Question about HIllary, Trump, and Putin's motives.

My question is more, "Did Trump factor into it all?" Or was it all Revenge for Crimea sanctions, as has been floating around today, but not yesterday when I asked the question.

Today it has been floating around the news channels that Putin is anti-Clinton because of Crimea. But you think that Clinton is the secondary target? While Getting Trump in the office is first? Why? I'm genuinely curios.

I can see what you are saying. That if Trump's policies would have doubled down on the Clinton sanctions and Obama's policies he might have not called for the hacking.

But just because he finds Trumps policies better than Clinton's doesn't really mean much. It could be by a minuscule amount or he could be in love with Trump. At this point we don't know. So why weigh so much in favor of "Putin love's Trump so trump is the devil because someone loves his policies" rather than "Putin prefers Trump's policies over Clinton so maybe Trump will be bad or maybe he won't? This really can't determine that".

If Putin was getting "revenge" for Crimea and it was a "well Trump's policies will be slightly better for us than Clinton, and I hate Clinton, so hack that shit" should we really being using it as a barometer of how Trump is going to led the US? As it may or may not have anything to do with Trump or his future policies.

Technically, if he only benefited from this and didn't have any actual knowledge of what was going on, then no he shouldn't be held accountable for taking advantage to win. That's actually how you win.

But he should want an investigation, as we need to know if someone was influencing the electorate. It's not like it's going to change the outcome and suddenly Hillary will be in office.

Its more about making the divisiveness in this country worse with a narrative that isn't really supported.

I have class all weekend and since I don't want to try and post from my phone into this thread, I probably won't be back to make comments for a bit.

I already explained why in post #19. But what the hell, let's take a second run at it, life being endless and all ...

Yes, Hillary would have been a pain in the ass to Putin with her reflex for military solutions to Everything and her full-speed-ahead-with-NATO-expansion attitude, which I think is for the birds. Blasted dangerous as a matter of fact.

Far more important, however, are:

1) Donald's own Putinophiliac pronouncements;

2) Donald's pick for secretary of state, somebody who is up to his neck in pro-Russian connections. (That stinks to high heaven.)

So I feel it's obvious that pro-Donaldism weighs far more heavily with Putin than anti-Hillaryism.

Do you catch my drift this time Aenea?

Yes, fella, you nailed it. Tampering is misrepresenting a vote cast, placing it in A's column rather than B's, where it was intended by the voter to go. That's tampering.

Stealing an election can, however, also consist in preventing whole groups of people from voting who you know to be far likelier to vote for candidate X rather than candidate Y. Preventing these people from voting can throw the election to candidate Y.
And this very method was used in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Both of which I think were stolen fair and square.

First, I don't think it's true that the media is only focusing on the help Trump angle. That's a part of the story and it's automatically most relevant because he is POTUS-elect. That's how it goes, the focus is always going to be on the man who successfully grabbed the brass ring.

They absolutely shouldn't do that, because it's not true that it has nothing to do with Trump. Read the sequence in Rob Matter's post. It was all of those things. I don't even see how it can be read as anything less than that, because it is the actual impact of what the Russians did.

This is the thing I find most surprising. He is trying to say there's nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Protesting surprise and innocence is one thing, but overtly ignoring, to the point of completely debating our intelligence agencies is the behavior of somebody with something to hide. I would think he or some of his advisors would understand this, and eagerly paricipate in the investigation. Why isn't he?

The media does have a very bad habit of all focusing on the SAME EXACT thing in the same exact way.

It's even more sad when you realize that we had better investigative journalism in the days of just three networks covering the news for just a few hours a day than we do now with wall to wall 24 hour coverage with many networks

What would Donald Trump gain from such an investigation?

You're kidding, right? It would go a long way toward deflecting accusations that he was in on it. It would also gain him some respect among people who have said all along that he had too cozy a relationship with Putin.

Please explain how when and where (in this election since it's the most relevant) whole groups of people were prevented from voting. Come on, bust that case wide open!
But let's say Putin wanted Trump as president instead of Hillary. So he leaks information (some perhaps gathered from her shoddy security) that could negatively influence voter opinions of her. Do you think with all the other muck thrown about 24/7 this information would be the "game changer?" There were enough reasons to not vote for Hillary - nothing Russia could expose would make her situation any worse than it was.

So the recount failed - and where the recount was conducted it ended up with Trump having even more of the popular vote! So now let's blame it on Russian intervention. Wait, there's no proof they hacked into the actual voting process - in other words John Smith didn't cast a vote for Hillary and it was switched to Trump.
So it had to be some other russian "intervention" like putting out information that would make her look bad. Because I'm sure millions of people were just about to vote for Hillary then the russians released that last bit of information that changed their minds.

Why should I? Did I say that "in this election" that had happened??

Well come on fella, hurry up and quote me to that effect. Ah doan have all day.

You're claiming that elections were stolen. Either present evidence of this fact or just admit to being full of shit

Do you need a remedial literacy class?

fella has expressly forbidden me to talk about any but the most recent presidential election?

Can you, T.R, quote me as claiming that the most recent election was stolen???

