FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking

[Mountain Man]

Out of 127 million or so votes, if you remove California from the equation, Trump would have won by a mere 1.4 million votes. spread that out over 49 states and and it doesn't amount to much.

A "mere" 1.4 million votes? In that case, Hillary only won the popular vote by a "mere" 3 million.

Regardless, you make my point for me, that without California, the match-up is considerably more even across the country with Trump winning convincingly. California throws off the popular vote, but it doesn't change the fact that Trump won 31 of the 50 states for an electoral college landslide.

And this is your brain on Breitbart.

And this is a liberal without a brain.

First of all, you jackanapes, two of the four articles I quoted were not from Breitbart; and secondly, simply identifying the source does not do anything to address the facts as presented.

[JimL]

A "mere" 1.4 million votes? In that case, Hillary only won the popular vote by a "mere" 3 million.

Regardless, you make my point for me, that without California, the match-up is considerably more even across the country with Trump winning convincingly. California throws off the popular vote, but it doesn't change the fact that Trump won 31 of the 50 states for an electoral college landslide.

Like I said, Trumps winning vote margin within most states, particularly the so called purple or battleground states was relatively meager, and the Presidential election is a national election, not a state election, its not about states, states have their own individual elections and their own indvidual representation in Congress, the Presidential election is about the country and who the majority of the people in the entire country want to be the President of their country, and 3 million more people in the entire country, not 3 million more in California, chose Clinton over Trump. The electoral college, if it ever made any sense, is outdated.

And this is a liberal without a brain.

It is not I that brainlessly keeps citing irrelevant, debunked, unresearched, fake news, in order to support my case.

First of all, you jackanapes, two of the four articles I quoted were not from Breitbart; and secondly, simply identifying the source does not do anything to address the facts as presented.

And simply citing known sources of fake news does nothing to confirm the asserted so called facts they present. First of all, you are now suggesting, a la Breitbart, that indvidual voting machines can be, and are hacked after arguing that there is no such evidence of that happening anywhere, including in MI. when Jill Stein called for a recount there. Second, restoring the right to vote to citizens who have served their sentence is not voter fraud. Third, their is no evidence of aliens actually voting in Va., the Va. voters alliance and the Public interests legal foundation are fraudulent biased organizations with an agenda of repressing the vote in favor of conservatves. If they had actually found indviduals voting fraudulently they would surely name them and have them prosecuted.

[Sparko]

and the Presidential election is a national election, not a state election, its not about states, states have their own individual elections and their own indvidual representation in Congress, the Presidential election is about the country and who the majority of the people in the entire country want to be the President of their country, and 3 million more people in the entire country, not 3 million more in California, chose Clinton over Trump. The electoral college, if it ever made any sense, is outdated.

What planet are you from JimL? Of course it is a STATE election for President. That is the whole point of the Electoral College. It is why it is the United STATES of America. Each state votes ITS votes based soley on how they want to divvy up their electoral votes. The current method is to assign them to their internal popular vote, the majority takes all.

You might not WANT it to be a STATE Elected President, but that is what it is. You are living in a fake world, because you are deluded.

[firstfloor]

“[The so-called Hamilton electors cite the founding father’s words in Federalist 68, in which he describes the purpose of the electoral college to “afford a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications”. In their opinion Trump doesn’t meet that bar. It is worth noting, however, that Hamilton was describing an age before universal suffrage in which voters did not vote for members of the Electoral College in many states. Further, the method of election that Hamilton was describing has long since been changed by the 12th amendment.
So, Trump is going to be president?
Yes.]”

[JimL]

What planet are you from JimL? Of course it is a STATE election for President. That is the whole point of the Electoral College. It is why it is the United STATES of America. Each state votes ITS votes based soley on how they want to divvy up their electoral votes. The current method is to assign them to their internal popular vote, the majority takes all.

You might not WANT it to be a STATE Elected President, but that is what it is. You are living in a fake world, because you are deluded.

I understand that Sparko, the question is not whether or not Trump won according to the electoral college, its whether or not the electoral college is a legitimate way to decide the outcome. What if the winner of the electoral college only recieved 28% of the popular vote, which is a distinct possibility, should that 28% take precedence over the 72% majority of the country simply because the 44% margin came from fewer states. I don't think so. And so that same principle should hold even should the popular vote margin be only 10% , 6% or 3%.

[One Bad Pig]

I understand that Sparko, the question is not whether or not Trump won according to the electoral college, its whether or not the electoral college is a legitimate way to decide the outcome. What if the winner of the electoral college only recieved 28% of the popular vote, which is a distinct possibility, should that 28% take precedence over the 72% majority of the country simply because the 44% margin came from fewer states. I don't think so. And so that same principle should hold even should the popular vote margin be only 10% , 6% or 3%.

Distinct possibility? YOU'd be elected first, Jim - as a write-in candidate.

[Mountain Man]

Like I said, Trumps winning vote margin within most states, particularly the so called purple or battleground states was relatively meager, and the Presidential election is a national election, not a state election, its not about states, states have their own individual elections and their own indvidual representation in Congress, the Presidential election is about the country and who the majority of the people in the entire country want to be the President of their country, and 3 million more people in the entire country, not 3 million more in California, chose Clinton over Trump. The electoral college, if it ever made any sense, is outdated.

Yes, it's a national election, but to pretend that you can't look at the distribution of votes by state is ridiculous. It's a fact that Hillary's strong performance in California put her over the top with the popular vote, and that without California, the race is more even with Trump having a clear advantage.

And, no, the electoral college is not "outdated" (whatever that's supposed to mean). It was designed precisely for this scenario, where a demagogue like Hillary tried to win the presidency by campaigning almost exclusively in a handful of high-population areas while Trump campaigned more broadly, often visiting three, four, or even five states in a single day, and the lopsided results speak for themselves: Trump won 31 states while Hillary won a mere 19.

And simply citing known sources of fake news does nothing to confirm the asserted so called facts they present. First of all, you are now suggesting, a la Breitbart, that indvidual voting machines can be, and are hacked after arguing that there is no such evidence of that happening anywhere, including in MI. when Jill Stein called for a recount there. Second, restoring the right to vote to citizens who have served their sentence is not voter fraud. Third, their is no evidence of aliens actually voting in Va., the Va. voters alliance and the Public interests legal foundation are fraudulent biased organizations with an agenda of repressing the vote in favor of conservatves. If they had actually found indviduals voting fraudulently they would surely name them and have them prosecuted.

Um, who said anything about hacking voting machines, you dimwit? Do you even understand what the problem was in Michigan? They use paper ballots that are fed into a machine which tabulates the results. It seems obvious that someone, at some point, fed extra Hillary votes into the machine. You can find more details here:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...udit/95358702/

Felons are explicitly prohibited from voting by the Virginia Constitution. The governor had to pull a fast one to to get around this.

You ask why illegal aliens voting in Virginia haven't been prosecuted. Read the article. It tells you why.

Finally, you claim that the report by Investors.com had been debunked but didn't bother going into details, so I assume you don't actually have a credible rebuttal.

But wow, it's amazing how skeptical you suddenly become when it's voting irregularities that worked in Hillary's favor! And yet you happily swallow this shady narrative that the Russians somehow put Trump into the White House even though we still haven't been told precisely what they did, precisely how they did it, and precisely how it impacted the election, if it even did at all.

[Mountain Man]

I understand that Sparko, the question is not whether or not Trump won according to the electoral college, its whether or not the electoral college is a legitimate way to decide the outcome. What if the winner of the electoral college only recieved 28% of the popular vote, which is a distinct possibility, should that 28% take precedence over the 72% majority of the country simply because the 44% margin came from fewer states. I don't think so. And so that same principle should hold even should the popular vote margin be only 10% , 6% or 3%.

Seriously?

OK, Jimmy, let's see a state-by-state breakdown detailing how someone could win the electoral college by carrying only 28% of votes cast.

[Darth Ovious]

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainme...thesda-PS4-Pro

Source: http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/gaming/749524/CNN-Fallout-4-CNN-uses-Fallout-4-Bethesda-PS4-Pro

The news network mistakenly used footage from Bethesda’s blockbuster game to report on a breaking story coming out of the US, concerning Russian hackers.

Footage of a Fallout 4 terminal appeared during a video which was aired late last month and was used during a segment discussing Donald Trump’s reaction to Moscow’s alleged involvement in “Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.”

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

Seriously?

OK, Jimmy, let's see a state-by-state breakdown detailing how someone could win the electoral college by carrying only 28% of votes cast.

Why, would it matter to you? Actually I was wrong, it is possible to actually win with only 27% of the popular vote in one scenario, and only 23% in another.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112...nt-of-the-vote

[JimL]

Yes, it's a national election, but to pretend that you can't look at the distribution of votes by state is ridiculous. It's a fact that Hillary's strong performance in California put her over the top with the popular vote, and that without California, the race is more even with Trump having a clear advantage.

