Any Housing Schemes For Non First Time...
Home & Garden1 min ago
Trumpaggedon, It Woz The Ruskies I Tell Ya!
58 Answers
http://
More sour grapes from the democrats?
More sour grapes from the democrats?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ichkeria; I does give food for thought; as I remember there was nothing said other than fair discussion and disagreement. Gromit did quote an unfortunate word, but it was only a quote, it could have meant the removal of that post, but not the thread. I can only conclude, as nothing else was against the Site Rules, that someone simply disagreed with some of the things being said. If so, that is a sorry state of affairs.
I'd tend to second that. There are plenty of views expressed on this site I disagree with, sometimes very strongly, but very little I'd ever want to censor.
* * * * * *
Returning to the original post, if I may -- Trump's election presumably has a lot more to do with the tens of millions of people who voted for him than about Russian interference, but having said that the margins between his victory and defeat were incredibly fine. In absolute terms, just 5,400 people in Michigan, 22,200 people in Pennsylvania and 11,500 people in Wisconsin would have needed to switch their votes from Trump to Clinton in order for her to have just crept over the line. So that's less than 40,000 swing votes needed (or about 80,000 extra votes for Clinton), out of a total voting size of 137 million. With such potentially small margins in play, any hint of outside disruption could indeed have ended up having surprisingly large effects.
In practice any such indirect influence on the election, one way or the other, would have been spread out rather a lot thinner than just the three states mentioned above, making any claim that possible Russian interference was why Trump won grandiose and wrong. But it may have played its part in shaping perceptions. The claims should be taken seriously -- not because it may have led to Trump winning, but because it may have damaged the reputation of democratic elections as "free and fair". An election is hardly free if someone -- anyone -- is trying actively to sabotage the process.
* * * * * *
On a separate note, the absolute national vote percentage change that would have been needed to swing the result from a Trump win to a Clinton win is a shockingly low 0.03%. Who ever it was who said that small percentage changes can't possibly matter -- well, here's another example where it did (and this is 100 times smaller than the change being discussed there and all, too...)
* * * * * *
Returning to the original post, if I may -- Trump's election presumably has a lot more to do with the tens of millions of people who voted for him than about Russian interference, but having said that the margins between his victory and defeat were incredibly fine. In absolute terms, just 5,400 people in Michigan, 22,200 people in Pennsylvania and 11,500 people in Wisconsin would have needed to switch their votes from Trump to Clinton in order for her to have just crept over the line. So that's less than 40,000 swing votes needed (or about 80,000 extra votes for Clinton), out of a total voting size of 137 million. With such potentially small margins in play, any hint of outside disruption could indeed have ended up having surprisingly large effects.
In practice any such indirect influence on the election, one way or the other, would have been spread out rather a lot thinner than just the three states mentioned above, making any claim that possible Russian interference was why Trump won grandiose and wrong. But it may have played its part in shaping perceptions. The claims should be taken seriously -- not because it may have led to Trump winning, but because it may have damaged the reputation of democratic elections as "free and fair". An election is hardly free if someone -- anyone -- is trying actively to sabotage the process.
* * * * * *
On a separate note, the absolute national vote percentage change that would have been needed to swing the result from a Trump win to a Clinton win is a shockingly low 0.03%. Who ever it was who said that small percentage changes can't possibly matter -- well, here's another example where it did (and this is 100 times smaller than the change being discussed there and all, too...)
jim; //....... that possible Russian interference was why Trump won grandiose and wrong. But it may have played its part in shaping perceptions ...//
Both Julian Assange and John McAfee (and others) who between them know quite a lot about hacking, say that there is no way for the Hacked to know whom it was that hacked them.
and btw, Trump has just said that he is going to make an announcement on this subject later in the week.
Both Julian Assange and John McAfee (and others) who between them know quite a lot about hacking, say that there is no way for the Hacked to know whom it was that hacked them.
and btw, Trump has just said that he is going to make an announcement on this subject later in the week.
