Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - document

[BmorePat87]

(04-21-2017, 10:15 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It makes her more popular in the Liberal Stronghold of California.

and with the nearly 137m Americans who voted across all states. 

[*bfine32*]

Folks still hung up on the popular....lulz



As to the OP: This could be an example of "Be careful what you ask for"

[tigerseye]

When the investigations into voter fraud are complete the legitimacy of the popular vote will be determined.

Whenever I hear people on the TV or in articles talk about the Russia controvercy their proof is that there has been this long investigation so there is your proof. They demand everything about Russia to be investigated then the proof is the length of the investigation.

Or the proof is because Clapper, Mccain, Brennan, Comey, Schiff, CNN, Main Steam Propaganda Outlets, Rothchild, Soros, etc.... says so or their professional experience and evaluation makes them think so or wish it has to be true because it is what is best for them and their agenda.

It wasn't Russia it was a terrible candidate and her laziness.

If HRC hadn't cheated Bernie Sanders, he might of won.

If we don't start making sound decisions based on the TRUTH and not political agendas and personal selfish agendas, we are all going to be toast.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-21-2017, 10:23 AM)Dill Wrote: What lost Hillary the election was a successful disinformation campaign from Russia and Fox News. People chose the "huge" nickel over the dime. That was the kind of thinking that won Trump the election--to the detriment of the county.

Saying Hillary had the approval of more Americans than Trump is hardly "dishonest" if every citizen is equally a citizen and more of them voted for her.

Saying  Hillary won the popular vote is a "misleading" way of saying she had the approval of more of the population than Trump. Which she did.

How is it that you introduce points not under question in your answer? No one says winning California makes Clinton more popular in Alabama. Acknowledging the fact that Hillary won the popular vote does not entail a claim that "little states don't matter."

The issue here is that when people say the "majority" of Americans voted for Clinton it creates this illusion that a staggering amount of people voted for Clinton throughout the nation rather than Trunp. But when you take into account all the States and the counties within them, the popularity for Trump stretches farther than the popularity of Clinton.

So, Clinton being "popular" is meaningless when you can't actually apply that label to the majority of people that live in other states besides California.

[GMDino]

(04-21-2017, 04:11 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The issue here is that when people say the "majority" of Americans voted for Clinton it creates this illusion that a staggering amount of people voted for Clinton throughout the nation rather than Trunp. But when you take into account all the States and the counties within them, the popularity for Trump stretches farther than the popularity of Clinton.

So, Clinton being "popular" is meaningless when you can't actually apply that label to the majority of people that live in other states besides California.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/

Quote:The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Clinton's 2.1% margin ranks third among defeated candidates, according to statistics from US Elections Atlas. Andrew Jackson won by more than 10% in 1824 but was denied the presidency, which went to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden received 3% more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, who eventually triumphed by one electoral vote.

I understand how the electoral college works and why she lost...but 2.9 million more voters voted for her.  I don't care if they all lived in the same state (they didn't), but if that isn't a "staggering amount" what is?

As soon as Trump's investigation into those 3 million illegal voters is over and all those votes are thrown out (any day now, I'm sure) then you will have a case I suppose.  

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-21-2017, 04:24 PM)GMDino Wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/


I understand how the electoral college works and why she lost...but 2.9 million more voters voted for her.  I don't care if they all lived in the same state (they didn't), but if that isn't a "staggering amount" what is?

As soon as Trump's investigation into those 3 million illegal voters is over and all those votes are thrown out (any day now, I'm sure) then you will have a case I suppose.  

Im not telling you how the electoral college works. What I'm saying is all this gloating about winning the popular vote is really silly. Being 2% more popular is like the Bengals winning by a field goal. That isn't staggering. Clinton won the popular vote by  roughly 2.8 million. She beat Trump by more than 3.2 million votes in California. That covers her popular vote and then some.

[GMDino]

(04-21-2017, 05:10 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Im not telling you how the electoral college works. What I'm saying is all this gloating about winning the popular vote is really silly. Being 2% more popular is like the Bengals winning by a field goal. That isn't staggering. Clinton won the popular vote by  roughly 2.8 million. She beat Trump by more than 3.2 million votes in California. That covers her popular vote and then some.

Right....I believe I addressed all those points.

I guess you can ignore 2.9 million votes if you want.

[GMDino]

Of course arguing vote counts is also a distraction from the OP about the Russians deliberately trying to influence people with fake news...and the number of Trump associates that were in contact with them.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-21-2017, 05:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Right....I believe I addressed all those points.

I guess you can ignore 2.9 million votes if you want.

Not ignoring them. Just don't find it staggering.

[Dill]

(04-21-2017, 04:11 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The issue here is that when people say the "majority" of Americans voted for Clinton it creates this illusion that a staggering amount of people voted for Clinton throughout the nation rather than Trunp. But when you take into account all the States and the counties within them, the popularity for Trump stretches farther than the popularity of Clinton.

So, Clinton being "popular" is meaningless when you can't actually apply that label to the majority of people that live in other states besides California.

Why should the factual record create an "illusion" among people who can count and understand percentages?

Clinton won the Majority in New York. Trump won the majority in North Dakota.  So Trump's popularity stretches farther in ND. You think there are people who do not understand this? You believe there are people who think Clinton was more popular in Alabama?

Did Clinton get more votes or did she not? If she got more votes, then she won the popular vote.
Do you agree that she got more votes or do you not?

And if you agree that she did, then what are you really on about? Are you saying people should not say she won the popular vote? What should they say?

The sitting president does not agree that Clinton won the popular vote. The factual record does not support him in this, so he claims that the factual record must be wrong (not in North Dakota and Alabama, just in "liberal bastions"). 3-5 million illegal voters somewhere.

When Trump doesn't like the existing record of facts, he provides alternative facts. If you are a Trump supporter, are you following your leader in this? Are you somehow trying to squeeze a popular win out of the election by pushing the ILLUSION that winning more states means winning the popular vote?

 

[*bfine32*]

(04-21-2017, 04:11 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The issue here is that when people say the "majority" of Americans voted for Clinton it creates this illusion that a staggering amount of people voted for Clinton throughout the nation rather than Trunp. But when you take into account all the States and the counties within them, the popularity for Trump stretches farther than the popularity of Clinton.

So, Clinton being "popular" is meaningless when you can't actually apply that label to the majority of people that live in other states besides California.

The majority of Americans did not vote for Hillary; however, I recommend that you concede this popular vote point and move on. It is a coping mechanism that that many who suffer from Post-Election Stress Disorder (PESD) use to deal with reality.

 
You must ignore the fact that before the election everybody knows how the system works and folks campaigned and voted accordingly. You must ignore that those that voted for a 3rd party may have voted differently if popular vote determined the President. You must ignore that each candidate may have campaigned differently in various states had the popular been the way we’ve elected a President for the last 240ish years. You must ignore that Trump won over 300 electoral votes and took most of the states in the Nation to include rust-belt states that usually go blue.

What you must do is except the logic that bringing up a way of scoring that is not used after the fact means something. If you debate this I fear what the ramifications could be.

[ballsofsteel]

Good morning all. I didn't like Trump or Clinton. I wanted Bernie. As was said by many people "which one is the less of two evils". There were million of voters on the fence about who they were going to vote for. Now anyone with half a brain is going to tell me that all those emails the Russians leaked about Clinton and company plus the FBI coming out two weeks before the election saying Clinton was still being investigated (basically implying and promoted by Fox news that Clinton was a criminal, IE, she had to be guilty of something right?), didn't sway many voters is pure Bull S.
Why did Putin want Trump to win so bad? I don't know but I believe if Trump would release his tax returns that would tell us why. What is he hiding?

[hollodero]

(04-22-2017, 09:22 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Why did Putin want Trump to win so bad? I don't know but I believe if Trump would release his tax returns that would tell us why. What is he hiding?

Because Putin supports the more destructive forces in our Western democracies. He and his Troll army do it everywhere. 

