This week began with a mass email from the head of the Democratic National Committee, who declared: “By now, Americans know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Russian government orchestrated a series of cyberattacks on political campaigns and organizations over the past two years and used stolen information to influence the presidential campaign and congressional races.” DNC chair Donna Brazile went on: “The integrity of our elections is too important for Congress to refuse to take these attacks seriously.”
Yet another breath of fresh air.
I believe the Russian hacking story is a distraction. Even if Russia was involved in hacking, it is far less of a factor in the outcome of our elections than the rigging of the system by the Republican and Democratic parties.
With the Russian ambassador being assassinated, China "returning" that Navy torpedo drone or wtf it was (and more examples than I care to indicate here), I'm totally expecting China and Russia to turn the US into their bitch over the next 4 years.
In my opinion, Clinton lost for one reason. She was a lousy candidate. This frantic search for any reason than THAT seems like a desperate avoidance of the truth. Putin, the FBI, emails, ad infinitum ... are just excuses.
The important thing to emphasize regarding Putin is not what Democrats are saying about hacking but the mass murder he is perpetrating in Aleppo. This genocide matters not at all to Trump - he appears to buy Putin's lie that everyone in that doomed city is a terrorist. And the Obama administration, like the rest of the West, is looking on with what amounts to indifference.
Since 2011, I have thought that the Syrian War somewhat resembles the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War, not least in that Russia has weighed in heavily on one side and is using its presence, as Stalin did, to murder countless innocent people. Back then, the US, Britain and France also looked on with indifference to both the Soviet and Fascist intervention in Spain. And the West's weakness probably encouraged Hitler to think he could invade Poland without anything more than loud complaints from the democracies. Putin might draw the same conclusion today from Syria and turn next to Ukraine or the Baltic states.
A significant point missed by Democrats and progressives regarding Russia and Trump is that Trump, like Neville Chamberlain, may indeed wish to appease an aggressive regime in every way possible. But dictators like Putin are never satisfied and will keep pushing until even their weakest opponents hit back. Few remember now but it was the gutless Chamberlain who approved the British declaration of war on HItler on September 3, 1939. Trump could be expected to turn against Russia much more quickly, with unforeseeable results.
I disagree. I think Clinton lost for a variety of reasons including but not limited to being a bad candidate. If she had failed to win the popular vote I might agree with you but given her popular vote victory other considerations can come into play. Of course, being a better candidate would have been a big help. But given her popular vote victory she didn't necessarily need to be a better candidate. She could have been the candidate she was with perhaps a different ground game in the three states necessary to flip the election, etc.
Yes, and her fans cannot accept that. She is old, and a thing of the past.
It's over get over that.
Does Solomon have any evidence that Putin did not hack our election? Granted, the evidence indicating he did is not certain or transparent, but an extremely serious charge has been made with at least some evidence. If Solomon wants us to ignore the charge, he should have some argument for why the charge is wrong.
Beyond the hack, I would suggest the evidence that we can see also indicates that Putin is actively calling the shots for Trump, whose cabinet picks are almost entirely focused on promoting oil and gas interests while denying climate change. That has never been a big focus for Trump historically, while it is the entire basis for Russia's economy. This looks and smells like a coup.
Yes, she won the popular vote, but did not win in the retro US system of the electoral college.
It may be a focus of our election, but it's LIVES LOST in Syria.
The Democratic Party hacks, DNC hierarchy, and lackey apologists for HRC are desperate to cling to power/influence to divert attention from their own stupidity and arrogance!! Tne history of HRC, her phony, calculated politics, and servitude to big-money created the loss that gave the presidency, congress and at least one scotus justice to the pathology of trump & co! The Clintons, Obama, the DNC, Brazile, Schumer, Pelosi, Cuomo and all the DINO sellouts lost the election, NOT "the Russians", Wikileaks, Sanders, millenials, or any other BS diversion cooked up by the desperate Clinton/Obama, et al corporate/banker sellout wing!
"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks and one of his associates, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a “disgruntled” Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community.
Although Assange recently has sought to muzzle Murray’s public comments – out of apparent concern for protecting the identity of sources – Murray offered possibly his most expansive account of the sourcing during a podcast interview with Scott Horton on Dec. 13."
I'm quite over it and not really at all bothered by the result since I think the Republican party is very likely to marginalize itself out of existence now.
Most certainly true. DT won the election, HRC did not. HRC did win the popular vote. The popular vote is relatively meaningless as the constitutions clearly defines.
I plan on trumpeting HRC's popular vote win, however, to underscore DT's complete and utter lack of mandate.
Foreign intervention in American elections! How shocking! Truth is, other countries have been influencing not only our elections, but government policy for decades, via billions of dollars they've invested here in the the U.S. via stock in multi-national corporations, properties and campaign financing and it's no longer even questioned. Anyone care to guess how many politicians AIPAC has in its pocket (Clinton being one)? What Putin may or may not have done is amateurish and small potatoes by comparison. Nothing to see, here. Move on.
How do you prove a negative.?
It is almost inconceivable to not see this basic fact. I started listening to old Jimmy Dore episodes recently and they were shouting this in Feburary - Clinton was the most unfavorable candidate in the recent history of Democrats. Polls were estimating 1/2 the country wasn't going to vote for her no matter who her opponent was. I'm guessing she would have lost against McCain in 08 too. The fact that she got close to winning against Trump does indicate that a few more optimizations (actually campaigning in Wisconsin for example) could have put her over the top but against Trump, it's crazy that this was even necessary. I absolutely believe Bernie would have won. I even think O'Malley would have won. I'll bet other women like Warren or Gillibrand or perhaps Gabbard would have won. I sure hope we have a field of good options as good as Bernie next time and I don't want to hear from the Clintons anymore about anything.
Hey bro...how's the weather at Langely today?
The Russia-hacking hysteria is surely some kind of PSYOP. My burning question is this:
- Is it designed to make libs & progressives chase their tales for a few months?
- Or is it part of a campaign to condition USA for war (or proxy war) with Russia? (Seems very likely that it fits in the fiasco in Syria.)