Schumer Now Admits Russia Did Not Hack The Election

[ludin]

Well, apparently the Democrats themselves have figured out that that is a bad thing because in response to these polls, they have retooled their message to an actual message other than being the resistance. They were smart enough to figure out that just being anti-Trump wasn't working and Schumer has now come out to say that Hillary didn't lose because of Comey, Hillary didn't lose because of the Russians, Hillary lost because of Hillary.

I figure they will go back to their old message.

Tax those people more
give you more money
blah blah blah.

the same old tired line that has never worked in reality.

 

[DA60]

By telling Hillary to quit blaming Russia for her loss he is saying that Russia did not change the election results. Otherwise he would be going back to the left rabid narrative that her loss was either Comey's fault or the Russian's fault. If Russia did change the election results then it was not Hillary's fault for her loss, it was the Russian hacking.

But he did not actually say what you said he said.

Come on man, if you say someone 'says' something...then that means those are the actual words they spoke, not what you think they meant or sort of meant.

Surely you know this.

 

[cabse5]

Actually the Russians did hack the election and more than just the DNC:

By any definition, the Chinese government hacked into the Pentagon, at least. Where's your angst for China? Again, the statement that Russia hacked the 2016 election is inaccurate. Rhetorical and, and quite frankly, Trumpian.

Russian popups on voting websites are no more insidious to the 2016 election than ideological teachings from American public schools and American MSM. Matter of fact, the MSM and public schools have a worse effect on the 2016 election because there is a direct correlation between their brainwashing attempts and voting.

 

[American]

Schumer Rips Hillary: Don?t Blame Comey or Russia, ?Blame Yourself? - The Daily Beast

No reason for Schumer to say this unless he now believes that nothing Russia did actually changed the election results. Are Democrats now finally coming to grips with their huge losses over the last six years, culminating in Trump winning and continuing into this year at being 0 for 4, even after heavy "resistance" did nothing but convince Americans that the Democratic party doesn't stand for anything but resistance?

If they had changed the votes, wouldn't Trump have won the popular too?

 

[cabse5]

Here's what dems want people to believe with all their heart: Russia hacked the 2016 presidential election.
Here's what GOPs what people to believe with all their heart: Obama Care is doomed to failure.

Neither statement is true. It's ideology from both parties that fuels the rhetoric.

For example, the Russians didn't hack the election of 2016 they hacked the DNC.
For example, Obama Care isn't doomed to failure unless one demands choice for those insured. Unless one cares about the inevitable skyrocketing costs of healthcare so willingly paid for by the government.

No dems on DP desire to jump on (to agree with) my 'the ACA is not as bad as GOPs are making it out to be' statement but plenty of dems on DP are jumping on my 'the Russians didn't hack the 2016 election just the DNC' statement. The Russians didn't hack the election. Shows which narrative the dems wish, with all their hearts, to establish. Hum, I believe that narrative that the Russians hacked the 2016 election first came from the Hillary campaign after they lost...and we all know what tellers of truth the Hillary campaign was. :roll:

 

[cabse5]

Sorry. I just do not buy it. Virtually everything you post amounts to common DNC talking points. I doubt that you ever voted for a conservative in your life and never intend to.

People in Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan, for examples, used to be 'Never-GOPs' but, with Trump's influence, they changed their minds and voted GOP and Trump won the election. Establishment GOPs didn't win the 2016 election for Trump. Likely they could've lost it for Trump if more were Never-Trumpers like JamesBY.

At least, GOPs have experienced some sense of unity in the previous paragraph's example. Actions of congress seems to be an indication that many GOPs are reverting back to their disunity. We can't blame Rand Paul, for example, for his disunity with the GOP because he's a libertarian but the other GOP congresspersons?

 

[cabse5]

What you buy matters not. Virtually everything you say is far right unAmerican nonRepublican values. You are not a true conservative. You are not a true Republican. You are a Trump alt right fascist.

People in Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan, for examples, used to be 'Never-GOPs' but, with Trump's influence, they changed their minds and voted GOP and Trump won the election. Establishment GOPs didn't win the 2016 election for Trump. Likely they could've lost it for Trump if more were Never-Trumpers like JamesBY.

At least, GOPs have experienced some sense of unity in the previous paragraph's example. Actions of congress seems to be an indication that many GOPs are reverting back to their disunity. We can't blame Rand Paul, for example, for his disunity with the GOP because he's a libertarian but the other GOP congresspersons?

 

[Socrates1]

Schumer Rips Hillary: Don?t Blame Comey or Russia, ?Blame Yourself? - The Daily Beast

No reason for Schumer to say this unless he now believes that nothing Russia did actually changed the election results. Are Democrats now finally coming to grips with their huge losses over the last six years, culminating in Trump winning and continuing into this year at being 0 for 4, even after heavy "resistance" did nothing but convince Americans that the Democratic party doesn't stand for anything but resistance?

The democratic party and continues to push a message of more resistance and obstruction using parliamentary tricks and legislative maneuvers ..
They are in touch with the special interests that keep their party afloat, but they're out of touch with working America ! The Democrats can be trusted to tax you to the max , spend your money on someone else, and impose ridiculous regulations on the economy that make it tough for you to ever find a job.

 

[cabse5]

But he did not actually say what you said he said.

Come on man, if you say someone 'says' something...then that means those are the actual words they spoke, not what you think they meant or sort of meant.

Surely you know this.

What did Schumer say/mean when he said Hillary should quite blaming Russia for her loss?

 

[DA60]

What did Schumer say/mean when he said Hillary should quite blaming Russia for her loss?

How should I know? Ask him what he meant.

All I am interested in is what he ACTUALLY SAID.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If they had changed the votes, wouldn't Trump have won the popular too?

If they were smart about it no

The smart way is to just enough to win. The dumb way is to change the votes to win by a landslide. If the district is a tight contest, changing just 1-2 % of the votes is enough to have it swing towards the preferred candidate. If the district is a lopsided one with almost no chance of the other candidate winning, changing the votes in that district is not a good idea

So elections say in the USSR where the winning candidate won with nearly 100% of the votes, everyone knows that election is rigged. But if the vote was 51% to 49% then it is much harder to detect and have people believe it was rigged

 

[Removable Mind]

What did Schumer say/mean when he said Hillary should quite blaming Russia for her loss?

Read the following:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...-did-not-hack-election-14.html#post1067448143

Selective reading seems to be an epidemic. Moderate Right's thread title is false. But as usual it started all of Trump supporters to begin to salivate when they read it and simply took Moderate Right's FAKE THREAD TITLE to automatically be true.

It's not.

 

[cabse5]

How should I know? Ask him what he meant.

All I am interested in is what he ACTUALLY SAID.

How can you disregard someone else's interpretation (the title and OP of this thread) if you don't know what Schumer was thinking when he said it? Maybe, Schumer is 'Trumpian' in his inexactness of speech. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to derive meaning from his words. Let's leave the concrete thinking -that's not exactly what Schumer said - to the second graders.

 

[Removable Mind]

How can you disregard someone else's interpretation (the title and OP of this thread) if you don't know what Schumer was thinking when he said it? Maybe, Schumer is 'Trumpian' in his inexactness of speech. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to derive meaning from his words. Let's leave the concrete thinking -that's not exactly what Schumer said - to the second graders.

There is no mind reading involved about what Schumer said. It's in black and white all over the Internet for you to read.

What's really wild about your post above is that I had just replied to your previous post, which give quotes and a link, which verifies that Moderate Rights thread title is false.

You, like M.R. are uncontrollably compelled to perpetuate a falsehood about what Schumer actually said.

Schumer didn't stutter. His complaint about Hillary Clinton's campaign is clear. He didn't negate that Comey and the Russian hacking played a role in her losing the election. He clearly stated it was wrong for her to use those issues as the primary reason that she lost the election.

Gezzzus Gawd!

