USA Kamala Harris the 47th President of the United States - Hopefully.

[CD Xbow]

Why does anyone in Australia care about minor and ineffectual Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign in the US?

It was trivial in terms of changing the outcome and in general terms. Especially compared to Israeli interference in US Politics, US and Chinese interference in politics all over the world including Australia, and in the specific case of Trump's election, the work of Cambridge Analytica and Hillary Clinton's own hubris.

That is so dumb.
Election integrity is vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. Surely you understand that. It is possible that 'minor and ineffectual' interference got Trumpy over the line in 2016 and denied the will of the people, after all, Hilary did win millions of votes more than Trump.

 

[Seeds]

Desperation was installing Kamala and thinking she's the messiah.

Harris is a poor candidate. She is basically a real life version of selina myers from veep. Even still .... she is light years ahead of trump.

What an alternate reality you live in.

No leader was afraid of Joe. Kamala is in his administration as is just a continuation if she gets up.. What makes her this leader that everyone now fears?

Xi probably wont invade taiwan with either joe or harris staying in power. Its not the leaders personality or perceived strength that matters. Its their policy position and whether they are willing to support and defend liberal democracy around the world. Trump does not care. Actually i think he secretly despises it. His only beef with China is trade.

 

[ferball]

That is so dumb.
Election integrity is vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. Surely you understand that. It is possible that 'minor and ineffectual' interference got Trumpy over the line in 2016 and denied the will of the people, after all, Hilary did win millions of votes more than Trump.

So what did the Russians actually do that changed the election in a way that made those other things trivial?

It was basically a little bit of propaganda. In the US where election integrity is almost a non existent thing. This time 20 years ago everyone realised that. It was the aftermath of the 2000 election and everyone knew about the voter suppression and lack of security of voting machiones owned by Republican party affiliates.

How can you focus on the Russians when if Clinton had acted with integrity and humility she would have won? How can you focus on the Russians when CA, which wasn't a Russian organisation, effectively targeted people in particular demographics and manipulated voter outcomes as a result? Its just a massive distraction from what really went on.

Its the same with these riots in the UK. The UK media is banging on about Russians now even tho for the last 20 years they and UK politicians from both major parties have stoked racism and islamophobia non stop all day every day. Even the ****en French tried it to cover their recent exercise in neo colonialist fascism in New Caledonia.

Despite that Russian interference Trumpo's admin still sent Ukraine hundreds of millions of dollars worth weapons and that was before Putin even invaded.

 

[Father Jack]

So what did the Russians actually do that changed the election in a way that made those other things trivial?

It was basically a little bit of propaganda. In the US where election integrity is almost a non existent thing. This time 20 years ago everyone realised that. It was the aftermath of the 2000 election and everyone knew about the voter suppression and lack of security of voting machiones owned by Republican party affiliates.

How can you focus on the Russians when if Clinton had acted with integrity and humility she would have won? How can you focus on the Russians when CA, which wasn't a Russian organisation, effectively targeted people in particular demographics and manipulated voter outcomes as a result? Its just a massive distraction from what really went on.

Its the same with these riots in the UK. The UK media is banging on about Russians now even tho for the last 20 years they and UK politicians from both major parties have stoked racism and islamophobia non stop all day every day. Even the ****en French tried it to cover their recent exercise in neo colonialist fascism in New Caledonia.

Despite that Russian interference Trumpo's admin still sent Ukraine hundreds of millions of dollars worth weapons and that was before Putin even invaded.

Yes, Trump was ever so keen to give Ukraine that money, wasn't he?

 

[Magnum27]

So you'll put me on ignore, rather than just say you're wrong?

Classic cult behavior, deflect and change direction.

 

[ferball]

Yes, Trump was ever so keen to give Ukraine that money, wasn't he?

He did tho didn't he. He tried to extort some political advantage but still caved and handed it over.

 

[CD Xbow]

So what did the Russians actually do that changed the election in a way that made those other things trivial?

It was basically a little bit of propaganda. In the US where election integrity is almost a non existent thing. This time 20 years ago everyone realised that. It was the aftermath of the 2000 election and everyone knew about the voter suppression and lack of security of voting machiones owned by Republican party affiliates.

How can you focus on the Russians when if Clinton had acted with integrity and humility she would have won? How can you focus on the Russians when CA, which wasn't a Russian organisation, effectively targeted people in particular demographics and manipulated voter outcomes as a result? Its just a massive distraction from what really went on.

Its the same with these riots in the UK. The UK media is banging on about Russians now even tho for the last 20 years they and UK politicians from both major parties have stoked racism and islamophobia non stop all day every day. Even the ****en French tried it to cover their recent exercise in neo colonialist fascism in New Caledonia.

Despite that Russian interference Trumpo's admin still sent Ukraine hundreds of millions of dollars worth weapons and that was before Putin even invaded.

We don't know for sure how effective Russian interference was, because there is no way to measure it's effects in changing votes. It was a huge misinformation and propaganda campaign. Did it work? Some folks believe it did. From the wiki:

'Three states where Trump won by very close margins—margins significantly less than the number of votes cast for third-party candidates in those states—gave him an Electoral College majority. Mayer writes that if only 12% of these third-party voters "were persuaded by Russian propaganda—based on hacked Clinton-campaign analytics—not to vote for Clinton", this would have been enough to win the election for Trump.[85] Political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson, in a detailed forensic analysis concludes that Russian trolls and hackers persuaded enough Americans "to either vote a certain way or not vote at all" to affect the election results.[85][329] Specifically, Jamieson argued that two factors that caused a drop in intention to vote for Clinton reported to pollsters can be traced to Russian work: The publicizing of excerpts of speeches by Clinton made to investment banks for high fees and disinformation on FBI head Comey's public denunciation of Clinton's actions as "extremely careless" (see above).[85]'

Remember there were other aspect not just disinfo. Russians hacked the DNC and democrat individuals. They bagged polling data and analytics, that data would be invaluable for the GOP. Then there was the wikileaks leak, Assange got it from the Russians. Wait there is more! There were the direct Russian hacks of the state voting systems.

So to try to diminish the effects of multipronged Russian interference in the 2016 election seems both wrong and foolish.

 

[Bloods86]

Lol.
You guys cant even talk about Kamala in her own thread. Everything is ....but Trump.
He owns every fibre of your beings and will continue to do so against hollow Harris.
Hope you're mentally prepared unlike 2016.

Look I get you don't seem to follow US politics that closely given some of your posting, but surely you understand it's a Presidential election between 2 alternatives. And it's absolutely fair game to compare one candidate against another. Especially when that other candidate (Trump) is uniquely anti democratic, ignorant and unstable.

You know full well, because people are pointing it out to you, that Harris is not the candidate that many on here would have preferred. But in comparison to the alternative, it's not even close, Harris is by far the better Presidential candidate.

I know it's hard to defend Trump though, so I understand the game you feel you have to play.

 

[bourbons]

Lol. What utter tosh.

It always amazes me that you guys denounce anything Murdoch but just swallow bullshit from places like The Guardian without question.

Tosh eh? Who needs the Guardian mate, we have it direct from the bloke himself

Trump endorses a $60 bible one day after comparing himself to Jesus

Trump endorsed the country music-inspired print one day after he compared himself to Jesus in a Truth Social post.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Bloods86]

IDK, I give some credit to the principled stands that the likes of Romney, Cheney, Pence, Kinzinger, Collins, Murkowski and others took against a President who refused to accept the will of the American people and attempted to fraudulently overturn a Presidential election.

Likewise some credit to other Republicans in the executive branch and state officials in refusing to go along with Trump's schemes. e.g.

Republicans Jeffrey Rosen (Acting AG), Richard Donoghue (Deputy Acting AG), Steven Engel (Assistant AG) who refused to dishonestly sign letters claiming voter fraud and threatened to resign if Trump made moves (which he was suggesting to the latter two) to replace them one by one until he found someone loyal enough to lie for him.

Republican Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Secretary of State, who refused to support Trump's false claims of election fraud and overturn the state's results. And failed to "find the votes" when Trump asked.

Rusty Bowers, Arizona GOP House Speaker, who refused to submit illegitimate electors from his state, despite a concerted effort by Trump to pressure him.

Some of Trump's "best people", that have worked with him and now won't vote for him, like Mark Esper, Secretary of Defence and Stephanie Grisham, WH Communications Director and Press Secretary (who has endorsed Harris).

There are many more Republican politicians at federal and state level, officials who worked with Trump, had dealings with Trump, or are just Republicans with some principles worth praising, that refuse to support his candidacy.

What a surprise. Stokey finds the concept of Republicans actually standing up for their supposed principles of democracy and freedom of speech, something to laugh about.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

You bring race into every thread you enter. Calling everyone you dont agree with racist. You see everything as racial. By trying so hard to be non racist you are actually the most racist person on this site and will continue to highlight the fact.

You need to admit trump is a racist but you can't . I feel sorry for you.

 

[bourbons]

I saw a tweet in this thread or another that did exactly the same thing in claiming Trump's crowds were doctored.

But Trump.

The one with about 5 clear and verified instances of the same cloned group of supporters?

Umm yes mate, thats kinda the point lol. In Trump's case it was objectively true, in Harris' case nutters were raving about reflections from the plane not being right or something, with about 20 videos from different angles all confirming the crowd was legit.

How are you guys so bad at this?

