And Now For The Comedy Thread Section....Hillary Now Blames Bernie For Her Loss

[Underhill]

You think any one of those things changed the result?
You think Trump didn't also have the vagaries of determined opposition work against him too?
The election could've easily gone either way.
This is normal.
To wallow in could'a should'a what-ifs is weak.
To wallow in blaming others is weak.
Hillary is weak.

People upset over a loss will see all the factors that worked against them.
It helps them feel like they've been victimized....to endure injustice.
Consider that the other side would've seen it the identical way.

We don't know. But they certainly could have. The more we learn the more the election is called into question.

We've always assumed the polls were wrong, but the latest information has me wondering...

 

[Revoltingest]

We don't know. But they certainly could have. The more we learn the more the election is called into question.

What's the question?

We've always assumed the polls were wrong, but the latest information has me wondering...

We have?
I noticed that many Hillary fans predicted her win based upon the polls.
I thought she had the edge too.
And it turns out that she did, but not with her votes distributed as strategically as Trump's.

 

[YmirGF]

I still love the name of her book, "What happened?"

 

[Revoltingest]

I still love the name of her book, "What happened?"

You give her too much credit by adding the question mark to her title.

And in the news, she's truing to remain relevant...
Clinton blasts Don Jr.'s 'absurd lie' about Russian lawyer meeting

 

[columbus]

I still love the name of her book, "What happened?"

I may one day care enough to read whatshername's debriefing book. I expect that it does hold insights into what future elections will hold.
But not until the library will loan it to me for free.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

What's the question?

We have?
I noticed that many Hillary fans predicted her win based upon the polls.
I thought she had the edge too.
And it turns out that she did, but not with her votes distributed as strategically as Trump's.

Yeah, that is not what I mean. The polls showed her having a decisive lead in many of the swing states Trump won.

And over the last few months we see stories like these...

Could Russia have tampered with the U.S. voting system? A new report is raising questions

If Voting Machines Were Hacked, Would Anyone Know?

Good News For Russia: 15 States Use Voting Machines That Have Been Easily Hackable For More Than A Decade

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-have-been-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that is not what I mean. The polls showed her having a decisive lead in many of the swing states Trump won.

And over the last few months we see stories like these...

Could Russia have tampered with the U.S. voting system? A new report is raising questions

If Voting Machines Were Hacked, Would Anyone Know?

Good News For Russia: 15 States Use Voting Machines That Have Been Easily Hackable For More Than A Decade

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-have-been-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/

Questions are easy to raise.
Any answers?

Hacking voting machines across multiple states with different systems would be difficult.
Another question....
Were polls rigged in her favor?
When driving across the NE portion of the country, I saw only a couple
Hillary signs in yards. Trump was overwhelmingly more popular.

I have no proof to either validate or disprove any conspiracies.
So I don't believe any of them.

 

[columbus]

acking voting machines across multiple states with different systems would be difficult.

Given the way our system is rigged, you only have to do it in 2-3.
I doubt that this happened, myself. But let's face it, nobody will ever know.
I am pretty sure that Russian involvement was in the hacking Email and fake news depts. Not the actual voting machines.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Given the way our system is rigged, you only have to do it in 2-3.
I doubt that this happened, myself. But let's face it, nobody will ever know.
I am pretty sure that Russian involvement was in the hacking Email and fake news depts. Not the actual voting machines.
Tom

Much of the fake news was exposed by NPR.
It turned out that the guy was doing it just to make money.
(Btw, he is an Americastanian Democrat.)
So it's dangerous to be "pretty sure" about things unknown.
As for the Russians....is it really so bad if they were the ones who merely aired accurate information?
Would it have been better if Wikileaks had a Democratic Party insider source...a traitor?
There are worse sins than airing dirty laundry, eg, media proffering altered quotes, thereby altering the meaning to suit an agenda.

And for reference....
We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned

 

[Underhill]

Questions are easy to raise.
Any answers?

Hacking voting machines across multiple states with different systems would be difficult.
Another question....
Were polls rigged in her favor?
When driving across the NE portion of the country, I saw only a couple
Hillary signs in yards. Trump was overwhelmingly more popular.

