Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn't Influence the Election - Polidicks

wasn't there a multitude of articles and researches before the election's end talking about how there was no possible way the election could be rigged/hacked after trump claimed it? why does the chance of rigging suddenly have grounds now that the left is claiming it? and why russia of all countries?

[QUOTE=rolfum;51535253]and why russia of all countries?[/QUOTE] It's the caviar obviously.

[QUOTE=rolfum;51535253]wasn't there a multitude of articles and researches before the election's end talking about how there was no possible way the election could be rigged/hacked after trump claimed it? why does the chance of rigging suddenly have grounds now that the left is claiming it? and why russia of all countries?[/QUOTE] That's about rigging votes, which nobody is saying Russia did. They're saying Russia hacked the DNC emails and released them in an effort to hurt Hillary's public image.

[QUOTE=rolfum;51535253]wasn't there a multitude of articles and researches before the election's end talking about how there was no possible way the election could be rigged/hacked after trump claimed it? why does the chance of rigging suddenly have grounds now that the left is claiming it? and why russia of all countries?[/QUOTE] There is a difference between rigging an election and influencing an election through the use hackers to leak documents. I don't think anyone is claiming that the russian government directly messed with ballot boxes. The question is if the Russian government hacked the DNC and whether they intentionally tried to weaken Clinton in favor of Trump. I don't know if you've noticed but America generally hasn't been on best speaking terms with Russia over the past couple decades.

Also shame on anyone not looking at the source lmao Townhall is a heavy conservative news site, and the article is by a columnist who writes articles such as: [img]http://i.imgur.com/O1hIdwG.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Hkoe5wv.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/DWYQINO.png[/img] On top of that, the columnist cites no sources whatsoever. He just says that there was this phonecall. The only other news sites picking up on it: [url]www.americasfreedomfighters.com[/url] [url]www.teaparty.org[/url] So yeah, posting in a Tudd thread.

I thought Townhall was alright. It's so hard to keep track of which news sites are garbage nowadays.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51535296]Also shame on anyone not looking at the source lmao Townhall is a heavy conservative news site, and the article is by a columnist who writes articles such as: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/O1hIdwG.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Hkoe5wv.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DWYQINO.png[/IMG] On top of that, the columnist cites no sources whatsoever. He just says that there was this phonecall. The only other news sites picking up on it: [URL="http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com"]www.americasfreedomfighters.com[/URL] [URL="http://www.teaparty.org"]www.teaparty.org[/URL] So yeah, posting in a Tudd thread.[/QUOTE] So, again, Congrats Tudd [editline]15th December 2016[/editline] Question: Do you think of yourself as an individual who forms a political opinion after looking at all sides of the issue? [QUOTE=Tudd;51534823] Only making the rounds on places like townhall and conservative sites currently, so take it as you will.[/QUOTE] hmmmmm

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51535309]I thought Townhall was alright. It's so hard to keep track of which news sites are garbage nowadays.[/QUOTE] It's fine to be a heavy conservative news site, but for a person, if that's all you fucking post and/or read then that's an issue. [editline]15th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Phycosymo;51535334]hmmmmm[/QUOTE] did he just add that because I would've noticed it if it was there earlier

"Trump is crazy for thinking the elections could be rigged" ... "the election was rigged by the Russians" "Russia hacked the dnc and released emails detailing corruption, collusion against sanders, and a subversion of the democratic process by the dnc" ... "wow fucking Russia how dare they try to influence our elections"

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51535357]did he just add that because I would've noticed it if it was there earlier[/QUOTE] Nah that was there before

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51535357]It's fine to be a heavy conservative news site, but for a person, if that's all you fucking post and/or read then that's an issue. [editline]15th December 2016[/editline] did he just add that because I would've noticed it if it was there earlier[/QUOTE] I saw that addendum there like before there were any other posts in this thread, think you just missed it

[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;51535370]"Trump is crazy for thinking the elections could be rigged" ... "the election was rigged by the Russians" "Russia hacked the dnc and released emails detailing corruption, collusion against sanders, and a subversion of the democratic process by the dnc" ... "wow fucking Russia how dare they try to influence our elections"[/QUOTE] Trump is crazy for thinking that the elections were rigged against him without any solid evidence whatsoever. His only evidence was "IT'S CLINTON LOL" Even though we have evidence, it's still true that Trump is crazy for thinking the elections could be rigged. I don't understand this last bit because I think it's just showing an ignorance in the timeline of events that happened. When the DNC hack happened, no one knew it was russia. Everyone thought it was just some guy who had no connections to russia.

I'm not sure if he actually did but I think it's just a dumb excuse for him to post a thread so he can try to "counter" the current events in an effort to push his agenda. Why don't you wait for more credible sources?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51535409]I saw that addendum there like before there were any other posts in this thread, think you just missed it[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lambeth;51535379]Nah that was there before[/QUOTE] Ah, must be my off day. I would've picked up on his bullshit earlier because that basically translates to "ok guys i posted garbage, but i'm aware of it so please no flame"

[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;51535370]"Trump is crazy for thinking the elections could be rigged" ... "the election was rigged by the Russians"[/quote] Trump was saying the voting would be rigged, which it wasn't. Russia wasn't trying to rig the election, they were trying to influence it. [quote]"Russia hacked the dnc and released emails detailing corruption, collusion against sanders, and a subversion of the democratic process by the dnc" ... "wow fucking Russia how dare they try to influence our elections"[/QUOTE] What "corruption" was unveiled that justifies our political rival to influence our election? Yes the DNC played favorites but that's hardly surprising. If it was something like the South Korea situation then I could understand, but it just looked like politicians acting like politicians. There's also the matter that it was ONLY the DNC, and not the RNC as well. Do you think the RNC don't have their own shady secrets that they're trying to hide?

influencing something so one sidedly is rigging something

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51535428]Ah, must be my off day. I would've picked up on his bullshit earlier because that basically translates to "ok guys i posted garbage, but i'm aware of it so please no flame"[/QUOTE] Yeah I dont think that "well I'm aware its an awful source but I dont have any others!" is a good excuse for using them by any means If you dont have half-decent sources, dont post the article

As much as I dislike Trump, I think it's bullshit to accuse Russia of orchestrating anything. I think Americans have plenty of reasons to be at least skeptical of their government. An accusation like this is fairly extreme, so it really requires extraordinary proof. If they're not willing to provide - openly and publicly - solid proof, then they should shut the fuck up. I mean, I get that it plays well to spin Trump's win into [I]Russia's decision[/I], but you shouldn't be free to just smear an entire other country's government with serious, unfounded accusations just to play politics at your own people.

Well I have seen Townhall be used on here before, but as previously mentioned by me and others, take it with a grain of salt just because the claim is big. The conjecture is on the otherside only a day ago that the Russian hacks were "confirmed" because two anonymous senior intelligence officers told the press this. Alot of the news going into this is very speculative to say the least at the moment.

So is saying that the entire world government is controlled by a secretive society of devil worshipers, and people have posted the Daily Mail before.

What if Comey is a Russian mole?

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51535583]So is saying that the entire world government is controlled by a secretive society of devil worshipers, and people have posted the Daily Mail before.[/QUOTE] Well that was a retarded hyperbole example honestly. I think it is just much simpler if the phone had happened with Comey and Trump. Not so much if Comey is right or not imo. People have a grievance to know what meta game he is playing.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51535566]Well I have seen Townhall be used on here before, but as previously mentioned by me and others, take it with a grain of salt just because the claim is big.[/QUOTE] So you're changing your disclaimer or you adding to it? [QUOTE=Tudd;51534823] making the rounds on places like townhall and conservative sites currently, so take it as you will.[/QUOTE] Hell I think this makes it worse because you're admitting that you posted a severe, potentially hoax of a story that would benefit conservatives and shit on anyone else that was created by a heavy conservative site. Also you're right when townhall gets posted in other threads [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1302583&p=41993234[/url] "The onion is a better source" - BANNED USER