 

[bourbons]

Lol. MTG. She is just a 'squad' member of the GOP.
The only difference is her and Gaetz as much as they think they do control the party gave very little say.

Yep, so little say that those 2 were responsible for the removal of their party's speaker

 

[bourbons]

Kamala has said nothing but the same thing since anointed. Thinking on her feet or going off teleprompter is a bridge too far for her it seems.

Until she says something of substance, engages with the media, or has an unscripted press conference there is really nothing else to say about her.

Haha, deflect deflect deflect.

Thanks for confirming that Kamala has made no claims about Trump's crowds though

 

[bourbons]

Sorry I missed your sarcasm. I didnt look at who was posting. You all just blend into one.

Hahaha. Absolutely flailing.

More I say, MOAR!!!

 

[bourbons]

Im engaged in the campaign. I havent got involved in the crowd sizes. Other than replying to you.

So you haven't got involved, except for that time you did?

chefs kiss, going well mate

 

[bourbons]

There was a post about Trump losing his mind on social media about Harris AI-doctoring a rally photo and that she should be disqualified.

You then said that other people have said the same thing about Trump faking his crowd sizes.

This is obviously a ridiculous false equivalence, so I then asked you when Harris had ever said anything about Trump AI-doctoring his crowd photos.

You then tried to ignore it, play dumb, then pretend you didn't actually care.

And now you're pretending it was out of context and that I'm just confused. Gaslighting 101.

To sum things up - you talk a lot of sh*t

Stokey, you've been absolutely destroyed here. Again.

****, its always so easy too

I have serious concerns for your state of mind if things keep trending as they are over there in the US of A, please consider reaching out for professional help.

 

[faible]

Stokey really flapping about these last few days. Can't quite work out a line of attack on Harris. Seems similar to Trump really, can't quite work out what they want to do. I assume he'll conveniently find out a consistent line of attack around the same time Trump does. Not that he supports Trump or anything.

 

[bourbons]

Not a single bit of your last sentence is correct. Try again.

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt!

Can we please stop arguing and take a few moments to watch this inspiring ad from the great man.

The great man has game.

Just finished up my meeting with the great man. He's going to win bigly.View attachment 2027808

 

[bourbons]

? You think calling Putin a liar publicly would help US and Russia relations?

This might fly if Trump himself didn't pretend he mispoke once he realised how badly that Helsinki thing went for him lol

Trump blames 'double negative' for furor over Putin meeting

WASHINGTON (AP) — Blame it on that pesky double negative. After 27 hours of near-universal condemnation, President Donald Trump claimed Tuesday he simply misspoke in Helsinki when he said, "I don't see any reason why it would" be Russia that interfered in the U.S. election.

apnews.com

You guys are so low information

 

[GreyCrow]

Lol.
You guys cant even talk about Kamala in her own thread. Everything is ....but Trump.
He owns every fibre of your beings and will continue to do so against hollow Harris.
Hope you're mentally prepared unlike 2016.

Lol you are so fragile you see words where there arent any

Time and time again you quote me then go off some rant that has nothing to do with my post

I said you were so upset you mashed buttons spitting hard to get your oh so righteous point across

And you made it about Trump

Have a break chappy - you're cooked

Unless of course you want to discuss the 4 talking points of Harris I posted. But we all know you wont

 

[ferball]

We don't know for sure how effective Russian interference was, because there is no way to measure it's effects in changing votes. It was a huge misinformation and propaganda campaign. Did it work? Some folks believe it did. From the wiki:

'Three states where Trump won by very close margins—margins significantly less than the number of votes cast for third-party candidates in those states—gave him an Electoral College majority. Mayer writes that if only 12% of these third-party voters "were persuaded by Russian propaganda—based on hacked Clinton-campaign analytics—not to vote for Clinton", this would have been enough to win the election for Trump.[85] Political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson, in a detailed forensic analysis concludes that Russian trolls and hackers persuaded enough Americans "to either vote a certain way or not vote at all" to affect the election results.[85][329] Specifically, Jamieson argued that two factors that caused a drop in intention to vote for Clinton reported to pollsters can be traced to Russian work: The publicizing of excerpts of speeches by Clinton made to investment banks for high fees and disinformation on FBI head Comey's public denunciation of Clinton's actions as "extremely careless" (see above).[85]'

Remember there were other aspect not just disinfo. Russians hacked the DNC and democrat individuals. They bagged polling data and analytics, that data would be invaluable for the GOP. Then there was the wikileaks leak, Assange got it from the Russians. Wait there is more! There were the direct Russian hacks of the state voting systems.

So to try to diminish the effects of multipronged Russian interference in the 2016 election seems both wrong and foolish.

So that brings up another point.

The Russian interference (if Guccifer2.0 was Russian, tho on balance of probabliity that is more likely) exposed a level of duplicity in the Clinton camp that showed maybe they didn't deserve the presidency. (Btw the hacking of the DNC and democrat individuals was the wikileaks leak, not two different things.)

This isn't necessarily a bad thing in terms of democratic functioning. Unless you think its okay to hide stuff from voters to get the election outcome you prefer. But how is that a good thing?

See the bolded? People in the US were still suffering the fallout from the GFC, something no major players have done prison time for to this day.

Mueller's investigation found that Russian hacks did nothing to change voter tallies and had no bearing on any actual count of votes, the only state interference I'm aware of meant some areas had to use paper rolls to check off on voters which is what we do in this country and frankly is a method I'd trust more.

Ultimately Clinton lost that election thru her own failings as a person and if she'd acted with more humility and integrity she wouldn't have.

Furthermore the manipulation of social media to potentially change votes thru online targeting of voters to change their perception of the world was most effectively carried out by non Russian organisations who were employed by the Trump campaign to achieve those outcomes. It generates alot less attention than a Russia panic does tho and as a result is probably a greater threat to US "democracy" than Russia is.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

We don't know for sure how effective Russian interference was, because there is no way to measure it's effects in changing votes. It was a huge misinformation and propaganda campaign. Did it work? Some folks believe it did. From the wiki:

'Three states where Trump won by very close margins—margins significantly less than the number of votes cast for third-party candidates in those states—gave him an Electoral College majority. Mayer writes that if only 12% of these third-party voters "were persuaded by Russian propaganda—based on hacked Clinton-campaign analytics—not to vote for Clinton", this would have been enough to win the election for Trump.[85] Political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson, in a detailed forensic analysis concludes that Russian trolls and hackers persuaded enough Americans "to either vote a certain way or not vote at all" to affect the election results.[85][329] Specifically, Jamieson argued that two factors that caused a drop in intention to vote for Clinton reported to pollsters can be traced to Russian work: The publicizing of excerpts of speeches by Clinton made to investment banks for high fees and disinformation on FBI head Comey's public denunciation of Clinton's actions as "extremely careless" (see above).[85]'

Remember there were other aspect not just disinfo. Russians hacked the DNC and democrat individuals. They bagged polling data and analytics, that data would be invaluable for the GOP. Then there was the wikileaks leak, Assange got it from the Russians. Wait there is more! There were the direct Russian hacks of the state voting systems.

So to try to diminish the effects of multipronged Russian interference in the 2016 election seems both wrong and foolish.

And let's not forget the head of Trump's campaign literally handing confidential internal polling data to a Russian asset.

 

[CD Xbow]

So that brings up another point.

The Russian interference (if Guccifer2.0 was Russian, tho on balance of probabliity that is more likely) exposed a level of duplicity in the Clinton camp that showed maybe they didn't deserve the presidency. (Btw the hacking of the DNC and democrat individuals was the wikileaks leak, not two different things.)

This isn't necessarily a bad thing in terms of democratic functioning. Unless you think its okay to hide stuff from voters to get the election outcome you prefer. But how is that a good thing?

See the bolded? People in the US were still suffering the fallout from the GFC, something no major players have done prison time for to this day.

Mueller's investigation found that Russian hacks did nothing to change voter tallies and had no bearing on any actual count of votes, the only state interference I'm aware of meant some areas had to use paper rolls to check off on voters which is what we do in this country and frankly is a method I'd trust more.

Ultimately Clinton lost that election thru her own failings as a person and if she'd acted with more humility and integrity she wouldn't have.

Furthermore the manipulation of social media to potentially change votes thru online targeting of voters to change their perception of the world was most effectively carried out by non Russian organisations who were employed by the Trump campaign to achieve those outcomes. It generates alot less attention than a Russia panic does tho and as a result is probably a greater threat to US "democracy" than Russia is.

I don't doubt Clintons failings as a candidate contributed, just as I'm pretty sure it's in the US establishment interest, of all colors, to deny Russian interference changed anything. When you look at all the different modalities that we know the Russians were successful with and the means by which Trump squeaked in, I don't think you can actually say that Russian interference didn't get him over the line. There may be things they did we don't know about.

Trumps performance at the Helsinki conference showed a beaten dog submitting to it's owner and his words supported that - he expressed a belief in what Putin told him over the US security agencies. And that little private tete-tete they had, unrecorded where they swapped banana cake recipes. The whole event was so extraordinary, I took it as Putin owning the Don, in part by meddling successfully in the election and getting him elected. Trumps remained unnaturally Putin and Russia friendly since.

 

[Not Important]

standing with workers as tim in particular has and demonstrating how callous trump has been to workers will hopefully pay dividends for kamila electorally.