The DON / redux
- Thread starter Gordon Gray
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
- Status
Kevin
Well-known member
Not sure if NPR would have covered it or not, but CNN I am sure buried that particular story like a rotten egg. Donna Brazile was working for CNN at the time she received the debate questions, so I am sure they were not very keen on reporting it.
I believe that I read that Hillary lost the millennial vote more so than any other demographic in comparison to Obama. I think the emails showing that the DNC was working against Bernie played a big part in why they didn't support her like predicted. That's why I said those were the most damaging emails to come out of the entire leak. Bernie said all along that the system was rigged, and that provided the proof of it. After that, it was going to be hard for Hillary to win over their support. Remember the Bernie supporters that walked out of the convention only to protest on the street outside? After it was later released that Donna had given debate questions to Hillary, I don't think she had much of a chance to gain their support. I have read some articles that the difference between their support for her vs Obama was enough in itself to cause her to lose the race. But it's all speculative, no one knows for sure.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Hi Kevin,
Did a little bit of checking. Found the e-mail about her sharing a question with HRC in her debate with Sanders prior to the actual debate. If I had heard that, I certainly would have remembered. Just like her stupid statement about DT supporters being a "basket of deplorables". That sucks and is just plain wrong. Appreciate knowing the truth regardless of where it falls.
What's your reaction to the current "spin" first floated by Corey Lewandowski last week that the problem with the press is that they take DT's words too literally? I'm still trying to wrap my feeble brain around that one.
Best,
Gordon
PS: FWIW, I don't consider MSNBC, the NYT or the Washington Post to be unbiased.
Did a little bit of checking. Found the e-mail about her sharing a question with HRC in her debate with Sanders prior to the actual debate. If I had heard that, I certainly would have remembered. Just like her stupid statement about DT supporters being a "basket of deplorables". That sucks and is just plain wrong. Appreciate knowing the truth regardless of where it falls.
What's your reaction to the current "spin" first floated by Corey Lewandowski last week that the problem with the press is that they take DT's words too literally? I'm still trying to wrap my feeble brain around that one.
Best,
Gordon
PS: FWIW, I don't consider MSNBC, the NYT or the Washington Post to be unbiased.
Last edited:
BTW I had a link for a place that shows the leanings of each network.
It had something that looked something like this.
MSNBC - Washington Post - CNN - Reuters( Neutral) - Washington Review??? - Fox --> Rush Limbaugh etc..
Last edited:
Kevin
Well-known member
I'm not going to pretend that I know why Trump says the things he says. But I suspect that Corey has a point to a certain extent. If you look at the leaked emails and what the Clinton campaign managers were saying about others, you can tell how people talk when they aren't in public or on record. They were calling Bernie a dufous and referring to New Mexico governor Richards as both a "needy Latino" and a "****". They walked all that stuff back and said they really didn't mean it and some of it was said in the heat of the moment. In other words, don't take them "literally". They were even saying some not so polite stuff about Hillary, especially when it came to how she was handling her email scandal. This just goes to show how normal people sometimes talk when they let their guard down. These same people make the rounds on the news shows and don't say anything of the sort when making public statements.
Trump, seems to say things that pop into his mind without using a filter that most people do. I don't think this is always good, but at least you know where he stands, he doesn't seem to hide much. He was saying things about others like those in the Clinton campaign were discussing in private, and just made his thoughts public. In one of the leaked speeches that Hillary did, when she was discussing the middle class, she remarked, “I'm kind of far removed, because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy.” She would not have dared to say such a thing at one of her campaign rallies. Romney too seemed to be almost embarrassed to discuss his wealth when he was campaigning, but Trump just came out and said stuff like, "look at me, I'm wildly successful and stinking rich".
Also, (and someone said on here that he ran his campaign just like he discussed in his book "Art of the Deal"), I would imagine being a career businessman and not a career politician, he starts with the best possible circumstance, knowing he'll compromise his position later. I never thought he would have a "big beautiful wall" crossing the whole border of Mexico, and I never thought we would be witnessing trains loaded with illegals taking them back to Mexico and beyond. I don't think Trump did either. But if he reaches a deal to build a wall to strengthen some areas, increases security where there is no wall, kicks out the criminal element within the illegals, and ends the sanctuary city nonsense, then I think that is the compromise he probably wants. Had he started out with that as his first position instead, the compromise would have resulted in something less than that.
