Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?

Flash said:
Because you have no clue it was Russian propaganda. It could be the Republican Party, all the groups on Facebook posting memes, Facebook posts from friends, numerous conservative sources, PACs, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

We know what the propaganda was, where it came from, who disseminated it because Mueller investigated it.

You can read it for yourself in Volume I.

So maybe instead of arguing with me, you should get off your fat ass and read Mueller's Report so you don't sound like a dumbass.
 
Flash said:
Read carefully. The purpose of propaganda is to persuade---it is not necessarily effective.
Click to expand...

You said it was for "a small percentage of voters".

Well, a small percentage of voters was all it took to flip three states, and we know that Russia was targeting voters in those states because Mueller investigated it.

You are like the kid who is giving a book report without even reading the book.
 
LV426 said:
We know they're successful because Trump is the President.

WTF?.
Click to expand...

Terrible logic. Somebody always wins the presidency and many things influence their decision to vote.

Showing Russian disseminated a lot of campaign material is not the same as proving it changed any votes or enough to change the election. Some self-financed candidates have spent a huge amount of money to influence the elections and did poorly. So putting campaign ads out there does not buy the election. Trump knew how to get a lot of free media coverage and spent half of what Clinton spent.

Did the Russian effort to sow discord influence your decision that the election was fraudulent? Or, did you come to that decision all by yourself? Maybe American voters decided how to vote all by themselves.
 
Flash said:
The main issue is that you have no clue whether Russian efforts changed the vote of one person.
Click to expand...

But you said propaganda works on a "small percentage of voters".

It was a small percentage of voters that made the difference across PA, MI, and WI, and we know from Mueller's report that Russia targeted voters in PA, MI, and WI with their propaganda.
 
Flash said:
Everything else is just smoke and mirrors to challenge some minor fact or distort my posts. You can't show one vote was changed.
Click to expand...

Conservatives always whine when I quote them directly that I'm distorting them.

I'm quoting you in full, pal. You're the one who says stupid things that I end up using against you later on. Welcome to how debate works. Just because you said something stupid once doesn't mean I'm not going to keep going back to it as it undermines your future points.

You said yourself that propaganda is effective among "a small percentage of voters". YOU SAID THAT.

It was a "small percentage of voters" across PA, MI, and WI that won the election for Trump.

Mueller's report shows that Russia concentrated their propaganda efforts across those key states, and they created thousands upon thousands of pieces of propaganda and dummy troll accounts to spread across social media, knowing that it is effective for "a small percentage of voters".

So you're saying propaganda is effective, but it wasn't effective in PA, MI, and WI, where Russia concentrated their efforts at disseminating propaganda. <---Saying that makes you stupid.
 
Flash said:
If all 1100 cases are Republican cheating it is hard to claim it is biased.
Click to expand...

Why are you even using this source, now that you know it's incomplete and not comprehensive?

How can you draw a complete and comprehensive conclusion from something incomplete and not comprehensive?

This is what I mean when I say you argue in bad faith.


That was the only point I was making before you got into minutia about primaries, indictments, bias, poll worker vs. campaign worker, and all the other trivia that has nothing to do with the simple fact you are unwilling to admit.
Click to expand...

You mean, the moment we start delving into the details, we start seeing differences and distinctions that ruin the false bothsides narrative that is at the heart of your belief system?

Your argument is basically that apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruits.

Now is that an intellectually honest argument, or a sophist argument?

Be honest.
 
the entire system , any system is flawed.
to what degree? that's debatable.

To claim that somehow a presidential election, in this country was hijacked, and that the wrong person won because of, is nutter talk.

Our system is fool proof, not perfect, fool proof. and the Russian argument is so ridiculous not even worth having, the claim from the left is that voters were swayed to vote for Trump because of something they were shown erroneously online . another impossibility given most liberals would have voted for Hillary if she had battered their moms on election eve.

you're making a fool of yourself, I just don't know how else to tell you that other than to poke fun
 
Flash said:
Terrible logic. Somebody always wins the presidency and many things influence their decision to vote.
Click to expand...

You said propaganda was effective among "a small percentage of voters".

