Russian interference with the 2016 election

[oxmixmudd]

Meh. You're already so convinced of your position that Trump could show nothing but hostility towards Putin and Russia, and you'd claim he was just pretending.

Not true for me. My view of him as compromised is based on his constant and inexplicable deference to Putin. As I have pointed out, he is hostile to our allies but defers to Putin who works constantly to undermine the free world while at the same time missing no opportunity to expand his own power base.

As evidence, you will notice I have not accused him of deferring to china which is also a threat to the free world, but not a country or leader with the sorts of potentially compromising ties to trump as are found in russia, and with whom trump has shown no tendency to treat with kid gloves.

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

Not true for me. My view of him as compromised is based on his constant and inexplicable deference to Putin. As I have pointed out, he is hostile to our allies but defers to Putin who works constantly to undermine the free world while at the same time missing no opportunity to expand his own power base.

In both cases, it seems to me you're looking with a rather jaundiced eye. He neither constantly defers to Putin nor is constantly hostile to our allies. No offense, but I'm taking your POV with a large dollop of salt.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your hopeful constructs are noted. I expect we'll know for sure soon enough.

And that’s what the evidence seems to show. Where are the specific links between Russian collusion and Trump that don’t involve conjecture?

Amazing how willing you are to dismiss Trumps 'associations'. Are you as generous with candidates whose political leanings you oppose?

Have you seen me bring up Obama’s association with Bill Ayers? How about with his previous minister, Rev Wright? You can draw links with plenty of questionable characters links to those in power or even ordinary citizens. Doesn’t prove a conspiracy.

[rogue06]

Because he lost the popular vote and the margin for an electoral college victory with less than a majority vote was so narrow. He was elected by essentally a technicality and by a minority of the us population. In those circumstances the not insignificant influence of the russian tactics can't be ignored. Not to mention the effect those same tactics are having in europe.

And it truly was surprising that such a man could muster that much. And a sad testimony to both the moral and political state of this country.

It was in effect a perfect storm of errors on both sides that
Coupled with the constant pressure of russian misinformation fed to a short sighted but angry segment of the population that gave him the win. He is not and never will be a legitimate majority choice for the leadership of this country.

Jim

Winning 304 to 227 when all you need is 270 can hardly be considered "so narrow" and calling it a "technicality" is like saying a baseball team won on a technicality because they had more runs even though the other team had more hits and more runners in scoring position.

And IIRC that "constant pressure of russian misinformation" was the equivalent to or even less than what a restaurant chain might spend in a single large city in any given year

[One Bad Pig]

Winning 304 to 227 when all you need is 270 can hardly be considered "so narrow" and calling it a "technicality" is like saying a baseball team won on a technicality because they had more runs even though the other team had more hits and more runners in scoring position.

And IIRC that "constant pressure of russian misinformation" was the equivalent to or even less than what a restaurant chain might spend in a single large city in any given year

...most of which was spent AFTER the election.

[oxmixmudd]

Winning 304 to 227 when all you need is 270 can hardly be considered "so narrow" and calling it a "technicality" is like saying a baseball team won on a technicality because they had more runs even though the other team had more hits and more runners in scoring position.

And IIRC that "constant pressure of russian misinformation" was the equivalent to or even less than what a restaurant chain might spend in a single large city in any given year

get real rogue. Those numbers are meaningless in terms of establishing the relative strength of DT's election. The electoral college based win with a minority vote is a technicality. A sleight of hand trick that hinged on pulling a small majority in strategic 'winner take all' states. And if you dont think the russian misinformation campaign didnt also leverage that same trick you should take a closer look.

And if there ever was a case for abolishing the electoral college system, Donald Trump is it. We are talking over a million votes down here and he still 'won' because of that bizarre little twist in our system.

Trump does not and hopefully never will represent the majority in this country. Trump reminds me of that star trek where there is this being that feeds on hatred and violence. Trump won by feeding all the various seeda of hatred in this country. Your hatred of hillar and the dems. Hatred of immigrants. Hatred of muslims. Hatred between whites and blacks. Every divisive thing, every major fear these are what fed and continues to feed trump.

Jim

[Sparko]

that bizarre "twist" was built into the system to stop populous states like California from dominating the elections.

[Starlight]

that bizarre "twist" was built into the system to stop populous states like California from dominating the elections.

It's almost like you willfully refuse to understand that populous areas having a big say is a core part of the 1-person 1-vote foundational principle of democracy.

Hating democracy because lack-of-it helps your side win is just sad.

[Starlight]

Mueller's team are now up to 191 criminal charges against 35 defendants. Not bad for a 'totally baseless witch hunt'.

The tough-on-crime Republicans will be cheering him on as he continues to find criminals and bring them to justice... right?

[Sparko]

It's almost like you willfully refuse to understand that populous areas having a big say is a core part of the 1-person 1-vote foundational principle of democracy.

Hating democracy because lack-of-it helps your side win is just sad.

The USA isn't about 1 person 1 vote. It is about each state having an equal say in the governing of the country. The states get 2 senators each, the house is the only part that is proportional to the population.

Every election the losing side always whines about the electoral college. But the founding fathers were pretty wise. A country that is dominated by the people in one state is not a egalitarian state, it is a tyranny.

[oxmixmudd]

that bizarre "twist" was built into the system to stop populous states like California from dominating the elections.

It was hotly debated from its inception for reasons very much like donald trump. Benjamin Franklin spoke clearly about the success of our system being based on any educated and moral population. Dt shows us why that is so. AND as bizarre as it sounds, Dt was able to leverage the the hatred, fear, and lack of education of the evanfelical Christian population to get them to vote for the antithesis of Jesus Christ. And to keep them in his court in spite of constant lying and massive moral lapses.

Jim

[rogue06]

that bizarre "twist" was built into the system to stop populous states like California from dominating the elections.

Without "bizarre twists" like how the Senate was set up and the Electoral College you would have half a dozen states deciding everything on the national level with the rest having virtually no say and in effect being little more than colonies.

[Cow Poke]

Without "bizarre twists" like how the Senate was set up and the Electoral College you would have half a dozen states deciding everything on the national level with the rest having virtually no say and in effect being little more than colonies.

And the Republic of Texas would, again, be its own country.

[rogue06]

And the Republic of Texas would, again, be its own country.

Actually Texas would be one of the half dozen.

[oxmixmudd]

Without "bizarre twists" like how the Senate was set up and the Electoral College you would have half a dozen states deciding everything on the national level with the rest having virtually no say and in effect being little more than colonies.

In the ~240 years our country gas been around, 5 have won through the electoral college. You have to back overy q00 yeaes the time shortly after the civil war to see a similar percentage disparity between the popular winner and the Electoral winner.

Jim