So what if California put Clinton over the top, you could just as well say that the votes that she garnered in Fl. and Pa., states that she lost, put her over the top in the popular vote.

And, no, the electoral college is not "outdated" (whatever that's supposed to mean). It was designed precisely for this scenario, where a demagogue like Hillary tried to win the presidency by campaigning almost exclusively in a handful of high-population areas while Trump campaigned more broadly, often visiting three, four, or even five states in a single day, and the lopsided results speak for themselves: Trump won 31 states while Hillary won a mere 19.

Doesn't matter, state elections, Senate and Congressional elections, are about the state representation, the Presidency is not about states, its about the country and 3 million more people across the entire country voted for Clinton. How does it make sense that just because a state is won by say 2, 9, 100 or 10,000 votes out of 2 million, that the other, virtually half of the states votes, not count nationally? Theoretically, if a state is won by only 1 vote, all of the electoral votes for that state goes to the winner, and thats ridiculous.

Um, who said anything about hacking voting machines, you dimwit? Do you even understand what the problem was in Michigan? They use paper ballots that are fed into a machine which tabulates the results. It seems obvious that someone, at some point, fed extra Hillary votes into the machine. You can find more details here:

Whatever you want to call it, your claim was that there was no evidence of voter fraud in the states Jill Stein wanted recounts in, including the state of MI.

Felons are explicitly prohibited from voting by the Virginia Constitution. The governor had to pull a fast one to to get around this.

He didn't pull a fast one, what he did was perfectly legal and perfectly right. A person who serves their time is every bit the citizen as any other citizen and entitled to the same rights.

You ask why illegal aliens voting in Virginia haven't been prosecuted. Read the article. It tells you why.

No, it tells you Breitbarts fake news.

Finally, you claim that the report by Investors.com had been debunked but didn't bother going into details, so I assume you don't actually have a credible rebuttal.

That was my rebuttal, if you don't believe me then you can easily google it if you seriously want to know. It'll take you about 2 minutes.

But wow, it's amazing how skeptical you suddenly become when it's voting irregularities that worked in Hillary's favor!

Now thats what I call ironic! I have no problem with recounts if there is reason to question the results on either side, you on the other hand.........

And yet you happily swallow this shady narrative that the Russians somehow put Trump into the White House even though we still haven't been told precisely what they did, precisely how they did it, and precisely how it impacted the election, if it even did at all.

Never said the Russians put him over the top, they may have, we can't know that for sure, but that was certainly their intent of their cyber campaign, and by the looks of it they got what they wanted and the plutocrat Trump is acting more a friend to the tyrranical plutocrat Vlad and Russia than he is to the people of the U.S. and to the allies of the U.S.

[Tassman]

Source: FOX News

(Sept 16, 2016) "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it,” Trump said in Washington, D.C. “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period. Now we all want to get back to making America strong and great again."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...-movement.html

© Copyright Original Source

You and your Fox News and Breitbart.

Even if this was the case, and it’s not, Trump had eight years to refute the lie but chose instead to champion it...almost single-handedly and he’s yet to apologise to Obama for it.

Yeah, we'll never know because there is zero evidence they had any significant impact at all.

There’s good reason to think otherwise and Putin certainly looks like he’ll be rewarded for his help what with Trump’s talk of removing Russian sanctions and dismantling NATO...Putin’s two pet peeves against the US.

Oh, and the Comey "intervention" worked in Hillary's favor because it gave liberals one last chance to promote the "Hillary was cleared of any wrongdoing" false narrative just days before the election.

Nonsense! Comey’s last minute "intervention" raised doubts in the electorate's mind at a critical time in the election process.

[Tassman]

It's just as reasonable to believe she wouldn't have.

No actually, it isn't. Right up until the morning of the election Hillary Clinton held the edge over Trump. There's good reason to think that in such a close race the Russian hacks and the Comey intervention were what tipped the balance.

[Bill the Cat]

No actually, it isn't. Right up until the morning of the election Hillary Clinton held the edge over Trump.

In polls? We've seen those polls be routinely proven false for about 3 years now. All of the polling people are re-evaluating their methodologies for a reason.

There's good reason to think that in such a close race the Russian hacks and the Comey intervention were what tipped the balance.

No there isn't. It's baseless speculation at best. There isn't a shred of empirical data that shows any impact of the hacks themselves or Comey's last minute clearing of Hillary.

[robrecht]

In polls? We've seen those polls be routinely proven false for about 3 years now. All of the polling people are re-evaluating their methodologies for a reason.

The national presidential polls were actually more accurate in 2016 than they were in 2012.