I don’t agree that it negates the effects because, to this point our President still denies (off and on) that Russian meddling even happened. They do it out in the open as a way to flaunt the fact that they have influence over us. Of course that means little here, but it scares the $h!t out of the Europeans who, I’m sure, right now are re-evaluating their faith and dependence on the US (which you might see as a good thing).
Trump certainly isn’t directing his intelligence agencies to counter meddeling as Dan Coats testified under oath before Congress.
As far as Russian credibility…Really? Fear is a much better motivator than credibility. Just ask the Ukrainians.
Where is the PROOF of Russian meddling? Not a single iota has been provided to bolster lefties’ claims that it even happened. The DNC only started howling about it AFTER Hillary lost the election. If it was such a terrible intrusion, why wouldn’t she (and, by extension, Obama) shout about it LONG before November of 2016? Fact is, Obama himself DENIED that it was even POSSIBLE for anyone to “hack” into our election systems. Then Hillary lost and all of a sudden, it was “the Russians’ fault!” I guarantee that no Russian convinced anyone I know to vote for President Trump, but Hillary did.
I doubt, that if I got Valdimr Putin himself to call you and admit to you that Russia was responsible, that you’d believe it.
Any evidence I give you you’ll simply question, dismiss, or deny. Honestly, it’s sad because Russia is trying to divide us as a nation and while I’m sure they’ve been trying for the last 60 years, it seems there effors are finally paying off.
YOU brought up the term “meddling”, not I. I said “interference”…not “meddling.” You lefties have accused the Russians of interfering in our 2016 election to benefit President Trump. All I’m asking is WHERE’S THE PROOF that it even happened other than the DNC’s CLAIM? Then YOU changed the question to "what’s your definition of “meddling.” What has my definition have to do with answering MY assertion that there is no “proof” that Russia interfered with the election as the DNC and their sycophants in the mainstream media have been asserting since November 7, 2016???
Rather, perhaps he should have said, if tens of millions are misdirected by Russians, we’re probably getting what we deserve. In my state, we receive ballots by mail – from the county governments. Pretty hard for Russians to mess that up. Before vote-by-mail, we went to standard voting places, and the media all talked about the election date. Really, that’s a pretty far-fetched notion – at least if people are minimally engaged. If we can be so easily fooled (as if this is a thing that happened), it’s our own faults.
If a mass e-mailing took place to tell everyone to vote in the wrong place, I doubt that Trump would be denying that it was happening, digital forensics would likely point out the source, and the courts would likely be on it (especially in liberal strongholds) to give those who went to the wrong place another chance to vote.
Fear has to have a motivation- and in the correct direction- do be effective. And that requires credibility. Actually, I’m not sure I understand where fear even enters into Russian effectiveness in manipulating our elections (unless (as they’ve done for probably longer than I’ve been alive) they’re telling everyone that the Republicans are war mongers who’ll get them all killed; there’s never been any love between the Russian government and the American right).
…which is WHY it’s inconceivable that the Russians would have tried to sway the election to Trump. Would YOU try to help the one candidate who works FOR American interests instead of the one who has PROVEN that she’s favorably disposed towards Putin and HIS agenda?
No, it wouldn’t be hard for the Russians to mess that up. The voting machines may (or may not) be secure, but the information about mailings, names, numbers etc are vulnerable. Imagine not getting a ballot by mail. You call to find out why and are told your name doesn’t exist or it doesn’t show you are registered to vote.
Imagine you do get a mailer and the return address is wrong…Who know’s. There are lots of ways that the system is insecure and the Russain government is a hell of a lot more creative than I am when it comes to ways to screw with our elections.
Lot’s of people move around between elections, they don’t have a “regular” place to vote. Some people might vote in the next election for the first time, or not have voted in years.
And even if you’re right, you’re basically saying that screwing with elections and trying to actively mislead people is ok. You honestly can’t see where that leads? You can’t see other actors foreign and domestic trying to do what they can to sew confusion? Where does that end? There’s nothing good that can come from turning a blind eye here.
As far as engagement, I’m still not sure why minimal engagement is an excuse not to protect peoples RIGHT to vote?
I agree with you that more people should be engaged, but the reality is that the kinds of people that regularly vote tend to vote more for one party than the other so that party has little incentive to ensure that more people vote, while the other party has every incentive to ensure that as many people as possible vote.
At it’s worst, one party has an incentive to obstruct people that have the RIGHT to vote from voting and the other party has an incentive to allow people to vote who don’t have the RIGHT to vote.
Having said that, the evidence for people voting that shouldn’t vote is minimal, but I don’t deny that there are examples out there. I think there needs to be a healthy, non-partisan debate about how we conduct elections and there are creative and clever ways to find a way to secure elections and reduce the potential that non-voters will vote without preventing too many people that can vote from voting, but that’s probably best left to another topic.
The point of this conversation is that the Russian government actively supported Trump. I can’t prove they changed vote tallies, but I think through social media campaigns stirred up populist unrest based largely on, at least misleading information, but from where I sit, much of it was false.
Come on Q. DN was insinuating that I looked the other way when the BP intimidated (actually he said the BP denied people access) people at polling places. I consider my principles before my allegiance to any party or political ideology.
Actually, several people DID “turn away” rather than confront these thugs, so they not only “intimidated” voters, they “turned several away,” too. Then, after the election, our racist AG refused to prosecute (further) those who were charged with this crime.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Putin (or ANY Russian) has “compromising information on President Trump.” This is NOT a man who “fears” exposure of his peccadilloes in particular. Certainly not to the extent he would betray all of US to hide them. He has been harder on Putin than either of the last two administrations…by FAR…which is why it’s past curious why Putin would have favored him in 2016 over the corrupt Clinton who he KNEW he could intimidate and/or buy off because he’d already DONE it.