On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 10:51:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:37:00 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.

Excuse me scooter but weren't there more votes cast in 2016 than in
the rest of the history of presidential campaigns?
Maybe CNN lied to me?

Well Bubba, 2016 was the lowest percentage of eligible voters since 1996.
Define election turnout however you like. Percentage of eligible voter
suits me just fine.

Is that eligible voter or registered voter?
It is funny how they are slicing and dicing the statistics without
acknowledging that these were the two most unpopular candidates in
recent history, if not the entire history of the republic. Even your
VP says Hillary ignored the mid west swing states and hinted that the
voters she needed were deplorable. The DNC ****ed up nominating
Hillary and Hillary ran a horrible campaign. Without the inevitable
defeat of Trump in their sights, the DNC might have made better
choices.
OTOH if the GOP had a better candidate, it would not have even been a
close race.
This is what happens when both candidates are as bad as the choices we
were handed.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 10:51:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:37:00 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.

Excuse me scooter but weren't there more votes cast in 2016 than in
the rest of the history of presidential campaigns?
Maybe CNN lied to me?

Well Bubba, 2016 was the lowest percentage of eligible voters since 1996.
Define election turnout however you like. Percentage of eligible voter
suits me just fine.

Is that eligible voter or registered voter?
It is funny how they are slicing and dicing the statistics without
acknowledging that these were the two most unpopular candidates in
recent history, if not the entire history of the republic.

The statistics are the acknowledgement. No other way to take it.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:37:00 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails that
caused her to lose.

Nothing to be confused about.
The Russian hackers had nothing to do with HRC's loss. They revealed
nothing but common politics and gossip.
The news media's drumbeat of HRC "corruption," and hammering her on her
private State Department server, and Comey coming up with "new emails" -
which weren't - made enough Bernie voters stay home.
The stupid voters came out, and carried the day for the pussy grabber.
It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.



I cannot believe a liberal is blaming the liberal media for Hillary's loss.

Not even Hillary has done that.

The stupid voters lost.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:10:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails that
caused her to lose.

===

So should we condone the Russian hacking because it exposed the truth?
I think not. It would be a dangerous precedent. Would Hillary have
lost anyway? It's entirely possible. Her act did not play well in
the heartland of the country but we'll never know for sure. Is Trump
better for the country than Hillary? The jury is still out on that
one. Trump's temperment and ethics are worrisome to say the least.

On 12/30/2016 4:41 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:10:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails that
caused her to lose.

===

So should we condone the Russian hacking because it exposed the truth?
I think not. It would be a dangerous precedent. Would Hillary have
lost anyway? It's entirely possible. Her act did not play well in
the heartland of the country but we'll never know for sure. Is Trump
better for the country than Hillary? The jury is still out on that
one. Trump's temperment and ethics are worrisome to say the least.


I feel exactly the same way, hence my confession of being torn on the
issue. The hacking by Russia is nothing new or unique. We can't
condone it but it's a form of espionage that just about every country
and government on the planet engages in, including us. The conundrum
is, as you pointed out, that the hacking by Russia exposed truths about
DNC activities to suppress Bernie's chances and the recognition by
Hillary's campaign staff that they had some serious problems with her
email stories.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 16:41:56 -0500,
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:10:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails that
caused her to lose.

===

So should we condone the Russian hacking because it exposed the truth?
I think not. It would be a dangerous precedent. Would Hillary have
lost anyway? It's entirely possible. Her act did not play well in
the heartland of the country but we'll never know for sure. Is Trump
better for the country than Hillary? The jury is still out on that
one. Trump's temperment and ethics are worrisome to say the least.

Hillary was a vote for 4 more years of the last 25. Bernie and Trump
represent the thought that people want something different even if it
is wrong.
I just hope we survive it ;-)
Bear in mind, I voted for Gary.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:10:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails that
caused her to lose.

I don't even believe that. The electorate was so split, a little dirty
dealing by the Clinton folks was not likely to have changes anyone's
opinion. Everyone was already well aware that she was not trustworthy
and the ones willing to vote for her did not care. Biden summed it up
best. She just ignored the working class in flyover country and
preached to the choir on the coasts. Even when she stumped here, she
went to Miami/FtL and Orlando.
as for the hack
I still say, only a Clinton could call the truth "disruptive" and
"manipulation". How can the same people who cheer Snowden and
Ellsberg, condemn leaking the truth about the DNC? (whoever did it,
there is still a suspicion that some of it came from Bernie folks)

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:10:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails that
caused her to lose.

I don't even believe that. The electorate was so split, a little dirty
dealing by the Clinton folks was not likely to have changes anyone's
opinion. Everyone was already well aware that she was not trustworthy
and the ones willing to vote for her did not care. Biden summed it up
best. She just ignored the working class in flyover country and
preached to the choir on the coasts. Even when she stumped here, she
went to Miami/FtL and Orlando.
as for the hack
I still say, only a Clinton could call the truth "disruptive" and
"manipulation". How can the same people who cheer Snowden and
Ellsberg, condemn leaking the truth about the DNC? (whoever did it,
there is still a suspicion that some of it came from Bernie folks)

Whoever did it did the job the media should have (wouldn't?) do. They exposed Hillary's perjury and corruption.

Say, isn't there a lady democrat AG in PA getting ready to go to jail for far less than Hillary's crimes? The difference is Kane was bucking the system. Hillary *is* (or was!) the system. The good people of the US are tired of it.