1) It was Trump's plan to withdraw from Afghanistan over a year ago. Libs - including you - screamed and screamed about how this would be abandoning our allies lmao. "Think of the Afghani women!," you'd wail, only to not give af as soon as Biden "took" office.

2) Everyone - except libs (especially you) before 2021 - wanted to leave Afghanistan. But we didn't want the worst American foreign policy failure/debacle since Saigon. I know you have a hard time understanding anything that CNN doesn't spoon-feed you, but surely this grade school level nuance can somehow get through to you.

3) You literally love Bush, McCain, and Cheney now, the biggest neocon warhawk monsters of all time - who killed millions and millions of those brown people you cared so much about when Trump was president - after you spent all of 2008-2016 SLURPING down Barry Soetero's flaccid HOPE and CHANGE. You even changed your name to Obeezy, in perhaps the cringiest move in board history. And now you love the guy you told us all was a Nazi babykiller in 2008

L M A O

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43010753)

Fuck I forgot to post this under the TBF monicker

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43014844)

Remember forever that this is what libs mean when they say Russians hacked the election

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43012591)

These basic logical questions and their obvious answers are why normal people think it's insane when libs harp on "muh Russia".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43013194)

RISS via IRA at the direction of SRV/Reshetnikov. This is thoroughly documented and not really in dispute by anyone who has studied this at all.

>>How much money did "they" invest in Facebook ads? Why would these ads turn the election in the face of the $2 billion that was Hillary's war chest?

This is the preferred talking point that fucking Jared Kushner of all dullards really deserves the most credit for popularizing, but it's very stupid bc the implication is that the facebook ads were their only operation. They got 350M impressions and most of them for free. Again, not really up for debate, well documented and confirmed by Facebook and Twitter. If you want to put a total dollar figure on the operation you'd have to account for how much it cost them to pay thousands of trolls to promote their content and manipulate algorithms all day. But how much it costs them is beside the point, since as you point out they no doubt achieved everything they achieved by spending far less than either campaign.

>>How does their misinformation compare to the misinformation that major US news networks spread every week that is explicitly pro-Dem?

This barely deserves a response, but sufficed to say that it was not content created with an intent to be accurate. It was content created to target voters with certain biases and interests, so e.g. Hillary with devil horns and some story about her being satan isn't really an attempt at persuasion of anyone, just an ad to try to activate and engage the kind of voter likely to vote the way the Russians preferred. Also it's straight up idiotic how trumpmos claim the media in 2016 was so hopelessly biased against him when every network basically handed over its airwaves to him to speak uninterrupted for hours at a time on a nightly basis. Jeff Zucker is more or less on record saying he was actively trying to promote Trump because he thought it was good for his network's ratings and he believed Trump couldn't win.

>>Do you think American voters are too dumb to evaluate the information they are presented, including inaccurate information? If they are, then isn't every election invalid? Do you think a typical voter in a typical American election has been exposed to 100% accurate information? Do you plan on liberating the world from wrong information?

Taking these stupid questions together, the issue was not that the IRA unlock some magic method of persuading voters. It was that they made a massive in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign of digital influencers and content promoters to do everything they could to give Trump a turnout advantage. It's amazing to me that anyone could watch Jared and Brad Parscale for the last four years and think those two were the brains of the 2016 campaign. They are both utter retards.

>>If Democrat voters were presented with faulty information during an election campaign that was eventually won by a Democrat, would you support overturning the election?

Who said anything about overturning an election? I'm all for investigating the members of any WH and any campaign inner circle that are as shady and deeply tied in with the intelligence services of a foreign adversary as Manafort and Stone were. The idea that it wasn't a great thing for America to tar those two assholes as convicts and traitors is the kind of thing only true Trumpensheep actually believe. They are horrible people and should be rotting in jail and will hopefully die painful deaths very soon.

As for Democratic voters, they were targeted in 2016 by the Russians with disinformation and other content in an effort to suppress their turn out. Once again to redirect from your very stupid red herring, no one is arguing about the content of the information itself. It's fucked up to have an adversary this active in our elections. We should have done something in response to ensure it doesn't happen again. Inb4 b-b-b-butwhuddabout THE DOSSIER. Not the same thing as it came from an ally, but also fucked up and I'm totally for banning or at least requiring disclosure and the opportunity for public humiliation for any foreign interference of that type as well. If Trump actually loved this country he would've definitely taken this on while he was POTUS but it hurt his feelings for anyone to suggest that he got assistance from the Russians so his goal ever since has been to get his sheep (you) to try to shut down all discussion of it. That's fucked up and has done lasting harm to our country. For the 12th time, the harm is not due to how impactful the Russian content was. The harm is having shitty, dishonest, scummy people like Manafort, Stone and Trump anywhere near the levers of power in this country. People who live and do business like them should face insurmountable hurdles because they are bad people and the lie under oath and cheat and steal like they draw breath (regardless of the fact that Hillary and Bill aren't much better).

