Never Trump-ers, Please Reply

[hawkwing]

I was #NeverTrump until 8 Nov. He won. The movement lost. I hope he succeeds and becomes a good president for the nation.

Russia didn't change the outcome in the sense that they succeeded in changing people's minds. The ONLY argument I can see that can be made (if they were indeed behind the Wikileaks hacking and release) is that they exposed the corruption of the DNC in conspiring to guarantee HRC's nomination and showed how many in the media were willing to collude with HRC and her campaign to paint her in the best light possible.

In the end, those who expose corruption are NOT at fault for the corruption. Those who ARE corrupt are at fault. So, while the Russians may have reminded voters how corrupt, dishonest and unpalatable Hillary Clinton was and that contributed to voters turning away from her, it is still Hillary's fault for actually being ALL of those things. She is still the reason why she lost.

For instance, look at this article from Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/m ... ump-232547). The Russians and their hacking isn't the reason Hillary didn't campaign in Michigan. The Russians and Wikileaks aren't the reason people in Wisconsin didn't turn out. Putin wasn't robo-calling the people of Pennsylvania to stay home.

Trump won 2,279,543 votes in Michigan and won the state. George Bush won 2,313,746 votes in Michigan in 2004 (34,203 more votes than Trump) and lost the state. That's not due Russian influence. That's due to voters realizing just how awful a candidate and person Hillary was and is.

Do you feel the same about Eric Snowden?

[SpiffCoug]

No. Eric Snowden swore oaths that he broke. He had options open to him that he choose not to avail himself. He took it upon himself to steal information that did not belong to him. He could have gone about things differently and perhaps actually gotten powerful people on his side.

Here are some of my previous thoughts on him:
http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f ... en#p229942
http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f ... en#p229977
http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 10#p229983
http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f ... en#p167958

[hawkwing]

Exactly, it was illegal for Snowden to do what he did in the way that he did.

Russia hacking US political parties is paramount to an act of war.

[jvquarterback]

You yourself argue that the United States should not interfere in other countries elections and when they do that it is rightfully the citizens job to fight back, even with terroristic acts. I'd expect you to be equally offended by foreign powers interfering in the US.

I've never said the people should fight back. I've said they have motivation to fight back.

This whole thing smells like yellow cake uranium in Iraq. The NYT says both the RNC and DNC were hacked (BTW these are private institutions, not part of the US government). The RNC disputes this saying they have not been hacked. No evidence has been provided that any Russian government group is behind the alleged hacks. None. Not one bit. In a way there is even less evidence for this farce than for the yellow cake uranium.

BTW I'm certain the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, British, Germans, French, and everyone else hack the US government, just as the US government hacks them all back. I wouldn't be surprised if any one of them could lay the blame at the doorstep of any other.

[jvquarterback]

Here's a decent synopsis of what we know about what happened. Not very much. The only group presenting any "evidence" and I hate to even call it that, is a private security firm hired by the DNC. They are a very biased source.

One thing needs to be made very clear. The DNC (nor the RNC) is not a government institution and should not be viewed as such. Even if a Russian state actor hacked them, they have not attacked the United States or its election process.

[BoiseBYU]

I'm #NeverTrump and I believe that Russia attempted to influence our elections. I think there is enough evidence of that that to deny it is foolish partisanship. But did it have enough of an effect on the outcome of the election that it changed it? I doubt it.

Socialists have attempted to influence American elections many times. True.

Russian hackers were behind multiple attempts, some successful, some unsuccessful to gain access to DNC and Hillary Clinton emails and released them to the public. True.

Hillary Clinton was already one of the most unlikable and unelectable candidates to ever be nominated and only won the election due to back-rooms politics and rigging the system. True.

Regardless of if the Russians affected the outcome of the election all Americans should be furious and determined to not let any foreign power try to illegally change the outcome of an election. And what was true 4 years ago is true today, Russia is our biggest and most dangerous political foe in the wold. Vladamir Putin is a very bad person and the Russian end goal is to reassert dominance over Eastern Europe, which would be disastrous for world.

