(07-17-2018, 09:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree. I have maintained the opinion that Russia meddled, but they didn't alter the outcome of the election, really. There was a perfect storm of things that caused the 2016 result, not the least of which being Clinton having an enormous amount of baggage.
(07-17-2018, 09:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: At the end of the day, people voting in those states caused it.
How they were influenced is beyond us. Certainly many things went into it, some completely false, but I don't think anyone who voted for him that was exposed to the Russian ads was ever going to vote for her. These ads only further entrenched people who were already deeply imbedded in fringe beliefs.
A case could be made that the DNC emails swayed Bernie voters away and towards Stein, but again, I don't know how much that really did.
Outside of the non-russian factors I mentioned, I would suggest that the hack of the DNC emails played a role in suppressing independent and fringe Democrat votes. Also, many angry Bernie supporters refused to shift support to Hillary. I knew two who absolutely refused to vote for Hillary because the DNC put their finger on the scales.
The ads you refer to could have motivated voters who otherwise would not have voted, ramping up hate and tough anti-immigrant policies. So it is not simply a matter of convincing the already convinced. The range of possible effects is much wider.
Then one has to remember how much Trump and his surrogates made of the hack in every one of his speeches.
It is quite possible that a hack of the RNC could have produced much more damning material, suppressing the Republican vote. But that was not an outcome the Russians desired.Therefore, the fact that Russian interference was not "balanced" should be taken into account. Only Hillary had those massive state resources deployed against her.
The last election was overdetermined by disinformation from many sources. But that does not mean the Russian intervention could not be decisive in the same sense as Comey's likely was. When events are so overdetermined, there is no ground to select out one cause and insist that one could not have been the decider.
I say therefore that it is certainly plausible that Russia picked our president--with help of the NRA Fox and American voters. Too close to firmly rule that out.
Quote:On Fox, Putin compares murdering rivals with Kennedy, King assassinations
Sometimes it feels as though Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are reading from the same script.
Hours after a widely criticized news conference with the U.S. president, Russia’s leader gave an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, during which he was asked why so many people who opposed his government “end up dead or close to it.”
Specifically, Wallace cited the nerve agent poisoning of Russian defector Sergei Skripal in England in March, the 2015 killing of Boris Nemtsov, who was shot near the Kremlin and the 2006 murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Moscow.
“Well, first of all, all of us have plenty of political rivals,” Putin responded. “I’m pretty sure President Trump has plenty of political rivals.”
Wallace noted that “they don’t end up dead.” [/url]
Quote: Axios
@axios
Vladimir Putin, asked why his political opponents often end up dead, cites the assassinations of Kennedy and MLK, saying it happens in America too 6:47 PM - Jul 16, 2018
“Well, not always— well, haven’t presidents been killed in the United States?” Putin responded. “Have you forgotten about — well, has Kennedy been killed in Russia or in the United States? Or Mr. King? What — and what happens to the clashes between police and, well, civil society, and some — several ethnic groups? Well, that’s something that happens on the U.S. soil. All of us have our own set of domestic problems.”
Putin added that British authorities have refused to give his government the evidence they have amassed in the Skripal case to reach their conclusion that the Kremlin targeted him with a rare nerve agent.
What’s striking about Putin’s response, however, is how similar it is to comments made by Trump in an 2017 interview with former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly.
After Trump complimented the Russian leader, O’Reilly called out Putin.
“But he’s a killer,” O’Reilly told Trump.
“There are a lot of killers,” Trump responded. “You think our country’s so innocent?”
In his comments in the aftermath of a white supremacist riot in Charlottesville, Va., and the assertion today that he holds “both countries responsible” for the poor state of Russian-U.S. relations, Trump has deflected criticism with moral relativism, the tactic popularly known as “whataboutism.” Evidently, his Russian counterpart shares that tendency.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-17-2018, 11:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Israel probably meddled more than Russia. We meddle in the elections of other countries as well. While I get the outrage over the DNC hack, as these actions are rarely so overt, this kind of thing goes on all the time. Didn't we recently get lambasted for tapping into Merkel's private phone calls? As for Clinton, I'd say it was less baggage than toxic name recognition.
