I have no qualms about voting for Clinton, Ask Me Anything

[SutureSelf]

The Libya fiasco was a CIA blunder not a State Department blunder.  What was seized in Benghazi was a CIA facility hidden as a State Department location.
The Ambasador was visiting a CIA  Building.  The CIA was responsible for security not State.  Funding for security at that location was. CIA  responcibity.
This is just another example of the Repupublican lie machine bending the facts till they become some thing they like but are not the truth

Benghazi  was an information office that had no diplomatic status, but still under the auspices of the State Dept. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away.  The CIA did send paramilitaries to the info office when it was under attack, but got pushed back due to being undermanned.  Do some fact checking through legit resources as opposed to relying on lefty propaganda.

EDIT:  Hillary testified twice and never said a word about the outpost being the responsibility of the CIA.  She just used the sequester as an excuse for HER agency not having the funds to upgrade the security.  Don't let the facts get in the way of your unfounded bias.

[MooseMom]

SutureSelf,

1.  I said "the electorate's votes", not "electoral votes".

2.  It matters because he's running around claiming to have a "mandate", but more people voted against him than voted FOR him.

3.  The CIA and FBI have agreed that the information gleaned from the Russian hackers was used by Putin personally to undermine the Democratic candidate.  And President Obama explained at great length during his Press conference yesterday why he did not go public with this information sooner.  But it doesn't matter because there was already information in the public domain that the Russians were hacking, so I don't know what you're on about.  When you can't put forth reliable information, you fall back on the lame "oh, the MSM favored Clinton" lie.

4.  The election of Trump does not represent the will of the majority of people who voted, so get ready for "noise".  It's gonna get loud.

[SutureSelf]

SutureSelf,

1.  I said "the electorate's votes", not "electoral votes".

2.  It matters because he's running around claiming to have a "mandate", but more people voted against him than voted FOR him.

3.  The CIA and FBI have agreed that the information gleaned from the Russian hackers was used by Putin personally to undermine the Democratic candidate.  And President Obama explained at great length during his Press conference yesterday why he did not go public with this information sooner.  But it doesn't matter because there was already information in the public domain that the Russians were hacking, so I don't know what you're on about.  When you can't put forth reliable information, you fall back on the lame "oh, the MSM favored Clinton" lie.

4.  The election of Trump does not represent the will of the majority of people who voted, so get ready for "noise".  It's gonna get loud.

Sorry about #1.  My eyes, especially the right, are going on me.  However, Trump never went out for the popular vote in CA or NY, the two states that made the majority of the 2M difference.  It was all about electoral votes and getting to 270.  Why waste time in 2 states he knew no chance .  However, campaigning might have been different if having to go0 for the popular vote.  He most definitely would have spent a lot a time in all the most populated states.  He might have won CA.  Remember, he wasn't expected to take MI, WI, PA or FL, but did.  We'll never know because it wasn't necessary by the rules of our country.

As far as a "mandate," the definition doesn't just apply to the popular vote, it can include electoral results as well.  So, yes, 306-232 can be considered a mandate by Trump supporters while Trump detractors are just as legitimate in not accepting.  That's politics.

Yes, yes, Obama rambled trying to cover his ass for a big mistake.  He just couldn't believe Trump actually had a chance to win.  Knows differently now.  As for the MSM, this from the NYT:

"New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has admitted his paper underestimated Donald Trump's support among American voters.

Sulzberger promises to "rededicate ourselves" to the newspaper's standards of reporting news "honestly," but had the "Gray Lady" been fair to start with, it would not need to rededicate itself, New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin said in a Saturday opinion piece.

"Because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something," Goodwin writes. "And because the paper decided that Trump's supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn't have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president."" -  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gray-Lady-Blew-it-Donald-Trump-New-York-Times/2016/11/12/id/758530/

Go to any reliable fact check site and search number of positive stories, time given to Clinton and Trump and number of negative for each by the MSM.  My point will be proven.

[Simon Dog]

We'll never know because it wasn't necessary by the rules of our country.

This is the point that those who harp on Hillary winning the  popular vote fail to recognize.

[MooseMom]

SutureSelf, I agree with you about the NYT, and the same point can be made for many media outlets. 

However, I'm not sure there were that many "positive" stories about either candidate in this most negative campaign in recent history.  I don't agree at all that there were more negative stories about Trump than about Clinton.  All we heard about Clinton were stories about the emails or Trump's diatribes about how she should be locked up.  There were so many weird and hostile remarks made by Trump that before any media outlet could cover one, a new one would pop up, and people were so overwhelmed by Trump's disdain of our generals, Sen. McCain, Gold Star Families, women and their private parts, etc that the American people just became blind to it all.

So, exactly which are the "reliable fact check sites" that will prove all of your points?  Please give me a comprehensive list, and let's thoroughly examine them.

Tell me honestly.  Do you truly believe that Trump has as his priority the quality of life for the people who voted for them?  What has he done so far that points to this?

[MooseMom]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-report-russia-unclassified-hacking-report-donald-trump-us-election-read-a7513986.html

http://www.politico.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/06/vladimir-putin-us-election-interference-report-donald-trump

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/06/intel-report-says-putin-ordered-campaign-to-influence-us-election.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/06/intel-report-says-putin-ordered-campaign-to-influence-us-election.html

Well, I have to give Mr. Trump due credit.  He was right.  The election was rigged and influenced by Mr. Putin.  Donald Trump is not my president.  Seems like Mr. Putin is, though.

Wow.  Just, wow. 

Make America Vote Again.

[Simon Dog]

Yeah, it's not like the US has ever attempted to influence a foreign election.

This is like the inspector in Casablanca telling Rick "I am shocked, shocked to find there is gambling going on here" right before a Blue Parrot worker hands him a wad "your winnings sir".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

[MooseMom]

Give me an example exactly analogous to this.  Has the US ever used systematic cyber warfare against a foreign sovereign nation to influence their electorate?

Germany is next on Putin's hit list. 

[Athena]

I have read and read everything on this latest & all roads lead to the following conclusion:

In spite of Russia just trying to be Russia again (as they have always been & always will be), in no way has the 2016 US election outcome been altered nor has there been any tampering whatsoever with voting machines. This is the basic conclusion of the intelligence agency report.

And just when I thought I couldn't go any higher, my support for Donald Trump has just been raised even more by how he has been managing Russia since the election victory! Thank heavens for the call for greater unity between the US & Russia at long last.

[iolaire]

And just when I thought I couldn't go any higher, my support for Donald Trump has just been raised even more by how he has been managing Russia since the election victory! Thank heavens for the call for greater unity between the US & Russia at long last.

This is a good side effect, but my fear is it will embolden Putin and more Ukraine like occupations will happen, those types of aggressions around Europe cause world wars.  (As opposed to our involvement in the middle east which seems to create global Jihad.)

[MooseMom]

Of course the US would like to have "good relations" with Russia, but at what price?

The last time that the US believed we were in some modicum of alliance with Russia was in Syria.  The Russians claimed they were joining the US military in bombing Assad forces, but in fact they were bombing the rebel forces the US were supporting and were instead bombing enemies of Assad.  So, they lied.  And then they started bombing hospitals in and around Aleppo.

There was never any belief that Russia hacked US voting machines.  Athena, since you read "everything", you will then know that Russia in fact hacked RNC computers, too, yet it was information hacked from DNC computers that they chose to use and disseminate in clouds of fake news.  You will also know that once Trump became the nominee, Putin stepped in and personally took the reins.

You will also know from reading the actual report that Putin personally ordered a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton.

Of course Donald Trump will say that Putin's actions had no influence on the election.  What else would he say?  If he were to agree with the Intelligence report, it would undermine his presidency before he was even sworn in.

If you care to read the actual report, the link to it is contained within this article:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/white-house-vladimir-putin-election-hacking-donald-trump-233299

Athena, in exactly what way has Trump "managed" Russia?

Another question for you.  Looking at Trump's nominees for cabinet posts, specifically Attorney General and Secretary of Energy, how do you see these and other picks (all of them multi-millionaires or billionaires, as you know) providing jobs for "ordinary Americans"?  And do you see Trump keeping his promise to repeal the ACA?  Out of curiosity, how is health care paid for where you live?

I've asked you so many specific question about why you support Trump, and I've never seen a reply.  I am truly curious why you think his election is a good thing, especially as you don't even live here.  I'm really interested to know because I am hoping you see something from the outside that I don't see.  I just don't understand.  In fact, no one here on IHD who has supported Trump can point to any specific policy or nomination they support AND WHY.  It's almost as if now that Trump has been elected, no one cares anymore or everyone now assumes that everything is going to be OK, whatever "OK" means.

edited to add:  Here's what really concerns me.  No one who supports Trump seems to care about Putin's actions in interfering in the election.  I find that very disturbing.  It's as if all that matters is Trump's election, and if he needed Putin's help, it doesn't matter.  Having a President Trump is of more importance than the fact that a foreign hostile power actively sought to undermine the electoral process and the credibility of a particular candidate out of preference for another particular candidate.  This goes against the very fabric of our democracy.  This is most assuredly NOT making American "great" again.  But who cares, right?  No, what matters is that now we might have a better relationship with the very country that undercut us and is reveling in the result.  Again, what is the price the American electorate is willing to pay?  We've already paid a price that is way too high.  We've given our democracy away. 

What do you think would have been the reaction if Putin had preferred Hillary Clinton?  I'm asking a direct question.  What do you think would have been the reaction if Putin had worked to undermine Trump so that Hillary Clinton would have been elected?  Think about that.

[Bill Peckham]

Question: On a scale of 1 to 10 of concern about cyber danger & laxity in the face of known vulnerability (with 5 being the standard applied to Hillary Clinton's email server during the 2016 campaign) what number should be assigned to President Trump's phone habits?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903

If the risk borne by avoiding the inconvenience of the State Department's antiquated 2009 email system is a 5 then I'd put Trump carrying around/using a device with a camera/microphone/24_7 internet connection, I'd put that at a solid 10. To be fair the scale should be adjusted because by comparison Clinton risk profile would be more in the 2 range. I mean a bunch of emails leaking discussions about classified programs, programs being discussed in every paper and news cast in America, the CIA/Military drone program, is nothing compared to the President carrying around an off the shelf smartphone. Reckless with a heaping side order of not giving a shit about "THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!!"

[MooseMom]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I KNOW!  Remember when Obama had to give up his Blackberry?  Can you imagine the outrage if he had petulantly refused, saying that it would be too inconvenient for him!!???

I swear, Trump can get away with anything.  Too many traitors in our Congress are enabling him.  It's a disgrace.

[kickingandscreaming]

AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE!!! A bunch of toadies.  All of them.

[Rerun]

     

[Simon Dog]

Yeah,if Trump keeps this up with his own cell we might actually find out what if anything in is hanger 18.

When he started there were rumblings he wanted to use his own plane instead of Airforce One.