Dear Leader-elect's Propaganda Minister — Should Clinton Be Punished For Influencing Election?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Suggesting that we should ignore Russia's actions is bad enough.

What is being ignored?
The contents of the emails that were exposed are being ignored.
The Russia story (still no proof) is being used to push the real story under the rug.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: theantediluvian

Suggesting that we should ignore Russia's actions is bad enough.

What is being ignored?
The contents of the emails that were exposed are being ignored.
The Russia story (still no proof) is being used to push the real story under the rug.

They were ignored so much that most of the election coverage was about emails.?

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: theantediluvian

Suggesting that we should ignore Russia's actions is bad enough.

What is being ignored?
The contents of the emails that were exposed are being ignored.
The Russia story (still no proof) is being used to push the real story under the rug.

They were ignored so much that most of the election coverage was about emails.?

It was?
Sounds like an easy rewrite of history.
The emails exposed the MSM as being in the Hillary camp.
They named names. Told the story of how Hillary's campaign actually wrote stories for reporters to post.
Did we see the MSM trumpeting those stories?
Or did we see the MSM pushing fake stories about Donald Trump raping and groping women?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: GreyScale

No. Because if he was talking about the DNC actively supporting Clinton over Sanders, then he'd run the risk of painting himself into a corner and having to admit that Bernie Sanders would have wiped the floor with Der Orange Fuhrer.

It's so cute that you try so HARD to be some sort of smarmy leftist intellectual but can't help yourself and have to throw things in like Der Orange Fuhrer. You got condescending down pat in your OP but it seems to be missing here.


Let me help you a little bit with your political leaning. Came from Hegel, used by Marx, brought into the US political arena by Wilson. It's funny that you used Fuhrer because Hitler was a YUUUUGE progressive too... down to eugenics like Wilson was. And now here you are... a product of 100 years of dumbing down the common man so that they can give up this silly individuality thing for the benefit of the State.

The only thing that you seem to not understand is that your own political party classifies you as a "useless eater".

Keep posting.. I'll keep laughing.

Your theory that a phishing email is more concerning than pay to play, primary election rigging, and globalization is a joke that only a partisan nothing thinks is funny. You are a legend in your own mind. There's a reason your time is isolated to anonymous conspiracy internet boards. Go outside try to be somebody.

a reply to: butcherguy

What is being ignored? The contents of the emails that were exposed are being ignored. The Russia story (still no proof) is being used to push the real story under the rug.

Huh? DWS resigned along with a few of her closest people. Brazile got canned from CNN and took herself out of the running for DNC chair. She'll be out in a month-month and a half and looking for a job on MSNBC.

What exactly from the emails is there that you believe needs more attention? The pizza gate bulls#? What more are you looking for exactly?

When you say "still no proof" I honestly don't believe there is anything that could be shown to most of you that you would accepted as proof. There's been ample forensic evidence to identify the hackers as APT 28 & APT 29 since June — since before the Guccifer 2.0 persona was created to publish the first doc. There is a good amount of evidence albeit circumstantial that the threat actors identified as APT 28 & APT 29 (Cozy Bear & Fancy Bear, etc) are part of or in the employ of the Russian intelligence apparatus.

That's all without even considering human intelligence.

In my opinion, what you believe is essentially a narrative intended to discourage talking about Russian hacking because the egos of Trump and his supporters are threatened by it.

originally posted by: GreyScale

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: GreyScale

No. Because if he was talking about the DNC actively supporting Clinton over Sanders, then he'd run the risk of painting himself into a corner and having to admit that Bernie Sanders would have wiped the floor with Der Orange Fuhrer.

It's so cute that you try so HARD to be some sort of smarmy leftist intellectual but can't help yourself and have to throw things in like Der Orange Fuhrer. You got condescending down pat in your OP but it seems to be missing here.


Let me help you a little bit with your political leaning. Came from Hegel, used by Marx, brought into the US political arena by Wilson. It's funny that you used Fuhrer because Hitler was a YUUUUGE progressive too... down to eugenics like Wilson was. And now here you are... a product of 100 years of dumbing down the common man so that they can give up this silly individuality thing for the benefit of the State.

The only thing that you seem to not understand is that your own political party classifies you as a "useless eater".

Keep posting.. I'll keep laughing.

Well said sir. *tips hat*

originally posted by: Anathros

originally posted by: GreyScale

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: GreyScale

No. Because if he was talking about the DNC actively supporting Clinton over Sanders, then he'd run the risk of painting himself into a corner and having to admit that Bernie Sanders would have wiped the floor with Der Orange Fuhrer.

It's so cute that you try so HARD to be some sort of smarmy leftist intellectual but can't help yourself and have to throw things in like Der Orange Fuhrer. You got condescending down pat in your OP but it seems to be missing here.


Let me help you a little bit with your political leaning. Came from Hegel, used by Marx, brought into the US political arena by Wilson. It's funny that you used Fuhrer because Hitler was a YUUUUGE progressive too... down to eugenics like Wilson was. And now here you are... a product of 100 years of dumbing down the common man so that they can give up this silly individuality thing for the benefit of the State.

The only thing that you seem to not understand is that your own political party classifies you as a "useless eater".

Keep posting.. I'll keep laughing.

Well said sir. *tips hat*

I was reading a little about LB Johnson tonight... another Progressive president in the 1960's who set up a lot of what's happening now.

Johnson's racism, which was not confined to African-Americans (he once described East Asians as "Hordes of barbaric yellow dwarves"], was the perfect combination of his personal cruelty with his racial disdain. He once asked his African-American chauffeur Robert Parker if he would be prefer to be called by his name rather than "boy", "n****r" or "chief". When Parker said he preferred to be called by his own name Johnson responded: "As long as you are black, and you're gonna be black till the day you die, no one's gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, n****r, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you'll make it. Just pretend you're a goddamn piece of furniture."

One of the great Progressive Presidents. So any time you talk to the Progressive Left, remember... this is OK with them. This is how they think. They won't tell you that, but to a progressive the end justifies the means. Always.

These people are not a part of a civilized world going forward. Period.

a reply to: GreyScale

Yawn.

Way to paraphrase just about every blog post from a wingnut blabbering about "cultural Marxism" ever. Was that intended to be a mic drop moment?

"down to eugenics like Wilson was"

Lmao. Shocking! Do you know what a non sequitur is you psuedointellectual parrot?

It's obvious that you have no real grasp of wtf you are talking about when you say s# like "brought into the US political arena by Wilson." Wilson didn't enter politics until what? 1910? That's 2/3 of the way through the Progressive Era of US politics, you dummy. Before the Nazis there were a lot of proponents of eugenics. After the Nazis? Not so much. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone with a high school education.

And you clearly have a misconception of progressivism as a sort of dogmatic ideology. Progressivism is in many ways the un-ideology and almost more of a methodology. What ties together all the threads of progressive thought is a belief in progress. That human society is evolving and that we can intervene, putting to use are vast human knowledge to improve the human condition. Typically, this is expressed in various progressive strains through the use of the government as a vehicle for social, political and economic change.

There are in fact right-wing progressives. This is how one of the bloggers you read might define a neocon as opposed to say a paleocon. I even would go so far as to say most Americans are in fact progressive to some degree or another. How well do you think Trump would have done if he ran on a promise to do away with Social Security and the 40 hour work week?

You keep posting drivel you read somewhere and trying to pretend like you know something. I'll keep ridiculing you, clown.

a reply to: Anathros

Well said sir. *tips hat*

Allow me to translate:

"Like the other seven idiots who starred your post, I too know nothing but you name dropped people and that sounds smart."

Lol.

a reply to: theantediluvian


You're a TROLL ante nothing more nothing less. Your post are pathetic and you're reaching new lows for this site.

a reply to: GreyScale

There you go proving what a neophyte cluebag you are again. Posting excerpts from Glenn Beck books as though there were people of even modest familiarity with US history and politics who didn't know that LBJ is reported to have had a fondness for the the N word. You even add "in the 1960's" in case the other dummy didn't realize when the hell LBJ was President.

Holy f if you weren't so stupid you'd be embarassed.

Let me fill in another gap in that gaping chasm between your ears. LBJ massacred Goldwater in '64 because Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Your argument if you had one to make might be that LBJ was worse than Goldwater because LBJ said the N word a lot. Whether or not LBJ had a thing for dropping the N-bomb or even honestly gaf about the plight of oppressed minorities he was with it enough to be on the right side of history when it came to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No surprisingly, that lost the GOP the black vote. That's what led Lee Atwater's friend Kevin Phillips to develop the Southern Strategy and how the GOP became the de facto party of bigots. Add that to your reading list.

Huh. I'd thought you'd finally gotten that job at Huffpo/CNN since I hadn't seen you post a thread in a bit.

And I highly doubt you eat steak since a good steak seems to make people mellow.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: GreyScale

There you go proving what a neophyte cluebag you are again. Posting excerpts from Glenn Beck books as though there were people of even modest familiarity with US history and politics who didn't know that LBJ is reported to have had a fondness for the the N word. You even add "in the 1960's" in case the other dummy didn't realize when the hell LBJ was President.

Holy f if you weren't so stupid you'd be embarassed.

Let me fill in another gap in that gaping chasm between your ears. LBJ massacred Goldwater in '64 because Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Your argument if you had one to make might be that LBJ was worse than Goldwater because LBJ said the N word a lot. Whether or not LBJ had a thing for dropping the N-bomb or even honestly gaf about the plight of oppressed minorities he was with it enough to be on the right side of history when it came to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No surprisingly, that lost the GOP the black vote. That's what led Lee Atwater's friend Kevin Phillips to develop the Southern Strategy and how the GOP became the de facto party of bigots. Add that to your reading list.

When you have to remind people about being "on the right side of history", you're generally full of $hit.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

What exactly are you trying to say exactly? That the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not have been passed?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I have no desire to write for HuffPo but I wouldn't be entirely opposed to appearing on CNN if it meant an opportunity to shut down the Trump surrogates the network employs (Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffrey Lord and Scottie Nell Hughes) in front of an audience.

I haven't been posting the same volume of political threads but I can only read so many threads fawning over Trump on ATS or hear about so many stupid Donald Trump tweets before I'm inspired to post one.

And I highly doubt you eat steak since a good steak seems to make people mellow.

Hands down my favorite food is beef. Followed closely by bacon.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: GreyScale

Yawn.

Way to paraphrase just about every blog post from a wingnut blabbering about "cultural Marxism" ever. Was that intended to be a mic drop moment?

"down to eugenics like Wilson was"

Lmao. Shocking! Do you know what a non sequitur is you psuedointellectual parrot?

It's obvious that you have no real grasp of wtf you are talking about when you say s# like "brought into the US political arena by Wilson." Wilson didn't enter politics until what? 1910? That's 2/3 of the way through the Progressive Era of US politics, you dummy. Before the Nazis there were a lot of proponents of eugenics. After the Nazis? Not so much. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone with a high school education.

And you clearly have a misconception of progressivism as a sort of dogmatic ideology. Progressivism is in many ways the un-ideology and almost more of a methodology. What ties together all the threads of progressive thought is a belief in progress. That human society is evolving and that we can intervene, putting to use are vast human knowledge to improve the human condition. Typically, this is expressed in various progressive strains through the use of the government as a vehicle for social, political and economic change.

There are in fact right-wing progressives. This is how one of the bloggers you read might define a neocon as opposed to say a paleocon. I even would go so far as to say most Americans are in fact progressive to some degree or another. How well do you think Trump would have done if he ran on a promise to do away with Social Security and the 40 hour work week?

You keep posting drivel you read somewhere and trying to pretend like you know something. I'll keep ridiculing you, clown.

I love progressives like yourself because you are so predictable. Nothing new is coming from you.

As will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man-
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began-
That the Dog returns to its Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.

Thank you for your incoherent rambling post on what Progessivism is. I'm taking my definition of it from the people that started it. Your interpretation of it means nothing. Trying to belittle me for pointing out what it actually means while failing to understand what it actually means puts a smile on my face as well. It just means that you are going to continue to fail to sell your political idealism to anyone but the most feeble minded. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that means a big portion of the Democratic party. But at the end of the day, I agree with your thoughts on them. They don't really matter.. You don't either. Just a means to an end, right?

originally posted by: GreyScale

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: GreyScale

Yawn.

Way to paraphrase just about every blog post from a wingnut blabbering about "cultural Marxism" ever. Was that intended to be a mic drop moment?

"down to eugenics like Wilson was"

Lmao. Shocking! Do you know what a non sequitur is you psuedointellectual parrot?

It's obvious that you have no real grasp of wtf you are talking about when you say s# like "brought into the US political arena by Wilson." Wilson didn't enter politics until what? 1910? That's 2/3 of the way through the Progressive Era of US politics, you dummy. Before the Nazis there were a lot of proponents of eugenics. After the Nazis? Not so much. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone with a high school education.

And you clearly have a misconception of progressivism as a sort of dogmatic ideology. Progressivism is in many ways the un-ideology and almost more of a methodology. What ties together all the threads of progressive thought is a belief in progress. That human society is evolving and that we can intervene, putting to use are vast human knowledge to improve the human condition. Typically, this is expressed in various progressive strains through the use of the government as a vehicle for social, political and economic change.

There are in fact right-wing progressives. This is how one of the bloggers you read might define a neocon as opposed to say a paleocon. I even would go so far as to say most Americans are in fact progressive to some degree or another. How well do you think Trump would have done if he ran on a promise to do away with Social Security and the 40 hour work week?

You keep posting drivel you read somewhere and trying to pretend like you know something. I'll keep ridiculing you, clown.

I love progressives like yourself because you are so predictable. Nothing new is coming from you.

As will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man-
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began-
That the Dog returns to its Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.

Thank you for your incoherent rambling post on what Progessivism is. I'm taking my definition of it from the people that started it. Your interpretation of it means nothing. Trying to belittle me for pointing out what it actually means while failing to understand what it actually means puts a smile on my face as well. It just means that you are going to continue to fail to sell your political idealism to anyone but the most feeble minded. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that means a big portion of the Democratic party. But at the end of the day, I agree with your thoughts on them. They don't really matter.. You don't either. Just a means to an end, right?

Well I mean you are purposefully sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling that what was progressive in the past was is still the same today even if you know its not.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Sublimecraft


The problem is that social media hype isn't necessarily a very good indicator. Even if the pollsters got it wrong in terms of their prediction for the election result, they actually weren't that far off in terms of the national polling.

Clinton ended up winning the popular vote by 2.1% (about 3 million). You can see from this page at RealClearPolitics what the polls were the last few days.

Monday, November 6th:

Bloomberg - Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP Tracking - Trump +2
CBS - Clinton +4
Fox - Clinton +4
Reuters - Clinton +3
ABC/WaPo - Clinton +4

You've got a good point, but what it does show is that the pollsters mostly focused their polls on the liberal big cities.