• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yes, Virginia, Russians did help Trump Win

Unitedwestand13 said:
If Wikileaks did not release the emails it had, clinton would have won.
Click to expand...

Maybe...maybe not. But what the e-mails did do was confirm how disgusting and back handed her political machine was. It isn't like anyone refuted that the e-mails were true. Just the opposite. We know the e-mails were genuine and that her campaign used DNC money without the DNC chairs permission or knowledge.
 
Superfly said:
Who is talking about Caitlyn Jenner? Where the hell did that come from?
Click to expand...

I just tried to think of the most significant (according to the left) contribution the left made over the Obama era and that's the first thing that came to mind.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Maybe...maybe not. But what the e-mails did do was confirm how disgusting and back handed her political machine was. It isn't like anyone refuted that the e-mails were true. Just the opposite. We know the e-mails were genuine and that her campaign used DNC money without the DNC chairs permission or knowledge.
Click to expand...

Russia stole those emails via hacking. They gave the emails to Wikileaks, who released them.

Those emails were stolen and released without consent.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If Wikileaks did not release the emails it had, clinton would have won.
Click to expand...

And if they hadn't would the election have been any more legitimate? Those emails detailed quite a bit of corruption all in an attempt to grab power. Even if the emails hadn't been released the corruption would have still been there. Which means even if the Russians did some how manage to influence the election then all that it more than likely did was counter act the corruption that was already there. Thinking about it that way then maybe, just maybe the Russians did us an unintentional favor by evening the odds. Note that is not an excuse and the Russians should not have tried to do what they did. But then again, Hillary and the DNC shouldn't have done what they did either.
 
Kal'Stang said:
According to Rosenstein it didn't affect the outcome. But I guess you will ignore the DAG of the DOJ....cause, ya know....TRUMP! :roll:
Click to expand...

That is not what he said.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Russia stole those emails via hacking. They gave the emails to Wikileaks, who released them.

Those emails were stolen and released without consent.
Click to expand...

If that is true, that doesn't change that they were accurate. Not one single Democrat EVER challenged the veracity of the e-mails. Not one. Not ever! Stolen or not is not relevant. The e-mails informed the public of her behavior. Now, had she been a better person and been more fair in her dealings, then it wouldn't have mattered if the e-mails had been stolen or who stole them. Hell, if democrats were smart enough not to clink on unverified links in their e-mail none of this would have happened.

Here is a great read on why you shouldn't clink on links in your e-mail: https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety If after you read that link, you don't think the Democrats were stupid, I don't know what else I can say.
 
Can we please stop talking about the 2016 election, it was the most apalling and disgustin vents in the history of the united states and why ppl want to keep talking about horrible things is beyond me. perhaps it is just stupdiity
 
Kal'Stang said:
To be honest I'm conflicted. As an American yes, it does piss me off that the Russians tried to interfere. However also as an American all the advertising and words is just free speech. A Right that I apply to one and all no matter where they are in the world. Which should I put above the other? Country? Or Rights? That is the dilemma that I have.
Click to expand...

What about the wire fraud? What about the identity theft? What about the hackings(though that was not part of this indictment)? This is not a free speech issue, it is a criminal issue, as in people breaking our laws. Your attempts to spin it into a free speech issue to defend your dear Trump is laughable and sad.
 
ksu_aviator said:
If that is true, that doesn't change that they were accurate. Not one single Democrat EVER challenged the veracity of the e-mails. Not one. Not ever! Stolen or not is not relevant. The e-mails informed the public of her behavior. Now, had she been a better person and been more fair in her dealings, then it wouldn't have mattered if the e-mails had been stolen or who stole them. Hell, if democrats were smart enough not to clink on unverified links in their e-mail none of this would have happened.

Here is a great read on why you shouldn't clink on links in your e-mail: https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety If after you read that link, you don't think the Democrats were stupid, I don't know what else I can say.
Click to expand...

They were stolen and that makes their content irrelevant. They were someone’s private correspondence and were stolen and released against the wills of the owners of said emails.

The DNC are the victims of a crime.
 
Redress said:
What about the wire fraud? What about the identity theft? What about the hackings(though that was not part of this indictment)? This is not a free speech issue, it is a criminal issue, as in people breaking our laws. Your attempts to spin it into a free speech issue to defend your dear Trump is laughable and sad.
Click to expand...

