CIA Assesment: Putin Helped Trump Win

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Interesting read. I never thought I would see the day Russian espionage was dismissed by so many.

[Dill]

(12-16-2016, 10:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Interesting read. I never thought I would see the day Russian espionage was dismissed by so many.

It's not just that it is dismissed--it is WHO is dismissing it and why.

Breathtaking how now the anger of the Republican base can be switched on to one target and amplified (Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!!!) then completely switched off from another.

[Bengalzona]

(12-16-2016, 10:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Interesting read. I never thought I would see the day Russian espionage was dismissed by so many.

Unfortunately many people in our nation on both sides of the political spectrum rate politics and politicians with the same fervor and partisanship that they rate their favorite college team when playing a rival. Winning is the only thing. The means to the win and the ultimate goals they support are irrelevant. 

I know I'm preaching to the choir here because, despite the insinuations sometimes cast and the passions sometimes exhibited, we really don't have a lot of "just because" type posters here on the board. That stuff usually gets shoveled over to the "Memes and Jokes" thread. 

But due to the partisan nature of people now, how contested the election was, and efforts to find ways to discredit the election results (such as the recount efforts), I don't find it surprising that a lot of Trump voters are dismissing this without much consideration at this point. We may find a lot of people (including the Trump Admin) change their feelings about it after Trump is sworn-in. What I am more concerned with is how the Federal government feels about it. Right now, the President and Congress are saying the right things, IMO.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-16-2016, 11:50 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Unfortunately many people in our nation on both sides of the political spectrum rate politics and politicians with the same fervor and partisanship that they rate their favorite college team when playing a rival. Winning is the only thing. The means to the win and the ultimate goals they support are irrelevant. 

I know I'm preaching to the choir here because, despite the insinuations sometimes cast and the passions sometimes exhibited, we really don't have a lot of "just because" type posters here on the board. That stuff usually gets shoveled over to the "Memes and Jokes" thread. 

But due to the partisan nature of people now, how contested the election was, and efforts to find ways to discredit the election results (such as the recount efforts), I don't find it surprising that a lot of Trump voters are dismissing this without much consideration at this point. We may find a lot of people (including the Trump Admin) change their feelings about it after Trump is sworn-in. What I am more concerned with is how the Federal government feels about it. Right now, the President and Congress are saying the right things, IMO.

They may (or may not) be saying the right things now, but their response (we are aware of) so far seems insufficient. 

[tigerseye]

(12-12-2016, 03:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where is the verified evidence Trump would have won by a larger margin if it weren't for the 3-10 million fraudulent votes you have cited on more than one occasion?

The point I was making is no one knows the number of the ILLEGAL votes. (which is what I said)

I don't believe it was 10 million I was being outragous with that number trying to make a point.  

However I did read an article that said that the turn out in Cali was 78% as compared to a national average of 54% which would equate to 4 million votes.  If that article is accurate with these numbers 78% is a HUGE outlier from 54%.

Wonder if HRC and Soros (I mean Jill Stein) would like to recount Cali? Probably not.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-16-2016, 12:51 PM)tigerseye Wrote: The point I was making is no one knows the number of the ILLEGAL votes. (which is what I said)

I don't believe it was 10 million I was being outragous with that number trying to make a point.  

However I did read an article that said that the turn out in Cali was 78% as compared to a national average of 54% which would equate to 4 million votes.  If that article is accurate with these numbers 78% is a HUGE outlier from 54%.

Wonder if HRC and Soros (I mean Jill Stein) would like to recount Cali? Probably not.

Do you have any evidence or not?

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2016, 11:12 AM)Dill Wrote: It's not just that it is dismissed--it is WHO is dismissing it and why.

Breathtaking how now the anger of the Republican base can be switched on to one target and amplified (Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!!!) then completely switched off from another.

I agree 100%. Recent the DNC nominee stated that it was "appauling" that someone would suggest something as large as a national Election could be rigged.

Have they switched?

[Dill]

(12-16-2016, 01:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree 100%. Recent the DNC nominee stated that it was "appauling" that someone would suggest something as large as a national Election could be rigged.

Have they switched?

Not that I am aware.

Most Democrats would agree the election was not rigged. Certainly the party leaders would agree. It is not possible since the system is so decentralized.

And it is appalling that a CANDIDATE would suggest that during an election. It would show recklessness, poor judgment and unfitness for leadership.

This does not mean there could be no skulduggery at an individual polling place here or there. But no nationally coordinated "rigging" is possible, especially involving "the media" and 50 separate states. Thinking so requires Infowars level conspiracy thinking.

[Belsnickel]

(12-16-2016, 11:50 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Unfortunately many people in our nation on both sides of the political spectrum rate politics and politicians with the same fervor and partisanship that they rate their favorite college team when playing a rival. Winning is the only thing. The means to the win and the ultimate goals they support are irrelevant. 

I know I'm preaching to the choir here because, despite the insinuations sometimes cast and the passions sometimes exhibited, we really don't have a lot of "just because" type posters here on the board. That stuff usually gets shoveled over to the "Memes and Jokes" thread. 

But due to the partisan nature of people now, how contested the election was, and efforts to find ways to discredit the election results (such as the recount efforts), I don't find it surprising that a lot of Trump voters are dismissing this without much consideration at this point. We may find a lot of people (including the Trump Admin) change their feelings about it after Trump is sworn-in. What I am more concerned with is how the Federal government feels about it. Right now, the President and Congress are saying the right things, IMO.

The reason for that is because that is what the parties are for: winning elections. So many people utilize the parties to identify a group that (they think) agrees with their values because they are under the impression that parties actually care about public policy. The truth of the matter is that the parties are created and managed to raise funds for elections and to get people elected, nothing more. They provide an otherwise non-existent structure within legislatures, but that has nothing to do with the party proper. There is no actual partisan hierarchy, there is no real cohesiveness of message, none of it. But, most of the electorate doesn't see the party in that way. Because of this, the people have let themselves be hoodwinked by the partisanship and the parties and those running under their banners are latching onto that.

[Dill]

(12-16-2016, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The reason for that is because that is what the parties are for: winning elections. So many people utilize the parties to identify a group that (they think) agrees with their values because they are under the impression that parties actually care about public policy. The truth of the matter is that the parties are created and managed to raise funds for elections and to get people elected, nothing more. They provide an otherwise non-existent structure within legislatures, but that has nothing to do with the party proper. There is no actual partisan hierarchy, there is no real cohesiveness of message, none of it. But, most of the electorate doesn't see the party in that way. Because of this, the people have let themselves be hoodwinked by the partisanship and the parties and those running under their banners are latching onto that.

Have you ever read Carl Schmitt's The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy(1926)? He makes a similarcriticism of parties, and carries it a step further. He says parties and liberal democracy were functional in the 19th century, when the dominant model of public discourse was rational discussion.  Parties by the early 20th century, in Germany, had become their own raison d'etre, with people raised up within the bureaucracy level by level and loyal to that bureaucracy rather than to the country. Further, parties had come to represent compartmentalized sectors of German society, like labor, agriculture, and small business, unable to see what was good for the country as a whole.  The result was frequent deadlock broken by periodic control of the government by one special interest and its party or another, until corruption and violation of other special interests ended in another deadlock.

Unfortunately, his solution was a turn towards authoritarian leadership--strengthening of "the executive" function. He helped collapse the federalism of the Weimar state, paving the way for Hitler's ascension to power.

[Belsnickel]

(12-17-2016, 01:45 AM)Dill Wrote: Have you ever read Carl Schmitt's The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy(1926)? He makes a similarcriticism of parties, and carries it a step further. He says parties and liberal democracy were functional in the 19th century, when the dominant model of public discourse was rational discussion.  Parties by the early 20th century, in Germany, had become their own raison d'etre, with people raised up within the bureaucracy level by level and loyal to that bureaucracy rather than to the country. Further, parties had come to represent compartmentalized sectors of German society, like labor, agriculture, and small business, unable to see what was good for the country as a whole.  The result was frequent deadlock broken by periodic control of the government by one special interest and its party or another, until corruption and violation of other special interests ended in another deadlock.

Unfortunately, his solution was a turn towards authoritarian leadership--strengthening of "the executive" function. He helped collapse the federalism of the Weimar state, paving the way for Hitler's ascension to power.

I never have. It's interesting because parties in Germany today have much more substance than our parties. They actually stand for something. But there are also more of them to reflect a wider range of views instead of trying to fit nearly every politician into two.

I'll get off my soapbox for now. But I just think that when parties are actually about the issues it is a much better system