When will Trump be impeached?

I said that they were ineffective at changing people's votes and had zero effect.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/russian-influence-operation-attempted-suppress-black-vote-indictment-022604429--abc-news-topstories.html

Black turnout in the 2016 election dropped for the first time in a presidential election in 20 years, according to findings by the Pew Research Center. Turnout fell from a record-high 66.6% in 2012 to 59.6% in 2016, the Pew Research Center found, the largest drop on record for blacks.

At two rallies in December 2017, Trump appeared to expressed appreciation to black voters for not turning up to the polls.

“They didn't come out to vote for Hillary. They didn't come out,” Trump said at a rally in Hershey, Pa. “And that was a big — so thank you to the African-American community.”

He made similar remarks in Michigan, saying African American voters “came through big league.”

“If they had any doubt, they didn't vote,” he said. “And that was almost as good.”

As for the spending, that is only the amount they know about. Besides, they weren't funding a national campaign. Your comparison and the way you continue to make it is hysterical.

That is only the amount YOU know about. There's no basis for you to claim unrevealed magical millions from Russia.

They weren't funding a strictly local campaign. You're still talking a drop in the bucket compared to all of the spending. It's not like Hillary was spending tens of millions in Hawaii or Maryland.

Read the indictment.

I have. What brilliant reveal are you looking at?

We are no longer talking about approximately $100,000 (paid in rubles, no less) of advertising grudgingly disclosed by Facebook, but tens of millions of dollars spent over several years to build a broad, sophisticated system that can influence American opinion.

Still a drop in the bucket compared to U.S. domestic political advertising.

Planned Parenthood spent more than Russia.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/planned-parenthood-2016-election_us_57377096e4b060aa781a7f21

Again, you're making a single-variable fallacy. You're assuming that somehow this Russian advertising (On Facebook), somehow OVERWHELMED such things as Hillary collapsing into the back of a van or people just not liking her voice.

We went around and around before the election. Did anyone here run in with "DID YOU SEE THIS AD ON FACEBOOK?!?!?!" No one said that. That's not what influenced people.

Persuasion and influence via social media cannot be estimated in linear terms; it requires looking at network effects. It is about the impact of a complex media environment with many layers, inputs, voices, amplifiers, and personalities. All of these elements change over time and interact with each other.

So anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked.

No one knows. That undercuts your claim that they did influence things.

From your article:
Headline: "Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It's Now Undeniable"
Article: "4. What impact did it have? We’re only at the beginning of having an answer to this question because we’ve only just begun to ask some of the right questions."

Seems to be contradictory.

Not to mention the writer-

Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) is an expert on information warfare and the narrative architect at New Media Frontier. She advised Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government from 2009 to 2013 and former Moldovan Prime Minister Vlad Filat in 2014-15.

Unbiased source!

You need to read the indictment again, trump uni alum.

You're getting even more hysterical, kind of the way your leader is.

As for "a drop in the bucket" you must never have heard of chinese water tortue--it's very effective.

No one knows, except for all the evidence, like targeting blacks to keep them from voting, that paints a pretty good picture.

History experts in New York Times op-ed: Trump worst president ever, Obama in top 10

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/02/19/history-experts-new-york-times-op-ed-trump-worst-president-ever-obama-top-10/353024002/

Buchanan was dislodged from his position as our nation’s worst president by Trump.

History experts in New York Times op-ed: Trump worst president ever, Obama in top 10

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/02/19/history-experts-new-york-times-op-ed-trump-worst-president-ever-obama-top-10/353024002/

Buchanan was dislodged from his position as our nation’s worst president by Trump.

Not that I have any desire to get involved with this discussion, but the fact Obama immediately proceeded this complete an utter shitshow sort of negates him being in any top 10. In my opinion.

Black turnout in the 2016 election dropped for the first time in a presidential election in 20 years, according to findings by the Pew Research Center. Turnout fell from a record-high 66.6% in 2012 to 59.6% in 2016, the Pew Research Center found, the largest drop on record for blacks.

