|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 29, 2016 13:42:35 GMT -5
If your opinion is unless the Russians hacked into the voting machines and changed the results, there was no manipulation of the actual vote, you are displaying an appalling lack of imagination. That is exactly my opinion, because when I say "actual vote," I mean "actual vote." Sorry if that was unclear. My initial point: There's as much evidence of "plenty of illegals aliens" voting in this election as there is of Russian hackers delivering critical counties in critical States to Trump...That's what I'm claiming. Your response was that there is evidence of Russia "putting their thumb on the scale." Again, with regard to the actual vote--which is the basis for the recount--no there isn't. Is there evidence that Russian-based hackers got into the DNC? Sure. Is there evidence that Russia sought to influence the election in other ways? Sure. 'Course, our government, media, and citizens can and do engage in similar behavior, with regard to foreign elections. LoL. Sure it's been "proven." But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence of Russian hackers messing with the actual vote. Well, one can't produce counter-evidence for conspiracy theory claptrap. That's the beauty of a conspiracy theory. No one can talk you out of it, actual evidence isn't required. That's what I was saying.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 29, 2016 13:52:03 GMT -5
Well, one can't produce counter-evidence for conspiracy theory claptrap. That's the beauty of a conspiracy theory. No one can talk you out of it, actual evidence isn't required. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. It's on the people claiming Russians hacked the election to prove their assertion with actual, you know, evidence - not on the people saying, "Sorry, I don't believe you because there's not enough evidence" to prove the negative. I lean pretty left, and I would love nothing more than to find out we've all just been in some nightmare and now we can wake up and Trump won't be president. But that ain't the case, and unless some hard evidence emerges of vote tampering, it's time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 29, 2016 13:57:50 GMT -5
Frankly, I'd love to wake up tomorrow and find that Trump has somehow been disqualified from the race, or has otherwise lost. I just wish the other side of the coin wasn't Clinton. But at this point, I'd take it.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 29, 2016 14:02:15 GMT -5
Frankly, I'd love to wake up tomorrow and find that Trump has somehow been disqualified from the race, or has otherwise lost. I just wish the other side of the coin wasn't Clinton. But at this point, I'd take it. She wouldn't be my first choice, either. But I'd take her over Trump in a heartbeat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 14:11:33 GMT -5
Add my voice to the chorus of "Clinton might not my favorite candidate ever, but I'd be damn glad to see her take Trump's place as president elect."
As far as the Russian election tampering goes, there's some evidence they tried to put their thumb on the scales to sway public opinion against Clinton and towards Trump. But that's not something a recount can address. I haven't seen any evidence they found some way to tamper with the voting machines.
Absent such evidence (or evidence of some other fraud), I think refusing to accept the election results....
Well, Hillary said it best:
I'm glad it wasn't Hillary or her campaign spearheading the recount. But honestly? Absent some evidence I haven't seen yet for actual voting machine tampering, I'd rather see her call for a stop to the recount. The money and energy could be much better spent.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 29, 2016 14:14:22 GMT -5
I don't really think the Clinton campaign is all in for this recount, truth be told. But they can't ignore it now; they have to feign interest, even if they know the whole thing is a waste of time and based on nothing real.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 29, 2016 14:18:19 GMT -5
Yeah, Jill Stein's big fundraising push kinda forced their hand on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 15:05:15 GMT -5
I don't really think the Clinton campaign is all in for this recount, truth be told. But they can't ignore it now; they have to feign interest, even if they know the whole thing is a waste of time and based on nothing real. Yeah, I suppose that's a point. Yeah, Jill Stein's big fundraising push kinda forced their hand on this. Yeah, I suppose that's a point. There's zero doubt the Russians had a preference for Trump over Clinton and they acted on it. It's news when someone's skeletons in the closet are exposed to the light of day, but the ends doesn't always justify the means and more and more the bland acceptance of the exposure of our private communications for political gain is as disturbing to me as the hacking. Yeah, I suppose that's a point. All that said, I'm shaking my head about the recount, and would rather see energy concentrated at, say, opposing some of Trump's more extreme cabinet choices. ETA: I am so pleased with myself for finally getting the multi-quoting thing down on this site.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 29, 2016 16:10:25 GMT -5
I am so pleased with myself for finally getting the multi-quoting thing down on this site. Yes, I suppose that's a point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 16:27:46 GMT -5
Yes, I suppose that's a point. Everyone gets lucky once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 29, 2016 16:56:29 GMT -5
Yes, I suppose that's a point. Everyone gets lucky once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 29, 2016 19:41:12 GMT -5
Are you saying the Russians influenced the vote with hacking of emails, wikkileaks, etc, or that they hacked into the votes themselves?
Because, there's a difference.
Somebody did hack emails which probably had an effect on the election, but what effect nobody could really say. And hacked emails aren't going to have much influence if all they had was "What do you want for lunch today?"
It was the leaks that showed stuff about FOB and other such things that were the issue. abcnews.go.com/Politics/fobs-hillarys-state-dept-gave-special-attention-friends/story?id=42615379
So while it's all fine to blame the people who exposed the skeletons in the closest, lets not forget the ones who put those bones there in the first place.
Ever send an email you wish you hadn't, Vince? Ever visit a website you wouldn't want to have to explain to your wife or kids or friends or boss? Ever write something to someone that wasn't in the least bit serious or even important, but might be slightly embarrassing? Let's not shift the goalposts here, okay? It was NOT a cool thing for Wikileaks to hack the DNC emails and John Podesta's emails. Even politicians have a reasonable right to privacy. What we learned from the expose came at a price and the price is politicians will learn to be more secretive in their electronic dealings because some asshole in a Russian consulate may be reading their email as soon as its been sent. There's zero doubt the Russians had a preference for Trump over Clinton and they acted on it. It's news when someone's skeletons in the closet are exposed to the light of day, but the ends doesn't always justify the means and more and more the bland acceptance of the exposure of our private communications for political gain is as disturbing to me as the hacking. I'm not sure what goalposts you're referring to. Yeah, it wasn't a cool thing but they did it. Once it was done, and those secrets are out there, it's up to the voters to decide if it changes who they were going to vote for. That can be considered interfering with the election, assuming it was them who did the hacking, but not interfering with the vote. If it had been an Edward Snowden type, American born, who did that, it would still be uncool, but once it's out, it's out. And it's perfectly reasonable that someone may be against hacking, but still have an issue with what was learned when they were hacked. One doesn't rule out the other. Don't the Clinton's have some responsibility here with the fact that they had a FOB policy? They created the issue, the hackers exposed it. Having said that, the GOP will probably regret the day they embraced Assange. He's no friend to them or America. He didn't do this for altruistic reasons. But if a person breaks into someone's house to rob them, and finds a bunch of women chained up in the basement, we should still hold the person who put them there responsible.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 30, 2016 13:24:24 GMT -5
I never said that. We can disagree with the means all we want, and if we can, prosecute whoever hacked that info, but once it's out there to the general public, they're gonna consider it.
If a lawyer is defending a man for child molestation and wins the case, but breaks confidentiality and speaks about how he knew his client was guilty, but the case was won because the evidence got thrown out, the lawyer is guilty and should be disbarred. You don't excuse that. But at the same time, you don't ignore what you've learned when the client applies for a job in a school where you young child attends either. And none of this amounts to tampering with the vote. People, you, me, Cassandra and Baby, made our own decision s on who to vote for based on the whole of what we knew. Some chose to listen to the wikki leaks, some ignored it, others it didn't make a difference. They were gonna vote against her or for her no matter what. Russia did nothing to prevent votes, just influence them.
|
|