Refusing to ask a question, is not an answer to the question you didn't ask: Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so - to illustrate the silliness I'm about to make you aware...

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so - to illustrate the silliness I'm about to make you aware of. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, or on the Trump/anti Trump scale, the sheer amount of silliness surrounding the whole Russian 2015/2016 interference, is enough to make anyone go nuts, Unfortunately, many folks started much closer to the finish line than others.

There is universal consensus among past and present US intelligence services, that Russian operatives did indeed interfere in our e*******l process. There is also international consensus, that the same operations were carried out on several allied Nations. Here's where the silliness begins; some emphatically state that the Russian efforts did not effect the outcome of the 2016 e******n - however - there is no factual basis for that statement. Simply put, that question has not been asked - therefor - the absence of the question does not equate to an answer. In other words, since we do not know , one way or the other, to what extent ( if any ) the Russian efforts were successful, we cannot make a statement that claims we DO know. At least, without appearing silly that is.

There are two similar statements that give completely different concepts. The Russians attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 e******ns, but who's efforts did not affect the v**e. The Russians attempted to influence the 2016 e******ns, the extent of the success of which is not known. The first statement is false..................because that fact has not been determined. That's right, there has NOT been any evaluations done to determine how successful the Russian efforts actually were. Does it matter? Not really, since there will never be a recount, or a do over of the 2016 e******n, so that much remains an intellectual exercise - however - in the interest of stopping further excursions by the Russians ( or anyone else ), US counterintelligence services and related cyber security services MUST know the answer to that question.

The bottom line is; it is silly and dangerous, to answer a question that has not been asked..................because you're guessing, or in this case, doing some wishful thinking. I mean, how horrible would it be, if it were ever to come to light - that the Russian efforts in 2016 were HIGHLY successful, i.e. gave the e******n to Trump? So, if you're afraid of what the answer might be, avoid asking the question.......................just pretend like you know the answer already. I have no data one way or the other, and the point is......................neither does anyone else.

EconomistDon

lpnmajor wrote:

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so - to illustrate the silliness I'm about to make you aware of. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, or on the Trump/anti Trump scale, the sheer amount of silliness surrounding the whole Russian 2015/2016 interference, is enough to make anyone go nuts, Unfortunately, many folks started much closer to the finish line than others.

There is universal consensus among past and present US intelligence services, that Russian operatives did indeed interfere in our e*******l process. There is also international consensus, that the same operations were carried out on several allied Nations. Here's where the silliness begins; some emphatically state that the Russian efforts did not effect the outcome of the 2016 e******n - however - there is no factual basis for that statement. Simply put, that question has not been asked - therefor - the absence of the question does not equate to an answer. In other words, since we do not know , one way or the other, to what extent ( if any ) the Russian efforts were successful, we cannot make a statement that claims we DO know. At least, without appearing silly that is.

There are two similar statements that give completely different concepts. The Russians attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 e******ns, but who's efforts did not affect the v**e. The Russians attempted to influence the 2016 e******ns, the extent of the success of which is not known. The first statement is false..................because that fact has not been determined. That's right, there has NOT been any evaluations done to determine how successful the Russian efforts actually were. Does it matter? Not really, since there will never be a recount, or a do over of the 2016 e******n, so that much remains an intellectual exercise - however - in the interest of stopping further excursions by the Russians ( or anyone else ), US counterintelligence services and related cyber security services MUST know the answer to that question.

The bottom line is; it is silly and dangerous, to answer a question that has not been asked..................because you're guessing, or in this case, doing some wishful thinking. I mean, how horrible would it be, if it were ever to come to light - that the Russian efforts in 2016 were HIGHLY successful, i.e. gave the e******n to Trump? So, if you're afraid of what the answer might be, avoid asking the question.......................just pretend like you know the answer already. I have no data one way or the other, and the point is......................neither does anyone else.

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so -... (show quote)

You have a very valid point LP -- we can never know. In the same logic, we can not know the impact of v***r f***d and millions of i*****l a***ns v****g. Democrats successfully shut down Trump's investigation into v***r f***d, probably because they knew the outcome would hurt their cause. And we cannot measure the impact of the liberal-biased mainstream media who harped on Trump and idolized Hillary throughout the campaign. We can only take measures to avoid the interference during future e******ns.

JW

lpnmajor wrote:

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so - to illustrate the silliness I'm about to make you aware of. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, or on the Trump/anti Trump scale, the sheer amount of silliness surrounding the whole Russian 2015/2016 interference, is enough to make anyone go nuts, Unfortunately, many folks started much closer to the finish line than others.