I have no proof to either validate or disprove any conspiracies.
So I don't believe any of them.

Yes, yes, I know. You have no proof. Except that Trumps top people met with the Russians multiple times, that the Russians were, at the very least, attempting to hack voting machines, pumping facebook and other sites with fake anti Hillary propaganda and hacking the democrats computers. But there's no proof they actually swung the election other than the fact that Trump won in spite of every models prediction, every poll and 99% of all the expert opinions on the outcome prior to the election.

*sigh

 

[Underhill]

Much of the fake news was exposed by NPR.
It turned out that the guy was doing it just to make money.
(Btw, he is an Americastanian Democrat.)
So it's dangerous to be "pretty sure" about things unknown.
As for the Russians....is it really so bad if they were the ones who merely aired accurate information?
Would it have been better if Wikileaks had a Democratic Party insider source...a traitor?
There are worse sins than airing dirty laundry, eg, media proffering altered quotes, thereby altering the meaning to suit an agenda.

And for reference....
We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned

Yes, I saw that back when it was written. That guy is small time compared to what the Russians were doing, and they were targeting their fake news where as that guy had no agenda to speak of other than making money.

 

[esmith]

Yes, yes, I know. You have no proof. Except that Trumps top people met with the Russians multiple times, that the Russians were, at the very least, attempting to hack voting machines, pumping facebook and other sites with fake anti Hillary propaganda and hacking the democrats computers. But there's no proof they actually swung the election other than the fact that Trump won in spite of every models prediction, every poll and 99% of all the expert opinions on the outcome prior to the election.

*sigh

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, yes, I know. You have no proof. Except that Trumps top people met with the Russians multiple times, that the Russians were, at the very least, attempting to hack voting machines, pumping facebook and other sites with fake anti Hillary propaganda and hacking the democrats computers. But there's no proof they actually swung the election other than the fact that Trump won in spite of every models prediction, every poll and 99% of all the expert opinions on the outcome prior to the election.
*sigh

If there's so much proof, why do you think no one is being prosecuted?
And if anti-Hillary fake news is wrong, what of the anti-Trump fake news?
Was it a factor in his having fewer popular votes?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I saw that back when it was written. That guy is small time compared to what the Russians were doing, and they were targeting their fake news where as that guy had no agenda to speak of other than making money.

Which news proffered by Russians is fake?

 

[jonathan180iq]

 

[Stevicus]

The parties, the Clintons, the pollsters, most of the country....

How does that matter?

It matters when it comes to learning from one's mistakes and wondering what went wrong.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, yes, I know. You have no proof. Except that Trumps top people met with the Russians multiple times, that the Russians were, at the very least, attempting to hack voting machines, pumping facebook and other sites with fake anti Hillary propaganda and hacking the democrats computers. But there's no proof they actually swung the election other than the fact that Trump won in spite of every models prediction, every poll and 99% of all the expert opinions on the outcome prior to the election.

*sigh

The one glaring piece of information which stands out and overrides most of this is that the Russians could not have hacked the Republican primaries or made Trump the candidate. I suppose anything is possible, but I just can't see how.

I consider the issue of hacking to be separate, since that's an illegal activity. When it comes to other things like pumping facebook and other sites with fake anti-Hillary propaganda or anything related to Wikileaks - those are still legal activities and an exercise of free speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

It matters when it comes to learning from one's mistakes and wondering what went wrong.

This should give pause to people certain that she'd have been the better president.
Tis best to face the fact that both are very flawed people.

 

[Underhill]

None, today.

It matters in the light of history and certainly in future elections.

 

[Underhill]

This should give pause to people certain that she'd have been the better president.
Tis best to face the fact that both are very flawed people.

Yes, one is a reckless egomaniac with absolutely no moral compass, no experience and a has a history of screwing almost every company and individual he has worked with all in an effort at self promotion and the other is a competent statesmen who has a history of diplomacy and leadership. During her tenure as a leader she made a few poor judgement calls but overall everyone who actually worked with her has mostly positive things to say (as did Trump prior to the election).

But yes, both are imperfect.