I read the article you posted, but most of it is circumstantial evidence. I agree that Putin hates Hillary. Their dislike for each other is not private knowledge. But I think he was more afraid of her. Is it a coincidence that these emails were leaked during the election? Of course not, I believe it was an intentional political move by someone, and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin had some sort of "unofficial" hand in it: he probably didn't want the war that she has been hinting at for the last ten years. But the questions about the emails still stand. Why did Hillary feel the need to hide and delete 30,000 emails? Why was she using her personal server to contact Russia? Why did she and her entire staff while she was Secretary of State cover up what they were doing? She claims that the 30,000 emails she deleted were personal communications between her and her husband...if so, why scramble to delete them all right after she received an injunction to hand them over? She shouldn't be afraid of what was in them then, should she? Perhaps it was intentional that this hint of corruption was unearthed at this time. But the intentions behind revealing corruption is irrelevant. If the corruption is there, it is there, and Americans should know, even if it's release was motivated by a corrupt public official in another country. They know just about everything about Trump's personal life: he has nothing to hide anymore, what you see is what you get. What has Hillary got to hide?
As far as the insinuation that the Russians have cyber-hacked the actual voting ballots, this is complete nonsense and the statement is taken out of context. The CIA says that they do NOT believe the votes were hacked, and that there is no evidence of it at all. The ballot machines, which have multiple different manufacturers, aren't even connected to the internet, and those that are connected somehow are only connected by isolated intranets local to their counties. Hacking these machines on a large scale would be impossible.
Here's the latest update from Jill Stein's Recount Page Highlights We are fighting multiple legal battles against Trump and his cronies in all three states.
In Pennsylvania, we are going to federal court seeking an injunction for a hand recount and forensic analysis of the unaccountable, paperless touch-screen machines.
In Wisconsin, we are fighting for a hand count of paper ballots throughout the state - what a judge called the “gold standard” for verifying the vote - after Republican Governor Scott Walker’s henchmen on the Board of Elections tripled the cost of the recount, charging $2.4 million over the original estimate of $1.1 million (based on the last statewide recount).
In Michigan, we are fighting Trump and Schuette tooth and nail to make sure the hard-fought, hard-won right to vote is honored, and that the voices of the people in communities of color are heard and respected.
The attention brought by the recount campaign in Michigan is already raising red flags for the widespread disenfranchisement of voters of color in what amounts to a modern Jim Crow-type election system.
At stake are over 75,000 “undervotes” - ballots that are filled out except the vote for President - many of which are concentrated in communities of color in the Detroit area.
This unprecedented number of blank ballots may actually represent errors in the optical scanners that count the votes. According to a U.S. Civil Rights Commission report, voters of color are 900% more likely to have their votes misread or simply tossed out by human error or by badly maintained and poorly calibrated machines in underserved communities.
The malfunction of 87 decade-old optical scanner machines in Detroit on Election Day is an example of this Jim Crow-type injustice. These machine errors that lead to voter suppression are commonplace in underserved communities of color. But they can only be identified if we recount all the votes!
Trump and his pal Bill Schuette are doing everything in their power to prevent the recount from going forward, and examining the potential voter suppression.
We must not back down from this fight. Donald Trump - and the entrenched, corrupt political establishment that backs him - is hell-bent on shutting down our fight for voting justice, making it as complicated and expensive as possible by using every legal trick in the book to try to stop us.
More details..
Trump and his pal Bill Schuette are doing everything in their power to prevent the recount from going forward, and examining the potential voter suppression.
If you want to help protect the right to vote for communities of color—and build the case for a stronger democracy, please pitch in to keep this fight going!
We must not back down from this fight. Donald Trump - and the entrenched, corrupt political establishment that backs him - is hell-bent on shutting down our fight for voting justice, making it as complicated and expensive as possible by using every legal trick in the book to try to stop us.
The recount is a critical first step towards real democracy. We must also end voter suppression through voter ID laws and Interstate Crosscheck. We must have open debates to fully inform and empower voters. We must liberate our votes from fear through Ranked Choice Voting, which allows you to rank your choices and if your first choice loses, your vote is automatically reassigned to your second choice. We must abolish the Electoral College and move to a national popular vote.
With your help we can seize this historic moment to create a voting system we can trust, starting with counting every vote and making every vote count.
I read this whole article, and I thank you for posting it. I found it to be a good read. It was nice to read something on this thread that is not blatantly skewed or taken completely out of context. I especially appreciated the point he made about Bush's emails going missing during the Iraq war. That was something that many people have forgotten about, and it seems that many people are forgetting how much Bush lied to us then.
