• 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!

Who meddled more in 2016?

Who meddled more in the 2016 election?

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
S

Snakebite

Banned
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
233
Reaction score
37
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Big talk these days about interference and meddling in our democracy and what it all means. But the talk is nearly all partisan. Democrats mistrust the Russians. Republicans mistrust CNN and the liberal press.

So I have a simple question.

Who made a bigger impact on the 2016 election.... the Russians on behalf of Trump, or the liberal media on behalf of Clinton?
 
Snakebite said:
Big talk these days about interference and meddling in our democracy and what it all means. But the talk is nearly all partisan. Democrats mistrust the Russians. Republicans mistrust CNN and the liberal press.

So I have a simple question.

Who made a bigger impact on the 2016 election.... the Russians on behalf of Trump, or the liberal media on behalf of Clinton?
Click to expand...

I'd rather say both. The Russians were pulling a jerk move by getting "involved" and the liberal media was riddled with coverage inequality, and when they cover on Trump or Bernie it is usually in a insinuated negative light. Americans were faced with Russian and media meddling, instead of choosing the best candidates based on issues concerning the nation.
 
Snakebite said:
Big talk these days about interference and meddling in our democracy and what it all means. But the talk is nearly all partisan. Democrats mistrust the Russians. Republicans mistrust CNN and the liberal press.

So I have a simple question.

Who made a bigger impact on the 2016 election.... the Russians on behalf of Trump, or the liberal media on behalf of Clinton?
Click to expand...

Sir, the so-called journalists helped Trump by demonstrating his point that the Elite Suck.
 
Fritz said:
I'd rather say both. The Russians were pulling a jerk move by getting "involved" and the liberal media was riddled with coverage inequality, and when they cover on Trump or Bernie it is usually in a insinuated negative light. Americans were faced with Russian and media meddling, instead of choosing the best candidates based on issues concerning the nation.
Click to expand...

That's a balanced outlook. Respect to you for having uncommon impartiality in an era of partisanship.

I remember seeing the Russian trolls all over YouTube and in the comments sections of news stories. I'm not sure they made such a huge difference. On the other hand, the WikiLeaks thing obviously did make an impact.

To be honest though, I think our own media did a lot more for Hillary. They literally gave her the questions to one of the debates against Bernie, and they presumed her to be the winner from the opening kickoff. And Trump.... well heck, just the Access Hollywood thing alone was bigger than WikiLeaks.
 
The media propped up Trump to the point where he was nominated by the Republican party in the first place. After that, their greed/stupidity backfired when he actually became President.
 
Snakebite said:
That's a balanced outlook. Respect to you for having uncommon impartiality in an era of partisanship.

I remember seeing the Russian trolls all over YouTube and in the comments sections of news stories. I'm not sure they made such a huge difference. On the other hand, the WikiLeaks thing obviously did make an impact.

To be honest though, I think our own media did a lot more for Hillary. They literally gave her the questions to one of the debates against Bernie, and they presumed her to be the winner from the opening kickoff. And Trump.... well heck, just the Access Hollywood thing alone was bigger than WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...

I so agree. In the debates against Trump, Hillary looked so over-prepared and she looked as if she already knew the questions. This is why I would prefer a "non-partisan" (I don't think that even exists anymore) moderator instead of CNN or Fox News anchors and such, maybe even an aggressive moderator who'd attack both candidates in one debate.
 
ajn678 said:
The media propped up Trump to the point where he was nominated by the Republican party in the first place. After that, their greed/stupidity backfired when he actually became President.
Click to expand...

True, they thought it was a good idea to set him up for failure. Oh how they now regret that.
 
Snakebite said:
Big talk these days about interference and meddling in our democracy and what it all means. But the talk is nearly all partisan. Democrats mistrust the Russians. Republicans mistrust CNN and the liberal press.

So I have a simple question.

Who made a bigger impact on the 2016 election.... the Russians on behalf of Trump, or the liberal media on behalf of Clinton?
Click to expand...

Impact =/= meddling.

/thread
 
I don't really care.

What both the Russians and the media (and campaign ads - for that matter) do to influence voters only works against the weak/stupid/ignorant.

And I don't much care what they think - or how they vote - in regards to politics.

