[B0ycey]

@Yggdrasill

Great reasoning. I really enjoyed your posts. I think your analysis is pretty much spot on. Especially in reference to Gore. When ballots are confusing and the count is less than a thousand, to me that is a legitimate reason to challenge the result. Not losing 4+ key states by beyond the margin of error. Yet Gore didn't overstep political etiquette and accepted the outcome once the SCOTUS made its ruling. And I write that as someone who supported Trump's right to challenge the election. However once you lose 61 challenges and the Republican SCOTUS throw out your challenge, then if you continue down the rabbithole etiquette becomes absurd. And that is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Or I should say that is the difference between Trump and the Democrats. Etiquette and not overstepping the mark.

[SpecialOlympian]

However, I do not think of it as a designed replacement, but rather it's just the pattern that you see in pretty much every developed country, even in Korea & Japan (who now have even worse birth rates than Western states).

This is an event that people have much control over. Sure, we can make an effort to do what they are doing in Hungary to increase the birth rate and that's desirable, but it would really require total legislative and judicial capture in the US to be able to do any of this. It's quite unlikely.

OK so you are simply concerned about the future of the white race and its children. And how that future requires retaining its control as the largest demographic. You follow multiple nazi sources whom you like to cite as authority figures.

What am I supposed to infer from this, Verv?

Whose voices? Historic Americans that dominate middle America.

What is a Historic American?

You clearly have a moronic & ideological understanding of the contemporary right, which is why it is obvious to anyone that whenever you call someone a Nazi, it'd require further investigation, because 9 times out of 10 it's just someone who is right wing & not some mainstream conservative or Libertarian.

You could really benefit yourself if you decided to stop wasting your time being butt hurt about what right wingers post on PoFo, and actually try to go and learn some political philosophy and thus be able to talk about the right wing with any amount of depth.

Hmm, yes Verv, I will spend more time looking into the deep philosophical beliefs of the various white nationalists you listed.

Congrats on being a shit sommelier who can tell the deep philosophical differences between this:



And this:

[Verv]

OK so you are simply concerned about the future of the white race and its children. And how that future requires retaining its control as the largest demographic. You follow multiple nazi sources whom you like to cite as authority figures.

What am I supposed to infer from this, Verv?

I think you may need to take a break from trying to infer anything and rest your head a bit, SO. We can go back & forth all day, and you never get any closer to understanding anything.

But for the benefit of people who may want to read & engage with something:

My original post has absolutely nothing to do with the preservation of the "white race," which is a pure social construct. What is referred to as 'white people' is just a collection of many different ethnic groups, and not everyone even agrees which groups can make it up.

It's about the preservation of what amounts to historic American culture & values, because any country that experiences a large demographic shift will undoubtedly lose its culture, and lose the values that were unique to that culture, and that previously defined who it is.

More importantly: it's about illegal immigration & policies that allow for massive legal migration as well, things that Americans have consistently voted against over the decades, but have not been able to rectify.

Another interesting example of a war over culture & identity -- one that does not have a 'racial dimension' to basically anyone: In Iran, the ethnic Persians (and Persian-affiliated ethnic groups like Gilekis and Lors) may actually be a mere plurality due to the sheer numbers of Azeri Turks, two different Kurdish groups, Baluchs, Arabs, etc., and any shift in the balance of power could actually result in the independence of some regions and lots of internal strife.

One could even look at the issues facing Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh as having loads of religous & cultural components with few actual racial issues, and wars have been fought over borders & identity.

What is a Historic American?

WASP & black Americans, and the ethnic groups that have integrated themselves into WASP & black identities. For instance, there have always been Germans and Dutch in America, but they integrated near completely with WASPs, as did the Swedes; tthen there are subsequent groups which come and essentially take on the characteristics of WASP and black American culture, and ultimately no longer identify in any sense as hyphenated Americans.

Hmm, yes Verv, I will spend more time looking into the deep philosophical beliefs of the various white nationalists you listed.

Congrats on being a shit sommelier who can tell the deep philosophical differences between this:

And this:

LOL, you have not even alluded to different brands on the right.

You are literally just accusing people of being Nazis & posting memes with swastikas in them, hoping something is going to stick.