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51535610]So you're changing your disclaimer or you adding to it?[/quote] It's basically the same since I first posted it. I mentioned it was only making the rounds around conservative sites, but just like some news stories and narratives only making the rounds on left-winging sites, I think it is worthy of posting and people to discuss it. [quote] Hell I think this makes it worse because you're admitting that you posted a severe potentially hoax of a story that would benefit conservatives and shit on anyone else, by a conservative site. Also you're right when townhall gets posted in other threads [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1302583&p=41993234[/url] "The onion is a better source" - BANNED USER, Thread lock reason.[/QUOTE] Well much like Huffington post that has some of the shittiest blog news that people take seriously, Townhall.com has it too.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51535566]Well I have seen Townhall be used on here before, but as previously mentioned by me and others, take it with a grain of salt just because the claim is big. The conjecture is on the otherside only a day ago that the Russian hacks were "confirmed" because two anonymous senior intelligence officers told the press this. Alot of the news going into this is very speculative to say the least at the moment.[/QUOTE] Saying "take it with a grain of salt" is incredibly disingenuous and really just isnt good enough. Would you put that disclaimer next to a phony source when citing it on an academic paper? If you present this info with the intention of sparking discussion or providing a certain viewpoint, the foundation needs to be sound in order for the discussion to follow to be so as well. This is why posting certain sources is a bannable offense.

I think Russia is definitely fucking with the elections somehow. I think Trump's cabinet picks are too obviously pro-Russian. I think the Republican's uptick in approval of Vlad reeks of a propaganda campaign. I think Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the documents because it benefits them. I think they hacked the RNC and still have those. I think there's even a chance that some Russian moles in the CIA are the ones who leaked this to the press to create further chaos. I honestly don't know what to think, and I think that that's the whole point.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51535645]Saying "take it with a grain of salt" is incredibly disingenuous and really just isnt good enough. Would you put that disclaimer next to a phony source when citing it on an academic paper? If you present this info with the intention of sparking discussion or providing a certain viewpoint, the foundation needs to be sound in order for the discussion to follow to be so as well. This is why posting certain sources is a bannable offense.[/QUOTE] Well to be fair this place is called, "Sensationalist headlines" on a video game forums, so I don't hold it up to the standards of a Thesis dissertation. And I am aware of what sources fly on here or are explicitly punishable. I just think right now most of this Russian Hacking news is highly speculative so to say what is a "sound' foundation is highly subjective.

Can a mod please add to the OP there is no cited evidence whatsoever? No evidence in an incredibly shit source owned by Salem Media Group? I swear this is practically a ban me thread.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51535665]Well to be fair this place is called, "Sensationalist headlines" on a video game forums, so I don't hold it up to the standards of a Thesis dissertation. [/QUOTE] Oh come on, you dont really think thats good enough do you? Like it or not, there are a lot of people that read SH. When you post an article, you're contributing to the sphere of public perception, and I think you know that. SH, despite its name, does have slightly more stringent rules on sources. People that read stuff on here tend to either take it as fact or keep it somewhere in the back of their mind. Perceptions formed here spread elsewhere as well, SH doesn't operate in a vaccum. I'm not expecting "thesis levels of dissertation" but I feel like we hold ourselves to a better standard than something like reddit at least.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51535665]I just think right now most of this Russian Hacking news is highly speculative so to say what is a "sound' foundation is highly subjective.[/QUOTE] If you think the Russian hacking the election is a hoax, don't you think maybe a better response to those claims would be [I]"Where's the evidence?"[/I] rather than countering with your own dubious claims from dubious sources?