[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[notimp]

When even Fox News reports that it happened, then I can't understand how people in his base still deny it.

What you read in most of establishment media, was that they tried to pull off 'mode of operation looks similar to what russians would do' on that Hunter Biden laptop case, as russian interference. This is less than hearsay. Dont believe everything you read, just on face value.

You are constructing an effing case out of partial information snippets, that might not fit together at all.

Yes, the Trump campain did meat with russian intelligence people, the first time arround.
Yes, Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Hunter Binen case - publicly - at an opportune time.
Yes, the Hunter Biden laptop story was released at an opportune time and seemed to contain actual informations on "moral wrongdoings" of the Biden family.

None of that is proof of russian interference, you morons.

They pulled up a few 'experts they pull up "when needed"' to put out a story that sounded like the following. "If the russians would interfere, they might do something like that". None of that is prove of involvement.

Thats freaking rumormongering.

 

[MikaDubbz]

What you read in most of establishment media, was that they tried to pull off 'mode of operation looks similar to what russians would do' on that Hunter Biden laptop case, as russian interference. This is less than hearsay. Dont believe everything you read, just on face value.

You are constructing an effing case out of partial information snippets, that might not fit together at all.

Dude, the findings were that Russia meddled, you can accept that or not, but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they didn't meddle with the election at all. Just impassioned people saying that it didn't happen without any real proof against the findings.

 

[notimp]

Dude, the findings were that Russia meddled, you can accept that or not, but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they didn't meddle with the election at all. Just impassioned people saying that it didn't happen without any real proof against the findings.

You are an absolute nitwit.

The first time around, the US intelligence agencies put out stories on "russian hacking" without releasing any proof, or any indication as to what made tham think that. Because attribution of hacking attempts is pretty hard in the business.

That many media outlets took that at face value - is state positive journalism. You say, what your state says. But its not good journalism.

This time around they didnt even have the FBI say as much as "there was russian meddling", this time they put up their own 'experts' (close to party interests) saying that it smelled as such.

No proof. No separation of power in as much as that a journalist came up with that story. Straight propaganda.

Just because many mainstream media outlets brought it, doesnt mean that its factual. If you fail to see that point, you've learned nothing.

And btw. Russia might still have meddled, the point is, that there is no proof. Absolutely none.

 

[MikaDubbz]

You are an absolute moron.

The first time around, the US intelligence agencies put out stories on "russian hacking" without releasing any proof, or any indication as to what made tham think that. Because attribution of hacking attempts is pretty hard in the business.

That many media outlets took that at face value - is state positive journalism. You say, what your state says. But its not good journalism.

This time around they didnt even have the FBI say as much as "there was russian meddling", this time they put up their own 'experts' (close to party interests) saying that it smelled as such.

No proof. No separation of power in as much as that a journalist came up with that story. Straight propaganda.

Name calling solves nothing. The Senate intel panel found there was indeed Russian meddling in that election, that's really all there is to this. Nothing thus far has been done to prove that intel panel definitively wrong.

Also, you're saying this time around as if I'm suggesting Russia meddled again with this election, not so, I never suggested as much. We know he wanted Ukraine to help interfere, but I've not seen or heard anything about Russia for this election.

 

[notimp]

Name calling solves nothing. The Senate intel panel found there was indeed Russian meddling in that election, that's really all there is to this. Nothing thus far has been done to prove that intel panel definitively wrong.

You are confusing elections. This is the second one. Dont conflate them.

The russian meddling that was found in the first one was the following.

Having organized a meeting with the Trump election campaign and people recognized as russian intelligence officials.

Election ads on facebook having been bought for about 300.000 USD worth of adspending. "Found" by counting all the US election ad spending made in russian rubel.

300.000 USD ist no where near enough in facebook ad spending, to shift the US election even by 1%. Even if optimally spent.

And from what we have seen, most of those ads targeted "more cultural dissent" within the US, and were NOT direct election meddling.

And then there was the DNC hack, which was attributed to russia, without any proof, and any information about the process of how that attribution was made. Just trust the FBI and go with it.

I'm not aware of any other attempts of "the russians" to do something this time around, or even during the last elections, other than those.