No you can't. So take a valium, put your feet up, and get outta ma face.

PS --- By the way, fella, ahm still a-waitin', yep. LOL.

Evrn Nate Silver has said the email leak was not a game changer as it had almost no effect on Hillary's poll numbers. What did have an effect, what caused a fairly large swing in Trump's favor, was when the FBI reopened its investigation just days pripr to the election. That is what killed Hillary and the farsical tales about Russia "haking" the election are a simple distraction.

The fact is Hillary was a lazy candidate who tool a month off during the election season, she offered npthing new tp vpters, she was never a good speaker, she never motivated anyone but the hard core partisans, she relied upon dirty tricks and back room deals to keep the DNC in her picket, and the Dems lost because of it. Yes, absolutely, if Sanders had been the candidatr they would have won.

The DNC has itself to blame because when you subvert the democratic process that pisses people off and most people were never more than luke swarm on Hillary at the best of times.

Hillary didn't give a shit because she thought she had the election in the bag, because her yes men/the media/previous voting patterns told her this. Then reality bitch-slapped her when she ignored everyone not on her radar. Anyway yes I was wrong by limiting any proof of voting fraud to this recent election. Please (anyone!) offer any hard evidence that actual by-god voter fraud changed the course of any US presidential election in the past twenty years. Not anecdotal, not conspiracy theory, not urban legend, but actual fucking proof please.

Well you could start by reading Greg Palast's 2002 book The best democracy money can buy, which includes his minute study of Florida 2000. It's actually kind of boring at times because he looks at that election with an absolute mircroscope.

Of course, you could deny that it constitutes "fucking proof", as you put it. (Just as the Flat-Earthers hoot at proof that the world is round.) If so, all I can do is quote Sydney Smith's letter to Lord John Russell: "You say you are not convinced by my pamphlet. I am afraid that I am a very arrogant person, but I do assure you, that in the fondest moments of self-conceit, the idea of convincing a Russell that he was wrong never came across my mind. Euclid would have had a bad chance with you if you had happened to have formed an opinion that the interior angles of a triangle were not equal to two right angles. The more poor Euclid demonstrated, the more you would not have been convinced."

As for the 2004 election, there's this: http://truth-out.org/archive/compon...rt-f-kennedy-jr--was-the-2004-election-stolen
Again, it's pretty sweeping evidence. But none is so blind as him who will not see.

As for 1960, I think it's widely agreed that Joe Kennedy got his mafia friends to steal it for his son Jack. Of course, that was 56 years ago, so I don't think any evidence could possibly still exist.

I am sure intelligence guys could tell Russian hacking techniques.

No because Lindsay Graham and some other republican candidates were hacked in the primaries.

Her shoddy security? Give me one example of her email server being hacked.

http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/727...oreign-govts-and-risked-us-national-security/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/u...ail-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html?_r=0

http://www.weeklystandard.com/hilla...features-temporarily-disabled/article/2002968

So basically, it sounds like, "There's no evidence that it was hacked....but it was hacked."

Right?

Okay. Then why weren't any of her emails leaked?

http://www.readhillarysemail.com/

Those weren't leaked. They were declassified and released by the government.

I guess you're right - only Podesta email hacks were released by Assange. I stand corrected - all her actual e-mail FAIL is already accounted for by the investigators.

the sources I've seen put a fairly balanced emphasis on Putin having an anti-Clinton motive more than a pro-Trump position, at least initially.

Cross referencing them all, the picture that emerges is sort of a progression like this:

Putin had a hatred of Clinton going back to her having accused them of rigging Russian parliamentary elections that year which caused him great difficulty; this was compounded by the sanctions re Crimia and the Ukraine.
fast forward to....
Russia was doing it's SOP cyber warfare hacking in 2015
At some point they discovered huge vulnerabilities at the DNC and exploited them
having been blessed with this info, they realized an opportunity to use it to harm Clinton and Putin authorized the op
(at this point in time virtually no one seriously thought Trump would be the nominee)
By way of Wikileaks, they trickled out a string of damaging information for over a year, keeping the "Crooked Hillary" mindset fresh, even though none of the leaked info actually proved her involvement with any illegal act
When Trump secured the nomination, this was gravy - now they stood a chance of not only defeating Clinton but electing a manipulatable neophyte in her stead. At this point, they goal was even more desirable.

Now, there is a less well reported parallel string of info which indicates the Russians HAVE been cultivating Trump specifically for over 3 years. That needs more visibility, but the simple premise that Russia's original intent was more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump is fairly widely reported.

She definately fucked up.

On the other hand, it seems like hers was the only server in DC that we don't know was hacked.

her e-mails probably were hacked but nothing of interest was in them. High risk-low reward mission right there for the hackers. Several attempts were made but thwarted - so I'm thinking once more important e-mails from her staff (like Podesta for example) were turning up that's where the efforts were concentrated. What was in the actual Hillary e-mails might not be important - the fact that 30,000 e-mails were mishandled and ended up on accounts that were hacked means bottom line - she's proven herself to be negligent and incompetent. An experienced highly educated professional actin like a clueless rookie? That's not a good strategy to get you elected.