DS Forums

 
 

American Politics Discussion Thread


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Unread 07-01-2017, 13:41
mimik1uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,813
Her untrustworthy ratings were through the roof long before the emails came along.

Maybe Hillary lost because

She was a useless candidate as she proved in 2008
She had no real message - bar Trump is worse
She failed to campaign in Michigan and PA until it was too late and didn't bother with WIsconsin at all
She had nothing to offer people in these rust belt states - and no jobs message - and took their votes for granted
She was the epitome of Washington globalist politics with a penchant for starting wars, toppling governments and creating chaos
She made all her money from being in politics and offering favours and special access - not from working outside politics.

Just a few possible reasons - far more credible than this reds under the beds misdirection.

We get the same nonsense in the UK from remomaers who won't deal with why they lost and can't accept the outcome and wish to overturn it.
all of that ignores that we know there was russian hacking with the intent of interfering with the election process however Marty

you have said nothing there about Clinton's flaws as a candidate that i haven't said myself btw, but given the narrow margins involved any added doubts over Clinton's trust that convinced people to not vote for her could have been a factor, the democrat vote in Michigan for example was down something like 300,000 votes from 4 years ago.

and i repeat all year it was discussed that low turnout would favour Trump

and something i obviously also need to repeat is why would senior republicans be supporting the actions against russia if it was just about sour grapes, not accepting the outcome of the result and wishing to overturn it, when they won ?

your attempts at denial and deflection dont really explain that
mimik1uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Unread 07-01-2017, 13:43
Alrightmate
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,796
It's kind of like spying, I guess. Everyone does it, and everyone knows everyone does it, but that doesn't mean when you catch them doing it to you you just go "fair enough, we do the same shit to you". Hypocrisy, sure, but that's international politics for you.
I agree with you. I think it's based on game theory. They all do it.
Normally they don't air their dirty laundry in public though. Because they know that each other does it. It's just that now they appear to have lost self control and are lashing out at every little thing they can blame on why Clinton lost the election.

In terms of their accusation it would assume that Russia don't normally try to spy on them, and that somehow this was a self-contained operation with intent to rig the election. Of which there is not even the tiniest shred of evidence. Even if they could prove that it was indeed Russia itself who obtained the emails they haven't got a thing on the list of the things they are claiming.

All they've brought to the table is an assertion that Russia hacked their emails, or at least according to their understanding of what hacking is. Which might be true. But everything else, including Putin giving orders as part of a plan, trying to control the public's minds and make them vote a certain way, and a hacking operation involving clear intent, all this requires proof in the way of interrogating individuals. A line of a web address can't possibly tell them all this. All this extra stuff is just crap.
But that seems to be what they're running with.

I suppose it also still serves as a handy distraction away from the content of the emails. Of that we can be sure due to the volume of coverage their professionally objective and neutral media are pumping out over this. Maybe they're hoping that they'll be forgotten about?
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 13:51
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,361
Maybe the Russians and the US should have a hacking and surveillance conference agreeing to stop all hacking and surveillance and interference in foreign nations and their elections and of their people.

I bet the CIA would love that.

The US has been interfering in other countries and their electoral process for decades often creating chaos and installing brutal regimes.

Assuming you buy all this hysteria and reds under the beds campaign - as Corporal Jones would have said

They don't like it up em!
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 13:56
Alrightmate
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,796
Yes, we're seeing a shift from "it never happened" to "but it didn't matter and China does worse." The diehards will of course deny it to the grave. I wonder if they disbelieve the Bradley Higgins medical records hacking from Russia too?
Not once have I stated that it wasn't Russia who got their hands on the emails.
I've never said that. I've been as honest as I possibly could be and said that I simply don't know. Unlike many who are prepared to accept an appeal to consensus by a group in power for their truth, and just taking their word on it, I'm more inclined to actually want to know the truth myself.
Not everyone is convinced by 'It's probably true' because other people agree that it is.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 14:02
Alrightmate
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,796
all of that ignores that we know there was russian hacking with the intent of interfering with the election process however Marty

you have said nothing there about Clinton's flaws as a candidate that i haven't said myself btw, but given the narrow margins involved any added doubts over Clinton's trust that convinced people to not vote for her could have been a factor, the democrat vote in Michigan for example was down something like 300,000 votes from 4 years ago.

and i repeat all year it was discussed that low turnout would favour Trump

and something i obviously also need to repeat is why would senior republicans be supporting the actions against russia if it was just about sour grapes, not accepting the outcome of the result and wishing to overturn it, when they won ?

your attempts at denial and deflection dont really explain that
Excuse me? Who's 'we'?
You know? How?

Even the official statements by the institutions haven't outright stated that they're 100% positive. And that's part of the fukcing problem. They're coming out with disclaimers to give them a bit of wriggle room, and saying things like they think it's highly probable....but you actually know?
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 14:05
John259
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,292
I'm more inclined to actually want to know the truth myself.
And how do you propose to obtain that truth? Are you an expert in computer security? Do you have access to the relevant computers?

Or will you use the same method as Trump: a mixture of wishful thinking, self-delusions, fantasies and lies?
John259 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 14:08
Alrightmate
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,796
And how do you propose to obtain that truth? Are you an expert in computer security? Do you have access to the relevant computers?

Or will you use the same method as Trump: a mixture of wishful thinking, self-delusions, fantasies and lies?
Well I didn't say that I can just go and get it did I? If that luxury was available to anyone we'd all know the truth by now.

I don't think I can ever remember an example of somebody saying that they want to know the truth being interpreted as the same thing as them making a promise to get the truth.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 14:15
John259
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,292
Well I didn't say that I can just go and get it did I? If that luxury was available to anyone we'd all know the truth by now.

I don't think I can ever remember an example of somebody saying that they want to know the truth being interpreted as the same thing as them making a promise to get the truth.
So who do you think will provide you with your truth? Trump? The National Enquirer? Facebook?

Or the intelligence agencies who have both the expertise and the access?
John259 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 14:23
Alrightmate
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,796
So who do you think will provide you with your truth? Trump? The National Enquirer? Facebook?

Or the intelligence agencies who have both the expertise and the access?
I never said that I expected the truth. Like everybody else we'll just have to wait and see what comes out of this.

The intelligence agencies? What do you think they've told you? What do you actually know which has come from them?
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 14:35
John259
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,292
The intelligence agencies? What do you think they've told you? What do you actually know which has come from them?
This is one of many similar reports from reputable news sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.1ffc963815a8
John259 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 15:09
oncemore
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: usa
Posts: 2,456
Maybe the Russians and the US should have a hacking and surveillance conference agreeing to stop all hacking and surveillance and interference in foreign nations and their elections and of their people.

I bet the CIA would love that.

The US has been interfering in other countries and their electoral process for decades often creating chaos and installing brutal regimes.

Assuming you buy all this hysteria and reds under the beds campaign - as Corporal Jones would have said

They don't like it up em!
So you don't actually care, so long as it impacts the US negatively. Cool, got it. I'll keep that in mind when reading your posts from now on.
oncemore is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 15:11
oncemore
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: usa
Posts: 2,456
Will they be calling for an investigation into how the US intelligence agencies interfere in foreign countries and their elections and bug their leaders? Where would you start!

As we know they did to Angela Merkel - bugging her calls and more - I have no doubt they have people listening in to Theresa May and Boris Johnsons discussions all the time. Let alone the monitoring of emails and others across the board right across the globe.

The US has the most expensive and well funded intelligence network of all.

Odd thing is there seemed to be very little interest in what these emails told us about Podesta and Clinton and what the campaign was up to and how the DNC sought to rig the primary process to stop Sanders and ensure Clinton won.

Why don't we have an investigation into how the DNC sought to rig the US elections - cos we have proof via all these emails they actually did!

This is of course the classic magicians trick - misdirection. Looky here - so you don't see what is really going on over there.

As for Russia it's hardly surprising they didn't want Hillary to win - she wants to go to war with them in Syria and start WWIII. Do we really want that which could spiral into a nuclear one?

Did anyone in Michigan change their vote cos of Putin and the Russians - I doubt it. This just confirmed what people already knew about HRC.
The Democratic primary is scheduled in such a way to give outsider candidates a very good chance, see Howard Dean, Obama, Sanders and others. All would not have had a chance if the primary schedule was pretty much any other way. You 100% are just reciting a talking point and don't actually know how the process works.
oncemore is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 15:13
oncemore
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: usa
Posts: 2,456
Ahh the old more votes thing, he had more electoral college votes, I think every single Presidential candidate in history, (including Hillary) would always prefer to have more electoral college votes, than to have won the popular vote (ideally both, but, if pushed then this situation).

So I don't see her sitting back and being smug/happy/elated etc with having won more votes than him, I see her being gutted not to have won more electoral college votes than him.
Yeah I'm sure it sucks for her even worse than it sucks for the country as a whole, but I imagine she finds some comfort in the fact that more voters actually preferred her.
oncemore is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 16:02
batdude_uk1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,228
Yeah I'm sure it sucks for her even worse than it sucks for the country as a whole, but I imagine she finds some comfort in the fact that more voters actually preferred her.
The fact that she lost to what many people are calling the worst and most I'll prepared candidate in history, means I doubt she can take any crumbs of comfort at all from this election cycle.
batdude_uk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 16:08
oncemore
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: usa
Posts: 2,456
The fact that she lost to what many people are calling the worst and most I'll prepared candidate in history, means I doubt she can take any crumbs of comfort at all from this election cycle.
That may be your opinion, but none of her speeches indicate that she's despondent or bitter, and she seems still very much engaged. I guess that's what happens when you dedicate your life to public service, as opposed to Trump whose life is an exercise in bloated self-worship.
oncemore is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 16:29
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,361
I never said that I expected the truth. Like everybody else we'll just have to wait and see what comes out of this.

The intelligence agencies? What do you think they've told you? What do you actually know which has come from them?
These would be the same intelligence agencies who told us about Saddams WMD and how he could arm and use them in 45 minutes.

As a result of that mistake the US and UK started a war which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and created chaos in the Middle East a decade or more on.
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 16:31
johnny_boi_UK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,055
These would be the same intelligence agencies who told us about Saddams WMD and how he could arm and use them in 45 minutes.

As a result of that mistake the US and UK started a war which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and created chaos in the Middle East a decade or more on.
They were clearly shipped to moved to Syria...

Edit wasn't James clapper involved in the WMD fiasco ?
johnny_boi_UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 16:39
Jakobjoe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: deploRable town centre
Posts: 6,222
donalds going to build better relations with the russians and thats what some people and other countries who love the cold war are terrified of.
Jakobjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 16:42
John259
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,292
These would be the same intelligence agencies who told us about Saddams WMD and how he could arm and use them in 45 minutes.
A good point but as soon as you start ignoring the official sources you're into "Elvis was abducted by aliens", "Obama was born in Kenya" and "I'm gonna build a bigly wall" territory.
John259 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 16:43
Bob Paisley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,892
Her untrustworthy ratings were through the roof long before the emails came along.

Maybe Hillary lost because

She was a useless candidate as she proved in 2008
She had no real message - bar Trump is worse
She failed to campaign in Michigan and PA until it was too late and didn't bother with WIsconsin at all
She had nothing to offer people in these rust belt states - and no jobs message - and took their votes for granted
She was the epitome of Washington globalist politics with a penchant for starting wars, toppling governments and creating chaos
She made all her money from being in politics and offering favours and special access - not from working outside politics.

Just a few possible reasons - far more credible than this reds under the beds misdirection.

We get the same nonsense in the UK from remomaers who won't deal with why they lost and can't accept the outcome and wish to overturn it.
Some of what you say is fair, some less so, but might it not be all the reasons you suggest plus the Russian hacking? The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. It was a very close run thing, there were thousands of reasons Clinton lost, I don't see why Russian interference can't be one of them. Perhaps not the main reason, but a potentially crucial reason, when you're talking about such fine margins?
Bob Paisley is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 17:55
batdude_uk1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,228
That may be your opinion, but none of her speeches indicate that she's despondent or bitter, and she seems still very much engaged. I guess that's what happens when you dedicate your life to public service, as opposed to Trump whose life is an exercise in bloated self-worship.
It is not my opinion, that is what many people have called Trump (and much worse than that), so the fact that she got beat fairly comfortably in the only conclusive way to look at the election (electoral college votes), would I think stop her from feeling too smug, she might even feel a large amount of embarrassment due to this fact.

Quite a fair few people have said how easy it should have been to defeat Trump, the fact that she didn't, should leave a stain on her character for the rest of her life.
batdude_uk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 18:23
BomoLad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,232
It is not my opinion, that is what many people have called Trump (and much worse than that), so the fact that she got beat fairly comfortably in the only conclusive way to look at the election (electoral college votes), would I think stop her from feeling too smug, she might even feel a large amount of embarrassment due to this fact.

Quite a fair few people have said how easy it should have been to defeat Trump, the fact that she didn't, should leave a stain on her character for the rest of her life.
How is losing an election a 'stain on her character'?

What utter bilge.
BomoLad is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 18:32
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,361
How is losing an election a 'stain on her character'?

What utter bilge.
I think her time as Secretary of State and her efforts at regime change which have turned Libya and Syria into failed states will go down as the biggest stain on her character.

How many people died and how many refugees were created because of her meddling?

Her election loss is a minor issue.
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 19:28
batdude_uk1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,228
How is losing an election a 'stain on her character'?

What utter bilge.
Surely you can see that getting soundly beaten by Trump, would be hurtful for her, and not something that she will ever look back on with any fondness whatsoever?
batdude_uk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-01-2017, 19:32
Penny Crayon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,520
Surely you can see that getting soundly beaten by Trump, would be hurtful for her, and not something that she will ever look back on with any fondness whatsoever?
I think that much is obvious - I guess knowing that she has the popular vote is some compensation though

ETA ...............I fail to see how it equates to a stain on her character though.
Penny Crayon is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38.