Do you get paid for disseminating your propaganda? I am really not interested in your dishonest views, so I bid you adieu. Ignore is where you belong.
Why did the Democrats lose the election?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Why does that bother you comrade? Why is it you defend your beloved Putinia at every opportunity?
That doesn't make sense comrade. Unfortunately for you, facts matter. You remind me of Comrade Trump, he too cannot say anything bad about Comrade Putinia. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, your "unipolar world" is a fiction. But hey, you are not one for facts, especially when they run counter to Russian, i.e. Putinia's, propaganda.
If your beloved Putinia is for sovereign states as you have repeatedly asserted, then why has he repeatedly invaded, occupied, and annexed portions of smaller neighboring states? If your beloved Mother Putinia is against big states and you are against larger states, then why is Putina enlarging Russia at the expense of his smaller neighbors, and why is it you steadfastly defend those actions? Your assertions just don't make sense comrade. Your actions contradict your words. You have been so blinded by Putinia's propaganda, you can't even see it, or perhaps you can but refuse to acknowledge it.
Last edited:
Actually, I think he does. I think he is a part of the Russian troll army. He steadfastly refuses to say anything really negative about Putin or the Russian state. If he did say something bad about either, he might lose his job among other things. Russia doesn't do well with dissidents. Russia has never done well with dissidents. We have seen some very public Russian executions of dissidents in recent years, e.g. Litvinenko, Nemtsov, et al.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/europe/russia-finland-nato-trolls.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
Basically, it sounds like you are unhappy with the United Nations...
Both Trump and Bernie represented anti-establishment waves of "change", just on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Bernie's wave failed to overtake the party while Trumps succeeded. Economically the middle classes of the developed world are becoming more and more politically agitated and anxious as automation, outsourcing and immigration sap them of quality of life and stability and they are striking back by joining the political extremes, the rise of the right in Europe, Brexit, the election of trump, all follow under the same trend. The Democrats simply failed to ride the wave and sunk like a stone by being conservative of all things and going with moderate, war hawk, corrupt sell out, Hillary Clinton.
Eh... I wouldn't say that Bernie failed to overtake the party - the problem is more that, while Bernie overtook a large portion of the party, the Democratic Establishment within the DNC (and older Democrats) refused to support him, and actively worked against him... most democrats I know and/or have talked with (and even a number of Republicans) preferred Sanders over Clinton by a wide margin... but the DNC put money over party base and... well, now we have Trump.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
No, I'm unhappy with the United States, a country with some 300 mio people which tries to rule a world of 8 000 mio people. I would have no problem with the US if they would peacefully sit in their state and do there what they like. Given their territory, and their neighbours, they would not need much defense at all, but they spend more for weapons that the next ten states or so together, have military bases all over the world, are involved in almost all wars.
The UN is, instead, simply not relevant, and never have been relevant. All what is relevant requires agreement of the veto powers, which makes it sometimes useful. But most of what happens there does not matter at all. Everybody knows it. and so many third world states usually vote in favor of pays more, except for vassal states who vote how the ruler prescribes. So, I see no reason to bother about it at all.
PS: Why you think that I'm unhappy with something? joepistole has made a completely wrong claim about some UNSC resolution. I have asked him to support his claim from the resolution itself, giving a link to the full text from the UN site. Of course, he was unable to support this. So, I have here no issue with the UN at all. Only one with joepistole lying.
Thank you very much. I don't remember even a single post from you which would have been interesting, but a lot of postings which I will not characterize here to avoid a conflict with the netiquette, so this makes this forum a much better place for me.
Of course, because if I want to criticize Putin or something about the Russian state, I do this in Russian forums.
I'm not your comrade, so, if you want to ask something, behave appropriately.
Repetitions of Western propaganda claims disposed.
That sums it up, but the republican establishment tried to do the same with trump, difference was they were too disorganized and disassembled among many wanted candidates to stop trump. Clinton on the other hand had been working on not getting Obama-ed again for 8 years and had almost all the establishment bending the knee to her and believing in her inevitable victory, like Nixon or something. Trumps victory, though surprising based on his 1:3 chances according to fivethrityeight just before the election, did not cause me any sadness (though did cost me sanity), the largest segment of blame for this election goes to Hillary Clinton herself, had she simply died during the primary the whole country and world would be better off now.
