Stealing an election is not the same thing as winning an election

A. You didn't present facts, merely a kook blog.

B. Wikileaks releasing true DNC emails is not the same thing as hacking an election. The integrity of the election was not compromised. In fact, Hillary didn't even come out looking bad in those emails, just the corrupt clowns surrounding the campaign.

C. What was your previous user name?

 

You can challenge anything you want. Answer my question. Is all your huffing and puffing about the fact the Russians MAY have cracked the Democrat party's e-mails or what they exposed?

 

How do you know they didn't hack the election? Do you work for the intelligence agency? Right now the Russians themselves are admitting to it; http://www.learnprogress.org/russia-won-election-trump/

I just did.http://www.learnprogress.org/russia-won-election-trump/ If you cannot provide a source disputing mine, the facts stand.

The only thing I admit here is your inability and weakness to debunk the claims I have made.

 

It's your claim they did, and thus the onus is on you to provide proof.
You know you cannot.

This is "proof" they hacked Hillary's e-mails.
You said they hacked the election, and so this proves nothing.

You claim the election was hacked by the Russians.
The Russians did not hack the election; not a single vote was fabricated or eliminated by any such effort.
Disagree?
Provide proof that the Russians did either/both of the above.

You shall now -again- admit you cannot do any such thing.

 

Hacking anyone in government can compromise security and create an atmosphere for corruption used to influence whatever it is you want to influence. That is what happened here, along with multiple voter suppression schemes.

 

Exposing that Hillary Clinton is a crime boss of a criminal crime organization and exposing that the Democrat party and the DNC is a corrupt third world banana republic political organization doesn't equate to the election being stolen.

Wikileaks is in the business of exposing corruption.

Get over it and go out and buy a can of Play Dough.

 

The Russian officials themselves admitted to the hacking. Hacking is another name for acquiring information in which that information can either be edited or used against another to influence the election. And that is exactly what happened. http://www.learnprogress.org/russia-won-election-trump/ If that evidence were used in court, having witnesses to the crime, while the other side cannot produce counter evidence or witnesses to the contrary, is evidence I am more than willing to sit on. If that evidence isn't adequate enough for you, or you have nothing to offer as counter evidence to mine, then you are no longer interested in engaging in intelligent debate.

 

Lol! You couldn't challenge the facts from this thread if your life depended on it.

 

Now we're getting somewhere! Are you saying the Russians had multiple voter suppression schemes? I'm curious, how did they do that too-many-ballots thing in Detroit?

 

Your opening premise is false.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the election was backed.

Some computers were backed into and information found in them was released the election however was not tampered with.

What is ingnored is that the information released was valid information which voters benefited from knowing. In other words the hacking only gave us a slightly more informed electorate.

Sorry but this in no way equates to a stolen or hijacked election.

Your side simply lost and that is fact.

 

Where is the proof? No one hacked the voting machines, so the election was conducted fairly and squarely. Your candidate is so flawed as not to be believed. The emails were true. What's your problem? You don't think that the voter has the right to know the truth? Your candidate wasn't going to tell you the truth, because she's a liar and crook and could easily manipulate you. I don't like to be manipulated. I already knew she was a liar and crook. Wikileaks just confirmed it. We do not live in some Third World banana republic, but Hills used those tactics and she was caught. Boohoo...

 

No...That's what the MSM TOLD you to think.

 

I am soooo happy the US has never tried to interfere in an election in another country.
As for your voter suppression crap. Hillary did a great job at that for the Republicans.


I give up. Send Hillary to DC on Jan. 20th

 

The link in the OP does not say that it says: "It’s been confirmed by multiple sources and even Russian officials that Russian hackers broke into DNC emails in an attempt to help Donald Trump win the election."

'sources' and 'officials'.....Tell me...WHICH 'sources' WHICH 'officials' do you have a link to their statements?

 

And your source is some biased political web outlet named "learn progress", who writes that "Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC".

Not believable in the slightest.

 

Oh the irony. The title of the OP implies that it is trying to distinguish between dissimilar things, and then the entire argument is based on the conflation of dissimilar things and trying to substitute one thing for another. Conflating hacking emails with hacking an election. Trying to act like if it can be proven that Russia did hack the DNC, that is the same thing as proving that they were WikiLeaks' source (as if only one person or group could possibly have access to the info at any given time). The OP acts like no one is refuting him/her, but the truth is that the OP self-refutes.

 

We'll, it's there boys and girls. And like all the rest, no one seems to be able to debunk those facts to prove it is false.

 

Your source lies. There is overwhelming evidence that Jon Podesta is an idiot, got hacked by a simple phishing scheme and that the Hillary campaign has the email security of a mongoloid ant. For this you want to turn over the election by the American People and award the victory to the idiots?

Don't you think future campaigns would catch on, and click phishing links to make sure they were hacked so future elections would be overturned and handed to them?

Think!

 

Nope, I'm not saying that. You are. I said "to go along with".

 

It has already been determined that the "uneducated" supported Trump in his "successful" bid for the Presidency; so it's not surprising that the notion that Right-wingers cannot read is painfully true.

 

My source lies? Where is your proof?

 

I don't give a hoot how it (the truth) was exposed. Tell me? ...Would it had been better (in your Lib mind) if the American people were not privy..or we looked the other way when seeing all the lies, stupidity, and corruption orchestrated by Hillary's campaign and the DNC?

 

We'll, seeing that "you don't give a hoot how the truth was exposed", and that you have zero evidence of any corruption by Hillary, I'm not sure I can tell you anything at this point. You seem to be a hopeless case of someone who doesn't care, and one who lacks sufficient debating skills to back up your own claims about Clinton. Who would have guessed you were part of this bunch; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw_V2kMOUgw

 

And you Sir live in a Liberal fantasy world. You wouldn't believe the truth if it came up to you and kissed you in the face. Get real.

 

Ok so I humored you.

I clicked on your learnprogress "report" and had a good laugh at the "sources" and "officials" as the so-called "proof".

Who wrote this, a 9 year old?

This is what you're using as your body of evidence?