Topic: Is Hillary Clinton a worse loser than you expected?
Anonymous A started this discussion 9 years ago #57,867
She just lowered the bar again.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 40 minutes later[^] [v] #742,477
I honestly think she's holding up better than Trump would have, had he loss. Look at it this way. Before she lost, she said that she would accept the election results, which is false. Trump had no comment on whether he would accept the results, so that shows that he wouldn't have accepted the results and would have likely had somebody killed by now.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #742,479
Anonymous B replied with this 9 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,491
@previous (A)
Not really. I'm sure it was a painful and shocking for her to lose. In her mind, she was 100% certain she'd win. I'm sure she feels cheated, which she likely was due to Putin.
Not really. I'm sure it was a painful and shocking for her to lose. In her mind, she was 100% certain she'd win. I'm sure she feels cheated, which she likely was due to Putin.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,494
Did you know that if you take Nate Silver's predictions, then bet what Nate Silver says is going to happen on Betfair you can make shitloads of money for free?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,495
@742,491 (B)
Those emails were leaked by 4chan skiddies phishing passwords. That's not state sponsored hacking.
Those emails were leaked by 4chan skiddies phishing passwords. That's not state sponsored hacking.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,497
@previous (A)
Podesta was phishing but i think the evidence points to it being Fancy Bear, not 4chan.
Podesta was phishing but i think the evidence points to it being Fancy Bear, not 4chan.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,507
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You don't need state support to hack important people's emails. Guccifer ended up being an unemployed Romanian taxi driver. I remember some 14 year old kid got control of Sarah Palin's Yahoo account back in '08. It could have been Putin but I'm just saying the Podesta phishing was like Nigerian-level stuff.
You don't need state support to hack important people's emails. Guccifer ended up being an unemployed Romanian taxi driver. I remember some 14 year old kid got control of Sarah Palin's Yahoo account back in '08. It could have been Putin but I'm just saying the Podesta phishing was like Nigerian-level stuff.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,508
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
You don't need it but that doesn't mean there wasn't any lol. No one is saying the Podesta hack is some PhD. level espionage that no one except elite Russian hackers could do. They're saying it was orchestrated by Russian intelligence services through a third party.
You don't need it but that doesn't mean there wasn't any lol. No one is saying the Podesta hack is some PhD. level espionage that no one except elite Russian hackers could do. They're saying it was orchestrated by Russian intelligence services through a third party.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,510
@742,507 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
And the CIA's investigation counts for nothing?
Yes, the hack was simplistic, but the CIA investigated the matter and said the evidence points to Russia being behind it.
And the CIA's investigation counts for nothing?
Yes, the hack was simplistic, but the CIA investigated the matter and said the evidence points to Russia being behind it.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
ko joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,513
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
meta knows better than the CIA he's made this clear several times
meta knows better than the CIA he's made this clear several times
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,522
@742,477 (B)
> Look at it this way. Before she lost, she said that she would accept the election results, which is false
You are aware that a candidate has the right to request a recount should they feel it necessary. Hillary withdrew her support of a recount anyway. Jill Stein was the one who petitioned for one.
Of course, there should be a recount, though, considering the huge popular vote lead and the Russian hacking. We're going to be hearing about a lot of corrupt shit from this election for the years to come.
> Look at it this way. Before she lost, she said that she would accept the election results, which is false
You are aware that a candidate has the right to request a recount should they feel it necessary. Hillary withdrew her support of a recount anyway. Jill Stein was the one who petitioned for one.
Of course, there should be a recount, though, considering the huge popular vote lead and the Russian hacking. We're going to be hearing about a lot of corrupt shit from this election for the years to come.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,523
@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
> We're going to be hearing about a lot of corrupt shit from this election for the years to come.
Trump said he wasn't going to go after Hillary to lock her up though.
> We're going to be hearing about a lot of corrupt shit from this election for the years to come.
Trump said he wasn't going to go after Hillary to lock her up though.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #742,524
@742,513 (ko)
Don't believe all the fake news you read from the CIA. Operation Mockingbird is alive and well in USAmerica.
Don't believe all the fake news you read from the CIA. Operation Mockingbird is alive and well in USAmerica.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,525
@742,523 (A)
How is that corrupt? I'm talking about reports of voting fraud, machine malfunctions, forgotten ballots, miscounted ballots, etc.
How is that corrupt? I'm talking about reports of voting fraud, machine malfunctions, forgotten ballots, miscounted ballots, etc.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,526
@742,510 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Look you can call me crazy if you want but I'm skeptical of what anonymous CIA sources have to say in the Washington Post after Iraq.
Look you can call me crazy if you want but I'm skeptical of what anonymous CIA sources have to say in the Washington Post after Iraq.
ko replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,527
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 54 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,529
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 54 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,530
@742,527 (ko)
That's where the report came from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html
That's where the report came from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,534
@742,526 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
I'm not calling you crazy- I'm calling you a person who, likely erroneously, believes he knows better than a world-class intelligence agency.
I'm not calling you crazy- I'm calling you a person who, likely erroneously, believes he knows better than a world-class intelligence agency.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,536
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)But I actually did know more than a world-class intelligence agency in 2002!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 55 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,537
@742,534 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
They always tell the truth. Always. The intelligence community have never lied about anything ever.
They always tell the truth. Always. The intelligence community have never lied about anything ever.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,538
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,539
@742,536 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
When a combative country has weapons of mass destruction the best course of action is always to attack them!
Did the Cold War teach you nothing? Is peace via mutual destruction no longer a stalemate?
When a combative country has weapons of mass destruction the best course of action is always to attack them!
Did the Cold War teach you nothing? Is peace via mutual destruction no longer a stalemate?
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 4 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,540
@742,536 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
So maybe your guessing won out over their analysis back in 2002- I, for one, would still trust the investigatory abilities of the CIA over my own instincts on a matter such as this even had there been one high-profile mistake previously.
So maybe your guessing won out over their analysis back in 2002- I, for one, would still trust the investigatory abilities of the CIA over my own instincts on a matter such as this even had there been one high-profile mistake previously.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,541
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Over a million people died in that one high profile mistake. What about the Gulf of Tonkin?
Over a million people died in that one high profile mistake. What about the Gulf of Tonkin?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 44 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,549
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,550
@previous (squeegee)
I guess? The Podesta emails were a giant nothingburger and I don't think they influenced the election either way.
I guess? The Podesta emails were a giant nothingburger and I don't think they influenced the election either way.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,551
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
How did they not influence the election? They were the source of a large amount of the press coverage surrounding Hillary.
How did they not influence the election? They were the source of a large amount of the press coverage surrounding Hillary.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,552
brie !kGoudaMCFA joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,553
@742,551 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The press influenced the election, not Russian hackers.
They decide what to report. I bet if I leaked to the Internet that I farted nobody would report on it.
The press influenced the election, not Russian hackers.
They decide what to report. I bet if I leaked to the Internet that I farted nobody would report on it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 47 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,554
brie !kGoudaMCFA replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,555
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
How many people would have known about an obscure leak if the press didn't cover it?
How many people would have known about an obscure leak if the press didn't cover it?
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,557
@742,553 (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
@previous (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
And the press would never have known about those emails, had the Russian-backed hackers not leaked the info in the first place.
You can't blame the press for covering the leaks. It's their job to report these sorts of things.
@previous (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
And the press would never have known about those emails, had the Russian-backed hackers not leaked the info in the first place.
You can't blame the press for covering the leaks. It's their job to report these sorts of things.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,559
@742,551 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Because there was nothing of interest in them. They were boring as shit. If anything they made Clinton look better. They did cause about seven people to think that Comet Ping Pong has a child sex dungeon, but they were probably already mentally ill anyway.
And hey what about Comey bringing up the private email server emails a week before election day? Is he a Russian too? What about Weiner keeping thousands of Hillary's emails on his laptop? Is Weiner a Russian?
Because there was nothing of interest in them. They were boring as shit. If anything they made Clinton look better. They did cause about seven people to think that Comet Ping Pong has a child sex dungeon, but they were probably already mentally ill anyway.
And hey what about Comey bringing up the private email server emails a week before election day? Is he a Russian too? What about Weiner keeping thousands of Hillary's emails on his laptop? Is Weiner a Russian?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 26 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,560
@742,555 (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
I think we're talking past eachother. The media's coverage of the emails affected the election. The people responsible for obtaining his emails knew that releasing them would invite press scrutiny and influence the election.
I think we're talking past eachother. The media's coverage of the emails affected the election. The people responsible for obtaining his emails knew that releasing them would invite press scrutiny and influence the election.
brie !kGoudaMCFA replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,562
@742,557 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I think that journalistic integrity includes not reporting on some things under certain conditions.
They probably just reported it so that they could make ad bucks on the resulting drama about whether or not it was Russia.
I think that journalistic integrity includes not reporting on some things under certain conditions.
They probably just reported it so that they could make ad bucks on the resulting drama about whether or not it was Russia.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,566
@742,559 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
One of those seven people is the son of a general in Trump's cabinet lol. The other is Kook who will defend its validity here whether or not you ask her to. The emails were not reported on in a way that made her look good, whether or not the emails themselves were innocuous. Everything bill or hill does is looked at as prima facie evidence of some kind of corruption, so having thousands of emails publicized is not a good look. Comey definitely hurt her, and Weiner not being able to keep his dick in his pants for five minutes also hurt her. I dont know why you think i am such a simplistic person that me saying "X mattered" means i also think "nothing except X mattered".
One of those seven people is the son of a general in Trump's cabinet lol. The other is Kook who will defend its validity here whether or not you ask her to. The emails were not reported on in a way that made her look good, whether or not the emails themselves were innocuous. Everything bill or hill does is looked at as prima facie evidence of some kind of corruption, so having thousands of emails publicized is not a good look. Comey definitely hurt her, and Weiner not being able to keep his dick in his pants for five minutes also hurt her. I dont know why you think i am such a simplistic person that me saying "X mattered" means i also think "nothing except X mattered".
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,567
Trump.
brie !kGoudaMCFA replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,570
@742,560 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Next thing you know the press will be reporting on reddit comments... wait, isn't that what pizzagate is?
Next thing you know the press will be reporting on reddit comments... wait, isn't that what pizzagate is?
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,574
@742,562 (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
Think whatever you want about their motivations. Maybe they were just doing it for some easy money rather than out of any sense of duty to inform the public. Either way, never would've gotten to the press without those hackers, who likely knew the USA's journalists would report it.
@742,559 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Not quite true. I'm no expert, but I recall they at least had that interesting tidbit about Hillary suggesting America somehow influence a Middle Eastern election. If memory serves, you weren't impressed with that.
> And hey what about Comey bringing up the private email server emails a week before election day? Is he a Russian too? What about Weiner keeping thousands of Hillary's emails on his laptop? Is Weiner a Russian?
Oh come on. That's not how hysterical this is at all and I think you know that. Russia has done dodgy stuff before, would benefit from getting the more amenable Trump into power, and the CIA are saying they did it. Whether you agree or not, surely you can see it's not an unreasonable basis?
Think whatever you want about their motivations. Maybe they were just doing it for some easy money rather than out of any sense of duty to inform the public. Either way, never would've gotten to the press without those hackers, who likely knew the USA's journalists would report it.
@742,559 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Not quite true. I'm no expert, but I recall they at least had that interesting tidbit about Hillary suggesting America somehow influence a Middle Eastern election. If memory serves, you weren't impressed with that.
> And hey what about Comey bringing up the private email server emails a week before election day? Is he a Russian too? What about Weiner keeping thousands of Hillary's emails on his laptop? Is Weiner a Russian?
Oh come on. That's not how hysterical this is at all and I think you know that. Russia has done dodgy stuff before, would benefit from getting the more amenable Trump into power, and the CIA are saying they did it. Whether you agree or not, surely you can see it's not an unreasonable basis?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,578
One of these days someone will criticize a position I actually hold, and not some position they read online by someone I also disagree with.
@742,570 (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
Where did I say I had a problem with the media reporting on this issue? I may think they were uncharitable in the way they covered them, but there is nothing in principle I disagree with.
@742,570 (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
Where did I say I had a problem with the media reporting on this issue? I may think they were uncharitable in the way they covered them, but there is nothing in principle I disagree with.
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 23 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,579
brie !kGoudaMCFA replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,580
@742,578 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Sorry, I just think it's kind of funny that they took the hacker's bait and ran with it.
Sorry, I just think it's kind of funny that they took the hacker's bait and ran with it.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 15 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,581
@742,578 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> One of these days someone will criticize a position I actually hold
Magic the Gathering is for nerds!
You're welcome.
> One of these days someone will criticize a position I actually hold
Magic the Gathering is for nerds!
You're welcome.
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 33 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,582
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,583
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 28 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,585
@742,580 (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
Oh yeah the media got played. I'm not a fan of most U.S. media companies tbh.
@742,581 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Eat shit and die nerd.
Oh yeah the media got played. I'm not a fan of most U.S. media companies tbh.
@742,581 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Eat shit and die nerd.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,586
@742,583 (A)
Well the CIA isn't going to say "Our undercover agent in Moscow named James Smith, under the alias of Dimitry Kalishnokov overheard Putin saying "Hello hacker friends, please hack Hillary's campaign" even if that is what happened, for obvious reasons. Intelligence is very cloak and dagger.
Well the CIA isn't going to say "Our undercover agent in Moscow named James Smith, under the alias of Dimitry Kalishnokov overheard Putin saying "Hello hacker friends, please hack Hillary's campaign" even if that is what happened, for obvious reasons. Intelligence is very cloak and dagger.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,587
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That's not how Russia hacked the Brexit. Try to keep your outbursts a little more subdued
That's not how Russia hacked the Brexit. Try to keep your outbursts a little more subdued
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,588
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,590
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 58 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,591
@previous (A)
I am a championship caliber mtg player thanks. I bet you 0-4d your last FNM standard event scrub.
I am a championship caliber mtg player thanks. I bet you 0-4d your last FNM standard event scrub.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 5 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,694
@742,566 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> One of those seven people is the son of a general in Trump's cabinet lol.
Who was subsequently fired and removed from the transition team, IIRC.
@742,574 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I guess what I'm trying to get at is: did Russia phish Podesta's email? Sure, why not. They certainly have the means and the motive to do so. Did that (the WikiLeaks emails and the ensuing media coverage) swing the election? I don't think so. I cannot think of a single person who was going to vote Hillary but then decided to vote for Trump (or Stein or Johnson or whatever) because of the emails.
To say that the emails changed the outcome of the election you're saying that they changed the mind of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of voters and I just don't see that.
It's important to remember too that Hillary's previous email scandal (with the private server as Secretary of State), Weiner keeping thousands of said emails on his laptop, and James Comey opening, closing, and then re-opening the FBI investigation thereof had ZERO to do with Russia.
> One of those seven people is the son of a general in Trump's cabinet lol.
Who was subsequently fired and removed from the transition team, IIRC.
@742,574 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I guess what I'm trying to get at is: did Russia phish Podesta's email? Sure, why not. They certainly have the means and the motive to do so. Did that (the WikiLeaks emails and the ensuing media coverage) swing the election? I don't think so. I cannot think of a single person who was going to vote Hillary but then decided to vote for Trump (or Stein or Johnson or whatever) because of the emails.
To say that the emails changed the outcome of the election you're saying that they changed the mind of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of voters and I just don't see that.
It's important to remember too that Hillary's previous email scandal (with the private server as Secretary of State), Weiner keeping thousands of said emails on his laptop, and James Comey opening, closing, and then re-opening the FBI investigation thereof had ZERO to do with Russia.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,725
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Yeah but only after he posted about it on twitter. Trump attracts conspiracy nuts like flies to honey, and not every person who believes this inane shit posts about it on twitter.
And I don't see why it's so crazy to believe that reading the lurid details of her campaign manager's email as filtered through fox or cnn or whatever every day for months was totally inconsequential. It only had to persuade about 150k people to vote differently or not at all which honestly is miniscule. If it rained on election day in large parts of the country you'd see a swing of that magnitude. Voters are very fickle.
Yeah but only after he posted about it on twitter. Trump attracts conspiracy nuts like flies to honey, and not every person who believes this inane shit posts about it on twitter.
And I don't see why it's so crazy to believe that reading the lurid details of her campaign manager's email as filtered through fox or cnn or whatever every day for months was totally inconsequential. It only had to persuade about 150k people to vote differently or not at all which honestly is miniscule. If it rained on election day in large parts of the country you'd see a swing of that magnitude. Voters are very fickle.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 32 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,729
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and wager that people watching it on Fox News were not Hillary voters to begin with, and the people watching on CNN weren't dissuaded by the emails.
Also Hillary won more votes than Trump! It sucks that 40,000 Pennsylvanians have more influence on the election than 4,000,000 Californians but that's not Putin's fault. The problem is that Hillary (narrowly) failed to win in three rust belt states.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and wager that people watching it on Fox News were not Hillary voters to begin with, and the people watching on CNN weren't dissuaded by the emails.
Also Hillary won more votes than Trump! It sucks that 40,000 Pennsylvanians have more influence on the election than 4,000,000 Californians but that's not Putin's fault. The problem is that Hillary (narrowly) failed to win in three rust belt states.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,731
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Well not dissuaded from voting from Hillary but maybe dissuaded from staying home, and instead holding their nose and voting Trump. Obviously the problem is she won fewer electoral votes lol. That's like looking at a corpse with a bullet in its head and diagnosing the problem as being the bullet lodged in the brain. It's indisputably true and yet not particularly informative. The interesting thing is who shot the bullet. So what factors caused her to lose those states by thin margins. The problem is this is overdetermined. Everything caused it to some degree, even if nothing can be pointed to concretely as being THE defining reason.
Well not dissuaded from voting from Hillary but maybe dissuaded from staying home, and instead holding their nose and voting Trump. Obviously the problem is she won fewer electoral votes lol. That's like looking at a corpse with a bullet in its head and diagnosing the problem as being the bullet lodged in the brain. It's indisputably true and yet not particularly informative. The interesting thing is who shot the bullet. So what factors caused her to lose those states by thin margins. The problem is this is overdetermined. Everything caused it to some degree, even if nothing can be pointed to concretely as being THE defining reason.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 27 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,737
@742,530 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Allright, let's say it didn't swing the election. In another time loop, where everything is the same apart from those emails being leaked, the election still goes the same way.
Even then, Russia merely impacting the U.S election is still way too much for me. An American election should be purely driven by Americans, the Russians shouldn't be having any influence on it. And even if they didn't actually tip the scales here, who's to say they won't keep trying and succeed in other elections? I would certainly feel violated if the Kremlin brought about Prime Minister Corbyn (though that's purely hypothetical, given his poll ratings...).
Allright, let's say it didn't swing the election. In another time loop, where everything is the same apart from those emails being leaked, the election still goes the same way.
Even then, Russia merely impacting the U.S election is still way too much for me. An American election should be purely driven by Americans, the Russians shouldn't be having any influence on it. And even if they didn't actually tip the scales here, who's to say they won't keep trying and succeed in other elections? I would certainly feel violated if the Kremlin brought about Prime Minister Corbyn (though that's purely hypothetical, given his poll ratings...).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 21 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,738
@742,731 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Russian hackers working for Putin himself are being pointed to concretely as being THE defining reason
Russian hackers working for Putin himself are being pointed to concretely as being THE defining reason
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,746
@742,731 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So you're saying tens of thousands of people switched their allegiance from Hillary to a candidate with no government experience, no released tax returns, who lost all three debates, who was caught on videotape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, who dissed John McCains military service while he dodged the draft, who declared bankruptcy several times, who hasn't paid taxes in 20 years, who said a judge couldn't be fair because his parents were Mexican, who insulted the parents of a deceased veteran, who said he would marry his own daughter, who was endorsed by David Duke, who lost every poll, who was opposed by prominent members of his own party, who asked why we cant use nuclear weapons against ISIS, whose statements are rated 70% false on Politifact, because Hillary's campaign manager got phished? Seriously?
So you're saying tens of thousands of people switched their allegiance from Hillary to a candidate with no government experience, no released tax returns, who lost all three debates, who was caught on videotape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, who dissed John McCains military service while he dodged the draft, who declared bankruptcy several times, who hasn't paid taxes in 20 years, who said a judge couldn't be fair because his parents were Mexican, who insulted the parents of a deceased veteran, who said he would marry his own daughter, who was endorsed by David Duke, who lost every poll, who was opposed by prominent members of his own party, who asked why we cant use nuclear weapons against ISIS, whose statements are rated 70% false on Politifact, because Hillary's campaign manager got phished? Seriously?
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 22 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,751
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 54 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,760
@742,746 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
We'll it didn't have to be a complete 180 from Hillary to Trump. I find it quite feasible that there were people who had been on the fence, but were convinced to vote Trump by the email scandal.
Evidently, lots of people weren't majorly put off by his lack of experience and tendancy to have gaffes. Some people just quite liked his anti-immigrant and nationalist angles.
We'll it didn't have to be a complete 180 from Hillary to Trump. I find it quite feasible that there were people who had been on the fence, but were convinced to vote Trump by the email scandal.
Evidently, lots of people weren't majorly put off by his lack of experience and tendancy to have gaffes. Some people just quite liked his anti-immigrant and nationalist angles.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,761
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
It's a two party system with Democrats and Republicans regardless of the candidates. Do you really think that catching the Dems out as liars and cheating Bernie is so bad because "Russian hackers" leaked it? It's more likely an internal leak anyway
It's a two party system with Democrats and Republicans regardless of the candidates. Do you really think that catching the Dems out as liars and cheating Bernie is so bad because "Russian hackers" leaked it? It's more likely an internal leak anyway
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 14 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,762
@previous (K)
Firstly, that's quite quite inaccurate. Yeah, realistically it's firmly between the Dems and the Republicans for who actually wins. But significant chunks of American voters backed the Greens, the Libertarians or no party at all.
Implying that everyone is either a dedicated Democrat or Republican is naive and obviously incorrect. You also seem to be glossing over the existence of undecided or tentative voters.
Firstly, that's quite quite inaccurate. Yeah, realistically it's firmly between the Dems and the Republicans for who actually wins. But significant chunks of American voters backed the Greens, the Libertarians or no party at all.
Implying that everyone is either a dedicated Democrat or Republican is naive and obviously incorrect. You also seem to be glossing over the existence of undecided or tentative voters.
(Edited 1 hour later.)
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 34 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,764
@742,760 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Hillary won more votes though! Bigly! Hillary won three million more votes. There are many things you can blame Putin for, but the Electoral College is not one of them. It's not Russia's fault that we use an antiquated 18th century method to select Presidents. Instead of analyzing why Hillary lost in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the Democratic party is going to spend the next four years blaming Russia, which is going to guarantee a full eight years of president Trump.
Also, the three states which swung the election for Trump (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) have voted Democratic since 1992. We're talking states that voted for Clinton twice, and Obama twice, going to Trump. I think it's more than the emails.
Hillary won more votes though! Bigly! Hillary won three million more votes. There are many things you can blame Putin for, but the Electoral College is not one of them. It's not Russia's fault that we use an antiquated 18th century method to select Presidents. Instead of analyzing why Hillary lost in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the Democratic party is going to spend the next four years blaming Russia, which is going to guarantee a full eight years of president Trump.
Also, the three states which swung the election for Trump (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) have voted Democratic since 1992. We're talking states that voted for Clinton twice, and Obama twice, going to Trump. I think it's more than the emails.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 9 years ago, 32 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,766
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,767
@742,764 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
I've never been blaming Russia's actions solely for the result, and I know that Hillary won the popular vote by quite a bit.
To put it concisely, I find it logical that the email hack did influence some voters to vote for Trump (or just not vote for Hillary). That in itself is unacceptable and worrying to me. Russia should not be meddling in the elections of other nations, and it's doubly worrying that they can have that influence even in an advanced first-world nation.
I've never been blaming Russia's actions solely for the result, and I know that Hillary won the popular vote by quite a bit.
To put it concisely, I find it logical that the email hack did influence some voters to vote for Trump (or just not vote for Hillary). That in itself is unacceptable and worrying to me. Russia should not be meddling in the elections of other nations, and it's doubly worrying that they can have that influence even in an advanced first-world nation.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #742,768
@742,766 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
But can I trust them? I like their buttered bible policy, but they're quite fond of twattering their opponents.
But can I trust them? I like their buttered bible policy, but they're quite fond of twattering their opponents.