Using the same line of reasoning, your beloved Mother Russia needs no defense at all. So why is it enlarging it's military?
As has been repeatedly explained to you, the US has a vast military network because countries request a US military presence. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, countries request a US troop presence to protect them from the likes of your beloved Mother Russia. Had your beloved Mother Russia not invaded, occupied, and annexed portions of Georgia and Ukraine, there wouldn't be a US troop presence in the Balkan today.
If the United Nations is irrelevant, then why does your beloved Mother Russia send representatives to and participate in the United Nations? Mother Russia could better spend her money feeding her people if that were the case. The bottom line here is, as is all too typical with you, your assertion is unmitigated bullshit.
No comrade, Joepistole didn't make a completely wrong claim about the UNSC resolution he, i.e. moi, cited. You just don't like what it says.
Okay, another ad hominem attack and a pivot....nothing surprising there.
Oh so you reserve all of your "criticism" of Mother Putinia for another forum. Who do you think your are fooling comrade. We aren't Russians here.
Oh you cut me to the quick Comrade Schmelzer. I thought we were comrades.
Well you see that's kind of the problem with you, everything other than Russian state propaganda is Western propaganda with you. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you only believe whatever the Russian state owned and controlled media tells you, and you rebroadcast that material on this and probably other sites.
The truth is the truth. It's held up to rigorous scrutiny. It's confirmed by multiple independent sources. That's not what the Russian state owned and controlled media offers. But that is what you buy, try to repackage and resell.
Last edited:
See, there's a disconnect here. I agree - the US spends far too much damn money on the Military... but, one cannot simply "turtle up". It is far, far too easy for another country to reach out and touch someone if they wish... either via Bombers, ICBM, or even just trade wars.
So... then you are unhappy with the UN, as I said (since you just said it is irrelevant)
Entertainingly enough, nothing has been "disposed", nor was it propaganda... but continue on with your happy place if you wish *shrug*
This is, sadly, very true.
The Democrats lost the election because the Democrats are most effective, when they think they can get away with lying, deception and spin, with the help of their propaganda wing, which is the main street media. The Wikileaks allowed too much truth to be revealed, which got in the way of their election scam and scum. Even if the Russians hacked the DNC, the DNC never once denied any of the content in the emails. The Russians didn't even use misinformation like the Democrats.
The Democrats did not learn anything from the election, but are back in business of making up fake news in an attempt to undermine Trump. This should make it easier for Trump to show little mercy when he dismantles the various show pieces of liberalism, starting with ObamaCare. The word is Trump wants to decrease the government budget by 10% and the workforce by 20%, while building up the military and investing in infrastructure. To make the math add up, that means a lot of liberal appointments and pet programs will be on the chopping block. The Democrats should have been good sports and not double down on fake news. They still seem to believe if the truth had not be revealed, they could have won with fake news.
The Democrats did not learn anything from the election, but are back in business of making up fake news in an attempt to undermine Trump. This should make it easier for Trump to show little mercy when he dismantles the various show pieces of liberalism, starting with ObamaCare. The word is Trump wants to decrease the government budget by 10% and the workforce by 20%, while building up the military and investing in infrastructure. To make the math add up, that means a lot of liberal appointments and pet programs will be on the chopping block. The Democrats should have been good sports and not double down on fake news. They still seem to believe if the truth had not be revealed, they could have won with fake news.
Oh goddamnit, this propaganda again...
Wellwisher - explain simply: What is Trump's plan to replace the ACA? How does he intend to do this without kicking several MILLION people off of their insurance with no recourse?
What plan has Trump laid out to decrease the cost of government (please provide sources).
Where has Trump shown any plan or indication of building up our Infrastructure? How the hell is he going to "cut costs" while building up the Military, which ALREADY gets a huge chunk of our discretionary spending budget?
Note - yes, the DNC fucked up royally... and I would love to see their upper echelons dragged out of power and replaced with people intent on actually serving America... but seriously, we have had nothing but hot air from Trump so far... even his own Party doesn't know WTF his plan is... or if he even actually has one!