So that's my opinion. He lacks the filter that most people have when speaking in public. But is there really a difference between saying something in public as opposed to saying the same sort of stuff when you think it's hidden among friends? And perhaps he starts with outlandish positions from the start, but knows that won't be the end point. So I never really took him literally on much of what he has said either, but I suspect many did.
I am not a cheerleader for Trump. I'll let you know what I find disturbing. It disturbs me about how he talks about Putin and what economic ties he might have to Russia. Putin is a bad actor, we should have already been tougher with him and now are we even going to give him more space? I am also a bit of an environmentalist. I don't focus on global warming, for me the argument just lies in pollution in general. So his cavalier attitude towards the environment causes me a good bit of concern. But I also never thought destroying our economy for the sake of stopping a percentage of a point in warming in a couple of decades was a good thing either. There should be a middle ground in there some where.
But Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. I'll make my judgement about him when I actually see the direction the country is going. I hope I like more things than I don't. I do think he has the "potential" to end up being very good for the country, only time will tell.
good post Kev, I concur ...........
i read an article this afternoon that the CIA and FBI now saying they have proof that Putin hacked in to computers to steal information related to the election.
It went on to say than one of the election centers that compiles data was hacked and received a phone call just before it appears to have had illegal access to voting results.
The person being interviewed at the election center said that the caller spoke with a Russian accent.
This is as pitiful as seals trying to have their way with penguins.
I don't have any way of knowing if this has any validity to it but, I am skeptical at best, except for the seal thing.
In 4 years when the next election happens I can only see it going one of two ways. Things are great and a landslide victory for Republicans or not so much and a landslide for the Democrats.
It went on to say than one of the election centers that compiles data was hacked and received a phone call just before it appears to have had illegal access to voting results.
The person being interviewed at the election center said that the caller spoke with a Russian accent.
This is as pitiful as seals trying to have their way with penguins.
I don't have any way of knowing if this has any validity to it but, I am skeptical at best, except for the seal thing.
In 4 years when the next election happens I can only see it going one of two ways. Things are great and a landslide victory for Republicans or not so much and a landslide for the Democrats.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Brad,
I'm in a "wait and see" mode at this point. Seems clear that hearings will be held to determine the amount and related impacts (if any) suffered as a result of Russian cyber hacking in the election.
As I previously said, the issue that concerns me the most is the fact that DT would throw the CIA, etc. under the bus. In other words, analysis flawed, I don't trust you because you don't fit my preconcieved narrative position / beliefs.
However, in four weeks, these are the same folks who will be providing DT with information (intelligence department reports / analysis) that he "should" rely on for making future foreign policy decisions that are in the best interests for this country from a short and long term perspective.
To repeat, I hope DT succeeds and carries us forward in a "positive / best interest" direction but when I see this stuff, it gives me great pause.
Gordon
I'm in a "wait and see" mode at this point. Seems clear that hearings will be held to determine the amount and related impacts (if any) suffered as a result of Russian cyber hacking in the election.
As I previously said, the issue that concerns me the most is the fact that DT would throw the CIA, etc. under the bus. In other words, analysis flawed, I don't trust you because you don't fit my preconcieved narrative position / beliefs.
However, in four weeks, these are the same folks who will be providing DT with information (intelligence department reports / analysis) that he "should" rely on for making future foreign policy decisions that are in the best interests for this country from a short and long term perspective.
To repeat, I hope DT succeeds and carries us forward in a "positive / best interest" direction but when I see this stuff, it gives me great pause.
Gordon
Interesting. I think it is good to question. So Editor in Chief Assange states on the record that his source was not the Russian government. In fact - he felt compelled to say something even though they never do this in regards to their sources. He basically said that these claims of Russians being the source of the info was baseless. Now Obama vows retaliation against a super power based on allegation. Even after the source of the info states otherwise. I gotta say....yah...that gives me pause.
It gives me pause that we have 'famous' people urging the electors to vote against the people's vote. People that 'play pretend' for a living. One of them even pretended he was a president with scripted lines. The president .... Clinton ...also stirring the pot. This is nothing new and why they lost is playing out before your eyes.
Clinton: Putin had a personal beef with me. Hey that sounds based in fact.
Michelle obama: Now I know what it's like to have no hope. I always thought 'hope' was a great strategy for a president.
This is all a $$hit show right before the electoral vote to try to create doubt and uncertainty to see if they can get the electors to flip. Quite frankly it feels treasonous to me. It seems so transparent and desperate. Pathetic is a word I would also use
It gives me pause that we have 'famous' people urging the electors to vote against the people's vote. People that 'play pretend' for a living. One of them even pretended he was a president with scripted lines. The president .... Clinton ...also stirring the pot. This is nothing new and why they lost is playing out before your eyes.
Clinton: Putin had a personal beef with me. Hey that sounds based in fact.
Michelle obama: Now I know what it's like to have no hope. I always thought 'hope' was a great strategy for a president.
This is all a $$hit show right before the electoral vote to try to create doubt and uncertainty to see if they can get the electors to flip. Quite frankly it feels treasonous to me. It seems so transparent and desperate. Pathetic is a word I would also use
Last edited:
Scumurculum
Well-known member
Treasonous really???????? FFS!!!!
If Trump lost and the tables were turned would you be saying the same thing??
Yah. I would. And yah - trying to steal the vote post election ...I'll stand by what I said.
Scumurculum
Well-known member
I'll take your word for it.
Still that is a violent word to use. Bad things happen with rhetoric like that.
What next?.....lock those actors up?
People are within their rights to politely ask the college to make a decision. That is called democracy.
Last edited:
So let's change the rules now. Because someone we like didn't win post election. And the only rhetoric I hear is from the Dems right now.
Trying to influence the electirs? Getting millionaires that people see on the big screen - and as ACTORS make a commercial again to influence the electors?
Now mind you - the spin isn't whether what was published by Wikileaks was inaccurate. People were fired over it. The question was WHO leaked it? Editor in chief of wiki says 'not the russians'. So a cover up was exposed. Another candidate was pushed aside (sanders)...Clinton was given debate questions ahead of time ... and nobody disputes that. Yet -and I'll use your term.. the rhetoric continues to try and unduly influence electors - and using people of influence to do so.
I understand your dislike for trump. But this is ridiculous.
The college is there so several states can not dominate the election. So candidates don't ignore the rest. So regional concerns aren't given more weight. Clinton popular vote was primarily determined by California and then some. And I'm not interested in that debate because that's not how the system works. The 'take away this state or that state and trump wins by 8%'. That is a pointless discussion.
If it gets overturned California New York and Mass will party while the other 40 plus states riot. Not cool and we have people in leadership positions steering this wheel by trying to use their influence.
Trying to influence the electirs? Getting millionaires that people see on the big screen - and as ACTORS make a commercial again to influence the electors?
Now mind you - the spin isn't whether what was published by Wikileaks was inaccurate. People were fired over it. The question was WHO leaked it? Editor in chief of wiki says 'not the russians'. So a cover up was exposed. Another candidate was pushed aside (sanders)...Clinton was given debate questions ahead of time ... and nobody disputes that. Yet -and I'll use your term.. the rhetoric continues to try and unduly influence electors - and using people of influence to do so.
I understand your dislike for trump. But this is ridiculous.
The college is there so several states can not dominate the election. So candidates don't ignore the rest. So regional concerns aren't given more weight. Clinton popular vote was primarily determined by California and then some. And I'm not interested in that debate because that's not how the system works. The 'take away this state or that state and trump wins by 8%'. That is a pointless discussion.
If it gets overturned California New York and Mass will party while the other 40 plus states riot. Not cool and we have people in leadership positions steering this wheel by trying to use their influence.
Scumurculum
Well-known member
You are missing the point of my argument.
The bottom line is that it is their democratic right to ask the college to vote differently. They are not forcing, they not compelling, they are asking. You know.....just like how your 1st amendment allows.
To call that treasonous, shows a complete lack of understanding of the true meaning of democracy.
Yes if they succeed (which they wont) it will cause issues, possibly unrest, I completely concurr and that is why I dont agree with them. Surprised? - Yes I loath Trump, but he has won and the world just has to deal with that mess over the next few years.
However, I profoundly agree with their right to try.
Finally, before I get dismissed of a foreigner (which I am) or a liberal (which I am not). I grew up under an authoritarian regime in the 70s and 80s (it was a state government, but in Australia State Governments have far more powers than in the US).
Therefore, I understand how precious and fragile democracy is due to witnessing and experiencing things like:
. the banning of marches and protest
. friends being beaten up and harassed by the police, including being falsely charged
. our family being nearly sent broke because my father supported an opposition candidate
. blatant political gerrymanders propping up the regime
. opponents being called communists or gay or un-Australian etc. etc. etc.
So I am particularly sensitive to the use of of words like treasonous.
Such words are words of political oppression, and it can be a slippery and dangerous slope.
Last edited:
The electoral college has multiple purposes.
1. As you mention to give more power to less populated states since we are a Republic and this is to help states feel reasonably represented.
