US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5949

On November 07 2016 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:

GH, it's a presidential election. Not a date or something.

You have spent a year jumping on every fake scandal the Republican made up with their suppositions and conspiracy theories. When you thought you had something you said "I KNEW IT" and when every time it happened to be nothing at all you said "yes but anyway she must be corrupt anyway because I have a bad feeling about her".

My problem is that you treat information according to your feelings (that she is an addict or whatever), rather than the opposite. That's how the right wing proceeds and that's why they are utterly out of touch with facts and reality.

You WANT Clinton to be corrupt because you don't like her. And that thing about her being an addict is ludicrous. Of course she is ambitious, and of course she wants power. Like everybody who gets there. You have to spend your life pursuing that dream to even have a chance, it needs to be the one most important thing for you and you must be ready to sacrifice a LOT. In what universe do you think making psychological assumption based on your vague gut feeling is helpful?

On November 07 2016 05:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Except election tampering.

Hispanic voters could be poised to deliver a historic rebuke to Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

Early-vote statistics from battleground states with large Hispanic populations show record turnout among a bloc that has voted at a lower rate than whites or blacks in past elections. If, as some polls suggest, Hispanic voters are supporting Hillary Clinton by blowout margins, these numbers could sink Trump in a handful of states that are essential to his path to 270 electoral votes.

In Nevada, Latino turnout propelled Democrats in Clark County — the population center that's home to Las Vegas — to a record-breaking close on Friday, driving up the Democratic lead in early ballots cast to 72,000. That's enough, according to veteran Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston, to essentially tie a bow on the state for Clinton.

Four years earlier, when President Barack Obama won the state by 7 points, Democrats led Clark County in ballots cast by 71,000 at the end of early voting in 2012.

State GOP Chairman Michael McDonald responded to the sudden electoral tremors Saturday by suggesting there were shady dealings behind the surge, referring to “a certain group.”

“Last night, in Clark County, they kept a poll open till 10 o’clock at night so a certain group could vote,” said McDonald at a Trump rally in Reno. “It wasn’t in an area that normally has high transition. The polls are supposed to close at 7. This was kept open till 10. Yeah, you feel free right now? Think this is a free or easy election?”

In his speech following those remarks, Trump suggested there might be wrongdoing at "certain key Democratic polling locations in Clark County."

"Folks, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged system. And we're going to beat it," he said.

In Florida, which tracks turnout by race and ethnicity, Hispanics have so far cast about 14 percent of the 5.7 million early and absentee ballots cast. That puts Hispanics far ahead of where they were in casting early ballots relative to 2012.

That follows Florida Democratic strategist Steve Schale's analysis, which notes that, through Wednesday alone, Hispanic turnout in 2016 had already exceeded — by 170,000 ballots — Hispanic early voting in the entire 2012 cycle. And Schale noted that many of them are first-time voters, who Democrats see as crucial targets in the early-voting period.

Similar signs suggest Democrats are seeing robust Hispanic turnout in Arizona as well. And even Texas, considered out of reach for Democrats, is seeing a surge across the state's most populous counties.

Latino turnout has historically lagged that of most other races and ethnicities — even among those eligible to cast ballots. In 2012, 62 percent of all U.S. citizens voted in the presidential election — but only 48 percent of Hispanic citizens did. Meanwhile, higher percentages of white citizens (62 percent) and black citizens (66 percent) participated.

On November 07 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


Based on your characterization, I'll agree to disagree. I don't want her to be corrupt, I want her to do things like vocally and consistently stand with the water protectors for example. It's not some wild conspiracy or bitterness, or any of the other ridiculous stuff you all want to dismiss my problems with her as, it's who she is, what she does, and what she doesn't do.

Her promoting her role in the 9/11 responders bill, with no one challenging her on her almost complete silence on it's renewal is another example.

Like being an f-1 driver, Olympic wrestler, or many other occupations/hobbies addiction can often be a prerequisite (or at least helpful) for reaching the top. One easily accessible example of this would be when confronted on making 5 million in speaking fees Hillary suggested they were "dead broke" insinuating they "needed the money".

They had just previously managed a $800,000+ cash down payment on a house a few weeks before she insists they were "dead broke".

Another example might be when Hillary's staff had to drill into her the problem with paid speeches while running.

That is textbook addict behavior.

Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy

In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten.

The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention.

Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...]

But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed.

Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives.

On November 07 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
An interesting piece on Russian efforts to undermine public trust in democratic institutions through social media and other means:


Source

On November 07 2016 07:10 Probe1 wrote:

That sounds about right and it echoes what a lot of people are saying now.

Supporters are being manipulated by foreign politics. One thing I really care about no matter what side wins is getting down and dirty against nations that attack the US through the internet. This has been shrugged off in the past. It's time to remind them who wears the pants and if they continue to try to manipulate or sabotage the American government, or people, then it's time to treat it as a hostile action and respond in turn.

Our actions leading up to this point have been either impotent, irrelevant, or so secretly guarded that it seems like the first two.

On November 07 2016 07:14 zlefin wrote:

I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not.
Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage.

On November 07 2016 07:14 zlefin wrote:

I'd be wary of picking a cyber-fight; it's not an area where our government is that good, and we have more to lose than our potential enemies do in such a spat. There's a lot of skilled and well-organized hacker groups in china/russia, both gov't run and not.
Best to fight on a battlefield where we have an advantage.

On November 07 2016 07:29 Slaughter wrote:



The way it appears in the media you would get the idea that the US sucks at cyber warfare. Is the US that bad at it in reality? I at least have never heard anything about US "enemies" getting hacked or sensitive information getting leaked from like Russia or China.

On November 07 2016 07:51 plasmidghost wrote:
Why is Hillary having a ton of rallies in Democratic leaning states, are her internal polls showing that she's actually not as favored as sites like HuffPo and 538 are saying, or is she just making sure that she does win those states?