Political Roundtable Part XII

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Clinton could have done a better job in many areas and won the election, but she lost very narrowly in three states (MI, PA, WI) that traditionally vote Democrat in presidential elections. Out of nearly 14 million presidential votes in those three states, a mere 40 thousand voting for Clinton instead of Trump could have changed the outcome in those states, and Clinton would have won the election. Many factors undermined what in the past would have been easy victories, but if the Russians were behind stealing and distributing all the damning information about the Clinton posse, it's hard to rule out the Russians providing the final margin of victory for Trump.

70,000 votes were needed to switch, not 40,000. Also, if another 34,000 switched to Trump, he could have won New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine.

The election was close, but not THAT close. After winning Florida by a comfortable margin, Trump only needed one of WI, MI, MN or PA. He won three of them (including PA by a 70,000 vote margin) and was just votes 32,000 shy of getting MN.

[DCZards]

What specific, significant examples do you have of hit pieces that are not factual? Or is anything that is a negative story a hit piece? Like all this Flynn stuff I'm guessing? Clear this up for me.

The golden showers with prostitutes story.

The Trump sexually assaulted an airline hostess story.

The Trump made fun of a man with a disability story.

The implication that Trump was inciting violence at his rallies when it was, 99% of the time (one lone exception) instigated by leftist protestors.

The constant references to Trump being Hitler, like Hitler, or like Mussolini.

The lie that Trump's advisor Bannon "cited an Italian thinker who inspired fascists" when the reference in question was clearly critical of Julius Evola.

The lie that Trump claimed Mexican immigrants are rapists.

The lie that Trump abused Rowanne Brewer Lane.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Do you live under a rock or something! Did you not see the video of Trump mocking that disabled NYT reporter? It was absolutely despicable. I don't know how in the hell you can claim it was not factual or a hit piece.

He also called Mexican immigrants rapists and murders, btw. And I'm guessing that we'll find out soon that the "golden showers" story is also true.

[sfam]

Thanks for the kind words sfam. Note how I put what I said.



Always good to reply in context

Agreed. For clarity, the "stick your head in the sand" wasn't directed at you - merely anyone who believes those actions didn't impact the outcome - they clearly did, regardless the quality of candidates.

No worries. I am one of those that doesn't believe it was THE cause for the outcome. I am one of those that believe that Hillary was in control of her destiny and underperformed. Her campaign and message were underwhelming and if there was one reason she lost - it was that.

Guess I need to get some Q-tips to get the sand out of my ears

A difference of 70,000 votes, and you had daily front page stories for months from stolen emails planted by Russia via wikileaks, you had the leading law enforcement re-open a closed investigation 11 days before the election, and his Department leaked that Hillary was about to be indicted. No impact? Really?

If this had happened in any other country, we would not call this a free and fair election.

Guess what? The rest of the world still feels the same way.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

Clinton could have done a better job in many areas and won the election, but she lost very narrowly in three states (MI, PA, WI) that traditionally vote Democrat in presidential elections. Out of nearly 14 million presidential votes in those three states, a mere 40 thousand voting for Clinton instead of Trump could have changed the outcome in those states, and Clinton would have won the election. Many factors undermined what in the past would have been easy victories, but if the Russians were behind stealing and distributing all the damning information about the Clinton posse, it's hard to rule out the Russians providing the final margin of victory for Trump.

These are good points. A few things I will say, not as a refutation or argument but as "this is a complicated scenario so lets keep all the facts in mind" commentary.

1) There were multiple damaging leaks, and only one is tied to the Russians in any way.
2) The information that is being tied to Russian hacking was also compromised by other actors, foreign or domestic. One of the early IC reports/leaks said that as many as five or six infiltrators had gotten in on the easily hacked password action. That's often lost in the current reporting... there were (strangely obvious) Russian footprints, but there was evidence of several other intrusions as well.

I'm very concerned that we are getting (at best) half truths from everyone involved in the current political scene. The MSM isn't acting as a neutral arbiter of facts. The Trump administrating is blustering around as loudly and stupidly as possible. And the leaders of the intelligence community are acting like self-righteous movie villains. It is frustratingly difficult to parse who is lying to us the most.

What one leak from Russia are you referring to

Russia has hacked into the State Department in the last few years (although irony of ironies, not Hillary's email server - they would have gotten her emails had she used State's email), has hacked into the Office of Personnel Management - most current and former security clearance holders like myself now get semi-regular emails from OPM about possible identity breaches, courtesy of Russia.

In addition to these and many others, Russia also hacked into the DNC and personal email accounts of those they found there, like John Podesta. Our entire intelligence establishment has confirmed this.

Russia has done this activity continually to other countries. They are as bad a player as you can be in the cyber space.

EDIT: Incidentally, virtually everyone in the IC community has had their personal information stolen by Russian intelligence through the OPM hack. They probably don't catch the joke any more than I do, perhaps even less.,

[sfam]

Trumps behavior during the campaign was bad, but his behavior and actions after the election are a much bigger problem IMO. He has alienated so many people I don't see how he will be able to govern effectively, assuming he is able to stay in office for 4 years.

Just a reminder, we're still in his first month!!! Like literally, there are more than 11 months to go to just get done with his first year!

[gtn130]

What specific, significant examples do you have of hit pieces that are not factual? Or is anything that is a negative story a hit piece? Like all this Flynn stuff I'm guessing? Clear this up for me.

The golden showers with prostitutes story.

The Trump sexually assaulted an airline hostess story.

The Trump made fun of a man with a disability story.

The implication that Trump was inciting violence at his rallies when it was, 99% of the time (one lone exception) instigated by leftist protestors.

The constant references to Trump being Hitler, like Hitler, or like Mussolini.

The lie that Trump's advisor Bannon "cited an Italian thinker who inspired fascists" when the reference in question was clearly critical of Julius Evola.

The lie that Trump claimed Mexican immigrants are rapists.

The lie that Trump abused Rowanne Brewer Lane.

And that's just off the top of my head.

You gotta get a grip, my dude.

The golden showers story was part of the dossier that Buzzfeed distributed. That wasn't a manufactured FAKE NEWS HIT PIECE. It was created by a British spy.

Trump did in fact make fun of someone with a disability.

You got a source you can cite proving 99% of violence at Trump rallies was caused by nefarious leftist actors? lmao

Trump did in fact call Mexicans rapists.

[sfam]

What specific, significant examples do you have of hit pieces that are not factual? Or is anything that is a negative story a hit piece? Like all this Flynn stuff I'm guessing? Clear this up for me.

The golden showers with prostitutes story.

The Trump sexually assaulted an airline hostess story.

The Trump made fun of a man with a disability story.

The implication that Trump was inciting violence at his rallies when it was, 99% of the time (one lone exception) instigated by leftist protestors.

The constant references to Trump being Hitler, like Hitler, or like Mussolini.

The lie that Trump's advisor Bannon "cited an Italian thinker who inspired fascists" when the reference in question was clearly critical of Julius Evola.

The lie that Trump claimed Mexican immigrants are rapists.

The lie that Trump abused Rowanne Brewer Lane.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Do you live under a rock or something! Did you not see the video of Trump mocking that disabled NYT reporter? It was absolutely despicable. I don't know how in the hell you can claim it was not factual or a hit piece.

He also called Mexican immigrants rapists and murders, btw. And I'm guessing that we'll find out soon that the "golden showers" story is also true.

No kidding. Some of those "lies" occurred when Trump was live on national TV. He mocked the disabled reporter and then stated he decided not to mock him on a follow-up occasion, saying the news would be out to get him again. Nate, feel free to suspend disbelief as you clearly are with the disabled reporter, but there are decades worth of stories of Trump acting incredibly nasty to small and vulnerable folk, not to mention actual celebrities. That's who he is.

[dckingsfan]

Agreed. For clarity, the "stick your head in the sand" wasn't directed at you - merely anyone who believes those actions didn't impact the outcome - they clearly did, regardless the quality of candidates.

No worries. I am one of those that doesn't believe it was THE cause for the outcome. I am one of those that believe that Hillary was in control of her destiny and underperformed. Her campaign and message were underwhelming and if there was one reason she lost - it was that.

Guess I need to get some Q-tips to get the sand out of my ears

A difference of 70,000 votes, and you had daily front page stories for months from stolen emails planted by Russia via wikileaks, you had the leading law enforcement re-open a closed investigation 11 days before the election, and his Department leaked that Hillary was about to be indicted. No impact? Really?

If this had happened in any other country, we would not call this a free and fair election.

Guess what? The rest of the world still feels the same way.

I get where you are coming from - I voted for Hillary.

But as I watched this election cycle play out - I felt that she lost it more than Trump won.

And I watched two candidates with very low approval ratings compete. The Rs tried but couldn't block Trump. The Ds were complicit in Hillary's nomination.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I put this on the Ds and Hillary - it was hers to win.

[sfam]

Clinton could have done a better job in many areas and won the election, but she lost very narrowly in three states (MI, PA, WI) that traditionally vote Democrat in presidential elections. Out of nearly 14 million presidential votes in those three states, a mere 40 thousand voting for Clinton instead of Trump could have changed the outcome in those states, and Clinton would have won the election. Many factors undermined what in the past would have been easy victories, but if the Russians were behind stealing and distributing all the damning information about the Clinton posse, it's hard to rule out the Russians providing the final margin of victory for Trump.

70,000 votes were needed to switch, not 40,000. Also, if another 34,000 switched to Trump, he could have won New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine.

The election was close, but not THAT close. After winning Florida by a comfortable margin, Trump only needed one of WI, MI, MN or PA. He won three of them (including PA by a 70,000 vote margin) and was just votes 32,000 shy of getting MN.

I think there has only been one closer than this. Hillary won the popular by almost 3 million. To think that Comey alone, not to mention the Russians didn't influence a potential switch of 70,000 votes in three states when she was winning in a blowout 11 days out prior to that letter is pretty incredible.

I get not wanting to come to grips with reality. Its pretty scary. It means we didn't have a free and fair election - that the outcome was decided by things other than the intent of the American people.

Welcome to 2017.

[sfam]

No worries. I am one of those that doesn't believe it was THE cause for the outcome. I am one of those that believe that Hillary was in control of her destiny and underperformed. Her campaign and message were underwhelming and if there was one reason she lost - it was that.

Guess I need to get some Q-tips to get the sand out of my ears

A difference of 70,000 votes, and you had daily front page stories for months from stolen emails planted by Russia via wikileaks, you had the leading law enforcement re-open a closed investigation 11 days before the election, and his Department leaked that Hillary was about to be indicted. No impact? Really?

If this had happened in any other country, we would not call this a free and fair election.

Guess what? The rest of the world still feels the same way.

I get where you are coming from - I voted for Hillary.

But as I watched this election cycle play out - I felt that she lost it more than Trump won.

And I watched two candidates with very low approval ratings compete. The Rs tried but couldn't block Trump. The Ds were complicit in Hillary's nomination.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I put this on the Ds and Hillary - it was hers to win.

We might agree she made TONS of mistakes in exactly the way you are talking about. But given the difference in the totals, this is just not why she lost.

[gtn130]

No worries. I am one of those that doesn't believe it was THE cause for the outcome. I am one of those that believe that Hillary was in control of her destiny and underperformed. Her campaign and message were underwhelming and if there was one reason she lost - it was that.

Guess I need to get some Q-tips to get the sand out of my ears

A difference of 70,000 votes, and you had daily front page stories for months from stolen emails planted by Russia via wikileaks, you had the leading law enforcement re-open a closed investigation 11 days before the election, and his Department leaked that Hillary was about to be indicted. No impact? Really?

If this had happened in any other country, we would not call this a free and fair election.

Guess what? The rest of the world still feels the same way.

I get where you are coming from - I voted for Hillary.

But as I watched this election cycle play out - I felt that she lost it more than Trump won.

And I watched two candidates with very low approval ratings compete. The Rs tried but couldn't block Trump. The Ds were complicit in Hillary's nomination.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I put this on the Ds and Hillary - it was hers to win.

None of what you're saying refutes the impact Wikileaks + Comey had on the election. You want it one way, but it's the other way.

[nate33]

The golden showers with prostitutes story.

The Trump sexually assaulted an airline hostess story.

The Trump made fun of a man with a disability story.

The implication that Trump was inciting violence at his rallies when it was, 99% of the time (one lone exception) instigated by leftist protestors.

The constant references to Trump being Hitler, like Hitler, or like Mussolini.

The lie that Trump's advisor Bannon "cited an Italian thinker who inspired fascists" when the reference in question was clearly critical of Julius Evola.

The lie that Trump claimed Mexican immigrants are rapists.

The lie that Trump abused Rowanne Brewer Lane.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Do you live under a rock or something! Did you not see the video of Trump mocking that disabled NYT reporter? It was absolutely despicable. I don't know how in the hell you can claim it was not factual or a hit piece.

He also called Mexican immigrants rapists and murders, btw. And I'm guessing that we'll find out soon that the "golden showers" story is also true.

No kidding. Some of those "lies" occurred when Trump was live on national TV. He mocked the disabled reporter and then stated he decided not to mock him on a follow-up occasion, saying the news would be out to get him again. Nate, feel free to suspend disbelief as you clearly are with the disabled reporter, but there are decades worth of stories of Trump acting incredibly nasty to small and vulnerable folk, not to mention actual celebrities. That's who he is.

Trump made exaggerated hand gestures while putting on an "I'm saying something stupid" voice. It's a normal caricature that lots of people make when trying to express that someone else is being stupid or annoying. He made the exact same hand motions when imitating several other people, including Cruz and a military general. It had nothing to do with the reporter's physical ailment, (which in fact had nothing to do with wildly flailing arms).

I know you don't want to believe this because you are locked in a world where Trump is a buffoon worthy of nothing but scorn and ridicule, but it's true.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/12242/dear-meryl-streep-even-if-he-did-he-didnt-who-john-nolte

[Doug_Blew]

The lie that Trump claimed Mexican immigrants are rapists.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

He does assume that some are good people. Not sure why he can only assume. I see Mexicans working the grounds of his Loudoun County golf course behind my house on a weekly basis. I often wonder if anyone has checked their papers.

[gtn130]

Do you live under a rock or something! Did you not see the video of Trump mocking that disabled NYT reporter? It was absolutely despicable. I don't know how in the hell you can claim it was not factual or a hit piece.

He also called Mexican immigrants rapists and murders, btw. And I'm guessing that we'll find out soon that the "golden showers" story is also true.

No kidding. Some of those "lies" occurred when Trump was live on national TV. He mocked the disabled reporter and then stated he decided not to mock him on a follow-up occasion, saying the news would be out to get him again. Nate, feel free to suspend disbelief as you clearly are with the disabled reporter, but there are decades worth of stories of Trump acting incredibly nasty to small and vulnerable folk, not to mention actual celebrities. That's who he is.

Trump made exaggerated hand gestures while putting on an "I'm saying something stupid" voice. It's a normal caricature that lots of people make when trying to express that someone else is being stupid or annoying. He made the exact same hand motions when imitating several other people, including Cruz and a military general. It had nothing to do with the reporter's physical ailment, (which in fact had nothing to do with wildly flailing arms).

I know you don't want to believe this because you are locked in a world where Trump is a buffoon worthy of nothing but scorn and ridicule, but it's true.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/12242/dear-meryl-streep-even-if-he-did-he-didnt-who-john-nolte

Yes, it's so much better that he actually makes fun of many people by acting like they have a disability. Really a great cause you're taking up here, Nate.

You see his long history of belittling people and it gives you zero pause or concern lol.

[Kanyewest]

This article says that it was intentional. I tend to believe it is true that he made fun of the reporter since they are on a first name basis.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/09/meryl-streep-was-right-donald-trump-did-mock-a-disabled-reporter/

Sent from my LG-D851 using RealGM mobile app

[doclinkin]

Trump made exaggerated hand gestures while putting on an "I'm saying something stupid" voice. It's a normal caricature that lots of people make when trying to express that someone else is being stupid or annoying.

So yes he mocked the guy. A guy who had a disability. After saying the phrase "You've got to see this guy..."

I can understand being defensive and partisan about feeling your guy has become a lightning rod in the media. But some of the justifications of his behavior veer into a Twilight zone, where I genuinely don't understand how a remarkably bright person like you can't at least admit to qualms about his demeanor and judgment. Whatever his positive qualities its got to be tough to defend some of this, and at least raise questions.

The Russia stuff doesn't make you at least hold your breath hoping nothing damning comes out?

We're veering into defending Kwame Brown territory here.

[dckingsfan]

I get where you are coming from - I voted for Hillary.

But as I watched this election cycle play out - I felt that she lost it more than Trump won.

And I watched two candidates with very low approval ratings compete. The Rs tried but couldn't block Trump. The Ds were complicit in Hillary's nomination.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I put this on the Ds and Hillary - it was hers to win.

None of what you're saying refutes the impact Wikileaks + Comey had on the election. You want it one way, but it's the other way.

I understand what you are saying. That there was an affect from Wiki + Comey. I am not disregarding that effect.

What I am saying is - it was Hillary's to lose and she did just that... she controlled her destiny and ran a weak campaign (do you disagree?).

The Democratic party was complicit in shoe-horning her (a candidate with a negative approval rating, do you disagree?) as the candidate.

A weak candidate + a poor campaign = loss.

If the Ds hadn't hamstrung competition during the primary season - the Ds would mostly have the White House.

If Hillary hadn't stumbled badly during her campaign - the Ds would mostly have the White House.

Yes, it is a shame that events and mistruths have put Trump (an awful indivual) in as POTUS.

But, go back in our history - this has happened many times. We don't need to apologize to anyone outside of the US. What the Ds need to do is fix their problem. Otherwise we just end up with the "they are more evil than us" party and the cycle will continue (do you agree?).