ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part XI

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

JWizmentality
RealGM
Posts: 14,101
And1: 5,122
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
Location: Cosmic Totality
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#281 » by JWizmentality » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:07 am

pineappleheadindc wrote:
tontoz wrote:We voted for a black president not once but twice, and he still has a higher approval rating than either white candidate, but all of a sudden we are a racist country because we elected Trump.

OK


I think it's always dangerous to ascribe motive to others' behavior. This is a good example (Trump voters = racist or sexist).

I think the truth is that the Democratic party -- and lots of others who support them -- are disconnected to a large chunk of America that voted Trump in. The secret for the future is to try and understand each other and you can't do that if you call someone a racist or sexist off the bat.



If I may use a favorite line for conservatives. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. I get along with lots of conservatives, but how am I as a black man supposed sit down and "try to understand" the David Dukes of the GOP?
User avatar
tontoz
RealGM
Posts: 20,804
And1: 5,331
Joined: Apr 11, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#282 » by tontoz » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:26 am

JWizmentality wrote:
pineappleheadindc wrote:
tontoz wrote:We voted for a black president not once but twice, and he still has a higher approval rating than either white candidate, but all of a sudden we are a racist country because we elected Trump.

OK


I think it's always dangerous to ascribe motive to others' behavior. This is a good example (Trump voters = racist or sexist).

I think the truth is that the Democratic party -- and lots of others who support them -- are disconnected to a large chunk of America that voted Trump in. The secret for the future is to try and understand each other and you can't do that if you call someone a racist or sexist off the bat.



If I may use a favorite line for conservatives. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. I get along with lots of conservatives, but how am I as a black man supposed sit down and "try to understand" the David Dukes of the GOP?



Having known a few they are pretty simple to understand. Fortunately there are a small minority and they are typically losers who aren't in a position of power......unless they are cops. Then it becomes a real problem.
"bulky agile perimeter bone crunch pick setting draymond green" WizD
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,829
And1: 7,963
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#283 » by montestewart » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:24 am

Induveca wrote:
montestewart wrote:
tontoz wrote:

If these people are such a sizable voting block then how did Obama get elected for 2 terms?

One theory is that Obama energized certain segments of the population to vote, period, and Clinton did inspire that group to the same degree, while Trump inspired a different group of voters who were not inspired to vote by past candidates, Just a theory, but when you look at how close most elections actually are, you can see how one candidate losing 1% while another candidate gains 1% can alter the outcome.


I have a better theory, Clinton was extremely corrupt, and forced her will on the DNC by whatever means necessary to enable her candidacy. Biden was coerced not to run and Sanders was laughed at by the very establishment meant to hold a fair/free primary during his entire candidacy.

It was Clinton 100% from day one. Democrats were lied to/force fed a woman with 20+ years of scandals, corruption, and dishonesty that nearly 70% of the American public did not trust.

The Wikileaks had a major impact, the Clinton foundation corruption had an impact, Benghazi, Whitewater, sex scandals, Soros, mass immigration etc etc.

Biden or Sanders would have won, ESPECIALLY Biden. Democrats may dislike Trump all they like, but they have no one to blame but themselves. While a large percentage of democratic voters were in denial Trump supporters turned out for gigantic rallies, and unprecedented numbers at the polls.

While Trump had 20-30k people at his rallies, Clinton attracted a few hundred. Democratic voters *chose* to believe blatant media bias, "Russia" excuses and ignore the huge swelling of "real world" and social media support for Trump.

This was an arrogant, ignorant and elitist response to a movement much bigger than the actual man delivering the message. This vote was a conduit which essentially said "we want change, by any means necessary".

