JPR folks out themselves. They dont want to believe in Russian interference because of...

[stevenleser]

... their Clinton and Democratic Party derangement syndrome. https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/there-is-one-reason-trump-is-potus-and-it-is-not-fucking-russia/

"There is ONE reason Trump is POTUS, and it is not fucking Russia
By far, by an order of magnitude, the main reason Trump is POTUS is HER:

It doesn't matter what facts come out, they don't intend to believe it.

[JHan]

1. poor things.

[Gothmog]

2. The JPR site is full of fake news from russian sources

[dalton99a]

3. Seems they're addicted to that shit

[Gothmog]

26. At one point the JPR site had five or six threads on the Pizzagate silliness

The idiot administrators eventually ban additional threads on the Pizzagate silliness.

[NastyRiffraff]

180. There isn't an anti-Clinton conspiracy theory they don't like

No matter how unlikely, no matter how many times it's been debunked, they're happy to repeat and embellish it. They were hawking the Vince Foster "murder" at one point too.

[FM123]

12. My first time reading JPR, all I can say is that it will also be my last time.

[Gothmog]

24. I visit the site to see what Russia is pushing

[lapucelle]

47. Its on Prop Or Nots useful idiot list.

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html|

[Gothmog]

73. That site belongs on this list

[SunSeeker]

48. LOL

[Willie Pep]

20. There were some posters there during the election that I am almost sure were Russian.

They didn't seem to grasp English very well and didn't seem like the disgruntled progressives JPR members claim to be. They spouted a lot of right-wing talking points about Clinton. That forum was looking like Breitbart in 2016. Not sure about now since I have not lurked there in a long time.

[Gothmog]

25. There are posters on that site who are admitted russian trolls

[Jim Lane]

106. Who are they?

I claim no expertise in the detection of trolls. Russian trolls on JPR, trying to undermine Hillary Clinton? Republican trolls on DU, trying to sow division on the left by dumping on Bernie Sanders? Could be, as far as I know.

But you're alleging "admitted" Russian trolls. I don't read every post on JPR or on DU, but on neither site have a read a post in which the author admits to being a troll. I'd be pleased to click on any link you can provide.

[Gothmog]

113. This list of fake news websites amuses me

Scroll down to the Js and you will see JPR listed https://docs.google.com/document/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53V_81ZyitM/mobilebasic

[Jim Lane]

124. So, in other words, you have zero evidence for your original assertion in #25.

Thank you for the implicit admission. That clarifies matters.

As for the list you linked to, the "Bio" and "Disclaimer" at the bottom indicate that it is the work of ONE person, an assistant professor at some unspecified institution, who candidly admits that all the contents of the document reflect her opinion.

So what does she say about the sites she includes? Well, she doesn't list "fake" versus "reliable" without more. She has multiple categories. To be sure, she includes sites that she considers to be "Fake News", for which her shorthand tag is "fake". There are quite a few in that category, such as abcnews.com.co -- evidently someone trying to trade on confusion with ABC News.

Inconveniently for your latest smear, however, Professor Zimdars does not award the "fake" tag to JPR.

The only tag that JPR gets is "political", which, if you examine the detailed key that precedes the chart, means "Sources that provide generally verifiable information in support of certain points of view or political orientations." You'll note that dailykos.com is also identified as "political" but not as "fake".

For once, Gothmog, you have (however indirectly) provided accurate information. JPR is indeed a source that provides generally verifiable information in support of certain points of view or political orientations.

I'm glad you and I could finally agree on something. Happy Holidays!

[Gothmog]

126. Do you really believe that?

That is so cute and adorable. Do you ever tire of being wrong? Read the threads on JPR
and you will find russian trolls at work. The posters on the thread cited in the OP is a good place to start

[betsuni]

129. JPR has a lawyer defending their honor for free!

How nice for them.

[Jim Lane]

130. If your statement is true then JUST GIVE ME ONE GODDAM LINK

Please stop trying to move the goalposts long enough to focus on one point. You asserted the following:

There are posters on that site who are admitted russian trolls

That's what you wrote in your post #25 in this very thread.

I haven't quoted you out of context. That's the entire content of your post.

So the issue isn't whether there are Russian trolls. I already confessed my inability to determine whether there are trolls, on JPR or here. The issue is, instead, whether there are admitted Russian trolls, as you claim.

Both sheshe2 and I pointed out this kind of behavior would be unusual. That's why I asked you for follow-up. Your responses thus far are not informative about self-admitted trolls but are very informative about your standards for intellectual integrity.

[Squinch]

142. Your passionate and determined defense is noted for the site that bought and spread the pizzagate

idiocy as if it were the gospel truth, the site that quotes RT so often one wonders if JPR is RT's public relations arm, the site that often extolled the great virtues of Donald Trump(R) and Jill Stein during the election.

And now they deny Russian interference in the election, contrary to the findings of 16 of our intelligence agencies. Because Hillary.

Your choice of friends is questionable, but at least you are loyal to them.

[Gothmog]

154. There were five or six threads on this theory on that site

It was really sad but proved that Russians are in control of that site

[Jim Lane]

168. IIRC some of them have made similar comments about my posting on DU. (n/t)

[Squinch]

175. That's REALLY bizarre! They commented to you about how DU posts pushed the pizzagate

idiocy? About how much DU quotes RT? About how much DU supports Trump(R) and Stein?

Because that shit doesn't actually go on here.

Or are you trying to say "both sides are the same?"

[Gothmog]

200. The JPR idiots pushed a number of russian lies

Russia used idiots like the JPR posters to push lies to help trump win. That site is full of russian trolls

In addition to Pizzagste, the JPR idiots were convinced that Hillary Clinton was about to die or go to jail

[betsuni]

147. "intellectual integrity"

Pizzagate isn't fake news?

[Gothmog]

155. I am also amused

[Gothmog]

150. Here are just a few examples

Your fellow JPR posters believe that there is no link between Trump and Putin and push the lies of that idiot Greenwald

Since you evidently do not read the JPR site here is a sample. There are more if you need them

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/still-a-proud-bernie-or-buster-still-glad-hillary-lost/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/william-rivers-pitt-has-a-good-point/#post-542257

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/a-different-take-on-the-banning-the-press-story/#top

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/obama-administration-rushed-to-preserve-intelligence-of-russian-election-hacking/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/putin-is-not-americas-enemy-hes-the-american-establishments-competition/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/kim-dotcom-wl-drop-shows-cia-used-tricks-to-appear-like-they-were-russian/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hillbots-give-up-on-your-russia-conspiracy-theories-now/

[NurseJackie]

160. Disgusting. Creepy. Sickening.

JPR + DUtrolls + Trumpers + Russiabots + Steinfans + Sarandonlovers + Bobbers = a cesspool of hate, venom, lies, bigotry and stupidity.

They create quite a noxious stew, don't they.

It's VERY CLEAR what that site is about, what they think, and what they're up to... when someone here is SO DEFENSIVE of them, it tells me a lot about that person. (And what they reveal about themselves not very flattering AT ALL.)

Of course, I had my suspicions all along... but there's a great deal of satisfaction in being proven correct.

[stevenleser]

171. And that doesnt include the misogyny. Their response to this

OP at DU was a plethora of C-word slurs

[Gothmog]

183. Yep

[stevenleser]

169. Jim - You are trying to stick up for a site that pushed Pizzagate as Truth

Intellectual integrity isn’t one of the things you should be talking about in that argument.

[Jim Lane]

211. Just what is it you think I'm sticking up for -- SPECIFICALLY?

This whole subthread is one catastrophe of a reading comprehension fail.

What I said was that the criticism of JPR contained in post #25 is false. If you think it's true, give me some evidence.

Most people seem to want to reiterate the assertion that there are trolls on JPR. Here's what I wrote about that subject in #106:

I claim no expertise in the detection of trolls. Russian trolls on JPR, trying to undermine Hillary Clinton? Republican trolls on DU, trying to sow division on the left by dumping on Bernie Sanders? Could be, as far as I know.

So I specifically disclaim any opinion on the subject, and you castigate me for that opinion anyway.

If I were Elvis Costello, I guess I would try to be amused, but as it is I'm just disgusted.

[Gothmog]

212. Do you tire of being wrong?

Read the material on ts thread. Your claims are false. Why are you defending russian trolls and assholes who applauded the booing on Congressman John Lewis?

[Jim Lane]

213. You say my claims are fake. Please QUOTE the fake claim(s) I allegedly made.

Your problem is that you are keen to attack particular positions, so you attack me even when I haven't advocated those positions.

[Gothmog]

214. Can you point to even one of your posts on this thread that is not false?

You asked for links to the posts from Russian trolls and I have provided these links. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10018102 and https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10018104

Clarity of Signal is an admitted russian troll who used to post on JPR and that posters place has been filled by Fawk em https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10018111

You ran and hide from these links. I wonder why

Finally please tell me if you approve of the assholes on JPR who approved of Congressman John Lewis being booed at the national convention. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10019652 The JPR assholes who attacked Congressman Lewis are people who I would not want to be associated with. Are you proud of these posters?

[betsuni]

215. I quite enjoyed Fawk Em's "I'm not a Russian troll" post. Heh.

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/im-not-a-russian-troll

[Gothmog]

217. Jim will ignore this fact

It is really very funny

[Jim Lane]

216. TOTAL reading comprehension fail

You write, "You asked for links to the posts from Russian trolls...."

No. That is false. that is NOT what I asked for. I exhibited more patience than you deserve by spelling it out for you in #124. Here's the key paragraph, repeated for your convenience:

So the issue isn't whether there are Russian trolls. I already confessed my inability to determine whether there are trolls, on JPR or here. The issue is, instead, whether there are admitted Russian trolls, as you claim.

You responded with the internet equivalent of a Gish gallop -- links to threads with literally hundreds of posts, going back several months. I'm not going to pore through them all, especially since I very much doubt that you have, either. Just link to the JPR post(s) in which the author admits to being a Russian troll, which is the claim you made in #25 right in this very thread. Otherwise, I'm done with this foolishness. You're just wasting my time.

[Gothmog]

219. Thank you for admitting and conceding that JPR is the site for Russian Trolls

You asked for a link and numerous links were provided. I am glad that you are not attempting to defend the Russian trolls on JPR and you are conceding that the JPR site is the site for Russian trolls. I was expecting another rather weak defense of the JPR site along the lines of the false claims and defense of the bogus DNC fraud lawsuit. I strongly disagree with your analysis of the DNC fraud case. https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/tedious-legal-analysis-of-the-decision-in-the-fraud-suit-against-the-dnc/ However that case is not an issue here. I am happy that this case was dismissed and I am amused that the lawyer behind this case is trying to sell books to the JPR posters.

JPR is full of Russian trolls including threads defending the merits of the bogus DNC fraud lawsuit.

I take it from your silence that you approve of the attacks on Congressman Lewis by the posters on JPR. That is sad. Nance has collected some of the comments https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028476265

For those incensed by Trumps tweet re John Lewis

… you should be aware that the self-proclaimed True Progressives ™ at JPR are not only in complete agreement with Trumplethinskin’s assessment, but feel that he didn’t go far enough in discrediting the civil rights icon:

”You sold your legacy of police beatings and marches for civil rights with MLK to align yourself with the biggest corporate sellout loser candidate the dems have ever run. So when you take to the stage and claim that Trump isn’t a “legitimate” president, not only are you wrong, you’re also to blame for his having been elected in the first place.”

”He went from Civil Rights Icon to Civil Rights Sell-out. Despicable.”

”He actively worked to take down the people's candidate and helped sink his the campaign of a fellow civil rights champion. His support of $hillary who was illegitimate in so many ways, greatly weakens his charges against Trump. Lewis helped sink the most legitimate candidate we have had in my lifetime. His opinion on who is legitimate or not does not move me.”

”Well, he supported a white supremacist and a white supremacist got elected. So I dunno what his problem would be.”

” How's his Super Delegate shit working for him now?? And his low life arm twisting …oh yeah…he is throwing his temper tantrum now!! tough shit!!”

Do you agree with your fellow JPR posters as to these comments concerning Congressman Lewis?

[Jim Lane]

221. I of course said nothing of the kind...

as anyone with a sixth-grade level of reading comprehension could discern.

In light of your incessant distortions of my posts, I refuse to discuss Congressmember (not Congressman) Lewis with you.

[Gothmog]

222. Why are you defending Russian Trolls and people who hate Congressman John Lewis?

We have established and you have conceded that the JPR site if full of Russian Trolls. I was hoping to see a weak defense of this site along the lines of the lame defense of the DNC fraud lawsuit.

Thank you for admitting and conceding that the JPR site is full of Russian trolls

I do not blame you for refusing to defend the vile posts made on the JPR site concerning Congressman Lewis. Those posts were disgusting and the persons who made such posts are vile.

[calimary]

230. I'm still stuck on their absolute hatred of Hillary.

Last edited Fri Dec 29, 2017, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I DO NOT understand it.

I DO NOT understand why they hate her. Or why they continue to embrace that.

I DO NOT understand why anybody should hate Hillary at all. The reasons that are given are built on nothing but lies and distortions and conscious efforts to smear and trash a woman who’s spent her entire adult life trying to solve big problems and help people in need.

I DO NOT get it. The resentment that appears to be at work here is staggering and rather insane. Unless it’s just that some people are unwigged when someone is willing to stick her neck out and try to champion those who don’t have a champion? WHY do they feel SO threatened by her?

I don’t think I’ll ever understand it.

[Gothmog]

238. Putin hates Clinton and so Putin's puppets on JPR hate Clinton

The fact that Putin really hates Hillary Clinton explains a great deal about what is posted on the JPR site.

[calimary]

244. Good point. They do follow orders well, though, don't they!

Good little treason-weasels they are.

If you take your marching orders from an avowed adversary of this country, you ARE by definition a treason-weasel. PERIOD.

[stevenleser]

240. You are using the same technique Gun enthusiasts use to derail gun control discussions.

You are a smart guy so I am going to have to conclude you are doing it on purpose.

Gun enthusiasts attempt to derail discussions on more laws controlling firearms by trying to steer the discussion toward a technical discussion of the firearms themselves, what is an assault weapon, etc.

You are derailing this discussion by concentrating on an irrelevant comment made by someone in the thread rather than the point of the OP which is a refusal of the JPR crowd to bow to the evidence of Russian involvement in the election.

[Jim Lane]

241. Thank you for recognizing that I didn't respond to the OP.

You and several others have taken issue with my comment that disagreed with the OP -- even though I actually made no such comment. That's what's accounted for my frustration.

It's not unknown on DU that subthreads develop that are tangential to or even wholly unrelated to the OP. Welcome to the internet.

Gothmog began such a subthread, I responded to it, and you accuse me of derailing the discussion? Well, damn, since you cleverly uncovered my nefarious plot, now I have to worry that Putin will dock my pay for this month.

[lapucelle]

185. JPR is on Prop Or Not's useful idiot list. N/T

[Gothmog]

197. Jim your defense of this website is sad

That website is sad. Do you defend the attacks made by the idiot posters on that site on Congressman John Lewis? Read this thread and see if you still want to defend that site https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hey-john-lewis-karmas-a-mf-aint-it/

[sheshe2]

114. Hi Jim.

Last edited Sat Dec 23, 2017, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't read every post on JPR or on DU, but on neither site have a read a post in which the author admits to being a troll. I'd be pleased to click on any link you can provide.

You are a lawyer, correct? Do offenders often admit their guilt? Curious here.

JPR. SMH.

[Jim Lane]

116. I am a lawyer, correct.

You write: "Do offenders often admit their quilt? Curious here."

As you imply, it's very infrequent (except in criminal law as part of a plea bargain). That's why post #25, alleging (without support) that there were such people on JPR, caught my eye, and I inquired.

Did you read the post to which I responded? Do you agree with me that it's not the sort of story that sensible people would credit without some good evidence?

Of course, for some people on DU, as for some people on JPR, "this statement reflects badly on the other site" constitutes good evidence, no further inquiry required. That is not a syllogism to which I subscribe.

[sheshe2]

123. see post 113

[Jim Lane]

125. See post 124 (n/t)

[Gothmog]

153. Here is another good example

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/please-just-stop-it-with-the-russia-russia-meme/

[Gothmog]

152. Clarity of Signal used to post on JPR and now Fawk em is clearly a russian troll

Here are some examples

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/do-you-believe-that-russia-is-behind-the/#post-630857

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/trump-dossier-now-we-know-why-berners-were-kicked-off-the-executive-committee/

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/kim-dotcom-wl-drop-shows-cia-used-tricks-to-appear-like-they-were-russian/

[progree]

245. "Does anyone know Gothmog on DU's real name? I plan to sue him for libel if I can find out"

so says Fucke Em

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/does-anyone-know-gothmog-on-dus-real-name/

[tammywammy]

246. How can it be libel when he goes by a screen name?

What damages has he incurred?

[Gothmog]

250. Good questions

Legally there are no grounds for these claims

[Gothmog]

247. Thanks for posting this

[progree]

248. You're welcome. I thought you should know what's going on in JeeperCreeperLand n/t

[Gothmog]

249. I check that site from time to time to see what Putin is pushing

The latest is evidently the concept that the Steele Dossier is the reason for the FBI investigation and latest NYT story on the Australian diplomat is fake. These idiots cite something called http://www.moonofalabama.org The idiots who post on that site are amusing

[progree]

251. I check it because I am fascinated by aberrant psychology and specious rationalizations

that no matter what Trump does, Hillary would have been worse etc. etc. And/or the desperate need for "purity", to feel like they are a truly pure and wonderful progressive in their own minds, regardless of the results of their actions or lack thereof.

[Gothmog]

252. The idiots who posts on JPR are fun to laugh at

[progree]

253. "Trump Isnt Another Hitler. Hes Another Obama."

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/trump-isnt-another-hitler-hes-another-obama-by-caitlin-johnstone/

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama.

— big snip–

We were promised another Hitler. Instead, we got another Obama, who was himself another Bush. The march into corporatist Orwellian police state at home and globalist oligarchic hegemony abroad continues unhindered for the United States of America.

That is at the top of the "Recent Posts" section of the home page. It's beyond way out there nutty over there. Maybe Trump's dementia is contagious.

[Gothmog]

151. Here are some examples

JPR is the site for russian lovers and people who deny the Trump Russia connection.

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/russians-used-cut-out-in-leak-to-wikileaks/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/when-the-establishment-cant-prove-trump-russia-collusion-progressives-win/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/the-missing-logic-of-russia-gate/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/if-russia-did-meddle-in-the-election-did-it-matter/

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/russia-vs-usa-who-is-the-threat-who-is-the-aggressor-12/

[stevenleser]

189. You know what the bottom line on JPR folks is Jim? Its simple...

Everyone knew and understood everything they needed to know about the JPR folks by the time they were 5 years old.

By the time we were all 5 years old, we all had one of our friends not get their way and do the whole”take your ball and go home” tantrum.

Most of us evolved past those kind of toddler-esque tantrums by the time we hit our teens.

The JPR folks never did.

Bernie didn’t win the nomination so they took their ball and went home, and blew it up into this whole thing against Hillary to disguise the fact that it’s all about their tantrum.

The majority of Bernie supporters did not have this tantrum and supported and voted for Hillary. Those that never matured beyond 5 years old hang their hats at JPR.

It’s really that simple.

[Cary]

223. What is "expertise in detecting trolls?"

Last edited Wed Dec 27, 2017, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)

I see a consensus in this community. You say you have "no expertise" yet you push back against that consensus?

Reputation in the community is admissable and an exception to the rule against hearsay. You admit you have no rebuttal yet are quite defensive of a known Russian troll site.

Why?

[Jim Lane]

224. Sigh. Another one who can't -- or won't -- read.

You write:

I see a consensus in this community. You say you have "no expertise" yet you push back against that consensus?

If you claim that there's a consensus that there are Russian trolls on JPR, I have specifically disclaimed any opinion on that subject (as well on the subject of whether there are right-wing trolls on DU).

If you claim that there's a consensus on the subject I've actually addressed -- namely, that there are admitted Russian trolls on JPR -- then the reasons I push back against it are:
* that it's utterly implausible on its face;
* that in reading JPR I've never seen any such post; and
* that in all these posts that people write to make themselves feel good about standing up for Truth and Justice, not one person has offered one tiniest scrap of evidence for this ludicrous charge.

I am done trying to explain this because I might as well be talking to the wall.

[Gothmog]

225. Do you tire of being wrong?

You are wrong yet again. The facts and the threads posted show that the JPR site is full of russian trolls. Your denial of the facts is amusing.

Pretending that Clarity of Signal and Fawk em are not trolls is funny given that both admitted that they are proud of being russian trolls. The fact that JPR promotes Russian talking points is not in dispute in the real world. Ignoring the links posted will not make these links disappear

[Cary]

226. Notice how you change the subject to something about me?

There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, not my analytical skills.

You're asking me to not believe my lyin' eyes? Notice, too, how people here are free to trash JPR? You know Why? We are.free.to trash JPR because the consensus here is that JPR is a right wing cesspool.

In rebuttal you offer your own self-impeached denial.

I move for summary judgment.

[Gothmog]

237. It is not hard to notice

Jim has in effect conceded that JPR is full of Russian trolls and is trying to divert attention.

I doubt that Jim understands that you are a member of the Bar and understand how weak his silly claims are

[Cary]

239. Citing the exception to the rule against hearsay should have been a clue

But his real problems here are: 1) he defends the indefensible; and 2) his JPR ship sailed, never to return to anything mainstream.

Case closed.

[Bradical79]

86. A couple were absolutely Russian, I know for a fact

They used post here, RT links all the time. I'd complained to the admin about the pattern after they posted an RT story where the "American journalist" used as a source was actually a holocaust denying conspiracy theorist.

[pnwmom]

43. And to think so many of those whackos used to be here, trying to infect DU. n/t

[RKP5637]

53. Yep, the split was good IMO! n/t

[Hekate]

54. Some seem to have crept back

[radical noodle]

55. Some still come here

spreading their propaganda.

[RhodeIslandOne]

111. Many of the JPR are Trumpsters still trolling a bunch of very naive far lefties....n/m

[saidsimplesimon]

181. I agree.

Thom Hartman seems to have lost his marbles, taken on to much czar fairy dust and gone rogue. "Tommy Can You Hear Me?" (sorry can not post a video, youtube doesn't like my secure, encrypted browser. I am such a tart.)

[mcar]

4. K&R

[leftstreet]

5. Russian interference aside, she was a bad candidate

I don't know that a person would need to be 'deranged' to think she was a bad candidate. Excellent qualifications for a POTUS...however to get there, you have to actually win

[TheDebbieDee]

11. Some people can't pass up any chance to attack

Sec Clinton - it's as though you've been "programmed".

[leftstreet]

77. I'm not attacking her

She was a more qualified POTUS candidate than any we've seen (or likely will see) in our lifetimes

But Presidents aren't interviewed and selected by an HR team

It's politics. And in that, she wasn't a candidate who could beat Trump

[LenaBaby61]

87. "She wasn't a candidate who could beat Trump."

NO Dem was going to beat tRump, not with all of the voter suppression tactics thuglicans are so good at employing, and especially what they were able to do in targeted states and in the 3 major states tRump HAD to win to gain the presidency (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin): Voter-crosschecking. Voter-purging, gerrymandering and increased voter-ID'ing which will target Dem voters (Wisconsin/Texas).

"Crosscheck Removed 450K Voters in MI, 270 K in AZ and 590 K in NC."

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/14/1599330/-Crosscheck-Removed-450K-Voters-in-MI-270-K-in-AZ-and-590-K-in-NC

Not to mention what the ruskies did to meddle/interfere into our elections, and we really still don't know what they did and what they'll be capable OF come 2018. NO one's there to check them. fatso's in bed with them, and the GOP doesn't care to check them. And, as long as tRump can sit up straight and sign his demented signature on more of their pieces of shit legislation that will continue destroying our country, they don't care about him being crazy/russian interference. Not a lot has changed across the country as far as improving the voting systems. I've friends that tell me that as long as there are huge volumes of people coming out to vote, they can't steal the election from us this time. BS I tell them, because who knows WHAT the GOP/russia has up it's sleeves come 2018 and 2020 as far as voter-suppression is concerned.

[MadDAsHell]

158. What did Sec Clinton do to counteract the Wisconsin and Michigan issues?

Showing up would have been a start.

[stevenleser]

199. That has been debunked multiple times.

Here is Nate’s take (it didn’t matter what Hillary did in those states) https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-ground-game-didnt-cost-her-the-election/amp/

There are others that show Hillary poured enormous resources into those states.

[Eliot Rosewater]

242. Bless your heart for trying to convince them, for the thousandth time...Cant be done

[Lithos]

88. She was not a bad candidate

In how everyone defends her as being a good/bad candidate. We all know she advocated policies which were light years ahead in terms of practicality and promotion of the common American good. This does not make her a bad candidate.

More correctly, she was a polarizing candidate... Trump was a polarizing candidate as well...

Putin and the GOP used this in a way which thru the magic of "Big Data" analytics, Russian 'bots' to shape a willing social media, and Russian hacking leveraged the inherent weakness of the US electoral college and corrupted/hacked various and Voting infrastructure and Election processes.

The election was stolen from her and other Democrats who were running in other offices. It was done under the cover of the polarization.

L-

[yardwork]

204. Hi Lithos. It's good to see you posting here in these dark times.

[Lithos]

208. Thanks

As dark as 2001 seemed, this is definitely darker times. As GoT says - Winter has come.

Good to see you as well. Hope you're well!

L-

[KatyMan]

14. 63 million votes is pretty good

for a bad candidate. She was a great candidate and would have been a great president.

[niyad]

38. actually, 65.9 million.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

82. Too bad they changed the rules to make it an Electoral College that picks the Pres.

Oh, wait, we did know that going in. Though the plan of attack in WI, OH, and PA might not reflect that knowledge.

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. Your logic is crap.

In terms of bad candidates tRump steals the honor. That logic is crap. Compared to tRump she was one billion times a great candidate.

That's enabler logic

[KTM]

17. +1

[Takket]

18. Clinton was a great candidate

The fact Russia successfully pushed unproven narratives about her that the deplorables lapped up doesn't change that.

[Squinch]

81. Not just deplorables, apparently.

[StevieM]

229. I agree that Clinton was a great candidate but I would argue that the FBI did even more damage

than the Russians did.

[uponit7771]

19. So Russia didn't interfere? Cause you wouldn't be saying this if she won you know that right?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

83. I'm confused by this for two reasons:

1. I don't read that post as ever saying the Russians didn't interfere.
2. If she wasn't a bad candidate and won they wouldn't be saying she wasn't a bad candidate? Um, yeah, absolutely.

[uponit7771]

95. 1. Implications they didn't interfere are implied by exclusion of mention 2. In that case there's

... number one is even more highlighted.

Look, either Russia, Comey and voter suppression was involved and tilted the election or not ... don't side talk folk with the "she was bad even though they cheated" shit.

It implies she should've won even though they cheat, that's irrational at best.

[Maven]

22. She was a great candidate. nt

[Caliman73]

23. Disagree. She was not a bad candidate.

I do agree that you do not have to be deranged to not have preferred Hilary Clinton as the candidate for the Democratic Party. I preferred Sanders' more populist message during the primaries. However, she was not a bad candidate. She made some missteps, especially taking the Midwest for granted, but she was reasoned, articulate, and the best qualified person in the entire race. The fact that she has been depicted as this evil incarnate by both right wing and some mainstream media, was a major factor in people's perception that she was a "bad" candidate.

[StevieM]

231. She didn't take the midwest for granted.

She campaigned relentlessly in Ohio and Pennsylvania. She also made many appearances in Michigan, the media narrative not withstanding. She spent more money there than Obama did in 2012. But she did lessen her presence there in September and October, after Trump conceded the state.

Wisconsin is tricky because, like Minnesota, it was seen as way out of play for Trump. But even then she kept her staff on the ground and had more staffers there than Obama 2012. I agree that she should have made some appearances there, even with Trump essentially conceding the state. But it ultimately didn't matter. Wisconsin moved with the other states, like MI, FL, and NC, when Comey intervened to destroy the Democrat and rig the race for the GOP.

[Caliman73]

235. I don't even think that the states "moved" in any certain direction

Those states were won with slim margins after introduction of policies that stopped many people from voting.

As I said, Clinton was not a bad candidate. She may have made some mistakes, like all candidates do, but the reality is that every little thing that she DID or DID NOT do was amplified and she was not given any benefit of the doubt like Trump was.

[Codeine]

27. Oh please.

She got millions more votes than the Short-Fingered Vulgarian despite a barrage of attacks from (literally) right, left, and center.

Bad candidate my fucking ass.

[jalan48]

30. It should never have been close-I have to agree with you on this one.

[Hekate]

51. It was not "close." It took the Electoral College, Russia, hacking, collusion, voter suppression...

...gerrymandering, 3rd-party splitters like Jill Stein, the New Jim Crow, and Hillary STILL WON the actual vote by 3 million over Trump.

[spooky3]

72. And misogyny and Comeys actions nt

[Cuthbert Allgood]

84. It didn't "take" the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is how you win the election of President of the United States. It's been that way, um, forever.

[lapucelle]

96. Apparently 228 years qualifies as "um, forever".

Just because the system has existed since 1789 doesn't mean that the system did not have an impact.

[uponit7771]

92. cause you don't want to recognize Russian involvement and Comey, be honest about that

[JI7]

134. Sandy Hook Shooting should never have resulted in Inaction while kicking out Dreamers

there are many things that "should never" happen but do.

like many of the republicans in office getting any votes.

[jalan48]

145. Wall Street rules and big money decides elections. Meanwhile the little folks are left out.

[Hekate]

46. What war-mongering? Can you provide, you know, facts?

Be precise, because this is another disgusting accusation without merit.

[SunSeeker]

57. Amazing isn't it?

Did she, ask with frustration, why we can't use our nukes? Oh wait, that was Trump. DURING THE FUCKING CAMPAIGN.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290217-scarborough-trump-asked-about-adviser-about-using-nuclear

Good fucking God.

[Hekate]

63. Just before the election I had lunch with a longtime friend who insisted HRC was a warmonger...

I think she repeated the line "HRC will do more damage because she knows where the levers of power are" as well. Transpacific Partnership. The whole experience was appalling.

No. Just no.

You are right: at what point did Hillary engage in hypermasculine displays or in any way fail to understand that war is a last resort?

[SunSeeker]

66. Yup. The Hillary haters were--and are--totally played by the right wing.

[shanny]

140. Libya

[betsuni]

146. Libya what?

Is this a knock-knock joke?

[shanny]

157. Put it in context with the post I responded to.

[stevenleser]

173. You mean the UN authorized action in Libya that the international

Community voted on and approved?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/africa/18nations.html?pagewanted=all&referer=

The resolution — sponsored by Lebanon, another Arab state, and strongly backed by France, Britain and the United States — explicitly mentions the need to protect civilians in the rebel stronghold Benghazi, “while excluding an occupation force.” It calls to “establish a ban on all flights in the airspace” and an immediate cease-fire.

Mrs. Clinton said Thursday that establishing a no-fly zone over Libya would require bombing targets inside the country to protect planes and pilots. She said other options being considered included the use of drones and arming rebel forces, though not ground troops, an option that appeared to be ruled out Thursday by the State Department’s highest-ranking career diplomat, Under Secretary William J. Burns.
—————————————————

So what you are telling me is that Hillary’s opponents in the left opposed an international effort, authorized by the UN, the international body that determines legality in terms of international law, to protect civilians who were being targeted by the Libyan government.

That’s where those folks are coming down, as are you if you support the JPR line here.

[Hekate]

178. Well spotted

[shanny]

191. Why yes, I do mean BS regime change operations, sanctioned by the UN or not.

Especially when they result in failed states and chaos (and who could have predicted that).

And I am not telling you anything about Hillary's opponents on the left, only what I think myself. And I think, myself, that Americans on both sides of the aisle are WAY too ready to use force, be it invading armies, air strikes or whatever, with very little concern or thought about what happens next. I for one do not readjust my moral compass by popular vote. I don't speak for anyone else. Clear now?

[stevenleser]

192. Blaming Hillary for Lebanese sponsored UN resolutions is insane

Is that clear enough for YOU?

We don’t even need to have the discussion about whether you agree with “regime change” in general or are clear headed enough to judge each one on its merits. The kind of thinking you illustrate isn’t even sharp enough to get that far.

Libya was targeting its own people with helicopter gunships. The UN decided it wanted to try to stop that. An international coalition responded.

And your response is to blame Hillary. If you have any clear thinking left you ought to think about that.

[betsuni]

210. You mean in the context that you think Hillary Clinton is a warmonger 'cause OMG BENGHAZI?

[GulfCoast66]

164. Come on. Just say it. Benghazi. We all know you want to.

[stevenleser]

174. Right? Benghazi and Pizza Gate. You know they believe both

conspiracies.

[Hekate]

179. Also well spotted

[stonecutter357]

35. Cool Story, Bro .

[niyad]

39. really? bad candidate? based on WHAT, exactly? 30 years of reichwing propaganda,

swallowed whole by a whole segment of the population who should know better?

[leftstreet]

75. You're not wrong

30 years of reichwing propaganda, swallowed whole by a whole segment of the population who should know better?

I agree

But maybe the DNC needed to think this through. I suspect even with the decades of RW propaganda, Clinton could have beat almost any GOPer. McCain, Bush, Cruz, Christie, etc

But not necessarily a Trump. Obviously

[seaglass]

97. The DNC? WTF does the DNC have to do with it? Was the DNC supposed to tell her not to run?

As if it was a DNC decision

[leftstreet]

103. You're right, sorry

Probably should have just said "the party" or "the party leadership" or something

[Hekate]

44. Strange, since she WON by THREE MILLION VOTES OVER TRUMP. In any sane country...

...Hillary Clinton would be President today.

[Scarsdale]

45. tRump didn't "win"

yet there he parks his orange ass in the WH.

[pnwmom]

49. She wasn't a bad candidate. Officially, she only lost by 70K votes in 3 states, and she carried the

election among real voters by almost 2.9 million votes.

The Russian meddling OR the voter suppression -- either one could have been enough to swing that small number of votes in the 3 states. Anyone who thinks any other candidate could have easily surmounted those obstacles hasn't been paying attention.

In any case, the main reason she's not President is not because she was a bad candidate but because we are stuck with a distorted system built on an Electoral College that deliberately gives more power to smaller and more rural states -- originally to help support slavery.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

85. I have a couple problems.

1. "carried the election among real voters" So Wisconsin aren't real voters?
2. She NEVER came to Wisconsin. If that doesn't make you a bad candidate (not going to a swing state that looks like it might not go for you), then we need a new definition of bad candidate.
3. It is NOT the smaller and more rural states that cost her the election in the Electoral College. It was WI, OH, AND PA. Those are nots small state. Sorry.

[pnwmom]

94. I meant "real voters" as opposed to E.C. electors. Are you saying that the almost 3 million voters

in Hillary's plurality should have had their votes counted for NOTHING? Because that's what happened.

And you think Hillary should have paid more attention to Wisconsin. What about all the blue states? And even the red states? Why is it fair that candidates spend so much more time in the states that are viewed as "swing states"? That only happens because of the Electoral College.

It doesn't matter that Wisconsin is a bigger state NOW. The Electoral College was built to give smaller and more rural states a disproportionate amount of power, in order to uphold the system of slavery. We are stuck with that vestige of slavery even though slavery itself was abolished long ago. We should have disbanded the Electoral College at the same time. If we did have a popular vote, like other modern democracies, DT wouldn't be President.

[StevieM]

228. She didn't go to Wisconsin for the same reason she didn't campaign in Minnesota.

Both were considered to be states that were out-of-play for Trump. Actually, Trump canceled an appearance in Wisconsin right before the election.

Wisconsin moved with the rest of the country after the Comey intervention. It's not as if it was ever possible for her to win Michigan and Pennsylvania but still lose Wisconsin. Actually, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona were also tipped by Comey. And that is assuming that the race wasn't even wider, which it very well might have been without Comey's October Surprise.

I think HRC ran a great race. Without the FBI targeting her she would have won in a landslide.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

232. So when Feingold told the campaign that things were going bad and she needed to show up

he was just crazy and the only person that didn't think it was in the bag for Clinton?

When Bill Clinton told the campaign that they needed to go to those three states, he's just another outlier?

[StevieM]

233. You can argue that she mishandled the Comey intervention.

Things completely collapsed in the final 11 days. And maybe she could have reduced the level of damage.

I personally doubt she could have. This election wasn't about "showing up"--Trump outright canceled on them--it was about who was seen as a criminal.

And Clinton did go to two of those states. She made 7 appearances in Michigan after the primaries, one of them in November, and she sent Bill, Obama and Kaine there too. And she was in Pennsylvania constantly. I don't even know where the story about not going to PA came from. But it is pure fiction.

[calimary]

59. WRONG. She was a terrific candidate.

Highly experienced. Compassionate. Brilliant. Willing to wade into the weeds to understand an issue. Wise. Warm. Circumspect. Elegant. Grown up. Masterfully educated - and USES that education for the greater good. A track record of building consensus and reaching out across the aisle. Nobody gets voted "Most Admired Woman in the World" 20 times in a row for no reason.

It still hurts, profoundly, to know we lost a chance at a magnificent presidency. I STILL want those brains in the Oval Office. That we'll never get that perspective, that wisdom, that soaring intellect, working for us at that level - genuinely hurts. I think about that and my heart breaks for my country all over again.

[Hekate]

64. Thank you for that, Calimary. It means a lot in this moment of darkness. nt

[PragmaticDem]

61. She may not have been the best candidate, but she was the most qualified.

She would have made a better President than any candidate that ran for president in 2016.

[leftstreet]

74. I agree

In fact, I doubt we'll see many (if any) candidates run in the future with even half of her qualifications.

[PragmaticDem]

90. True. She clearly was prepared for the job.

[calimary]

80. Welcome to DU, PragmaticDem.

Indeed she would have.

I still ache when I think back to the text I sent to my daughter the night before the election - when we both, like so many others, expected her to win. I talked about how much I looked forward to making a statement to the whole world, as well as to women around the world. How much I looked forward to the most powerful person on earth being a WOMAN. Especially one of her caliber. How long I've been waiting for a moment like this, just in general, and then since 1992 when I first discovered her during her husband's first presidential campaign, and how impressed I was.

