3 ms·

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 result

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
      There is still plenty of question about the "mechanics". Plenty of places where people are registered who shouldn't (registered in multiple places, etc). People who shouldn't be voting that is (dead people, immigrants, etc). The left says "There is no issue. at all. If you disagree, you are trying to subvert and you are a racist." The right says "MILLIONS AND MILLIONS! ZOMG!" The truth is somewhere in the middle as far as the "mechanics". There is plenty that can be done to insure the accuracy and veracity of the voting booth.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Sure, there are lots of people in a given year that move or die and are not immediately purged from their previous voter roll. There's no one serious suggesting that multiple registrations and fraud have impacted any election results. The President and some of his followers have made baseless claims about millions of illegal votes. No evidence and lots of election officials contradicting them, but no retraction of the baseless statements.
comex 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? There are two different things going on here, which the right likes to conflate. Russia influenced the election by manipulating voters' opinions, with means that many consider illegitimate (hacking). Nobody falsified the election results, by hacking or otherwise. When Clinton said not accepting the results was a threat to democracy, she was referring to that - specifically, Trump's claim that the election was "rigged" through voter fraud. And she did accept the results. Democrats today like to argue that Trump doesn't deserve to be president, but nobody credible is saying that the election was literally invalid and the courts should throw him out of office, or anything like that. Obama did claim Russia was trying to influence the election before the election occurred - on October 7. [1] It's true that he didn't do more in part because he thought Clinton would win, but he also didn't want to seem to be unfairly influencing the election himself. There are significant differences between Obama influencing the elections of other democracies and what Russia did: the Russian hacking was (1) covert, not overt, and (2) a violation of US law. Of course, you don't have to agree that those differences matter.

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
    There is still plenty of question about the "mechanics". Plenty of places where people are registered who shouldn't (registered in multiple places, etc). People who shouldn't be voting that is (dead people, immigrants, etc). The left says "There is no issue. at all. If you disagree, you are trying to subvert and you are a racist." The right says "MILLIONS AND MILLIONS! ZOMG!" The truth is somewhere in the middle as far as the "mechanics". There is plenty that can be done to insure the accuracy and veracity of the voting booth.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Sure, there are lots of people in a given year that move or die and are not immediately purged from their previous voter roll. There's no one serious suggesting that multiple registrations and fraud have impacted any election results. The President and some of his followers have made baseless claims about millions of illegal votes. No evidence and lots of election officials contradicting them, but no retraction of the baseless statements.

comex 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? There are two different things going on here, which the right likes to conflate. Russia influenced the election by manipulating voters' opinions, with means that many consider illegitimate (hacking). Nobody falsified the election results, by hacking or otherwise. When Clinton said not accepting the results was a threat to democracy, she was referring to that - specifically, Trump's claim that the election was "rigged" through voter fraud. And she did accept the results. Democrats today like to argue that Trump doesn't deserve to be president, but nobody credible is saying that the election was literally invalid and the courts should throw him out of office, or anything like that. Obama did claim Russia was trying to influence the election before the election occurred - on October 7. [1] It's true that he didn't do more in part because he thought Clinton would win, but he also didn't want to seem to be unfairly influencing the election himself. There are significant differences between Obama influencing the elections of other democracies and what Russia did: the Russian hacking was (1) covert, not overt, and (2) a violation of US law. Of course, you don't have to agree that those differences matter.