The Trump Presidency – 2016

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm amazed at how many liberals are clinging to this idea that Clinton was a slam-dunk without the e-mail release. She was unlikable long before that.

It is pretty ridiculous but it allows them to cling to the self-righteousness of we didn't lose the other side is just so stupid they are easily bought off by the Russians.

[ISiddiqui]

You do realize that meme is factually true?

[ISiddiqui]

I'm almost curious if the conservatives in the last few posts are just trying to show how ignorant of actual facts they are. It's a bit stunning, to be honest.

[PilotMan]

Hey look, I love apples, but I'd never fuck an avocado.

Those statements have just about as much relevance as yours do. As in, in the world of things being similar or related, they aren't.

Hey look, more made up equivalencies! Woooooooo! The Russians totally hacked Hillary's server, and she say's they didn't, but now she's blaming them after she was caught red handed. So we totally know her server was hacked by the russians, and now we know she lied and all those emails were the same emails she deleted about Bengazi. Wow, if she only would have come clean this all could have been avoided.

Got any other fantasies we can delve into today?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm almost curious if the conservatives in the last few posts are just trying to show how ignorant of actual facts they are. It's a bit stunning, to be honest.

Not part of the D/R thing. Don't care about Trump either.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not part of the D/R thing. Don't care about Trump either.

An independent ignorant then .

[PilotMan]

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm amazed at how many liberals are clinging to this idea that Clinton was a slam-dunk without the e-mail release. She was unlikable long before that.

I have to agree there - I mean the Russian hacking is a huge story that should absolutely be taken seriously and investigated, but as a liberal I wouldn't say it's what lost us the election. There were candidate issues, messaging issues and other problems we need to be looking at for the future.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I sure as shit am claiming he's going to be assassinated, nor calling for it, like many did when Obama was elected.

I'm confused.

[jeff061]

Seems like everyone is always predicting that the president they didn't vote for will get assassinated. Then it never happens. Predictable part of election process.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

It's now an inarguable fact they influenced the election

According to every governmental and many private security folks, yes.

and without their meddling Clinton would have won the election?

I'm not saying that. The first part can be true without the second part being true. Even if Clinton had won, it's still a big deal that Russia influenced the election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

it's still a big deal that Russia influenced the election.

I'll try to remember to send them a thank you card then.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

And that ladies and gentleman is the crux for the majority of Americans who think that they were totally related. Holy shit.

Are you really that naive to think that the DNC's was easily hacked while Clinton's email server was impenetrable? I'm not.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Are you really that naive to think that the DNC's was easily hacked while Clinton's email server was impenetrable? I'm not.

Right!?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not saying that. Even if Clinton had won, it's still a big deal that Russia influenced the election.

I know you believe yourself, but give us a break. You wouldn't have said shit or been remotely upset had Clinton won. Mostly, because facts are just facts...how it's presented is the important thing. The media would have glossed over it as "Republicans still bitter about the loss..."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This made me chuckle. Pot, meet kettle......

President Obama Says Donald Trump Should Choose Congress Over Using Executive Power : NPR

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll try to remember to send them a thank you card then.

No need to remind us that you're an authoritarian stooge.

Some of us, though, actually believe in the ideals of our founding.

[CraigSca]

As far as he hacking is concerned, it is what it is. It's a part of the 2016 state of being. Yahoo has 1.5 billion accounts breached. Countless others. How then are we to protect RNC, DNC, government, candidate accounts from further leakage? The fact is, you really can't make it foolproof because you're dealing with people who make mistakes. All it takes is one.

Really, there's no defense against this, and I would assume we would absolutely do the same to influence an election were the shoes on the other foot. Isn't that we've done for decades?

Yeah, it's a scary proposition, but it's a sign of the times that things like this will happen and there's really not a darn thing we can do about it.

If anything, watch what you say when the transcript can be documented. If you're worried about something leaking, don't digitize it for all the world to see, because eventually, they probably will.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I know you believe yourself, but give us a break. You wouldn't have said shit or been remotely upset had Clinton won. Mostly, because facts are just facts...how it's presented is the important thing. The media would have glossed over it as "Republicans still bitter about the loss..."

This is why the country is falling apart, we can't accept that people are honest about their motives. As long as we "know" what people's true intentions are, we'll never find any common ground.

Go back and look how I beat on Jill Stein for being a Russian stooge. I can assure you that similar Russian support of Clinton would have been disqualifying for me.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'm confused.

I think he forgot to type the word "not" in there somewhere.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is why the country is falling apart, we can't accept that people are honest about their motives. As long as we "know" what people's true intentions are, we'll never find any common ground.

Go back and look how I beat on Jill Stein for being a Russian stooge. I can assure you that similar Russian support of Clinton would have been disqualifying for me.

Like I said, I know you believe yourself.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Like I said, I know you believe yourself.

Congrats on your PhD in Psychology!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Like I said, I know you believe yourself.

Yeah his line of thinking is always along some variation of "I know all politicians are corrupt. We all agree on that. But Republican politicians are worse. Why? Well I can't just say the reason is because it isn't the team I cheer for so how about...

A) Russians
B) Racism
C) Any other excuse"

I mean Hillary Clinton is the picture in the dictionary next to corrupt. But she isn't a "Russian stooge" so disregard.

[JPhillips]

Hey look, I love apples, but I'd never fuck an avocado.

Yep.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Personally, I don't see the problem in it. She should have released all those e-mails when they were requested. If she had, no one would have ended up leaking them at such a crucial time in her campaign. Mrs. Clinton has no one to blame but herself. Do it the right way and she had a fighting chance.

Maybe the dumbest post you've ever made on FOFC.

Hillary's State Department e-mails weren't leaked. John Podesta's private e-mails were leaked.

But I'm glad that you basically had no idea what this whole issue was about.

[larrymcg421]

Summary of the last page of this thread:

"I am too stupid to discuss the merits of your argument, so I will attack your motives."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Yeah, it's a scary proposition, but it's a sign of the times that things like this will happen and there's really not a darn thing we can do about it.

Not at all accurate. This is just another part of diplomatic relations. There's plenty we can do if the will to do it is there.

This will go down as one of Obama's biggest failures as it certainly seems like the Russians are going to pay little to no price for getting caught influencing the election.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This made me chuckle. Pot, meet kettle......

President Obama Says Donald Trump Should Choose Congress Over Using Executive Power : NPR

It's not like Obama was really excessive in this area. Since 1968 only Gerald Ford and Bush Sr. issued less executive orders than Obama. I think the point is, probably not wise to challenge Franklin D Roosevelt's record of 3,522.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I have to agree there - I mean the Russian hacking is a huge story that should absolutely be taken seriously and investigated, but as a liberal I wouldn't say it's what lost us the election. There were candidate issues, messaging issues and other problems we need to be looking at for the future.

I don't think it mattered much either. I think pundits like to dissect these things too much.

It also seems like a way for party leaders to pass the buck for their mistakes. Blame this story or that story for the loss instead of the fact they pushed hard for an unlikable candidate who didn't create much excitement with the bases. The evil Russians cost them the election instead of pushing identity politics on a part of the country that doesn't give a shit about it.

And don't get me wrong, what Russia did is about as close as it gets to an act of war. It borders on treason to support what they did.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's plenty we can do if the will to do it is there.

Do you mean something like giving weapons to Ukraine? I saw that pitched somewhere.

That seems pretty aggressive when last week people were freaking out about Trump just calling Taiwan. And China has hacked U.S. businesses and U.S. government agencies directly. It seems like provoking Russia would be riskier than provoking China.

But I think it's hard to have a strong opinion on this stuff. Obama knows, and Trump will soon know, far more about Russia and Putin and relevant international issues and military/terror threats than we ever will. That's why I'm pretty willing to give those in the know the benefit of the doubt on stuff like that (and it's pretty telling that Bush and Obama ended up having similar foreign policies).

[JPhillips]

I think there's a window for really tough sanctions with the U.S and western Europe. Putin is pulling this shit all throughout western democracies. If something isn't done and France ends up with pro-Russia Le Pen and Germany ends up with a more pro-Russia party, democracy in the west will be threatened unlike any time since WW2.

[molson]

It'd be nice if western Europe was interested in something like that.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

But I think it's hard to have a strong opinion on this stuff. Obama knows, and Trump will soon know, far more about Russia and Putin and relevant international issues and military/terror threats than we ever will. That's why I'm pretty willing to give those in the know the benefit of the doubt on stuff like that (and it's pretty telling that Bush and Obama ended up having similar foreign policies).

HOPEFULLY he will know. My concern is that he'll think he's too smart to heed any advice and just go with what he thinks he knows, rather than the intelligence community. Or he'll be influenced by those without cooler heads (Flynn) or those who are up for a little anarchy (Bannon). Or that there are financial interests in Russia that might color policy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think there's a window for really tough sanctions with the U.S and western Europe. Putin is pulling this shit all throughout western democracies. If something isn't done and France ends up with pro-Russia Le Pen and Germany ends up with a more pro-Russia party, democracy in the west will be threatened unlike any time since WW2.

France and Germany ending up with far-right leaders would have more to do with the left leaders fucking things up than Putin's games.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

France and Germany ending up with far-right leaders would have more to do with the left leaders fucking things up than Putin's games.

How would that apply in either France or Germany's next elections? France's upcoming Presidential Election is between a right wing candidate (Fillon) and a far-right candidate (Le Pen) and Germany's Chancellor is center-right.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not at all accurate. This is just another part of diplomatic relations. There's plenty we can do if the will to do it is there.

This will go down as one of Obama's biggest failures as it certainly seems like the Russians are going to pay little to no price for getting caught influencing the election.

I wasn't speaking to the concept of how we can negotiate retribution against the Russians. I was speaking to the hacking of the accounts (on both sides) and leakage of data to the private or public entities that are wanting to influence elections. I don't think there's anything that we can do to prevent this. We can denounce Russia all we want (and I'm not advocating that we don't), but it's not going to solve the problem.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

It'd be nice if western Europe was interested in something like that.

Yeah, it would be. Germany seems in, but that's about it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

France and Germany ending up with far-right leaders would have more to do with the left leaders fucking things up than Putin's games.

National Front is supported monetarily by the Russians and the German government is raising the alarm about Russian influence. The Russians are involved with many Euro far-right nationalist parties.

[lungs]

With all this talk, it's still the people that go out and vote for these lunatics. Yes, the masses are easily swayed. But if they are easily swayed by a ruse from a foreign country, why can't they be swayed by the people we want to win? (Written from a left of center viewpoint)

It's just hard for me to get too up in arms about Russia's meddling when I know it was my friends and neighbors that went to the poll and voted for Trump. Not Vladimir Putin.

Those of us left of center just need to play the game better.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

You screwed over a huge portion of your base with the super-delegates in the primary and then ran a shitty candidate who lost... get over it.

Isn't that what most posters are doing? I mean, posting inconsequential thoughts on an internet forum, and then (I assume) getting on with our day, seems like a pretty healthy/beneficial response.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lungs

Those of us left of center just need to play the game better.

I think that's starting to become a takeaway as many left leaning groups are saying we need to take lessons from the Tea Party in how to obstruct and win. Though that also means a direct repudiation of any attempts of political civility. So the question is how many folks are willing to cross that way.

[Zinto]

I don't understand why people are getting so upset about liberals and some conservatives not wanting Russia or any other foreign entity influencing our elections. This shouldn't have happened but at this point it is going to be up to the Republicans in power to make sure it doesn't happen again. Just because it was against the Democrats this time doesn't mean that the Republicans won't be the target next time.

This also doesn't/won't make Trump's presidency illegitimate. He is allowed to govern as a conservative populist and should be able to implement his policies even if I do not agree with them. That is what winning an election looks like.

What we should be against is anything that steps out of line with how our country is supposed to run. We need to be against conflicts of interest that put the Trump family ahead of American needs. We need to push back on blatant lies that change the target of what the truth is. We need to fight back against our more fascist tendencies. But these things are true if Donald Trump is president or Kanye West is president in 2024.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

You screwed over a huge portion of your base with the super-delegates in the primary and then ran a shitty candidate who lost... get over it.

Wait, what? The super-delegates had zero effect on the outcome.

[JPhillips]

It was an extremely close election, so everything mattered. Hillary lost because,

third terms for one party almost never happen
she ignored the upper midwest
the Russian hacks
Stein/Johnson voters
she isn't a good campaigner
Comey's letter
etc.

One hundred thousand votes in the right places changes the election. There isn't A reason she lost. Any number of changes could have resulted in a different outcome.

[JPhillips]

I'll never understand the thought that Clinton was a poor candidate, so it doesn't matter if the Russians influence the election.

[tarcone]

As a candidate, I believe she thought it was a done deal she would be elected. I dont think she put in the work required. And example would be never setting foot in Wisconsin.
Thats why, IMO, she was a bad candidate.

Well, among other things, but those are more with her and not as a candidate.

[larrymcg421]

It's easy to say that she should've paid attention to the midwest after the fact, but she didn't trail a single Wisconsin poll the whole election.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Clinton

Yes, if she had ignored Florida and North Carolina, but instead secured those three midwestern states, she would've been President. But you can only say that with the benefit of hindsight. That strategy made no sense at all with the data that was available.

And either way, that's a strategic error, not an "I don't want to work" error.

[PilotMan]

Lawyer: 'Appalled' by FBI warrant that shook Clinton

The letter confirms news reports in late October that the FBI had detected “non-content header information” suggesting correspondence with accounts involved in its already-completed investigation of Clinton's private email server. The FBI request concludes there is “probable cause to believe” that the laptop contained “evidence, contraband, fruits and/or items illegally possessed,” without providing specifics.
"I see nothing at all in the search warrant application that would give rise to probable cause, nothing that would make anyone suspect that there was anything on the laptop beyond what the FBI had already searched and determined not to be evidence of a crime, nothing to suggest that there would be anything other than routine correspondence between" Clinton and Abedin, Schoenberg said in an email to USA TODAY. It remains unknown "why they thought they might find evidence of a crime, why they felt it necessary to inform Congress, and why they even sought this search warrant," he said. "I am appalled." The FBI's Manhattan office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Republicans have mocked the Clintons’ contention and said it’s an excuse for some of the strategic mistakes the campaign made.
Yet the election was decided by the smallest of margins in a handful of Rust Belt states. Nate Silver, a leading elections statistician and editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, says “Comey had a large, measurable impact on the race" and that she “would almost certainly be president-elect if the election had been held” the day before the letter. He cited late-deciding voters breaking strongly against her enough to cost her Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

So you take this, add the email hacks and you've got a measurable shift in the result of the result of the election. For what? All because people desperately wanted to believe the mantra that she was finally going to get busted for doing something wrong, but in the end, nada, with the result being some intense fucking with the election system.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll never understand the thought that Clinton was a poor candidate, so it doesn't matter if the Russians influence the election.

You're kidding, right? She had high unfavorable ratings as far back as 2008, before any leaked emails. It only got worse, esp. with all of the damage Sanders did. I think her unfavorable rating hit 53%, which would be historically high for a party's nominee (excepting Trump, of course). You cannot simply blame that away.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You're kidding, right? She had high unfavorable ratings as far back as 2008, before any leaked emails. It only got worse, esp. with all of the damage Sanders did. I think her unfavorable rating hit 53%, which would be historically high for a party's nominee (excepting Trump, of course). You cannot simply blame that away.

That's not what he said. He was saying he didn't understand that Clinton being a poor candidate meant that the Russian involvement doesn't matter.