American Politics

[M3J]

On the Russian issue, certainly not. Prior to the election, only one party was engaged in mass conspiracy theories, asked a foreign dictator to meddle in our election, routinely praised said dictator, and still denies Russian involvement. Hint: The party's name starts with a R.

The real reason the US is fucked is because we have a minority government living in its own reality and despises most of the country, even their own. Our federal system isn't reflective of the national plurality since Democrats are locked out of all 3 branches of government. Hardcore Republicanism is reactionary politics, which is toxic to Democrats, but even to a plurality of the Republican base. The problem though is that while their voting base tends to hold both parties in equal contempt, they always blame Democrats before holding their own accountable.

I tend to be cynical about politics, but what has even surprised me at this point is how quickly hardcore Republicans I speak with on a daily basis have warmed up to the idea of permanently disenfranchising Democrats. Originally they attacked Democrats and their allies through indirect means (e.g. exaggerated voter fraud), but now they're blatant about it. Anyone who is perceived as "one of those people" (aka Democrats) must be sent to prison, deported (even if you're a citizen by birth), and on a few occasions, killed. And the scary part is that I live in a swing state, where demographics are supposed to tether such extremism. Instead, such extremism is continually rewarded and procyclical.

Once upon a time I dismissed the idea of the US becoming a permanent dictatorship as utter nonsense. Now I'm increasingly convinced we're on the verge of becoming like Russia in the foreseeable future since Republicans will utilize federal power to do things like impose their policies on states where Democrats control at the state level. Heck, we've survived things like George W. Bush, the Civil War, WWII, etc. But this is something else. I don't know if we can survive an era where we continually elect toddlers like Trump at all levels of federal power. I can't get used to this since it's like watching a toddler playing with a gun - you're always nervous.

Never defended republicans, just pointed out democrats would do the same shit too if they had won. I'm disillusioned with the party now.

Still doesn't change what I said, because democrats have proven they're not that much better during this election. But yeah, I agree with you about republicans, though I do think you're understating it. But then again, I'm far more cynical of the republicans than you seem to be about politics/republicans.

The right wing love to blame left wing for anything and everything. Whenever I read the comments, it's usually a conservative blaming liberals or calling them libtards, or right wingers crying about something that left wingers believe in, like safe space or whatever.

 

[xi0]

or right wingers crying about something that left wingers believe in, like safe space or whatever.

It has nothing to do with actual issues being talked about here, but I'm not a right-winger and I'll complain about safe-spaces until the cows come home. Censorship is one of the most illiberal things going.

Liberals do similar things to rightwingers, it really depends on your perspective. Though I think it's easy to say the left handles things this sort of bias way more deftly, leaving them with less angles to ridicule them from. Though, being a liberal, I guess I'm biased...

 

[M3J]

It has nothing to do with actual issues being talked about here, but I'm not a right-winger and I'll complain about safe-spaces until the cows come home. Censorship is one of the most illiberal things going.

Liberals do similar things to rightwingers, it really depends on your perspective. Though I think it's easy to say the left handles things this sort of bias way more deftly, leaving them with less angles to ridicule them from. Though, being a liberal, I guess I'm biased...

Why are you so against safe spaces? Rape victims should have safe spaces. Victims of violence should have safe spaces. The safe spaces that shouldn't be accepted is people who can't accept Trump winning or whatever else. Besides, conservatives and liberals both believe in safe spaces and censorship, it's just one side that likes to pretend they don't and mock the other side for it.

I rarely see liberals attack right wingers, at least not openly or in such a way. Easiest way to spot a conservative is by saying something liberal like "we need stricter gun control!" and seeing how they respond. More often than not, it's usually by insulting liberals or dems. It's why I became an anti-conservative and for a while, liberal.