If you can make up a story about big election meddling with those fragments, please go for it, but thats then made up entirely in your mind. Because nothing in all of that spells out 'significant election meddling' at all.

It mostly spells out "dems needed a scapegoat for why they lost last time arround' and, this time the reflex was to use it again. With even less reported influence. When they needed social media to self censor a New York Post story.

 

[MikaDubbz]

You are confusing elections. This is the second one. Dont conflate them.

The russian meddling that was found in the first one was the following.

Having organized a meeting with the Trump election campaign and people recognized as russian intelligence officials.

Election adds on facebook having been bought for about 300.000 USD worth of adspending. "Found" by counting all the US election ad spending made in russian rubel.

300.000 USD ist no where near enough in facebook ad spending, to shift the US election even by 1%. Even if optimally spent.

And from what we have seen, most of those ads targeted "more cultural dissent" within the US, and were NOT direct election meddling.

And then there was the DNC hack, which was attributed to russia, without any proof, and any information about the process. Just trust the FBI and go with it.

I'm not aware of any other attempts of "the russians" to do something this time around, or even during the last elections, other than those.

If you can make up a story about big election meddling with those fragments, please go for it, but thats then made up entirely in your mind. Because nothing in all of that spells out 'significant election meddling' at all.

It mostly spells out "dems needed a scapegoat for why they lost last time arround' and, this time the reflex was to use it again. With even less reported influence.

What the hell are you talking about, look back at what I've been saying: Russia interfered with the first election (2016), and we know he wanted Ukraine to interfere with this election and I've not seen any info on Russia interfering with this election, I haven't mixed anything up, I'm guessing you somehow confused what I've been saying, but read through it again.

 

[notimp]

What the hell are you talking about, look back at what I've been saying: Russia interfered with the first election (2016), and we know he wanted Ukraine to interfere with this election and I've not seen any info on Russia interfering with this election, I haven't mixed anything up, I'm guessing you somehow confused what I've been saying, but read through it again.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. We have an agreement on those points.

 

[Deleted User]

You are confusing elections. This is the second one. Dont conflate them.

The russian meddling that was found in the first one was the following.

Having organized a meeting with the Trump election campaign and people recognized as russian intelligence officials.

Election adds on facebook having been bought for about 300.000 USD worth of adspending. "Found" by counting all the US election ad spending made in russian rubel.

300.000 USD ist no where near enough in facebook ad spending, to shift the US election even by 1%. Even if optimally spent.

And from what we have seen, most of those ads targeted "more cultural dissent" within the US, and were NOT direct election meddling.

And then there was the DNC hack, which was attributed to russia, without any proof, and any information about the process of how that attribution was made. Just trust the FBI and go with it.

I'm not aware of any other attempts of "the russians" to do something this time around, or even during the last elections, other than those.

If you can make up a story about big election meddling with those fragments, please go for it, but thats then made up entirely in your mind. Because nothing in all of that spells out 'significant election meddling' at all.

It mostly spells out "dems needed a scapegoat for why they lost last time arround' and, this time the reflex was to use it again. With even less reported influence. When they needed social media to self censor a New York Post story.

What the hell are you talking about, look back at what I've been saying: Russia interfered with the first election (2016), and we know he wanted Ukraine to interfere with this election and I've not seen any info on Russia interfering with this election, I haven't mixed anything up, I'm guessing you somehow confused what I've been saying, but read through it again.

I believe what happened is you two misunderstood each other. With notimp thinking that dubs was talking this election, not the previous

 

[MikaDubbz]

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. We have an agreement on those points.

Ahhhhh! I see where the mistake was made, it was indeed my fault, you first said there was no proof of Russian interference in THIS election, yet the whole time I thought we were talking about the last election since I was discussing that meddling of that election with a different user. I'm so sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[1stmoon]

Muellar's report did not exonerate Trump. Combine that with Trump continuously blocking House subpoenas tells me he isn't as innocent as he claims. Now compare that to Hunter and Hillary who were fully willing to cooperate and give all the information investigators required.

