Old Thread About Election Consequences

drummerboy said:
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
 

It's annoying only if you're wedded to the fiction that the dinner table in Moscow caused Hillary to lose the election.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
 

It's annoying only if you're wedded to the fiction that the dinner table in Moscow caused Hillary to lose the election.

 Or if you don't think these comments about Jill Stein matter much in the big picture. 

Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
 

It's annoying only if you're wedded to the fiction that the dinner table in Moscow caused Hillary to lose the election.

 Or if you don't think these comments about Jill Stein matter much in the big picture. 

 It's a very big deal when a Senate committee subpoenas the records of a political party regardless of the reason. In this case the reason was outrageous.

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
 

It's annoying only if you're wedded to the fiction that the dinner table in Moscow caused Hillary to lose the election.

 Or if you don't think these comments about Jill Stein matter much in the big picture. 

 It's a very big deal when a Senate committee subpoenas the records of a political party regardless of the reason. In this case the reason was outrageous.

 What was the reason?  I thought it was the dinner, but I don't know what they asked for. 

paulsurovell said:

Do you agree that Senator Warner's statements -- that Jill Stein sat at a table with Putin and that she's said "complimentary things" things about Julian Assange were justifications for issuing subpoenas for Green Party campaign documents -- are also calumnies?
And this comment by Ari Melber?

MELBER: That`s a good point and we are dealing with a professional entertainer and reality star unless we forget. Bill Kristol and Matt Miller, thank you, both. Still to come, another lead in the Russia probe. Why was green party Candidate Jill Stein getting support apparently from WikiLeaks and the Kremlin? Also, my one on one tonight with former Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski. I`m going to ask him about Russia and get reaction from Nick Akerman and a top Clinton aide.

And this spectacle by Rachel Maddow?

My mistake. I thought a calumny was a cephalopod.

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

which part is the slur?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

which part is the slur?

The part that says she's an anti-vaxxer Putinite.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

Not that I recall. 

T

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
 

It's annoying only if you're wedded to the fiction that the dinner table in Moscow caused Hillary to lose the election.

 Or if you don't think these comments about Jill Stein matter much in the big picture. 

 It's a very big deal when a Senate committee subpoenas the records of a political party regardless of the reason. In this case the reason was outrageous.

 What was the reason?  I thought it was the dinner, but I don't know what they asked for. 

 The dinner and complimentary things said about Julian Assange.

paulsurovell said:
T

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
 

It's annoying only if you're wedded to the fiction that the dinner table in Moscow caused Hillary to lose the election.

 Or if you don't think these comments about Jill Stein matter much in the big picture. 

 It's a very big deal when a Senate committee subpoenas the records of a political party regardless of the reason. In this case the reason was outrageous.

 What was the reason?  I thought it was the dinner, but I don't know what they asked for. 

 The dinner and complimentary things said about Julian Assange.

 What "complimentary things"?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

Not that I recall. 

 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

ridski said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

Not that I recall. 

 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

 Even Snopes notes -

Dr. Stein’s stated position is that she “supports vaccinations” and acknowledges that “we have a real compelling need for vaccinations,” so it’s not true to say that she is on record as holding an anti-vaccination political position. However, her somewhat equivocal statements surrounding that issue allow for a fair bit of leeway and interpretation — many others who proclaim to “support vaccinations” in concept effectively undercut their positions by raising objections to the “vaccination process” or the “vaccination industry.”

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
T

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
 

It's annoying only if you're wedded to the fiction that the dinner table in Moscow caused Hillary to lose the election.

 Or if you don't think these comments about Jill Stein matter much in the big picture. 

 It's a very big deal when a Senate committee subpoenas the records of a political party regardless of the reason. In this case the reason was outrageous.

 What was the reason?  I thought it was the dinner, but I don't know what they asked for. 

 The dinner and complimentary things said about Julian Assange.

 What "complimentary things"?

 You'll have to ask Mark Warner.

South_Mountaineer said:

ridski said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

Not that I recall. 

 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

 Even Snopes notes -

Dr. Stein’s stated position is that she “supports vaccinations” and acknowledges that “we have a real compelling need for vaccinations,” so it’s not true to say that she is on record as holding an anti-vaccination political position. However, her somewhat equivocal statements surrounding that issue allow for a fair bit of leeway and interpretation — many others who proclaim to “support vaccinations” in concept effectively undercut their positions by raising objections to the “vaccination process” or the “vaccination industry.”

 She supports vaccinations and she opposes undo influence by corporate lobbyists on the FDA and other regulatory agencies. That's not pandering.

jamie said:
Ok so you concur that the MSM is not pushing the narrative that Stein IS a Russian spy.  Your implication was that people were finding this narrative in their “news sources”.  I read as your further bashing of the MSM.

 No, the link shows it is the mainstream media spreading fake news.  Not that you would notice.

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Oh, look mainstream media fake news!!!!  Maybe they should be banned from Twitter??????  Not holding my breath.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Not sure "pander" is the correct term, but she sure as shootin is not a "Putinite."   That is FAKE NEWS.  Oh, my. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

 Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.

Love how Paul and Nan get into hyper posting mode whenever Hillary's name is in the thread title - it's really fascinating - (does anyone want to mention to them there's a midterm election on Tuesday - and Hillary and Bernie and Jill Stein aren't running?  . . . nah)

jamie said:
Love how Paul and Nan get into hyper posting mode whenever Hillary's name is in the thread title - it's really fascinating - (does anyone want to mention to them there's a midterm election on Tuesday - and Hillary and Bernie and Jill Stein aren't running?  . . . nah)

 Um.. shouldn't you address this comment to @nohero. After all, it's his title (and his obsession).

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

 Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.

 In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this. 

If I could go back to a discussion on this thread that was on the previous page, before "My Dinner With Vlad" became the topic ...

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:
On Mr. Surovell's sweeping epic of a thread (the "Hillary Colluded More" one), he recommended an interview with Professor Gerald Horne.  I read that, and then some of Dr. Horne's other works.  As I discussed there with Mr. Surovell, Dr. Horne identified a significant cause of the election of Trump.
It seems that the GOP "led many voters to think that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.  And that created an opening for Donald Trump and allowed him to win."
Of course, the GOP had some help in making that claim.

 OK, so let's look at the facts on this, for a change.  What are the differences on foreign policy for the Republicans and Democrats?  Who voted for Trump's military budget?  Republicans or Democrats?  Who said, when billions in an increase was proposed for the military, "How are we going to pay for that?"

The "facts on this" are that's it relatively simple to identify where they differ, on some pretty basic principles and issues.
Some of those "facts" are actually people, some of whom are right in our community, and are nearby, and in our state, and throughout our country.  I've given up hope in convincing Ms. Nan that the consequences to them should be given any thought when deciding how to vote.

@nohero oversimplifies Dr. Horne's position. In fact Horne is a harsh critic of the Democratic Party and his position was that a higher vote for the Green Party would be a good influence on the Democratic Party going forward. He encouraged voters on the left to vote Green in states where the polls showed Hillary with a big lead (like New Jersey). 

I don’t think I oversimplified Dr. Horne’s views, and I never wrote that he wasn’t a critic of the Democrats.  As you admit, “He encouraged voters on the left to vote Green in states where the polls showed Hillary with a big lead (like New Jersey).”  That means that he saw a difference, and wasn’t telling people “Don’t vote for her” if there was a chance that Trump would win the state.

His view of where it was “safe” is in the part you excerpted.  

HORNE: We know already who’s going to win in the mountain west, in Dixie, on the pacific coast, on the north east, and on the Midwest, that is to say the upper Midwest.   That’s why the candidates are frequently flying in to North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Colorado. So it seems to me in those 40 plus states where we already know the result in advance, the progressive electorates should try to send a signal to the eventual winner by casting a vote for a left wing candidate.”

That plan requires that enough voters in those states do “vote for her” so that a third-party vote wouldn’t give the election to Trump.

Arguably, not only Clinton but perhaps Dr. Horne might have overestimated the number of states where “we already know” she was going to win.  Or, perhaps, too many people played that game, and as a result close races, that decided the election, went for Trump.

This is completely different from saying “both parties are the same” or that it doesn’t matter which party wins.  Also, it relies on those of us who did vote for Secretary Clinton.  The “send a message” people were relying on those of us who didn’t want to play games, to make sure that they could “vote their conscience” but not have the consequences (or the blame).

In the excerpt you quoted, he actually thought that the committed Stein voters shouldn’t be reached out to by the Democrats, but instead said that there were Trump voters who could be switched.  That isn’t the same as the arguments that the Democrats weren’t “progressive enough” (in part because the nominee wasn’t Bernie) to attract those voters.

Although, in a portion you didn't quote, he did have an analysis of the segment that may have voted for Bernie in primaries, and then voted for Trump:  “The fact that some supported Sanders and now support Trump, only suggest to me a kind of political illiteracy. That is to say I guess what they’re suggesting is they want a disruptive factor which is why they voted for Sanders then Trump. But the fact that they’re now voting for Trump, it seems to me is beyond contempt.”  But going more “progressive” wouldn’t be the key to reaching them.

Bottom line, Dr. Horne isn’t supporting your arguments at all.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Love how Paul and Nan get into hyper posting mode whenever Hillary's name is in the thread title - it's really fascinating - (does anyone want to mention to them there's a midterm election on Tuesday - and Hillary and Bernie and Jill Stein aren't running?  . . . nah)

 Um.. shouldn't you address this comment to @nohero. After all, it's his title (and his obsession).

Two thoughts:

(a) I started and named the thread on June 27, when we were dealing the reality that Trump was getting a chance to select a second Supreme Court justice.  As a result, the real anti-Hillary obsessions have been seen, since even the Supreme Court consequences aren't important enough for them.  If anything, its relevant to the midterms because the same obsessions could hurt the Democratic candidates.

(b) Not for nothing, but in light of (a) I don't think the thread should have been wished into the Russia cornfield just because some posters decided it was a good place for another "RT party".