That's baggage, though. That toxic name recognition is a result of all of the baggage. Being who she is comes with the baggage of being neo-liberal, elitist, establishment, technocratic, and moving the party to the center. It is what is turning a lot of voters off, right now. I know when I say baggage the first thing that comes to mind are the bullshit attempts by congressional Republicans to take her down, but that is only part of it.
As for the meddling specifically, I don't want our country doing it, I don't want others doing it to us. It is a threat to democracy when things like this occur and if we truly want to foster democracy around the world then we need to let the people of other nations express their rights to govern themselves. Unfortunately, the corporatocracy seeks to gain power all over the world and so it uses the power they have gained already to influence others.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-17-2018, 01:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's baggage, though. That toxic name recognition is a result of all of the baggage. Being who she is comes with the baggage of being neo-liberal, elitist, establishment, technocratic, and moving the party to the center. It is what is turning a lot of voters off, right now. I know when I say baggage the first thing that comes to mind are the bullshit attempts by congressional Republicans to take her down, but that is only part of it.
As for the meddling specifically, I don't want our country doing it, I don't want others doing it to us. It is a threat to democracy when things like this occur and if we truly want to foster democracy around the world then we need to let the people of other nations express their rights to govern themselves. Unfortunately, the corporatocracy seeks to gain power all over the world and so it uses the power they have gained already to influence others.
Ah!
So she wasn't far enough left to garner that support (which she lost to Sanders/Stein).
That's different then.
I didn't have a problem with her running more center. She had to figure there were republicans closer to center right that would rather have a center left than an orange ego ball. May have cost her democrat votes though.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-17-2018, 10:31 AM)jj22 Wrote: Exactly. The Clinton "baggage" was fake Russian propaganda that was pushed and believed by American voters... That's how they effected the outcome of the election. Ok Hillary lost, but people slamming her for not being able to defeat Trump and Russia is asking an awful lot wouldn't you say? That's why I won't slam her as a candidate. She shouldn't have had to defeat a foreign power and Americans shouldn't keep slamming her for not being able to.
(07-17-2018, 10:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: The further we get away from 2016 the less I buy the "Clinton Baggage" excuse.
Most of her baggage was false stories from her opponents: Uranium deal, child trafficking, "Clinton body count", Benghazi.
I'll buy people didn't want another Clinton in...but the excuse that she had "baggage" rings a little more hollow every day. It's not like Trump didn't have plenty of baggage.
I tend to agree with you guys. Clinton's "baggage" was largely manufactured, and it was also a strength in the sense it was a measure the Right's opposition to her. Only Obama was "weaker" and had more "scandals."
The big puzzle is still why Clinton's mostly faux baggage seems to have had more negative effect than Trump's real baggage. Why the incessant equivocation of Trump's bad behavior and incompetence from "independents" and the like, but such a ready willingness to believe Hillary killed Vince Foster and Seth Rich, not to mention gave 20% or Uranium to the Russians. Tacking back towards the center, as she tried to do, made her dependent on votes most susceptible to Comey and Russian interventions.
I don't get the impulse to blame Hillary, given the kind of opposition she was up against. She was not the politician Obama and Bill were, but she was certainly competent. That was central to her message and enough voters rejected that in favor of "shake things up". Today most of American is embarrassed and the world is embarrassed for us--except Russia, Israel, Syria, and North Korea. Were she elected we would not be experiencing the current foreign policy embarassments and unforced errors, not to mention the incremental dismantling of a world order set in place after WWII.
Her baggage is that she is a miserable person, and most people are aware of it. She is flat out unlikable. That partially cancels out Trump being a miserable person.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-17-2018, 01:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Her baggage is that she is a miserable person, and most people are aware of it. She is flat out unlikable. That partially cancels out Trump being a miserable person.
Mike, where did you learn about Hillary's "misery"?
So she wasn't far enough left to garner that support (which she lost to Sanders/Stein).
That's different then.
I didn't have a problem with her running more center. She had to figure there were republicans closer to center right that would rather have a center left than an orange ego ball. May have cost her democrat votes though.
The movement of the party to the center is what has made voters less excited. The abandonment of the ideals from FDR, looking out for the lower and middle classes in a meaningful way, is what has moved the party to the center. Being more of a friend to corporations than the workers. It's what allowed Trump to capitalize on things the way he did.
Clinton was pretty solidly center, not center-left, and it did cost her a lot of votes. Not just to other candidates, but votes that stayed at home, as well.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-17-2018, 01:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Her baggage is that she is a miserable person, and most people are aware of it. She is flat out unlikable. That partially cancels out Trump being a miserable person.
yeah! (Even though I've never met the lady!) And she has cankles! And a weird laugh!
We better vote for the crazy guy!
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-17-2018, 01:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's baggage, though. That toxic name recognition is a result of all of the baggage. Being who she is comes with the baggage of being neo-liberal, elitist, establishment, technocratic, and moving the party to the center. It is what is turning a lot of voters off, right now. I know when I say baggage the first thing that comes to mind are the bullshit attempts by congressional Republicans to take her down, but that is only part of it.
As for the meddling specifically, I don't want our country doing it, I don't want others doing it to us. It is a threat to democracy when things like this occur and if we truly want to foster democracy around the world then we need to let the people of other nations express their rights to govern themselves. Unfortunately, the corporatocracy seeks to gain power all over the world and so it uses the power they have gained already to influence others.
Quit right that the "toxic name recognition" is a RESULT of the baggage, or one could say that it is "the baggage," created by events like seven Benghazi hearings over four years which produced, not indictments, but the discovery of an illicit email server--and the greatest hit to Hillary's numbers.
(07-17-2018, 11:43 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Wow a football player kneels and it's a disgrace. The President of the Untied States bends over for the former head of the KGB and one of the greatest threats on the planet and it's great diplomacy.
Trump threw his own intelligence agencies under the bus to impress a mass murdering dictator. When you are willing to sacrifice the work of thousands of those dedicated to safe guarding your country to win favor from someone who has spent decades trying to destroy that country you have absolutely 'bent over' for the enemy.
Blitz!! long time, no hear. Hope all is well.
I agree Trump's comments were disgusting and any attempt to mitigate their meaning is useless.
(07-17-2018, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The movement of the party to the center is what has made voters less excited. The abandonment of the ideals from FDR, looking out for the lower and middle classes in a meaningful way, is what has moved the party to the center. Being more of a friend to corporations than the workers. It's what allowed Trump to capitalize on things the way he did.
Clinton was pretty solidly center, not center-left, and it did cost her a lot of votes. Not just to other candidates, but votes that stayed at home, as well.
I agree with this too. Not "center-left." Her real base was the unenthusiastic center, also the people who would stay home if there was too much uncertainty about her--emails, DNC favoritivism, etc.
The mystery though is still why those stay-at-homes would not see the problem with a Trump win. Perhaps they assumed Hillary could not lose--how could a racist/misogynist win?--and did feel strongly enough about her to endorse her. If they really could not decide between her and Trump, that suggests a long term problem that goes much deeper than either candidate and one election.
(07-17-2018, 01:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike, where did you learn about Hillary's "misery"?
Went to high school with a SS Agent who dd the Clinton's and W. A guy I work with is still friend's with him. The Bush's were very nice, Bill was awesome, and Hillary was the worst person he has ever met. But you really don't need to be that close. anyone who has paid attention for the last 30 years knows it. And unlikable is unlikable. There are public figures you are drawn to and public figures you aren't. Her public persona is horrible.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-17-2018, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure about Mike, but I began to learn about when sources released her attitudes/actions towards Bill's accusers years ago?
Why does the source matter if the action is true?
If the behavior described actually occurred, then we should not discount it, while keeping it in perspective--will it make a difference in competence or leadership?
But he question of sources arises because so many anti-Clinton sources have been pure fabrication.
Also, a central element of "truthiness" is the dwelling on, and circulating, personal impressions of people's character as "fact." Unlike the Hollywood access tape or a tweet claiming Miss Venezuela made a porn tape, or the public mockery of a reporter's disability, most of the so-called dirt on Hillary's personality comes from second and third-hand sources. Someone remembers her roommate told her that her cousin worked for Hillary and she could be a *****.
As far as responses to Bill's accusers, I give wounded wives a lot of leeway in such matters. If she called Monica a "bimbo," I don't hold that against her. (I was astonished at Lucy's vilification of Hillary on the ground she did not leave Bill.) The affairs should count against Bill.
And above all, I don't understand why Hillary's grousing about Bill's affairs should be put on par with Trump's history of women, including wives. Wait, did I say on par? I really wonder why his transgressions and outright damning behavior were dismissed by voters who found Hillary's character wanting. Could some of this just be gendered judgment? Women can't do it?
(07-17-2018, 01:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Went to high school with a SS Agent who dd the Clinton's and W. A guy I work with is still friend's with him. The Bush's were very nice, Bill was awesome, and Hillary was the worst person he has ever met. But you really don't need to be that close. anyone who has paid attention for the last 30 years knows it. And unlikable is unlikable. There are public figures you are drawn to and public figures you aren't. Her public persona is horrible.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-17-2018, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: If the behavior described actually occurred, then we should not discount it, while keeping it in perspective--will it make a difference in competence or leadership?
But he question of sources arises because so many anti-Clinton sources have been pure fabrication.
Also, a central element of "truthiness" is the dwelling on, and circulating, personal impressions of people's character. Unlike the Hollywood access tape or a tweet claiming Miss Venezuela made a porn tape, or the public mockery of a reporter's disability, most of the so-called dirt on Hillary's personality comes from second and third-hand sources. Someone remembers her roommate told her that her cousin worked for Hillary and she could be a *****.
As far as responses to Bill's accusers, I give wounded wives a lot of leeway in such matters. If she called Monica a "bimbo," I don't hold that against her. (I was astonished at Lucy's vilification of Hillary on the ground she did not leave Bill.) The affairs should count against Bill.
And above all, I don't understand why Hillary's grousing about Bill's affairs should be put on par with Trump's history of women, including wives. Wait, did I say on par? I really wonder why his transgressions and outright damning behavior were dismissed by voters who found Hillary's character wanting. Could some of this just be gendered judgment? Women can't do it?
In general, women do not get a pass for being "unlikeable".
Women are "Bitchy". Men are "aggressive".
Women "look old". Men are "distinguished".
Women are "fat". Men have a "dad's body".
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-17-2018, 01:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Went to high school with a SS Agent who dd the Clinton's and W. A guy I work with is still friend's with him. The Bush's were very nice, Bill was awesome, and Hillary was the worst person he has ever met. But you really don't need to be that close. anyone who has paid attention for the last 30 years knows it. And unlikable is unlikable. There are public figures you are drawn to and public figures you aren't. Her public persona is horrible.
So you are going by someone else's impression. Sometimes that is all or mostly what we have. I don't reject that in principle.
But I am a person who has "paid attention" (to what, exactly?), and I don't come away with the same impression. My view of her pubic persona comes largely from events such as the debates with Trump and her 9-hour interrogation during the Benghazi hearings. What I saw was competence--preparation, mastery of detail, understanding of government.
I have never seen anything in her remotely like Trump's bad public behavior, yet that behavior seems to have recommended him to many ("He tells it like it is; no 'political correctness'").
If you were "unlikeable" Hillary's lawyer, and the special counsel subpoenaed her for questioning, would you be worrying about her performance the way Trump's lawyers worry about him testifying without counsel at hand? Who would you worry about more in a one-on-one with Putin, or interacting with heads of state at an EU summit? Which public persona would your vote be putting in that situation? Those are the questions I want answered before I pull the lever. "likeable" can factor into that, but it cannot displace competence. Incompetence without likelability--that I don't fathom, and that is what we have.
The reaction on both sides to yesterday's moment in history gives hope to this notion thatTrump can shoot someone in the middle of NY and get away with it. Is false He went a little too far but it's a shame that it had to get to this point before people (Republicans and Trump supporters) took a stand.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Vrk4-rSTcf10aWxQ?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1018990539906183169/pu/img/Vrk4-rSTcf10aWxQ?format=jpg&name=small)
![[Image: ZewRXgpe_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/920371293802733568/ZewRXgpe_normal.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media1.giphy.com/media/9EmYYw6o9cmsM/giphy.gif)
