Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?

[LV426]

I said propaganda is not limited to false information and is used to persuade.

So then the Russian propaganda was effective at flipping the minimum number of votes required to help Trump win those states.

So why have you been arguing with me that isn't the case?

[Ralph]

He doesn't have all the information the Mueller team has


lets remember how much of Muellers report was redacted

Oh and BTW this guy has been wrong on his predictions since 2016


I guess he didn't know the Russians were affecting the elections by then

If MUELLER has so much information....where is the indictment for collusion/conspiracy? Its most difficult to find obstruction of a crime that was never demonstrated to have ever happened. If Mueller had all the answers.....what the hell is Nadler up to.....hell he can't even get to first base on the political move of IMPEACHMENT might less proving a crime ever happened.

[LV426]

That does not mean it always works.

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

So...would 100,000 voters across three states count as "a small percentage of voters"? Yes or no?

And, we both have no clue whether somebody's vote was changed because of campaign material from the many sources during a campaign.

See how you keep moving the bar? We're talking specifically about the Russian propaganda that targeted voters in the states Trump narrowly won by less than 100,000 in total. You said yourself that propaganda was effective among "a small percentage of voters". So then it was effective in MI, PA, and WI.

[Flash]

No, the actual instance you were talking about from TX were poll workers and it was during a primary, not a general election. And they were "buying votes" not for a specific candidate, but to get people to vote. Period.

That's what your link says.

Stop trying to shift the blame for what you've done onto me.

Or, maybe just use better sources next time.




You carelessly read and then plagairized the Mueller report by not posting the rest of what followed from that sentence. You literally stopped reading after that sentence. The next sentence following what you quoted says that the campaign evolved to support Trump.

That's literally what it says.

You decided what followed that first sentence wasn't relevant and the only reason why you think that is because if you posted the rest, your argument would be in the toilet.

So you are selectively editing the Mueller report to make it say something it doesn't say for your ego's sake.

The sources also say those activities were involved in the general election. I didn't post additional information because it was stuff we both already knew--that Russian interference sought to hurt Hillary and help Trump, Sanders, and Stein.

I only posted the sentence to show they meant to sow discard because when I posted that earlier you claimed "No."

[LV426]

Because it is 1) relatively recent;

1. Relatively recent? The shit went on trial last February.

2. Your own link says it's recent and updated to today.

3. If your link doesn't include it, then your link is out of date and you shouldn't have used it.

4. There's TONS of instances from 2018 in there, so why isn't NC-09?

Did you even read your link?

2) there has been no trial and conviction.

First of all, two or three posts ago you set the goalpost that this included "indicted".

The guy who committed the fraud in NC-09 was indicted.

Secondly, the NC Supreme Court already heard the case in February and ruled that the NC Board of Elections was right to toss out the 2018 election results because of fraud. THAT WAS FEBRUARY

[Flash]

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?

Because there has been no trial and conviction.

[Flash]

1. Relatively recent? The shit went on trial last February.

2. Your own link says it's recent and updated to today.

3. If your link doesn't include it, then your link is out of date and you shouldn't have used it.

4. There's TONS of instances from 2018 in there, so why isn't NC-09?

Did you even read your link?




First of all, two or three posts ago you set the goalpost that this included "indicted".

The guy who committed the fraud in NC-09 was indicted.

Secondly, the NC Supreme Court already heard the case in February and ruled that the NC Board of Elections was right to toss out the 2018 election results because of fraud. THAT WAS FEBRUARY

Whether NC is included does nothing to disprove your claim that only Republicans cheat. It has about 1100 cases and a little research shows both Democrats and Republicans are abundantly represented. The point of the database was to show both sides do it.

You are dishonest to pick out one case and because it is not included think there are not plenty of Democrats and Republicans convicted of voter fraud.

[Ralph]

Whether NC is included does nothing to disprove your claim that only Republicans cheat. It has about 1100 cases and a little research shows both Democrats and Republicans are abundantly represented. The point of the database was to show both sides do it.

