databases available for this information?

First of all, by your own admission this isn't comprehensive.

So if it's not comprehensive, what does that make it? BIASED!

Secondly, nothing in there shows that the fraud was committed by Democrats...just that it was committed by people. You're making the assumption that they're Democrats and you're making that assumption on purely racist grounds. Not one thing in that biased INCOMPLETE link says the fraud was committed by the Democratic Party. Yet, you're attributing it to Democrats, why? Because that's the only way you can maintain the false "both sides" argument you need to make so that the rest of your life makes sense.

Smearing the source is always the response when you can't challenge the facts.

I did challenge the fact, and you ignored it! You dismissed it by moving the goalposts and saying that your source was not comprehensive.

Just curious, how are you going about attributing any of that voter fraud to Democrats since the source doesn't mention party affiliation? By applying racism to the names of the people.

So on top of being lazy, you're also a racist.

 

[LV426]

The point is that there are plenty of examples of both Democrats and Republicans cheating in elections with many convictions.

Your "source" doesn't denote party affiliation, so you are using your own poor judgment, shit instincts, and both sides compulsion to distribute the fraud evenly between the parties because that's the only way your mind can process this.

The fact that your "source" left off the NC-09 fraud that is resulting in a special election shows its biased, and shows you're so fucking lazy you don't even bother to vet your sources.

 

[Flash]

Right...BY SUPPORTING TRUMP AND DISPARAGING CLINTON.

Nobody disputes they were trying to help Trump (and Stein and Sanders) and hurt Clinton. But you claimed they were not trying to sow discard in the U. S. until I showed you the sentence from the Mueller report.

When I made that statement before you said "No."

 

[LV426]

Any rational person knows the two parties use the same methods--only those whose partisanship blinds them to the facts argue otherwise.

1. You're not a rational person.

2. It's not rational to attribute fraud to both sides equally because you're too lazy to check your source.

3. You "both sides" because deep down, you know you lack good judgment, so the way you go about life is to lazily equate everything so you don't have to confront any of it. You can just throw your hands up and say "both sides are the same" to posture.

 

[LV426]

I am like you. I have no clue if Russian propaganda influenced one vote.

So you say propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters", but you refuse to say it worked on the small percentage of 100,000 voters across three states Trump narrowly won because admitting it did would be admitting that Russian interference affected the election, invalidating it, and causing you to have to abandon your both-siderism.

Got it.

 

[LV426]

Or, whether any particular ad or piece of information from any source influenced any votes.

You literally said propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters".

Now you're saying you don't know if it does.

So why did you say it did before, but now you're saying it doesn't? Simple; because if you go with what you said before, you lose the argument.

 

[LV426]

When was the database last updated?

Your own link says the database is active to today.

So...how come it didn't include NC-09?

Because it's biased.

Also, there's no mention in any of the instances from your "source" of party affiliation, so how are you attributing any of it it to Democrats? What process are you going to make that attribution?

 

[LV426]

It would be fairly easy to take any one of the cases and do some simple research to see if it is true.

But you didn't do that. Instead, you hurriedly and sloppily just Googled "democratic election fraud" and posted the first link, didn't you?

 

[LV426]

Then smear the source and ignore the facts it presented.

1. What facts?

2. Your "source" conspicuously didn't include the biggest case of election fraud in decades; one so large and massive that it required the board of elections to throw out the 2018 result and call for a special election next month.

3. Nowhere in your "source" does it mention party affiliation, so how are you attributing any of it to Democrats?

But, you are too lazy and choose to reject common sense data

What is "common sense" about this data? It includes no party affiliation (not for the specific case of vote buying you accused Democrats of doing, despite no evidence it was Democrats doing it), and is conspicuously absent of major election fraud like what happened 10 months ago in NC-09.

What you're trying to do is apply your "both sider" argument to this incomplete data and you're making the assumption that both parties share in election fraud equally because your mind can only process things that way.

You're the lazy one...you posted a source you didn't even bother to vet, then demand I vet your source for you (which I did, and which you still haven't answered for why) because you didn't do it yourself because in your mad rush to prove me wrong, you sloppily did a lazy google search and posted the first link you could find, no matter of its obvious bias.

You're a fraud.