There is universal consensus among past and present US intelligence services, that Russian operatives did indeed interfere in our e*******l process. There is also international consensus, that the same operations were carried out on several allied Nations. Here's where the silliness begins; some emphatically state that the Russian efforts did not effect the outcome of the 2016 e******n - however - there is no factual basis for that statement. Simply put, that question has not been asked - therefor - the absence of the question does not equate to an answer. In other words, since we do not know , one way or the other, to what extent ( if any ) the Russian efforts were successful, we cannot make a statement that claims we DO know. At least, without appearing silly that is.

There are two similar statements that give completely different concepts. The Russians attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 e******ns, but who's efforts did not affect the v**e. The Russians attempted to influence the 2016 e******ns, the extent of the success of which is not known. The first statement is false..................because that fact has not been determined. That's right, there has NOT been any evaluations done to determine how successful the Russian efforts actually were. Does it matter? Not really, since there will never be a recount, or a do over of the 2016 e******n, so that much remains an intellectual exercise - however - in the interest of stopping further excursions by the Russians ( or anyone else ), US counterintelligence services and related cyber security services MUST know the answer to that question.

The bottom line is; it is silly and dangerous, to answer a question that has not been asked..................because you're guessing, or in this case, doing some wishful thinking. I mean, how horrible would it be, if it were ever to come to light - that the Russian efforts in 2016 were HIGHLY successful, i.e. gave the e******n to Trump? So, if you're afraid of what the answer might be, avoid asking the question.......................just pretend like you know the answer already. I have no data one way or the other, and the point is......................neither does anyone else.

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so -... (show quote)

I believed President Obama in 2016 when he said American e******ns cannot be r****d. I wonder if he is disappointed in Hillary. She sure hasn't followed his advice...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=obama+us+e******ns+cannot+be+hacked&view=detail&mid=408FEB8D0356ED6E4A56408FEB8D0356ED6E4A56&FORM=VIRE

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

lpnmajor wrote:

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so - to illustrate the silliness I'm about to make you aware of. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, or on the Trump/anti Trump scale, the sheer amount of silliness surrounding the whole Russian 2015/2016 interference, is enough to make anyone go nuts, Unfortunately, many folks started much closer to the finish line than others.

There is universal consensus among past and present US intelligence services, that Russian operatives did indeed interfere in our e*******l process. There is also international consensus, that the same operations were carried out on several allied Nations. Here's where the silliness begins; some emphatically state that the Russian efforts did not effect the outcome of the 2016 e******n - however - there is no factual basis for that statement. Simply put, that question has not been asked - therefor - the absence of the question does not equate to an answer. In other words, since we do not know , one way or the other, to what extent ( if any ) the Russian efforts were successful, we cannot make a statement that claims we DO know. At least, without appearing silly that is.

There are two similar statements that give completely different concepts. The Russians attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 e******ns, but who's efforts did not affect the v**e. The Russians attempted to influence the 2016 e******ns, the extent of the success of which is not known. The first statement is false..................because that fact has not been determined. That's right, there has NOT been any evaluations done to determine how successful the Russian efforts actually were. Does it matter? Not really, since there will never be a recount, or a do over of the 2016 e******n, so that much remains an intellectual exercise - however - in the interest of stopping further excursions by the Russians ( or anyone else ), US counterintelligence services and related cyber security services MUST know the answer to that question.

The bottom line is; it is silly and dangerous, to answer a question that has not been asked..................because you're guessing, or in this case, doing some wishful thinking. I mean, how horrible would it be, if it were ever to come to light - that the Russian efforts in 2016 were HIGHLY successful, i.e. gave the e******n to Trump? So, if you're afraid of what the answer might be, avoid asking the question.......................just pretend like you know the answer already. I have no data one way or the other, and the point is......................neither does anyone else.

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so -... (show quote)

Here's just a few seconds of video that is far more interesting than your little wussified rant.

debeda

lpnmajor wrote:

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so - to illustrate the silliness I'm about to make you aware of. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, or on the Trump/anti Trump scale, the sheer amount of silliness surrounding the whole Russian 2015/2016 interference, is enough to make anyone go nuts, Unfortunately, many folks started much closer to the finish line than others.

