Russia isn't really winning but they are certainly fighting.
This Mishima kills fascists
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Russia isn't really winning but they are certainly fighting.
Voter turnout wasn't down. Early incomplete vote counts led to some misleading headlines to that effect, but now that the dist has settled we know that isn't true.
I mean a lot of it was insubstantial. None of it amounted to real corruption. It just shone a light on the kinds of things we don't like to believe are happening, but which are "part of the game." To do this in a one-sided way is obviously deeply misleading.I mean the focus on Russia trying to intervene is troublesome but you could argue if the info leaked was true then how could it not simply be chickens coming home to roost?
This Mishima kills fascists
I'm happy to be wrong. Many prominent Republicans are doing this: Rand, McCain, Graham, Lankford are pushing for an investigation. Granted, statements on Twitter and ABC aren't votes, but four is a significant number as Republicans have 52-48 majority with Kennedy winning the LA runoff. They're not all McConnells.
level six laser lotus
Yeah, if you'd have told me Repubs would be romanticizing and rushing to defend Russia a few years back, I'd have called you crazy. A few TNLers were having one of their FB feuds during the election and while rattling off the the standard right-wing descriptors against Hillary, "Anti-Russia" was dropped in there as some deplorable stance. It's unbelievable how any American who professes to worship Constitutional rights could be led to drink that water. Russia has state-controlled media, they've been making dissidents disappear, they've been encroaching on sovereign borders. "Russia sucks" should absolutely not be some partisan sentiment that either party finds particularly contentious.
That that's no longer the case is another flag that an insidious Russian narrative-crafting operation is real, and it's working.
I mean look at this shit:
Last edited by Bacon McShig; 11 Dec 2016 at 11:44 AM.
Amazing.
This Mishima kills fascists
I don't buy the "Hillary didn't talk policy" line at all. It's not the campaign who refused to talk policy. It was the media. And it's impossible to decouple the "last few weeks following the debate" from the media's running with Comey's announcement of new email evidence as "EMAIL PROBE REOPENED." Nothing was reopened. That line came from Rep. Chaffetz and was unquestioningly circulated in headlines everywhere.
The papers eventually tried to walk it back, but the damage was done. And, yes, in an election decided by states where two more votes per precinct would have meant HRC victory, this matters. The leaks do, too.
i drink it up!
Makes sense to me though. You fall in line with the party line or the favour parade comes to a halt. ISIS is a great catalyst to showcase Russia's action-forward approach to terrorism. Who they are actually bombing be damned! But lets not fool ourselves in to thinking Hillary isn't just as comfortable dropping bombs on the middle east.
Apparently getting access to restricted databases in the US isn't as hard as you'd think btw
Hillary did talk policy. It however wasn't the preeminent or salient point of her campaign (much of this WASN'T her fault, either, but rather the vocal lefts concurrent narrative of "Anyone but him"). So I suppose we agree, but as a politician it's absolutely possible to talk policy over the media. This is the same point Donald Trump is making: the media makes their own stories around the facts or direct quotes from those they're covering.I don't buy the "Hillary didn't talk policy" line at all. It's not the campaign who refused to talk policy. It was the media. And it's impossible to decouple the "last few weeks following the debate" from the media's running with Comey's announcement of new email evidence as "EMAIL PROBE REOPENED." Nothing was reopened. That line came from Rep. Chaffetz and was unquestioningly circulated in headlines everywhere.
The papers eventually tried to walk it back, but the damage was done. And, yes, in an election decided by states where two more votes per precinct would have meant HRC victory, this matters. The leaks do, too.
I don't believe the last bit about these things mattering as much as you think they do. When you step back and analyze the rural areas of your country their main issues are they same as they've been since Bush was president—a hole ran through their local economies. They want "change". Obama ran of it, Bernie did and Trump did and all 3 of those people had good political runs this cycle. None of this is actually new in any way. It's politics as usual... almost by the numbers. After reading more about NAFTA it's hard to blame them too... the NAFTA agreement made some kind of sense to opening free trade, but did little to up workers rights and level the competitive nature of the labour market. It also caused an increase in migration of Mexicans in to America.
Trump is the only person with even a salient policy point speaking to these people (many, in these regions, who apparently are bigots but actually voted for Obama twice btw).
Last edited by Drewbacca; 11 Dec 2016 at 12:20 PM.
i drink it up!
The media isn't "getting to the truth" of things. They're creating their own rose-colored narratives. Fox News, for all of its bashers on the left, actually holds open discussions more than the left-leaning CNN. As someone who never watched Fox until probably last month I am surprised how much dissenting opinion there is on that network. I don't agree with most right wing people on a lot of things but I was surprised to see such civil discourse. If someone from the right comes on CNN its' almost certainly to make them eat shit in what feels like a public shaming.
This Mishima kills fascists
Media partisanship only explains so much, though. That screenshot in my above post was from the front page of CNN.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks