• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Audacity of Hopelessness

Trump knew that Hilary did not have an economic message for the Rust Belt folks that were desperate to have someone hear there concerns, That alone was enough to entice enough voters to his side to win. Now, delivering on his statements may be more problematic for Trump, however I am sure that whatever happens he will declare victory and hope to dupe the same voters in 4 years.
 
knowell said:
DeacMan coming on hard with logic. Doing the hard work. Must applaud.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm anxious to see if he loses it and turns to the dark side, ie, starts responding in kind. He can't maintain this level of quality.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
Trump knew that Hilary did not have an economic message for the Rust Belt folks that were desperate to have someone hear there concerns, That alone was enough to entice enough voters to his side to win. Now, delivering on his statements may be more problematic for Trump, however I am sure that whatever happens he will declare victory and hope to dupe the same voters in 4 years.
Click to expand...

Trump had a message, but everyone outside of that demographic knows it's BS. Maybe he'll prove he wasn't just lying for votes, but I agree he'll claim he did it regardless.
 
DeacMan said:
His message does not have to be the same or similar to Obama's to reach the same voters. He's not running the same campaign. He's not running against the same opponent. He's not remotely the same person as Obama. So I'm not sure I understand the logic you are trying to bring here.

In terms of what Trump offered voters that Hillary did not offer them - all of these have been reviewed in depth:

1 - He actually bothered to campaign in places Hillary didn't campaign - for instance he actually set foot in the State of Wisconsin.

2 - The populist economic message he provided has been reviewed widely and broadly

3 - He painted her as an out of touch elitist and avoided this label somehow (I guess you could argue this same type of charge was labeled against Romney by Obama)


4 - He painted her as a career politician beholden by money to other interests

5 - He was helped when she called "half" of his supporters deplorable and half of those deplorables as irredeemable

And none of the above makes Trump a good candidate, a good person, necessarily truthful in any particular regard or someone who will ultimately be successful. So you can spare trying to double back over about how awful Trump is. I get it. He's an a-hole. But you are asking how it is possible he would win votes from people who voted for Obama. I'm just telling you it happened. Relative to Obama:

Clinton won a smaller percentage of the African American vote

She won a smaller percentage of the Hispanic vote

She won a smaller percentage of the youth vote.

She won a smaller percentage of women voters (56% for Obama to 54% for Clinton) - although her margin of victory with women over Trump was the same as Obama over Romney

And we have reviewed over and over and over what happened relative to rural and ex-urban counties where Clinton was vastly outperformed by Obama (as well as by Gore and Kerry). She was brutal in these places.

Hillary Clinton was the second least popular Presidential candidate in history. And she lost, oddly, to the LEAST popular Presidential candidate in history.

My own opinion in light of the data. Trump won in spite of himself. That's how bad Clinton was as a candidate. People do not like her. And she was further hampered by the fact she was viewed as an elite, career politician. And you can spare explaining why people should have preferred her, how dumb voters were, etc. It was HER job to win their votes. She didn't do it.
Click to expand...

And she would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling Russians...
 
DeacMan said:
I suspect that's the point he's trying to make to everyone else.
Click to expand...

I would love to see some examples of people on here who have stated that Clinton lost because of the hacking.

I'm guessing there are a lot of examples that are readily accessible given the extent JHMD is continuing to beat the horse.

Specific posts from posters on here would be great instead of just generalizations that every Democrat/Liberal is outraged and thinks Clinton only lost because of the hacks.

If there are a lot out there that I have just glossed over then I'll apologize to JHMD and he can go on about his mission to continue to prod people about it.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I would love to see some examples of people on here who have stated that Clinton lost because of the hacking.

I'm guessing there are a lot of examples that are readily accessible given the extent JHMD is continuing to beat the horse.

Specific posts from posters on here would be great instead of just generalizations that every Democrat/Liberal is outraged and thinks Clinton only lost because of the hacks.

If there are a lot out there that I have just glossed over then I'll apologize to JHMD and he can go on about his mission to continue to prod people about it.
Click to expand...

I, admittedly, have not studied this thread. It certainly is fair for you to ask he not paint with too broad a brush.

http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/27108-Official-Russian-Election-Interference-Thread
 
DeacMan said:
I, admittedly, have not studied this thread. It certainly is fair for you to ask he not paint with too broad a brush.

http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/27108-Official-Russian-Election-Interference-Thread
Click to expand...

I've read through that thread off and on. Having a thread about Russian Interference is very different than stating that Clinton lost only because of said interference.

She was a deficient candidate, and Trump was able to exploit her weaknesses well and cater to a base that doesn't necessarily care to look into the validity of what he was saying. There are also a lot of people out there who feel that they have been left behind. Some of those are economically driven, some of those are racially driven, some of those are for other reasons entirely. They feel like the "status quo" is screwing them and Trump will "bring back the jobs". It's complete and utter bullshit, but they believed what he was feeding them. That's why Clinton lost.

I don't think it's unfair to take a look at possible interference from a foreign government in an American election if the evidence states that there was a hack. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
 
DeacMan said:
I suspect that's the point he's trying to make to everyone else.
Click to expand...

Because every board needs a 37 page thread (and counting) on an issue that no one is talking about. Makes perfect sense.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I've read through that thread off and on. Having a thread about Russian Interference is very different than stating that Clinton lost only because of said interference.

She was a deficient candidate, and Trump was able to exploit her weaknesses well and cater to a base that doesn't necessarily care to look into the validity of what he was saying. There are also a lot of people out there who feel that they have been left behind. Some of those are economically driven, some of those are racially driven, some of those are for other reasons entirely. They feel like the "status quo" is screwing them and Trump will "bring back the jobs". It's complete and utter bullshit, but they believed what he was feeding them. That's why Clinton lost.

I don't think it's unfair to take a look at possible interference from a foreign government in an American election if the evidence states that there was a hack. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
Click to expand...

"Listen, I'm not saying he was born in Kenya or that he's not fit to be President. But I don't think it's unfair to take a look at his long-form birth certificate if there is evidence that he might have been born overseas. I don't think anybody disagrees with that."
 
jhmd2000 said:
"Listen, I'm not saying he was born in Kenya or that he's not fit to be President. But I don't think it's unfair to take a look at his long-form birth certificate if there is evidence that he might have been born overseas. I don't think anybody disagrees with that."
Click to expand...

You are extremely intellectually dishonest considering what I believe to be your IQ. There is actual evidence (you know, facts, hard data, etc.) that Russia had plans to interfere and hack the election. Their intent is arguable, but there is almost no doubt about that, and has been reported by new outlets (REAL news outlets).

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/u...ntelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html?_r=0

American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief, in the weeks before the presidential election, that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos during the campaign. But they had conflicting views about the specific goals of the subterfuge.

Last week, Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment that upended the debate: Russia, they said, had intervened with the primary aim of helping make Donald J. Trump president.

The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.
Click to expand...

Do you refuse to accept that this is the case?

This is completely different from the Birther issue, no matter how many times you want to draw it back to that. Donald Trump fabricated that out of midair to appease a racist segment of America who were going after Obama for conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. There was not one shred of evidence (you are welcome to present that if you would like) that Obama was not born in the United States other than the fact that he is black and named Barack, so he can't possible be from America.
 
RJKarl said:
So you admit to making statements without any basis in relaity. Then you blame others. You haven't changed.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. No one here needs to read a 37 page thread on Russian election interference if they want to state their opinion on Russian election interference. And, to my knowledge, I have not been an active participant in said thread. So what basis in relaity you wish to refer to is very unclear and likely irrelevant.
 
I haven't read the thread on Russian interference but I'm going to make conclusions based on it anyway

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
DeacMan said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. No one here needs to read a 37 page thread on Russian election interference if they want to state their opinion on Russian election interference. And, to my knowledge, I have not been an active participant in said thread. So what basis in relaity you wish to refer to is very unclear and likely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's the epitome of dishonesty to not read something and then make statements about what it said.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I don't think it's unfair to take a look at possible interference from a foreign government in an American election if the evidence states that there was a hack. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Although I think there are segments who are way overplaying all the reasons, besides the candidate herself, that Hillary lost. I'd be surprised if Russia was the only government trying to influence how people here think. And obviously as a nation we would want to minimize those influences.

But, at the end of the day Clinton hung herself with her own rope - lots and lots of it. Refusing to acknowledge this as the primary issue - which is what some around the nation are doing - is just an indirect way of accusing voters of being stupid. And that, IMO, is not a good strategy.
 
RJKarl said:
It's the epitome of dishonesty to not read something and then make statements about what it said.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how I admitted I had not read the thread and obviously was alluding to it's existence for 27 - which was obviously the point - is not the epitome dishonesty. He asked if there were places people may have blamed the election outcome on hacking. I offered him a potential place. But, sure, carry on. Always entertaining.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top