Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Kevin Graham]

Well to be fair I doubt he's talking about her time as first lady. He's probably really referencing her experience in Washington being Secretary of State for so long under Obama and also a senator of New York.

That may be scoffed at now but for the previous two decades experience in Washington was considered a prerequisite qualification. I remember when Obama got elected the right-wing attacked him because he was only senator for a short amount of time.

Now look what Trump's doing he's hiring just about everybody that has absolutely no experience whatsoever and now we can only pray for the next Administration to hire a bunch of Hillary Clinton's for each position. Idiots like subgenius can keep saying she was unqualified because she lost the election and that voters determine who is qualified but he keeps ignoring the fact that she got 3 million more votes which obviously says qualifications matter to the American people

[_subgenius]

He's probably really referencing her experience in Washington being Secretary of State for so long under Obama and also a senator of New York.

I assumed that this is what he was referencing...however, she accomplished more as first lady...but please, given the long tenure as a Senator and SoS, it should be easy for the poster to list of these accomplishments that "clearly" establish her as being "the most qualified" candidate. I mean her Senate record must dwarf Sanders' record, correct?...and her SoS tenure must be a cornucopia of success and not just some resume' padding to prop up her anointed 2016 run....i mean why else would the DNC need to rig primaries?
But please, let us examine the justification for the leap from qualified to MOST qualified....provide the evidence that so distinctly and unequivocally set apart Hillary Clinton from Sanders, from O'Malley, from Lessig, from Webb, from Chafee, or heck - even from Vermin Supreme....granted Supreme may be easy pickings but I double-dog dare you to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton was propped up because - ovaries.

[_Some Schmo]

Well to be fair I doubt he's talking about her time as first lady. He's probably really referencing her experience in Washington being Secretary of State for so long under Obama and also a senator of New York.

True. But does that make her more qualified than say Bernie with his years of governing experience?

That may be scoffed at now but for the previous two decades experience in Washington was considered a prerequisite qualification. I remember when Obama got elected the right-wing attacked him because he was only senator for a short amount of time.

I'm not scoffing at her experience, and I remember how people talked about Obama in this respect. She was certainly a billion times more qualified than Drumpf. I guess I'm stuck on the idea that Clinton was the best the Democrats had to offer.

Now look what Trump's doing he's hiring just about everybody that has absolutely no experience whatsoever and now we can only pray for the next Administration to hire a bunch of Hillary Clinton's for each position. Idiots like subgenius can keep saying she was unqualified because she lost the election and that voters determine who is qualified but he keeps ignoring the fact that she got 3 million more votes which obviously says qualifications matter to the American people

Well, subgenius (as has been established over and over) isn't all that bright. I only worry about what people like him think to the extent that it's discouraging commentary on the intellectual state of the right wing in this country.

[_Markk]

So Markk are you going to provide us with any of those any examples of Russian interference in past elections?

Google it Themis...are you that naïve to believe that foriegn governments do not interfere with elections. We do it also...I also read some time ago there may be a possibility that Hillary Clinton may have tampered with a Russian election. How much money do you think is funneled into the US to support candidates of choice...the CIA and KGB/FIS are no doubt guilty.

There is probably more evidence that Oswald had Russian ties than there is that the election outcome was actually effected.

Start here...it is wiki that I do not really trust, but you can use the examples as a starting point you can further google. How much goes on that is TS that we have no clue on, and that will never be known.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_e ... tervention


Also how much did the negative press that Trump actually colluded with the efforts of the Russian Government to sink Hillary, hurt Trump? You can't have it both ways Themis, at least logically. How may votes did not go to Trump because folks thought he was in bed with Putin?

[_Markk]

Just give me a few of the Russian hacked e-mails that the press used, of the thousands, there should be some that are more damaging (by the press) than others...

Markk, if your claim is that stories about emails - regardless of email contents - were not damaging to Clinton on the basis of repetitiveness alone, then why did conservative media and Fox News run email stories so frequently, along with baseless speculations and allegations (all negative, of course) of what was ‘about to be discovered’ within them?

You’re not pretending that this was not intended to create and promote a negative characterization of Hillary Clinton, are you?

Because they are the press and it is there job to report to gossip and push the agenda of their political side...do you believe the press is objective?...Why did the left press continually state that Trump colluded with Russians with no evidence? What is Ironic, is that the Russian controversies probably took more votes away from Trump than from Hillary. How many people do you think did not vote for Trump, or at all, in that they thought Trump actually colluded with Putin?

Did Trump lose votes for the false accusations against him...yes or no?

[_Kishkumen]

Clinton was highly qualified for the job. Trump is highly unqualified and temperamentally unsuited for the job. Out of Clinton, Sanders, and Trump, I don't see how Clinton is not considered the best fit for the job. Trump is a walking nightmare of a human being. Had he not been born into money, he would be no one of note, and perhaps even in prison.

[_Some Schmo]

Out of Clinton, Sanders, and Trump, I don't see how Clinton is not considered the best fit for the job.

I think Sanders was better qualified largely because he seems to genuinely care more about average Americans than Clinton or Drumpf (not to mention the years he's spent governing - more than Clinton). He also seems to have better identified the real issues this country currently faces.

I'm not arguing Clinton wasn't qualified - I certainly think she was. My contention is with the idea she was the most qualified.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Sanders was better qualified largely because he seems to genuinely care more about average Americans than Clinton or Drumpf (not to mention the years he's spent governing - more than Clinton). He also seems to have better identified the real issues this country currently faces.

I'm not arguing Clinton wasn't qualified - I certainly think she was. My contention is with the idea she was the most qualified.

Does she have the kind of dedication to the little person out there that Sanders has? No. Would she fight the financial sector like Sanders would? Hell no. Ideologically, I am not a real fan of Clinton. She is part of a legacy of Democrats becoming Republican-lite with some social consciousness thrown in. But I have real doubts that Sanders could have accomplished much. It's difficult to say.

[_Themis]

Google it Themis...are you that naïve to believe that foriegn governments do not interfere with elections.

I never said they didn't, nor was that what I was asking. You are avoiding the real issue here.

We do it also...I also read some time ago there may be a possibility that Hillary Clinton may have tampered with a Russian election. How much money do you think is funneled into the US to support candidates of choice...the CIA and KGB/FIS are no doubt guilty.

That is a different issue, and sure we can discuss whether it is right to do so or not.

Start here...it is wiki that I do not really trust, but you can use the examples as a starting point you can further google. How much goes on that is TS that we have no clue on, and that will never be known.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_e ... tervention

I don't see any Russian examples that would even begin to compare to the 2016 election, and the US government and people were not ok with what interference they did try. That is the real point. Many, like you, are ok with Russian interference if it elected your candidate.

Also how much did the negative press that Trump actually colluded with the efforts of the Russian Government to sink Hillary, hurt Trump? You can't have it both ways Themis, at least logically. How may votes did not go to Trump because folks thought he was in bed with Putin?

Huh? It's not having it both ways. The press is not a foreign state. I may not like FOX news or CNN, but I don't complain if they present a bias for any candidate. Hell I don't care if some foreign individual states who they think people should vote for, but there are laws, and we see a lot of examples of cheating in US elections by those running in them in the past. It's not ok then, it shouldn't be ok now. The Russian interfered in a very successful way never seen before, but then social media is very powerful and new. The Russian's hacked into HC's emails that created a long lasting negative story during the election. It's hard not to see this would affect how some people would vote, and since it was a close election, it's more then plausible Russian influence may have been just enough to give the election to Trump. That has never even been close in the past.

While we could debate if the US should be interfering in foreign elections or toppling governments say like Iraq(didn't see you complaining), you should be very concerned about Russian interference. Do you really think they have your best interest in mind. in my opinion the Russians want a number of things. One is disruption and chaos in western countries, particularly the US. This includes economics. They also are trying to influence people to be more isolationist and anti immigration. The strategy here is to undermine NATO and the EU. This would open up eastern Europe to more Russian influence and control.

Whether or not the Russian's have dirt on Trump, or that he owes them money so they think they could influence him, he is a good candidate for the goals stated above. So far we see chaos in the US government. We see the US withdrawing a lot of it's soft power around the world opening up opportunities for Russia as well as other powers like China. Trump has withdrawn from the TPP which will hurt the US economically. Such a bad deal all the other countries are still going to go ahead with it without the US. I think the odds are good of Trump withdrawing from NAFTA hurting the US economy even further. I suspect the Russian's got so involved in this last election was because of Trump. Most elections there would not be enough difference between candidates to care who won.

[_Markk]

Clinton was highly qualified for the job. Trump is highly unqualified and temperamentally unsuited for the job. Out of Clinton, Sanders, and Trump, I don't see how Clinton is not considered the best fit for the job. Trump is a walking nightmare of a human being. Had he not been born into money, he would be no one of note, and perhaps even in prison.

Was she really highly qualified?

She married into the white house and governors house, won the senate in a state that is one of the bluest states, was appointed SoS probably as a promise of endorsement, after losing a bid for president?

Trump has been greasing the pockets of politicians for decades, including the Clinton's...he knows how Washington works.

As far as temperament...Hillary Clinton was hated by those that worked for her..and her losing showed it...she couln't even address the thousands of people that worked for her the night she lost. Most everyone here that hates Trump, when talking about Hillary Clinton as a candidate, has to qualify that they really didn't like her as their choice...which in all reality says it all.

All there are is excuses as to why she lost, the reality is nobody likes her, including her husband.

But there is 2020, how would you feel about her running again if she is so highly qualified...in your opinion who is more qualified from the left?