 

[xi0]

Why are you so against safe spaces? Rape victims should have safe spaces. Victims of violence should have safe spaces. The safe spaces that shouldn't be accepted is people who can't accept Trump winning or whatever else. Besides, conservatives and liberals both believe in safe spaces and censorship, it's just one side that likes to pretend they don't and mock the other side for it.

I rarely see liberals attack right wingers, at least not openly or in such a way. Easiest way to spot a conservative is by saying something liberal like "we need stricter gun control!" and seeing how they respond. More often than not, it's usually by insulting liberals or dems. It's why I became an anti-conservative and for a while, liberal.

I mean, you just differentiated it yourself, didn't you? Being against safe-space culture and being pro-victim are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to look too far to see privileged, spoiled brats abusing university's tolerance of their "sanctimony" when it comes to censoring opposition. Opposition is a fact of life, teaching young minds that it should be shunned and not understood is self-defeatist and counter-intuitive to a free and equal society.

So we should say something we agree with and see how people who disagree react to it? Uh, ok? My problem here is with your characterization, this isn't a binary thing. I just said I'm not a conservative, yet can see things for what they are in regards to this. Just because diehard Republicans and even Trumpers might speak in the same tone about it doesn't mean squat to me as far as what I think to be true. Enough with this brand of tribalism already.

It's usually done in the media and in the arts compared to straight-out punditry. For whatever reason, the latter doesn't seem to work for the left when it comes to ratings, Political Talk Radio tends to be dominated by conservatives, Fox News dwarfs MSNBC in the ratings, etc.

 

[M3J]

I mean, you just differentiated it yourself, didn't you? Being against safe-space culture and being pro-victim are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to look too far to see privileged, spoiled brats abusing university's tolerance of their "sanctimony" when it comes to censoring opposition. Opposition is a fact of life, teaching young minds that it should be shunned and not understood is self-defeatist and counter-intuitive to a free and equal society.

So we should say something we agree with and see how people who disagree react to it? Uh, ok? My problem here is with your characterization, this isn't a binary thing. I just said I'm not a conservative, yet can see things for what they are in regards to this. Just because diehard Republicans and even Trumpers might speak in the same tone about it doesn't mean squat to me as far as what I think to be true. Enough with this brand of tribalism already.

It's usually done in the media and in the arts compared to straight-out punditry. For whatever reason, the latter doesn't seem to work for the left when it comes to ratings, Political Talk Radio tends to be dominated by conservatives, Fox News dwarfs MSNBC in the ratings, etc.

The way you and others word it, it sounds like you're against safe space even for victims who are traumatized. Other than that, I agree that wanting safe space against different ideas is dumb and annoying.

Sure, why not? I mean, as I've said, anything that goes wrong it's usually the conservatives blaming liberals and calling them names, or if someone says something liberal or whatnot, then they get called a libtard. It's not like I'm basing this on one or two conservatives blaming and attacking liberals.

Probably because the left have multiple ways to get their news and views, while most rights would prefer one or two sources that agree with their views.

 

[xi0]

The way you and others word it, it sounds like you're against safe space even for victims who are traumatized. Other than that, I agree that wanting safe space against different ideas is dumb and annoying.

Sure, why not? I mean, as I've said, anything that goes wrong it's usually the conservatives blaming liberals and calling them names, or if someone says something liberal or whatnot, then they get called a libtard. It's not like I'm basing this on one or two conservatives blaming and attacking liberals.

Probably because the left have multiple ways to get their news and views, while most rights would prefer one or two sources that agree with their views.

No, that's not what I said nor was it what I wanted to imply. My point is only that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" in this case.

But the point is when something "goes wrong", you're thinking about it from your perspective there. You could completely flipped the situation and find someone saying similar things about liberals.

You really think people are that different? You don't think echo-chambers exist on the left? Cmon.

 

[M3J]

You could, but then I'd be asking them for examples. All I know about the left is that they can be just as bad a bully as the right, if not worse, if you challenge their views. I've said this many times though, and you can see examples of this on Tumblr, and even on @Drmke's FB posts. Tell them it's possible to be racist against white people, and they'll start insulting you and shit.

I have my problems with the left and liberals too, I find the right and conservatives more annoying and hostile. I've seen the left call Trump a Cheetos or some shit, while the right have joked about Bernie supporters dying.

 

[shionoro]

No, that's not what I said nor was it what I wanted to imply. My point is only that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" in this case.

But the point is when something "goes wrong", you're thinking about it from your perspective there. You could completely flipped the situation and find someone saying similar things about liberals.

You really think people are that different? You don't think echo-chambers exist on the left? Cmon.

It really depends here.
There are echochambers on the left, but in general, since the left is much more likely to consume renowned media and not use social networks as newsfeed, they are less suspectible to it.

You will find people on the left who exaggerate statistics or even go full on 'we have to fight against opression by force', but the case that someone who is not rightwing falls for every second conspiracy theory is rarer in my opinion.

Bottomline: Even if it sometimes might look like it due to talk about triggers and stuff, i do think the left and center people are less likely to argue based on feelings than someone from the rightwing is.

 

[M3J]

Bottomline: Even if it sometimes might look like it due to talk about triggers and stuff, i do think the left and center people are less likely to argue based on feelings than someone from the rightwing is.

Nah, the left argue more on feelings than the right. Stuff like accepting refugees come from our (or mine anyway) emotion - empathy.

Oh, and don't forget the left also fear mongering, but I dunno if that's part of exaggerating. I know I've done the same, especially when it came to Trump. Or comes.

 

[xi0]

You could, but then I'd be asking them for examples. All I know about the left is that they can be just as bad a bully as the right, if not worse, if you challenge their views. I've said this many times though, and you can see examples of this on Tumblr, and even on @Drmke's FB posts. Tell them it's possible to be racist against white people, and they'll start insulting you and shit.

Well, that's usually because some people prefer redefining the word to mean something else. But again, arguing whether it can happen or not has nothing to do with issues someone could potentially face due to ethnicity.

You will find people on the left who exaggerate statistics or even go full on 'we have to fight against opression by force', but the case that someone who is not rightwing falls for every second conspiracy theory is rarer in my opinion.

I don't think of political conspiracy theory or conspiracy theories actually being necessarily partisan honestly. Obviously the latest example with the Clinton campaign is, but if you go back far enough and look at what has been said about the War in Iraq, 9/11 Truthers, the JFK assassination. They aren't really right-wing in essence, at least not to me. There is usually a type of person who is drawn to those kinds of things naturally, suspending all standards of skepticism, etc. This exists plenty among the right and the left IMO.

Bottomline: Even if it sometimes might look like it due to talk about triggers and stuff, i do think the left and center people are less likely to argue based on feelings than someone from the rightwing is.

When it comes to specific topics sure, others less so. Maybe academia typically being more left-leaning has something to do with it, but then you also have some in modern academia pushing what I see as preposterous social theory themselves...so who knows.

 

[GrySun]

Wow the birther thing is actually still ongoing Some new investigations uncovered some new evidence?
It's probably all bullshit and a conspiracy theory like the russian hacking, but it's still quite hilarious we're at this topic again.

 

[shionoro]

Wow the birther thing is actually still ongoing Some new investigations uncovered some new evidence?
It's probably all bullshit and a conspiracy theory like the russian hacking, but it's still quite hilarious we're at this topic again.

The russian hacking is not a conspiracy theory tho.

It is a problem that is ongoing since years in many diferent countries and was verified in this special case by the CIA.

 

[GrySun]

The russian hacking is not a conspiracy theory tho.

It is a problem that is ongoing since years in many diferent countries and was verified in this special case by the CIA.

From all I've ever seen the Russian participation in the hacking has no actual evidence at all whatsoever, care to give anything credible?

Because all this is is severe whining and blame shifting from the democrat side.