This.

[SpiffCoug]

Here's a decent synopsis of what we know about what happened. Not very much. The only group presenting any "evidence" and I hate to even call it that, is a private security firm hired by the DNC. They are a very biased source.

One thing needs to be made very clear. The DNC (nor the RNC) is not a government institution and should not be viewed as such. Even if a Russian state actor hacked them, they have not attacked the United States or its election process.

Agreed.

We meddle in other countries' elections (Obama and his cronies used taxpayer money to try to defeat Netenyahu - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 20d2e34090). So it shouldn't come as any surprise that other nations try to do the same to us.

Political parties should take better care of their information. Corruption should be rooted out in all its forms.

[jvquarterback]

I believe that Russia attempted to influence our elections. I think there is enough evidence of that that to deny it is foolish partisanship.

What evidence are you citing that you say is enough to say people who refute your claims are acting upon foolish partisanship? I want a detailed outline. No one has given any evidence the government of Russia is involved. There is not one shred of evidence provided by Cloudstrike or anyone else that indicates the Russian government was involved.

What we "know" boils down to this: some of the phishing emails bounced off servers in Russia, there was some metadata attached with Cyrillic lettering, and time stamps indicating work done on the project may have been done somewhere in the Eastern hemisphere.

That's it. And you need more than that to claim the information is so irrefutable as to call me a fool for not believing the garbage the New York Times is trying to get people to believe to defend Hillary Clinton's loss in the election.

Hey, I get not supporting Trump in the election. I respect that. All I ask is that you read the information before jumping to conclusions. Find out what the claims actually are and see if they hold up. Don't fall for the editorial garbage, just the (relevant) facts.

[snoscythe]

Leading up to the election, Trump said that if he lost, it would be because the election was rigged/hacked by the Dems and he might not accept the results.

The White House and Dems responded by excoriating Trump for insinuating that the election process was in anyway questionable or subject to hacking or manipulation. Basically they poo-pooed the idea of outside intervention.

Fast forward two-months, and suddenly the White House says "Well, we were worried the Russians were messing around, but we didn't want to say anything back then."

The true irony lies in the recounts that the media was so interested in at the outset. They were certain that the recounts would reveal Russian or hacker influence (locations with electronic voting voted for Trump 7% more often than paper only locations!), so they were all in on covering the recounts. Funny thing is, I bet you haven't heard anything about the recounts lately from MSNBC, CNN, or the others who were so interested when they thought it would undercut Trump. That's because the Wisconsin recount actually netted Trump a wider margin of victory than the initial results, and Michigan was headed the same way before it fell apart when they realized that Detroit locations where Hillary ran strongest had all sorts of problems -- vote count exceeding the tallies (e.g. they counted 500 voters, but Hillary got 550 votes type stuff), broken seals on ballot boxes, etc. In short, the recounts either added votes to Trump or uncovered pro-Hillary abuses. So suddenly none of that was news.

[BoiseBYU]

Too much talking past each other. A. If you believe the White House and the Intelligence community, Russia hacked the DNC etc. I suppose if you are a Trump follower you do not get past this point. But if you do you go to part B, which is that the CIA at least says it was Putin's intent to influence the election. Again if you are a Trump follower you reject this conclusion too. But to me it at least seems plausible--why else do a steady drip drip drip of wikileaks of uncomplimentary and negative documents regarding HRC and the democratic party than to hurt her campaign and aid Trump's? Trump advisors certainly thought it helped. C. Whether the Russian effort succeeded is a DIFFERENT matter. It is hard for me to tell. If the wikileaks etc had more than a one percent impact in MI, WI and PA, then it did matter because those three states went for Trump by 1 percent or less. Maybe it had zero impact. Hard to tell. Whether it did swing the election, we have a country that did this to us and is now led by a man who admires that country's leader. All parties should be concerned at what Russia has done.