Right, and as Mueller said, by 2015 that strategy changed to support Trump.
Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
Right, and as Mueller said, by 2015 that strategy changed to support Trump.
Which, in the report you haven't read, comes right before Mueller said this:
So they started out trying to sow discord, and then it evolved to supporting Trump.
When you don't read the thing you are commenting on, you end up making bush league errors like this.
STOP.
You made a racist assumption based on their last names that they were Democrats.
You continue to make more assumptions throughout, but you can't tie any of these people to Democrats.
You want to, but you can't.
Now you're moving the goalposts because you don't want to admit that Russia helped Trump.
I said, from the beginning, that they started out undermining faith in the elections and then that strategy evolved to supporting Trump.
I said that by quoting the Mueller report directly.
What you then tried to do was take the preceding sentence to what I quoted and establish it as what Mueller said. But you do that nasty Conservative habit of ignoring everything that comes after what you quoted.
No, what you said was that Russia only sought to sow discord in the election, and you refused to admit that they did that by supporting Trump.
evince
Truthmatters
any right leaning person here who ignores the FACTS is a russo bot hole
No American would condone what Russia did to this nation
the FBI warned us just like a month ago that the Russo bot hole crowd would be in HIGH FORCE now
hell I caught TQ trying to minimize the Russian attack on our elections
she is likely a russo bot hole
No American would condone what Russia did to this nation
the FBI warned us just like a month ago that the Russo bot hole crowd would be in HIGH FORCE now
hell I caught TQ trying to minimize the Russian attack on our elections
she is likely a russo bot hole
NO!
That is not what I claimed!
What I said was that their strategy evolved to one that supported Trump; that was the strategy by which they were going to undermine faith in our elections.
What you did was cherry pick the preceding sentence and represent it as the whole so you could deny that Russia was helping Trump. It was a lazy, bad faith, selective, cherry-picking edit on your part. The whole things reads like this in the actual report you still haven't read:
You cut off the second sentence because you don't want to admit that Russia hacked to get Trump elected, because admitting that would mean you can't use "both sides" and have to come down on one side. So you can't maintain this faux-intellectualism.
People like Flash are useful idiots for Conservatives and Russians; they prey on Flash's own sense of self-worth and poor judgment as a means to depress turnout and enthusiasm. Think of all the things Flash has said here and the way in which he argues against things; it always comes from a gut place with him; his "common sense" AKA POOR JUDGMENT is what informs his bothsiderism, which is just a lazy way to posture that you're a thoughtful person.
But that's all it is; posturing.
No one believes for a second that Flash can undertake the requisite effort to make a coherent, unbiased argument. So Flash very lazily substitutes his own personal shit judgment for conventional wisdom, then goes off to the races with the bothsiderism that is designed for the sole purpose of not having to confront that his judgment sucks.
Did you find any cases that were not accurate? No, you just think smearing the source ignores the real facts.
What is biased about it? They only mean they did not try to list every possible case of voter fraud--only those documented that resulted in criminal convictions. But let's say it was biased and includes only Democratic cheating. That proves my point--over 1,000 cases of Democratic cheating shows they are just as capable as Republicans.
I'm not the one who said it was committed by "poll" workers and not campaign workers. I did not make the assumption it was committed by Democrats, I read about the case when it occurred and knew it was Democrats. There is nothing racist about the assumption that South Texas counties vote heavily Democratic--it is just a fact.
My assumption that South Texas counties vote heavily Democratic is backed by more reliable facts than your assumption that Russian interference actually changed the votes of some people in 2016. I can show you a map of Texas counties and how they vote. You cannot show me one person who changed his vote because of Russian ads.
Do you actually think Hispanics are a race?
"The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of proven instances of election fraud from across the country. This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list, but is intended to demonstrate the many ways in which fraud is committed. Preventing, deterring, and prosecuting election fraud is essential to protecting the integrity of our voting process."
Knowing that both sides cheat is more rational, factual, and honest than pretending only Republicans do it.
"Vote-buying may have also extended to the 2012 primary election. One of the politiqueras, Veronica Saldivar, testified at her court hearing Sept. 26 that she had worked for Pct. 1 Commissioner A.C. Cuellar Jr., who beat Joel Quintanilla in the primary with 57 percent of the vote."
A. C. Cuellar was a Democratic County Commissioner.
I did not cut off anything. I never disputed Russian interference to help Trump. That was not the issue. But when I said they attempted to sow discord in America you said "No, they were trying to get Trump elected."
Obviously, they could be trying to do both (but you are against "both-sidism"]. I knew they were attempting to do both, but you denied anything but the election part.
How can you make a "racist assumption" against a group that is not a race.
It was not an assumption. I read about at the time. A. C. Cuellar was a Democratic County Commissioner.
"A campaign manager pleaded guilty Monday in connection to a 2012 vote-buying scheme that tried to sway voters with cash and cocaine to pick certain Donna school board candidates, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Francisco “Frankie” Garcia, 47, of Donna, copped to one count of conspiring to buy votes and one count of vote-buying during the 2012 general election, court records show.
Garcia, who worked as a campaign manager for four school board candidates, is the latest to admit guilt. Five other politiqueras, or paid campaign workers, have also pleaded guilty for their roles in the vote-buying, records show.
Prosecutors have not disclosed the names of the candidates.
Vote-buying may have also extended to the 2012 primary election. One of the politiqueras, Veronica Saldivar, testified at her court hearing Sept. 26 that she had worked for Pct. 1 Commissioner A.C. Cuellar Jr., who beat Joel Quintanilla in the primary with 57 percent of the vote."
Sure I can. They worked for a Democratic County Commissioner. A little easy research could have discovered that fact.
Instead, you tried to switch it to a "racist" issue again diverting from the facts--that both parties cheat. Diversion to issues like racism does not change that fact.
Propaganda has never been limited to false information. It information to persuade.
1. First of all, it didn't even include the biggest election fraud in decades in NC-09.
2. Nowhere in that link does it show party affiliation for any of the instances.
3. You admitted yourself this wasn't comprehensive; which means it's biased.
So they cherry picked instances, then.
So that would be bias.
To not include the biggest election fraud in decades, committed by Republicans, screams bias.
Right, the link you used for your source says that.
So...did you even look at the link before you posted it? Doesn't seem like you did. What happened was you got so worked up that you did a rushed, sloppy Google search and posted the first link that turned up.
It's OK to admit it, but it's not OK to pretend you've done any good faith work on this.
The source does not include party affiliation yet you claim it is biased. What is the bias?
The NC case has an indictment but there has been no trial (as far as I know) or a conviction. The source tries to used documented convictions for voter fraud. For all you know the guy could be found not guilt and then there is no voter fraud conviction.
It does not list party affiliation but a little common sense and research can find the party affiliation of those involved. First, South Texas is heavily Democratic. Second, the women worked for County Commissioner A. J. Cuellar, A Democrat. I believe he was later convicted of some type of corruption.
That means 36% of seniors do not use social media. That is a lot of votes which is what I said---a lot of seniors do not use social media. Less than younger voters so they would be less influenced by those campaign sources.