 

[kkck]

Well russia was a suspect in this well before the emails were released. Since then the CIA has literally confirmed this was done by russia and with supervision from putin. There is also a report out there that Mitch McConnell along with other senate members attended a briefing regarding the actual evidence but they could not go public with it because McConnell threatened to make this a wholy partisan issue which would basically discredit the intelligence community as a whole. Which seems pretty consistent with the guy single handedly responsible for sabotaging Obama's right to nominate a supreme court justice and causing incalculable damage to US institutions as a whole.

 

[shionoro]

From all I've ever seen the Russian participation in the hacking has no actual evidence at all whatsoever, care to give anything credible?

Because all this is is severe whining and blame shifting from the democrat side.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/1...ent-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html

If signifikant us agencies believe it was russian hacking buhlt on good reason and it also makes Sense looking at russias history it is not a conspiracy theory. And it is also not whining. Watch our next election, you will see the same thing. At least russia will try.

 

[GrySun]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/1...ent-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html

If signifikant us agencies believe it was russian hacking buhlt on good reason and it also makes Sense looking at russias history it is not a conspiracy theory. And it is also not whining. Watch our next election, you will see the same thing. At least russia will try.

"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."

So, yeah, what else is there to talk about? There's no actual evidence for any of this, Wikileaks and Assange also denied any russian involvement, so you're all just on total tinfoil hat mode... I mean I know that's not your and their desired outcome, but blaming Russian hacks, really? You should blame the ugly information revealed by them instead.
Though I personally didn't think you were the type to believe in some conspiracy theories without any actual evidence shinoro.

 

[shionoro]

"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."

So, yeah, what else is there to talk about? There's no actual evidence for any of this, Wikileaks and Assange also denied any russian involvement, so you're all just on total tinfoil hat mode... I mean I know that's not your and their desired outcome, but blaming Russian hacks, really? You should blame the ugly information revealed by them instead.
Though I personally didn't think you were the type to believe in some conspiracy theories without any actual evidence shinoro.

But you do know that circumstancial evidence is enough to get people in jail, right?
And ya, wikileaks and assange, the most biased people ever, denied their involvement. Great. That is real evidence obviously.
While motivation, ability (which means a lot here), circumstancial evidence and expert opinion does not matter shit and makes a conspiracy theory.
Obviously that is how it works.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but i believe in deduction.
There is noone else who has botht the motivation and the means and also the history with that stuff.
There is no 400 pound person able to pull that off. You need a lot of bot networks, spy contacts, financial means and be able to pull that off with absolutel confidence in secretiveness.
There are only the russians who can do that and they have a history with that.

It is like saying that if there were provably only two people in a room and one is stabbed dead with a knife, that is not enough evidence to say the other one is a murderer if the rest of the known facts also points to that.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2016, Original Post Date: Dec 17, 2016 ---

Basically, what you are trying to tell me that all US agencies, the guys who are said to know everything, hack everything and do not bother for law, are all wrong about their estimation of russia being the definite culprit.
That includes the FBI, who shortly before the election day brought clinton in trouble and whose boss was tied to possibly be tied to russia.
Even those guys endorsed that CIA's view that russia interfered in the election, although they definitely had an interest to NOT take that view.

And even tho most politicians and the agencies too would have an interest in not escalating the heated situation in the US further.

YOu want to tell me that they are all wrong or lying and that believing them is a conspiracy theory.

That is absolute tinfoil behaviour, exspecially because even common sense implies the only states with the equipment to do it would be russia and possibly china with china having no interest at all in getting trump elected, while russia does.

But it is still not enough. Only if vladimir putin himself is caught on the tablet it will be enough, and since he has people under him, that wont happen it seems.

Conspiracy theorie were what got trump elected. Russian hacking and interfering is a sad fact, and not only in the US; but also in europe.

 

[GrySun]

But you do know that circumstancial evidence is enough to get people in jail, right?
And ya, wikileaks and assange, the most biased people ever, denied their involvement. Great. That is real evidence obviously.
While motivation, ability (which means a lot here), circumstancial evidence and expert opinion does not matter shit and makes a conspiracy theory.
Obviously that is how it works.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but i believe in deduction.
There is noone else who has botht the motivation and the means and also the history with that stuff.
There is no 400 pound person able to pull that off. You need a lot of bot networks, spy contacts, financial means and be able to pull that off with absolutel confidence in secretiveness.
There are only the russians who can do that and they have a history with that.

It is like saying that if there were provably only two people in a room and one is stabbed dead with a knife, that is not enough evidence to say the other one is a murderer if the rest of the known facts also points to that.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2016, Original Post Date: Dec 17, 2016 ---

Basically, what you are trying to tell me that all US agencies, the guys who are said to know everything, hack everything and do not bother for law, are all wrong about their estimation of russia being the definite culprit.
That includes the FBI, who shortly before the election day brought clinton in trouble and whose boss was tied to possibly be tied to russia.
Even those guys endorsed that CIA's view that russia interfered in the election, although they definitely had an interest to NOT take that view.

And even tho most politicians and the agencies too would have an interest in not escalating the heated situation in the US further.

YOu want to tell me that they are all wrong or lying and that believing them is a conspiracy theory.

That is absolute tinfoil behaviour, exspecially because even common sense implies the only states with the equipment to do it would be russia and possibly china with china having no interest at all in getting trump elected, while russia does.

But it is still not enough. Only if vladimir putin himself is caught on the tablet it will be enough, and since he has people under him, that wont happen it seems.

Conspiracy theorie were what got trump elected. Russian hacking and interfering is a sad fact, and not only in the US; but also in europe.

So you think it's the russians because they have a motive and the means. You'd be an interesting lawyer if all you cared about was those two. It's been heavily asserted far before any of this hack nonsense that the DNC mails were leaked by someone in the DNC, and it's the most likely explanation for the wikileaks mails as well as far less of a conspiracy theory than russians hacking, then giving it to wikileaks who then released it.

But you call it a deduction because some government agencies said it? Can you even name those "government agencies" who said that? I want to see how much you really think you know.
The CIA alone has a history of lying to both the public and congress, so even if they said it it wouldn't be credible at all with them taking no actions. If they really had any evidence of anything there's no reason the CIA wouldn't have presented their findings to congress yet, but nothing. Meaning they actually have nothing they can present, which raises the question "why make such claims if you have nothing to prove it".

But here's the strange thing, the CIA didn't even say it. It was an "unnamed source" who told the washington post. How is that trustworthy at all?

Then if you want to believe other "government agencies" like the FBI, they previously said that there was no russian hacking..

So you're telling me it's not tinfoil hat behavior that you trust some unnamed source saying that, with the CIA doing nothing at all to present their findings to the public/congress?

Yes I know russian hacking is a thing, as it is with many countries, including the US, involving themselves in the elections of other countries. That's to be expected of everyone, and it's far from a russian-only thing. And I would be surprised if no outside countries tried to influence the US election at all over the year, including Russia, China with potential hackings, or every other major country through other means like Saudi Arabia with Hillary sponsoring. Why wouldn't a foreign country try to get their most favorable outcome secured if they have some means or the other?
But here is the thing, people take things too far. You think Trump's victory is all because of russian intervention, you happily disregard all the other foreign involvement with either Clinton or Trump and all the other plentiful failures and corruption of the democrats. No it's just some alleged hacks without proof that did everything. Wikileaks wasn't talked about anywhere on any news until the election day, yet it somehow made many Clinton voters vote Trump and cause him to win?
This all just turned into a complete blame shift and damage control from the democrat side and that's all this thing really is imo. Even if russians were behind it, their main goal is to influence public opinion, shrug it all under the rug and pointing people at russia, while they have no evidence of it to do anything else. Which will result in the democrats not changing, continuing their corruption and losing them the 2020 election for sure.

It seems to work well since far too few people actually know what was leaked and talk about it, instead they all just blame that it was leaked as the excuse Trump won. It works really well actually, I can't tell you how many people I talked to who thought the votes were hacked by russians and had no clue about any leaks..

Edit: Also if you find the time you can look at Obama's latest press conference. He was quite heavily backpedaling on the russian hacker story, confirming that they can't prove anything but promising to ensure better protection. There you have it really, you're believing in things that have no proof.

 

[shionoro]

So you think it's the russians because they have a motive and the means. You'd be an interesting lawyer if all you cared about was those two. It's been heavily asserted far before any of this hack nonsense that the DNC mails were leaked by someone in the DNC, and it's the most likely explanation for the wikileaks mails as well as far less of a conspiracy theory than russians hacking, then giving it to wikileaks who then released it.

No not only me but US intelligences think it were the russians because the were the ONLY ones who got motive and means.
You would be an interesting judge, for maybe one day, if you think that this kind of circumstancial evidence and expert opinion is not fit to build a case upon it.

We are not only talking about the DNC. The RNC was equally hacked, but strangely oh strangely, nothinf´g ever came out of it.
Why was that if those good people at wikileaks are so interested in transparancy?

And why did it happen at such a good tie with the elections and the only candidate who got attacked was clinton?

But you call it a deduction because some government agencies said it? Can you even name those "government agencies" who said that? I want to see how much you really think you know.
The CIA alone has a history of lying to both the public and congress, so even if they said it it wouldn't be credible at all with them taking no actions. If they really had any evidence of anything there's no reason the CIA wouldn't have presented their findings to congress yet, but nothing. Meaning they actually have nothing they can present, which raises the question "why make such claims if you have nothing to prove it".

But here's the strange thing, the CIA didn't even say it. It was an "unnamed source" who told the washington post. How is that trustworthy at all?

Then if you want to believe other "government agencies" like the FBI, they previously said that there was no russian hacking..

I call it deduction because common sense and expert opinion implies it.
There are more things against the russians than in actually convicted murdercases in front of court here.
I can name the biggest two: CIA and FBI and NSA (ya know, the guys who were played up as being all powerful and spying everything, those guys)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...nvestigate-russian-interference-2016-campaign

And no. IF you really think that an agency would present evidence to the public you have no clue about how they work.
Obviously that would mean to reveal sources and networks they have, thus no agency in the world would do that.
If you do not trust the three biggest (and some more) US agencies (of which one is said to be the best spies ever and the other directly did something negative to clinton in the election), then i cannot help you.
BUt then you are the conspiracy not, not me.
It is irrelevant what was said previously by the FBI since they work seperated from other agencies. Once they had the same information the other agencies do, they agreed with them. They simply didnt have the sufficient evidence before that.

But here's the strange thing, the CIA didn't even say it. It was an "unnamed source" who told the washington post. How is that trustworthy at all?

Then if you want to believe other "government agencies" like the FBI, they previously said that there was no russian hacking..

So you're telling me it's not tinfoil hat behavior that you trust some unnamed source saying that, with the CIA doing nothing at all to present their findings to the public/congress?

VEry trustworthy actually, as long as you dont trust anything the CIA says anyway.
Any agency in the world does protect its sources, whether kgb, cia, bns or whatever. Even the police has such sources they wont name, or journalists.
It is clear that by now, all relevant US agencies believe it is beyond any doubt that it was russian hacking.
They believe that while it actively goes against what their government likes to hear and in case of the FBI even is an embarassment for them since they basically helped these manipulations from the russian side.

Thinking alll these agencies make taht up for shit and giggles, yes, that is tinfoilhat behaviour.

Yes I know russian hacking is a thing, as it is with many countries, including the US, involving themselves in the elections of other countries. That's to be expected of everyone, and it's far from a russian-only thing. And I would be surprised if no outside countries tried to influence the US election at all over the year, including Russia, China with potential hackings, or every other major country through other means like Saudi Arabia with Hillary sponsoring. Why wouldn't a foreign country try to get their most favorable outcome secured if they have some means or the other?
But here is the thing, people take things too far. You think Trump's victory is all because of russian intervention, you happily disregard all the other foreign involvement with either Clinton or Trump and all the other plentiful failures and corruption of the democrats. No it's just some alleged hacks without proof that did everything. Wikileaks wasn't talked about anywhere on any news until the election day, yet it somehow made many Clinton voters vote Trump and cause him to win?
This all just turned into a complete blame shift and damage control from the democrat side and that's all this thing really is imo. Even if russians were behind it, their main goal is to influence public opinion, shrug it all under the rug and pointing people at russia, while they have no evidence of it to do anything else. Which will result in the democrats not changing, continuing their corruption and losing them the 2020 election for sure.

It is a russian only thing on that scale. Who else does that?
Hacking was hardly the only thing the russians did here with all their propaganda bots and paid trolls.
That is simply something china does not do, china usually hacks for economical gains and espionage, not to manipulate.

NOt all of trumps victory is due to that: But VERY much of it.
It is not 'some' alleged hacks by now. It is a large scale hacking attack with a grade of organization that amateurs simply do not have.
It is not about blame shift, but it is a fact that all those bullshit conspiracy theories about clinton were enhanced and supported by a foreign power who also hacked the two biggest parties. And that is reason to be afraid, exspecially because the guy who was supported by them actively embraced that support, now installs russia friendly billionairess in important positions and plays it friendly with that foreign power.
And yes in an election as close as this in which conspiracy theories were more important than the truth (that is a fact, the 5 biggest fake stories trended higher than the 5 biggest true stories right before election day), that made a difference.
It is not whining to not want to be attacked by russian propaganda and russia's pet installed as leader (because even tho the RNC hacks are not public now, they could be any time if the reps dont play nice with russia).

It seems to work well since far too few people actually know what was leaked and talk about it, instead they all just blame that it was leaked as the excuse Trump won. It works really well actually, I can't tell you how many people I talked to who thought the votes were hacked by russians and had no clue about any leaks..

No. Absolutely wrong. Most people didnt know what exactly was leaked, believed wild sconspiracy theories about it and then voted for trump since they thought clinton made a deal with the devil and led a child porn ring.
As i said, it is not about the people here.
All relevant US agencies agree that it was russian hacking and influence that supported trump

Edit: Also if you find the time you can look at Obama's latest press conference. He was quite heavily backpedaling on the russian hacker story, confirming that they can't prove anything but promising to ensure better protection. There you have it really, you're believing in things that have no proof.

Ya, like noone can prove that they annexed crimea and helped assad using chemical warfare in syria.
BEcause you have no video footage of them doing it with a russian official admitting it.
But as i said, circumstancial evidence is enough to jail someone, why would it not suffice here?
It is not like the russians are too incompetent to hide their traces. The same as in ukraine, it is clear they did it, but they will play the game of 'prove it' while obviously not exactly letting someone check servers and whatnot inside russia.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

And it looks like only 2 EC refused to vote for Trump while ~5-6 of them voted for a different candidate than Hillary.
I'm now convinced that the EC is a system that has failed to do one of its jobs. Granted, some of the reasons is that certain ballots only has Trump and Pence's name on it and requires a signature of an EC to actually vote for the candidate, but still...

If Trump has achieved enough EC votes to become president, then it's a sign something's wrong with the system. Not only did he proved himself to be unfit for office, but also backed out on his promises and various words (including Building a Wall which he probably realizes that it's not possible, and draining the Swamp considering how he's hiring Goldman Saccs crooks for fucks sakes).