 

[notimp]

“We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise,”

FBI Director Wray tells senators

src: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/24/fbi...voter-fraud-director-wray-tells-senators.html

Muellar's report did not exonerate Trump. Combine that with Trump continuously blocking House subpoenas tells me he isn't as innocent as he claims. Now compare that to Hunter and Hillary who were fully willing to cooperate and give all the information investigators required.

Fine, I'd probably draw the same conclusions. But thats conjecture. Thats not proof. Thats not enough to end up at "russia has manipulated the election".

Everything along those lines - were stories. Exciting and interesting ones. But ultimately not confirmed.

 

[Joom]

Now compare that to Hunter and Hillary who were fully willing to cooperate and give all the information investigators required.

The recent Hunter hoax came from a literal disinformation agent that used a fake persona. I don't even understand why he was focused on any way when he isn't the one running for president. It's the most blatant grasp at straws I've ever seen. But yeah...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...dwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387

Fine, I'd probably draw the same conclusions. But thats conjecture. Thats not proof. Thats not enough to end up at "russia has manipulated the vote".

AFAIK, the only interference came from those "troll centers". They'd hire people to push conservative propaganda on social media, or sow social division by baiting. This is all I ever heard of that I would consider interference.

 

[notimp]

AFAIK, the only interference came from those "troll centers". They'd hire people to push conservative propaganda on social media, or sow social division by baiting. This is all I ever heard of that could be considered interference.

Yes afaik, that was some of the 300K in ad spending that was traceable, as well as the reason for the deletion of afair actually not that many (but thats not an excuse, depends on how they were linked up) social media accounts.

All of the material I've seen was aimed at producing more outrage and dissent. And its hardly enough to explain what happened at the 2016 elections, especially not under the light of what has happened this time around.

The democratic excuse of 'its not us, it was the russians fault' basically is debased by now.

Yes there was interference. No - from whats prooveable, or even rumored, it was not enough to sway election results significantly. The FBI announcement, that they were investigating Hillary on the other hand...

 

[KingVamp]

Looks like Georgia going to flip.

 

[Joom]

The democratic excuse of 'its not us, it was the russians fault' basically is debased by now.

That's the DNC's excuse. The voters just didn't want Hillary. They were largely upset by Bernie getting shot dead in the water. The rest believed the pollsters and thought it was in the bag. so they didn't bother to go out and vote because the consensus was "there's no way Trump can win because he's too ridiculous". I'm sincerely glad this obviously didn't happen a second time. More people voted this time around than in any other election in history. That feels amazing to hear.

Looks like Georgia going to flip.

Yup. I might have been wrong about Texas, but Georgia and Arizona are even better. Oh, Pennsylvania will most likely be going to Biden, too. We might know for sure this evening.

 

[notimp]

I'd agree somewhat. But philosphizing why people didnt vote after the current elections high turnout, and similar result... Well. Philosophize about democrats policy positions instead.

Also - CERTAINLY - philosophize over the "electability" argument, that Biden apparently had in spades and Sanders had not, because from what we see today, he was exactly the wrong candidate to run against Trump.

All power to whatever you can do to stop it from happening. But the results as of now, are divisive as heck. And if the dems dont win the senate, four more years will be basically wasted.

(Well at least its setup for the next election and then... we said with Obama as well...)

 

[Rail Fighter]

If there's no frauds, there's nothing to worry about, right?

 

[KingVamp]

The voters just didn't want Hillary.

To be fair, Hillary had the popular vote.

 

[Joom]

If there's no frauds, there's nothing to worry about, right?

Just keep on coping, my friend. I know, I know, it's rough. Just breeeeathe deep from that bag of cope. Also, it greatly amuses me that so many people outside of the US care this much about Trump. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[smf]

If there's no frauds, there's nothing to worry about, right?

As long as you think Trump perma lying to whip up civil unrest, just because he hates losing, is nothing to worry about.

To 47.9% of the voters in the election all the lies coming out of Trump's mouth is true & they will always believe it even if it's been proved false beyond reasonable doubt. He knows this, it's all part of his plan.

He'll be rightfully fired in January, but he won't care about the damage that he has caused in the meantime.

One of his lawsuits has been thrown out by a republican judge, so at least he can't say it's all part of the democrats plan.