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

[Underhill]

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.

You do realize there is no such thing as free speech when it comes to foreign powers.

I don't know whether they broke laws or not. If there are not laws there should be. But as far as this incident is concerned it doesn't matter as it is unethical and disgusting behavior from a foreign power. It is certainly grounds for sanctions. And nobody in their right mind should vote for a politician with such a foundational flaw in his character as to act in such a manner.

 

[esmith]

the other is a competent statesmen who has a history of diplomacy and leadership. .

You definition of "leadership" bears no semblance to my definition of "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).
.

That is open for opinion.

 

[Underhill]

You definition of "leadership" bears no semblance to my definition of "leadership".


That is open for opinion.

It certainly is. But I see no way a sane person can think what her missteps are anywhere in the same league as the disaster Trump has proven to be.

 

[Stevicus]

You do realize there is no such thing as free speech when it comes to foreign powers.

No, but we're talking about speech accessible by US citizens over the internet. If it originates from a foreign country, then they may have to abide by whatever regulations exist over there. But once it's sent over the internet and ends up on people's computers here in US territory, then it's not something that the US government can legally prevent. That's because we do have free speech in our country.

I suppose the domain owner could block them, such as what was done with Stormfront. But other than that, there may be very little that can be done, unless we want to cut off all access to foreign websites and servers.

I don't know whether they broke laws or not. If there are not laws there should be. But as far as this incident is concerned it doesn't matter as it is unethical and disgusting behavior from a foreign power. It is certainly grounds for sanctions. And nobody in their right mind should vote for a politician with such a foundational flaw in his character as to act in such a manner.

Well, as far as messing around in other countries' elections, we definitely have our own history when it comes to things like that. I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right, but even if they did interfere in the election (and I'm not entirely convinced of that), then we should at least put it into a certain historical perspective.

My own view is that we'd be better off if we'd look at this as a learning experience so that we can recognize the inherent problems and flaws within our own system - so that we can shore up these weaknesses and prevent them from happening again.

All this apparent hacking that goes on could also lead to having to do some things the "old fashioned way," such as with voting. Vote by hand, count by hand. It might take longer, but if that's the way we have to do it, then so be it.

 

[Underhill]

No, but we're talking about speech accessible by US citizens over the internet. If it originates from a foreign country, then they may have to abide by whatever regulations exist over there. But once it's sent over the internet and ends up on people's computers here in US territory, then it's not something that the US government can legally prevent. That's because we do have free speech in our country.

I suppose the domain owner could block them, such as what was done with Stormfront. But other than that, there may be very little that can be done, unless we want to cut off all access to foreign websites and servers.



Well, as far as messing around in other countries' elections, we definitely have our own history when it comes to things like that. I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right, but even if they did interfere in the election (and I'm not entirely convinced of that), then we should at least put it into a certain historical perspective.

My own view is that we'd be better off if we'd look at this as a learning experience so that we can recognize the inherent problems and flaws within our own system - so that we can shore up these weaknesses and prevent them from happening again.

All this apparent hacking that goes on could also lead to having to do some things the "old fashioned way," such as with voting. Vote by hand, count by hand. It might take longer, but if that's the way we have to do it, then so be it.

I agree with most all of that. The part you ignore is that if Trump is involved in the Russia thing, which everything points to right now, he is guilty of attempting to manipulate the vote using a foreign power. It may not be illegal (because prior to this it was so far beyond anything we imagined possible) but it is despicable at a level that makes Watergate look like a speeding ticket.

 

[esmith]

It certainly is. But I see no way a sane person can think what her missteps are anywhere in the same league as the disaster Trump has proven to be.

What you fail to possibly understand is that my opinion is not based on comparison, but how I perceive the Hillary

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

We sure do see different pictures.
Praise diversity!

 

[Underhill]

What you fail to possibly understand is that my opinion is not based on comparison, but how I perceive the Hillary

Yeah, I mean why would a comparison matter when we're talking about the presidential race..?

 

[tytlyf]

What you fail to possibly understand is that my opinion is not based on comparison, but how I perceive the Hillary

Your problem is the people who teach you your perception of Hillary. GOP media and russian trolls? Your perception is carefully crafted by these outlets.

Did you see that Dinesh D'Souza movie about the DemoKKKrat party? Did that help your perception with Hillary? Not sure why people think liberals founded the DemoKKKrat party. I hear the south was a liberal mecca 100 years ago.
Fact check.

 

[esmith]

Your problem is the people who teach you your perception of Hillary. GOP media and russian trolls? Your perception is carefully crafted by these outlets.

Did you see that Dinesh D'Souza movie about the DemoKKKrat party? Did that help your perception with Hillary? Not sure why people think liberals founded the DemoKKKrat party. I hear the south was a liberal mecca 100 years ago.
Fact check.

No. my perception of leadership is based on over 20 years of experience in an organization that knows what leadership is. An no my perception of the Hillary is based on what she did. So take your perception of the Hillary and go foster it off on someone that is impressed by your opinions. You not going to find me impressed with your twaddle

 

[Revoltingest]

No. my perception of leadership is based on over 20 years of experience in an organization that knows what leadership is. An no my perception of the Hillary is based on what she did. So take your perception of the Hillary and go foster it off on someone that is impressed by your opinions. You not going to find me impressed with your twaddle

Hillary also has a very public record of service.
She's voted for & against bills. She's acted in government.
Perhaps her defenders need to claim some other reason that
some criticize her, since her record is difficult to defend, eh.

 

[tytlyf]

No. my perception of leadership is based on over 20 years of experience in an organization that knows what leadership is. An no my perception of the Hillary is based on what she did. So take your perception of the Hillary and go foster it off on someone that is impressed by your opinions. You not going to find me impressed with your twaddle

Uhuh. So what did the Hillary do this time? I'll wait.

Your perception is shaped by republican elitists. Learn to recognize propaganda. You're not doing yourself any favors acting ignorant.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree with most all of that. The part you ignore is that if Trump is involved in the Russia thing, which everything points to right now, he is guilty of attempting to manipulate the vote using a foreign power. It may not be illegal (because prior to this it was so far beyond anything we imagined possible) but it is despicable at a level that makes Watergate look like a speeding ticket.

It's not the first time something like this is alleged to have happened, so it's definitely not something "so far beyond anything we imagined possible." There were allegations that the Reagan campaign conspired with the Iranians to have them keep the American embassy hostages until Carter was out of office. There were also allegations surrounding the Clintons' "Chinese connections."

The history of American politics is certainly not clean, especially when it comes to shady deals and manipulating voters. Most of it, however, has come from domestic sources. But now, in this era of globalism and free trade, we find that foreigners are gaining more and more influence in the US political system. Does that bother you more than it would if they were just ordinary Americans?

I ask this because you say it's "so far beyond anything we imagined possible," but surely we knew about such things when they were done by Americans trying to corrupt the system. Even George Washington warned against the "wiles of foreign influence" in his Farewell Address, which is why he and other Founders wanted America to remain free of foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. If George Washington could have imagined it in the 18th century, why is it something "so far beyond anything" we can imagine possible today?

 

[Underhill]

It's not the first time something like this is alleged to have happened, so it's definitely not something "so far beyond anything we imagined possible." There were allegations that the Reagan campaign conspired with the Iranians to have them keep the American embassy hostages until Carter was out of office. There were also allegations surrounding the Clintons' "Chinese connections."

Those things aren't even remotely in the same ball park. The Iranians didn't like Carter so they did that to spite him. The Clintons "chinese connection" was simply about a donation to their charity. This is increasingly looking like a political figure conspired with a foreign power to attack the Clinton campaign on multiple levels.

The history of American politics is certainly not clean, especially when it comes to shady deals and manipulating voters. Most of it, however, has come from domestic sources. But now, in this era of globalism and free trade, we find that foreigners are gaining more and more influence in the US political system. Does that bother you more than it would if they were just ordinary Americans?

Yes, because the premise is that Americans have the best interest of America at heart. Russia, just the opposite. They didn't like Trump because they thought he would be good for America.

I ask this because you say it's "so far beyond anything we imagined possible," but surely we knew about such things when they were done by Americans trying to corrupt the system. Even George Washington warned against the "wiles of foreign influence" in his Farewell Address, which is why he and other Founders wanted America to remain free of foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. If George Washington could have imagined it in the 18th century, why is it something "so far beyond anything" we can imagine possible today?

Influence certainly isn't. But the combination of hacking campaign computers, buying misleading advertising, attempting to hack voting machines... this is Cold War era stuff.

Beyond anything anyone imagined by the CIA probably not. Beyond what the public would have considered likely, or even possible? Definitely.

 

[Milton Platt]

Go Hillary Go Hillary we want you to run for President in 2020. Really it's your turn, just blame everyone and your loyal subjects will again host their banners for you.

Clinton blasts Sanders for 'lasting damage' in 2016 race - CNNPolitics
Hillary Clinton blames Bernie Sanders for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign
Clinton blasts Bernie Sanders for inspiring 'Crooked Hillary' attacks
Hillary Clinton blames Bernie Sanders for 2016 election defeat in new book

Who Hillary Blames
Barack Obama
Bernie Sanders:
Joe Biden
James Comey
The New York Times:
Sexism
Gullible Americans:
Vladimir Putin:
and last but not least
Hillary Clinton:
and more
Here's a List of Everyone & Everything Hillary Has Blamed for Her Loss


I don't know maybe this entire post should go in the humor section. NAH.....it's to good for that.

I never supported Clinton, but.......how is it that you think there cannot be multiple reasons that she lost the race?

 

[Stevicus]

Those things aren't even remotely in the same ball park. The Iranians didn't like Carter so they did that to spite him. The Clintons "chinese connection" was simply about a donation to their charity. This is increasingly looking like a political figure conspired with a foreign power to attack the Clinton campaign on multiple levels.

So, it's another "false equivalence"?

Yes, because the premise is that Americans have the best interest of America at heart. Russia, just the opposite. They didn't like Trump because they thought he would be good for America.

Who can say what the Russians were thinking - or even if they had that much of a role in it all?

As for Americans having the best interest of America at heart, is that really a solid premise to work from? If the Russians did this, were they acting in the best interests of Russia?

Influence certainly isn't. But the combination of hacking campaign computers, buying misleading advertising, attempting to hack voting machines... this is Cold War era stuff.

Beyond anything anyone imagined by the CIA probably not. Beyond what the public would have considered likely, or even possible? Definitely.

Well, it's always been possible. As for what the public would consider, it depends on which segment of the public we're talking about. The thing is, those who have been the loudest in their warnings and fears of "foreign influence" tend to come from the right-wing, which tend to be more patriotic and quasi-nationalistic in their leanings. This was especially prevalent during the various Red Scares, when people were warned of international communist conspiracies (originating in Russia, of course).

But as you said, that's all Cold War era stuff. It almost seems incongruous that it would happen today, but it's certainly possible. Perhaps the public should become more wary and understanding of the mechanisms by which we are governed. They would be wise to not be so naive and think "oh, this could never happen in America." Sometimes I think there's too much complacency in this country.

 

[Underhill]

So, it's another "false equivalence"?



Who can say what the Russians were thinking - or even if they had that much of a role in it all?

As for Americans having the best interest of America at heart, is that really a solid premise to work from? If the Russians did this, were they acting in the best interests of Russia?

Americans aren't generally working against American interest. But you better believe the Russians are.

Well, it's always been possible. As for what the public would consider, it depends on which segment of the public we're talking about. The thing is, those who have been the loudest in their warnings and fears of "foreign influence" tend to come from the right-wing, which tend to be more patriotic and quasi-nationalistic in their leanings. This was especially prevalent during the various Red Scares, when people were warned of international communist conspiracies (originating in Russia, of course).

The right is worried about foreign influence when the left is in the white house. Now they are acting like it's all a bunch of nonsense.

But as you said, that's all Cold War era stuff. It almost seems incongruous that it would happen today, but it's certainly possible. Perhaps the public should become more wary and understanding of the mechanisms by which we are governed. They would be wise to not be so naive and think "oh, this could never happen in America." Sometimes I think there's too much complacency in this country.

There is always too much complacency. But how is it naive to think something that has never happened before could happen?

If you need an example of naive it's thinking that the 3% of the scientist out there working for the energy companies are right while the 97% who say climate change is real are out to lunch all because politicians who are given massive amounts of cash from the same energy companies say so.

 

[Stevicus]

Americans aren't generally working against American interest. But you better believe the Russians are.

That's difficult for me to believe since I don't see any obvious conflicts of interest with Russia right now. I don't see any border/territorial disputes with Russia, nor does it appear that Russia has any designs on attacking us. They don't even appear to be any economic competition either (not as much as China or Japan might be).

The only disputes we have with Russia are those conjured up in the imaginations of US policymakers - the kind who have been hellbent on wanting war with Russia. The only interests Russians would have been working against (if they are guilty of anything) would be the interests of US warmongers. I don't consider that these warmongers have America's best interests at heart.

The right is worried about foreign influence when the left is in the white house. Now they are acting like it's all a bunch of nonsense.

It may or may not be a "bunch of nonsense," but my point is, if we Americans are so worried about the "wiles of foreign influence," then we should have supported policies which reflect that. Neither the left nor the right have worked towards anything in that regard; they've been doing just the opposite since WW2.

There is always too much complacency. But how is it naive to think something that has never happened before could happen?

It's called "risk management."

If you need an example of naive it's thinking that the 3% of the scientist out there working for the energy companies are right while the 97% who say climate change is real are out to lunch all because politicians who are given massive amounts of cash from the same energy companies say so.

"Naive" might also describe those who think that the sky is falling if there are some people who don't believe in climate change. "Naive" might also characterize those who actually believe that something can be done about it. With a culture dedicated to rampant consumerism and an economic system that absolutely depends on it (thanks to that wonderful "globalism" that so many on both sides love so much), how ready will Americans be when they're called upon to reduce their consumption of energy and other products?

 

[Quetzal]

Why is this topic still a thing? Who cares?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is this topic still a thing? Who cares?

You just bumped an inactive thread to complain about it being active?