Well, that's a wider ranging theory than mine, but in 2012, popular vote was 50% for Obama to 48% for Romney. 538 2016 popular vote predictions were 48.5% for Clinton, 44.9% for Trump, 5% for Johnson and 1.6% for all others. Clinton looks like she'll get nearly 48% of the popular vote, with Trump slightly behind her (47.7%-47.5% when I checked), and Johnson at 3%. I'm not sure how recognition of Trump's huge rallies (or any of the other things you mention) would have told 538 to up Trump's % by 2.6 points. Your's is a theory of everything, while mine merely attempts to answer the original question.

People seem to have forgotten that many predicted a Romney victory four years ago, or a much closer defeat. This race was close, that race was not as close, but was still close. Electoral college margins tend to obscure just how close the popular vote is (Trump ironically called the electoral college a disaster after Obama's near landslide of 2012 electoral votes). 2016 turned on very thin margins in key states. The next race could just as easily be close, and go the other way, turning on those same states. Just as Democrats believed their own echo chamber regarding the voting landscape, Republicans might just as easily do the same thing.
User avatar
Induveca
Head Coach
Posts: 7,379
And1: 724
Joined: Dec 02, 2004
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#284 » by Induveca » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:33 am

montestewart wrote:
Induveca wrote:
montestewart wrote:One theory is that Obama energized certain segments of the population to vote, period, and Clinton did inspire that group to the same degree, while Trump inspired a different group of voters who were not inspired to vote by past candidates, Just a theory, but when you look at how close most elections actually are, you can see how one candidate losing 1% while another candidate gains 1% can alter the outcome.


I have a better theory, Clinton was extremely corrupt, and forced her will on the DNC by whatever means necessary to enable her candidacy. Biden was coerced not to run and Sanders was laughed at by the very establishment meant to hold a fair/free primary during his entire candidacy.

It was Clinton 100% from day one. Democrats were lied to/force fed a woman with 20+ years of scandals, corruption, and dishonesty that nearly 70% of the American public did not trust.

The Wikileaks had a major impact, the Clinton foundation corruption had an impact, Benghazi, Whitewater, sex scandals, Soros, mass immigration etc etc.

Biden or Sanders would have won, ESPECIALLY Biden. Democrats may dislike Trump all they like, but they have no one to blame but themselves. While a large percentage of democratic voters were in denial Trump supporters turned out for gigantic rallies, and unprecedented numbers at the polls.

While Trump had 20-30k people at his rallies, Clinton attracted a few hundred. Democratic voters *chose* to believe blatant media bias, "Russia" excuses and ignore the huge swelling of "real world" and social media support for Trump.

This was an arrogant, ignorant and elitist response to a movement much bigger than the actual man delivering the message. This vote was a conduit which essentially said "we want change, by any means necessary".

Well, that's a wider ranging theory than mine, but in 2012, popular vote was 50% for Obama to 48% for Romney. 538 2016 popular vote predictions were 48.5% for Clinton, 44.9% for Trump, 5% for Johnson and 1.6% for all others. Clinton looks like she'll get nearly 48% of the popular vote, with Trump slightly behind her (47.7%-47.5% when I checked), and Johnson at 3%. I'm not sure how recognition of Trump's huge rallies (or any of the other things you mention) would have told 538 to up Trump's % by 2.6 points. Your's is a theory of everything, while mine merely attempts to answer the original question.

People seem to have forgotten that many predicted a Romney victory four years ago, or a much closer defeat. This race was close, that race was not as close, but was still close. Electoral college margins tend to obscure just how close the popular vote is (Trump ironically called the electoral college a disaster after Obama's near landslide of 2012 electoral votes). 2016 turned on very thin margins in key states. The next race could just as easily be close, and go the other way, turning on those same states. Just as Democrats believed their own echo chamber regarding the voting landscape, Republicans might just as easily do the same thing.


Clinton's corruption created/supported Johnson and Stein. Accepting Clinton's strong arming in the primary debacle lost democrats the election.

Wikileaks exposed all of this....
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 63,033
And1: 16,454
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#285 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:44 am

Mistake 1 by the Democrats was treating the primaries as a coronation for the candidate they already picked. Despite that candidate already losing in 2008 when she was supposed to win and having a long history of being disliked. The only person to run against her was a 75 year old socialist. Where was Biden and Warren? It's hard to know. Did they genuinely not want to run? Or did the Democratic party put their hand on their shoulder and say no.

Mistake 2 was the Tim Kaine pick. Kaine was Hillary thinking all she had to do was ride out the string and she'd win easily. Cause Trump is a joke. He has a ceiling. Bernie Sanders as her vice cures a lot of ills in terms of youth turnout. Cory Booker adds some excitement. Milquetoast white guy was not the answer.
It's going to be a glorious day... I feel my luck could change
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,829
And1: 7,963
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#286 » by montestewart » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:59 am

Induveca wrote:
montestewart wrote:
Induveca wrote:
I have a better theory, Clinton was extremely corrupt, and forced her will on the DNC by whatever means necessary to enable her candidacy. Biden was coerced not to run and Sanders was laughed at by the very establishment meant to hold a fair/free primary during his entire candidacy.

It was Clinton 100% from day one. Democrats were lied to/force fed a woman with 20+ years of scandals, corruption, and dishonesty that nearly 70% of the American public did not trust.

The Wikileaks had a major impact, the Clinton foundation corruption had an impact, Benghazi, Whitewater, sex scandals, Soros, mass immigration etc etc.

Biden or Sanders would have won, ESPECIALLY Biden. Democrats may dislike Trump all they like, but they have no one to blame but themselves. While a large percentage of democratic voters were in denial Trump supporters turned out for gigantic rallies, and unprecedented numbers at the polls.

While Trump had 20-30k people at his rallies, Clinton attracted a few hundred. Democratic voters *chose* to believe blatant media bias, "Russia" excuses and ignore the huge swelling of "real world" and social media support for Trump.

This was an arrogant, ignorant and elitist response to a movement much bigger than the actual man delivering the message. This vote was a conduit which essentially said "we want change, by any means necessary".

Well, that's a wider ranging theory than mine, but in 2012, popular vote was 50% for Obama to 48% for Romney. 538 2016 popular vote predictions were 48.5% for Clinton, 44.9% for Trump, 5% for Johnson and 1.6% for all others. Clinton looks like she'll get nearly 48% of the popular vote, with Trump slightly behind her (47.7%-47.5% when I checked), and Johnson at 3%. I'm not sure how recognition of Trump's huge rallies (or any of the other things you mention) would have told 538 to up Trump's % by 2.6 points. Your's is a theory of everything, while mine merely attempts to answer the original question.

People seem to have forgotten that many predicted a Romney victory four years ago, or a much closer defeat. This race was close, that race was not as close, but was still close. Electoral college margins tend to obscure just how close the popular vote is (Trump ironically called the electoral college a disaster after Obama's near landslide of 2012 electoral votes). 2016 turned on very thin margins in key states. The next race could just as easily be close, and go the other way, turning on those same states. Just as Democrats believed their own echo chamber regarding the voting landscape, Republicans might just as easily do the same thing.


Clinton's corruption created/supported Johnson and Stein. Accepting Clinton's strong arming in the primary debacle lost democrats the election.

Wikileaks exposed all of this....

Say what you want about Wikileaks exposing Clinton, the press ignoring Trump rallies, Democratic voters blindsided by reality, etc. and you can create an outcome as visiually distorted as the electoral college does. But that pretty much flies in the face of the numbers I have quoted to you. 3rd party candidates didn't get as much vote as predicted, there's no evidence yet that they only took votes away from Clinton, and again, she got 47.7% of the vote, more than Trump.

Maybe this predicts a sea change, but it is not in itself a sea change. The electorate was handed not one but two deeply flawed candidates, and one of them eked out a narrow victory.
AFM
RealGM
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,885
Joined: May 25, 2012
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#287 » by AFM » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:01 am

Dr Positivity wrote:Mistake 1 by the Democrats was treating the primaries as a coronation for the candidate they already picked. Despite that candidate already losing in 2008 when she was supposed to win and having a long history of being disliked. The only person to run against her was a 75 year old socialist. Where was Biden and Warren? It's hard to know. Did they genuinely not want to run? Or did the Democratic party put their hand on their shoulder and say no.

Mistake 2 was the Tim Kaine pick. Kaine was Hillary thinking all she had to do was ride out the string and she'd win easily. Cause Trump is a joke. He has a ceiling. Bernie Sanders as her vice cures a lot of ills in terms of youth turnout. Cory Booker adds some excitement. Milquetoast white guy was not the answer.


Preach, our canuck brother! Canada lost this election--Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham are heading your way! May your food be plentiful!
AFM
RealGM
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,885
Joined: May 25, 2012
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#288 » by AFM » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:01 am

Indu you savage!

Image
User avatar
Induveca
Head Coach
Posts: 7,379
And1: 724
Joined: Dec 02, 2004
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#289 » by Induveca » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:09 am

AFM wrote:Indu you savage!

Image


LOL!!! Never got the PM BTW!
DCZards
RealGM
Posts: 11,169
And1: 5,014
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#290 » by DCZards » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:13 am

Dr Positivity wrote:Mistake 1 by the Democrats was treating the primaries as a coronation for the candidate they already picked. Despite that candidate already losing in 2008 when she was supposed to win and having a long history of being disliked. The only person to run against her was a 75 year old socialist. Where was Biden and Warren? It's hard to know. Did they genuinely not want to run? Or did the Democratic party put their hand on their shoulder and say no.

Mistake 2 was the Tim Kaine pick. Kaine was Hillary thinking all she had to do was ride out the string and she'd win easily. Cause Trump is a joke. He has a ceiling. Bernie Sanders as her vice cures a lot of ills in terms of youth turnout. Cory Booker adds some excitement. Milquetoast white guy was not the answer.


I seriously doubt that a different VP pick would have made much of a difference. Presidential elections are won or lost by the person at the top of the ticket. I do agree that Biden, and maybe Sanders, would have probably beaten Trump easily.

Props to Trump and his supporters for winning the election the right way--by getting out and voting. It's just sad that so many Americans were willing to vote for a bigot and bully.
User avatar
FAH1223
RealGM
Posts: 16,354
And1: 7,458
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Location: Laurel, MD
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#291 » by FAH1223 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:18 am

Induveca wrote:I have a better theory, Clinton was extremely corrupt, and forced her will on the DNC by whatever means necessary to enable her candidacy. Biden was coerced not to run and Sanders was laughed at by the very establishment meant to hold a fair/free primary during his entire candidacy.

It was Clinton 100% from day one. Democrats were lied to/force fed a woman with 20+ years of scandals, corruption, and dishonesty that nearly 70% of the American public did not trust.

The Wikileaks had a major impact, the Clinton foundation corruption had an impact, Benghazi, Whitewater, sex scandals, Soros, mass immigration etc etc.

Biden or Sanders would have won, ESPECIALLY Biden. Democrats may dislike Trump all they like, but they have no one to blame but themselves. While a large percentage of democratic voters were in denial Trump supporters turned out for gigantic rallies, and unprecedented numbers at the polls.

While Trump had 20-30k people at his rallies, Clinton attracted a few hundred. Democratic voters *chose* to believe blatant media bias, "Russia" excuses and ignore the huge swelling of "real world" and social media support for Trump.

This was an arrogant, ignorant and elitist response to a movement much bigger than the actual man delivering the message. This vote was a conduit which essentially said "we want change, by any means necessary".


All of this.

My scattered thoughts about the election.

So, Voter turnout was around 50%.

You can't blame third parties (Johnson and Stein were in the ballot in most states in 2012) or minority groups.
Yes, state legislatures passing voter ID laws hurts. Yes, this also was the 1st presidential election without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Dems have a big problem and that's reaching out to rural America. The America felt left behind by globalism.
Obama masked this a bit because he had success in the Rust Belt and performed better in some counties outside of metro areas because of his simplistic optimistic message. "Yes We Can" rang just as well as Trump's simple populist slogan. Those same voters from 2012 in counties in PA, WI, voted Trump yesterday.

This cycle, the "not Trump" strategy was not enough to energize the base of the Dems.

Yes, the sexist, islamophobic and racist things he's said are terrible but he tapped into a populism (authoritarian style) especially in rural areas. Bernie Sanders also tapped into this with social democratic proposals that were also inclusive and responding to the needs of the American people (living wage, healthcare, college education, breaking up the too big to fail banks, etc). Trump in the primaries also ran to the left of the GOP on healthcare and social security to gain the support of this bloc. Sanders won rural areas routinely in the primary season and he was almost alone in his run (obviously being the longest serving independent in Congressional history can do that, but he's caucused with the DNC forever).

The consensus of this generation of Dem Party leaders is shaken. Last night was the continuation of Dems losing almost 1,000 seats in state legislatures, many governorships, and the US House and Senate since 2010. The solution? Speak to the working people you haven't spoken to in decades by standing for things and execute more for them (infrastructure spending, jobs program, etc).

Probably will be easier when the new unified GOP takes all branches of government in January. Opposition will mount with Paul Ryan's budget which aims to privatize the New Deal programs, tax cuts that benefit corporations and the top 1%, no action on Climate Change, and even more free reign for the financial institutions.

72% of voters yesterday say the economy is rigged to the top. Thats the crux of it all. And now someone who's benefited from the rigged system is the next POTUS. What a situation.
Image
AFM
RealGM
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,885
Joined: May 25, 2012
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#292 » by AFM » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:50 am

Image

RIP "GOAT STATISTICIAN" LOL!
AFM
RealGM
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,885
Joined: May 25, 2012
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#293 » by AFM » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:58 am

"when your hairline is as bad as your predictions"
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 54,982
And1: 10,538
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: RE: Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#294 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:06 am

AFM wrote:I'm cautiously optimistic. Mostly because I think Trump is not actually conservative in the least.


I've been giddy all day.

I think my meds are right.

Trump says a lot of things but let's see what he does!

I'm willing to give the POTUS Elect the benefit of a doubt. :nod:

Sent from my LG-H345 using RealGM mobile app
The Wizards shoukd have drafted Derik Queen

I told you so :banghead:
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 24,712
And1: 4,561
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#295 » by closg00 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:20 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:Mistake 1 by the Democrats was treating the primaries as a coronation for the candidate they already picked. Despite that candidate already losing in 2008 when she was supposed to win and having a long history of being disliked. The only person to run against her was a 75 year old socialist. Where was Biden and Warren? It's hard to know. Did they genuinely not want to run? Or did the Democratic party put their hand on their shoulder and say no.

Mistake 2 was the Tim Kaine pick. Kaine was Hillary thinking all she had to do was ride out the string and she'd win easily. Cause Trump is a joke. He has a ceiling. Bernie Sanders as her vice cures a lot of ills in terms of youth turnout. Cory Booker adds some excitement. Milquetoast white guy was not the answer.


Agree on #2 100%, picking Kaine was a colossal mistake which dampened enthusiasm for her campaign. Trump won several battleground states by razor thin margins and he lost to Clinton in the popular vote. Had she picked Bernie she would be President today. Bernie would have been on TV constantly and he would have participated in the vice presidential debate. A sufficient Number of Bernie supporters would have voted Clinton.
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,409
And1: 6,812
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#296 » by TGW » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:28 pm

Induveca wrote:
montestewart wrote:
tontoz wrote:

If these people are such a sizable voting block then how did Obama get elected for 2 terms?