But, in light of (a) and (b), maybe I'll change the thread title.  Suggestions are welcome.

nohero said:
If I could go back to a discussion on this thread that was on the previous page, before "My Dinner With Vlad" became the topic ...

paulsurovell said:

@nohero oversimplifies Dr. Horne's position. In fact Horne is a harsh critic of the Democratic Party and his position was that a higher vote for the Green Party would be a good influence on the Democratic Party going forward. He encouraged voters on the left to vote Green in states where the polls showed Hillary with a big lead (like New Jersey). 

I don’t think I oversimplified Dr. Horne’s views, and I never wrote that he wasn’t a critic of the Democrats.  As you admit, “He encouraged voters on the left to vote Green in states where the polls showed Hillary with a big lead (like New Jersey).”  That means that he saw a difference, and wasn’t telling people “Don’t vote for her” if there was a chance that Trump would win the state.
His view of where it was “safe” is in the part you excerpted.  

HORNE: We know already who’s going to win in the mountain west, in Dixie, on the pacific coast, on the north east, and on the Midwest, that is to say the upper Midwest.   That’s why the candidates are frequently flying in to North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Colorado. So it seems to me in those 40 plus states where we already know the result in advance, the progressive electorates should try to send a signal to the eventual winner by casting a vote for a left wing candidate.”

That plan requires that enough voters in those states do “vote for her” so that a third-party vote wouldn’t give the election to Trump.
Arguably, not only Clinton but perhaps Dr. Horne might have overestimated the number of states where “we already know” she was going to win.  Or, perhaps, too many people played that game, and as a result close races, that decided the election, went for Trump.

Of course you spend 90% of your time smearing people in New Jersey who you allege (with your magical powers of omniscience) didn't vote for Hillary (even when they say that they voted for her), like you did a few hours ago on another thread vvvv (my underscore)

And New Jersey was one of the safest states for Hillary.

So be honest -- Dr. Horne's views on this topic are antithetical to yours and antithetical to what you spend your time doing on this board.

nohero said:  As a result, the real anti-Hillary obsessions have been seen, since even the Supreme Court consequences aren't important enough for them.

What you call "anti-Hillary obsessions" are actually self-fulfilling prophesies that result from your obsessive / OCD haranguing of what some people allegedly (in your mind) did in 2016.

The obsession is yours, not of those defending themselves against your baseless and irrational allegations.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:  As a result, the real anti-Hillary obsessions have been seen, since even the Supreme Court consequences aren't important enough for them.

What you call "anti-Hillary obsessions" are actually self-fulfilling prophesies that result from your obsessive / OCD haranguing of what some people allegedly (in your mind) did in 2016.
The obsession is yours, not of those defending themselves against your baseless and irrational allegations.

I can't even begin to untangle that, so won't bother.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
If I could go back to a discussion on this thread that was on the previous page, before "My Dinner With Vlad" became the topic ...

paulsurovell said:

@nohero oversimplifies Dr. Horne's position. In fact Horne is a harsh critic of the Democratic Party and his position was that a higher vote for the Green Party would be a good influence on the Democratic Party going forward. He encouraged voters on the left to vote Green in states where the polls showed Hillary with a big lead (like New Jersey). 

I don’t think I oversimplified Dr. Horne’s views, and I never wrote that he wasn’t a critic of the Democrats.  As you admit, “He encouraged voters on the left to vote Green in states where the polls showed Hillary with a big lead (like New Jersey).”  That means that he saw a difference, and wasn’t telling people “Don’t vote for her” if there was a chance that Trump would win the state.
His view of where it was “safe” is in the part you excerpted.  

HORNE: We know already who’s going to win in the mountain west, in Dixie, on the pacific coast, on the north east, and on the Midwest, that is to say the upper Midwest.   That’s why the candidates are frequently flying in to North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Colorado. So it seems to me in those 40 plus states where we already know the result in advance, the progressive electorates should try to send a signal to the eventual winner by casting a vote for a left wing candidate.”

That plan requires that enough voters in those states do “vote for her” so that a third-party vote wouldn’t give the election to Trump.
Arguably, not only Clinton but perhaps Dr. Horne might have overestimated the number of states where “we already know” she was going to win.  Or, perhaps, too many people played that game, and as a result close races, that decided the election, went for Trump.

Of course you spend 90% of your time smearing people in New Jersey who you allege (with your magical powers of omniscience) didn't vote for Hillary (even when they say that they voted for her), like you did a few hours ago on another thread vvvv (my underscore)

And New Jersey was one of the safest states for Hillary.
So be honest -- Dr. Horne's views on this topic are antithetical to yours and antithetical to what you spend your time doing on this board.

Sorry, I was basing my comment on what was actually written by people.  Dr. Horne could be characterized as "You can not vote for Hillary so long as you know she's going to win your state."  As I wrote, he may have been too optimistic about some states (as Hillary was).  I disagree with him in the sense that it would have been better to just vote for Hillary, and choose other method (after the election) to address concerns with the Democratic Party.

It is the case that in New Jersey, the "free riders" got to say, "I didn't vote for her, not like you neoliberal neocons."  Whatever floats your boat.