I've written about that before, here. I was enthralled. Mesmerized! The more I learned about her, the more I came to love and admire her. I came to the realization that, in many respects, she was ME! How so? Well, this was the first First Lady aspirant who was even close to my age. She's just a few years older than I am. First time there was a potential presidential wife to whom I could relate. All the others up til then were of my mother's generation, or old enough to be my grandmother. THIS candidate's wife I could actually relate to. Personally. She was a lot like me. Working wife. Working mother. Brought home a bigger paycheck than her husband did. Loved and found great fulfillment in her job. Didn't define herself solely as a 'housewife" or "wife-and-mother". She had her own ideas and wasn't afraid to speak her mind (which was considerable). She had more to contribute, and DID. Just as I felt about myself. I didn't get around to trying to start a family til after we'd been married for 13 years. My career was that important to me. When I heard that soundbite "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies..." that almost literally shot through me like a lightning bolt had just struck me. It was literally electrifying!

Don't get me wrong. I, too, am a wife-and-mother. I eventually got there myself. And I worked hard at it. Even gave up my career so I could do right by my kids. But there was, and still is, so much more to me than just exclusively that. And I made sure they saw that side of me, too, even in later part-time work situations. I'd seen and known enough to understand that sometimes the "wife and mother" label didn't apply so loftily. I knew a lot of "wife-and-mother" types who were abysmal at it.

My most glaring example was - a good friend whose mother had her fifth child (an "oopsie" after she thought she was too old) who totally abandoned her responsibilities to that fifth child. Couldn't wait to grab the car keys and split for the day, go on long driving trips to do "antiquing" or "junking" or scrounging every garage sale in town or gossiping with her friends most of the day. MY friend? That fifth child got pawned off on her. My friend was my age, and we were both in high school. Just old enough to have recently earned our driver's licenses. And it was my friend, the eldest child, who got up, fixed breakfast for her younger siblings, helped the youngest get cleaned up and dressed (in clean clothes for which my friend had the laundry duty), and later, driving her little sister everywhere, taking her shopping, helping her with her homework, doing all those things Mom should have done. And I kept wondering about my friend - why she was being denied her own teenager years to be a student and start dating and - well - HAVE THAT TIME. That time which was supposed to be pretty carefree when you're that age and you DON'T yet have all those wife-and-mother responsibilities. Meanwhile, her absentee mom was busy goofing off with the other wives and garage-sale fans and fellow chain-smokers of hers. I really felt bad for my friend. She never complained, but I burned! I hated seeing that. She may not have shown resentment toward her mom, but it didn't matter - I felt enough resentment for both of us.

[PragmaticDem]

89. Thank you for the welcome!

I have a hard time looking at HRC and not crying. I am not that emotional and have seen my candidate lose before, but this loss was too hard.

What could have been!

[Skittles]

69. oh look, another person easily swayed by propaganda

[murielm99]

71. She was not a bad candidate.

I am very tired of hearing that. She was superbly qualified.

We are not supposed to bash Democrats here. Yet everyone seems to be allowed to say this without any problem at all. I am tired of seeing this crap on a Democratic website.

Remember, she won the popular vote. Such a bad candidate!

[David__77]

109. How is it bashing to say someone is a bad candidate?

I think that Sanders was a bad candidate. I think that Clinton was a bad candidate. I voted for both- Sanders in primary and Clinton in general. I don’t see saying that as “bashing.”

[David__77]

118. I think its criticism.

I can understand not liking it and I can understand thinking it’s out of line or in conflict with the purposes of this site. I don’t agree that it’s “bashing.” I find that not a good fit. I get that others may disagree.

[murielm99]

120. Goodbye.

You are not worth the effort.

[David__77]

128. Goodbye.

I wish you well.

[Fla Dem]

78. You contradict yourself.

"She was a bad candidate"

"Excellent qualifications for a POTUS"

So I guess in the future we'll have to look for a "good candidate" with "terrible qualifications to be POTUS" like Trump.

[leftstreet]

79. No, "politics" contradicts itself

We don't get to interview and select the most qualified and experienced POTUS from a lineup of potential job applicants.

"Politics" asks voters to consider a candidate's qualifications, but then lets the same voters punch their cards for a Trump

[bettyellen]

162. LOL -repeating a meme over and over again till you actually believe it. They got you shilling.

[tenderfoot]

6. I notice many ppr'd DUers over there

Most of whom bugged the living shit out of me when they were here.

[Maven]

9. Some of them have tried to slink back in here since the election. nt

[Codeine]

29. Membership at JPR should automatically

garner the Banhammer here.

[Hekate]

65. +1000

[SunSeeker]

67. +1

[SidDithers]

98. +1...

Sid

[betsuni]

105. +1

[Maven]

119. +1

[revmclaren]

127. +1

[Mosby]

172. the owners of this site also own a hate site

Called Discussionist. It's an alt-right playground where posters proudly display hate symbols like pepe and refer to themselves as "tier one" and call dems and moderates beta cucks, all of which is white supremacist lingo.

JPR has some decent members but the site is overrun with Russian trolls.

[stevenleser]

187. No they dont, Discussionist isnt a hate site. It is overrun with hateful people but that isnt the

same thing.

[stonecutter357]

37. +1000

[Maven]

7. Yes. They have denied the RU attack because it undermines their narrative

About Clinton’s candidacy. That is also why they keep pushing the “rigged primary” lie. They are delusional and pathetic. They made easy targets for RU disinformation aimed at splitting the left.

[StevieM]

16. Our own FBI, led by James Comey, launched a much bigger attack on the election and our democracy.

eom

[Maven]

21. Yes, Comey and the NY FBI field office also had a disastrous impact. nt

[bettyellen]

163. Because he was subjected to fake reports circulated by the same people. Since it was a multi-

pronged misinformation effort, people are scrambling to separate out the reasons as being other than Russia. In truth they had their hands everywhere. We still have to find out what they did w info received from hacks of voter rolls too.

[SHRED]

8. They are a broken record

A clanging bell in the night.

Stuck in the past.

[MiltonBrown]

10. I went over there out of curiosity and was appalled.

I liked Sanders but supported HRC in the GE. Their hatred of HRC is not rational. It is sad at this point in history that they are off on such a pointless tangent.

It is time to fight Trump with everything we've got and those people are not helping. SHAME ON YOU JPRers!

[LonePirate]

234. Not only that but their ignorance of our modern economy is shameful.

They blame NAFTA and similar trade agreements for the decimation of American manufacturing. In reality, automation is responsible for over 70% or manufacturing job losses and will be coming for many more blue and white collar jobs in the decades to come.

[Me.]

13. Oh Dear, Oh Dear

The truth becomes evident. Apparently, they simply cannot help themselves.

[aikoaiko]

28. It's more complicated than that, but still I don't know for certain that HRC would have won...

...without Russia or Comey.


Every mainstream Democrat would have had trouble with a candidate like Trump because he was so ridiculous, bombastic, over-the-top, and crude.

Add in the bias against the Clintons and HRC and winning was not guaranteed.

[Kirk Lover]

31. I honestly can't read anything from over there...if I can't troll the insanity then I see no point

to even read their disgusting BULLSHIT.

[guillaumeb]

33. There are numerous reasons.

In no particular order, they are:

Russian interference
voter apathy
GOP voter suppression
GOP gerrymandering
media bias toward conservative viewpoints
massive spending by right wing billionaires to control the terms of debate in this country
massive negative advertising by the same billionaires

I highlighted voter apathy because it is a persistent problem. It was a problem for Roy Moore, it was a problem for Hillary Clinton.

[ProudLib72]

41. Be careful there

Linking HRC to moore.

But I do think you have a point. If apathy is caused by consistently bad news, then this is exactly what we need to be doing for the midterms, too. Force all the dirt on the rethugs to the surface and focus on it.

[guillaumeb]

101. And we must motivate voters as well.

The only linkage was to a common issue, that of apathy.

