Blockbuster CIA report: Russia definitely meddled in U.S. election to elect Trump.

[JimL]

Not only did the CIA confirm this as fact, that it was the Russians, and that the sole purpose of their activity was to get Trump elected, but it was also revealed that Congress was briefed on this classified information back in September and Republicans, particularly Mitch McConnell, knowingly refused to agree in a bipartisan way to let this information be known to the American people. The President has ordered a complete review of this issue to be on his desk before his term ends.
Btw, Mitch McConnell argued that if this classified information was let out to the public prior to the election republicans would claim it to be nothing more than partisan politics and his wife ended up with a spot in Trumps Cabinet. Isn't that sweet!

[Starlight]

Trump's response is that the existence of Russia is a conspiracy theory created by the Chinese. /s

McConnell's been pretty bad this year. There was that earlier bill that allowed 9/11 families to prosecute Saudi Arabia, and Obama vetoed it and explained why it was a bad idea, and then after McConnell led an override of Obama's veto in order to pass the bill, McConnell turned around and said that they should never have passed it and blamed Obama for not stopping them passing it. So the guy's as two-faced as they come. But trying to cover up Russian interference in the election seems to be getting pretty close to treason.

[Starlight]

In many countries there is an impartial person or group who would evaluate whether the outcome of the election was sufficiently affected by foul play or the suspicion of it to justify a do-over. For example, in Austria this year, the courts annulled the election result on the grounds that there were some irregularities, and the election was re-run. (There was no change in winner)

The US has the supreme court, obviously, but unlike most courts in the world, it's politically appointed and partial (as we very much saw in the infamous Bush v. Gore). The US does not seem to have proper mechanisms in place for coping with a situation like this where an election has been affected by foul play. And given that elections in the US seem to take 18 months and cost trillions of dollars, the mind boggles at the financial cost of a nationwide do-over.

[MaxVel]

How many people voted for Trump as a result of ' Russian meddling' that wouldn't otherwise have voted for him?

It's a bit rich for American politicians to complain about outside interference in their elections when they're quite happy to interfere in other countries' elections themselves.

[Starlight]

It's a bit rich for American politicians to complain about outside interference in their elections when they're quite happy to interfere in other countries' elections themselves.

Agreed, and while I feel good that America's getting it's comeuppance in this regard, it's amusing to see the sheer lack of principle and complete partisanship among US Republicans who would be screaming and rioting 24/7 if they believed Russian interference had given the election to the Democrats. More than anything else what this election has shown everyone is that the US right has no core values or principles at all.

[MaxVel]

Agreed, and while I feel good that America's getting it's comeuppance in this regard, it's amusing to see the sheer lack of principle and complete partisanship among US Republicans who would be screaming and rioting 24/7 if they believed Russian interference had given the election to the Democrats. More than anything else what this election has shown everyone is that the US right has no core values or principles at all.

Any thoughts on my first question? Absent some solid assessment of that, what are people complaining about?

[Jaecp]

How many people voted for Trump as a result of ' Russian meddling' that wouldn't otherwise have voted for him?

The flipside is more important, imho.

[demi-conservative]

One side had Russian help, the other side had non-citizen, also illegal help.

Foreigners: doing jobs citizens won't do!!!!!

[JimL]

How many people voted for Trump as a result of ' Russian meddling' that wouldn't otherwise have voted for him?

It's a bit rich for American politicians to complain about outside interference in their elections when they're quite happy to interfere in other countries' elections themselves.

Its no so much the espionage and the tampering in the election by foriegn governments that bothers me, its the fact that republicans knowingly and willingly kept this information from the American people. Its one thing to have foriegn government interference, its quite another to have factions within our own government playing along with them.

[MaxVel]

Its no so much the espionage and the tampering in the election by foriegn governments that bothers me, its the fact that republicans knowingly and willingly kept this information from the American people. Its one thing to have foriegn government interference, its quite another to have factions within our own government playing along with them.

If you were a Clinton supporter you frankly haven't got a leg to stand on in regards to foreign influence on the American government.

[MaxVel]

The flipside is more important, imho.

So how many people didn't vote for Clinton, as a result of Russian interference, who would have otherwise voted for her?

[JimL]

So how many people didn't vote for Clinton, as a result of Russian interference, who would have otherwise voted for her?

How would you suggest we calculate that?

[MaxVel]

How would you suggest we calculate that?

....and there's your problem. Absent any kind of solid data, all there is is speculation. Maybe whatever the Russians did (if anything) had no effect on the final result. Maybe it had a minor, non-significant effect. Maybe it tilted the whole election, and Clinton would have otherwise won.


Bottom line: Clinton was a horrible candidate, and she lost. Liberals can't deal with the cognitive dissonance created by their believing their own propaganda - 'Clinton is great', 'Trump a combination of Hitler and Archie Bunker, with bad hair' 'There's no way Trump can win' etc etc - so they're scratching around looking for ways to rationalise what happened. Since it 'can't be' that they were just wrong and out of touch with what a good 40% of the electorate thinks and feels, it 'must be' because of the Electoral college, or Russian interference, or votes that need to be recounted, or something - ANYTHING! - else.

[JimL]

....and there's your problem. Absent any kind of solid data, all there is is speculation. Maybe whatever the Russians did (if anything) had no effect on the final result. Maybe it had a minor, non-significant effect. Maybe it tilted the whole election, and Clinton would have otherwise won.

And thats okay with you?

Bottom line: Clinton was a horrible candidate, and she lost. Liberals can't deal with the cognitive dissonance created by their believing their own propaganda - 'Clinton is great', 'Trump a combination of Hitler and Archie Bunker, with bad hair' 'There's no way Trump can win' etc etc - so they're scratching around looking for ways to rationalise what happened. Since it 'can't be' that they were just wrong and out of touch with what a good 40% of the electorate thinks and feels, it 'must be' because of the Electoral college, or Russian interference, or votes that need to be recounted, or something - ANYTHING! - else.

Clinton wasn't my first choice, Sanders was, but she wasn't so horrible that she couldn't win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The actual margin at the moment is Clinton by 2.8 million. So, if Clinton is such a horrible candidate, what does losing the popular vote to her, by nearly 3 million votes, make Trump? In a screwed up system like the electoral college, it makes him the winner.

[MaxVel]

And thats okay with you?

Which one? America has never shrunk from interfering in other countries' government, turn about is only fair play, right?

Clinton wasn't my first choice, Sanders was, but she wasn't so horrible that she couldn't win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The actual margin at the moment is Clinton by 2.8 million. So, if Clinton is such a horrible candidate, what does losing the popular vote to her, by nearly 3 million votes, make Trump? In a screwed up system like the electoral college, it makes him the winner.

Shame the DNC undemocratically scuppered Sanders, huh. If they hadn't, maybe the Russians would have had no reason to try and influence things. You should be sorting out your own party's issues - instead you're projecting and looking for fault everywhere but in your own house.

Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million and STILL managed to lose. That's great. JimL will have a glorified used car salesman with 'super' hair for his President.

Best.election.ever.


Trump won according to the rules in place. Whining about the rules after the fact is just poor sportsmanship, and shows an untrustworthy character. You're looking to back out of a deal that you thought would go in your favour when it later proves to be to the benefit of the other party. Show me where you posted about the Electoral college being a messed system up BEFORE the election.

We have no way of knowing what the result might have been if the rules had been different. No doubt Trump would have run a different campaign if it had been a popular vote only contest. Maybe he would have won that, too. Who knows?

People who complain like this sound just as pathetic as someone saying "B..b..b..but my team would have won the Superbowl if field goals were worth 5 points instead of 3." Yeah, and the other team would have adopted a completely different strategy if that were the case. Derp.