>>These basic logical questions and their obvious answers are why normal people think it's insane when libs harp on "muh Russia".

Normal people are unaware of most of this, but they all agree that someone like Paul Manafort is a piece of shit and anyone who chooses him as their campaign manager deserves to have their campaign and POTUSy ruined by investigations. Just like normal people think Trump is a horrible person and his Twitter presence was obnoxious and embarrassing for the country and he is a piece of shit for cheating on his pregnant wife with a pornstar and his other wives before that and that he's mentally unwell.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43014675)

be honest...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43014691)

they are the reason we are in this shitmess

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43012657)

the decision to not finish the job in Afghanistan and invade Iraq instead will always be regarded as the moment America jumped the shark

this ignore all the other disastrous things that bush jr tried / did (selling out to China, blowing out the budget, trying to privatize social security, gross incompetence at all levels of govt, etc)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43018878)

https://apnews.com/article/andrew-cuomo-us-news-crime-new-york-manhattan-0d25534413834de8a11c78fd4afc6a74

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43013284)

*pissed off the line is moved*

*it's Trump's fault*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43013305)

I tell you:

"In 2017, the President of the United States will be someone who has very clearly and forcefully stated to the world that the Iraq War was a mistake.

He will also make it a major priority to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals to get a better deal for American workers. He will repeatedly exclaim that, when it comes to trade, corporate profits should come second to securing good jobs for American workers. Not free trade, fair trade!, he'll say.

On the first day of his presidency, he will make it a priority to meet with several organized labor leaders in the White House; they will leave the meeting thrilled and state that they truly believe he is on their side and that he wants to do whatever he can to help create jobs and improve wages for American workers. He will make it a favorite pastime to call up fat-cat CEOs and yell at them about how they need to stop outsourcing jobs and need to invest in American labor OR ELSE."

"That's amazing," you'd say. I might reply: "well, you know, some people think that is a little tyrannical and autocratic trying to bully people like --" "Oh please," you'd cut me off, "I think those CEOs can take it. It's amazing to hear we'll finally have someone showing a little bit of back bone for labor against capital in this country! Anyway, this guy sounds amazing. Tell me more. What does he think about health care?"

I'd continue: "Well, when it comes to health care, he will come out in favor of negotiating against drug companies for lower prices on prescription drugs. And he will say that, whatever we do on health care reform, we need to make sure that we guarantee coverage for people with preexisting conditions.

He will be forcefully in favor of preserving social security and medicare. He will call for six weeks of guaranteed maternity leave.

Also, I should note, he is in favor of large-scale government spending on massive projects to put Americans to work rebuilding our national infrastructure.

He will also come out in favor of reform to close the carried interest tax loophole.

Also, he won't seem very religious all. Not only will he be for civil unions, he will in fact openly admit that he has no problem with gay marriage. He will even wave around a rainbow LGBT flag at one of his rallies."

At this point, you would probably stop me. "Stop, stop. I don't believe you," you'd say, "It's too good to be true."

In your head you are picturing some heroic left-wing dream candidate.

"Well, there is more," I'd say. "You really should know that he wants to build a wall on our border with Mexico to prevent further illegal immigration and, although he has suggested that after the wall is built he may be open to some limited amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, he does not support blanket amnesty for all 11 million+ illegal immigrants in the country. He dismisses all arguments about illegal immigration ultimately benefiting GDP, because he believes the most important thing to focus on is the well-being of low-wage American workers."

In response to this, you might say that you need to see the specifics. But you'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that last point about low-wage workers and generally think the 2017 President's view was within the range of reasonable views. After all, at this point, even the NYT editorial board is still against amnesty for illegal immigrants ( http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html ) and the idea of a physical wall on some or all of the Mexican border doesn't seem like a crazy idea ( http://freebeacon.com/issues/flashback-democrats-supported-mexico-border-fence/ ). See also: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/05/18/flashback-bill-clinton-in-96-sounds-like-trump-on-immigration-we-are-a-nation-of-laws-n2164898 ; http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/time-harry-reid-sounded-exactly-donald-trump-illegal-immigration . You might even say "wait, did you say 11+ million? We haven't done anything about that yet?"

"Uh ok," I'd say, "well you should also know that he is going to make some very strong statements about the need for law and order and say that he wants to crack down hard on crime."

Again, you might ask for specifics. But, at the end of the day, you'd probably say something like: "don't all politicians talk that way these days? I mean Bill Clinton sure did. I think we can stomach another Clinton/Biden crime bill. This doesn't seem so bad, especially when weighed against all of that great stuff you were talking about earlier. Tell me more about how he wants to renegotiate NAFTA...."

"Well, I'm not sure you understand," I'd say. "He is going to say some pretty controversial stuff on race and the inner cities that people are really not going to like."

"Like what?" you'd ask.

"Well," I'd say, "one particularly controversial statement that will rile a lot of people up is: '[The] inner cities of our country . . . are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible [and] I’m going to help the African-Americans. I’m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.'"

"Bravo!" you'd say. "I'm glad we will finally have someone willing to speak honestly about the inner cities and the terrible conditions so many people, racial minorities especially, are living in. If conservatives find that controversial, then that's their problem. I'm tired of Bush ignoring our inner cities. This guy sounds great!"

At this point, I'd realize you weren't quite getting it. I could try reading out some particular awkward Trump quotes, but I'd probably realize I'm not going to convince you that your left-wing hero of 2017 is a racist on the basis of quotes like that. If "you cannot go to a 7 -Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" or "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" doesn't do it for Joe Biden, the taco bowl tweet probably won't do it here. So I switch gears.

"Well," I'd reply, "there's more you need to know." "He is going to come into office on the heels of some terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. by islamic extremists. Don't worry, nothing as bad as 9/11, but still pretty bad. Because many of the people involved in these attacks came from overseas, he is going to institute a temporary ban on immigration from 7 middle eastern countries until the government can establish better vetting procedures for new visitors and immigrants."

You'd probably reply with something like: "Well, I'll have to see what those new vetting procedures actually are. But after Bush, I'll just be glad if he doesn't invade all seven! Anyway, tell me more about this guy...."

At this point I'd have to start reeling off things like lowering the corporate tax rate, an ed secretary who believes in charter schools, cutting back on administrative regulations in certain areas, seeking to balance the budget in view of our $19 trillion national debt.

You'd probably say something like: "Well then, I guess we won't have cured the democratic party of Clintonism altogether by 2017, but....... wait? Did you say $19 trillion? Our national debt is really going to more than double between now and 2017?"

"Yes, it's going to get pretty deep," I'd reply.

"Hmm. Well that's what we get for all these dumb wars in the middle east," you'd say. "I guess our president in 2017 will be left to try and clean that up."

"There's more," I'd say. "He is going to have a pretty sordid history when it comes to women. There will be a couple accusers who say he sexually harassed them. Nothing definitive, but a lot of allegations. There will be a tape where he's caught, about 10 years before running for president, saying he has 'grabbed women by the pussy.'"

(Long sigh) "Well then I guess we realllly won't have rid the Democratic party of clintonism entirely" (chuckle). "But it does sound like he will be pretty good for women on policy. Tell me more about that six weeks of maternity leave. Sounds very progressive...."

"Oh shit, there's one big thing I forgot to tell you. He's pro-life. Or at least he says he's pro-life now. He had said he was pro-choice in the past, though. Some people think he just plays the pro-life role now because he needed it to get elected."

This you would probably be very taken aback by. "I don't believe it," you'd say. "Are you sure? He's so progressive on all of those other issues.... we've progressed so much that we can elect a guy like this, but he still needed to play the pro-life card to get elected? Even as a democrat? How did we go backward on that one?"

"Well," I'd say "he'd been a democrat previously, but actually ran for president as a Republican.

That would probably blow your mind. "You're telling me this guy is a Republican? I mean, jesus, I'm going to disagree with him on abortion and the corporate tax stuff but, oh wow.... it seems too good to be true that we're really going to progress so much between now and 2017 that this is what our REPUBLICANS will look like? I mean, wow, from George W. Bush to this guy? I mean, it sounds like we are really going to have a lot of common ground to work from. I could certainly work with a Republican like that. You are sure he's a Republican right? Really? OK, wow."

At that point, I would have to ask: "would it surprise you to learn that you are literally going to cry openly in the street while waving around a sign comparing this guy to Hitler?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43014713)

Pathetic!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#43297605)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH1RfcuNNoI

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#44659325)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4907747&forum_id=2#49400256)