CIA: Russians hacks were meant to rig the election for Trump

[Jhhnn]

This post is exactly what was needed a year ago, and for people to believe it made a huge difference in this election.

I have a good cross section of demographics on my Facebook feed, and any one that didn't support Hillary got brutalized in the comments. People got resentful and quiet about who they were voting for. If that lesson isn't learned, it's going to happen again.

The whole thing is incongruous, liberals are supportive of multiple bathrooms, belief systems that marginalized women & non heterosexual relationships, etc, but wouldn't tolerate anyone that didn't 100% support Hillary.

I could support Obama because he was a thoughtful, good politician, Hillary was Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.

Concern trolling bullshit. There is a time when libs & progs need to set aside their differences if we're to win. Clinton supporters would have backed Bernie unconditionally had he taken the nomination even though he's as flawed as Clinton if in entirely different ways. Bernie's supporters didn't do that. They made the perfect the enemy of the good. They were exceptionally vulnerable to concern trolling & sour grapes bullshit, to allegations they'd been cheated when they lost the primaries rather decisively.

They live in the post-truth era as much as the Trumpsters, quite by design. We'll all pay the price for that in the hard right turn of the Trump Admin & the Repub Congress. They're poised to reverse all the social & economic progress we've all fought so hard to have & to lock that down in a variety of ways, particularly in the SCOTUS.

Want change? We'll have it, no doubt, and none of of it will be good for the 99%.
.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So how do you explain the Trump +14% non-college whites and Clinton +10% college ones?

The vote totals were similar to 2012, given that inversion. Trump/Bannon just came up with a strategy to win with less votes, and the secret lies with the geography (ie EC) of racial resentment that nobody wants to admit about this country. Trumpsters don't have the integrity to admit it for obvious reasons, and liberals want to help them to save face for Murica.

How do you explain Obama. Your theory does not hold given that many of those non college educated whites were for Obama, some enthusiastically so.

Race not found

 

[Starbuck1975]

With all due respect, this drive to pin Trump's win on a single issue, or even a couple of issues, is misguided. America is a complex place, and elections are won and lost due to the interplay of all sorts of factors. Trump won not just due to racism, or Russians, or Clinton's email server. He won due to all of those things, and more. He won because he is an extraordinary con-man who made easy prey of the uneducated and of partisans who wanted to believe. He won because the media never figured out how to deal with the audacity of his endless lies, plus they really loved the ratings he brought. He won because of wedge issues like guns and abortion, doubly important to Republicans who expect to fill several SCOTUS vacancies.

Clinton lost because Comey sabotaged her at just the right time to create maximal damage. She lost because fake news sites spread convincing lies. She lost because she took some "blue" states for granted, didn't campaign enough in them, and didn't address the concerns of their residents. She lost because she lacks charisma and isn't very likable, because she sounds like she's lying even when she's telling the truth, and because the Clinton baggage made her unusually vulnerable to attacks. Finally, she lost because Americans wanted change, and "I'm not Trump" wasn't enough.

For those reasons and many, many more, Trump won and Clinton didn't.

Nicely balanced summary. The only point I disagree on is that Comey sabotaged her. She made her bed.

 

[agent00f]

How do you explain Obama.

The short answer is he wasn't running against Trump.

How things like racial resentment work is they're emotionally motivating factors, ready to be activated by the right environment, or in this case politican. McCain/Romney who didn't want anything to do with birtherism certainly weren't that politician.

One of the strengths and sources of Obama's charisma was the ambivalence he was able to lend to his image/brand, for example as a black looking man who was actually quite white. Or the stuffy intellectual was often quite cool & chill. This allows a very wide range of people charmed by a likable personality to identify in some way. As I've mentioned before, this is the skill of a once in a lifetime politician.

Your theory does not hold given that many of those non college educatef whites were for Obama, some enthusiastically so.

