Even if Russia helped Trump beat Hillary, it was fair and square

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Two totally different topics. Are you able to stay focused on the subject of the OP?

Do you think it is okay for Russia to interfere in the US election?

Stay on topic and give us a yes or no.


(For the record, I think it was wrong for the US to try and interfere with the Brexit vote. I am being consistent: Foreign Powers interfering in another sovereign state's democratic process is wrong.)

The election is a civil conflict between two rival factions of the same state. A foreign state often intervenes in a civil conflict of a state. It is legal and common. Obama intervened in Brexit on the side of remain.

a reply to: JeremySun

She won by 2.1 percent.

She "won" the election?

She gathered the electoral votes?

Or are you one of "them" that suddenly thinks the electoral college should be banished and NY and California should choose all future presidents moving forward....?

a reply to: Doctor Smith

No, that isn't ok with me either. Both wrong.

Stay on point: Russian interference in US election.

Good or bad.

a reply to: eluryh22


She won the popular vote by 2.1 percent, just as the polls predicted. She was more popular than Donald Trump.

a reply to: Leonidas

I was responding directly to your comment that said this:

Nice to know you are fine with a foreign power interfering in the democratic process as long as your candidate wins.

Not sure that is how patriotism works, but you do you.

So, yeah, my response about selective outrage was as on topic as yours about selective outrage.

a reply to: JeremySun

Common, not legal.

originally posted by: JeremySun
Trump and Hillary were political rivals in the election. A foreign state often sides with one faction against another faction in a domestic conflict. France helped Henry Tudor kill Richard III at the battle of Bosworth Field, and it was all fair and square.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just because it was fair and square hundreds of years ago it's still fair and square today? Years ago it was fair and square for me to kill you and then sell your family into slavery do you think that should still be allowed?

originally posted by: Leonidas

Are you ok with Russian interference in the election? Yes or no?

No, but should the American people dismiss the indisputable information because of the alleged source?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fail. Go back, read again.

It's early in the year, you get a redo.

Try and stay focused on point.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: JeremySun
Trump and Hillary were political rivals in the election. A foreign state often sides with one faction against another faction in a domestic conflict. France helped Henry Tudor kill Richard III at the battle of Bosworth Field, and it was all fair and square.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just because it was fair and square hundreds of years ago it's still fair and square today? Years ago it was fair and square for me to kill you and then sell your family into slavery do you think that should still be allowed?

Obama went to Britain and intervened in Brexit on the side of remain. A referendum or an election is a civil conflict between factions of the same state. Obama interfered in Brexit. It is fair and legal and common.

a reply to: Leonidas

*eyeroll*

No thanks. I think I made my on-topic point, just fine. I don't need a redo.

a reply to: eluryh22

Or are you one of "them" that suddenly thinks the electoral college should be banished and NY and California should choose all future presidents moving forward....?

Total straw man argument. Try getting the people from Ny and CA to vote the same way everytime.

a reply to: Leonidas


Ya know who else doesn't allow other nations to affect their political process, North Coria.



Maybe you would have preferred not to know that the woman running for president was a scoundrel who accepted donations and gifts from known human traffickers? Americans, Red or blue should be thanking WHOEVER brought that info to light!

I just don't understand the gong show going on in your country.

Its shameful!

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Leonidas

*eyeroll*

No thanks. I think I made my on-topic point, just fine. I don't need a redo.

Swing and miss then sport.

1. Trump would have won without the Podesta emails. Trump voters already hated Hillary Clinton.

2. The Podesta emails were not covered by MSM. They were covered by Trump himself. So only Trump supporters were exposed to them. No one else were.

3. There is no evidence Russia hacked Podesta.

4. Even if Putin ordered the hack, it was fair and square. Such foreign interventions in a civil conflict is legal and fair and common.

originally posted by: JeremySun

originally posted by: carewemust
The MSM polls had Hillary winning right up until the vote tallies started to roll in on November 8th.

Now they're saying that the Russians were dragging her down for MONTHS before November 8th?

The American electorate is not gullible enough to believe what the MSM says any more. Right? RIGHT??? (crickets chirping)

Final poll had Hillary up by 2.1 percent. She won by 2.1 percent.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

SoOo... are you merely being sarcastic or are you saying that the popular vote is how she won... second place?

originally posted by: JeremySun
1. Trump would have won without the Podesta emails. Trump voters already hated Hillary Clinton.

2. The Podesta emails were not covered by MSM. They were covered by Trump himself. So only Trump supporters were exposed to them. No one else were.

3. There is no evidence Russia hacked Podesta.

4. Even if Putin ordered the hack, it was fair and square. Such foreign interventions in a civil conflict is legal and fair and common.

1. Most likely yes.
2. They were covered by FOX. (In addition to ATS, Twitter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc..)
3. Trump admits that Russia/Putin did actively work to affect the election. But nobody knows to what degree.

originally posted by: JeremySun
a reply to: eluryh22


She won the popular vote by 2.1 percent, just as the polls predicted. She was more popular than Donald Trump.

~sigh~

Another electoral college denier again.

Clinton was predicted to win the ELECTORAL COLLEGE with 323 to 352 electoral votes.

She got 232.

There is your numbers.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: JeremySun

Hillary Clinton helped Trump defeat Hillary Clinton, Russia comes a very distant 2nd place when it comes to Hillarys epic loss.

And it wasn't fair because she shafted Bernie and had CNN spreading disinformation - and with all that she still lost........to Donald Trump.

And if you don't think the absolute falsehoods, fabrications, and disinformation put forth by Breitbart, with Trump's Chief Strategist, Stephen K Bannon at the helm had a effect, you are either extremely deluded, or lying.

originally posted by: Leonidas
Nice to know you are fine with a foreign power interfering in the democratic process as long as your candidate wins.

Not sure that is how patriotism works, but you do you.

Governments that live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

I dont for 1 second believe that Russia influenced the election but even if they did all they are doing is utilising a system that if not put in place by the US has been heavily applied by them over the past 50 years.
It is such an integral part of US policy that they dont even hide it and when covert propagnada means dont work they just make up an excuse and invade.

Once again I dont think the Russians did shyte but if it was proven they did I still defend them over it, someone needed to do something about the USA's runaway Military Industrial Complex and if it was the Russians then it just proves theyre the good guys