Political Roundtable Part XII

[Benjammin]

The DNC screwed Bernie and vastly influenced the primaries and the nomination to Hillary. Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock. Of course the Russians do dirty stuff. How many elections do you think the US intelligence community has influenced or affected? With all that, Trump is a disaster (didn't vote for him), he needs to exit stage right as quickly and gracefully as possible and let a relative grownup be President. Both parties need to get their acts together. The hyperbole of the Left is amusing, except for the fact there's enough truth there to be genuinely concerned for our country.

[gtn130]

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?).

I don't think anyone disagrees with your assessment of Hillary's performance. I actually agree with your entire post. I just think that the narrative you're constructing doesn't paint the full picture of what happened regarding the election outcome.

Believing that Wikileaks + Comey changed the election doesn't preclude someone from also believing Hillary (and the DNC) did a terrible job and a better candidate would have won, easily.

[montestewart]

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.

The source I saw showed a total margin for those three states of ~77,000, so a swing of 40,000 would be sufficient. I know different sites are reporting different numbers, but you get the idea. I understand that other states had thin margins in Clinton's favor, just pointing out that if Russia were working in Trump's favor (or Comey, for that matter) they might have contributed to or even provided the final margin of victory. I don't see how anyone can know for sure one way or the other, and definitively ruling it out seems comparable to definitively declaring it fact. I'm just looking at the numbers available.

[dckingsfan]

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?).

I don't think anyone disagrees with your assessment of Hillary's performance. I actually agree with your entire post. I just think that the narrative you're constructing doesn't paint the full picture of what happened regarding the election outcome.

Believing that Wikileaks + Comey changed the election doesn't preclude someone from also believing Hillary (and the DNC) did a terrible job and a better candidate would have won, easily.

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

Happy that we agree
1) Wikileaks + Comey had an affect
2) DNC was complicit in putting in a bad candidate
3) Hillary ran a poor compaign

= Trump.

The DNC can control for 2&3

1) will be come the new normal

[closg00]

Regarding Trump mocking the disabled reporter, here is the Politifact research on this. Surprise, another Trump lie.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/20/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wrong-say-he-moc/



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bealwithit]

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.

1) The golden showers story wasn't a hit piece. It is part of the dossier put together by a respected British ex-spy who has met with McCain and others about it. As I've said before, it has been reported that it is gaining credibility among US intelligence. We will probably never find out if it was true just because it would be so hard to source. You could definitely argue whether or not it should have been reported on in the first place. Buzzfeed was the one who screwed that up and they aren't exactly where people go when they want well-reported journalism. Here's how that broke down:
http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-distances-itself-from-buzzfeed-2017-1

CNN published a report Tuesday that said US intelligence officials had presented Trump with a two-page synopsis of an intelligence report that indicated Russian agents claimed to have compromising information about the president-elect. BuzzFeed quickly piggybacked on the report. The outlet published what it said was the full 35-page memo the two pages were based on. BuzzFeed said in its article it had not confirmed the details of the memo it published.

CNN buried Buzzfeed on this and rightfully so. This is a screw up I'd agree with you on. The jury is still out though on whether or not the dossier ends up being 100% true. Only time will tell.

2) The sexual assault of the hostess story? Where is this? This is the only story I see.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/woman-allegedly-groped-trump-debate-words-article-1.2829847
I'm guessing it's what you meant. The only thing that "disproved" this was the guy who said he was also on the plane and that it didn't happen. He's not exactly the most credible source. Him saying that also doesn't disprove the woman's claim. Sexual assault allegations are always tricky because they hard difficult to prove, but I don't fault anyone for reporting the woman's story.

3) He did. They had met before. He knows what he looks like. He mocked him. Please stop fighting this one, it's pretty pointless.

4) Nice caveat there with the "one lone exception", hahaha. So he did. Good job admitting it. If you're gonna say protesters that came to the rallies provoked violence, there were plenty of Trump supporters at the rallies who did the same. I'm not going to bother getting links for this one since you admitted it yourself.

5) I don't think anyone reported that Trump is "just like Hitler! Mussolini! _____!" I'm sure plenty of left-wing sites did. That's more of an opinion than saying "we have sourced evidence that Trump is just like Hitler omg!" People are allowed to have opinions.

6) This one is a bit muddy. The NYT piece that was published on this Evola thing was... not much. They reported correctly that Evola was mentioned in Bannon's remarks. Bannon didn't exactly criticize Evola and his ideas. He said people who are nationalists or traditionalists would see value in what Putin is doing. He also said:

When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.
...
However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.

There was no criticism of Evola here. He cites Evola as a supporter of traditionalism and then says traditionalism has value when combined with nationalism. Bannon admitted Putin runs a kleptocracy and brought up Aleskandr Dugin, not by name. The NYT article then just gives information on who Evola was, talked to Richard Spencer about what he thought of Bannon even knowing who Evola is, then Milo bringing up Evola in his Guide to the Alt-Right piece: which was published on Breitbart. I don't think you've got much here. This also was definitely not something that made the rounds on mainstream sites in a big way.

7) The Mexican immigrants quote... oh boy. We've all heard that quote about a million times, so no need to go get it. But he said the Mexican government was deliberately sending murderers and rapists across the border as Mexican immigrants. That's what he said. He included the "...some, I assume, are good people" to cover his ass.

8) The Lane story was a hit piece, agreed.

So, one hit piece. Is that really enough to justify you viewing every negative Trump story as a hit piece and having full distrust of the media? I'm not sure about that one.

[closg00]

Any thoughts on Trump going to Margo Largo this weekend (3rd time in as many weeks) and is holding a rally to bolster his fragile ego. So sad


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Wizardspride]

Watch on YouTube

[bealwithit]

This Trump press conference is just SURREAL

[gtn130]

this trump presser is such a joke

[Donkey McDonkerton]

So comical, fake news. Flynn didn't do anything wrong, you guys did. I asked for his resignation. You cannot defend this guy.

[tontoz]

The country is such a mess compared to when Obama took over from Bush.

[bealwithit]

The guy was more concerned with CNN, Don Lemon's show, Fox & Friends, the press, the election, and Hillary than anything he's actually trying to do. Mind-boggling.

[dckingsfan]

I think if you understand that Trump is all about Trump then it all falls into context.

[nate33]

Any thoughts on Trump going to Margo Largo this weekend (3rd time in as many weeks) and is holding a rally to bolster his fragile ego. So sad


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Do you really think the purpose of the rally is to boost his fragile ego? Is that the level of analysis you're gonna bring to the table? If that's what you believe, then I invite you and your side to continue to wallow in your ignorance. Your level of understanding of Trump's supporters virtually guarantees that Trump will win again in 2020.

Trump is holding a rally because he knows his supporters are stuck listening to non-stop hatred from a hostile media and it's important to keep their morale up. That was also the point of the press conference. Like Reagan, Trump is going over the heads of the media and communicating directly to the people.

[bealwithit]

I think if you understand that Trump is all about Trump then it all falls into context.

Of course. It's just amazing he can't even pretend to be the opposite when in public like that. He's so stupid.

[nate33]

The guy was more concerned with CNN, Don Lemon's show, Fox & Friends, the press, the election, and Hillary than anything he's actually trying to do. Mind-boggling.

Or alternatively, Trump just had a 2-hour press conference and the media made no headway in demonizing him about the Flynn situation. Look! Squirrel!

I continue to be amazed at how you guys perceive Trump so differently than a Trump supporter like myself does. I loved the press conference. I thought it was magnificent. And so did virtually all of Trump's supporters. The only people that didn't like it are those that already hate Trump, and Trump isn't worried about impressing them.

[TGW]

Watch on YouTube

[bealwithit]

The guy was more concerned with CNN, Don Lemon's show, Fox & Friends, the press, the election, and Hillary than anything he's actually trying to do. Mind-boggling.

Or alternatively, Trump just had a 2-hour press conference and the media made no headway in demonizing him about the Flynn situation. Look! Squirrel!

I continue to be amazed at how you guys perceive Trump so differently than a Trump supporter like myself does. I loved the press conference. I thought it was magnificent. And so did virtually all of Trump's supporters. The only people that didn't like it are those that already hate Trump, and Trump isn't worried about impressing them.

Truly a president for ALL Americans.
Give me a break.

[gtn130]

The guy was more concerned with CNN, Don Lemon's show, Fox & Friends, the press, the election, and Hillary than anything he's actually trying to do. Mind-boggling.

Or alternatively, Trump just had a 2-hour press conference and the media made no headway in demonizing him about the Flynn situation. Look! Squirrel!

I continue to be amazed at how you guys perceive Trump so differently than a Trump supporter like myself does. I loved the press conference. I thought it was magnificent. And so did virtually all of Trump's supporters. The only people that didn't like it are those that already hate Trump, and Trump isn't worried about impressing them.

You know the president is supposed to govern for all Americans, right?