EPTEven if we accepted that as smart, basically telling the othe side your negotiating strategy seems amateurish. Though I'm sure trump supporters will find a way to twist it.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6406
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Even if we accepted that as smart, basically telling the othe side your negotiating strategy seems amateurish. Though I'm sure trump supporters will find a way to twist it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 12 2016 10:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: What is the claim about Russia hacking the election.What did their hack achieve and in what states? I have not seen anywhere go into detail.Surely noone is claiming they hacked Michigan since that was 100% paper ballots? The only solid specific news i have seen of hacking is the DHS hack of Georgia databases! https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/12/08/homeland-security-tied-to-attempted-hack-of-georgias-election-database-report.html I'm not sure which things you're hearing about. What we've been talking about isn't about directly hacking the votes or anything like that; but hacking into emails and such to selectively reveal secrets/info, and a bunch of disinformation campaigns on various social media, and stuff like that. There are some conspiracy-minded folks who're concerned about actual hacking; I don't think there's any actual indications of that. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On December 12 2016 07:17 Wegandi wrote: This reeks of the Paul vs Ghouliani exchange from 2008. Are you going to accuse the libertarian movement (we want to trade with everyone e.g. no sanctions with anyone and get rid of NATO for the most part) of being in cohoots with the Ruskies? There is no legitimate threat to our "Democracy (even if we ain't one)" from Russia because of information being presented in the public sphere. If they had CIA like ops to destabilize by funding, arming, and agitating domestic insurgencies then we could talk. My point is, just because some policy goals overlap (for sake of argument) does not make one in bed with the people they overlap with (hence my Paul analogy vis a vis leaving the Middle East because the Terrorists want you to non-sense lmao). Do you see your tortured logic here? PS: I mean if you want to go further back in time that's fine too. Calling the non-interventionists of the 30's Nazi's because they didn't favor US involvement in Europe or WWII is equally dumb (policy overlap does not = cohoots). I think I've been strawmanned here? I don't think libertarians are russian pawns. If, on the other hand, a libertarian candidate with a lot of business ties to Russia got narrowly elected partly on the back of illegal Russian interference in our election, I might call foul play. I don't see anything tortured about that. @GH: if I'm to understand your position here is that because the US has intervened in foreign elections before we don't have the right to be upset when Russia does it to us, that's a pretty dumb position. Should I start with the trite "two wrongs don't make a right?" Or maybe point out the obvious non-equivalence between intervening in fledgling democracies because we're scared of communism and electioneering the most powerful nation on Earth in order to upset the world order? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45456 Posts
On December 12 2016 08:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: this is meaningless but amusing http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-once-wrongly-criticized-obama-not-attending-intel-briefings-n694631 Oh ffs... Not to mention the fact that Trump thinks he's too smart to attend national security briefings: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/donald-trump-talks-policy-conflicts-calls-idea-russians-helped-him-n694581?cid=sm_fb and http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/11/fox-just-asked-trump-skips-intelligence-briefings-answer-terrifying/ I seriously think that the world is being Punk'd right now. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:12 ChristianS wrote: I think I've been strawmanned here? I don't think libertarians are russian pawns. If, on the other hand, a libertarian candidate with a lot of business ties to Russia got narrowly elected partly on the back of illegal Russian interference in our election, I might call foul play. I don't see anything tortured about that. @GH: if I'm to understand your position here is that because the US has intervened in foreign elections before we don't have the right to be upset when Russia does it to us, that's a pretty dumb position. Should I start with the trite "two wrongs don't make a right?" Or maybe point out the obvious non-equivalence between intervening in fledgling democracies because we're scared of communism and electioneering the most powerful nation on Earth in order to upset the world order? I mean... yeah, obviously they're different, because America's interventions were far worse. That's kind of the hypocrisy angle. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4408 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:07 zlefin wrote: I'm not sure which things you're hearing about. What we've been talking about isn't about directly hacking the votes or anything like that; but hacking into emails and such to selectively reveal secrets/info, and a bunch of disinformation campaigns on various social media, and stuff like that. There are some conspiracy-minded folks who're concerned about actual hacking; I don't think there's any actual indications of that. Ok, it's just a little confusing when the CIA is claiming Russia "hacked the election" when really they are just talking about the wikileaks stuff.Wasn't the reason for Steins recount allegations of Russia actually hacking the results in some way? Was there ever any evidence for this? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. But her recount petition filed in Wisconsin begins by saying “it was widely reported that foreign operators breached voter registration databases in at least two states and stole hundreds of thousands of voter records.” The petition then says the U.S. intelligence community is “confident” Russia was behind the hacks. There is “well-documented and conclusive evidence of foreign interference in the presidential race before the election ... [that] call[s] into question the results and indicate the possibility that (a) widespread breach occurred,” Stein’s lawyers wrote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/blaming-russia-to-overtur_b_13408446.html | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:24 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Ok, it's just a little confusing when the CIA is claiming Russia "hacked the election" when really they are just talking about the wikileaks stuff.Wasn't the reason for Steins recount allegations of Russia actually hacking the results in some way? Was there ever any evidence for this? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/blaming-russia-to-overtur_b_13408446.html yeah; it is a bit confusing wording-wise. since both are a result of "hacking". this is pretty much the wikileaks stuff, plus some other things like that. It was already known/suspected they were interfering; there was some question as to whether they were specifically pro-trump in their goals, or just generally messing with stuff because damaging an enemy is useful. the fbi/cia or someone is now saying they're confident they had pro-trump as a goal. They certainly also still have messing with stuff and damaging democracy as a goal too. re: Stein; I'm not sure, but I think there were some allegations/concerns, which were later shown to be false and were a result of using a flawed analysis. something like the results in some districts were very far from what they historically were, but only in districts with electronic voting machines. That matters been looked at, and there wasn't really anything wrong iirc. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45456 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:23 LegalLord wrote: The world got punked when people decided they couldn't risk having a racist sexist xenophobe in office and had to pick the most electable possible opponent just to make sure they couldn't possibly lose. The progressives would just have to get a few scraps and be glad they got something in return for getting behind said hyper-electable leader. I get the satire, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea that Hillary was the worst that the Democrats could have fielded. Bernie may have done better and Biden probably would have won if he had run, but Hillary beat everyone in the primary and she even won the popular vote. It's not like she got rolled over in some sort of landslide. She and the DNC didn't play things out ideally, but it's a pretty odd double standard that she had to be perfect while Trump could say (and *did say*) absolutely anything he wanted to anyone at any time, without any consequences. He just made shit up and belittled people the whole time and didn't/ isn't taking this seriously, which tells me more about Trump and his supporters than it does about Hillary's flaws. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I get the satire, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea that Hillary was the worst that the Democrats could have fielded. Bernie may have done better and Biden probably would have won if he had run, but Hillary beat everyone in the primary and she even won the popular vote. It's not like she got rolled over in some sort of landslide. Not only that, but the idea that HRC won the primary first and foremost because she was seen as more electable than Sanders is simply false and something I already debunked earlier in the thread. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I get the satire, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea that Hillary was the worst that the Democrats could have fielded. Bernie may have done better and Biden probably would have won if he had run, but Hillary beat everyone in the primary and she even won the popular vote. It's not like she got rolled over in some sort of landslide. She and the DNC didn't play things out ideally, but it's a pretty odd double standard that she had to be perfect while Trump could say (and *did say*) absolutely anything he wanted to anyone at any time, without any consequences. He just made shit up and belittled people the whole time and didn't/ isn't taking this seriously, which tells me more about Trump and his supporters than it does about Hillary's flaws. I suppose that the Democrats could have fielded someone less well-liked than Hillary Clinton, but I'm struggling to think of someone who has that combination of establishment support and public disdain to make a run like Hillary's possible yet ill-considered. Her instantaneous superdelegate advantage should give an indication of how locked out most "establishment Democrats" would be. Most of the primaries are decided not by vote but by endorsement. Biden is an exception because he's VP, Sanders and Trump ran on anti-establishment platforms so they are also exceptions. While in the final tally Clinton may have been "close" that is missing the point. She lost to Blabbermouth McPussygate. By an inch or by a mile that is really pathetic and it's not on the "idiots who don't get it" that she got elected. She basically tossed the left-wing aside and enough of them didn't vote for her, she ignored the WWC base the way Sanders didn't and lost all those swing states he probably would have won himself, and she chose one of the worst possible choices for VP she could have for anyone but her own base. Also the Republicans won solidly in the downballot. That was a pretty thorough and brutal loss and it'd be hard for anyone without emails and leaks and everything else to lose to Trump. And that is on the back of a candidate who made the case for herself as someone who should be chosen because she would win the election, and enough people believed her to vote that way. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
And as for the Russian hacking thing, my question for everyone who gives a shit about it is this: so what? Just like I'm sure that Russian hackers fuck with Americans infrastructure, I'm sure that they did some things to cause problems in the election. Did it matter in the end? Almost certainly not. And as others have pointed out, the US does all sorts of shit screw with other nations (including Russia), so it is rather laughable for us to cry foul. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:23 LegalLord wrote: The world got punked when people decided they couldn't risk having a racist sexist xenophobe in office and had to pick the most electable possible opponent just to make sure they couldn't possibly lose. The progressives would just have to get a few scraps and be glad they got something in return for getting behind said hyper-electable leader. Trump tapped into a destructive cynicism that no left-wing populist can satisfy, as seen everywhere else on the planet where this strategy has been tried. If this would work Corbyn's Labour party would be thriving and the UK wouldn't have left the EU. Hillary actually managed to win the poorest part of the electorate. It's the group that in the 90's was coined 'welfare chauvinists' that won Trump the election and this is a culturally alienated middle class. It's not all about the economy. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:46 kwizach wrote: Not only that, but the idea that HRC won the primary first and foremost because she was seen as more electable than Sanders is simply false and something I already debunked earlier in the thread. It may not have been the primary reason anyone gave for voting for her, but it was by far the primary defense used by her supporters when Sanders was brought up. The defense was used to such an incredible extent that I feel that significant mockery of that argument is deserved when she lost to literally the least electable candidate of all time besides herself. On paper (aside from her scandals) she was very electable. In reality, she was flat out boring, which is a massive crime in the US political system. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45456 Posts
On December 12 2016 11:46 kwizach wrote: Not only that, but the idea that HRC won the primary first and foremost because she was seen as more electable than Sanders is simply false and something I already debunked earlier in the thread. That's a good point; it seems that a much larger percentage of people found her qualified and experienced than merely voting for her because she's electable, according to that poll. And they're not wrong, obviously. On December 12 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote: I suppose that the Democrats could have fielded someone less well-liked than Hillary Clinton, but I'm struggling to think of someone who has that combination of establishment support and public disdain to make a run like Hillary's possible yet ill-considered. Her instantaneous superdelegate advantage should give an indication of how locked out most "establishment Democrats" would be. Most of the primaries are decided not by vote but by endorsement. Biden is an exception because he's VP, Sanders and Trump ran on anti-establishment platforms so they are also exceptions. While in the final tally Clinton may have been "close" that is missing the point. She lost to Blabbermouth McPussygate. By an inch or by a mile that is really pathetic and it's not on the "idiots who don't get it" that she got elected. She basically tossed the left-wing aside and enough of them didn't vote for her, she ignored the WWC base the way Sanders didn't and lost all those swing states he probably would have won himself, and she chose one of the worst possible choices for VP she could have for anyone but her own base. Also the Republicans won solidly in the downballot. That was a pretty thorough and brutal loss and it'd be hard for anyone without emails and leaks and everything else to lose to Trump. And that is on the back of a candidate who made the case for herself as someone who should be chosen because she would win the election, and enough people believed her to vote that way. I definitely agree with you that Tim Kaine was a pretty bad pick and that Hillary had about as much DNC/ establishment support as possible, although I don't think Hillary's central argument for choosing her is that she would win. On December 12 2016 12:07 xDaunt wrote: A lot of y'all are missing the point about how the DNC rigged the primary for Clinton. She probably would have beaten Bernie regardless of DNC interference. The larger problem is this: the DNC and/or the Democrat apparatus very clearly dissuaded other potential candidates (most notably Joe Biden) from throwing their hats in the ring and running against Hillary. Go back and re-watch the speech that Biden gave when he announced that he wasn't running and then try and tell me that he really didn't want to run for the presidency. It had the tone and rhetoric of someone who intended to run. I don't really see a reason to buy into that conspiracy, sorry :/ | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On December 12 2016 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: Trump tapped into a destructive cynicism that no left-wing populist can satisfy, as seen everywhere else on the planet where this strategy has been tried. If this would work Corbyn's Labour party would be thriving and the UK wouldn't have left the EU. Hillary actually managed to win the poorest part of the electorate. It's the group that in the 90's was coined 'welfare chauvinists' that won Trump the election and this is a culturally alienated middle class. It's not all about the economy. The white working class isn't the "poorest part of the electorate" but rather "the previously lower middle class that has dropped from the middle class" which is the base that Sanders really appealed to. Whether or not Bernie Sanders would be able to get the "mandate" for his movement that he wants is an interesting question, and indeed I think you might be right that ultimately the pressure is most strongly pushing for a right-wing populism more so than a left-wing one (not that mainstream Republicans provide that, mind you; Trump does though). It's not quite the same in the US as the UK but it is true that "America first" is gaining a lot of traction and that Sanders is too fundamentally globalist to satisfy that. But at the very least I think he would hold a good 5-8 percentage point margin against Trump since he has much less baggage than Clinton. On December 12 2016 12:26 Nevuk wrote: It may not have been the primary reason anyone gave for voting for her, but it was by far the primary defense used by her supporters when Sanders was brought up. The defense was used to such an incredible extent that I feel that significant mockery of that argument is deserved when she lost to literally the least electable candidate of all time besides herself. On paper (aside from her scandals) she was very electable. In reality, she was flat out boring, which is a massive crime in the US political system. Being boring is far from her worst "crime" as a candidate. A good start would be "allows allegations of corruption to stick by acting the way guilty people do" and you would be more onto something. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45456 Posts
On December 12 2016 12:26 Nevuk wrote: It may not have been the primary reason anyone gave for voting for her, but it was by far the primary defense used by her supporters when Sanders was brought up. The defense was used to such an incredible extent that I feel that significant mockery of that argument is deserved when she lost to literally the least electable candidate of all time besides herself. On paper (aside from her scandals) she was very electable. In reality, she was flat out boring, which is a massive crime in the US political system. Wait, what? Are you saying that during the primary, it was commonplace for Clinton supporters to make the argument to Bernie supporters that Bernie supporters shouldn't vote for him during the primary- and that they should instead vote for Hillary during the primary- because Bernie couldn't possibly win the general election? That's news to me; all my experiences with Hillary supporters during the primary made arguments based on substantive policy and experience/ qualifications when trying to convince me to vote for her over Bernie. They didn't convince me in the primary, but they were sensible enough arguments that made me happy to vote for her in the general election. But yeah, she's obviously a lot more boring than Bernie fwiw. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 12 2016 12:26 Nevuk wrote: It may not have been the primary reason anyone gave for voting for her, but it was by far the primary defense used by her supporters when Sanders was brought up. The defense was used to such an incredible extent that I feel that significant mockery of that argument is deserved when she lost to literally the least electable candidate of all time besides herself. On paper (aside from her scandals) she was very electable. In reality, she was flat out boring, which is a massive crime in the US political system. As DarkPlasmaBall said, this wasn't my experience at all. Spontaneous arguments from the Clinton camp focused on her experience, her pragmatism, her policy knowledge, her ability to get things done, etc. It is the Sanders campaign, and in fact Sanders himself, who tried to persuade voters and superdelegates to vote for him instead of HRC because of polls showing him with bigger leads over Donald Trump. That was indeed one of the arguments put forward by individuals and outlets supporting Sanders, and I saw Clinton supporters reply to that argument more so than initiate electability claims. In any case, I was addressing the claim that people voted for her because she was more electable, and it was clearly not one of the primary reasons. | ||
| ||