I notice you're choosing to ignore other variables such as Clinton's unpopularity, the absence of Obama on the ticket, and the fact that voter turnout was lower than in 2008 and 2004. That's the problem with this "IT'S BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIANS!!!!" It treats this issue as a single-variable, rather than the multi-variable situation it is.

I have a question- if you were running for President or Congress what kind of campaign would you run, and what kind of advertising methods would you use?

It treats this issue as a single-variable, rather than the multi-variable situation it is.

So you're saying the 3 pronged attack on state voter rolls, hacked DNC emails, and social media propaganda on behalf of the Russians to help elect Donald Trump is one of those variables?

I agree its a multi variable reason why HRC didn't get elected. But to suggest, as you've done emphatically, that the Russians didn't help sway public opinion in the 2016 election is absurd.

Access hollywood video where President Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. There is NO DOUBT that its sexual assault. An hour later Wikileaks (Russian intelligence) dumps John Podesta's emails.

What should have a been a campaign ending video tape was shadowed by hacked DNC emails, man. Your boy (DJT) bragged about grabbing women by the ***** and miraculously this story is pushed to the back burner (by the "LIBERAL" media) because of DNC emails.

But that was just a coincidence wasn't it???

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/

It treats this issue as a single-variable, rather than the multi-variable situation it is.

So you're saying the 3 pronged attack on state voter rolls, hacked DNC emails, and social media propaganda on behalf of the Russians to help elect Donald Trump is one of those variables?

I agree its a multi variable reason why HRC didn't get elected. But to suggest, as you've done emphatically, that the Russians didn't help sway public opinion in the 2016 election is absurd.

Access hollywood video where President Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. There is NO DOUBT that its sexual assault. An hour later Wikileaks (Russian intelligence) dumps John Podesta's emails.

What should have a been a campaign ending video tape was shadowed by hacked DNC emails, man. Your boy (DJT) bragged about grabbing women by the ***** and miraculously this story is pushed to the back burner (by the "LIBERAL" media) because of DNC emails.

But that was just a coincidence wasn't it???

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/

I genuinely believe that public morality and decency has degenerated to such a degree thanks to things like a repulsive pop culture and the breakdown of the family unit, that people are no longer phased by things like this.

No, they are. After the release of that tape his odds of winning dropped to 5%, the lowest ever. By election day 20%. (20% is not nothing, but still unlikely.) He got in because of a black swan event. Lost the popular vote by a lot but got in because of the electoral college. And help from the Russians.

voter turnout was lower

Because of slander against Clinton. A large number of minorities were tricked into believing both candidates were vile, digusting people, when really it was just Trump.

She's not perfect but would have been a lot better for the country and for the world.

So you're saying the 3 pronged attack on state voter rolls, hacked DNC emails, and social media propaganda on behalf of the Russians to help elect Donald Trump is one of those variables?

The "so" tell for cognitive dissonance (don't worry, I do it to).

Regardless, The attack on voter rolls was unsuccessful and did not affect the outcome, so we can remove that as a variable. The social media stuff appears to be highly unlikely to be significant when all other variables are considered. Facebook ads and shares and twitter retweets, considering the ocean of material out there, are likely to have been ineffective. Not to mention the sloppy and amateurish nature of many of them. I mean seriously, if this is the KGB's best effort, we might as well sit back and light up cigars.

The DNC hack was enabled because Podesta fell for a phishing scam (allegedly) and the DNC email password was barely a step above '12345'.  Furthermore, nothing in there was ever said to be untrue.

Besides we don't even know that the emails really were hacked and not in fact leaked. The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to investigate its servers. The forensic analysis was performed by Crowdstrike, a firm linked to FusionGPS. Assange and Kim DotCom both claim that the material was leaked, not hacked. Even if it was hacking, it is known that hackers can disguise where they are from. It could be that they were hacked by the Russians, but something stinks in this whole Russian thing.

