Moderator Note
Let’s avoid personal remarks about other posters. No warning issued.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Bolding mine.
For states that do not have same-day registration, Federal law requires the use of provisional ballots (http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/provisional-ballots.aspx). Voters who do not appear on the rolls may cast a ballot that is investigated after the fact. If the voter should have been allowed to vote, then it will be counted. State laws vary on the details, see the link above for comprehensive information.
There is no evidence the Russian money (using Facebook) made the slightest difference. It was less than a million dollars and it was spent on ads for both parties.
The Clinton’s received hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian interests. the amount of Russian money directed at the Clintons vastly overshadowed the money spent on Facebook. the Facebook media frenzy is nothing but a smokescreen to cover up that fact.
The Democratic voters chose Hillary in the Primaries and the Clintons controlled the purse strings of the party at that time. Their control over that money is documented from within the party. Any concern regarding Russian influence resides in the millions given to the Clintons.
OK, what about all the Russian money spent in venues other than Facebook ads?
I don’t think there’s any factual basis to assess the impact of the Russian intervention. However, the intention of the Russian campaign was, according to the intelligence assessment, an effort to tilt the election toward Trump. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee supports this conclusion. So saying that “there were ads on both sides” is not accurately portray that there was assessed to be a second intention of the campaign in addition to supporting Trump: to get Americans fighting with each other.
Cite? Are you talking about the Clinton Foundation, from which Bill and Hillary drew no salary or personal compensation?
And yet, we know that Putin wanted Trump elected.
Please substantiate this claim. I believe you are sourcing bad or misleading information.
What about Russian hacking of private information? No concern about cyber-espionage?
Yet despite this, the Russians certainly acted on their own, leaving their unwitting recipient embarrassed at such unwanted support. The only thing that could convince me otherwise is if Trump were to be caught on national television asking the Russians to interfere in the election. Then I’d surely believe there was a mutual agreement for the Russians to act nefariously in support of Trump, but unfortunately, there is no such video!
I think it’s fair to say that the facts of whether the Trump campaign did or did not seek Russian assistance are still being collected and evaluated.
ETA: that doesn’t mean that people aren’t free to come to their own opinions; it just means we may learn much more in the way of facts in next few months.
I’d like to check back in with the OP. UltraVires, do you feel like you have a better handle on the depth and breadth of of the massive undertaking that was the Russian election meddling operation in both 2016 and ongoing to this day?
We do? Who got paid a half million dollars for a speechand what did they get for it?
What did Trump bring to the table? Was it the Syrian jet shot down or the recent sanctions against Russia that clinched the deal? Seriously, on what planet would Russia want a hawk like Trump over Hillary?
Yes.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
And…
Putin answered your questions here. Even setting aside the questions of skullduggery, Trump said during the campaign several variations of, “I want to get along with Russia.”
In contrast, Putin has personally blamed Hillary for questioning the legitimacy of the 2012 Russian elections.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
Whether Putin may have “buyers remorse” as to whether Trump has worked out the way he wants is a different question. Obviously, Russia had no way of knowing what Trump would do as President in 2017 and beyond while intervening in the 2016 elections. It’s patently rediculous and embarrassing to suggest otherwise.
There’s so much here to unravel.
For one, your cite is to an opinion piece by a former Bush and Rumsfeld speechwriter, dated from last November, which speculates about Russian shenanigans related to the famed Uranium 1 deal.
Meanwhile, Putin literally answered yes in Helsinki when asked if he wanted Trump to win.
And, Putin has long blamed Clinton for sowing disunion in Russia, especially during 2011.
Finally, it must be remarked that Trump has resisted sanctions continually. As recently as yesterday, when he signed the new defense bill, he pushed back against those parts that would seek to punish Russia. From here:
Again, what does Russia gain from a hawk like Trump? He was against Germany’s increased dependency on Russian gas supplies? He’s increasing the military budget.
There is nothing in his platform that suggests any benefit.
This is different than money paid directly to the Clintons for??? They must have gotten something for the money? The “dosier” to kill Trump’s election came from the Russians.
All the support went to Hillary, not Trump.
As the OP, I have no problem with this thread now being moved to GD or MPSIMS. I think many posters did a great job of answering the question and now I think a debate is proper.
Since we’re in GQ, I’m just going to implore you to substantiate your claims. I believe that you can’t.
I mean, seriously? There is nothing in Trump’s platform that suggests any Russian benefit? So why does he resist all overtures to push back against Russian annexation of Crimea? Are you aware of Trump’s position on this important Russian issue?
In case you’re not, there’s this: Not only has the annexation of Crimea received widespread condemnation from the world, it was the reason Russia was kicked out of the G8. Trump, meanwhile, wants to let them back in.
For you to say “all the support went to Hillary, not Trump” when we know - from Trump’s own team - that Trump’s people met with Russians for the purpose of obtaining help? Come on, man. I get that you have a strong opinion on this, but you won’t even acknowledge simple truths that even Trump can’t deny:
You are obviously going to believe what you wish, but th CIA, FBI, and NSA are publicly on the record saying the opposite. Not to mention Putin.
And Donald Trump Jr.
2 questions:
-
Of all the examples you have obviously heard in the threads you have participated in, why did you give two examples(one of which was extremely silly) that no one to speak of is actually putting forth?
-
Why are the words “meddle” and “collude” in quote marks, if not to support a position you already hold?
Begin Rant
I just want to point out something. (I’m not criticizing you, Ravenman.) I have no idea why the translator translated Putin’s first sentence that way. He did not say “yes, I did. Yes, I did.” But that translation has been in all sorts of official documents, news reports, and Rachel Maddow did half a show analyzing what Putin meant by “Yes I did. Yes I did.”
What Putin said was “Да, я хотел, чтобы он выиграл.” This means, “Yes, I wanted that he would win.” He was clear and explicit about it. Rachel could have saved half an hour analyzing it.
Doesn’t any US news organization have anybody on staff who maybe took a year of high school Russian?
** End rant**
There was no reason given in your cites and frankly agencies like the FBI have shown themselves to be political in nature. If you have a cite from those agencies giving reasons for their opinion then by all means post them.
I’ve pointed out Trump’s aggressive position against Russian interests as well as a trail of Russian money leading directly to the Clintons. Money paid to politicians come with strings attached. It represents a vested interest in that politician. This is in addition to the Russian based “dossier” connected with the Clintons.
You literally have nothing in the way of a connection between the Russians and Trump and everything in the way of connections between Russian interests and HRC.