[Yggdrasill]

Ask any sports fans that have had their team lose a game because a ref blew a call whether the other team "legitimately won" the game. You're confusing "officially" with "legitimately"--Biden officially "won" the election because he had sufficient states certify that he won a majority of their validly cast votes. The fact that a number of those states lied about that, that the Supreme Court refused to step in and correct it (admittedly,at least in part because Republican state legislators hadn't challenged the unconstitutional actions of the state executive officers and judges in a timely manner), and that Congress had no choice but to accept those lies because all the Constitution allows them to do is to count those Electoral College votes, doesn't change the fact that Biden did not receive a majority of valid votes--meaning votes cast in accordance with the laws as instituted by the state legislatures--and therefore was not legitimately elected and never will, no matter what the official record says. Like Rutherford B. Hayes, for all of time going forward there will be an asterisk after "President" Biden's name. And unlike Hayes's Republicans, today's Democrats don't have massive voter fraud on the part of the Republicans as an excuse.


If the process had played out in 2020 as Florida state law required, it would have been over much faster--but Florida judges tried to step in and give the state to Gore. The interesting thing is that, according to the statewide recount carried out by the press after it was all over, the only way Gore could have won was a statewide recount ... and according to Florida law, that couldn't happen because for any recount to occur one of the campaigns had to request it within a set time limit, and the Gore campaign tried to get cute by only asking for recounts in a couple counties favorable enough to Democrats that they hoped to pick up enough votes to put them over the top. If Gore had acted the statesman instead of the politician, he probably would have been president. Mind, the only reason the election was that close was likely because some news stations called the state for Gore while the polls in the Florida panhandle--traditionally more conservative--were still open and a bunch of voters walked away without voting.

Doug,

I was afraid we'd jump into the semantic weeds, but that's ok. I don't think I am confusing "legitimate" with "official". I'm using the "standard" dictionary definition of "legitimate" as being, "in accordance with the rules and laws." Official simply means relating to an authority and it's duties/powers. Taking your example of a sports match, the fans of the losing side could say that their team lost unfairly because of the bad calls, but it doesn't mean that the result wasn't legitimate. As I said earlier, the system is imperfect, but you have to respect the outcome and move on to try to improve the system. The NFL did exactly that by introducing challenges and instant playback reviews. I don't recall any losing NFL team ever saying, "Fuck that, WE won the Super Bowl." The important thing is that so long as the rules are followed, you respect the outcome, even - especially - when you think it's unfair. If you do not, the whole thing falls apart.

I don't want to rehash Bush v Gore in this thread, but happy to talk about it elsewhere. My point in bringing it up was simply to note that in 2000, even though my guy lost and I thought the process imperfect and unfair, I accepted the result.

As to 2020, I don't see in your post any specific allegations with proof, so I can't really respond to those except to say that all the claims regarding substantial election fraud that I have seen have borne out to be unsubstantiated. So I don't accept your assertions that a number of states "lied", or that many state officers and judges behaved unconstitutionally. Perhaps a specific example would prove useful.

[Yggdrasill]

@Yggdrasill ;

Countering a paranoid conspiracy theory is now branded a paranoid conspiracy theory...

Motive? In 2016, Hillary Clinton, an uninspiring, fake, loathsome and basically unlikable to anyone candidate, wins the democratic nomination and is cynically if dutifully anointed the front-runner by a captive liberal corporate media. The GOP nominee Donald Trump is elected President by being the not-Hillary Clinton and the not-Jeb Bush. Clinton retaliated by inferring that the Russian government must have helped the GOP nominee win, and for a number of reasons the establishment runs with the idea (President Trump ironically being the most Anti-Russian President in action if not words in history to date). This is echoed by Clinton's historical attempt to torpedo Barack Obama's candidacy in 2008 by her campaign's creation of the ''Birther'' story which also dogged Obama's Presidency. Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and then the Presidency also by not being Hillary Clinton or John McCain (who was earnestly running for second place anyway).

That is some serious deflection and poor reasoning. I clearly defined "paranoid conspiracy theory" as being without any substantiating evidence, and gave you what consider to be substantiating evidence in the form of numerous investigations and reports, all of which I have read at least some of. Have you? You respond by simply dismissing the sources as suspect, again without any proof or even motive. The "motive" you supplied you attributed to Clinton, not to Mueller, the FBI, CIA, NSA, ODNI, and two Republican led Senate Intel Committee investigations, the sources that I named. Hence, irrelevant. So no, I am not advocating any paranoid conspiracy theory, but you certainly are.