Why does the DNC refuse to allow the FBI to do a forensic investigation of its servers?

An hour later Wikileaks (Russian intelligence) dumps John Podesta's emails.

Wikileaks is not Russian intelligence. You're confusing momentarily converging interests with being 'Russian Intelligence'.

What should have a been a campaign ending video tape was shadowed by hacked DNC emails, man. Your boy (DJT) bragged about grabbing women by the ***** and miraculously this story is pushed to the back burner (by the "LIBERAL" media) because of DNC emails.

Actually this tape is what made it close. The campaign was effectively over when Clinton collapsed and was tossed into the back of a van like a slab of beef. I think you are failing to grasp the significance of that moment and how it did several things- It validated conspiracy theories about her health, it confirmed what Trump said about her "lacking the stamina", she came across as a liar yet again, but most importantly it made her look weak and a U.S. presidential candidate CANNOT look weak.

I say if that Access Hollywood tape hadn't been released, Trump likely would have won New Hampshire, Minnesota, Virginia, Maine, and Nevada. Maybe Colorado too. It would have been an even bigger rout.

Now, as for the timing, it's clear that Assange is NOT a fan of Clinton (I can't imagine why, she only talked about having him Drone Striked- again showing questionable temperament and judgment). That combined with her weak meddling in Russian politics PROVOKED these responses. She has no one but herself to blame. What was gained in those moments resulted in significant losses for her. She lacked the judgment, the temperament, and the stamina.

Access hollywood video where President Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. There is NO DOUBT that its sexual assault. An hour later Wikileaks (Russian intelligence) dumps John Podesta's emails.

"And when you're a star, they let you do it."

You're conveniently ignoring those five words. Trump wasn't bragging about sexual assault. He was bragging about doing something consensual: women let him do it.

No, they are. After the release of that tape his odds of winning dropped to 5%, the lowest ever. By election day 20%. (20% is not nothing, but still unlikely.) He got in because of a black swan event. Lost the popular vote by a lot but got in because of the electoral college. And help from the Russians.

I disagree. While I think there was temporary disgust, his numbers rebounded because of several factors

1) The highly polarized nature of the electorate
2) The level of voter anger. Something like 2/3rds of people felt that Trump was unqualified and had bad temperament, but he won anyways. Why? Because people were willing to throw in, as Michael Moore said, the "Human Molotov Cocktail" that is Trump.
3) Trump had whats called "baked in negatives". Everyone knew Trump was a POS. In fact, it was part of his appeal. He never ran to be Pope. He never ran as some sort of upstanding moral figure. He basically ran as a giant middle finger/Samson who might bring down the whole house. This is Donald Trump the scuzzbucket we've known since the 1980s who has been involved with the WWE.
4) At the end of the day, there's probably an element of truth to what he's saying. That when you're THAT stinking rich and famous, unless the other person is also famous, a lot of times women do seek out such men and do let them...go further. While such comments may cause shock in the clean suburbanite circles of academia or posh upper class types, amongst Trump's working class base, that IS how people talk.

There's something everyone should do- compare the reasons why people think Clinton lost on Election Night or Predictions of why Clinton would lose (Michael Moore's famous speech, Chris Matthews rant on election nigh, Morning Joe's rant the morning after), when everything was clear and people were actually at their most rational. Now compare those to now. All the analysis on election night sounds rational. Now it's "Hillary lost because of PokemonGo! and Russian retweets".

The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to investigate its servers.

Seems like fake news. People can't just ignore an order from the FBI.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/11/donald-trump/did-john-podesta-deny-cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/

Hillary lost because of

the electoral college. A stupid archaic system that's hard to get rid of.

She won the popular vote by a huge amount. Millions of votes. The will of the people should be respected.