 

[justabubba]

There is no mind reading involved about what Schumer said. It's in black and white all over the Internet for you to read.

What's really wild about your post above is that I had just replied to your previous post, which give quotes and a link, which verifies that Moderate Rights thread title is false.

You, like M.R. are uncontrollably compelled to perpetuate a falsehood about what Schumer actually said.

Schumer didn't stutter. His complaint about Hillary Clinton's campaign is clear. He didn't negate that Comey and the Russian hacking played a role in her losing the election. He clearly stated it was wrong for her to use those issues as the primary reason that she lost the election.

Gezzzus Gawd!

thick as a brick
and proud of it

suggest we stop the feeding

 

[Moderate Right]

But he did not actually say what you said he said.

Come on man, if you say someone 'says' something...then that means those are the actual words they spoke, not what you think they meant or sort of meant.

Surely you know this.

You know that's what he meant. It is obvious. Recent polls have shown Democrats that their message of blaming Russia and being everything anti-Trump wasn't working so they have decided not to blame Russia anymore for Hillary's loss and accept the reality that Russia did not change the election results. In other words, they have thrown Hillary under the bus because of partisan politics. They were playing partisan politics for political gain by blaming Russia in the first place and then when they saw it wasn't working, Hillary has now been run over by the partisan bus and is flat as a pancake.

 

[JackA]

Why is your thread title not even remotely supported by the source you provided? Schumer did not "admit" Russia did not hack the election, and in fact, he was talking about democratic messaging. Why the need to lie about what he said?

Thank you. Schumer and other leading Democrats have never claimed that Russian meddling/hacking determined the outcome of the election. It's unfortunate so much of the discussion here
descends to plain stupidity, as in the post you challenged and corrected.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

What you buy matters not. Virtually everything you say is far right unAmerican nonRepublican values. You are not a true conservative. You are not a true Republican. You are a Trump alt right fascist.

Yawn.

 

[JamesBY]

Yawn.

I know, time for beddy. :elephantf

 

[JamesBY]

Thank you. Schumer and other leading Democrats have never claimed that Russian meddling/hacking determined the outcome of the election. It's unfortunate so much of the discussion here descends to plain stupidity, as in the post you challenged and corrected.

^^ tortured convolution

 

[JackA]

^^ tortured convolution

I beg your pardon.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I know, time for beddy. :elephantf

Reading chronic dnc talking points does have that effect.

 

[ray188]

Thank you. Schumer and other leading Democrats have never claimed that Russian meddling/hacking determined the outcome of the election. It's unfortunate so much of the discussion here
descends to plain stupidity, as in the post you challenged and corrected.

While that may be true, he and others have certainly said things about keeping the question marks and disruption of the government going. If, in fact, there is no evidence that the Russians had an effect on the outcome of our elections, what are the Dems and their supporters constantly yakking about? In fact, what is all the time and money being spent on investigations about?

 

[JackA]

While that may be true, he and others have certainly said things about keeping the question marks and disruption of the government going. If, in fact, there is no evidence that the Russians had an effect on the outcome of our elections, what are the Dems and their supporters constantly yakking about? In fact, what is all the time and money being spent on investigations about?

Just about everyone not in the bag for Trump has ongoing "question marks". Republican question marks are why there are Senate and House investigations and a special prosecutor appointed by the assistant attorney general.

 

[Removable Mind]

While that may be true, he and others have certainly said things about keeping the question marks and disruption of the government going. If, in fact, there is no evidence that the Russians had an effect on the outcome of our elections, what are the Dems and their supporters constantly yakking about? In fact, what is all the time and money being spent on investigations about?

Under no circumstances should any foreign nation be allowed to get away with even attempting to breach any portion of America's voting systems.

A simple attempt is a major issue and requires action.

I don't get the notion by people that there's no evidence of Russian hacking interference. Virtually all heads of our various security agencies have admitted to such, along with some members of Congress who sit on Committees that have access to national intelligence information.

If there's no consequences for inappropriate behaviors or actions - then why stop? The consequences in this matter is being handled through sanctions.