Is that a trick question? He's been quite clear on what he will do:
1) Demand that Congress repeal and replace the ACA IMMEDIATELY.
2) When millions of people lose their coverage, blame Obama.
3) When tens of thousands of people die due to that loss of coverage, blame Obama.
4) When insurance premiums on the remaining covered people go up, blame Obama.
5) When the deficit balloons as a result, blame Obama.
Remember how the republicans were blaming Bill Clinton for the great recession in 2008? Didn't work then*, but we know they are going to try known the less.
*Well not enough to have prevented their massive defeat to us democrats then, but I still know a guy that says it is all Clinton's fault.
The largest segment of blame goes to the major factors that recruited votes for Trump, and suppressed votes for Clinton in the key electoral States. Those are of two essential and overwhelmingly influential kinds: 1) media cooperation with the Nameless Faction's propaganda barrage over the past thirty five years, culminating in CNN and Fox imposing and mainstreaming Trump's entirely fraudulent campaign while undermining and degrading Clinton's legitimate campaign, and 2) unopposed and effective count rigging and voter suppression tactics biasing the vote itself, especially the electoral college vote.
It did work then. It handed the House and Senate to the Republicans.
Sad but true...
Yeah because the senate when from 49 to 57 (and eventually 60 by mid 2009) democrats and the house went from 236 to 257 democrats... total republican win.
The republicans took over during Obama when the blame game was that Obama was not doing enough to fix the country. By 12015-12016* republican candidates like trump that openly called out the failings of the bush administrated sky rocketed to success, so aside for NAFTA much of the blame Clinton game is gone, but I don't disagree the blame Obama game will go into effect, I just question if it will be successful, maybe, maybe not.
*
Hmm.....do you care to point out any lies? Of course you don't, because there were no Democratic lies...oops. Russia and Wikileaks had the hacked documents for a long time before releasing them. They waited until the last few days before the election to release them, and that was a very deliberate and strategic decision on there part.
Releasing thousands of these documents during the final days of the election made vetting impossible. There wasn't enough time, and Russia knew that. It was a distraction at a time Democrats could ill afford. That's why Russia did it. Unfortunately, for you not everyone is as dumb a Russia and your fellow Republicans need them to be.
Except as with most of your posts, that too simply isn't true:
"the metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named “Феликс Эдмундович,” a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times. The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions, thereby confirming they had made a mistake in the first round.
The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories. Subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of content may be in the interest of the adversary in the future. Documents that were leaked by or through an intelligence operation should be handled with great care, and journalists should not simply treat them as reliable sources. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...rs-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks
And another example:
"The documents that WikiLeaks has unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the WikiLeaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal.
The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal, Podesta and the topic of conservative political fever dreams, Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton bore total responsibility for the attack on the American outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign.
But the Russians had faked it all, taking a real document released by WikiLeaks and altering it to create a bogus story—one that ultimately was picked up by Trump himself. Since Newsweek first broke the story online, some journalists have speculated that the misrepresentation of the email may have merely been an error by an overworked Russian news agency. However, according to a government official with direct knowledge of the American intelligence agencies’ inquiry into the Russian hacking campaign, and who spoke on condition of anonymity, that theory is “absurd.”
http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635
Here is something else you ignored or of ignorant of the Russians also hacked Republican computers, but they didn't release any of it. Why do you think that is?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-director-james-comey-to-testify-before-congress-1484044204
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-rnc-idUSKBN14U2DD
Except you really should know that isn't true either.
If you take Trump seriously, then you should know that he wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure. He wants to spend another 12 trillion dollars on tax cuts mostly for America's wealthiest residents, and he wants to spend another trillion dollars on increased defense spending. Being a Trump supporter, you should know Trump doesn't want to cut "social spending". He has promised several times that he will not touch Medicare and Social Security, and most recently he has promised healthcare for all. By the way, Obamacare is self funded and in fact at last count it saves the government hundreds of billions of dollars. Repealing Obamacare will but a huge hole in Medicare funding.
Now if you think those numbers add up to less spending and less government, you are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest, or some combination thereof. Take your pick.