There is universal consensus among past and present US intelligence services, that Russian operatives did indeed interfere in our e*******l process. There is also international consensus, that the same operations were carried out on several allied Nations. Here's where the silliness begins; some emphatically state that the Russian efforts did not effect the outcome of the 2016 e******n - however - there is no factual basis for that statement. Simply put, that question has not been asked - therefor - the absence of the question does not equate to an answer. In other words, since we do not know , one way or the other, to what extent ( if any ) the Russian efforts were successful, we cannot make a statement that claims we DO know. At least, without appearing silly that is.

There are two similar statements that give completely different concepts. The Russians attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 e******ns, but who's efforts did not affect the v**e. The Russians attempted to influence the 2016 e******ns, the extent of the success of which is not known. The first statement is false..................because that fact has not been determined. That's right, there has NOT been any evaluations done to determine how successful the Russian efforts actually were. Does it matter? Not really, since there will never be a recount, or a do over of the 2016 e******n, so that much remains an intellectual exercise - however - in the interest of stopping further excursions by the Russians ( or anyone else ), US counterintelligence services and related cyber security services MUST know the answer to that question.

The bottom line is; it is silly and dangerous, to answer a question that has not been asked..................because you're guessing, or in this case, doing some wishful thinking. I mean, how horrible would it be, if it were ever to come to light - that the Russian efforts in 2016 were HIGHLY successful, i.e. gave the e******n to Trump? So, if you're afraid of what the answer might be, avoid asking the question.......................just pretend like you know the answer already. I have no data one way or the other, and the point is......................neither does anyone else.

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so -... (show quote)

And another question not asked is HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE and did anyone ever do a real poll of Trump v**er's reasons for v****g for Prez Trump ? Back in January 2017 the DNC ordered a study done of why the e******n went so "wrong". In March, 2017 the answer found by that report was that many people thought the country had gone too far left under the Obama administration and saw Hillary as Obama 2.0. That article was up for exactly ONE HALF day. Then gone, never to be seen again. But I think the study was in large part correct. If so, we're gonna see a red wave in November, despite the left's hysteria since the 2016 p**********l e******n. Then the dems will have to get serious about their party, their message and their ACTIONS. Because I don't think they can get any more hysterical than they already are.

Idaho

Now here’s a question - why were the Dems so confident about a Hillary win? So confident that the black hats in the alphabet agencies were so careless in the use of agency phones, emails etc? Overconfidence? They never thought it would matter because Hillary would fix it? Were they so confident because of the Soros supplied v****g machines that would give a Hillary win regardless?

Did ‘someone’ in fact pull an even more secret operation and ‘un-rig’ enough of the v****g machines so that the American people got a true v**e and elected Trump? Would that be enough to set off the Hillary hysteria? Why do you suppose the Dems are so keen to misdirect attention from examining the premise of no v**er machine tampering?

The reason I ask these questions is because that line of thinking explains the previous government and media reaction in much more simple terms. Occam’s Razor - always look for the simplest explanation. It’s much more likely to be the correct one.

That just leaves the dilemma of who r****d the v****g machines, and who unr****d them? The simplest answer is the one closest to home. You don’t need to look at complex foreign operations. How about a battle between white hats and black hat within the alphabet agencies themselves or between the alphabet agencies and the military?

I have no inside information, just commenting on appearances from the outside.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Wolf counselor wrote:

Here's just a few seconds of video that is far more interesting than your little wussified rant.

Yep, something within your IQ range. I apologize for using too many big words.

EconomistDon

JW wrote:

I believed President Obama in 2016 when he said American e******ns cannot be r****d. I wonder if he is disappointed in Hillary. She sure hasn't followed his advice...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=obama+us+e******ns+cannot+be+hacked&view=detail&mid=408FEB8D0356ED6E4A56408FEB8D0356ED6E4A56&FORM=VIRE

I never heard that Obama spiel before. He speaks of the v**e giving us the will of the people, the loser congratulating the winner and then working with the winner in a bi-partisan manner, because that is how is has always been done; it is what makes America great. Too bad he isn't following his own advice, and too bad Hillary isn't following his advice. He talked boldly when he was sure that Hillary would win, and he wouldn't have to support Trump. Hillary made the same mistake insisting that Trump must accept the result of the e******n. She had no idea that SHE would be the one refusing to accept the result of the e******n. She and Obama are both working 24/7 to resist and obstruct Trump.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

lpnmajor wrote:

Yep, something within your IQ range. I apologize for using too many big words.

" Big Words " ?

I didn't find any in your little wussie rant.