You are dishonest to pick out one case and because it is not included think there are not plenty of Democrats and Republicans convicted of voter fraud.

I wonder why the state of California has to remove 1.5 million voters off their registered rolls? That's about the same amount that captured the POPULAR vote in 2016. https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/0...rom-its-rolls/

Truth? The left can't stand the TRUTH. That truth? The state of California was using these beefed up voter rolls to game the federal government out of more MONEY....mo money, mo money.
That why they do not want the question asked....ARE YOU A US CITIZEN on the census report.

[Flash]

1. Relatively recent? The shit went on trial last February.

2. Your own link says it's recent and updated to today.

3. If your link doesn't include it, then your link is out of date and you shouldn't have used it.

4. There's TONS of instances from 2018 in there, so why isn't NC-09?

Did you even read your link?




First of all, two or three posts ago you set the goalpost that this included "indicted".

The guy who committed the fraud in NC-09 was indicted.

Secondly, the NC Supreme Court already heard the case in February and ruled that the NC Board of Elections was right to toss out the 2018 election results because of fraud. THAT WAS FEBRUARY

I said although he was indicted there has been no trial or conviction. See what criteria the database uses because they determine what is included.

But, NC does not change the proof presented by the database that Democrats and Republicans have both cheated plenty.

[Flash]

There's TONS of instances from 2018 in there, so why isn't NC-09?

"TONS of instances from 2018" proves my point--there is plenty of cheating from both sides. NC does not affect what the other 1100 cases show. It is just a deflection on your party to ignore the facts about voter fraud.

When the debate was occurring about Voter IDs the liberals all claimed they weren't needed because there was no voter fraud. Now they see it everywhere (but only from Republicans).

[Getin the ring]

look flash, that LVnut**bags426 character has been whining about voter fraud for two and a half years, best to just let him vent, his doctor told him to get it all out, he's still at it

[Flash]

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

So...would 100,000 voters across three states count as "a small percentage of voters"? Yes or no?

See how you keep moving the bar? We're talking specifically about the Russian propaganda that targeted voters in the states Trump narrowly won by less than 100,000 in total. You said yourself that propaganda was effective among "a small percentage of voters". So then it was effective in MI, PA, and WI.

I said campaign ads were aimed at the small group of undecided voters. We don't know whether those are successful or not.

You are assuming the success of any campaign material comes from the Russians. It could be from many American sources.

[LV426]

The sources also say those activities were involved in the general election.

NO! That is not what your sources said! So now you're changing what happened to suit your argument. From your link and from the articles you linked to, the fraud was committed in the primary and was an incentive to get people to vote, but not for any particular candidate.

Think about what you're alleging, that this poll worker offered money to people to vote -in a secret ballot- for a candidate. How does the poll worker know the person she offered the incentive to voted for the person she wanted them to vote for? It doesn't make sense. What you linked to quite clearly shows that poll worker was trying to increase voter turnout by offering incentives to vote. That's way different than offering incentives to vote for someone in particular, or changing and/or trashing votes which is what Conservatives did in NC-09.

To you, those are the same thing...and they're only the same thing to you because they have to be in order for bothsiderism to function.

[Flash]

So then the Russian propaganda was effective at flipping the minimum number of votes required to help Trump win those states.

So why have you been arguing with me that isn't the case?

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.

[LV426]

didn't post additional information because it was stuff we both already knew--that Russian interference sought to hurt Hillary and help Trump, Sanders, and Stein.

Mueller's report clearly states that Russian active measures evolved to support Trump.

So you've gone from "no they didn't" to "OK they did, but they helped other people".

But they didn't help other people, they helped Trump. The efforts to get Democratic voters to vote for Sanders happened in the primary, not the general, and was designed to disparage Clinton and weaken her ahead of the election. We know this, because it's what Volume I is all about.

You would know that if you read Mueller's report, which you haven't done.

Why?