I don't even think people who have IQ's less than 90 or so should even be allowed to vote OR all voters should have to pass a multiple choice test to prove they have a clue what America is even about politically.

Voters should be reasonably intelligent and/or well informed or they should not be allowed to vote.
 
DA60 said:
I don't really care.

What both the Russians and the media (and campaign ads - for that matter) do to influence voters only works against the weak/stupid/ignorant.

And I don't much care what they think - or how they vote - in regards to politics.

I don't even think people who have IQ's less than 90 or so should even be allowed to vote OR all voters should have to pass a multiple choice test to prove they have a clue what America is even about politically.

Voters should be reasonably intelligent and/or well informed or they should not be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

I agree in the respects of my personal biases, but we just got to deal with the retards since they (in large numbers) can ruin entire elections by being uninformed or just plain stupid.

Intelligence and common sense aren't so common these days.
 
It isn't really possible to know the answer to this.
 
Fritz said:
I agree in the respects of my personal biases, but we just got to deal with the retards since they (in large numbers) can ruin entire elections by being uninformed or just plain stupid.

Intelligence and common sense aren't so common these days.
Click to expand...

The bigger problem is how few people value the truth enough to find it, and to then make choices based upon it...

Ya Know?
 
DA60 said:
I don't really care.

What both the Russians and the media (and campaign ads - for that matter) do to influence voters only works against the weak/stupid/ignorant.

And I don't much care what they think - or how they vote - in regards to politics.

I don't even think people who have IQ's less than 90 or so should even be allowed to vote OR all voters should have to pass a multiple choice test to prove they have a clue what America is even about politically.

Voters should be reasonably intelligent and/or well informed or they should not be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

While if done correctly and fairly it would make a positive impact, however as partisan as a society that we have become that is an extremely dangerous proposition. Who would decide on not only the questions asked but what would the correct answers be. It could be used ultimately to give one side a distinct advantage and also right fully cause tension among the people who would be excluded from the vote.
 
Fritz said:
I so agree. In the debates against Trump, Hillary looked so over-prepared and she looked as if she already knew the questions. This is why I would prefer a "non-partisan" (I don't think that even exists anymore) moderator instead of CNN or Fox News anchors and such, maybe even an aggressive moderator who'd attack both candidates in one debate.
Click to expand...

See, I think non-partisanship is so rare, it's going to be impossible to find a moderator that makes both the left and the right happy.

So I'm actually kicking around the idea of having the debates moderated by total partisans instead. That way, there is no confusion and no pretense. For example, why not have two democratic senators and two republican senators moderate the debates? Would be balanced, entertaining, and everyone would know to expect.

The future president would have to work with these people anyway, so the added benefit would be to the American People who could see how they interact. Plus, we get to remove the unelected media from an important part of the democratic process.
 
MrPeanut said:
It isn't really possible to know the answer to this.
Click to expand...

Agreed...if this poll were honest, it would have a third option, which would be "I have no clue", and anyone not picking it would be being dishonest. This feels more like a partisanship roll call to me. Unless folks from all political factions are willing to unite to demand that their democracy be fixed, it's probably best to just let this one slide into the history books. More division won't fix the mess that 2016 was.
 
Snakebite said:
Big talk these days about interference and meddling in our democracy and what it all means. But the talk is nearly all partisan. Democrats mistrust the Russians. Republicans mistrust CNN and the liberal press.

So I have a simple question.

Who made a bigger impact on the 2016 election.... the Russians on behalf of Trump, or the liberal media on behalf of Clinton?
Click to expand...
The media is made up mostly of American citizens, who are allowed -- if not encouraged -- to participate in the electoral process.

The Russian government has no business interfering in US elections. Thus, they certainly meddled more.

As to which had a bigger influence, that's the media.
 
Visbek said:
The media is made up mostly of American citizens, who are allowed -- if not encouraged -- to participate in the electoral process.

The Russian government has no business interfering in US elections. Thus, they certainly meddled more.

As to which had a bigger influence, that's the media.
Click to expand...

Are we sure that the media are made up mostly of American citizens? I don't believe there are any laws prohibiting foreign influence over or ownership of media organizations.
 
Where is the option for The DNC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom