Study debunks Democrat conspiracy theory about Russians stealing the election

[Taichiliberal]

This was an extremely close election. Trump won by 70 K in 3 high electoral states accumulated. They used voter suppression and every dirty trick possible. It is easy and correct to surmise that Russia moved the vote by that narrow percentage. Trump certainly has decided he owed them bigly and has been paying them off since the election.

I personally don't think you can accurately quantify the exact effect of the Russian back promos, but you can definitely say that they were active in that election, and it sure as hell wasn't to get hawkish Clinton elected.

 

[Nordberg]

Well that would be your cue to BRING UP those studies you think refute the National Academy of the Sciences (unless you're just worried about getting humiliated even further) rather than pouting and crying like a petty child.

here. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...paganda-may-really-have-helped-trump-n1025306 And why would I be humiliated. How does that make sense? It was an extremely close election and Russia spent millions and worked hard to help him. Can you logic it out? I can. You SAY you believe it didn't but I think you like that study because it backs your narrative. Trump is the accidental president and we should have better insurance against unqualified dangerous and not too bright fools like him driving.

 

[artichoke]

Once more for the mentally challenged, from Army's source; "...our analysis was limited to 1 population at a single point in time. We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns...

Once more for the mentally challenged, from any first-year statistics course...ALL studies must list off any potential limitations to their work, no matter how trivial. As the study clearly states, ZERO impact on opinions was detected using the methods of the Russian trolls, and acknowledging that the 2016 election happened prior to this study negates literally no part of that. This is clearly you refusing to see what is plainly obvious because you simply cannot explain it away. By your logic on this, NO studies EVER show ANYTHING.

View attachment 13524

Try again, dishonest demagogue.

the sheer stupidity displayed in Army's explanation is astounding. Trump is the self vaunted king of the "art of the deal", yet what boss in his right mind undercuts his seasoned negotiators with his personal flunky working an angle without informing them of the change...

Um...again, the kind of boss who thinks his "seasoned negotiators" are subversive partisan hacks undermining his presidency, as the swamp, including those he worked around in this scenario, continuously prove themselves to be.

View attachment 13525

Someone explain to Army that Giuliani's prosecution and mayoral experience does not automatically equate as an expert in foreign affairs.

Nobody said it did. Learn how to read. Your argument was that Giuliani was an "un-vetted" and an "inexperienced lawyer." This is disproven by him virtually single-handedly taking down the mob in New York as a prosecutor. Is there anything else you would like to get caught distorting or lying about, or are you good for now?

View attachment 13527

He was NOT the official representative of our government

Which is not a crime, or even controversial in the slightest.

As acknowledged during the show trial, presidents OFTEN send their personal advisers to oversee high-priority policy events. This is not new. It is just you being ignorant of basic facts and embarrassing yourself by acting like you've discovered something scandalous.

Try again.

President does not mean "king".

Which defenders of Obama are the only ones involved here who ever needed that explained.

View attachment 13528

He tries to justify Giuliani's utilization of KN0WN (locally and internationally) corrupt individuals to fulfill Trump's agenda...which resulted in the slander campaign against a veteran foreign diplomat respected by all....

A *setting the record straight* campaign...against a *subversive partisan hack unknown to virtually anyone until Democrats started worshiping them as a sainted hero for smearing Trump*.

Nice try.

And dealing with virtually ANYONE in power in Ukraine means dealing with corrupt crooks...hence Trump pausing the foreign aid as required by law to vet the new president.

Hey Army, did you know that the first thing cops do when a crime is committed is to seek out eye witnesses? If found, then it's up to the detectives to substantiate their stories with evidence? Then the lawyers determine the credibility of the eye witness testimony by balancing evidence and witness accounts (also corroborating accounts from related persons in the case)? That's how it's done, chuckles.

Um...sure. No one is disputing that. Cool story bro.

the GOP had it's shot and COULD NOT prove that the eye witnesses accounts to Giuliani's Trump approved actions were false.

They didn't NEED to disprove them. They didn't CLAIM anything. Except that the partisan hacks (cherry-picked and coached for weeks before the show trial) decided to believe that someone telling someone else that someone else once said something means that something "irregular" or nefarious had happened. That's not claiming anything criminal or even controversial. It's Democrats trying to make something out of nothing.

View attachment 13524

Nothing was logically or factually debunked in the eye witness account testimonies from the House hearings....

Except that they produced even a shred of evidence of a crime, a controversy, or anything that Obama shouldn't have been impeached a hundred times over for, sure.

And no, Obama was not sending personal lawyers to usurp the work of seasoned official foreign diplomats, and then blocking Congressional investigation into such, or trying to force a struggling nation's leader to publicly throw shade on his political opponent in an upcoming election.

Right, he was committing ACTUAL crimes that were ACTUALLY impeachable.

Not to mention this gem:

Obama whupped ass TWICE....popular and electoral, so he didn't need to stoop to stuff that Trump was trying to pull.

Sure, if you call barely winning the 2012 election by tiny margins in three or four battleground states WITH Democrats getting caught cheating "whooping ass" (nice misspelling again there, Captain Literacy).

View attachment 13529

 

[artichoke]

Reality check:

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-no-...lary-clinton-as-gop-senator-claimed/18812185/

ACTUAL reality check:

From CBS:

Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?

"Some conservative personalities within and without the White House have been talking a lot lately about the links between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Their relationship was exposed by Politico reporter Ken Vogel, who has since moved to The New York Times, back in January... a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign. That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukr...2016-election/

From Daily Beast:

Ukrainian Officials Meddled in 2016 Election by Leaking Secret Manafort Ledger, Court Says

"Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

From the Hill:

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.

"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats. Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...linton-emerges

From Politico:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

From Washington Examiner:

Washington Post admits Ukraine interfered in 2016 election but attempts to minimize its effect

"Farhi’s piece acknowledged that Vogel’s reporting on Ukraine 'extensively detailed Ukrainian efforts to undermine Trump in 2016, such as publicly questioning his fitness for office, disseminating documents implicating Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman at the time, in corruption and helping a Clinton ally research damaging information about him.'"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ize-its-effect

From The Nation (which is ultra-liberal):

"'Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort’s corruption, and the man’s subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose,' wrote Golinkin. 'But Ukraine’s efforts also happened to coincide with—and have an immediate impact on—an American campaign. And yet, despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western media, we’ve had almost no debate about its implications.'"
https://www.thenation.com/article/uk...lections-2016/​

As usual, your use of these easily-debunked partisan "fact-checkers" says more about your own gullibility than it does the issue at hand.

Reality check:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/6597...orts-are-targeting-minorities-journalist-says

This is an NPR article stating that some journalist thinks it is "voter suppression" to require IDs to vote (thus preventing rampant, non-stop Democrat voter fraud) like every other sane, civilized country on the planet. This is supposed to be some kind of "reality check"...how, exactly?

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

Showing another discredited partisan "fact-checker" claiming that one study is "disputed" (because a liberal complained about it) in no way refutes the overwhelming evidence you are ignoring to reach your self-serving, biased conclusion. Let's review:

GA Secy of State office announces probe of alleged hacking attempt into voter registration

San Francisco Registers 49 Noncitizen Voters—at a Cost of More Than $6,300 Each

Nebraska Democrats 'Welcome' Refugees...With Voter Registration Forms

Maryland county's count suggests noncitizens voting across U.S.

Turns Out, Noncitizens Did Vote In November, Only Question Is How Many?

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

Study Claims Up To 2.8 Million Non-Citizens Voted In 2008

Orange County vote count suggests fraud

Skid Row voter fraud Prosecutors homeless offered cash cigarettes exchange hundreds

It Sure Looks Like Democrats in Florida Altered Ballots

Democrat-Directed Voter Fraud Uncovered In Florida

Report: Palm Beach Recount Is Missing A ‘Substantial’ Number Of Votes

Democratic Operative Explains Voter Fraud: We've Been Busing People in for 50 years

Arrest Florida election supervisor for voter fraud!

2012 Election: Nearly 200,000 Florida Voters May Not Be Citizens

Voting problems emerge across America

Poll officials allow 'tons' of illegals to vote

The people behind that Texas voter fraud ring have been identified

New Voter Fraud Cases Show Need to Secure Our Elections

Instances of Voter Fraud Continue to Mount, Further Compromising Our Elections

Twelve Employees of Dem-tied Group Charged in Indiana for Voter Registration Fraud

DOJ whistleblower: Obama years were 'Wild West' of voter fraud

23 Voter Fraud Cases from 2016 and Beyond

Kansas Prosecuting Illegal Immigrant For Casting Vote

Hundreds Of Non-Citizens Registered To Vote In Ohio, Investigation Finds

Report: Massive Voter Fraud Uncovered in Nevada

Recount uncovers serious fraud in Detroit

View attachment 13530

 

[Earl]

Redundant posts will be responded to...redundantly.

Remember Rosenstein: No Vote Counts or Election Results Were Changed

Obama...”tell Putin I can be more flexible after I win re-electi

 

[artichoke]

here. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...paganda-may-really-have-helped-trump-n1025306

From your own study: "The study does not prove Russian interference swung the election to Trump."

The only thing your study even discusses being POSSIBLY indicated by the data is that "Trump's poll numbers improved when Russian trolls were active." This is literally nothing more than a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (these two things happened at once, therefore one must have CAUSED the other). It's the falsehood of misrepresenting correlation for CAUSATION...and it isn't even affirmatively claiming THAT falsehood. It's pure speculation about a POSSIBILITY.

View attachment 13531

This is why liberals cannot afford to let the other side have rights or debate on a level playing field anytime ever. It doesn't get any more flimsy or laughable than this trash.

And why would I be humiliated.

If you can't tell at this point, then you have zero hope of ever understanding.

View attachment 13532

 

[artichoke]

Remember Rosenstein: No Vote Counts or Election Results Were Changed

Exactly.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Earl is also boring and predictable.

at least he's not a lying maniac, like dems.

 

[anatta]

From your own study: "The study does not prove Russian interference swung the election to Trump."

The only thing your study even discusses being POSSIBLY indicated by the data is that "Trump's poll numbers improved when Russian trolls were active." This is literally nothing more than a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (these two things happened at once, therefore one must have CAUSED the other). It's the falsehood of misrepresenting correlation for CAUSATION...and it isn't even affirmatively claiming THAT falsehood. It's pure speculation about a POSSIBILITY.

never heard that one (bolded) -very good. "da Russians" was always a Mooks invention after the Hillary loss.

 

[artichoke]

never heard that one (bolded) -very good. "da Russians" was always a Mooks invention after the Hillary loss.

Used almost as much as the exhaustively over-used "racism" ad hominem fallacy. The Russia diversion is known as a red herring fallacy (I can't defend my BS, therefore look over here at this unrelated farce I've created).

 

[Nordberg]

I personally don't think you can accurately quantify the exact effect of the Russian back promos, but you can definitely say that they were active in that election, and it sure as hell wasn't to get hawkish Clinton elected.

Of course, it was an extremely close election. The Reds have to pretend the Russian operation which was huge and expensive, just did nothing. Russia wasted their time hacking and sending out Tweets and emails. The demonstrations they helped organize did nothing. The constant pounding of pro-Trump messages was all for naught. That is very hard to believe. If it is true, we may as well just change the laws so foreign nations can get involved in our elections. It apparently does not matter.
We have laws against that. The founders were scared of it and did not want foreign interference. They were all wrong. Arminius hs a study.

 

[artichoke]

Of course, it was an extremely close election.

Only when you don't take into account all the ways Democrats were caught cheating, as usual.

The Reds...

Democrats were caught colluding with Russia (to manufacture the collusion hoax), not conservatives. YOU deserve that label, not the people who DIDN'T advance Russia's interests.

...have to pretend the Russian operation which was huge and expensive, just did nothing.

View attachment 13543

Wrong. Your BS claims require YOU to PROVE them, not OTHERS to DISPROVE them.

View attachment 13544

And Rod Rosenstein, who insisted there was no impact from the troll accounts, has plotted against conservatives every step of the way. Hardly a shill for the right. Nice logic.

Russia wasted their time hacking and sending out Tweets and emails.

Yes. That's what the evidence shows.

You get a cookie.

If it is true, we may as well just change the laws so foreign nations can get involved in our elections. It apparently does not matter.

They already ARE involved at every turn...it's just that it's only a scandal when Democrats falsely accuse SOMEONE ELSE of what only they are doing. See the Clinton Foundation.

We have laws against that. The founders were scared of it and did not want foreign interference.

Laws which everyone ignores until someone other than Democrats is falsely accused of violating them, sure. Again, see the Clinton Foundation. And Democrats have relentlessly torn down everything the Founders put in place for more than half a century straight. They are against virtually 100% of the Bill of Rights and against almost every single part of the Constitution. They don't get to pretend to suddenly pretend not to despise and reject literally everything about this country and everything it stands for the moment they illiterately mistake the Constitution as being on their side for once.

View attachment 13549


They were all wrong. Arminius hs a study.[/QUOTE]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Once more for the mentally challenged, from any first-year statistics course...ALL studies must list off any potential limitations to their work, no matter how trivial. As the study clearly states, ZERO impact on opinions was detected using the methods of the Russian trolls, and acknowledging that the 2016 election happened prior to this study negates literally no part of that. This is clearly you refusing to see what is plainly obvious because you simply cannot explain it away. By your logic on this, NO studies EVER show ANYTHING.

View attachment 13524

Try again, dishonest demagogue.



Um...again, the kind of boss who thinks his "seasoned negotiators" are subversive partisan hacks undermining his presidency, as the swamp, including those he worked around in this scenario, continuously prove themselves to be.

View attachment 13525



Nobody said it did. Learn how to read. Your argument was that Giuliani was an "un-vetted" and an "inexperienced lawyer." This is disproven by him virtually single-handedly taking down the mob in New York as a prosecutor. Is there anything else you would like to get caught distorting or lying about, or are you good for now?

View attachment 13527





Which is not a crime, or even controversial in the slightest.

As acknowledged during the show trial, presidents OFTEN send their personal advisers to oversee high-priority policy events. This is not new. It is just you being ignorant of basic facts and embarrassing yourself by acting like you've discovered something scandalous.

Try again.



Which defenders of Obama are the only ones involved here who ever needed that explained.

View attachment 13528



A *setting the record straight* campaign...against a *subversive partisan hack unknown to virtually anyone until Democrats started worshiping them as a sainted hero for smearing Trump*.

Nice try.

And dealing with virtually ANYONE in power in Ukraine means dealing with corrupt crooks...hence Trump pausing the foreign aid as required by law to vet the new president.





Um...sure. No one is disputing that. Cool story bro.



They didn't NEED to disprove them. They didn't CLAIM anything. Except that the partisan hacks (cherry-picked and coached for weeks before the show trial) decided to believe that someone telling someone else that someone else once said something means that something "irregular" or nefarious had happened. That's not claiming anything criminal or even controversial. It's Democrats trying to make something out of nothing.

View attachment 13524





Except that they produced even a shred of evidence of a crime, a controversy, or anything that Obama shouldn't have been impeached a hundred times over for, sure.





Right, he was committing ACTUAL crimes that were ACTUALLY impeachable.

Not to mention this gem:

Sure, if you call barely winning the 2012 election by tiny margins in three or four battleground states WITH Democrats getting caught cheating "whooping ass" (nice misspelling again there, Captain Literacy).

View attachment 13529

Here are the highlights to debunk Army's BS. the rest of his revisionist, supposition and conjecture laden clap trap and be dismissed by the read merely examining the chronology of the posts:

… our analysis was limited to 1 population at a single point in time. We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns. It is also possible that the Russian government’s campaign has evolved to become more impactful since the late-2017 period upon which we focused.

Army's own source admits a limited study, thus making any declarative statements on the whole 2016 election and Russian interference a generalization. Army uses it as a support of his assertions. A grave error.

On Giuliani:

https://www.heritage.org/constituti...nt_=/articles/2/essays/91/appointments-clause

On Trump draining the swamp:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adaman...donald-trump-draining-the-swamp/#16fbc66bf570

- Fact: the GOP stated that their primary mission was to make Obama a one term president. This was followed by record obstruction that passed over to his second term....and the reason for his statement in the video...especially when being hesitant to give arms to a corrupt gov't in transition ( and Biden's NATO sanctioned visit).

- In 2008 Obama won 52% of the popular vote, 52% of the electoral vote, In 2012 Obama won 51% of the popular vote, 51% of the electoral vote … if I remember correctly,

better than 50% of voting Americans across the board told folk like Army to take a hike. Deal with it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

ACTUAL reality check:

From CBS:

Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?

"Some conservative personalities within and without the White House have been talking a lot lately about the links between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Their relationship was exposed by Politico reporter Ken Vogel, who has since moved to The New York Times, back in January... a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign. That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukr...2016-election/

From Daily Beast:

Ukrainian Officials Meddled in 2016 Election by Leaking Secret Manafort Ledger, Court Says

"Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

From the Hill:

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.

"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats. Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...linton-emerges

From Politico:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

From Washington Examiner:

Washington Post admits Ukraine interfered in 2016 election but attempts to minimize its effect

"Farhi’s piece acknowledged that Vogel’s reporting on Ukraine 'extensively detailed Ukrainian efforts to undermine Trump in 2016, such as publicly questioning his fitness for office, disseminating documents implicating Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman at the time, in corruption and helping a Clinton ally research damaging information about him.'"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ize-its-effect

From The Nation (which is ultra-liberal):

"'Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort’s corruption, and the man’s subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose,' wrote Golinkin. 'But Ukraine’s efforts also happened to coincide with—and have an immediate impact on—an American campaign. And yet, despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western media, we’ve had almost no debate about its implications.'"
https://www.thenation.com/article/uk...lections-2016/​

As usual, your use of these easily-debunked partisan "fact-checkers" says more about your own gullibility than it does the issue at hand.



This is an NPR article stating that some journalist thinks it is "voter suppression" to require IDs to vote (thus preventing rampant, non-stop Democrat voter fraud) like every other sane, civilized country on the planet. This is supposed to be some kind of "reality check"...how, exactly?



Showing another discredited partisan "fact-checker" claiming that one study is "disputed" (because a liberal complained about it) in no way refutes the overwhelming evidence you are ignoring to reach your self-serving, biased conclusion. Let's review:

GA Secy of State office announces probe of alleged hacking attempt into voter registration

San Francisco Registers 49 Noncitizen Voters—at a Cost of More Than $6,300 Each

Nebraska Democrats 'Welcome' Refugees...With Voter Registration Forms

Maryland county's count suggests noncitizens voting across U.S.

Turns Out, Noncitizens Did Vote In November, Only Question Is How Many?

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

Study Claims Up To 2.8 Million Non-Citizens Voted In 2008

Orange County vote count suggests fraud

Skid Row voter fraud Prosecutors homeless offered cash cigarettes exchange hundreds

It Sure Looks Like Democrats in Florida Altered Ballots

Democrat-Directed Voter Fraud Uncovered In Florida

Report: Palm Beach Recount Is Missing A ‘Substantial’ Number Of Votes

Democratic Operative Explains Voter Fraud: We've Been Busing People in for 50 years

Arrest Florida election supervisor for voter fraud!

2012 Election: Nearly 200,000 Florida Voters May Not Be Citizens

Voting problems emerge across America

Poll officials allow 'tons' of illegals to vote

The people behind that Texas voter fraud ring have been identified

New Voter Fraud Cases Show Need to Secure Our Elections

Instances of Voter Fraud Continue to Mount, Further Compromising Our Elections

Twelve Employees of Dem-tied Group Charged in Indiana for Voter Registration Fraud

DOJ whistleblower: Obama years were 'Wild West' of voter fraud

23 Voter Fraud Cases from 2016 and Beyond

Kansas Prosecuting Illegal Immigrant For Casting Vote

Hundreds Of Non-Citizens Registered To Vote In Ohio, Investigation Finds

Report: Massive Voter Fraud Uncovered in Nevada

Recount uncovers serious fraud in Detroit

View attachment 13530

Good lord, the WND.....a mass of "supposition and conjecture" based on partial information, Bush appointees that had nothing to say about Florida or last minute result flips. Nothing Army posts disproves my links information. period. Army can't dazzle with brilliance, so he vomits forth right wing bilge in hopes of baffling. NPR and FACT CHECK.ORG definitively DOCUMENT what they states, despites Army's lies to the contrary.

 

[artichoke]

Army's own source admits a limited study...

Repeating this fallacy won't make it less debunked.

It's standard practice for all studies to post any potential limitations, and their findings that Russian trolls have ZERO impact (just like Rosenstein also concluded) isn't negated by the study occurring after the 2016 election. That's just you dishonestly clinging to trivial nuances to dismiss what you can't explain away.

View attachment 13566

Good lord, the WND.....a mass of "supposition and conjecture" based on partial information

Um...what?

Bush appointees that had nothing to say about Florida or last minute result flips.

Zero relevance to anything being discussed.

Nothing Army posts disproves my links information. period.

Except for all of it, sure, even if you close your eyes, cover your ears, and keep shouting, "I proved me right!" at everything that moves.

Army can't dazzle with brilliance, so he vomits forth right wing bilge in hopes of baffling.

Need a tissue?

NPR and FACT CHECK.ORG definitively DOCUMENT what they states, despites Army's lies to the contrary.

And yet all those Democrat sources (the ones already provided that you keep ignoring to repeat your provably false lie) is on the record documenting what you insist never happened. Your dishonest partisan "fact-checkers" are provably lying, as usual...even according to DEMOCRAT sources.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Repeating this fallacy won't make it less debunked.

It's standard practice for all studies to post any potential limitations, and their findings that Russian trolls have ZERO impact (just like Rosenstein also concluded) isn't negated by the study occurring after the 2016 election. That's just you dishonestly clinging to trivial nuances to dismiss what you can't explain away.

View attachment 13566



Um...what?



Zero relevance to anything being discussed.



Except for all of it, sure, even if you close your eyes, cover your ears, and keep shouting, "I proved me right!" at everything that moves.



Need a tissue?





And yet all those Democrat sources (the ones already provided that you keep ignoring to repeat your provably false lie) is on the record documenting what you insist never happened. Your dishonest partisan "fact-checkers" are provably lying, as usual...even according to DEMOCRAT sources.

1. Some adult explain to Army that using a direct quote is not creating a "fallacy". Army's source is telling the reader that they cannot use their limited study as a generality regarding the 2016 election, in spite of their subject title and heading. All true pollsters admit there are limitations, but good pollsters don't make claims that their results are the final be all, end all on a subject. Army's denial of reality in favor of his personal revisionism is the cornerstone of Trump chump advocacy...so much more to pity Army.

2. Would some adult try to expand Army's vocabulary and reading comprehension skills?

3. Note Army has been "but, but Obama", and then states that it's irrelevant the SAME folk handing him his talking points about Obama were part of the Shrub's entourage in his list of sources. Can you say "double standard" boys and girls? Sure you can...I knew you could.

4. Army forgets I provide valid, documented facts and source material that he cannot refute in kind, so instead he offers the half assed propaganda from the WND (not right wing rag of dubious credibility). Here's another little tidbit to puncture Army's hot airhead.... https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/false-headline-revives-voter-fraud-claim/

5. Childish retort from Army.

6. Army is truly a Trump chump....parroting his bilge of Democratic sources when all one without the attention/retention span of a child knows that my sources have REPEATEDLY caught dems, repubs, liberals, neocons, progressives and tea baggers in exaggerations, falsehoods and bald faced lies. Army's just pissed that Trump and company are such preposterous and easily disproved figures.

Laugh, my little Army clown, laugh.

 

[Earl]

Remember Rosenstein: No Vote Counts or Election Results Were Changed

Da Russians.

Lol

 

[artichoke]

1. Some adult explain to Army that using a direct quote is not creating a "fallacy".

Someone with an IQ over 60 please explain to Taichiliberal that using the "your study announced its limitations like every other study ever performed, therefore it must be invalid" fallacy isn't just "using a direct quote."

2. Would some adult try to expand Army's vocabulary and reading comprehension skills?

Would some literate person try to explain to Taichiliberal that using random quotes to arbitrarily smear one source out of more than a dozen with no apparent rhyme or reason is invalid on its face and refutes literally no part of what anyone is saying...as with all diversionary "attack the source" fallacies?

3. Note Army has been "but, but Obama"

Note Taichiliberal inventing night-and-day double standards out of thin air for only Republicans to follow and then rushing in to pretend that someone is using the left's beloved "whataboutism" fallacy when they point it out.

View attachment 13648

Comprehending it yet?

and then states that it's irrelevant the SAME folk handing him his talking points about Obama were part of the Shrub's entourage in his list of sources.

1) If any part of the NUMEROUS sources cited being in any way connected to Bush magically invalidates the entire list of sources and evidence, then guess what...almost the entire news media is made up of left-wing ideologues who donate to Democrats, vote for Democrats, and used to work for Democrats in office.

Your own logic just invalidated 95% of the "evidence" Democrats cite on virtually every single issue. As usual, way to think it through there, Socrates.



2) And the person still regurgitating hilarious propaganda about President Trump being a secret Russian agent is accusing ANYONE else of being spoon-fed their talking points by propagandists?



View attachment 13645

4. Army forgets I provide valid, documented facts and source material that he cannot refute in kind...

Taichiliberal forgets all the articles repeatedly provided (including from DEMOCRAT SOURCES), that clearly DO refute and disprove his biased partisan "fact-checkers" and their clearly erroneous butchery of the facts.

I'll provide it yet again. Work on your literacy skills and try to actually comprehend it this time.

From CBS:

Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?

"Some conservative personalities within and without the White House have been talking a lot lately about the links between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Their relationship was exposed by Politico reporter Ken Vogel, who has since moved to The New York Times, back in January... a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign. That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukr...2016-election/

From Daily Beast:

Ukrainian Officials Meddled in 2016 Election by Leaking Secret Manafort Ledger, Court Says

"Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

From the Hill:

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.

"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats. Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...linton-emerges

From Politico:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

From Washington Examiner:

Washington Post admits Ukraine interfered in 2016 election but attempts to minimize its effect

"Farhi’s piece acknowledged that Vogel’s reporting on Ukraine 'extensively detailed Ukrainian efforts to undermine Trump in 2016, such as publicly questioning his fitness for office, disseminating documents implicating Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman at the time, in corruption and helping a Clinton ally research damaging information about him.'"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ize-its-effect

From The Nation (which is ultra-liberal):

"'Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort’s corruption, and the man’s subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose,' wrote Golinkin. 'But Ukraine’s efforts also happened to coincide with—and have an immediate impact on—an American campaign. And yet, despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western media, we’ve had almost no debate about its implications.'"
https://www.thenation.com/article/uk...lections-2016/​

5. Childish retort from Army.

Garbage in, garbage out. Contribute nothing but childish fallacies, tantrums, conspiracy theories, and moronic contradictions and hysteria...and get laughed at. Cry all you want. That's how it works.



View attachment 13647

6. Army is truly a Trump chump....parroting his bilge of Democratic sources when all one without the attention/retention span of a child knows that my sources have REPEATEDLY caught dems, repubs, liberals, neocons, progressives and tea baggers in exaggerations, falsehoods and bald faced lies. Army's just pissed that Trump and company are such preposterous and easily disproved figures.

View attachment 13646

 

[Puzzleguy1]

Am I the only one who is troubled by the fact that the study was conducted in 2017, MONTHS AFTER we had already voted? Also, this study's narrative includes qualifying words like "appears" and "seems". That's hardly the language of a definitive piece of research.

 

[artichoke]

Am I the only one who is troubled by the fact that the study was conducted in 2017, MONTHS AFTER we had already voted?

No. Multiple hacks on here have peddled this fallacy that demonstrating trolls have ZERO impact (as the left's beloved Rosenstein also confirmed) cannot be valid without a time machine.

Also, this study's narrative includes qualifying words like "appears" and "seems". That's hardly the language of a definitive piece of research.

It's not studying physics or diseases, which are cut and dry. As usual with studies gauging human opinions and interpretations, "appears" and "seems" are the only safe words to use.