[uponit7771]

100. !!?!? Democrats like Hillary, Republicans didn't like Roy Moore

[guillaumeb]

102. But they voted for him, just not in large enough numbers.

And the RNC endorsed him.

[NCTraveler]

137. Extremely poor comparison for obvious reasons.

Complete garbage and transparent.

50% if Republicans didn’t show up for Moore for clear reasons. Clinton drove millions more to the poles than Trump.

You got to make a half-baked comparison between Moore and Clinton. While it outs you completely, be proud of yourself today.

What an extremely shady attack on Clinton.

[guillaumeb]

161. Your framing, and your opinion.

The Democratic Party can ignore suppression, and gerrymandering, and apathy, but if it does so that does not indicate a realistic approach.

[GeorgeGist]

34. JackpineRadical, in his own words ...

25 Random things about me (Jackpine Radical)
January 27, 2009 at 7:31pm

21. I look at the future with a strange mix of fear for what might be (people of my generation grew up hearing the horror stories of the Depression years from our parents) and of hope for what could be. I think we are at one of those turning points in history. The right choice will lead to a path of appropriate technology and spiritual metamorphosis. The other choice will lead to unimaginable ruin, and maybe another mass extinction of species.

read the whole thing:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026835347

[mountain grammy]

42. Thanks..been a while since I read that.

[pnwmom]

52. He was a good guy. The people who stole his name to set up that site have nothing to do with him. n/

[dalton99a]

115. An obit still available for those curious:

http://www.leadertelegram.com/obituaries/2015/06/21/James-Peterson-1.html

[Bobbie Jo]

149. I remember Jackpine

He would be appalled over what has been done in his name.

[marble falls]

36. Why I don't post there anymore. Its a streetfight.

[niyad]

40. they just don't give up, do they?

[karynnj]

50. They are entitled to their opinions and this is NOT saying that there was NO Russian interference

It is possible - but pretty extreme and not very logical - to argue that all of the Russian interference - the accumulation of leaked DNC and Podesta emails AND (very likely) the micro targeted excepts of these and completely made up stuff, did not shift enough votes (or potential HRC vote from people who were swayed not to vote) to make up the differences in those rust belt swing states. If you look back to their posts here - where they cited the DNC leaks as reason not to vote or not to vote HRC - they might themselves be examples of votes lost due to Russian influenence.

In addition, they are ignoring what could be called oportunity costs. If the campaign did not have to deal with the drip of new stories from the Podesta email nearly every day, did they have a last few weeks' positive message that they would have concentrated on rather than messages that were more defensive and attacking Trump as unfit (which he is)?

It is impossible to go back and assign measures to the impact of various negative things that happened in the campaign. Not to mention, each thing that had an impact interacted with all the others. Obviously, if there never was an issue with email and thus, she never had to deal with the issue itself, the various IG and FBI investigations etc , she would never have been vulnerable. That issue and how she dealt with it damaged her favorables and the preception of her honesty and trustworthiness. Whether fair or not, that happened.

Yet, note that she was still far ahead as she headed into her convention. Her convention made her even stronger, but one unresolvable question is whether the leak of the DNC emails shortly before the convention actually prevented her from consoladating even more support. Here, the JPR people were in the forefront of people who thought those leaks important AND (if I am correct on who posted both here and JPR) led them to question if after those leaks they could vote for HRC.

One comment to them is that to argue that the Russian interference made the difference, you do NOT need to prove that nothing else held Clinton back or even that it was the biggest cause of her loss -- just that the interference hurt.

[Jim Lane]

139. The leaked emails present a complicated case.

Before I get to that, you're absolutely right about the difficulty of determining a "what if" about the election. There's a tendency for people posting about the emails or the Comey letter or whatever to focus on a topic that concerns them and to say it's the reason we have Trump. I personally think that any statement that singles out one factor as "the" reason for the outcome is probably wrong. A national election is a huge deal with many, many factors.

Turning specifically to the emails, my guess -- based in part on my having read more posts on JPR than have most DUers -- is that, for the vast majority of people who identify as progressives but who did not vote for Clinton, the emails were something to talk about a lot but did not actually influence their vote. There are leaked emails that show that DNC officials favored Clinton. But anyone who was paying attention knew that before the end of 2015. In the DNC fraud lawsuit, the DNC pointed out that some of the plaintiffs who alleged they had been defrauded into making contributions had, early on, made public statements blasting the DNC's non-neutrality. It's a standard part of the law of fraud that the making of a false statement isn't enough. An aggrieved plaintiff must also show that he or she believed the falsehood and acted on that belief. I think most JPR posters are like the plaintiffs in that suit in this respect -- we knew perfectly well that the Democratic Party establishment was solidly pro-Clinton long before we read any emails.

To the extent the leak of the DNC emails did have an effect, there are two ways to spin that. One is to assert that the leak was the work (direct or indirect) of the Russians and that the Russians are therefore at fault.

The alternative is to point out that there was no falsehood involved. The documents published as DNC emails were, in fact, accurate copies of DNC emails. (IIRC, out of thousands of leaked emails, it was alleged that one of them had a "Confidential" tag added that wasn't actually in the original. That made no difference. That tag on one email did not affect anyone's vote. The emails that sparked the most comment were never even alleged to be faked, from which I infer that what was released was what was actually sent.) Therefore, instead of blaming people who made an accurate public disclosure of embarrassing statements by DNC officials, I put the primary blame on the authors of the emails. For example, if no one had ever sent an email alluding to an attack on Bernie Sanders based on religious bigotry, then the Russians wouldn't have been able to publicize such an email.

[MineralMan]

56. Why are you still going over there, Steve?

It's a cosmic waste of time.

[stevenleser]

112. Because we should never forget who and what they are. And if there arent regular

Reminders, people will forget and then they will be allowed to slink back here unopposed with their insane bullshit.

You know that’s coming. We have seen it before with Old Elm Tree. JPR is not a sustainable site. It will fail and then you know where they will try to come back.

[melman]

132. That's not why you do it

[Squinch]

143. Are you wearing a sparkly turban with a feather and holding an envelope to your forehead?

If so, your psycho powers are faulty. Steve is right.

[stevenleser]

186. I think you are doing a disservice to the great Carnac with that comparison

[Squinch]

188. Melmack the magnificent.

[stevenleser]

190. !

[betsuni]

148. It's why I do it.

[stevenleser]

167. There is nothing so discrediting as someone trying to tell someone else

what they are thinking.

[melman]

195. I'm not doing that

I don't know of care what you're thinking. But it's obvious your thing with them is personal. They insult you, you read it and then come back here and call them losers. Then they insult you again and you make another thread here...and so on. It's very obvious. And very boring.

[stevenleser]

196. Yes you were, your attempt to explain why you were trying to tell me what I am thinking

is more of the same.

[mreilly]

177. I used to visit that site when DU was down post-election...

... and I never once read anything that was remotely worth the time it took to read it.

No interesting arguments.

No compelling material.

No engaging personalities.

Zero, zip, nada. An empty void. Just a bunch of idiots posting blather.

I never bothered to go back.

[ismnotwasm]

58. There are all assholes

My favorite (sarcasm) being the one who basically used the old “one drop rule” to claim African American heritage.

Who even DOES that?

[Eliot Rosewater]

60. I wonder if that board makes any money off of ads, which I assume is how DU

is funded along with STAR members?

I ask because the idea that someone would be profiting off of treason and supporting our enemy, makes me really fucking angry.

Speaking of JPR, not DU.

DU is a patriotic site whether it wants to be or not, because by default liberals and democrats are patriotic.

[Jim Lane]

108. JPR doesn't run paid ads.

This is fairly easy to determine. You can go to the home page and see that there's a display solicitation for contributions to the site, with a "Donate" button. That's it. You can click on links for particular threads and see that reading them is also an ad-free experience.