Maybe there's also money involved. But even though the Russia connections within Team Trump are staggering, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case, at least not with Trump. I don't know, but this man seems to fall for praise and popularity, I'd say Putin would know that this is the lever.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-21-2017, 05:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Why should the factual record create an "illusion" among people who can count and understand percentages?

Clinton won the Majority in New York. Trump won the majority in North Dakota.  So Trump's popularity stretches farther in ND. You think there are people who do not understand this? You believe there are people who think Clinton was more popular in Alabama?

Did Clinton get more votes or did she not? If she got more votes, then she won the popular vote.
Do you agree that she got more votes or do you not?

And if you agree that she did, then what are you really on about? Are you saying people should not say she won the popular vote? What should they say?

The sitting president does not agree that Clinton won the popular vote. The factual record does not support him in this, so he claims that the factual record must be wrong (not in North Dakota and Alabama, just in "liberal bastions"). 3-5 million illegal voters somewhere.

When Trump doesn't like the existing record of facts, he provides alternative facts. If you are a Trump supporter, are you following your leader in this? Are you somehow trying to squeeze a popular win out of the election by pushing the ILLUSION that winning more states means winning the popular vote?

 

Did Hillary get more votes? Yes. So what am I on about?

People keep using statements like "most Americans" when discussing Hillarys popular vote but saying "most Americans" is a misleading statement and makes Hillary sound insanely popular around the nation when she isnt.

What are people "on about" when they talk about Hillary "crushing" Trump in the popularity vote (which she didnt)?

People aren't just bringing up the popular vote to say Hillary won as if it's just some simple acknowledgement.. They're using it as a basis for California to secede the union because even they know that Hillary won the popular vote because of California. They're challenging Trump's legitimacy as president because they believe "most Americans" again, an illusory statement, want her to be president. They're calling for an end to the electoral college because she won by 2% in the popular vote. 

Is 3 million people a lot? Of course it is, but in the discussion of a nation as a whole it really isn't a "swamping" number. The issue isn't whether or not she won the popular vote. The issue is the silly lambasting and gloating that comes from it because of the way people frame the argument as "most Americans"

Hillary won 48% of the vote. That means the other 52% or "most" Americans didn't want her to be president.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-22-2017, 09:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Did Hillary get more votes? Yes. So what am I on about?

People keep using statements like "most Americans" when discussing Hillarys popular vote but saying "most Americans" is a misleading statement and makes Hillary sound insanely popular around the nation when she isnt.

What are people "on about" when they talk about Hillary "crushing" Trump in the popularity vote (which she didnt)?

People aren't just bringing up the popular vote to say Hillary won as if it's just some simple acknowledgement.. They're using it as a basis for California to secede the union because even they know that Hillary won the popular vote because of California. They're challenging Trump's legitimacy as president because they believe "most Americans" again, an illusory statement, want her to be president. They're calling for an end to the electoral college because she won by 2% in the popular vote. 

Is 3 million people a lot? Of course it is, but in the discussion of a nation as a whole it really isn't a "swamping" number. The issue isn't whether or not she won the popular vote. The issue is the silly lambasting and gloating that comes from it because of the way people frame the argument as "most Americans"

Hillary won 48% of the vote. That means the other 52% or "most" Americans didn't want her to be president.

Hillary wasn't and isn't insanely popular. I've read she was the second most unpopular presidential candidate ever only exceeded by Trump's unpopularity.

If Hillary isn't popular and received more votes than Trump, what does that say about Trump's popularity?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-22-2017, 10:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: Because Putin supports the more destructive forces in our Western democracies. He and his Troll army do it everywhere.

In this instance I think it was more that Putin personally loathes Hillary.  Her assertion that the last elections in Russia were rigged reportedly really pissed him off. 

Quote:Maybe there's also money involved. But even though the Russia connections within Team Trump are staggering, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case, at least not with Trump. I don't know, but this man seems to fall for praise and popularity, I'd say Putin would know that this is the lever.

I don't think it's anymore complicated than Putin preferring Trump to Hillary.

[BmorePat87]

What is funny is that the only reason I brought up the popular vote was in response to the 3rd post in this thread in which the poster tried to push a false narrative in their defense that Russia could have little to do with election results.

I also brought up that Republicans won the Congressional "popular vote" to make my point that "We're not all either elitist New York liberals or redneck Texas conservatives. We're mostly moderates stuck with more partisan people running for office."

Moderates who are very vulnerable to being influenced by foreign government hacking the emails of our two major political parties and selectively releasing embarrassing emails to damage one side. Yes, there are millions of Americans who can sway left or right based on something like this.



and then some guy took issue with California being a state.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-23-2017, 12:02 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Hillary wasn't and isn't insanely popular. I've read she was the second most unpopular presidential candidate ever only exceeded by Trump's unpopularity.

If Hillary isn't popular and received more votes than Trump,  what does that say about Trump's popularity?

That he's a little less popular than Clinton.

[Dill]

(04-22-2017, 09:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Did Hillary get more votes? Yes. So what am I on about?

People keep using statements like "most Americans" when discussing Hillarys popular vote but saying "most Americans" is a misleading statement and makes Hillary sound insanely popular around the nation when she isnt.

What are people "on about" when they talk about Hillary "crushing" Trump in the popularity vote (which she didnt)?

People aren't just bringing up the popular vote to say Hillary won as if it's just some simple acknowledgement.. They're using it as a basis for California to secede the union because even they know that Hillary won the popular vote because of California. They're challenging Trump's legitimacy as president because they believe "most Americans" again, an illusory statement, want her to be president. They're calling for an end to the electoral college because she won by 2% in the popular vote. 

Is 3 million people a lot? Of course it is, but in the discussion of a nation as a whole it really isn't a "swamping" number. The issue isn't whether or not she won the popular vote. The issue is the silly lambasting and gloating that comes from it because of the way people frame the argument as "most Americans"

Hillary won 48% of the vote. That means the other 52% or "most" Americans didn't want her to be president.

I missed the post in which someone said Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote. But 2.9 million is not a negligible margin. and it had to be stacked on 60 million other votes to get there.  That's a lot of Americans.

People may legitimately question Trump's legitimacy in an election marred by foreign interference, unusual FBI behavior, and active disinformation campaigns--not all of which originated from Russia. That doesn't mean the election was not legal and subject to legal challenge. This is not like the last time a terrible Republican candidate lost the popular vote, won the electoral college, and started the country on a path to war and recession. That one was about the electoral college.

PS working from Trump's percentage of the vote, how many Americans did not want him to be president?  I would not normally bother counting up the dissidents, but I want to point out it is not a tactic that works in your favor.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-23-2017, 03:15 PM)Dill Wrote: I missed the post in which someone said Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote. 

The "crushing" comment wasnt made by anyone on this board. I was speaking from broader observation.

Quote:But 2.9 million is not a negligible margin. and it had to be stacked on 60 million other votes to get there.  That's a lot of Americans.

Yeah, and Trump had 60 million votes stacked his way too, which means "a lot of Americans" voted for him too. 2% is pretty negligible and not impressive  to me but whatever I guess.

Quote:People may legitimately question Trump's legitimacy in an election marred by foreign interference, unusual FBI behavior, and active disinformation campaigns--not all of which originated from Russia. That doesn't mean the election was not legal and subject to legal challenge. This is not like the last time a terrible Republican candidate lost the popular vote, won the electoral college, and started the country on a path to war and recession. That one was about the electoral college.

People can question whatever they want, but what can they actually prove in terms of who was swayed by what? And how many Americans were actually swayed? 

Saying "people were swayed by Russia" is a pretty empty statement without significant voter data to back it up 

Quote:PS working from Trump's percentage of the vote, how many Americans did not want him to be president?  I would not normally bother counting up the dissidents, but I want to point out it is not a tactic that works in your favor.

The point is neither was overwhelmingly popular and neither had a "majority" of Americans vote for them, rather they shared in the majority. I used Clinton as the example to nullify the idea that the majority of Americans voted for her because that's how people view the popular vote, but thats not what the popular vote is a representation of.