Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@ironballs — Hillary lost by an incredibly narrow margin. You're saying that if she'd just done a little more in the handful of states were Trump barely squeaked by, then she would have beaten him. Which is true. However, 1) this is with the benefit of hindsight, and 2) it's also true that if she hadn't been the victim of Russian meddling and government officials misusing their positions, she wouldn't have lost either. People focus on the Russia/FBI angle because those go against the idea of free and fair elections, which is a rather bigger issue than Clinton not doing as well as she could have (according to us Monday-morning quarterbacks).
And honestly, what does it matter? Hillary lost. She's expressed no interest in remaining in politics. Even if you're 100% right and she lost solely because she's bad at election campaigns, what difference does that make at this point?
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.The Intercept: NSA report details Russian hacking effort days before 2016 US election
The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, analyzes intelligence very recently acquired by the agency about a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure. The report, dated May 5, 2017, is the most detailed U.S. government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light.
The report indicates that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into U.S. voting systems than was previously understood. It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document:
Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.
Um...holy shit.
o.O
New Survey coming this weekend!
At this point I think I should just break out the Sharpies for people who believe anything on RT or Sputnik without outside confirmation, but then it would get me banned from most establishments here in a huge hurry. Not like I have a social life anyway.
And Greenwald, you believed them anyway. Get stuffed.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotGOP strategists plot anti-media strategy for 2018 elections
. Er... Does this remind anyone else of fascism?
Whaaaat, it's not like fascism has a word
for an anti-media political campaign that's been reiterated by the Siberian Candidate.
The stupid thing is that the mainstream media (save Fox, which is unabashedly partisan) has for a long time been giving right-wing points of view too much credibility in the name of fairness and neutrality. They've been getting way more favorable media treatment than they deserve, and this has contributed to an environment in which it is possible for Republicans to win elections despite having no command of facts or logic.
They should be bowing down to CNN and worshiping them in thankfulness. Instead, as soon as they dare to call out their shenanigans, they're "fake news".
edited 5th Jun '17 2:18:35 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"My thing is I'd figure more people would be skeptical of the "fake news" claim if coincidentally the only one that isn't fake is the one that's always telling you what you want to hear. I get that it's comforting and all, and everyone wants that, but you'd think more people would at least take a cursory glance before the write off...
But I guess that's just where we are now...

The DNC leadership, sure, but she's blaming the rank-and-file for her not winning, along with the press for making a huge deal about her emails (fair point) and Comey for dropping that October Surprise (fair point again). But when she's doing that amount of finger-pointing at once, people are going to mock her for it.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"