But there are several things about the article that I must critique. First, I don't think anyone believes that any rational person believes Hillary personally clicked on and deleted 30,000 emails. That is impossible. When I said she deleted them, I was referring to her giving direction for them to be deleted. This point is moot. Secondly, if there is nothing to hide about these emails, why did every team member elect to plead the fifth when questioned about them? If there is nothing to hide, then why are they officially hiding it in a court of law? I do not believe it was to prevent the election from being influenced, because lack of transparency always looks worse to voters than than the actual facts, and I believe Hillary knows this. Thirdly, the article fails to address her classified communications using her private server, other than calling it a mistake. Fourth, the article fails to address that the emails deleted that are supposedly classified were deleted because they were private emails. Those deleted emails, which we don't have, which were private, which is the whole reason this is even an issue, is the problem. I don't think Hillary is stupid enough to use her public .gov email server to communicate whatever caused her staff to plead the fifth.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the article. It was technical and intelligent. It could not possibly address the doubt, however, that Hillary has cast over her own actions.
But sure that foreign accented guy can spin a good story if you like conspiracy theories.
Who was your source for "the GOPs possible election rigging" that you spoke of a few pages earlier?
that was my words based on the voter suppression and vigorous lawsuits to stop the recount from the GOP.
So simply wanting to stop a recount is automatically indicative of "possible election rigging," but the exact same sort of speculation should never be drawn when actual discrepancies are found?
I read the article you posted, but most of it is circumstantial evidence. I agree that Putin hates Hillary. Their dislike for each other is not private knowledge. But I think he was more afraid of her. Is it a coincidence that these emails were leaked during the election? Of course not, I believe it was an intentional political move by someone, and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin had some sort of "unofficial" hand in it: he probably didn't want the war that she has been hinting at for the last ten years. But the questions about the emails still stand. Why did Hillary feel the need to hide and delete 30,000 emails? Why was she using her personal server to contact Russia? Why did she and her entire staff while she was Secretary of State cover up what they were doing? She claims that the 30,000 emails she deleted were personal communications between her and her husband...if so, why scramble to delete them all right after she received an injunction to hand them over? She shouldn't be afraid of what was in them then, should she? Perhaps it was intentional that this hint of corruption was unearthed at this time. But the intentions behind revealing corruption is irrelevant. If the corruption is there, it is there, and Americans should know, even if it's release was motivated by a corrupt public official in another country. They know just about everything about Trump's personal life: he has nothing to hide anymore, what you see is what you get. What has Hillary got to hide?
As far as the insinuation that the Russians have cyber-hacked the actual voting ballots, this is complete nonsense and the statement is taken out of context. The CIA says that they do NOT believe the votes were hacked, and that there is no evidence of it at all. The ballot machines, which have multiple different manufacturers, aren't even connected to the internet, and those that are connected somehow are only connected by isolated intranets local to their counties. Hacking these machines on a large scale would be impossible.
This appears to be the most recent update on the Wisconsin recount (from Dec. 9), direct from the election commission's homepage: http://elections.wi.gov/node/4756
Sixty out of Wisconsin's 72 counties have now completed the recount, and all appear to be on schedule to finish by the deadline on Monday.
The total number of ballots counted stands at 2,635,670 which is approximately 88.58% of the total ballots cast for President (2,975,313).
The net change is +1,322 votes:
+560 Trump/Pence +609 Clinton/Kaine +19 Castle/Bradley +66 Johnson/Weld +63 Stein/Baraka +11 Moorhead/Lilly -6 De la Fuente/Steinberg Important Note: The changes in vote totals do not include the City of Milwaukee, which has reported partial numbers for individual reporting units (wards or combinations of wards) because it is recounting absentee ballots separately. Milwaukee is included in the 88.5 percent completed figure.
Let's make one thing abundantly clear: If Hillary Clinton had won this election and was found to have enlisted the help of Russian espionage (or even to have been the beneficiary of it) the media and every Republican voter in this country would be calling for her head to be mounted on a pike in Times Square. The words traitor and communist would no longer have been strong enough for them to call her, they'd have to have invented new, worse forms of insults. There would have been endless investigations until she was drummed out of office. Trump?? Just another story, the price of doing business. Crickets.
So far, the intelligence community has not yet reached a consensus on whether Russia was trying to help Trump win--even according to the Washington Post article linked earlier in this thread. The intelligence community said they had "high confidence" that the DNC hack was a Russian job, but they haven't reached a conclusion on the exact motive. This is the sort of thing Russia would do even if there wasn't an election; Russia has been consistently trying to de-legitimize American democracy for years now, mostly through propaganda such as RT.
And so far, Trump has yet to be linked in any concrete way to Putin or the Russian government. His campaign manager had ties to Russia, and Trump has praised Putin before, but that's not proof of Trump being in cahoots with Putin.
The notion that Russia wants to damage America's reputation is well-founded, but there is no proof that Trump and Russia were working together in any way. Until such proof arises, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
Unlike Chancellor Merkel, many a politician will lick Trump's boots just because he is the president elect of USA.
However, since when is it statesmanlike that one should hope that a president elect was just kidding around about his most statements, just to get elected?
Let's give him time - maybe Trump promised one thing, but surely he'll do something a bit better!
Maybe Trump stoked racial hatred against Mexicans just for larks, and assumes women can be bought from his personal history; and since - in all things incharity - how about banning those muslims?
As someone whom rather loved living in AZ, of course I hope Trump is not a disaster for US. As to thinking US president elect must be given the best hope against what he actually said....
I'd rather responsible statesmen distanced themselves of what Trump said, firmly and openly, and tried to cooperatre well anyway.
So far, the intelligence community has not yet reached a consensus on whether Russia was trying to help Trump win--even according to the Washington Post article linked earlier in this thread. The intelligence community said they had "high confidence" that the DNC hack was a Russian job, but they haven't reached a conclusion on the exact motive. This is the sort of thing Russia would do even if there wasn't an election; Russia has been consistently trying to de-legitimize American democracy for years now, mostly through propaganda such as RT.
And so far, Trump has yet to be linked in any concrete way to Putin or the Russian government. His campaign manager had ties to Russia, and Trump has praised Putin before, but that's not proof of Trump being in cahoots with Putin.
The notion that Russia wants to damage America's reputation is well-founded, but there is no proof that Trump and Russia were working together in any way. Until such proof arises, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
What other motive is there to hacking the DNC aside from trying to sabotage Clinton?? That they did it for a good laugh?? You simply have to look at who was targeted, and who stood to benefit. That's standard, 101-level detective work.
Ps. I also side with new yorkers in not wanting to pay an extra million a day for his wife wanting to stay behind in NY.
Imagine if Michelle Obama had wanted to stay behind wiht her children...
In the end, this entire administration will go down as the biggest scam the American people ever fell for, half of us willingly and enthusiastically. Myself, I'm just going to lament what we could have avoided and watch it all burn. No Trump voter will ever receive my sympathy for any personal consequences they suffer because of their support of this snake-oil salesman. It's simply too bad others who saw him for what he is will have to suffer the same fate. If that wasn't the case, I'd say let them have what they voted for. They'll understand soon enough. But that's not how things work.
Edit: Just breaking, the Secretary of State is reported to be......the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson. This is a Cabinet comprised of Bond villains.....
Trump?? Just another story, the price of doing business. Crickets.
The story has been running virtually non-stop on CNN ALL DAY today - it's still running right now as I type this. Fox News is also covering it right now as well (MSNBC may be as well, but I can't confirm because there's a commercial break ATM).
So far, the intelligence community has not yet reached a consensus on whether Russia was trying to help Trump win--even according to the Washington Post article linked earlier in this thread. The intelligence community said they had "high confidence" that the DNC hack was a Russian job, but they haven't reached a conclusion on the exact motive. This is the sort of thing Russia would do even if there wasn't an election; Russia has been consistently trying to de-legitimize American democracy for years now, mostly through propaganda such as RT.
And so far, Trump has yet to be linked in any concrete way to Putin or the Russian government. His campaign manager had ties to Russia, and Trump has praised Putin before, but that's not proof of Trump being in cahoots with Putin.
The notion that Russia wants to damage America's reputation is well-founded, but there is no proof that Trump and Russia were working together in any way. Until such proof arises, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
What other motive is there to hacking the DNC aside from trying to sabotage Clinton?? That they did it for a good laugh?? You simply have to look at who was targeted, and who stood to benefit. That's standard, 101-level detective work.
This may surprise you, but Russia's world does not revolve around Clinton or even America.
From the link I posted to the CIA's website:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts,"
Before the vote, the left was crying "We will accept the results of the election, there is no voter fraud," and the right was crying, "If we lose, it's only because of voter fraud." Now the right is crying, "We must accept the results of the election, there is no voter fraud," and the left is crying, "We only lost because of voter fruad."
Both sides are like two toddlers tantruming. It's pretty undignified, if you ask me.
Trump?? Just another story, the price of doing business. Crickets.
The story has been running virtually non-stop on CNN ALL DAY today - it's still running right now as I type this. Fox News is also covering it right now as well (MSNBC may be as well, but I can't confirm because there's a commercial break ATM).
Hardly what I'd call "crickets."
Many stories have run non-stop on Trump. Many of them dealing with alleged criminal activity. None of it matters. There are no actual consequences to any of his actions or revelations of his actions. When he said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose any support, he was telling a 99.9% truth. Trump's scandals are so salacious and off the charts that he has essentially become immune to scandal.
Before the vote, the left was crying "We will accept the results of the election, there is no voter fraud," and the right was crying, "If we lose, it's only because of voter fraud." Now the right is crying, "We must accept the results of the election, there is no voter fraud," and the left is crying, "We only lost because of voter fruad."
Both sides are like two toddlers tantruming. It's pretty undignified, if you ask me.
I think this says it all right here.
*sigh*.....again, hardly anyone on left is talking about voter fraud, or that the election was "stolen" in any traditional sense. What we are upset about is our archaic Electoral process and the unprecedented outside influence of both the FBI and Russian espionage. I'll reiterate for the 500th time, I DON'T dispute the results of the election being what they are. I'm saying the circumstances that helped put Trump into office offer a serious problem of legitimacy and inevitably push an already divided country to the absolute breaking point.
You can mark this post if you want. Come back to this page in a year, and you'll find that those of us of the left-leaning ilk were actually massively UNDERSELLING just how drastic of a disaster this man is going to be.
So far, the intelligence community has not yet reached a consensus on whether Russia was trying to help Trump win--even according to the Washington Post article linked earlier in this thread. The intelligence community said they had "high confidence" that the DNC hack was a Russian job, but they haven't reached a conclusion on the exact motive. This is the sort of thing Russia would do even if there wasn't an election; Russia has been consistently trying to de-legitimize American democracy for years now, mostly through propaganda such as RT.
And so far, Trump has yet to be linked in any concrete way to Putin or the Russian government. His campaign manager had ties to Russia, and Trump has praised Putin before, but that's not proof of Trump being in cahoots with Putin.
The notion that Russia wants to damage America's reputation is well-founded, but there is no proof that Trump and Russia were working together in any way. Until such proof arises, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
What other motive is there to hacking the DNC aside from trying to sabotage Clinton?? That they did it for a good laugh?? You simply have to look at who was targeted, and who stood to benefit. That's standard, 101-level detective work.
This may surprise you, but Russia's world does not revolve around Clinton or even America.
From the link I posted to the CIA's website:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts,"
This reminds me of when Obama directed blame at Snowden for "undermining the world's trust in America" (or something to that effect) because he blew the whistle on the US's wiretapping of the German embassy, rather than blaming the fact that we were wiretapping the German embassy in the first place. In the same vein, Hillary's supporters are not blaming the actions of the DNC for her loss, but whoever may have simply revealed them instead.
So far, the intelligence community has not yet reached a consensus on whether Russia was trying to help Trump win--even according to the Washington Post article linked earlier in this thread. The intelligence community said they had "high confidence" that the DNC hack was a Russian job, but they haven't reached a conclusion on the exact motive. This is the sort of thing Russia would do even if there wasn't an election; Russia has been consistently trying to de-legitimize American democracy for years now, mostly through propaganda such as RT.
And so far, Trump has yet to be linked in any concrete way to Putin or the Russian government. His campaign manager had ties to Russia, and Trump has praised Putin before, but that's not proof of Trump being in cahoots with Putin.
The notion that Russia wants to damage America's reputation is well-founded, but there is no proof that Trump and Russia were working together in any way. Until such proof arises, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
What other motive is there to hacking the DNC aside from trying to sabotage Clinton?? That they did it for a good laugh?? You simply have to look at who was targeted, and who stood to benefit. That's standard, 101-level detective work.
This may surprise you, but Russia's world does not revolve around Clinton or even America.
From the link I posted to the CIA's website:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts,"
This reminds me of when Obama directed blame at Snowden for "undermining the world's trust in America" (or something to that effect) because he blew the whistle on the US's wiretapping of the German embassy, rather than blaming the fact that we were wiretapping the German embassy in the first place. In the same vein, Hillary's supporters are not blaming the actions of the DNC for her loss, but whoever may have simply revealed them instead.
Hillary supporters aren't blaming the DNC for her loss because the DNC emails were the political equivalent of between class high-school gossip. And I supported Bernie in the primaries. They had next to no influence on the outcome of the Democratic primary. I'll say again, if Bernie Sanders wanted to actually win the Democratic primary, he could have done so. By getting into the race 9 months earlier and actually putting in the work required to put himself over the top. He mounted a protest campaign and reached the ceiling of what a protest campaign could achieve, but had NO mathematical shot at the nomination after the Ohio primary. Which took place in March. She clinched in June. 3 months of Bernie supporters being told their candidate had a chance when he had virtually none.
*sigh*.....again, hardly anyone on left is talking about voter fraud, or that the election was "stolen" in any traditional sense.
MILLIONS of dollars have been donated by the left for the express purpose of investigating just such fraud - there were even discussions of supposed voting "discrepancies" earlier in this very thread. If "hardly anyone on left is talking about voter fraud" anymore, it's ONLY because the millions have been spent and nothing that explicitly favors Trump has so far turned up.
What we are upset about is our archaic Electoral process and the unprecedented outside influence of both the FBI and Russian espionage. I'll reiterate for the 500th time, I DON'T dispute the results of the election being what they are. I'm saying the circumstances that helped put Trump into office offer a serious problem of legitimacy and inevitably push an already divided country to the absolute breaking point.
These are no more "problems of legitimacy" than if the release of the Access Hollywood tape or any of Trump's other scandals had been the deciding factors that swayed enough voters to put Hillary in office - and I'd say it's fairly certain that you wouldn't hear any of Hillary's supporters claiming that she had "problems of legitimacy" if she had won. Both of these candidates had a sh#t-ton of dirty laundry, but one was always going to win in the end no matter what.
Efforts to blame Hillary's loss on a centuries-old institution and/or "outside influence" are just scapegoating for the real issue, which is that Democrats nominated a terrible and widely disliked candidate, and hoped that she would be perceived as "less terrible" enough than the Republican candidate to squeak out a win. On top of that, she ran a lazy campaign that took a number of states for granted, and paid a corresponding price for that hubris.
If Democrats want to blame someone/thing for the loss, they should look to themselves - then use this as an opportunity to correct their mistakes and come back stronger in 4 years (or even 2, during the mid-term elections). Instead, they want to find scapegoats so that they can circumvent any kind of self-reflection and continue with the same actions (and potential mistakes) that led them to defeat in the first place.
You can mark this post if you want. Come back to this page in a year, and you'll find that those of us of the left-leaning ilk were actually massively UNDERSELLING just how drastic of a disaster this man is going to be.
It won't change the fact that Hillary herself was an impeding disaster as well, just like she's been in nearly every major political issue she's been involved in. We were fkk'd no matter who won.
Hillary supporters aren't blaming the DNC for her loss because the DNC emails were the political equivalent of between class high-school gossip.
They also revealed that Hillary had obtained debate questions in advance - which not only showed that a person who dares to challenge the establishment would be treated unfairly, but also further reinforced her unsavory and dishonest reputation.
So far, the intelligence community has not yet reached a consensus on whether Russia was trying to help Trump win--even according to the Washington Post article linked earlier in this thread. The intelligence community said they had "high confidence" that the DNC hack was a Russian job, but they haven't reached a conclusion on the exact motive. This is the sort of thing Russia would do even if there wasn't an election; Russia has been consistently trying to de-legitimize American democracy for years now, mostly through propaganda such as RT.
And so far, Trump has yet to be linked in any concrete way to Putin or the Russian government. His campaign manager had ties to Russia, and Trump has praised Putin before, but that's not proof of Trump being in cahoots with Putin.
The notion that Russia wants to damage America's reputation is well-founded, but there is no proof that Trump and Russia were working together in any way. Until such proof arises, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
What other motive is there to hacking the DNC aside from trying to sabotage Clinton?? That they did it for a good laugh?? You simply have to look at who was targeted, and who stood to benefit. That's standard, 101-level detective work.
This may surprise you, but Russia's world does not revolve around Clinton or even America.
From the link I posted to the CIA's website:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts,"
This reminds me of when Obama directed blame at Snowden for "undermining the world's trust in America" (or something to that effect) because he blew the whistle on the US's wiretapping of the German embassy, rather than blaming the fact that we were wiretapping the German embassy in the first place. In the same vein, Hillary's supporters are not blaming the actions of the DNC for her loss, but whoever may have simply revealed them instead.
Do you really think any government anywhere is surprised when they find out they're being spied on? If any country with the wherewithal to do so isn't at least attempting to spy on the governments of countries like the US, Germany and Russia then their chief of intelligence needs to be fired for dereliction of duty. The only "surprise" was that we were able to tap a supposedly untappable cell phone and that we were inept enough to let the information get loose.
It won't change the fact that Hillary herself was an impeding disaster as well, just like she's been in nearly every major political issue she's been involved in. We were fkk'd no matter who won.
I'm pretty sure things would have been alright with an EPA head who actually wanted to work with the EPA, with an Education Secretary that didn't support privatization of education, and without Goldman Sachs and Big Oil executives in the cabinet etc etc.
Not to mention at least Hillary could have vetoed the insane legislation that the legislative branch will inevitably end up pushing to give tax cuts to the rich and cut benefits to the poor and middle class. And she'd have been able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened on Obama's term with someone who is not a lunatic (just conjecture on who Donald Trump will pick probably a Mr. I.M. Lunatic)
There were plenty of people who thought there was no difference in 2000 between Gore and Bush. I myself had just written my High School senior research paper on music censorship and had a visceral hatred of Tipper Gore. I realized very quickly how wrong I was about that. Democrat's significant flaws are drop in the bucket when compared to Republican governance. We have 8 years of the Bush administration as all the proof we'd ever need.
Efforts to blame Hillary's loss on a centuries-old institution and/or "outside influence" are just scapegoating for the real issue, which is that Democrats nominated a terrible and widely disliked candidate, and hoped that she would be perceived as "less terrible" enough than the Republican candidate to squeak out a win. On top of that, she ran a lazy campaign that took a number of states for granted, and paid a corresponding price for that hubris.
If Democrats want to blame someone/thing for the loss, they should look to themselves - then use this as an opportunity to correct their mistakes and come back stronger in 4 years (or even 2, during the mid-term elections). Instead, they want to find scapegoats so that they can circumvent any kind of self-reflection and continue with the same actions (and potential mistakes) that led them to defeat in the first place.
This is why Trump won.
The left seriously underestimated this election. Even in this very thread are comments along the lines of, "There is no way our county would elect this clown, hurray for the first woman president!" And I agree! The guy is a total clown, an imbecile, a fool, an incompetent jerk! On a side note, I look forward to the day when we finally have a woman president.
This victory surprised the left so much that it's almost unbearable. "How is this possible? It must be Russians...or the antiquity of the electoral college...how did this happen!?"
This has nothing to do with the Russians. This has nothing to do with the electoral college. This doesn't even have anything to do with Trump.
This is all about the left throwing in with Hillary.
She lost to Trump! Trump!! How could anyone possibly lose to a guy that brags about sexual exploits and rape?? He wants to build a wall around Mexico for crying out loud, what a total moron! How is this even possible??
It is because the opposing person was Hillary Clinton. That is the only reason. This election it is beyond clear that our election system chose, as our President-Elect, "President Not Hillary Clinton." Anyone but Hillary Clinton! Just give me anyone! That rich corporate freak with the orange hair, he'll do, just anyone but Hillary Clinton!
Comments
Is it a coincidence that these emails were leaked during the election? Of course not, I believe it was an intentional political move by someone, and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin had some sort of "unofficial" hand in it: he probably didn't want the war that she has been hinting at for the last ten years.
But the questions about the emails still stand. Why did Hillary feel the need to hide and delete 30,000 emails? Why was she using her personal server to contact Russia? Why did she and her entire staff while she was Secretary of State cover up what they were doing? She claims that the 30,000 emails she deleted were personal communications between her and her husband...if so, why scramble to delete them all right after she received an injunction to hand them over? She shouldn't be afraid of what was in them then, should she?
Perhaps it was intentional that this hint of corruption was unearthed at this time. But the intentions behind revealing corruption is irrelevant. If the corruption is there, it is there, and Americans should know, even if it's release was motivated by a corrupt public official in another country. They know just about everything about Trump's personal life: he has nothing to hide anymore, what you see is what you get. What has Hillary got to hide?
As far as the insinuation that the Russians have cyber-hacked the actual voting ballots, this is complete nonsense and the statement is taken out of context. The CIA says that they do NOT believe the votes were hacked, and that there is no evidence of it at all. The ballot machines, which have multiple different manufacturers, aren't even connected to the internet, and those that are connected somehow are only connected by isolated intranets local to their counties. Hacking these machines on a large scale would be impossible.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/13/iran-says-tall-white-space-aliens-control-america/#100951e53629
The pentagon loses billions and trillions of dollars
Highlights
We are fighting multiple legal battles against Trump and his cronies in all three states.
In Pennsylvania, we are going to federal court seeking an injunction for a hand recount and forensic analysis of the unaccountable, paperless touch-screen machines.
In Wisconsin, we are fighting for a hand count of paper ballots throughout the state - what a judge called the “gold standard” for verifying the vote - after Republican Governor Scott Walker’s henchmen on the Board of Elections tripled the cost of the recount, charging $2.4 million over the original estimate of $1.1 million (based on the last statewide recount).
Read the latest updates on the Wisconsin Recount.
Read reports submitted by Wisconsin Recount observers.
In Michigan, we are fighting Trump and Schuette tooth and nail to make sure the hard-fought, hard-won right to vote is honored, and that the voices of the people in communities of color are heard and respected.
Read our response to Wednesday's Federal Court ruling ending the Michigan recount.
Attend Thursday's Emergency Rally in Lansing protesting Republican's stopping the recount.
Read reports submitted by Michigan Recount observers.
The attention brought by the recount campaign in Michigan is already raising red flags for the widespread disenfranchisement of voters of color in what amounts to a modern Jim Crow-type election system.
At stake are over 75,000 “undervotes” - ballots that are filled out except the vote for President - many of which are concentrated in communities of color in the Detroit area.
This unprecedented number of blank ballots may actually represent errors in the optical scanners that count the votes. According to a U.S. Civil Rights Commission report, voters of color are 900% more likely to have their votes misread or simply tossed out by human error or by badly maintained and poorly calibrated machines in underserved communities.
The malfunction of 87 decade-old optical scanner machines in Detroit on Election Day is an example of this Jim Crow-type injustice. These machine errors that lead to voter suppression are commonplace in underserved communities of color. But they can only be identified if we recount all the votes!
Trump and his pal Bill Schuette are doing everything in their power to prevent the recount from going forward, and examining the potential voter suppression.
We must not back down from this fight. Donald Trump - and the entrenched, corrupt political establishment that backs him - is hell-bent on shutting down our fight for voting justice, making it as complicated and expensive as possible by using every legal trick in the book to try to stop us.
More details..
Trump and his pal Bill Schuette are doing everything in their power to prevent the recount from going forward, and examining the potential voter suppression.
If you want to help protect the right to vote for communities of color—and build the case for a stronger democracy, please pitch in to keep this fight going!
We must not back down from this fight. Donald Trump - and the entrenched, corrupt political establishment that backs him - is hell-bent on shutting down our fight for voting justice, making it as complicated and expensive as possible by using every legal trick in the book to try to stop us.
The recount is a critical first step towards real democracy. We must also end voter suppression through voter ID laws and Interstate Crosscheck. We must have open debates to fully inform and empower voters. We must liberate our votes from fear through Ranked Choice Voting, which allows you to rank your choices and if your first choice loses, your vote is automatically reassigned to your second choice. We must abolish the Electoral College and move to a national popular vote.
With your help we can seize this historic moment to create a voting system we can trust, starting with counting every vote and making every vote count.
But there are several things about the article that I must critique.
First, I don't think anyone believes that any rational person believes Hillary personally clicked on and deleted 30,000 emails. That is impossible. When I said she deleted them, I was referring to her giving direction for them to be deleted. This point is moot.
Secondly, if there is nothing to hide about these emails, why did every team member elect to plead the fifth when questioned about them? If there is nothing to hide, then why are they officially hiding it in a court of law? I do not believe it was to prevent the election from being influenced, because lack of transparency always looks worse to voters than than the actual facts, and I believe Hillary knows this.
Thirdly, the article fails to address her classified communications using her private server, other than calling it a mistake.
Fourth, the article fails to address that the emails deleted that are supposedly classified were deleted because they were private emails. Those deleted emails, which we don't have, which were private, which is the whole reason this is even an issue, is the problem. I don't think Hillary is stupid enough to use her public .gov email server to communicate whatever caused her staff to plead the fifth.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the article. It was technical and intelligent. It could not possibly address the doubt, however, that Hillary has cast over her own actions.
OMG, of wish I could give your post 400 likes, agrees, insightfuls, and promotes! I love, love, love this video!!!!
(Ironically, it also very clearly portrays why I could never support Hillary, lol)
This appears to be the most recent update on the Wisconsin recount (from Dec. 9), direct from the election commission's homepage: http://elections.wi.gov/node/4756
Recount Update: 88.5% of ballots recounted
Posted in News
The daily recount spreadsheet has been posted: http://elections.wi.gov/publications/statistics/recount/2016/12-9-spread... .
Sixty out of Wisconsin's 72 counties have now completed the recount, and all appear to be on schedule to finish by the deadline on Monday.
The total number of ballots counted stands at 2,635,670 which is approximately 88.58% of the total ballots cast for President (2,975,313).