I would have thought that the US Security Services also know a fair amount about hacking and how to investigate it.
But anyway, I said "possible Russian Interference". Not having read the various reports in detail I'm happy to allow for the possibility that they are mistaken, but the claim should still be taken seriously.
Can't say I'm holding my breath for Trump's statement though.
But anyway, I said "possible Russian Interference". Not having read the various reports in detail I'm happy to allow for the possibility that they are mistaken, but the claim should still be taken seriously.
Can't say I'm holding my breath for Trump's statement though.
jim, We will not have to wait long, - my guess is it will implicate the Democrats
http://
http://
So Trump knows what ?
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
Why would Julian Assange know anything about hacking?
One reason there are so many Russian hackers is that there are thousands of well trained programmers in Russia but with no real honourable job prospects. Undoubtedly a lot of the hacking that goes on which emanates from that country is not government sponsored. Much is though. Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia have been notable victims of cyber warfare in the recent past and these countries must now be telling America 'we told you so' in no uncertain terms. I don't doubt the technical brilliance of the US analysts who'll have looked at this.
One reason there are so many Russian hackers is that there are thousands of well trained programmers in Russia but with no real honourable job prospects. Undoubtedly a lot of the hacking that goes on which emanates from that country is not government sponsored. Much is though. Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia have been notable victims of cyber warfare in the recent past and these countries must now be telling America 'we told you so' in no uncertain terms. I don't doubt the technical brilliance of the US analysts who'll have looked at this.
An interesting theory as to why Trump doesn't want to believe the hacking allegations is simply that he's afraid any investigation will incidentally drag up some hitherto unknown dodgy activity by his own side. The same theory which suggests that the CIA did not want an investigation into the Kennedy assassination, not because they were responsible but because they could be sure that they weren't!
ichkeria; You really thrive on conspiracy theories don't you? because, " ....there are thousands of well trained programmers in Russia but with no real honourable job prospects....." (as there are everywhere) they, you say, without you having any evidence whatsoever, must have tampered with the American election results.
Keep spreading a lie loudly and long enough and maybe somebody will eventually believe you, - as you are the living proof.
It is on this unsubstantiated theory that Obama has, in a fit of pique, stabbed in the back the only real friend the US has in the Middle East.
Keep spreading a lie loudly and long enough and maybe somebody will eventually believe you, - as you are the living proof.
It is on this unsubstantiated theory that Obama has, in a fit of pique, stabbed in the back the only real friend the US has in the Middle East.
I would sooner believe the US security agencies than those of a country which consistently lied about its actions. But which mysteriously you seem hellbent on defending at any cost. They really should recompense their army of useful idiots.
As for Donald Trump, when questioned on the matter he warbled something about computers being so complicated that nobody really understands them and we'd all be better off using pen and paper. Finger on the pulse there obviously (!!)
As for Donald Trump, when questioned on the matter he warbled something about computers being so complicated that nobody really understands them and we'd all be better off using pen and paper. Finger on the pulse there obviously (!!)
//I would sooner believe the US security agencies than those of a country which consistently lied about its actions.//
Dream on! In present day politics no one seems to tell the truth, least of all the US, but at least the Russians are consistent. The Americans don't have any semblance of a joined-up policy in the Middle East, the CIA and the Pentagon have actually been fighting one another in Syria.
Fortunately, they have now been snubbed, and will have an incoming president who appears to have a clearer understanding of the situation than this confused, worn out Obama administration.
Dream on! In present day politics no one seems to tell the truth, least of all the US, but at least the Russians are consistent. The Americans don't have any semblance of a joined-up policy in the Middle East, the CIA and the Pentagon have actually been fighting one another in Syria.
Fortunately, they have now been snubbed, and will have an incoming president who appears to have a clearer understanding of the situation than this confused, worn out Obama administration.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.