[SpecialOlympian]

My original post has absolutely nothing to do with the preservation of the "white race," which is a pure social construct. What is referred to as 'white people' is just a collection of many different ethnic groups, and not everyone even agrees which groups can make it up.

It's about the preservation of what amounts to historic American culture & values, because any country that experiences a large demographic shift will undoubtedly lose its culture, and lose the values that were unique to that culture, and that previously defined who it is.

Wow, maybe you should have put any of this in your post or said anything about it when referencing demographics and preserving "our voice" in the face of non-white immigration for a "final victory" while quoting Breitbart, the racist news website which formerly had a "black crime" section.

WASP & black Americans, and the ethnic groups that have integrated themselves into WASP & black identities.

So essentially the goal for all non-blacks is to be white?

What values are diminished by immigration? What do you think will happen besides some vague sense of loss you are alluding to?

LOL, you have not even alluded to different brands on the right.

You are literally just accusing people of being Nazis & posting memes with swastikas in them, hoping something is going to stick.

I'm pointing out that you follow nazis, regurgitate nazi lines, and reference news organizations popular with nazis. I'm sorry that even the most surface level reading of your actions paints a bad picture. If this makes you feel bad or defensive then maybe you should perform some introspection on why you associate with nazis and feel that it's important to understand the deep and complex differences between people with Honkler avatars and people with Groyper avatars.

"You just don't understand!" is a pretty weak excuse for citing all of the various shades of white nationalists you said you follow. Some of whom are apparently bad characters, implying the rest of them are good.

[Yggdrasill]

The Democrats sued and won to get nearly 8k military ballots thrown out on a technicality, about 3/4 of which went to Bush. If those ballots were counted, there's no doubt Bush won Florida.


I think the establishment knows this, but they are desperate for people not to point out that we aren't dealing with a democratically elected president. Michael Anton wrote about this need of theirs that we accept that the outcome of the election was legitimate and fair.

Why Do the Election’s Defenders Require My Agreement?

They simply were not prepared for the fact that Trump would gain 12M more votes, and the Republicans would pick up 11 seats in the House, flip state legislatures and governors chairs. It's just too obvious that it was rigged. The stonewalling makes it all the more obvious. It also leaves them with no moral high ground to attack political leaders like Vladimir Putin when they do the same things they claim he does.

You're missing my point on Bush v Gore. See my post to Doug for more clarification. Legitimate yes - fair, maybe not but so what. Not being fair or perfect sucks; we can and should do better as a country. It has no bearing, however, on whether the election is legitimate, and to claim that the election was stolen is just acting in bad faith. It also flies in the face of facts. See below.

Regarding the list from Michael Anton. He is a clever, if disingenuous writer. I read the article, though it is hard because he makes frequent, unsubstantiated assertions and I just don't have six hours to parse the entire thing and write a rebuttal.

He is however, honest enough to acknowledge the legitimacy of the election, and in this regard he echoes what I said about Bush v Gore: "Let me begin by repeating something I said to Sullivan: I do not actively disbelieve in the outcome of the 2020 election. I do not assert that the election was stolen. I also do not believe the election was totally fair, “belief” being an affirmative mental state. I say only that I don’t know; I haven’t been convinced either way."

Take the first thing on his list, the alleged shutdown of five states. His reference in February 2021 is an article from November 4th (and from the incredibly partisan American Interest, no less), ignoring all the subsequent research and investigations that explain these "shutdowns" in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada. The fact is, there is no evidence that any of the states stopped their counts. See this Reuters fact check page for details and evidence: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN27Q2NI

The second item about "found" tranches of ballots is also silly. It references a tweet by 538, which explains in a follow-up tweet how this is not evidence of fraud.

The third item, see number 4 in this Detroit News article: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 824210001/

I could go on with the rest but I have better things to do with my time. My point is that allegations have been made and amplified without corroboration or serious review of the actual events and evidence. The Detroit News points out that the results were certified by 83 local bi-partisan election boards. Honestly, how do you fake that?


They simply were not prepared for the fact that Trump would gain 12M more votes, and the Republicans would pick up 11 seats in the House, flip state legislatures and governors chairs. It's just too obvious that it was rigged. The stonewalling makes it all the more obvious. It also leaves them with no moral high ground to attack political leaders like Vladimir Putin when they do the same things they claim he does.[/quote]

[Verv]

Wow, maybe you should have put any of this in your post or said anything about it when referencing demographics and preserving "our voice" in the face of non-white immigration for a "final victory" while quoting Breitbart, the racist news website which formerly had a "black crime" section.

LOL, your strongest position so far was when I thought I was drunk enough to have said final solution, but it was just you remembering it. You made a mistake correcting yourself.

Apparently, anyone who has ever talked about demographics and read Breitbart is a Nazi.

How is anyone supposed to debate that?

So essentially the goal for all non-blacks is to be white?

What values are diminished by immigration? What do you think will happen besides some vague sense of loss you are alluding to?

Values do not diminish via small amounts of immigration -- they never could. At this point, the natural course is to assimilate into the greater culture. But in large groups, this doesn't happen -- the distinct groups stay distinct, and begin voting as a bloc for their particular interests. They become their own catered to polititcal coalition with their own values.

Do you deny that?

I'm pointing out that you follow nazis, regurgitate nazi lines, and reference news organizations popular with nazis. I'm sorry that even the most surface level reading of your actions paints a bad picture. If this makes you feel bad or defensive then maybe you should perform some introspection on why you associate with nazis and feel that it's important to understand the deep and complex differences between people with Honkler avatars and people with Groyper avatars.

"You just don't understand!" is a pretty weak excuse for citing all of the various shades of white nationalists you said you follow. Some of whom are apparently bad characters, implying the rest of them are good.

I don't feel bad; I feel that I am being harassed & targeted with petty accusations that have nothing to do with the Election 2020 thread and are solely aimed at assassinating my character.

You clearly do not believe there is any nuance on the right; that's fine, I don't really care what you think, but no one on PoFo needs to see every thread derailed by accusations of them being a Nazi because they enjoy reading the content of people who are in the New Right.

I am more than happy to debate my viewpoints with people, and I love talking about ideas. That's why I am here. But if you can't do that and are just going to accuse me of asinine garbage, I think we're done here.

[SpecialOlympian]

Apparently, anyone who has ever talked about demographics and read Breitbart is a Nazi.

The way you do, yes. Why are you citing nazi sources, nazi websites, and repeating nazi concerns about preserving the demographics against non-whites?

Values do not diminish via small amounts of immigration -- they never could. At this point, the natural course is to assimilate into the greater culture. But in large groups, this doesn't happen -- the distinct groups stay distinct, and begin voting as a bloc for their particular interests. They become their own catered to polititcal coalition with their own values.

Do you deny that?

Again, what vague definition of values are you talking about? You're simply insisting that the value of Values will diminish, presumably because immigrants hold bad values or something? You have said nothing except some vague fear of cultural erasure if a specific group of non-whites are allowed to enter the country, which will somehow result White Anglo Saxon Protestant culture being silenced in a wordier version of "Hordes of immigrants will destroy our country."

I don't feel bad; I feel that I am being harassed & targeted with petty accusations that have nothing to do with the Election 2020 thread and are solely aimed at assassinating my character.

You are the one who identified as the Christian nazi. Nobody made you step on that rake.

You clearly do not believe there is any nuance on the right

Correct. Nor have you made any argument that there is value in learning more about the various white nationalists you follow. For the average person, there is no nuance nor is there any value in looking for nuance between the various white nationalist groups you listed. There may be value in it for people like the SPLC or law enforcement, but they are not approaching these extremists from a philosophical standpoint.

I am more than happy to debate my viewpoints with people, and I love talking about ideas. That's why I am here. But if you can't do that and are just going to accuse me of asinine garbage, I think we're done here.

Which of the following have I accused you of that you have not already admitted to?

-You cite nazi sources
-You follow nazis
-You read news sources popular with nazis
-You are concerned with preserving white culture
-You regurgitate the same nationalist lines as the nazis above

The above are not attacks on your character, but a simple description of your actions. What else would a logical person conclude from the above? If you don't like the conclusions any reasonable person would draw from them then perhaps you should examine your actions.

If it steps like a goose. How about you explain to us the nuanced and subtle ideological differences between Honkler and Groyper if it's so important? You are the one who is insisting that nobody can criticize the racist meme guys without a deep understanding of their nuanced beliefs.

