• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Spokesman: We Need To Talk About ‘punishing’ Clinton

TheGoverness

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
40,957
Reaction score
55,103
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The full title of the article is Trump spokesman: We need to talk about ‘punishing’ Clinton for ‘trying to influence the election’

Article is here.

Trump’s new press secretary, Sean Spicer, is deflecting questions about the influence of Russian hacking on the 2016 election — arguing instead that people should talk about on “punishing” Hillary Clinton for trying to “influence the election.”
Spicer was asked if President-elect Trump accepts the conclusion of seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia was responsible for the hacks that sought to damage Clinton’s bid for the presidency.
“Why aren’t we talking about the other influences on the election? Why aren’t we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time?” Spicer said in response.
“No one is asking those questions. The fact is that everyone wants to make Donald Trump admit to certain things. When do we talk about the other side, which is what did Hillary Clinton do to influence the election? Is she being punished?”
Click to expand...

I guess the Trump administration has a serious case of the whataboutism's. :lol:
 
TheGoverness said:
The full title of the article is Trump spokesman: We need to talk about ‘punishing’ Clinton for ‘trying to influence the election’

Article is here.



I guess the Trump administration has a serious case of the whataboutism's. :lol:
Click to expand...

She did try to influence the election. It's called campaigning. This is the sort of thing I've come to expect. You're not allowed to contradict Trump.
 
She didn't TRY, she did. Her and the media outlets that took their marching orders from the DNC, deliberately sabotaged Sanders shot. This is not conjecture, this is proven, via the email leaks.
 
Both candidates did unseemly things this election: Trump encouraged Russian hacking, Clinton broke the debate rules. Both are undeserving of the presidential office.
 
While Trump is tried in the court of public opinion, the Clinton Machine should be tried in court.
 
TheGoverness said:
The full title of the article is Trump spokesman: We need to talk about ‘punishing’ Clinton for ‘trying to influence the election’

Article is here.



I guess the Trump administration has a serious case of the whataboutism's. :lol:
Click to expand...

I've seen this before. Nixon was accused of trying to use the CIA and FBI to cover up Watergate and that was one of the charges against him. Nixon tried to deflect his trying, he never did, by stating LBJ when he was president used the IRS, CIA and other organizations to go after his political enemies.

It turned out Nixon was right about LBJ, but LBJ was no longer president and no one cared as LBJ could not influence a thing anymore. Besides a Democratic congress is not about to investigate a former Democratic president for wrong doings. They had their sights on Nixon.

Trump may be right about Clinton, but she lost and it don't mean anything to anyone except the staunchest Trump supporters. The media probably should have dug deep into Hillary receiving the questions to the debate ahead of time, it didn't as the Democratic congress wasn't going to dig deep into LBJ.

How much influence the Russian hacking had on the election is probably in the eye of the beholder. Like the questions, what information was put forth had no effect on those who supported Trump or Hillary. Nothing was going to change their minds. A lot of this wiki leaks (Russians, maybe, maybe not) along with opening the FBI investigation was done the last week to 10 days prior to the election. According to CNN exit polls 13% of the public made up their minds whom they would vote for in the last week to ten days. 87% already had, so no influence at all on those 87%.

Again according to CNN exit polls, those late deciders went to Trump 45-42 with 13% voting third party. I doubt those leaning toward Clinton would have switched to Trump because of Wiki and those e-mails, but they, the e-mails may have been enough for some of them to switch their lean Clinton to a vote for a third party candidate. Third party candidates received a bit less than 5% of the total vote, 13% of late deciders is almost three times that amount.

Nothing can be proved one way or the other, Russians, Wiki, FBI, or lazy campaigning on what influenced these late deciders to go with whom they did. But the amount of late deciders voting third party is interesting. We probably over rate all this stuff and its influence, like the debates which Hillary won hands down, they really didn't cause anyone to change their vote. Perhaps this Russian hacking is the same thing, it just reinforced whom one was going to vote for in the first place.
 
Geoist said:
Both candidates did unseemly things this election: Trump encouraged Russian hacking, Clinton broke the debate rules. Both are undeserving of the presidential office.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I been spouting the undeserving aspect since at least February if not longer for these two. It almost like our two major parties decided on the two worst candidates available.
 
Perotista said:
I totally agree. I been spouting the undeserving aspect since at least February if not longer for these two. It almost like our two major parties decided on the two worst candidates available.
Click to expand...

The D's were actively deprived of choice, the R's picked the best of many choices, let's not be floating false equivalences here.
 
TheGoverness said:
The full title of the article is Trump spokesman: We need to talk about ‘punishing’ Clinton for ‘trying to influence the election’

Article is here.





I guess the Trump administration has a serious case of the whataboutism's. :lol:
Click to expand...
66327890.jpg
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps this Russian hacking is the same thing, it just reinforced whom one was going to vote for in the first place.
Click to expand...

Great post, but I just wanted to address this little bit.

I think that is most likely the case. I seriously doubt any of the leaks drove a lot of people to change their votes (I'm sure there was a few, but certainly not the majority). Like you said, it probably just solidified their votes for their preferred candidate choice.
 
Geoist said:
Both candidates did unseemly things this election: Trump encouraged Russian hacking, Clinton broke the debate rules. Both are undeserving of the presidential office.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The D's were actively deprived of choice, the R's picked the best of many choices, let's not be floating false equivalences here.
Click to expand...

Matter of perspectives, I thought they chose the worst one of the lot. that almost any other Republican would have beaten Hillary by 10 points or more and need not have had to rely on the electoral college. But that is my perception on the matter, apparently you have a different one.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The D's were actively deprived of choice, the R's picked the best of many choices, let's not be floating false equivalences here.
Click to expand...

As you just did with this post I quoted.

Eric Cantor helped the GOP master the concept of false/equivalency beginning Nov. 4, 2008 .
 
TheGoverness said:
The full title of the article is Trump spokesman: We need to talk about ‘punishing’ Clinton for ‘trying to influence the election’

Article is here.

I guess the Trump administration has a serious case of the whataboutism's. :lol:
Click to expand...

I guess he wants to deflect from his little problem with freind Putin.
 
Perotista said:
Matter of perspectives, I thought they chose the worst one of the lot. that almost any other Republican would have beaten Hillary by 10 points or more and need not have had to rely on the electoral college. But that is my perception on the matter, apparently you have a different one.
Click to expand...

You're not allowed to criticize trump around this one.

Each new day we see more and more of the evil Nixon enemie's list mentality .
 
TheGoverness said:
The full title of the article is Trump spokesman: We need to talk about ‘punishing’ Clinton for ‘trying to influence the election’

Article is here.



I guess the Trump administration has a serious case of the whataboutism's. :lol:
Click to expand...


this sort of comment is just slopping the hogs
 
KevinKohler said:
She didn't TRY, she did. Her and the media outlets that took their marching orders from the DNC, deliberately sabotaged Sanders shot. This is not conjecture, this is proven, via the email leaks.
Click to expand...

I say lets be happy she is not president. This was a major victory for the people to beat out the bought and paid for puppet of the rich. Sanders got screwed but he still supported the people who screwed him so I have no mercy for people who kiss the backside of the people who screw them.
 
TheGoverness said:
Great post, but I just wanted to address this little bit.

I think that is most likely the case. I seriously doubt any of the leaks drove a lot of people to change their votes (I'm sure there was a few, but certainly not the majority). Like you said, it probably just solidified their votes for their preferred candidate choice.
Click to expand...

That's the way it usually works.
 
Perotista said:
Matter of perspectives, I thought they chose the worst one of the lot. that almost any other Republican would have beaten Hillary by 10 points or more and need not have had to rely on the electoral college. But that is my perception on the matter, apparently you have a different one.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think the middle class are fed up with the puppets from both parties and that was the reason Trump won. I think anyone would have won who was not part of the corruption that has infected both parties.
 
NIMBY said:
As you just did with this post I quoted.

Eric Cantor helped the GOP master the concept of false/equivalency beginning Nov. 4, 2008 .
Click to expand...
Eric Cantor was punished by Republicans who wanted to bring integrity and honesty back into Washington politics. Meanwhile Pelosi and Wasserman were both re-elected despite being very corrupt.
 
NIMBY said:
As you just did with this post I quoted.

Eric Cantor helped the GOP master the concept of false/equivalency beginning Nov. 4, 2008 .
Click to expand...

Eric canter has been gone for awhile, he got punished as you might recall, and my observation was on how the two parties behaved this election, one of which was clearly more in keeping with the ideals of democracy than the other.
 
reinoe said:
Eric Cantor was punished by Republicans who wanted to bring integrity and honesty back into Washington politics. Meanwhile Pelosi and Wasserman were both re-elected despite being very corrupt.
Click to expand...

And in spite of their long records of failure both of them.
 
Please keep talking about punishing HRC, trump.

trump can't handle continued talk of Russian hacking so he deflects back to HRC.

This may be the ONE new angle DEMs have to turn out the vote in 2018 .
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Eric canter has been gone for awhile, he got punished as you might recall, and my observation was on how the two parties behaved this election, one of which was clearly more in keeping with the ideals of democracy than the other.
Click to expand...

Cantor was the only GOP Jewish-American in the House or Senate at the time.

Exactly how was Cantor punished ?
 
Perotista said:
I've seen this before. Nixon was accused of trying to use the CIA and FBI to cover up Watergate and that was one of the charges against him. Nixon tried to deflect his trying, he never did, by stating LBJ when he was president used the IRS, CIA and other organizations to go after his political enemies.

It turned out Nixon was right about LBJ, but LBJ was no longer president and no one cared as LBJ could not influence a thing anymore. Besides a Democratic congress is not about to investigate a former Democratic president for wrong doings. They had their sights on Nixon.

Trump may be right about Clinton, but she lost and it don't mean anything to anyone except the staunchest Trump supporters. The media probably should have dug deep into Hillary receiving the questions to the debate ahead of time, it didn't as the Democratic congress wasn't going to dig deep into LBJ.

How much influence the Russian hacking had on the election is probably in the eye of the beholder. Like the questions, what information was put forth had no effect on those who supported Trump or Hillary. Nothing was going to change their minds. A lot of this wiki leaks (Russians, maybe, maybe not) along with opening the FBI investigation was done the last week to 10 days prior to the election. According to CNN exit polls 13% of the public made up their minds whom they would vote for in the last week to ten days. 87% already had, so no influence at all on those 87%.

Again according to CNN exit polls, those late deciders went to Trump 45-42 with 13% voting third party. I doubt those leaning toward Clinton would have switched to Trump because of Wiki and those e-mails, but they, the e-mails may have been enough for some of them to switch their lean Clinton to a vote for a third party candidate. Third party candidates received a bit less than 5% of the total vote, 13% of late deciders is almost three times that amount.

Nothing can be proved one way or the other, Russians, Wiki, FBI, or lazy campaigning on what influenced these late deciders to go with whom they did. But the amount of late deciders voting third party is interesting. We probably over rate all this stuff and its influence, like the debates which Hillary won hands down, they really didn't cause anyone to change their vote. Perhaps this Russian hacking is the same thing, it just reinforced whom one was going to vote for in the first place.
Click to expand...

Nixon was paranoid, hated the media and used the FBI to spy on his political enemies. Whereas, LBJ was more transparent and seemed to like the media attention. I don't think presidents had that much control over the FBI as long as J. Edgar Hoover was still in control of it. He died in 1972.

You're right, we'll probably never know for sure what cost Clinton the election. But imo....Comey was the final nail in the coffin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom