Blockbuster CIA report: Russia definitely meddled in U.S. election to elect Trump.

[JimL]

They had no problem recognizing Hillary was a scumbag when Bernie was running. It's only after she became the nominee that they started suffering from sudden amnesia.

Wrong, they just preferred Sanders more progressive approach over Hillary's more moderate approach.

[Cow Poke]

Wrong,

You say that just like Trump!

they just preferred Sanders more progressive approach over Hillary's more moderate approach.

You are so full of it, Jimmy. You're always pretending to know why people do what they do.... There were plenty of former Bernie supporters who weren't for Hillary, and it wasn't because of her "more moderate approach".

[Terraceth]

Doesn't matter how many candidates you want to whittle it down to, if Trump is seen by republicans as a scum bag, as the lesser of two evils, as he is often described as by those who supported and voted for him in the general, then he must have been seen by them as the lesser of the 17 scumbags he ran against in the primaries as well.

How, when there weren't 17 of them at the time of the primary? You cannot choose from 17 if there are not 17 choices!

It doesn't even particularly help your case to claim 17 rather than 12, so I don't know why you cling to this discredited number.

B.Sanders didn't get his support because he was outside the establishment, he got his support from more leftist leaning liberals which is close to a where 50% of the democratic party is, as was born out in the primary results. Hillary beat Sanders for the simple reason that the moderate camp won out, not because Sanders supporters saw her as a scumbag. Leftists and moderate liberals don't disagree much philosophically speaking, and we don't consider either candidate a scumbag or the lesser evil the way that Trump supporters seem to think about him.

No, a lot of it came from being outside the establishment. That's why you had a number of people who normally aren't interested in Democrats interested in Bernie Sanders who promptly left when Hillary got the nomination.

But even if we decide it's a matter of liberal vs. moderate, the fact is Hillary didn't have competition in the moderate department (or whatever you want to classify her as), whereas if she did then Sanders would've very likely won because of that split.

Well, that makes no sense, Kasich never had a chance in the first place and since Cruz was in it up until the end and Trump was still whoopin his ass.

You seem to have this habit of replying to part of a message and apparently forgetting everything that was said previously in the message. Yes, Trump was leading Cruz by a lot, because of the factors I mentioned that gave Trump such a massive start at the beginning. If not for that, you would've seen the votes for Bush/Paul/etc. go mostly to Cruz or Kasich and they would've won states that Trump won. Trump benefitted hugely from that large field in the early states and by the time it got whittled down his lead was so big it was too hard to catch up.

I don't know where the claim Kasich had no chance came from. The guy got 3rd place out of a fairly large group. Again, the huge amount of candidates caused the "regular" vote to get dramatically split and Trump took advantage. Sanders didn't have that. It'd be more accurate to say Bush didn't have any chance.

Could be, but that wasn't the point, the point was that we liberals don't vote for someone who we recognise to be a scumbag simply because we belong to that team, republicans, by what we are hearing from them, apparently will and do.

No, I'm pretty sure liberals would. They may not have seen Hillary as one (rightfully or wrongfully), but the fact is that a lot of people (maybe even most people) will just vote for whichever candidate has positions they prefer, ignoring the actual identity of that candidate, and I'm talking about conservatives and liberals here. The people who actually end up deciding an election are that relatively small sliver who don't really have that big a stake on the issues.

[Tassman]

Right? Cow Poke is starting to remind me a lot like Trump. Whenever he can't answer something he just says you're wrong and calls you an idiot. Lame. It's a petty attempt to distract from the fact that Trump is a petty narcissist who lies more brazenly than any politician in American history and Cow Poke wants to have all the fun of bashing liberals, but none of the responsibility of who he put into office. Lame.

Like attracts like. But what else can one expect from one of the 67% of non-college whites who supported Trump.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...der-education/

[Tassman]

Oh my goodness, don't you just love the irony Tass?

One gets used to the lame mockery in lieu of substance from this particular quarter.

[Jaecp]

Like attracts like. But what else can one expect from one of the 67% of non-college whites who supported Trump.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...der-education/

Indeed, he is such a silly billy sometimes

[Tassman]

Indeed, he is such a silly billy sometimes

Just "sometimes"

[JimL]

How, when there weren't 17 of them at the time of the primary? You cannot choose from 17 if there are not 17 choices!

It doesn't even particularly help your case to claim 17 rather than 12, so I don't know why you cling to this discredited number.


No, a lot of it came from being outside the establishment. That's why you had a number of people who normally aren't interested in Democrats interested in Bernie Sanders who promptly left when Hillary got the nomination.

But even if we decide it's a matter of liberal vs. moderate, the fact is Hillary didn't have competition in the moderate department (or whatever you want to classify her as), whereas if she did then Sanders would've very likely won because of that split.


You seem to have this habit of replying to part of a message and apparently forgetting everything that was said previously in the message. Yes, Trump was leading Cruz by a lot, because of the factors I mentioned that gave Trump such a massive start at the beginning. If not for that, you would've seen the votes for Bush/Paul/etc. go mostly to Cruz or Kasich and they would've won states that Trump won. Trump benefitted hugely from that large field in the early states and by the time it got whittled down his lead was so big it was too hard to catch up.

I don't know where the claim Kasich had no chance came from. The guy got 3rd place out of a fairly large group. Again, the huge amount of candidates caused the "regular" vote to get dramatically split and Trump took advantage. Sanders didn't have that. It'd be more accurate to say Bush didn't have any chance.


No, I'm pretty sure liberals would. They may not have seen Hillary as one (rightfully or wrongfully), but the fact is that a lot of people (maybe even most people) will just vote for whichever candidate has positions they prefer, ignoring the actual identity of that candidate, and I'm talking about conservatives and liberals here. The people who actually end up deciding an election are that relatively small sliver who don't really have that big a stake on the issues.

However you want to spin it, Trump is apparently seen as a terrible unprincipled candidate by a great many republicans and yet in the end they chose him over all the others in the race which suggests that they believed that the whole field sucked. Democrats didn't nominate Clinton because they saw her as the lesser evil, they nominated her because of her more moderate approach as well as because of the publics more familiarity with her.

[Bill the Cat]

... non-college whites...

You have a problem with either?

[Terraceth]

However you want to spin it, Trump is apparently seen as a terrible unprincipled candidate by a great many republicans and yet in the end they chose him over all the others in the race which suggests that they believed that the whole field sucked.

Except many of the "they" who voted for Trump versus Clinton were not the "they" who voted for Trump over the other candidates in the Republican race.

Democrats didn't nominate Clinton because they saw her as the lesser evil, they nominated her because of her more moderate approach as well as because of the publics more familiarity with her.

Well of course they didn't nominate her because they saw her as the lesser evil. If they wanted the lesser evil, they would've nominated Sanders.

[Cow Poke]

Except many of the "they" who voted for Trump versus Clinton were not the "they" who voted for Trump over the other candidates in the Republican race.

EGGzackly.

[Mountain Man]

CNN uses footage from the video game Fallout 4 to illustrate their story about Russian hacking.



http://www.pcgamesn.com/fallout-4/fa...ussian-hacking

[One Bad Pig]

CNN uses footage from the video game Fallout 4 to illustrate their story about Russian hacking.



http://www.pcgamesn.com/fallout-4/fa...ussian-hacking

Remember, boys and girls, you should only get your fake news from professionals.

[Sparko]

Well according to the leaks, the only person to blame for Trump becoming the candidate and eventually the president, is Hillary and the DNC in the first place. They figured he was such a joke and could not win, that they actually gave him the media attention enough to get him in the public eye and get chosen the republican candidate. Then their plan worked TOO well and he got elected.

Thanks Jim! It's all your side's fault!