Cool your jets Redress. That is the easy part to condemn. The hard part is what most people are considering as possibly having the biggest effect in influencing the election...which was all the advertising and words used by the Russians.

And to be quite honest I find it to be highly ironic that liberals are outraged at people breaking our laws when they uphold illegal immigrants as reasons that its OK to break the same laws that these Russians just broke. (minus the hackings)
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
They were stolen and that makes their content irrelevant. They were someone’s private correspondence and were stolen and released against the wills of the owners of said emails.

The DNC are the victims of a crime.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't make the content irrelevant. The content is accurate. If this was a court of law, your argument would hold up. But this isn't. So yeah, I can see why the Democrats wouldn't want their e-mails stolen and released. That meant people would have confirmation as to how dirty they are. If I were them, I'd have wanted to keep my secrets a secret too. That doesn't make their behavior any less immoral.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And to be quite honest I find it to be highly ironic that liberals are outraged at people breaking our laws when they uphold illegal immigrants as reasons that its OK to break the same laws that these Russians just broke. (minus the hackings)
Click to expand...

A far better example would be H.W. givine state secrets to Boris Yeltsin and the opposition to Gorbachev (who was actually trying to reform andnot simply erect a klepto-state IE Russian Federation in the first goddamn place)
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
They were stolen and that makes their content irrelevant. They were someone’s private correspondence and were stolen and released against the wills of the owners of said emails.

The DNC are the victims of a crime.
Click to expand...

No. It does not make them irrelevant. If Mueller indicts Trump on money laundering does that mean that his investigation is irrelevant because it didn't prove collusion which is its primary purpose? We both know that the answer to that is "of course not". It would still mean Trump was guilty of money laundering. That you're trying to dismiss the emails as irrelevant is making you no better than the very thing that you accuse Trump supporters of.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
A far better example would be H.W. givine state secrets to Boris Yeltsin and the opposition to Gorbachev (who was actually trying to reform andnot simply erect a klepto-state IE Russian Federation in the first goddamn place)
Click to expand...

That works to. ;)
 
Superfly said:
I was being facetious.
Click to expand...
I wasn't :neener

But come on now, if you've got a little time and money to influence an election you're not going to waste it with a silly stunt at a campaign rally where the vote is already 99.99% decided the way you'd like the election to go. A stunt like that only makes Trump supporters laugh and Clinton supporters angry... that is to say, not influence but sow discord.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don’t even remember what those emails said.

They were stolen emails, so they are akin to “fruits of the poisoned tree.”
Click to expand...

Purposeful ignorance is not a good look on anyone. If you don't remember then I'd suggest you read up on them again in order to stay informed of the things that you are defending.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Cool your jets Redress. That is the easy part to condemn. The hard part is what most people are considering as possibly having the biggest effect in influencing the election...which was all the advertising and words used by the Russians.
Click to expand...

The issue is crimes. If you want to try and spin it as something else, you will get called on it and look silly.

And to be quite honest I find it to be highly ironic that liberals are outraged at people breaking our laws when they uphold illegal immigrants as reasons that its OK to break the same laws that these Russians just broke. (minus the hackings)
Click to expand...

Show where I have said it was OK to break any law. I will wait...
 
Redress said:
The issue is crimes. If you want to try and spin it as something else, you will get called on it and look silly.
Click to expand...

I don't consider speech to be a crime. :shrug: If you think that advertisements and words are not free speech then you will be the one looking silly, not me.

Redress said:
Show where I have said it was OK to break any law. I will wait...
Click to expand...

Where did I say that you have? But since you brought it up, do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't consider speech to be a crime. :shrug: If you think that advertisements and words are not free speech then you will be the one looking silly, not me.
Click to expand...

And no one is being charged with speech. Do try and fail less.

Where did I say that you have? But since you brought it up, do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

AH, so you tried to distract from my argument with something you think others have said. Nice try, but that is one of the oldest, lamest tricks used by people unable to debate issues.
 
Redress said:
And no one is being charged with speech. Do try and fail less.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that no one is. But we're talking about more than just what they're being charged for aren't we? I know that the question that I answered was. Narrowing it down to your own argument sure isn't helping you win that's for sure. Ignoring context never does help one win. ;)

Redress said:
AH, so you tried to distract from my argument with something you think others have said. Nice try, but that is one of the oldest, lamest tricks used by people unable to debate issues.
Click to expand...

Nope, just made an observation about liberals. It was up to you to respond to it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom