Perfectly Natural Influence(s)

[subgenius]

Ok, so I recognize that an overwhelming majority of posters on this board earnestly believe that the election of 2016 was interfered with to the extent of changing the results while conversely believing that the 2020 election is essentially legit and straight-up with, maybe, a few negligible and common errors. Or to be a bit more simplistic, 6 Russians and a $100k ad buy on Facebook destroyed democracy in 2016 but the ceo and employees of Twitter and Facebook had no influence on anything in 2020.
Point being, influence is influence, correct? - and influence is supposed to be bad, correct?
Now I am not proposing that either or both of these alleged scenarios are sufficient for overturning either election - but given the response from 2016 to pretty much today, I can not fail to see that no such response is occurring from those same responders. Why is that?
Point being, influence is influence, correct? - and influence is supposed to be bad, correct?
...
Ok, so is the line "foreign" influence? or just Russians!! I mean non-citizen (a.k.a. foreign) opinions were scattered across this board in an effort to influence how citizens would vote in both the 2016 and 2020 election; and we likewise saw, and have seen for some time, foreign support for candidate(s) expressed across multiple media forms; so i am little wary of the "foreign" justification - either by individual or by organization.
...
Point being, influence is influence, correct? - and influence is supposed to be bad, correct?

[Chap]

Ok, so I recognize that an overwhelming majority of posters on this board earnestly believe that the election of 2016 was interfered with to the extent of changing the results

How do you mean 'interfered with'? Do you mean that large numbers of ballot papers completed in favor of Clinton were in some way destroyed, hidden or suppressed, or ballots in favor of Trump were created out of thin air and included in the count, so that she would really have come out the winner if only the count have been fair and honest? In other words, Clinton really won the election, but it was stolen by cheating and fraud? I can't recall any significant number of posters saying that. Frankly, I can't at the moment recall anyone advocating that position on this board.

Yet that is what Trump and some of his supporters ARE claiming has happened now. Any complaints about Trump's tweets being tagged as 'disputed claims' and so on are of relatively minor importance compared to Trump's claims of massive ballot fraud. That position is, I think, an unprecedented one at the scale alleged. And it seems that the courts are, so far, choosing to reject it.

[Res Ipsa]

Ok, so I recognize that an overwhelming majority of posters on this board earnestly believe that the election of 2016 was interfered with to the extent of changing the results while conversely believing that the 2020 election is essentially legit and straight-up with, maybe, a few negligible and common errors. Or to be a bit more simplistic, 6 Russians and a $100k ad buy on Facebook destroyed democracy in 2016 but the ceo and employees of Twitter and Facebook had no influence on anything in 2020.
Point being, influence is influence, correct? - and influence is supposed to be bad, correct?
Now I am not proposing that either or both of these alleged scenarios are sufficient for overturning either election - but given the response from 2016 to pretty much today, I can not fail to see that no such response is occurring from those same responders. Why is that?
Point being, influence is influence, correct? - and influence is supposed to be bad, correct?
...
Ok, so is the line "foreign" influence? or just Russians!! I mean non-citizen (a.k.a. foreign) opinions were scattered across this board in an effort to influence how citizens would vote in both the 2016 and 2020 election; and we likewise saw, and have seen for some time, foreign support for candidate(s) expressed across multiple media forms; so i am little wary of the "foreign" justification - either by individual or by organization.
...
Point being, influence is influence, correct? - and influence is supposed to be bad, correct?

It blows my mind that after all the information that has been publicized, that you falsely describe what the Russians did as "6 Russians and an $100K ad buy." At this point, Subs, that's just flat out being dishonest with your fellow men and women. Your argument fails from the beginning by grounding it on a false premise. We don't even need to get to your silly equivocation on the word "influence."

[canpakes]

Ok, so I recognize that an overwhelming majority of posters on this board earnestly believe that the election of 2016 was interfered with to the extent of changing the results ...

CFR. Who believes that the results were changed, and in what way?

[subgenius]

Ok, so I recognize that an overwhelming majority of posters on this board earnestly believe that the election of 2016 was interfered with to the extent of changing the results

How do you mean 'interfered with'?

I think I was clear that interference is interference, correct?

Do you mean that large numbers of ballot papers completed in favor of Clinton were in some way destroyed, hidden or suppressed, or ballots in favor of Trump were created out of thin air and included in the count, so that she would really have come out the winner if only the count have been fair and honest? In other words, Clinton really won the election, but it was stolen by cheating and fraud?

huh?

I can't recall any significant number of posters saying that. Frankly, I can't at the moment recall anyone advocating that position on this board.

neither can I, but I do recall that the position advocated was that Russians! making posts on Facebook caused her to lose the election to level of impeachment.

Yet that is what Trump and some of his supporters ARE claiming has happened now. Any complaints about Trump's tweets being tagged as 'disputed claims' and so on are of relatively minor importance compared to Trump's claims of massive ballot fraud. That position is, I think, an unprecedented one at the scale alleged. And it seems that the courts are, so far, choosing to reject it.

huh?

[canpakes]

... but the ceo and employees of Twitter and Facebook had no influence on anything in 2020.

What subs is trying to say: “I am experiencing butthurt that these organizations exerted some control over their content in a way that ended up being inconvenient to my need to push false or dumbass conspiracy theories.”

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, it’s the mafia now according to the morons on the Right:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumpworl ... -joe-biden

Despite the mobsters-for-Biden story’s dubious pedigree and unfounded claims, the tale is getting some traction in the outer orbits of Trumpworld.

Jordan Sekulow, the son of President Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow and executive director of his father’s American Center for Law and Justice, tweeted the story approvingly with the admonition "Follow all leads."

Sekulow’s amplification of the story landed the story on The Gateway Pundit, the frequently wrong and often-sued journal of record for the far right MAGA fever swamp. From The Gateway Pundit and with help from organic pickup, the story has spread to Facebook where local Republican party pages, pro-Trump groups, and conspiracy theorists like former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney have all shared the story approvingly.

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

... but the ceo and employees of Twitter and Facebook had no influence on anything in 2020.

What subs is trying to say: “I am experiencing butthurt that these organizations exerted some control over their content in a way that ended up being inconvenient to my need to push false or dumbass conspiracy theories.”

PRICELESS