Race not found

The people most enthusiastic about obama certainly weren't going for Trump, and it's understandable why you refuse to see the central role of race resentment even if all data points to it as the cornerstone of trump support. What it says about this country is really quite embarrassing, which is why the GOP establishment was destined to lose with their increasingly less racist strategy (ie the one you also prefer) until Trump came along.

 

[Jhhnn]

How do you explain Obama. Your theory does not hold given that many of those non college educated whites were for Obama, some enthusiastically so.

Race not found

You confuse groups with individuals within the groups. Turnout is low enough that the change can be explained by that alone. In 2008, bigots stayed home because neither candidate appealed to them. They voted in droves in 2016 because Trump pitched directly to their sentiments. Non-college educated whites are not a monolith.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The short answer is he wasn't running against Trump.

How things like racial resentment work is they're emotionally motivating factors, ready to be activated by the right environment, or in this case politican. McCain/Romney who didn't want anything to do with birtherism certainly weren't that politician.

One of the strengths and sources of Obama's charisma was the ambivalence he was able to lend to his image/brand, for example as a black looking man who was actually quite white. Or the stuffy intellectual was often quite cool & chill. This allows a very wide range of people charmed by a likable personality to identify in some way. As I've mentioned before, this is the skill of a once in a lifetime politician.

The people most enthusiastic about obama certainly weren't going for Trump, and it's understandable why you refuse to see the central role of race resentment even if all data points to it as the cornerstone of trump support. What it says about this country is really quite embarrassing, which is why the GOP establishment was destined to lose with their increasingly less racist strategy (ie the one you also prefer) until Trump came along.

Compare how Obama celebrated and Hillary anticipated celebrating their respective victories. Despite the historic nature of Obama's victory, progressives obsessed over his race more so than he did. Obama transcended race to the extent that he normalized the notion of a black President. Sure he occasionally throws a BET event at the White House, and he struggled to find a unifying voice during BLM, but race really wasn't central to what defined his Presidency.

Clinton on the other hand struggled to find a voice beyond her gender. The glass ceiling balloons that never dropped.

As for Trump, you need to understand why his language resonates, and it goes deeper than race. It is not so much an underyling resentment of race but rather an underlying resentment of making many things about race that are not.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You confuse groups with individuals within the groups. Turnout is low enough that the change can be explained by that alone. In 2008, bigots stayed home because neither candidate appealed to them. They voted in droves in 2016 because Trump pitched directly to their sentiments. Non-college educated whites are not a monolith.

Wouldn't the bigots come out in force against a black President? I would expect bigots to react more emotionally and passionately to the notion of a Kenyan voodoo Islamic manchurian candidate black man as opposed to a midwestern white woman whose main fault is that she is not a very good liar.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wouldn't the bigots come out in force against a black President? I would expect bigots to react more emotionally and passionately to the notion of a Kenyan voodoo Islamic manchurian candidate black man as opposed to a midwestern white woman whose main fault is that she is not a very good liar.

McCain denounced racism & bigotry. They knew they wouldn't win anything voting for him. Trump said he'd make America White again & really revved 'em up. They loved it. He called them out from under their rocks like no candidate since Strom Thurmond, who not coincidentally led the charge in the switching of White Southerners' allegiance to the Repub party.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Boohoohoo........Liberals still crying that Hillary didn't win.

 

[Commodus]

Boohoohoo........Liberals still crying that Hillary didn't win.

Thanks for that substantive, thoughtful post that advances the discussion.

 

[IronWing]

Thanks for that substantive, thoughtful post that advances the discussion.

At least it wasn't an insult because Londo Jowo never lowers himself to offer insults.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Thanks for that substantive, thoughtful post that advances the discussion.

Wait? You're trying to offer substantive , thoughtful discussion in this forum by being a total asshole? If i'd only known that's what you and the other partisan douchebags that post in this forum were trying to do i'd work harder at being reasonable, but you're not. You do know that this is a thread that you and your partisan buddies are accusing the incoming President of the United States of being in a conspiracy with the Russians to illegally win the Presidential election and offers absolutely no proof or evidence that this is true? That this is all being done before any in depth bi-partisan investigation occurs? Take a fsking hike.

 

[First]

Wait? You're trying to offer substantive , thoughtful discussion in this forum by being a total asshole? If i'd only known that's what you and the other partisan douchebags that post in this forum were trying to do i'd work harder at being reasonable, but you're not. You do know that this is a thread that you and your partisan buddies are accusing the incoming President of the United States of being in a conspiracy with the Russians to illegally win the Presidential election and offers absolutely no proof or evidence that this is true? That this is all being done before any in depth bi-partisan investigation occurs? Take a fsking hike.

It's funny when you post.

 

[Commodus]

Wait? You're trying to offer substantive , thoughtful discussion in this forum by being a total asshole? If i'd only known that's what you and the other partisan douchebags that post in this forum were trying to do i'd work harder at being reasonable, but you're not. You do know that this is a thread that you and your partisan buddies are accusing the incoming President of the United States of being in a conspiracy with the Russians to illegally win the Presidential election and offers absolutely no proof or evidence that this is true? That this is all being done before any in depth bi-partisan investigation occurs? Take a fsking hike.

The whole point is that Londo isn't being constructive; his post accomplished nothing.

And I'm not saying that Trump was in a conspiracy to rig the election; however, there is mounting evidence that the Russians conducted hacks specifically to skew the election in favor of Trump. The question now is whether or not Trump's campaign knew of Wikileaks' intentions and, possibly, the origins of the leaks.

And yes, there is public evidence of shadiness. Take Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, for example. They show all the signs of Russian state-sponsored attacks and were connected to the DNC hacks. Then there's Guccifer 2.0, who initially claimed to be Romanian but was revealed to be Russian after some sleuthing. Combine that with the White House linking the hacks to the Russian government, multiple established news outlets tying the hacks to Russian manipulation... you're facing an uphill battle here.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The fact that Russians/Soviets have been trying to damage this country for 70 years isn't a surprise to anyone, but the claim that the incoming President of the United States colluded with them to make it happen, which is what you and the rest of you ilk keep trying to insinuate, is bullshit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wait? You're trying to offer substantive , thoughtful discussion in this forum by being a total asshole? If i'd only known that's what you and the other partisan douchebags that post in this forum were trying to do i'd work harder at being reasonable, but you're not. You do know that this is a thread that you and your partisan buddies are accusing the incoming President of the United States of being in a conspiracy with the Russians to illegally win the Presidential election and offers absolutely no proof or evidence that this is true? That this is all being done before any in depth bi-partisan investigation occurs? Take a fsking hike.

Heh. I don't believe that the Trump campaign & the right wing noise machine conspired with the Russians at all. OTOH, Trump invited their interference & Repub operatives make mountains out of molehills with what the Russians gave them, just like they did with Benghazi, Hillary's email, The Clinton Foundation, her health & all the rest of it.

Character assassination works, obviously. It's also a highly contagious thing, gossip being what it is.

At the core of it is an inability among Conservatives to look at themselves & try to understand how they ended up on the same side of the election as Putin & the Russian Oligarchs. It really should give them pause & reason to question their own beliefs yet no such thing happens. Their persistence of belief is astonishing.

 

[OutHouse]

Heh. I don't believe that the Trump campaign & the right wing noise machine conspired with the Russians at all. OTOH, Trump invited their interference & Repub operatives make mountains out of molehills with what the Russians gave them, just like they did with Benghazi, Hillary's email, The Clinton Foundation, her health & all the rest of it.

Character assassination works, obviously. It's also a highly contagious thing, gossip being what it is.

At the core of it is an inability among Conservatives to look at themselves & try to understand how they ended up on the same side of the election as Putin & the Russian Oligarchs. It really should give them pause & reason to question their own beliefs yet no such thing happens. Their persistence of belief is astonishing.

RUSSIANS!!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

RUSSIANS!!!!

No... REPUBLICANS! The fact that the Russians support Trump too just tells us how screwed up they really are.

 

[alien42]

The fact that Russians/Soviets have been trying to damage this country for 70 years isn't a surprise to anyone, but the claim that the incoming President of the United States colluded with them to make it happen, which is what you and the rest of you ilk keep trying to insinuate, is bullshit.

you and Trump are considered unwilling agents, which doesn't require collusion.

but we can't forget everything Trump has said about Russia and Putin and his statements regarding Russian hacking during the debates.

 

[cubby1223]

At the core of it is an inability among Conservatives to look at themselves & try to understand how they ended up on the same side of the election as Putin & the Russian Oligarchs. It really should give them pause & reason to question their own beliefs yet no such thing happens. Their persistence of belief is astonishing.

It's more the inability among liberals to look at themselves & try to understand how they ended up alienating a large percentage of the nation with identity politics.

And the more liberals cling to their elitist attitudes and blame everything else in the world, the more the world will move forward without you.

 

[ivwshane]

It's more the inability among liberals to look at themselves & try to understand how they ended up alienating a large percentage of the nation with identity politics.

And the more liberals cling to their elitist attitudes and blame everything else in the world, the more the world will move forward without you.

Another safe spaces bitch

 

[cubby1223]

Another safe spaces bitch

I've had to do this with you on many countless occasions. Please tell me we don't need to drag out another 5-page discussion of what basic definitions of word are.

"Safe Spaces" - I need a confined location because your presence is scary to me.

This space we're talking about here - You can blabber all you want, you are irrelevant and incapable of harming me

Please, ivwshane, please educate yourself on basic definitions. You continue to be one of the most unproductive people on this forum.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's more the inability among liberals to look at themselves & try to understand how they ended up alienating a large percentage of the nation with identity politics.

And the more liberals cling to their elitist attitudes and blame everything else in the world, the more the world will move forward without you.

That's amazing, considering that Trump epitomizes White identity politics, particularly rural & small town Whites.

 

[ivwshane]

I've had to do this with you on many countless occasions. Please tell me we don't need to drag out another 5-page discussion of what basic definitions of word are.

"Safe Spaces" - I need a confined location because your presence is scary to me.

This space we're talking about here - You can blabber all you want, you are irrelevant and incapable of harming me

Please, ivwshane, please educate yourself on basic definitions. You continue to be one of the most unproductive people on this forum.

Lol! I'll be sure to take my advice from a bubble dweller like you who feels upset because liberals are mean to righties with their elitist attitude.

Sure!


The irony, coming from a guy who supported a candidate who's slogan was "make America great again".

 

[agent00f]

Compare how Obama celebrated and Hillary anticipated celebrating their respective victories. Despite the historic nature of Obama's victory, progressives obsessed over his race more so than he did. Obama transcended race to the extent that he normalized the notion of a black President. Sure he occasionally throws a BET event at the White House, and he struggled to find a unifying voice during BLM, but race really wasn't central to what defined his Presidency.

Clinton on the other hand struggled to find a voice beyond her gender. The glass ceiling balloons that never dropped.

Irrelevant given that she by anything else other than a quirk of the EC, ie relatively few votes in some backwater, won the election. Of course someone like obama might've done better, but not necessarily with people who see their white (master) racial identity as motivated by trump > just about everything else.

As for Trump, you need to understand why his language resonates, and it goes deeper than race. It is not so much an underyling resentment of race but rather an underlying resentment of making many things about race that are not.

Instead of drawing ideologically convenient conclusions with very incomplete info, you should look into what the racial resentment surveys ask, and how these people answered. They very much see themselves as losing control over the country, thus the resonance of making american great again.

Eg. they see black people getting some welfare/subsidy, and just can't stand it even though their own handouts are far more lucrative. To be specific if the state gave millions to a thousand inner folks for whatever, you wouldn't get reaction as Trump's Maga carrier deal.