5 ms·

And the other side said the system was fair. We can trust the results. Anyone who challenges the results is a threat to Democracy. BEFORE the election everyone

And the other side said the system was fair. We can trust the results. Anyone who challenges the results is a threat to Democracy. BEFORE the election everyone was confident and trusting of the election. It wasn't until AFTER the Election that we all of a sudden started to care about Russia "hacking" the election. I mean... which is it? it's fair and trustworthy if you win but it's not trustworthy and fair if you lose? Honestly though... if there is a secret system for "actually" selecting the President... do you think those secret puppet masters would choose Trump?

jfoutz 10y ago
I don't believe there is a secret system. Our president does. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/749709462974435329?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/74970946297443532... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995025527410688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78799502552741068... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787699930718695425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78769993071869542... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787618207444131840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78761820744413184... There are a bunch more.
maxerickson 10y ago
It were in the news all fall: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking October 11: Obama Considers ‘Proportional’ Response to Russian Hacking in U.S. Election https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-... There's also little to no mainstream doubt about the outcome of the vote (of course the President has raised concerns that the vote was not accurate, but most responses to that, for example from Secretaries of State, have tried to emphasize that there is no evidence of major issues with the election). The controversy is all about how Russia may have acted to influence voters.
- wernercd 10y ago
  Supposedly Obama knew for Months/Years... that Russia was trying to influence the election. And by his admission BEFORE the election, you could trust the results. Hillary has a well known quote that "If you don't trust the election results, you are a threat to democracy" (Paraphrased). If the Obama Administration was worried about Russia influence in the election, why didn't we hear about it BEFORE the results that they didn't like? Why is all the outrage about Russia AFTER the election? It's hard to hit such a large topic in a short blurb... but where is the anger about Obama influencing elections (Brexit, Israel, etc)? It's okay for Obama to do it but not Putin? My main point is this: Why is the problem NOW everywhere when the issue was known BEFORE the election and the previous administration did nothing then? Second point is this: Everyone is trying to influence each others shit. Why is Russia so much worse? Where is the outrage that Obama worked on influencing the elections of other democracies?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    October 11 and January 20 is after the election - which is my main point. October 11 was a month before the election. I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
    - wernercd 10y ago
      lol you're right... I was distracted and had a brain fart on that point. But everything else still stands. The entire Democrat party line was "You can trust the results". Any activity from the previous administration supported that and pushed the reliability of the system.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        And there still isn't anyone questioning the mechanics of the election process (other than the President).
        wernercd 10y ago
memmcgee 10y ago
There were absolutely concerns over Russia's cyber attacks before the election. It was even an issue brought up at the debates.
- wernercd 10y ago
  That's true... and the Left said, as a whole and by party line, that the results can be trusted.
  - memmcgee 10y ago
    The results of the actual polling machines can be trusted. Nobody is claiming that Russia hacked into the polling stations and changed the results, which is what Trump supporters were going on about prior to the election. That does not mean that Russia did not interfere in our election, which is what the left is angry about today. The evidence of ties between Russia and people involved in the Trump campaign was public knowledge during the campaign and connections between Trump and Russia were topics on the campaign trail and were even discussed in the debates.
dredmorbius 10y ago
You are (at length) confounding Trump's express statements prior to the election that he might not accept the results, with those of others to ensure that the results were trustable. Verifying a process isn't casting doubt on it. (Blocking attempts to verify it, as the GOP has repeatedly done, including the 2000 election's split and partisan SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, very much does.) And the fact is that Clinton did not seek and did not assist the few election recount efforts which were made, at the insistence and initiation of Jill Stein. Clinton's campaign did provide observers to that process, but AFAIU didn't otherwise participate significantly. (A category error on her part, in my opinion.) You have (and repeat here) miscategorisation of the state of concern over Russian interference in the election process, though not in the election mechanics. Distinguishing process as propaganda, media manipulation, and voter manipulation through the media, and mechanics as the process of vote collection and tabulation itself. There are numerous other ways in which votes and elections can be, and are, influenced, including gerrymandering (not a factor in US presidential or Senate elections, but very much so in US House, statehouse, and local elections), and voter suppression through elegibility (e.g., felons' loss of voting rights over their entire lifetime), suppression (ID and registration systems), and the location and outfitting of polling places (requiring hours of wait or miles of travel to vote), and support or rejection of automatic or late registration, or of voting by mail. Your participation in this thread hasn't particularly enhanced your own credibility.

