Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[Benton]

(07-16-2018, 04:58 PM)Millhouse Wrote: No one is the leader of the free world as there really hasn't been one in a long time, at least since the days of the cold war when no other country or countries could counter the Soviets like the U.S. did. Because in those days, we truly were the leader of the free world with our military might, which made the President back then the de facto leader of the free world.

I don't disagree, but it's more than just the size of a military (of which we still have one of the largest, most well armed).

It's also about being able to facilitate discussion. Used to, if the US asked you to sit down and work things out... or at least stop blowing each other up... most countries listened. If not, we threw our economic weight at them, or we parked a few ships off their coast. But some bad decisions and backing down/leaving things undone  has hurt that ability. Could we get it back? Sure. But it's going to take more than just running our mouths and wasting our resources.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2018, 05:02 PM)Benton Wrote: The leadership in the DNC felt Hillary best fit the party interests and was most electable.

They were wrong, of course, but that's beside the point. 

Debatable. Only one other person in US history has had a higher amount of votes than her in a presidential election (Obama). She had nearly 4 million more votes in the primary than him and the only swing states he won were Michigan and Wisconsin. 

You can argue that the party needs to go left, and Bernie represented that, but it's not like there's a huge progressive wave in the US right now to back that up. We need to see what happens in November to even make that argument. I'd argue they need to go center and populist.

[BmorePat87]

also you know Trump did something dumb when 30 people are viewing PnR

[jj22]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/16/putin-eats-trumps-lunch-in-helsinki-this-is-no-way-to-win-against-russia.html

[Benton]

(07-16-2018, 05:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Debatable. Only one other person in US history has had a higher amount of votes than her in a presidential election (Obama). She had nearly 4 million more votes in the primary than him and the only swing states he won were Michigan and Wisconsin. 

You can argue that the party needs to go left, and Bernie represented that, but it's not like there's a huge progressive wave in the US right now to back that up. We need to see what happens in November to even make that argument. I'd argue they need to go center and populist.

Nearly every projection I saw had Sanders losing to most candidates, but beating Trump; Hillary beating most candidates, but losing to Trump. 

I know polling ain't what it used to be, but I still think that was fairly on target, as many of them were looking at electoral votes, not just raw ballots cast. If you're job in the DNC is to put the party first... and you know a candidate isn't likely to win based on trends and history... then that's on you for pushing the candidate. It doesn't matter how much a candidate wins the popular election by, Republicans have manipulated districts so that if you're going to win an election, you're going to have to appease more than just the majority. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-16-2018, 05:20 PM)jj22 Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/16/putin-eats-trumps-lunch-in-helsinki-this-is-no-way-to-win-against-russia.html

Faux News

[*michaelsean*]

(07-16-2018, 05:35 PM)Benton Wrote: Nearly every projection I saw had Sanders losing to most candidates, but beating Trump; Hillary beating most candidates, but losing to Trump. 

I know polling ain't what it used to be, but I still think that was fairly on target, as many of them were looking at electoral votes, not just raw ballots cast. If you're job in the DNC is to put the party first... and you know a candidate isn't likely to win based on trends and history... then that's on you for pushing the candidate. It doesn't matter how much a candidate wins the popular election by, Republicans have manipulated districts so that if you're going to win an election, you're going to have to appease more than just the majority.

Doesn't really affect Presidential elections.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2018, 05:35 PM)Benton Wrote: Nearly every projection I saw had Sanders losing to most candidates, but beating Trump; Hillary beating most candidates, but losing to Trump. 

I know polling ain't what it used to be, but I still think that was fairly on target, as many of them were looking at electoral votes, not just raw ballots cast. If you're job in the DNC is to put the party first... and you know a candidate isn't likely to win based on trends and history... then that's on you for pushing the candidate. It doesn't matter how much a candidate wins the popular election by, Republicans have manipulated districts so that if you're going to win an election, you're going to have to appease more than just the majority. 

I would have to see that to even respond to it, but general match ups months before during the primary are flimsy at best. Most projections had her winning the whole time. Also, what you're suggesting is that the party should have made an effort to promote the losing candidate midway through because of some projections.

If Bernie was a member of the Democratic Party, the amount of effort to push Hillary through over him would not have been as great. I think people downplay the fact that he is an Independent when they discuss this. 

[GMDino]

(07-16-2018, 05:06 PM)Millhouse Wrote: It was all fine and dandy for the U.S. to influence who would be in power in other countries over the decades, but when ours finally got tampered with, 'Oh hell no, this is just wrong!'. lol

It's always wrong, isn't it?

I mean that doesn't mean we haven't done it...wrong is wrong.

Why is the US being wrong being used as a defense for Russia doing it to the US?

[GMDino]

(07-16-2018, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp, we'll never know if Hills would have opened the investigation into Russian meddling and exposed all here secrets and possible bias by investigators. personally, I would have kept it on the DL, but I'm less about transparency than many.

The investigation was already opened.  Obama started it and wanted to go public with it, but the GOP refused.  (There's something new:  The GOP obstructing Obama from doing something.)

Not sure why Clinton would have not wanted an investigation into Russia helping Trump.

But as long as you're not supporting Trump I guess that made sense when you wrote it.

[Benton]

(07-16-2018, 05:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would have to see that to even respond to it, but general match ups months before during the primary are flimsy at best. Most projections had her winning the whole time. Also, what you're suggesting is that the party should have made an effort to promote the losing candidate midway through because of some projections.

If Bernie was a member of the Democratic Party, the amount of effort to push Hillary through over him would not have been as great. I think people downplay the fact that he is an Independent when they discuss this. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/

We get sent dozens of polls, some legit and some not; some biased (mostly, these days) and some not. But I'm pretty surprised to the bold. Most of the info we were seeing leading into the primaries was consistent: Bernie was looking strong in some key states and likely would've beaten Trump if he had gotten through the primary due to a more loyal base, momentum and overall greater appeal than Hillary. It was thought he would have carried Ohio and Pennsylvania over Trump. 

I get 'Hillary won the popular vote and got robbed' but the truth is, we'd seen it happen before. It wasn't like a candidate hadn't won the popular vote and still lost the election. The writing for Clinton was on the wall.

[Millhouse]

(07-16-2018, 05:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's always wrong, isn't it?

I mean that doesn't mean we haven't done it...wrong is wrong.

Why is the US being wrong being used as a defense for Russia doing it to the US?

Of course it's always wrong. I was just mocking our country and not defending Russia. **** Russia.

[Benton]

(07-16-2018, 05:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Doesn't really affect Presidential elections.

It does though, in perception. 

Take my lovely Sen. McConnell. McConnell — in 2008-2016— uses every television appearance to tell you that it's all Obama's fault. No job? Obama. No healthcare? Obama. Wife left you? Obama. He pushed the narrative that everything that was wrong with the country was because of Obama... and if you didn't elect more Republicans, nothing would ever get better. He'd see to that, as he was going to be the obstructionist mastermind.

And people bought it. It was all Obama's fault. Not Congress that couldn't agree on anything, just Obama. And liberals. All liberals. They distorted the image of what was going on and manipulated huge chunks of the country so that if you're going to gain any ground there, you can't be ____. Whatever that _____ is, varies. Most sections it's a liberal; some it's a minority. But if you can't appease those blocks, you aren't going to win. And guys like McConnell use their offices to make sure those blocks that need appeasing fit in best with themselves.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2018, 06:09 PM)Benton Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/

We get sent dozens of polls, some legit and some not; some biased (mostly, these days) and some not. But I'm pretty surprised to the bold. Most of the info we were seeing leading into the primaries was consistent: Bernie was looking strong in some key states and likely would've beaten Trump if he had gotten through the primary due to a more loyal base, momentum and overall greater appeal than Hillary. It was thought he would have carried Ohio and Pennsylvania over Trump. 

I get 'Hillary won the popular vote and got robbed' but the truth is, we'd seen it happen before. It wasn't like a candidate hadn't won the popular vote and still lost the election. The writing for Clinton was on the wall.

Looking back at 6 polls over a one month period 6 months later... Hillary had similar numbers the month before. I also, didn't say she got robbed, I just pointed to the fact that, despite some large dislike for her, there was also pretty heavy support too, as apparent by her numbers in both elections. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2018, 07:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Looking back at 6 polls over a one month period 6 months later... Hillary had similar numbers the month before. I also, didn't say she got robbed, I just pointed to the fact that, despite some large dislike for her, there was also pretty heavy support too, as apparent by her numbers in both elections. 

This is not to say I don't think he had the necessary appeal to win, I just don't buy polling as a reason to push a non party member over a party member who, at the time, had the most support in the primary. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-16-2018, 06:26 PM)Benton Wrote: It does though, in perception. 

Take my lovely Sen. McConnell. McConnell — in 2008-2016— uses every television appearance to tell you that it's all Obama's fault. No job? Obama. No healthcare? Obama. Wife left you? Obama. He pushed the narrative that everything that was wrong with the country was because of Obama... and if you didn't elect more Republicans, nothing would ever get better. He'd see to that, as he was going to be the obstructionist mastermind.