[Verv]

The way you do, yes. Why are you citing nazi sources, nazi websites, and repeating nazi concerns about preserving the demographics against non-whites?

Lol, if preserving your cultural identity is an exclusively Nazi idea, then Japan and South Korea fully embrace Nazism and have tailored their immigration policy around it for years.

Your understanding of this is childish.

Again, what vague definition of values are you talking about? You're simply insisting that the value of Values will diminish, presumably because immigrants hold bad values or something? You have said nothing except some vague fear of cultural erasure if a specific group of non-whites are allowed to enter the country, which will somehow result White Anglo Saxon Protestant culture being silenced in a wordier version of "Hordes of immigrants will destroy our country."

I'm sure you've seen the maps which indicate that the WASP vote alone would've delivered nearly every state to Trump. Trumps populism and republican ideas,even Democrat ideas from just a few decades ago, or even back when Clinton was talking about immigration reform, indicate these traditional values.

That alone indicates the massive effect that immigration has had on our country, does it not?

You are the one who identified as the Christian nazi. Nobody made you step on that rake.

Correct. Nor have you made any argument that there is value in learning more about the various white nationalists you follow. For the average person, there is no nuance nor is there any value in looking for nuance between the various white nationalist groups you listed. There may be value in it for people like the SPLC or law enforcement, but they are not approaching these extremists from a philosophical standpoint.

Which of the following have I accused you of that you have not already admitted to?

-You cite nazi sources
-You follow nazis
-You read news sources popular with nazis
-You regurgitate the same nationalist lines as the nazis above

If it steps like a goose. How about you explain to us the nuanced and subtle ideological differences between Honkler and Groyper if it's so important? You are the one who is insisting that nobody can criticize the racist meme guys without a deep understanding of their nuanced beliefs.

Lol, none of these people are Nazis. I don't identify as a Christian nazi.

These are just the baseless and boring accusations you follow me around the forum with.

I understand you think everyone you disagree with are Nazis and are on some moral crusade, but it's boring and irrelevant.

[SpecialOlympian]

So you admit everything I stated is true, but your only contention is that they should be called white nationalists? Is there a reason you're not describing their ideological differences or offering a correction on what their ideological identity is? Is this the same nuance we see between Groyper and Honkler?

Frankly, I don't see a guy who is interested in discussing ideas. Just someone who is dodging the issue and hurling insults because it seems like actually addressing any of these points would make you look bad. Hence why I have called you the "Debate me!!!" nazi in the past.

[Verv]

So you admit everything I stated is true, but your only contention is that they should be called white nationalists? Is this the same nuance we see between Groyper and Honkler?

Lol, no, detective. You're on the wrong path.

I follow many people in the New Right, and they are of diverse opinions. I don't agree with everything they say. And it's completely my right to follow whomever I want.

I also follow many Libertarians and Catholics, but I'm not a libertarian or a catholic.

[SpecialOlympian]

Every group you listed are known white nationalists. Why are you angry that I point out that you follow white nationalists and share their beliefs and sources?

For someone who claims that there are deep nuances between the groups you listed you seem unable to articulate them or address their beliefs in any meaningful way. Why is that?

[Verv]

Every group you listed are known white nationalists. Why are you angry that I point out that you follow white nationalists and share their beliefs and sources?

For someone who claims that there are deep nuances between the groups you listed you seem unable to articulate them or address their beliefs in any meaningful way. Why is that?

If you believe in the absurd ways activists characterize these beliefs, well sure, IDK. It makes more sense to refer to them as the new right.

I was unaware you even were serious asking me the difference between a groyper and a "honkler"(lol).

Feel free to go and read up on whatever you like. My only recommendation is that you read what people write about themselves,and not what leftists write about them.

[SpecialOlympian]

For a guy who talks about how much he loves discussing ideas you don't seem to want to describe the beliefs of the various white nationalist groups you follow and now defend. Why is that?

Are the memes they produce, which I posted above, not representative of their beliefs? What is absurd about calling them white nationalists?

[Verv]

Why should I enter a discussion with someone who doesn't debate the words I write, but instead tries to twist my words into things I am not saying, and accuse me of believing in vile things?

Many people love discussing ideas -- they just don't wish to discuss them with fools & fanatic woke-scolds.

[SpecialOlympian]

I get it, Verv. Actually addressing anything I've stated or answering my questions would make you look bad. But these are the actions you've taken, the groups you've embraced, and the ideas you've chosen to take from them. I hope this leads to some soul searching on your part and that you will continue to grow as a person.

I guess it was foolish of me to take you at your word when you said you liked discussing ideas. I would recommend you do not do that anymore, since you obviously do not like discussing ideas. You actually seem to avoid discussing ideas.

[Verv]

Thanks -- I hope we can both grow to be better people.

Like I said, stop reading what activists write about their enemies, and try to get a grip of the arguments people put forward themselves -- that will help you grow intellectually.

And then you can debate with people instead of simply accusing them of things.

Hear people out, and match them argument for argument, and don't rely on poisoning the well or clutching at pearls.

[annatar1914]

That is some serious deflection and poor reasoning. I clearly defined "paranoid conspiracy theory" as being without any substantiating evidence, and gave you what consider to be substantiating evidence in the form of numerous investigations and reports, all of which I have read at least some of. Have you? You respond by simply dismissing the sources as suspect, again without any proof or even motive. The "motive" you supplied you attributed to Clinton, not to Mueller, the FBI, CIA, NSA, ODNI, and two Republican led Senate Intel Committee investigations, the sources that I named. Hence, irrelevant. So no, I am not advocating any paranoid conspiracy theory, but you certainly are.

@Yggdrasill ;

It's incumbent upon the person making the assertions to provide evidence. Whereas, the person to which the assertion is directed at, myself, has only to provide simple logic and reason by way of rebuttal. You didn't reply to my specific comments in any case. Partly, perhaps to obscure the fact that most of the persons or entities mentioned have been at one time or other largely staffed by Clinton apparatchiks favorable to the Hillary Clinton candidacies in 2008 and 2016.

Think about it. Why would the Russian government want to support Trump over Clinton? There is no reason whatsoever, the hysterical assertion otherwise is actually pretty insane, because neither prospect of a choice was good, but uncertain chaos (Trump) would be even worse from a Russian perspective. That will definitely be obvious in retrospect geopolitically speaking.

[Yggdrasill]

@Yggdrasill ;

It's incumbent upon the person making the assertions to provide evidence. Whereas, the person to which the assertion is directed at, myself, has only to provide simple logic and reason by way of rebuttal. You didn't reply to my specific comments in any case. Partly, perhaps to obscure the fact that most of the persons or entities mentioned have been at one time or other largely staffed by Clinton apparatchiks favorable to the Hillary Clinton candidacies in 2008 and 2016.

Think about it. Why would the Russian government want to support Trump over Clinton? There is no reason whatsoever, the hysterical assertion otherwise is actually pretty insane, because neither prospect of a choice was good, but uncertain chaos (Trump) would be even worse from a Russian perspective. That will definitely be obvious in retrospect geopolitically speaking.

I agree it is incumbent on the person making assertions to provide both evidence and a logical framework. I have done that, and you haven't. A quick recap: I mentioned Russian election interference as one reason Democrats felt the 2016 election was "unfair" but not "illegimate." You responded that such interference was an "insane" assertion, without any justification. My evidence was the numerous, credible reports and investigations outlining and confirming said interference. You responded with handwaving about my credulity in using these documents as evidence, without ever actually making a case for why they were not credible. All you have done is to claim that these agencies were biased in favor of Clinton, again without any specifics, so there is nothing really for me to respond to there. In addition, the notion that the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are Clinton-supporting "apparatchiks" is simply ludicrous and doesn't merit further response. The only specific person I mentioned was Mueller, a Republican who served in the George W. administration as FBI Director, and is widely considered to be of the highest professional integrity.

I never cited Clinton as a source or rationale; you did that, so I don't have to defend anything she may have done. Her actions are irrelevant to my argument.

How about you read some of these reports and tell me where they went wrong. It's not my job to summarize them for you. Do your own homework.

Finally, as to Russian motives, my understanding is that the some in intelligence community did not conclude that Russia "wanted" Trump to win. Rather, Russia simply sought to undermine confidence in the electoral process and felt that helping Trump was the best way to do that. And they succeeded brilliantly. Of course, Trump and his allies immediately politicized the intelligence community's findings to discredit them.