But I would like to see if it's possible for " big words " to be spoken by such a " little" wussie man.

debeda

Idaho wrote:

Now here’s a question - why were the Dems so confi... (show quote)

That's a really interesting perspective. And thought provokingly possible when laid put that way.

debeda

EconomistDon wrote:

I never heard that Obama spiel before. He speaks ... (show quote)

Ahhh, irony.

acknowledgeurma

EconomistDon wrote:

You have a very valid point LP -- we can never kno... (show quote)

I suggest everyone google, "Democrats successfully shut down Trump's investigation into v***r f***d", and see what you get. Don't forget about the Bush 5-year investigation that came up empty.

On CNN's Don Lemon show 7/17/2018 (yeah, yeah, don't bother yourselves, I'll ease your fingers, F**e News), a guest mentioned the theft of Democratic Party analytics by hackers in September 2016. Not long after that, spending for Trump in Florida decreased and spending in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to suppress the v****g of white liberals, women, and minorities increased.

acknowledgeurma

Idaho wrote:

Now here’s a question - why were the Dems so confi... (show quote)

Just saying "r****d v****g machines" may appear to be a simple explanation (and in some places it might be), but in the US p**********l e******n it would be far from simple. Do you have any idea of how many different v****g machines are used in the US? How many different people are involved in checking the validity of the machines' results? Just the shear number of people needed in a conspiracy to "rig v****g machines" makes it anything but a simple explanation.

One doesn't get a simple explanation by slapping a simple label on a complex system.

acknowledgeurma

lpnmajor wrote:

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so - to illustrate the silliness I'm about to make you aware of. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, or on the Trump/anti Trump scale, the sheer amount of silliness surrounding the whole Russian 2015/2016 interference, is enough to make anyone go nuts, Unfortunately, many folks started much closer to the finish line than others.

There is universal consensus among past and present US intelligence services, that Russian operatives did indeed interfere in our e*******l process. There is also international consensus, that the same operations were carried out on several allied Nations. Here's where the silliness begins; some emphatically state that the Russian efforts did not effect the outcome of the 2016 e******n - however - there is no factual basis for that statement. Simply put, that question has not been asked - therefor - the absence of the question does not equate to an answer. In other words, since we do not know , one way or the other, to what extent ( if any ) the Russian efforts were successful, we cannot make a statement that claims we DO know. At least, without appearing silly that is.

There are two similar statements that give completely different concepts. The Russians attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 e******ns, but who's efforts did not affect the v**e. The Russians attempted to influence the 2016 e******ns, the extent of the success of which is not known. The first statement is false..................because that fact has not been determined. That's right, there has NOT been any evaluations done to determine how successful the Russian efforts actually were. Does it matter? Not really, since there will never be a recount, or a do over of the 2016 e******n, so that much remains an intellectual exercise - however - in the interest of stopping further excursions by the Russians ( or anyone else ), US counterintelligence services and related cyber security services MUST know the answer to that question.

The bottom line is; it is silly and dangerous, to answer a question that has not been asked..................because you're guessing, or in this case, doing some wishful thinking. I mean, how horrible would it be, if it were ever to come to light - that the Russian efforts in 2016 were HIGHLY successful, i.e. gave the e******n to Trump? So, if you're afraid of what the answer might be, avoid asking the question.......................just pretend like you know the answer already. I have no data one way or the other, and the point is......................neither does anyone else.

Yeah, that title sounds silly - intentionally so -... (show quote)

I wouldn't say that we have "no data". A look at the national polls up to the e******n show a big drop for Clinton's about a week and a half before the e******n. This corresponds to the release of the Comey letter to congressional Republicans that the FBI had reopened the Clinton email "investigation". I think this was "HIGHLY successful" in giving the e******n to Trump. Rosenstein's arguement that this was valid reason to fire Comey is (I think) right on the mark.

Nixon was not compelled to resign because of his personal involvement in the Watergate break-in, but rather his involvement in the cover-up. Trump and/or his supporters may not have been criminally involved in the Russian efforts, but Trump may blunder his way into obstruction of justice crimes.

Idaho

@ acknowledge - “Do you have any idea of how many different v****g machines are used in the US? How many different people are involved in checking the validity of the machines' results?”

That’s the point - you actually don’t need to rig machines right across the country - a few key areas will do. Spiking a few key checking teams will also do. When the source of the machines is a known bad actor, v****g machines should be considered suspect. There are many ways to start cutting out v***r f***d.