jfoutz 10y ago

I don't believe there is a secret system. Our president does. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/749709462974435329?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/74970946297443532... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995025527410688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78799502552741068... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787699930718695425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78769993071869542... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787618207444131840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78761820744413184... There are a bunch more.

maxerickson 10y ago

It were in the news all fall: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking October 11: Obama Considers ‘Proportional’ Response to Russian Hacking in U.S. Election https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-... There's also little to no mainstream doubt about the outcome of the vote (of course the President has raised concerns that the vote was not accurate, but most responses to that, for example from Secretaries of State, have tried to emphasize that there is no evidence of major issues with the election). The controversy is all about how Russia may have acted to influence voters.

wernercd 10y ago
Supposedly Obama knew for Months/Years... that Russia was trying to influence the election. And by his admission BEFORE the election, you could trust the results. Hillary has a well known quote that "If you don't trust the election results, you are a threat to democracy" (Paraphrased). If the Obama Administration was worried about Russia influence in the election, why didn't we hear about it BEFORE the results that they didn't like? Why is all the outrage about Russia AFTER the election? It's hard to hit such a large topic in a short blurb... but where is the anger about Obama influencing elections (Brexit, Israel, etc)? It's okay for Obama to do it but not Putin? My main point is this: Why is the problem NOW everywhere when the issue was known BEFORE the election and the previous administration did nothing then? Second point is this: Everyone is trying to influence each others shit. Why is Russia so much worse? Where is the outrage that Obama worked on influencing the elections of other democracies?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  October 11 and January 20 is after the election - which is my main point. October 11 was a month before the election. I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
  - wernercd 10y ago
    lol you're right... I was distracted and had a brain fart on that point. But everything else still stands. The entire Democrat party line was "You can trust the results". Any activity from the previous administration supported that and pushed the reliability of the system.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      And there still isn't anyone questioning the mechanics of the election process (other than the President).
      - wernercd 10y ago

memmcgee 10y ago

There were absolutely concerns over Russia's cyber attacks before the election. It was even an issue brought up at the debates.

wernercd 10y ago
That's true... and the Left said, as a whole and by party line, that the results can be trusted.
- memmcgee 10y ago
  The results of the actual polling machines can be trusted. Nobody is claiming that Russia hacked into the polling stations and changed the results, which is what Trump supporters were going on about prior to the election. That does not mean that Russia did not interfere in our election, which is what the left is angry about today. The evidence of ties between Russia and people involved in the Trump campaign was public knowledge during the campaign and connections between Trump and Russia were topics on the campaign trail and were even discussed in the debates.

dredmorbius 10y ago

You are (at length) confounding Trump's express statements prior to the election that he might not accept the results, with those of others to ensure that the results were trustable. Verifying a process isn't casting doubt on it. (Blocking attempts to verify it, as the GOP has repeatedly done, including the 2000 election's split and partisan SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, very much does.) And the fact is that Clinton did not seek and did not assist the few election recount efforts which were made, at the insistence and initiation of Jill Stein. Clinton's campaign did provide observers to that process, but AFAIU didn't otherwise participate significantly. (A category error on her part, in my opinion.) You have (and repeat here) miscategorisation of the state of concern over Russian interference in the election process, though not in the election mechanics. Distinguishing process as propaganda, media manipulation, and voter manipulation through the media, and mechanics as the process of vote collection and tabulation itself. There are numerous other ways in which votes and elections can be, and are, influenced, including gerrymandering (not a factor in US presidential or Senate elections, but very much so in US House, statehouse, and local elections), and voter suppression through elegibility (e.g., felons' loss of voting rights over their entire lifetime), suppression (ID and registration systems), and the location and outfitting of polling places (requiring hours of wait or miles of travel to vote), and support or rejection of automatic or late registration, or of voting by mail. Your participation in this thread hasn't particularly enhanced your own credibility.