The net change is +1,322 votes:
+560 Trump/Pence
+609 Clinton/Kaine
+19 Castle/Bradley
+66 Johnson/Weld
+63 Stein/Baraka
+11 Moorhead/Lilly
-6 De la Fuente/Steinberg
Important Note: The changes in vote totals do not include the City of Milwaukee, which has reported partial numbers for individual reporting units (wards or combinations of wards) because it is recounting absentee ballots separately. Milwaukee is included in the 88.5 percent completed figure.
And so far, Trump has yet to be linked in any concrete way to Putin or the Russian government. His campaign manager had ties to Russia, and Trump has praised Putin before, but that's not proof of Trump being in cahoots with Putin.
The notion that Russia wants to damage America's reputation is well-founded, but there is no proof that Trump and Russia were working together in any way. Until such proof arises, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
I don't like Trump, but I don't believe every accusation against him. This one is not well-founded.
However, since when is it statesmanlike that one should hope that a president elect was just kidding around about his most statements, just to get elected?
Let's give him time - maybe Trump promised one thing, but surely he'll do something a bit better!
Maybe Trump stoked racial hatred against Mexicans just for larks, and assumes women can be bought from his personal history; and since - in all things incharity - how about banning those muslims?
As someone whom rather loved living in AZ, of course I hope Trump is not a disaster for US. As to thinking US president elect must be given the best hope against what he actually said....
I'd rather responsible statesmen distanced themselves of what Trump said, firmly and openly, and tried to cooperatre well anyway.
Imagine if Michelle Obama had wanted to stay behind wiht her children...
Edit: Just breaking, the Secretary of State is reported to be......the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson. This is a Cabinet comprised of Bond villains.....
Hardly what I'd call "crickets."
From the link I posted to the CIA's website:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts,"
You can mark this post if you want. Come back to this page in a year, and you'll find that those of us of the left-leaning ilk were actually massively UNDERSELLING just how drastic of a disaster this man is going to be.
These are no more "problems of legitimacy" than if the release of the Access Hollywood tape or any of Trump's other scandals had been the deciding factors that swayed enough voters to put Hillary in office - and I'd say it's fairly certain that you wouldn't hear any of Hillary's supporters claiming that she had "problems of legitimacy" if she had won. Both of these candidates had a sh#t-ton of dirty laundry, but one was always going to win in the end no matter what.
Efforts to blame Hillary's loss on a centuries-old institution and/or "outside influence" are just scapegoating for the real issue, which is that Democrats nominated a terrible and widely disliked candidate, and hoped that she would be perceived as "less terrible" enough than the Republican candidate to squeak out a win. On top of that, she ran a lazy campaign that took a number of states for granted, and paid a corresponding price for that hubris.
If Democrats want to blame someone/thing for the loss, they should look to themselves - then use this as an opportunity to correct their mistakes and come back stronger in 4 years (or even 2, during the mid-term elections). Instead, they want to find scapegoats so that they can circumvent any kind of self-reflection and continue with the same actions (and potential mistakes) that led them to defeat in the first place.
It won't change the fact that Hillary herself was an impeding disaster as well, just like she's been in nearly every major political issue she's been involved in. We were fkk'd no matter who won.
Not to mention at least Hillary could have vetoed the insane legislation that the legislative branch will inevitably end up pushing to give tax cuts to the rich and cut benefits to the poor and middle class. And she'd have been able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened on Obama's term with someone who is not a lunatic (just conjecture on who Donald Trump will pick probably a Mr. I.M. Lunatic)
The left seriously underestimated this election. Even in this very thread are comments along the lines of, "There is no way our county would elect this clown, hurray for the first woman president!" And I agree! The guy is a total clown, an imbecile, a fool, an incompetent jerk! On a side note, I look forward to the day when we finally have a woman president.
This victory surprised the left so much that it's almost unbearable. "How is this possible? It must be Russians...or the antiquity of the electoral college...how did this happen!?"
This has nothing to do with the Russians. This has nothing to do with the electoral college. This doesn't even have anything to do with Trump.
This is all about the left throwing in with Hillary.
She lost to Trump! Trump!! How could anyone possibly lose to a guy that brags about sexual exploits and rape?? He wants to build a wall around Mexico for crying out loud, what a total moron! How is this even possible??
It is because the opposing person was Hillary Clinton. That is the only reason. This election it is beyond clear that our election system chose, as our President-Elect, "President Not Hillary Clinton." Anyone but Hillary Clinton! Just give me anyone! That rich corporate freak with the orange hair, he'll do, just anyone but Hillary Clinton!