There are probably right-wingers who, seeing the ads for dental implants and whatnot on DU, would denounce this site for allegedly "profiting off of treason and supporting our enemy...." For my part, I don't accept the facile assumption that "posting opinions with which I disagree" equals treason. Even if you join the authoritarians in accepting that assumption, however, I'm pleased to be able to reassure you about the ad revenue.

[ProfessorGAC]

62. Dumb Is Bipartisan! (nt)

[Skittles]

68. they know DAMN WELL Putin owns Trump

THEY APPROVE

[orangecrush]

70. heavy Russian infiltration there

Good place to avoid.

[Progressive dog]

76. Probably most of them are paid by Putin

or want to be. They are a large part of the destruction of democracy in America.

[SHRED]

91. From what that site was

To what it is now...I'd shut it down if I owned it.

[TheFrenchRazor]

93. i guess they forgot that SHE WON 3 mil more votes than he did. nt

[mreilly]

99. They're assholes and that site is a shithole...

... pay no mind to those delusional, boring fucking pricks.

[workinclasszero]

104. They love Trump and Putin

FO JPR!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Is that the crypto MRA site ?

[Cha]

110. lol@Hillary Derangement Syndrome..

those geniuses have it bad.

[mcar]

122. They got what they wanted

Why can't they give up the hate? She's a private citizen now. It never ends.

[Cha]

182. The brainwashing is too

deep.. they're soaked beyond all recall.

[mcar]

184. They wouldn't know what to do without hatred

Much like the dotard supporters.

[betsuni]

121. jPR: Russia good, America bad, Hillary Clinton (oops, I mean HER) BADBADBADBADBADBAD

A simple message for simple people.

[UCmeNdc]

131. JPR seems to be a fake Democratic Party support site set up to bash Clinton

The site was set up to lure Democratic voters in and give them fake information about Clinton and the DNC.

[Raine]

133. WOW, they sure went after you

they don't seem to like you at all...

[betsuni]

136. Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders (pretty much anybody else) can appear as a guest on Fox News ...

without being accused of being a Republican Fox News shill, except Steven Leser. JPRers say the worst disgusting things about Hillary Clinton every day (the c-word is a big favorite), but heaven forbid Steven Leser said something critical about Hillary a decade ago, they never let him forget it. It's sort of flattering to be on their list of names that make them lose their minds and froth at the mouth like the mindless mad dogs they are: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Steven Leser.

[shanny]

159. Are any of those people paid to appear as guests?

Are they paid contributors? I have a problem with anybody appearing on Fox News, myself--and that includes President Obama when he gave a interview to (iirc) O'Lielly. I get that FN viewers don't watch anything else, I just think they are unreachable anyway so why legitimize the propaganda network?

[stevenleser]

165. Guest means you are not paid. CNN, FNC, MSNBC and other networks are

very clear when they introduce someone if they are a paid employee. They will refer to them as a contributor or analyst for that network, or a host or cohost.

[stevenleser]

170. I know its Hilarious, and they are too stupid to get it.

During the primary, they never seemed to learn that lesson. They would attack me for appearing on Fox News and I would respond with video of several of Bernie Sanders appearances on Fox. And they didn’t get how stupid that made them look.

Now we have Jill Stein doing an appearance there and many of them say they voted for her to be President, what more endorsement of someone who appears on that network can you give? But again they try to attack me for appearing there.

There are clearly deficits of reasoning from which almost all (if not all) JPR folks suffer.

[melman]

193. It doesn't make anyone stupid

Not to "get' a thing that makes no sense. A politician going on Fox is totally different than when a so-called 'strategist' does it. Everyone knows that. Just as everyone knows what a 'Democratic strategist's' role on Fox really is.

And what about Newsmax TV? Sanders and Stein don't go on there. But you sure do.

[stevenleser]

194. And you are still doing it!

No one with a brain cell in their heads is convinced by your pathetic attempt at justifying rank hypocrisy

[stevenleser]

166. I would hope not. I am suspicious of anyone they like. The other thing

that is typical of them is that they do not address the issue, they address the poster (ad hominem). That is a defining characteristic of JPR/BoB types.

Remember when some no-named guy announced he wanted to challenge Sanders for senate in Vermont? They immediately data-mined all his social media posts to try to find something to discredit him. That’s who they are.

[Raine]

198. LOL, consider it an honor to be on their "S" List

nice going!

[NCTraveler]

135. Numerous members there discussed how joyful is would be...

To kill Clinton. They are some of the worst among us.

[Squinch]

201. I like the ones who are "beginning to think" Trump might be really bad.

Really? Beginning to think, full stop.

I have to say, though, there are some good laughs in that thread.

And they're so thrilled to have been noticed by DU, it's almost cute.

[shanny]

138. Who are "JPR folks"

and why does anyone care about them?

[PJMcK]

141. Glad they've left DU

There were a number of posters, I believe some of whom founded JPR, who used to post here. Their attitudes were argumentative and disruptive. Most importantly, they didn't bring anything constructive the the conversations.

Good riddance and I suggest you delete JPR from your Favorites, stevenleser! (wink)

At an earlier time, I occasionally lurked on their site but I quickly got sick of their nonsense. Fuck 'em in their rabbit hole.

You're right about their rejection of the facts. In that way, they're just like Republicans.

[Squinch]

144. LOL! Look at that JPR post! It's hilarious! It's like the refrigerator magnet game with all

the hot button terms that the Russian Bots used during the election to turn the really stupid, low-hanging Democrats!

It's like they just scrambled up all the terms that appeal to those "pure" voters who love to shoot themselves in the foot.

Stockholm is either a BOT, or a VERY naïve sap and completely under the thrall of BOTs.

Really, that post is a work of art.

[stevenleser]

176. They dont get how stupid they look.

Throw in their frequent use of the c-word and other lack of support for women’s equality and people of color they exhibit (they denigrate ‘sjw’s) and they are a truly odious lot.

[heaven05]

156. they are

and always have been obvious in their true political leanings...never fooled me anyway. A bunch of racist idiot jackasses.

[GulfCoast66]

202. To this rather dense democrat

The fact that an OP attacking the shitty, racist and misogynist JPR turns contentious and has over 200 replies is proof that they are reinfesting DU under new names.

But again. I am admittedly pretty slow at times.

2020 will be really ugly here.

[Squinch]

203. I only see two posters in the 200 defending the shitty racist misogynists, though.

[GulfCoast66]

206. Because they, for the most part are not totally stupid

But anytime a post comes up that gives them cover to attack Secretary Clinton without getting a hide the emerge from the muck like frogs after a rainstorm.

[stevenleser]

209. Yep, which is why a light has to be shined on them regularly

Excellent response

[quaker bill]

205. Hillary does not matter in this

It simply does not matter whether collusion with the Russians changed a single vote. It will be impossible to prove that it changed the outcome of 2016, this is why Hillary is not even relevant to the issue.

Even if it did not change a single vote, having a candidate coordinate efforts with a hostile foriegn power in the attempt to change the outcome of an election is a crisis. Just the fact that they tried, if proven, is just and sufficient cause, in this case for impeachment. We do not need to prove that the efforts changed anything. Just trying is enough.

[Blue_Tires]

207. I did like how Stein's first order of business was going on Fox News to gloat and piss on Hillary

I guess the JPR folks are 100% fine with that, too

[Scurrilous]

218. Have they taken the country back yet?

Asking for a friend...

[Gothmog]

220. No

[duforsure]

227. Surprise!

Proof Putin does have a sense of humor!

[dlwickham]

236. so many of them were bern bros who left DU after Hillary received the nomination

and couldn't bash her any more

[LeftInTX]

243. I agree they have Democratic Party Derangement Syndrome

When they were here, I got the impression they were not Democrats, but mostly anarchist types. DPPS is permanent. Clinton Derangement Syndrome is temporary, it will be replaced by the Democratic nominee in 2020.

No one in the Democratic Party pleases them.

[XRubicon]

254. jpr manny sh** stain lol