And people bought it. It was all Obama's fault. Not Congress that couldn't agree on anything, just Obama. And liberals. All liberals. They distorted the image of what was going on and manipulated huge chunks of the country so that if you're going to gain any ground there, you can't be ____. Whatever that _____ is, varies. Most sections it's a liberal; some it's a minority. But if you can't appease those blocks, you aren't going to win. And guys like McConnell use their offices to make sure those blocks that need appeasing fit in best with themselves.

You have to win the majority in a state. So whatever manipulating they did, they won the majority in the state. You obviously don’t have to win the majority in the country but I don’t know how the Republican manipulation works there. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the part I bonded in your earlier post b

[Dill]

(07-16-2018, 04:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is a 100% reasonable response to the issue of Russian interference.

Russians didn't cause Trump to win, but, according to our intelligence community, they 100% interfered and we should be standing up to that rather than backing down. 

Actually, I don't see how anyone can say this for sure, since the electoral college was decided by about 80,000 votes spread across 4 states.

Three decades of Fox Faux news probably had more effect than anything on Hillary's negatives, and Comey's announced reopening of the investigation into the email scandal also might have had the most immediate pre-election impact. It seems quite possible that the swirl of disinformation, even though mostly targeting the right, could have suppressed enough centrist voters to give Trump the election.

I realize people don't like to go there, because if it is true, no one knows what to do and we are stuck with a bad leader chosen by an adversary.

[GMDino]

A few weeks ago I equated Trump and his supporters to being in an abusive relationship.

More proof yesterday a he Says "Putin says he didn't do it, I don't know why he would have" and then takes to twitter to tell his congregation, sheep, supporters that he said he respects US intelligence but just want to get past all this russian stuff to have a better relationship with russia.

You just KNOW his relationships are the same way: He does the crappy thing (talks about his daughter better than his wife, cheats, tells them they are looking old and they should get a facelift, etc) and then when there is any backlash he's all "I SAID I love you! what more do you want me to do?!?! Let's just get past this and move forward. Here, let me buy you that wall you've had your eye on for the past few years. Then we can go make fun of poor people from other countries."

[Dill]

(07-16-2018, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you do think this is the first time one Nation has tried to influence another's? 

FWIW, I said that when it came out about the DNC unfairly biasing Hills, it's something we didn't need to know; but it's out there (ot sure if that's something the Russians uncovered or not) and I'll focus on the action rather than the source.

I think Hollo's point was that this was the first time "a foreign power ever hacked one party and published the retrieved documents before an election." Along with a "propaganda campaign from a foreign power generating 2.400 fake ads, 80.000 fake posts and reaching supposedly 136 million Americans." 

The US has tried to "influence" Russian elections by praising pro-democracy parties and publicly condemning Putin, as "weak" Hillary did.  So I guess you could say "both sides do it" --once you frame every action at a sufficient level of generality, false equivalence is ready to hand.

In any case, the question of whether this was the "first time" a foreign power hacked a party's email account to throw an election, has no relevance to the questions surrounding Trump's election and current actions.  Even it this were the second or third time, Trump's inability to grasp current imperatives for national security and manage it ought to be our concern--I include in this his inability to work with our NATO allies, or even to see why that alliance is important and more than a matter of them "paying their fair share."

[GMDino]

(07-16-2018, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The DNC is not "supposed" to help anyone.

Let's see if I can make this perfectly clear:

What Russia did was wrong and Trump should have called Putin out on it and moved on from there. It is absolutely disgusting that it appears he took the word of the Russian President against the findings of our own intel. He should have told Putin, if you are innocent why not extradite the offenders to clear their names or at a minimum allow a team of neutral members to interview the folks.

WTS, Hillary has no one to blame for her actions but herself and all the "it's Russia's fault" is not going to change that.

 

(07-16-2018, 04:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh... OK then! Crystal clear to me, and I agree on that. My bad I read something else into your words.
Now if you'd also add that calling the investigation that turned up all that a rigged witch hunt and to blame for bad relations is wrong too, as is calling the news on that fake, I'd be so pleased. But that's me asking for the cherry on top.



I agree with that too.
It's not going to become a habit.

Easy to read something else into his words when it took nine page of this thread (and how many other threads) to finally admit that Trump did something wrong in this situation.  Until then it was a lot of whataboutism and hypotheticals.

Now we will return to your regularly scheduled defending of everything Trump does and says....