Mueller says Russia targeted voters in MI, WI, PA with propaganda.

Trump's margin in MI, WI, and PA was less than 100,000 voters, which would qualify as "a small percentage of voters".

So...what does that mean? Russian propaganda that targeted voters in MI, WI, and PA was effective among "a small percentage" of them since Trump's margin was "a small percentage of voters".


Showing Russian disseminated a lot of campaign material is not the same as proving it changed any votes or enough to change the election.
Click to expand...

You just said propaganda is effective among "a small percentage of voters". And Trump won three states that Russia targeted with propaganda across "a small percentage of voters".

Using your own words, I've proven how Russia hacked the election.
 
LV426 said:
Look at how you can't even stop yourself from responding to prove that I'm not under your skin.

You lack impulse control.
Click to expand...

you'e a nutter, you make no sense.

the likes of you getting under my skin is beyond laughable, you're a troll, your kind is everywhere online, you breed among yourselves

now go watch CNN like a good little boy
 
Getin the ring said:
To claim that somehow a presidential election, in this country was hijacked, and that the wrong person won because of, is nutter talk.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that if you actually confronted the fact that the election was rigged, it would invalidate everything about you; your beliefs, your persona, your existence.

If it turns out Trump didn't win legitimately, then that means you're so stupid, you got conned.

Now, what is more likely? That Russia didn't hack the election to rig it for Trump, or that you are a fucking sucker? The latter is more likely.
 
Getin the ring said:
you'e a nutter, you make no sense.

the likes of you getting under my skin is beyond laughable, you're a troll, your kind is everywhere online, you breed among yourselves

now go watch CNN like a good little boy
Click to expand...

I make perfect sense.

I am so deeply under your skin, I upset you so much, that you have to vomit up this spittle of a post to try and prove that I'm not under your skin.

The best way you can prove that I don't get under your skin is to just ignore my posts and not respond. But you lack impulse control, so you are compelled to respond.
 
LV426 said:
I make perfect sense.

I am so deeply under your skin, I upset you so much, that you have to vomit up this spittle of a post to try and prove that I'm not under your skin.

The best way you can prove that I don't get under your skin is to just ignore my posts and not respond. But you lack impulse control, so you are compelled to respond.
Click to expand...

its its programing


it has no choice but to go after the people like you who can spot the truth
 
LV426 said:
Conservatives always whine when I quote them directly that I'm distorting them.

I'm quoting you in full, pal. You're the one who says stupid things that I end up using against you later on. Welcome to how debate works. Just because you said something stupid once doesn't mean I'm not going to keep going back to it as it undermines your future points.

You said yourself that propaganda is effective among "a small percentage of voters". YOU SAID THAT.

It was a "small percentage of voters" across PA, MI, and WI that won the election for Trump.

Mueller's report shows that Russia concentrated their propaganda efforts across those key states, and they created thousands upon thousands of pieces of propaganda and dummy troll accounts to spread across social media, knowing that it is effective for "a small percentage of voters".

So you're saying propaganda is effective, but it wasn't effective in PA, MI, and WI, where Russia concentrated their efforts at disseminating propaganda. <---Saying that makes you stupid.
Click to expand...

The President is not elected by popular vote. He is elected by the Electoral College.
 
Flash said:
Some self-financed candidates have spent a huge amount of money to influence the elections and did poorly.
Click to expand...

So why did Russia succeed?

Well, they used social media, which is low-cost, and because of what social media is, was able to get Americans to do the dirty work of disseminating or "sharing" propaganda they generated.

-and-

They also knew who to target because they were getting polling data from Manafort. So they knew what voters to go for and how to get them.

You said yourself that propaganda works among "a small percentage of voters". Well, that's all they had to do in order to rig the election for Trump; disseminate their propaganda widely enough in those key states to manipulate "a small percentage of voters" to vote for Trump...and it worked! Trump won those three states by "a small percentage of voters".

All they had to do was flip about 100,000 voters across three states, and that's why they directed their propaganda efforts in those states and not in states like California, New York, or Massachusetts.

All of this is detailed in Volume I of Mueller's report that you still haven't read.

So lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top