- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Who here actually believes Russia helped Trump?
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:06 am
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:06 am
How far or limited is your belief?
Do you think they had anything to do with Podesta and DNC leaks?
Nothing at all?
What?
Do you think they had anything to do with Podesta and DNC leaks?
Nothing at all?
What?
37
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:11 am to stout
Russia involved in hacking - Maybe.
Russia involved in WL releases - On some level. I do not think WL is a knowing tool of Russia. I do think Russia and WL are in bed together to some extent. Assange's relationships probably establish that to some degree.
Russia tried to influence election - For sure. Putin underlings went public on Trump being preferable.
Russia actually did influence election - Maybe, but probably not in any decisive manner.
Russia engaged in multi faceted operation to influence US politics, and create dissent and divide in America by exposing MSM and DNC coordination - Yes. I think this was Russia's primary motivation this cycle. And it was at least partially successful.
Russia "hacked" the election or whatever over the top rhetoric media is running with - No.
Russia involved in WL releases - On some level. I do not think WL is a knowing tool of Russia. I do think Russia and WL are in bed together to some extent. Assange's relationships probably establish that to some degree.
Russia tried to influence election - For sure. Putin underlings went public on Trump being preferable.
Russia actually did influence election - Maybe, but probably not in any decisive manner.
Russia engaged in multi faceted operation to influence US politics, and create dissent and divide in America by exposing MSM and DNC coordination - Yes. I think this was Russia's primary motivation this cycle. And it was at least partially successful.
Russia "hacked" the election or whatever over the top rhetoric media is running with - No.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:12 am to stout
All I know is Trump publicly asked Russia for hacking help. le guillotine time for Comrade Trump
This post was edited on 12/12/16 at 10:23 am
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:13 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Russia tried to influence election - For sure. Putin underlings went public on Trump being preferable.
So having an opinion is likened to influencing an election?
C'mon now.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:14 am to stout
I think Russia probably did try and hack into DNC emails along with HRC's and her high level staffers. I don't think Russia did this to undermine the elections though, I think they did this because Putin thought she was going to win. He was hoping to have dirt on the incoming president. I also don't think Russia had anything to do with the outcome of the elections. I think the America people who voted were the only factors.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:17 am to stout
I didn't think it was the Russians that hacked the DNC and we know they didn't on Podesta.
I absolutely think the would rather Trump won because no one with a working brain wanted WW3.
I absolutely think the would rather Trump won because no one with a working brain wanted WW3.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:17 am to idlewatcher
quote:
So having an opinion is likened to influencing an election? C'mon now.
What would you call sending your people out to talk up one candidate over another?
And honestly, who cares? I'm not talking about the entire scenario, but in this instance, who cares if Russia tried to sway American voters by...gasp...arguing in support of one candidate? You can debate what that means, and whether a Russian endorsement is good or bad, but I don't think it's facially problematic.
I think reasonable people can use the phrase "tried to influence" there and distinguish it from more dark and problematic allegations re: exertions of influence, don't you agree?
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:18 am to stout
I can't say that I believe it because I don't know how they would actually do it.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:19 am to stout
Sure
Monafort says hi.
Monafort says hi.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:20 am to stout
I don't believe Russia was involved.
IF they were involved on some level, can you blame them for wanting to stop WWIII with Hillary?
She's a warhawk. Same with McCain & Graham. They are insane people who'd drag us into a nuclear conflict with Russia over "NATO Ally Turkey". They critique Russia's "human rights record" while literally supporting an emerging Islamic dictatorship in Turkey.
They're fricking crazies.
IF they were involved on some level, can you blame them for wanting to stop WWIII with Hillary?
She's a warhawk. Same with McCain & Graham. They are insane people who'd drag us into a nuclear conflict with Russia over "NATO Ally Turkey". They critique Russia's "human rights record" while literally supporting an emerging Islamic dictatorship in Turkey.
They're fricking crazies.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:20 am to stout
Has it even been proven that the election was "rigged"..?
I just think the Dems were so confident their queen would be elected, they're still in shock. Desperate times calls for desperate measures...
I just think the Dems were so confident their queen would be elected, they're still in shock. Desperate times calls for desperate measures...
This post was edited on 12/12/16 at 10:26 am
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:21 am to stout
quote:
Do you think they had anything to do with Podesta and DNC leaks?
The narrative in the moment was that it was NSA guys were pissed at Clinton for her gross breaches of national security.
Geez, yesterday on Meet the Press they were asking about the Exxon guy -- how could he possibly be qualified for SoS?
And I wished Prebus would have said -- "He has got to be better than that cunt Clinton."
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:21 am to stout
What does help mean?
Were those tied to russia involved (some) of the hacks? Yes
Were those tied to russia involved in promoting hacked materials? Yes
Was their aim to disrupt the election? Yes
Did they prefer trumnp to hillary? yes
Did those tied to russia circulate "fake" news? Yes
But did they say, hey, how can we get trump elected? I don't think they did. They were far more successful than they could have hoped though.
Were those tied to russia involved (some) of the hacks? Yes
Were those tied to russia involved in promoting hacked materials? Yes
Was their aim to disrupt the election? Yes
Did they prefer trumnp to hillary? yes
Did those tied to russia circulate "fake" news? Yes
But did they say, hey, how can we get trump elected? I don't think they did. They were far more successful than they could have hoped though.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:21 am to stout
All Russia did was expose the corruptness in our political system - something the media would have done 40 years ago.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:22 am to stout
Unless there is some evidence that Russia forged the DNC and Podesta emails (there isn't) then it doesn't matter who hacked/leaked them.
Trump supporters for the most part were not impacted by these revelations either way. To the extent that it depressed Dem turnout, it may have been impacting somewhat, but people weren't angry because OF the hack/leak they were angry because of the content.
Trump supporters for the most part were not impacted by these revelations either way. To the extent that it depressed Dem turnout, it may have been impacting somewhat, but people weren't angry because OF the hack/leak they were angry because of the content.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:23 am to stout
I take anyone or any media seriously without proof. There is no proof to the Russian hacking claims. None.
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:24 am to More&Les
quote:
Unless there is some evidence that Russia forged the DNC and Podesta emails (there isn't) then it doesn't matter who hacked/leaked them.
Sure it does. Say it matters less than the emails themselves, but Russia hacking an American political party (if this happened) to try and expose their actions absolutely "matters," doesn't it?
I understand that there was a lot of interest in separating the issues for the purpose of using the emails to support Trump. But he won. In isolation, can you really tell me you don't think it matters if a country that often opposes American action hacks our domestic political parties?
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:26 am to stout
If exposing the true thoughts and beliefs of the DNC and Clinton campaign through their emails influenced people, regardless of how the emails were exposed, the fault lies with the people in the DNC and Clinton campaign who wrote the emails. Essentially their claim is, "It's the Russian's fault people found out how corrupt we are and how we conspire with the MSM to push our agenda."
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:26 am to Hawkeye95
quote:well then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide some kind of evidence to support this
Were those tied to russia involved (some) of the hacks? Yes
Posted on 12/12/16 at 10:26 am to stout
I think it is unlikely and a lot of political horse play is taking place. I think the Dems have so much corruption that can be unveiled under a new administration they are scared shitless.
I think as a whole the establishment that includes both parties are afraid Trump is going to wreck their status quo.
I think as a whole the establishment that includes both parties are afraid Trump is going to wreck their status quo.
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News