2. To prevent foreign influence.
3. To keep an unfit president from assuming office.
#3 is a check because the founding fathers felt that it was possible with an election that the masses could be fooled into voting for someone who should never be president. This is spelled out by Alexander Hamilton and this is why this group of people is calling themselves the Hamilton Electors.
Given that I don't consider Trump fit to be president, I could see electors exercising their conscious in this matter.
The key here is that they don't have to vote for Hillary and change the election and I seriously doubt they will. However they can abstain. If there are not 270 votes for Trump than the matter would be handled by the GOP controlled congress.
If the GOP is acting with the intent of the electorate not seeing Trump fit for office, they would select another candidate like a Romney, or Pence. Also given the rift between the GOP and Trump I can't imagine them picking him.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
timm,
Regarding the alleged Russian hacking incident and calls for a Senate investigation, I don't believe McConnell, McCain, and Graham are Democrats.
The rest of what we are hearing is just the circus coming to town. And that would include your use of the word treasonous.
So I take it you are not concerned about DT throwing the CIA under the bus regarding their competence because it doesn't fit his "beliefs".
Best,
Gordon
Well ..........perhaps we should have had Bernie ..........
https://tytnetwork.com/2016/12/13/this-is-why-bernie-wouldve-won-watch-how-he-talks-to-trump-voters/
truthfully I liked him to a certain extent .......
https://tytnetwork.com/2016/12/13/this-is-why-bernie-wouldve-won-watch-how-he-talks-to-trump-voters/
truthfully I liked him to a certain extent .......
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Agreed Dave.
My cynical take, although I believe it to be true, was that he was too honest unlike the two candidates who were in the general election.
I find it interesting that he recently stated that DT is a pathological liar which I personally believe is an accurate statement.
Way too many incidents, IMHO, that clearly validate this assertion.
Gordon
My cynical take, although I believe it to be true, was that he was too honest unlike the two candidates who were in the general election.
I find it interesting that he recently stated that DT is a pathological liar which I personally believe is an accurate statement.
Way too many incidents, IMHO, that clearly validate this assertion.
Gordon
Uh boy. See I'm looking for a 'reasonableness' test here. In my lifetime - I can't recall a 'pitch' to sway the electoral vote. I don't recall it even w Gore/Bush. I just think it is the party's effort to try to sway the vote. And I get it. Everybody wants to win but truthfully this is against the will of the people in the states that voted Trump. It is my opinion that there is something inherently wrong with that. If it is found that people in power are spreading false information ... trying to link Trump w some Russian conspiracy...that even though Wikileaks editor in chief has stated it did not come from the Russians...but there is this full court press to claim this as fact... I just find this aggregious. And if they are making statements not based on fact to change the election results? Isn't that just Clintonesque. Feels like 'fake news' to me!! Haha. Let's ignore the fact that information revealed was factual and throw up some big 'fake news...it was the Russians!!' As if any of this changes the factual evidence revealed.
I am moderate. I'm not far right or left. This just feels like a 'hail mary'... and you all know that it is. I just saw only 9 electors since 1900 have abstained or voted against the people's vote.
Gordon re: your assertion that the CIA was thrown under the bus. You don't think the FBI wasn't thrown under the bus by Clinton because she didn't like what they had to say? It's one thing to disagree with findings of an agency. Another thing to try and change election results by continually implying something was corrupt because someone leaked factual info damaging to your campaign . And I still say I want a president that pushes these agencies. How many times have we made poor decisions based on bad intelligence. Re: my statement being part of the circus?? I didn't know I even had a voice?
I am moderate. I'm not far right or left. This just feels like a 'hail mary'... and you all know that it is. I just saw only 9 electors since 1900 have abstained or voted against the people's vote.
Gordon re: your assertion that the CIA was thrown under the bus. You don't think the FBI wasn't thrown under the bus by Clinton because she didn't like what they had to say? It's one thing to disagree with findings of an agency. Another thing to try and change election results by continually implying something was corrupt because someone leaked factual info damaging to your campaign . And I still say I want a president that pushes these agencies. How many times have we made poor decisions based on bad intelligence. Re: my statement being part of the circus?? I didn't know I even had a voice?
I like that Dave. '...to a certain extent'. Lol. I think everyone liked Bernie to a certain extent. Who can't like a guy that speaks from his heart? You can disagree w policy but you have to admire someone speaking about things they have passion about. I may have voted for him. But I would really need more air time from him. But we know that went. He wasn't the DNCs choice.
- Status
