Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?

[LV426]

I am like you. I have no clue if Russian propaganda influenced one vote.

So you say propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters", but you refuse to say it worked on the small percentage of 100,000 voters across three states Trump narrowly won because admitting it did would be admitting that Russian interference affected the election, invalidating it, and causing you to have to abandon your both-siderism.

Got it.

[LV426]

Or, whether any particular ad or piece of information from any source influenced any votes.

You literally said propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters".

Now you're saying you don't know if it does.

So why did you say it did before, but now you're saying it doesn't? Simple; because if you go with what you said before, you lose the argument.

[LV426]

When was the database last updated?

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?

[LV426]

It would be fairly easy to take any one of the cases and do some simple research to see if it is true.

But you didn't do that. Instead, you hurriedly and sloppily just Googled "democratic election fraud" and posted the first link, didn't you?

[LV426]

Then smear the source and ignore the facts it presented.

1. What facts?

2. Your "source" conspicuously didn't include the biggest case of election fraud in decades; one so large and massive that it required the board of elections to throw out the 2018 result and call for a special election next month.

3. Nowhere in your "source" does it mention party affiliation, so how are you attributing any of it to Democrats?

But, you are too lazy and choose to reject common sense data

What is "common sense" about this data? It includes no party affiliation (not for the specific case of vote buying you accused Democrats of doing, despite no evidence it was Democrats doing it), and is conspicuously absent of major election fraud like what happened 10 months ago in NC-09.

What you're trying to do is apply your "both sider" argument to this incomplete data and you're making the assumption that both parties share in election fraud equally because your mind can only process things that way.

You're the lazy one...you posted a source you didn't even bother to vet, then demand I vet your source for you (which I did, and which you still haven't answered for why) because you didn't do it yourself because in your mad rush to prove me wrong, you sloppily did a lazy google search and posted the first link you could find, no matter of its obvious bias.

You're a fraud.

[LV426]

You Phony:

"The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system."

Right, and as Mueller said, by 2015 that strategy changed to support Trump.

[LV426]

"The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system."

Which, in the report you haven't read, comes right before Mueller said this:

The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the US. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Drumpf and disparaged candidate Clinton.

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.

[LV426]

As usual, you distort and get stuff wrong. First, Hispanics are not a race, they are white [Census Bureau] so to call me a racist is just a bigoted response.

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.

[LV426]

Nobody disputes they were trying to help Trump (and Stein and Sanders) and hurt Clinton. But you claimed they were not trying to sow discard in the U. S. until I showed you the sentence from the Mueller report. When I made that statement before you said "No."

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.

[LV426]

When I made that statement before you said "No."

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]

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

[LV426]

But you claimed they were not trying to sow discard in the U. S. until I showed you the sentence from the Mueller report.

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:

The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system. The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the US. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Drumpf and disparaged candidate Clinton.

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.

[LV426]

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
he is likely a russo bot hole

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.

[evince]

hes nit human


hes a planted russo bot hole


EVERY one of these idiots that are given COLD HARD DOCUMENTRED FACTS are not human Americans



Americans don't embrace LIES to help KILL their nation

[Flash]

First of all, by your own admission this isn't comprehensive.

So if it's not comprehensive, what does that make it? BIASED!

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.

Secondly, nothing in there shows that the fraud was committed by Democrats...just that it was committed by people. You're making the assumption that they're Democrats and you're making that assumption on purely racist grounds. Not one thing in that biased INCOMPLETE link says the fraud was committed by the Democratic Party. Yet, you're attributing it to Democrats, why? Because that's the only way you can maintain the false "both sides" argument you need to make so that the rest of your life makes sense.

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.