(Surveys dating back to forever show the majority of the public would prefer a popular vote selection over the electoral college.)

voter turnout was lower

Because of slander against Clinton. A large number of minorities were tricked into believing both candidates were vile, digusting people, when really it was just Trump.

She's not perfect but would have been a lot better for the country and for the world.

I don't think minorities were tricked. I don't think minorities are that gullible.

I think it was both due to underlying black disappointment with Obama combined with casual minority Dem supporters not voting because Obama wasn't on the ticket.

The fact is that even if you discount the "slander" about Clinton, she was not as charismatic a figure as Obama. Obama did inspire people to a much greater degree and presented himself in a much more positive and relatable manner. It is why Obama beat her the first time around. Obama is the general you fight behind because you want to and believe in him. It's why I voted for him the first time and was happy he won the 2nd time (2nd time my state was non-competitive so I wrote in Ron Paul, but wanted Obama over Romney). Clinton is the general you fight behind because she's there and you don't like the other side.

In the end Clinton lacked the judgment, the temperament, and the stamina (say it in a Trump voice). She lacked the judgment to campaign in Wisconsin and not campaign in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona. She lacked the temperament to listen to her husband that she was losing the white working class and would pay for it. She lacked the stamina when she collapsed and Trump out worked her in the run-up to the election.

Russians + human stupidity + electoral college = president trump

He barely squeaked in.

But it happened.

How the f can someone lose the popular vote but become president? So stupid. Crap system.

The DNC refuses to allow the FBI to investigate its servers.

Seems like fake news. People can't just ignore an order from the FBI.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/11/donald-trump/did-john-podesta-deny-cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/

From your own article-

but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm.

"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.

And we already have people at the FBI stepping down or being dismissed from positions because of their connections to Clinton. The FusionGPS firm is under extreme scrutiny. It might well be that the Russians hacked it, still this never should have been done by a paid 3rd Party with DNC ties.

she was not as charismatic a figure as Obama

Absolutely.

Trump was a far more charismatic campaigner than her.

But that's not the same as running a country.

Marketing yourself / tearing down others to win an election doesn't translate into being the best person for the job of leader of the free world.

Hillary lost because of

the electoral college. A stupid archaic system that's hard to get rid of.

She won the popular vote by a huge amount. Millions of votes. The will of the people should be respected.

(Surveys dating back to forever show the majority of the public would prefer a popular vote selection over the electoral college.)

Hillary ran to be popular. Trump ran to win. Again, she lacked the judgment.

Those are the rules of the game. If you are too stupid to compete and try to win under those rules, you can't complain when you lose.

If the electoral college had given Clinton a victory over a popular vote-winning Trump, you'd praise the foresight of the Founders for enacting a system that saves us from a demagogue. That's just partisan bias.

Russians + human stupidity + electoral college = president trump

If you really think it's Russians, you are an idiot. Like I keep on saying, THERE'S THOUSANDS OF VARIABLES. Unemployment, consumer confidence, the stock market, Access Hollywood, Clinton Collapse, Debates, etc. are ALL vastly more influential than "Russians", yet you list "Russians" as one of the top 3 factors.

How the f can someone lose the popular vote but become president? So stupid. Crap system.

It has it's pluses and minuses, especially in a large country like the United States.

Didn't you take civics and learn the rationale for the electoral college? Yes, there's the taint of slavery, but even if every slave had been emancipated, you likely still would have had such a system. The Founders were wary of mob rule. It's why America is a Republic and NOT a Democracy.

she was not as charismatic a figure as Obama

Absolutely.

Trump was a far more charismatic campaigner than her.

But that's not the same as running a country.

Marketing yourself / tearing down others to win an election doesn't translate into being the best person for the job of leader of the free world.

I agree. Thank you for agreeing with me as to why Trump won.

Although based on Hillary's actions with both Russia and Assange coming back to bite her, it suggests her judgment if she became leader might not be that sound either.