One theory is that Obama energized certain segments of the population to vote, period, and Clinton did inspire that group to the same degree, while Trump inspired a different group of voters who were not inspired to vote by past candidates, Just a theory, but when you look at how close most elections actually are, you can see how one candidate losing 1% while another candidate gains 1% can alter the outcome.


I have a better theory, Clinton was extremely corrupt, and forced her will on the DNC by whatever means necessary to enable her candidacy. Biden was coerced not to run and Sanders was laughed at by the very establishment meant to hold a fair/free primary during his entire candidacy.

It was Clinton 100% from day one. Democrats were lied to/force fed a woman with 20+ years of scandals, corruption, and dishonesty that nearly 70% of the American public did not trust.

The Wikileaks had a major impact, the Clinton foundation corruption had an impact, Benghazi, Whitewater, sex scandals, Soros, mass immigration etc etc.

Biden or Sanders would have won, ESPECIALLY Biden. Democrats may dislike Trump all they like, but they have no one to blame but themselves. While a large percentage of democratic voters were in denial Trump supporters turned out for gigantic rallies, and unprecedented numbers at the polls.

While Trump had 20-30k people at his rallies, Clinton attracted a few hundred. Democratic voters *chose* to believe blatant media bias, "Russia" excuses and ignore the huge swelling of "real world" and social media support for Trump.

This was an arrogant, ignorant and elitist response to a movement much bigger than the actual man delivering the message. This vote was a conduit which essentially said "we want change, by any means necessary".


I normally don't agree with anything you say...ever. But this is 100% ON THE SPOT.

Sometimes, you cannot discount the "unlikability" factor. Hillary is about as unlikable a politician as you can find.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 24,712
And1: 4,561
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#297 » by closg00 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:48 pm

Sergei Markov, a Senior political analyst, admitted that "maybe we helped a bit with Wikileaks"

A foreign government intervening on-behalf of the Republican presidential candidate via material obtained via espionage, should be a scandal bigger than Watergate. I bet you won't see one day of hearings about this. Why are the nations political leadership accepting this with shrug?
User avatar
tontoz
RealGM
Posts: 20,804
And1: 5,331
Joined: Apr 11, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#298 » by tontoz » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:26 pm

closg00 wrote:Sergei Markov, a Senior political analyst, admitted that "maybe we helped a bit with Wikileaks"

A foreign government intervening on-behalf of the Republican presidential candidate via material obtained via espionage, should be a scandal bigger than Watergate. I bet you won't see one day of hearings about this. Why are the nations political leadership accepting this with shrug?


These two countries have been spying on each other for decades. That is why the State Dept requires people to use a secure server instead of a private one. Do you see where I am going here....?

If you put your hand on a hot stove and it burns you, is it the stove's fault?
"bulky agile perimeter bone crunch pick setting draymond green" WizD
AFM
RealGM
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,885
Joined: May 25, 2012
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#299 » by AFM » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:33 pm

Tannhauser = instant chills



Trump's election is going to be the biggest PHUCK YOU ever recorded in human history. -- Michael Moore
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 24,712
And1: 4,561
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Political Roundtable Part XI 

Post#300 » by closg00 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:44 pm

tontoz wrote:
closg00 wrote:Sergei Markov, a Senior political analyst, admitted that "maybe we helped a bit with Wikileaks"

A foreign government intervening on-behalf of the Republican presidential candidate via material obtained via espionage, should be a scandal bigger than Watergate. I bet you won't see one day of hearings about this. Why are the nations political leadership accepting this with shrug?


These two countries have been spying on each other for decades. That is why the State Dept requires people to use a secure server instead of a private one. Do you see where I am going here....?

If you put your hand on a hot stove and it burns you, is it the stove's fault?


What you wrote makes zero logical sense. We spy on each other, but we have historically not interfered in our respective elections. The fact that a foreign power intervened on-behalf of one side of an election has zero to with the state department. How do you feel about a foreign government working with Wikileaks on-behalf of the Trump campaign, Moscow's preferred choice? Answer that question.

Return to Washington Wizards