President Trump- The Implications

[Conan71]

The Man-Who-Said-That-he-Considered-The-Klan-to-be-OK-Guys-Until-he-Found-Out-They-Smoked-Pot Accidentally Leaked the Agenda From His Anti-Marijuana Meeting


https://www.civilized.life/articles/jeff-sessions-leaked-agenda-anti-marijuana-meeting/

This is not going to play well with my friends on here who deny there's a preconceived agenda on global warming.  Kind of blows the whole idea of: "The government never does that!" 

[patric]

When the nation's commander-in-chief refuses to acknowledge a threat to U.S. democracy, it makes it all the more difficult to address the problem. For this reason, we name Trump's claim that the Russia interference is a hoax as our Lie of the Year for 2017.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/politifact/politifact-s-lie-of-the-year-russian-election-interference-is/article_46385259-1a2c-53c0-b72f-e7f3042625bd.html

[TeeDub]

When the nation's commander-in-chief refuses to acknowledge a threat to U.S. democracy, it makes it all the more difficult to address the problem. For this reason, we name Trump's claim that the Russia interference is a hoax as our Lie of the Year for 2017.

So the assumption is that prior to 2017 no Russian meddling ever occurred in politics?   Or is it just that the Facebook has become more popular and thus Russian advertisements got more "likes" than before?   While I understand that there is no Russian equivalent to "Air America" (that I know of) I find it hard to believe that a world power like Russia, who has been so active in other elections/countries has never previously tried to influence an election in the US.    For example: https://www.dailywire.com/news/11530/3-times-democrats-were-fine-russians-intervening-ben-shapiro

I'm not going to argue the source, literally just the first one that came up in google (looked credible, with citations.)   

Is it the fact that Hillary lost and the only possible way that could have happened was through Russian interference?  (Except for the obvious fact that no one really liked her... or trusted her...  and a large portion of the country wanted to try something other than status quo.)

I guess I just suffer from extreme pragmatism.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So the assumption is that prior to 2017 no Russian meddling ever occurred in politics?   Or is it just that the Facebook has become more popular and thus Russian advertisements got more "likes" than before?   While I understand that there is no Russian equivalent to "Air America" (that I know of) I find it hard to believe that a world power like Russia, who has been so active in other elections/countries has never previously tried to influence an election in the US.    For example: https://www.dailywire.com/news/11530/3-times-democrats-were-fine-russians-intervening-ben-shapiro

I'm not going to argue the source, literally just the first one that came up in google (looked credible, with citations.)   

Is it the fact that Hillary lost and the only possible way that could have happened was through Russian interference?  (Except for the obvious fact that no one really liked her... or trusted her...  and a large portion of the country wanted to try something other than status quo.)

I guess I just suffer from extreme pragmatism.

No equivalent to Air America??   Well, except for that whole RT network thing....

Extreme pragmatism.  You betcha.

[patric]

So the assumption is that prior to 2017 no Russian meddling ever occurred in politics? 

Or is it maybe this:

In both classified and public reports, U.S. intelligence agencies have said Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered actions to interfere with the election. Those actions included the cyber-theft of private data.

[joiei]

Is it the fact that Hillary lost and the only possible way that could have happened was through Russian interference?  (Except for the obvious fact that no one really liked her... or trusted her...  and a large portion of the country wanted to try something other than status quo.)

Am I mistaken in the knowledge that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes? 

[TeeDub]

1.   RT Network.   Nice to know, can't say I ever looked.

2.  Meh.  Here is a story on how the US did roughly the equivalent in the last Russian election.   We just didn't get caught doing the hacking thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/07/21/did-the-united-states-interfere-in-russian-elections/?utm_term=.4459a1e894b5
Oh wait...   I love this quote from the article.  "This effort was non-partisan and it aimed to strengthen democracy for everyone in Russia, not to steer the outcome."


3.   According to wikipedia (who I hate citing, but am too lazy to double check this evening) 19 out of the last 48 presidents did not the majority of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

[Red Arrow]

3.   According to wikipedia (who I hate citing, but am too lazy to double check this evening) 19 out of the last 48 presidents did not the majority of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

You need to remember that around here that only matters when the Republican wins.

[erfalf]

You need to remember that around here that only matters when the Republican wins.

In fairness it's not the lack of majority that has them all up in arms, it's that he won less than the loser. The only problem is that those totals are really meaningless in the contest, and if it had different rules, I'm sure those sums would be different.

[erfalf]

Or is it maybe this:

In both classified and public reports, U.S. intelligence agencies have said Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered actions to interfere with the election. Those actions included the cyber-theft of private data.

I seem to recall a certain presidential candidate being mocked relentlessly for suggesting that we should be concerned with Russia as a political foe.

[swake]

1.   RT Network.   Nice to know, can't say I ever looked.

2.  Meh.  Here is a story on how the US did roughly the equivalent in the last Russian election.   We just didn't get caught doing the hacking thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/07/21/did-the-united-states-interfere-in-russian-elections/?utm_term=.4459a1e894b5
Oh wait...   I love this quote from the article.  "This effort was non-partisan and it aimed to strengthen democracy for everyone in Russia, not to steer the outcome."


3.   According to wikipedia (who I hate citing, but am too lazy to double check this evening) 19 out of the last 48 presidents did not the majority of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

17 of them got the plurality of the vote though. The other two are Bush and Trump.

[TeeDub]

17 of them got the plurality of the vote though. The other two are Bush and Trump.

Unless I misunderstand math (again trusting wiki's numbers) 5 missed the plurality....  Not two.    (Adams, Hayes, Trump, Bush, and Harrison)

But then again, I am just a dumb Okie, raised in a public school.

[swake]

Unless I misunderstand math (again trusting wiki's numbers) 5 missed the plurality....  Not two.    (Adams, Hayes, Trump, Bush, and Harrison)

But then again, I am just a dumb Okie, raised in a public school.

No, you are correct, I looked it up:
1824 - John Quincy Adams, there were four major candidates and no candidate was able to win in the Electoral College, popular vote went to Jackson (41.4%, 30.9%, 13%, 11.2%) and by rule the House elected the president.
1876 – Hayes did lose the popular vote (50.9% to 47.9%), but votes were disputed in four states and Republicans allowed Hayes to be eletect if the Federal Government removed troops from the South left there as part of reconstruction.
1888 – Harrison - This is the first clear cut winner in the Electoral College that lost the popular vote, 50.9% to 48.6% to Grover Cleveland.
2000  - Bush 47.9%% to Gore 48.4%
2016 – Trump 46.1% to Clinton 48.2%

[erfalf]

And given that I know where swake works or has worked in the past and what industry he's in, I'll take his word over erf's any day of the week and then some that aren't in the week.

Repealing NN may not be bad short term, but just wait.

In fairness to me, my evidence is pretty strong. I mean we were sans NN for years upon years upon years and yet very little occurred that was even close to what you all are predicting. There was some trying to throttle, but as I have mentioned, public pressure basically forced them to not to anymore. The consumer will be the ultimate judge of what is and is not fair. And with more options than ever before, the consumer is really holding more of the cards than they ever have before.

[Townsend]

There was some trying to throttle, but as I have mentioned, public pressure basically forced them to not to anymore.

And then rules were past for Net Neutrality that removed the fear and we were all able to move on to something else...until now.