Which Would be More Truthful?

[BSM1]

There's something going on in this thread that I actually find more interesting than the OP. It's the many and various meanings that people are using for the word "won".
We're all talking about the exact same event. Almost none of the important facts are in dispute. But many posters are making diametrically opposed assertions by using subtly different meanings for the word.
Tom

Bottom line the prize was the big white house on Pennsylvania Ave. Who lives there now?

 

[metis]

Bottom line the prize was the big white house on Pennsylvania Ave. Who lives there now?

The Dysfunction-In-Chief.

 

[BSM1]

The Dysfunction-In-Chief.

So you agree that he won.

 

[metis]

So you agree that he won.

Of course.

Too bad the country loses.

 

[Underhill]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

Both. As insane as it seems, Trump managed to excite his base in a way few others have. Clinton did not.

I still believe this is why she lost the election even when the polls looked favorable. More people wanted her, but in a half hearted way. So some just didn't bother voting.

Meanwhile the Trump faithful voted while wearing a big ole grin on their face.

I also think the media pushing the narrative that it was in the bag for Hillary didn't help her.

 

[tytlyf]

So you agree that he won.

Of course he won, with russian assistance. But still couldn't get the popular vote. The disinformation campaign was run well enough to sway millions of people "in the middle" to vote one way over the other.
Trump is unfit for the presidency, always has been. I'm not fooled by his fake promises and propaganda fed to him by Breitbart.

 

[bobhikes]

Democrats represent the middle class. I understand your media has 'crafted' the word to mean a lot of things.
You would just never EVER vote democratic because you don't want to be lumped in with those 'poor and minority investment' right?

Bill the middle class? That's republicans. Republicans are responsible for the vanishing middle class in America. Don't you understand that?

How come with Barrack Obama in office, My Taxes went up(property taxes especially)(Democratic Local and county government) and my medical went up (Obama Care caused my rates to go up) faster than my wages. In fact in the Last 10 years social security statement shows my gross going down. Hmm Barrack Obama was a democrat right?

 

[tytlyf]

How come with Barrack Obama in office, My Taxes went up(property taxes especially)(Democratic Local and county government) and my medical went up (Obama Care caused my rates to go up) faster than my wages. In fact in the Last 10 years social security statement shows my gross going down. Hmm Barrack Obama was a democrat right?

Feel free to source your claims so we can get on the same page. Did you bother to sign up for the ACA?
Oh, and republicans want to eliminate Social security. Not sure how you don't know that.

 

[Politesse]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

Both are factually and effectively true. The US election most often goes to the better rhetorician, and in this case it was Trump. Note that before he even bothered to start attacking Hillary, he first had to triumph over twelve other candidates in one the most brutal and protracted primary fights I have ever seen. I hate him uncomplicatedly, but he's good at what he does; he may possibly be the most singularly successful con man in American political history, and it has made him so rich and powerful that even he clearly has no idea what to do with that wealth and power. It has made him "mighty in the eyes of men".

Hillary stood a chance against that, because her positions are, at the end of the day, more popular. But you have to know how to make yourself heard and keep your cool under fire to beat someone like Trump - you have to not just have a good position but to present those positions in a compelling way, and not just to your supporters.

The confused middle maybe didn't trust Trump, but they felt that they more or less knew what he was about, having seemingly heard of little else for the last few years. Undecided voters don't keep tabs on Congress or diplomatic affairs; they didn't know who Hillary was aside from her relationships to two influential males, both of whom had successfully humiliated her without consequence. And they definitely didn't know what she wanted. Even I wasn't sure what she really wanted, and I watched a lot of her speeches and debates. A clearly stated and internally coherent vision for America, she had not. It's why I think Bernie would have won against Trump, even though a lot of his policies make no logical sense. Neither do Trump's, obviously. It's not about what you believe, but how you symbolically frame it against the hopes, frustrations, and desires of the electorate.

Also, it does still seem that you have to be a man to be elected president. I would love to be proven wrong on that, but I haven't been yet.

 

[bobhikes]

Feel free to source your claims so we can get on the same page. Did you bother to sign up for the ACA?
Oh, and republicans want to eliminate Social security. Not sure how you don't know that.

I don't claim to like the Republicans either, My statement was that both parties are bad for the US.

Here's the deal and its pretty obvious. I make a decent wage, my wife works as well and earns above minimum wage. We have 2 kids and have never grossed more than 100,000 a year but have come pretty close. This puts me in that class that always gets dumped on. I'm not poor enough for the Democrats and I'm not rich enough for the republicans. Add to that I live in the highest taxed county in NJ one of the highest taxed states and you see my problem. Obama care, no I have a company plan which has gone up every year and slightly more after Obama care became the law of the land. My house never went underwater during the housing crisis. It stayed at about 5000 more than what I paid for it so I never could refinance it. 3 years ago I finally had enough equity to refinance thankfully. My companies biggest clients were tied to the housing crisis and for 5 years got no raise. After 5 years the maximum raise has been 2 percent. The company has never fully recovered from the financial crisis. Refinancing and borrowing from my 401k have been getting me through the increase in everything. Neither the Democrats or Republicans other than Regan have ever done anything good for me. With the 2 kids free education would be great but somehow I doubt I'll qualify.

 

[BSM1]

Of course he won, with russian assistance. But still couldn't get the popular vote. The disinformation campaign was run well enough to sway millions of people "in the middle" to vote one way over the other.
Trump is unfit for the presidency, always has been. I'm not fooled by his fake promises and propaganda fed to him by Breitbart.

How did the Russians manage to do this? And how would you know this when the FBI has stated there is absolutely no proof of this foolish accusation? And shy haven't you addressed Podesta's involvement with this idiocy?

 

[Falvlun]

How did the Russians manage to do this? And how would you know this when the FBI has stated there is absolutely no proof of this foolish accusation? And shy haven't you addressed Podesta's involvement with this idiocy?

Just to be clear:
It has been determined that the Russians influenced the presidential election in favor of Trump via email hacks, dissemination of (legitimately) fake news, and social media campaigns. This is not in question.

It has not yet been determined that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians, though honestly, after the Trump Jr emails, it does appear rather bleak.

 

[tytlyf]

I don't claim to like the Republicans either, My statement was that both parties are bad for the US.

Here's the deal and its pretty obvious. I make a decent wage, my wife works as well and earns above minimum wage. We have 2 kids and have never grossed more than 100,000 a year but have come pretty close. This puts me in that class that always gets dumped on. I'm not poor enough for the Democrats and I'm not rich enough for the republicans. Add to that I live in the highest taxed county in NJ one of the highest taxed states and you see my problem. Obama care, no I have a company plan which has gone up every year and slightly more after Obama care became the law of the land. My house never went underwater during the housing crisis. It stayed at about 5000 more than what I paid for it so I never could refinance it. 3 years ago I finally had enough equity to refinance thankfully. My companies biggest clients were tied to the housing crisis and for 5 years got no raise. After 5 years the maximum raise has been 2 percent. The company has never fully recovered from the financial crisis. Refinancing and borrowing from my 401k have been getting me through the increase in everything. Neither the Democrats or Republicans other than Regan have ever done anything good for me. With the 2 kids free education would be great but somehow I doubt I'll qualify.

I almost stopped reading after your first sentence. The parties aren't equal.

You can do what my family does, voting republican for tax breaks. But they're in the top 1%. You're under this illusion that democrats don't have wealthy people and republicans don't have any poor people. It's as simple as this.

Democrats represent policies for the middle class (wage increases, unions, healthcare, public education, social security, medicare, etc)

Republicans represent policies for the corporate and 1% class (no wage increases, no unions, no healthcare, no public education, no social security, no medicare, etc)

You all will learn soon enough that the republican party elitists that not many people know about are intentionally using their intellect to take advantage of 'heartland America' for their own gain. If it was obvious, they wouldn't be getting away with it

Priebus is a high-level 'funnel' between these elitists and Washington. Fox works for the elitists, Rush works for the elitists, the NRA works for the elitists, Big Oil is one of them. They're very good at convincing people to vote for their policies. Fear and panic mongering is used to demonize the opposition (democrats) at any chance to ensure the viewer is bombarded 365 24/7 with propaganda.
I can read comments here and places on the web that reaffirms my opinion.

Here's a game.

Say the word "liberal" to a conservative republican.
Tell them to write down the first things that pop into their head.
They'll usually get angry.

Propaganda is based on emotion. I'd recommend everyone learn to recognize it or we'll have another nazi germany. Or probably just witnessed a royal dupe again.

It's the truth. GOP = Greed Over People

Oh ya, the higher you get in the republican party, the closer you'll be to the elitists and their involvement. Which is why people like Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other high-level republicans are part of the problem. They're all insiders. Then you have the tea party types coming up the ranks being bought left and right by the lobbyists they send out.

 

[BSM1]

Just to be clear:
It has been determined that the Russians influenced the presidential election in favor of Trump via email hacks, dissemination of (legitimately) fake news, and social media campaigns. This is not in question.

It has not yet been determined that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians, though honestly, after the Trump Jr emails, it does appear rather bleak.

Sources?

 

[bobhikes]

I almost stopped reading after your first sentence. The parties aren't equal.

Democrats represent policies for the middle class (wage increases, unions, healthcare, public education, social security, medicare, etc)

Republicans represent policies for the corporate and 1% class (no wage increases, no unions, no healthcare, no public education, no social security, no medicare, etc)

It's the truth.

Democrats, haven't had a wage increase under Barack Obama, Unions have been collapsing for years got no real growth under Obama, Public education I hate federal interference with local education, social security and medicare I don't qualify for and what either party has done to insure they are available when I do qualify.

Republicans(no wage increases(same as democrats for me), No Unions(Unions are good but democrats aren't any better with them), No healthcare(No a fan of either groups plan) No public education (I would actually like to see the federal government out of local schools) No social security(There are some ways they want to do it I would like) No medicare(right now I have no idea what medicare actually does for me)

 

[tytlyf]

Well, if it was obvious they wouldn't be getting away with it. But feel free to source your claims anytime.

 

[Falvlun]

Sources?

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

This is the report jointly filed by the NSA, CIA, and the FBI.

"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."

There are other findings within the report, but the opening paragraphs of the Key Judgements section are rather clear. The rest of the report contains evidence and sources (that were able to be declassified for public consumption) that brought our intelligence community to this conclusion.

 

[idav]

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

This is the report jointly filed by the NSA, CIA, and the FBI.

"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."

There are other findings within the report, but the opening paragraphs of the Key Judgements section are rather clear. The rest of the report contains evidence and sources (that were able to be declassified for public consumption) that brought our intelligence community to this conclusion.

Well Putin said he didn't do it so Trumps cool. What do those three letter agencies know anyway.

 

[BSM1]

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

This is the report jointly filed by the NSA, CIA, and the FBI.

"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."

There are other findings within the report, but the opening paragraphs of the Key Judgements section are rather clear. The rest of the report contains evidence and sources (that were able to be declassified for public consumption) that brought our intelligence community to this conclusion.

Well, if this is so, at least they picked the right candidate.

 

[gnomon]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

Who ****ing cares?

Based upon the responses on this thread thus far it's nothing more than ideological driven drivel.

And you provided nothing worthwhile to explore. The only responses thus far are idiotic stereotypical exclamations based upon ideology and idiotic exclamations about rhetoric. In other words, arguments that ignore actually understanding the voting public.

****ing boring *** thread.

Did Clinton defeat herself?..........or in other words let's actually ignore what the voting public wanted.