Why did Trump get elected?

The same reason that Hitler was so popular.
A brash, loudmouthed Führer figure promising salvation in a time of strife, perceived or real, regardless of how ridiculous he sounds

But that is just explaining his popularity.
The reason he “won” is, that the EC overruled the will of the people and appointed him the winner.

Hillary was hated by the right so much that she made a TV personality look like a good alternative. Trump also did not ignore the working class and while Hillary was campaigning elsewhere Trump went to the rust belt, rural farmland and other economically depressed areas and promised them change. When you have traditionally left leaning union workers flip and vote Trump then it’s clear he touched the working class nerve. He was an outsider to them when a traditional vote left or right would result in them being ignored further. You can blame the EC, supremacists or whatever but that is the reason we have Trump. For others on the right sick of all of the petty politics being pushed by the left and inaction and wrong direction of the right he was the equivalent of tossing a grenade into the oval office. I don’t think many realized how big the explosion would be. I see a silver lining though. I don’t think we’ll be electing celebrities or others who have no business leading the free world. I would hope that candidates are more carefully screened through public demand in the future. We need leaders and problem solvers not actors, socialites and especially no more lawyers.

He said what people want to hear.

Which sadly means the real problem is the American people.

@Are You The grenade analogy is spot on, very succinct.

Two fundamental reasons, all else is just white noise.

1) In the age of celebrity & social media he’s a poster boy for “none of the above”
2) Charisma, like or loathe the guy, he’s definitely got your attention.

Trump isn’t so very popular, he has the lowest approval ratings of any president, including Gerald Ford, and he failed to win the popular vote. A vote for Trump is a vote for negativity. People voted for him because they liked the opposition even less and because they thought Trump would bypass the bureaucracy on Capitol Hill. They voted out of anger and frustration forgetting for the moment that this bureaucracy is the system of government that has guaranteed through the centuries America’s freedom and prosperity, and, yes, greatness.

That something is badly wrong can be seen in how seldom anyone defends Trump. Defence consists entirely in criticizing other, usually democratic and usually retired politicians.

The two reasons I have heard Trump supporters give for their choice of vote are:

1. Trump isn’t a politician
2. Trump pisses people off.

In normal times two very good reasons for voting for someone else.

Because people who aren’t that educated or up-to-date on current events vote and people who would have voted for Hillary didn’t because they thought she would win anyway without their having to go to the polls.

As in all elections, Trump won with a combination of demographics. He got the Hillary haters, the dummy vote, the racist vote, etc. He also won because far too many people believed he didn’t stand a chance in hell, and stayed home.

Because left wing voters in places like Wisconsin decided it would be a good idea to believe Russian propaganda and vote for Jill Stein.

I agree with @ARE_you_kidding_me, especially w/r/t Trump’s appeal to the working class. That’s key in turning swing states and it was those swing states that won Trump the election (despite Hillary’s winning the popular vote). The resentment factor was strong as well and Trump appealed to that resentment. Resentment meaning the demotion of certain demographics in status and influence and the promise from Trump to go back to a time when those people had it better.

Mexicans are rapists, Make America Great Again, build the wall, Lock her up ——- this is mainly the reason why trump got elected ——- and his con about draining the swamp.

Russian interference had a lot to do with “influencing” gullible people into believing that Hillary Clinton was a bad person, and had even murdered people. So the combination of gullible people, mysogynistic people (who would never vote for a woman) and apathetic people (who generally would have voted Democratic, if pressed to choose a candidate) who ultimately didn’t vote, were the cause of Donald Trump being elected, along with the help of the Electoral College that disregarded the fact that Clinton won more votes.

It was the perfect storm of uninformed voters, apathetic voters, an archaic outdated political system, and interference by a foreign entity.

The hatred of Hillary.
The frustration with the government, and the want to “shake up the system”.
Nationalism, combined with xenophobia.
The ridiculous illusion that someone who is rich will manage the government in a way that will make everyone rich.
Finally, and importantly, the bitterness of Bernie voters.

He got people that were on hard times to believe him,that if elected he would make their lives better..
He got voters that didn’t like Hilary, to absolutely hate her.
He promised out of work coal miners he would bring their jobs back.
He told people what they wanted to hear, even though he had little intention of full filling those promises.

Yeah..Bernie got people fired up. Many were ready to vote for the first time in their lives. When he didn’t get the nomination they just threw up their hands and handed it to Trump, by not voting at all.
They don’t look at it that way, though.

There’s no way I can get involved here in this nonsense. But I beg the people who are pushing the Russia/Stein garbage to stop. Stop watching MSNBC and Rachel Madow and figure out how you’re not going to make the same mistake again. The Democrats are at it again, and we’ll be having this discussion all over again in 2020.

^^What is non-sense is saying stop watching Rachel Maddow.

Rachel Maddow is my other hero, besides Michelle O.

@notnotnotnot Yes. Clinton and the DNC did an amazing job of alienating voters who see them as corporate pawns who happen to label themselves Democrats and control most of the Democratic Party. It made it very unsavory to vote for Clinton, and it wasn’t entirely clear before the election that Trump was going to be ultra-pro-corporate and ultra-terrible ultra-Right-Wing in all his appointments, edicts, and everything else.

So many of them (including myself) figured:

* Trump was so clearly ridiculous that surely he wouldn’t actually get elected.
* If Trump were elected, he’d seemed likely to be an ineffective awful president doing random things some of which might be good and stir things up.
* Maybe, I thought, he’d even revert to his earlier seemingly Democratic alignments after being elected.
* I felt extremely conflicted about actually voting for Clinton after her campaign put so little effort into presenting a persona that cared about the popular call for Sanders and his policies despite his enormous disadvantages in the campaign. I wanted to be counted as outraged by the DNC and not willing to be ignored and counted on for a vote.

@Dutchess_III Have you seen Rachel talked about a NYT report exposing a supposed corruption done by Gen. Kelly’s assistant in the WH?

He hid himself working at the Executive House and his plan was get his salary unnoticed long enough until he can get his early retirement from the military(?)

But he wasn’t supposed to be
included in that program because the military had ended that program whatever that program was.

So what they did was get to a Republican congressman(?) to insert something in a bill that’s about to pass to fix it for him. But when the NYT questioned the Republican he took it off the bill.

Been googling for that NYT report but unable to find it. If all of that was accurate reporting by the NYT…..Gen. Kelly’s WH assistant could be really be guilty of being corrupt. Drain the swamp. Right.

No, I haven’t heard of that. Can you send me some information so I can read about it @mazingerz88?

I didn’t like Hilary either, but I can’t even tell you why. All the hysteria got to me, I suppose. But I knew she’d make a competent president, her husband was one of the best, and Bernie and the Obama’s supported her. That was good enough for me. I don’t have a problem conceding to people who are a thousand more times knowledgeable about the institution and the individual in question.

I was shocked when trump won. From what I heard, TRUMP was shocked when trump won.

^^ Will send you a link if I find one.

1. His opponant was a candidate who had been unpopular for 25 years
2. His opponant ran a shitty campaign which forgot that electoral votes from lower population states can add up

And to those who might benefit from a lesson in American civics, there have only been 167 faithless electors in history and half of those were due to deaths of electors. In your next life suggest you stay awake in your government class.

I am afriaid I didn’t pay enough attention in government, Josie. What did this mean: ’…there have only been 167 faithless electors in history and half of those were due to deaths of electors”

In part, there were Democrats who simply didn’t like Hillary Clinton and weren’t comfortable voting for her. Such people either threw their votes to Jill Stein or abstained from voting for anyone. This situation had profound effects in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, generally red states that get pulled by large, metropolitan areas that vote blue.

Also in part, too many people believe that “reality” TV shows are real, not the scripted (check out the large list of writers in the credits), manipulated, and heavily-edited productions that they are. Donald Trump was a good performer on “The Apprentice”; he was very entertaining, saying his lines well and reading from teleprompters convincingly. A large number of voters accepted fiction as reality and believed in a TV character.

No way! Do you really think so @Love_my_doggie?!

Bravo @Zaku. I agree 100%

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-are-senate-russia-investigators-interested-jill-stein-n831261

cheese

Uh oh @Caravanfan. So they don’t have any ties to Hillary yet? Or Bernie?

Approximately a third of the American population are either terrible people, or idiots. Many who I hear voted for Trump are both…

@Dutchess_III No, I was just poking the bear.

Before boasting that Hillary “won the poplar vote”—I think it should be remembered that there was an overwhelming barrage of anti-Trump propaganda during the campaign season.

Who among us did NOT believe he was in league with Russia and Putin? A lot of people believed the media and did NOT vote for Trump. So realize, and factor in, that many did not vote forTrump who probably would have had they been able to discern the propaganda for what it was.

Anyhow, Trump won because he was offering solutions and doing things and actually campaigned. Hillary was seen as a part of the problem did not campaign much, had Hollywood, Television and the news media on her side, and expected to be handed the presidency because she thought everything was in place.

Despite trump’s propaganda about Hillary’s emails Hillary got the popular vote. And saying trump was in league with putin is not propaganda. Unless your deaf and blind.

“Hillary was seen as a part of the problem did not campaign much, had Hollywood, Television and the news media on her side, and expected to be handed the presidency because she thought everything was in place.”

This I agree with.

Trump is a genius, not in the way he thinks, but as a con artist. He saw that there was a large blue collar population, of the type that used to support Democrats, who were hurting. Trump, in true con artist fashion, spoke to these people using their same crude language and sharing their bigotry, and made promises he would not be able to keep. He had the good fortune to run against Hillary Clinton, who has to be one of the least charismatic people ever to run for president.

I’m seeing a lot of comments about why he won against Hillary. But that’s only half the question.
How did he beat 20 Repub candidates for that party’s nomination? Some of you have answered that, and I thank you. To the others….don’t get completely off-track.

@Caravanfan Agree as well.

I’ve not scoured the other replies, but I don’t think it was much more than arrogance and complacency on the side of the Clinton campaign.

Hillary had most of the money, the media, and the corporate liberal end of the political class (probably most of it) on her side.

Her election to presidency was meant to be a formality, a coronation, a foregone conclusion.

The first arrogant tactic was the “Pied-Pier strategy”, thinking Trump would be so detrimental to the GOP cause that she’d use her media contacts to boost his exposure. Trump got billions of dollars worth of free airtime, which helped him beat his rivals.

The notion that Trump could win the nomination, let alone the Presidency, was openly laughed at.

Unfortunately for Clinton, most people aren’t rich liberals who could afford to care about the indulgent symbolism of a first female President, or that she was supposedly more qualified and experienced, or that Trump was openly derided by liberals as a clownish and utterly unqualified and incapable candidate.

Then you’ve the fallout of the 2008 crash, the relative disappointment and utter failure to change much of anything under Obama, and the perception of Clinton as a self-serving continuation of the status quo—there was little of anything to inspire anyone.

Clinton ran a campaign that utterly misjudged people’s mood. She represented a brand of politics that was increasingly seen as out of touch, elitist, and not in the people’s interest.

Her rhetoric was platitudinal and appealed to a supposed fear or how bad Trump would be—except no one who wasn’t already going to vote for Clinton cared.

Trump—despite also being wildly unpopular —made the best of the situation, and appealed to people’s sense of fear and frustration, which Clinton didn’t. It was just enough to get him over the line in enough of the relevant states.

I really can’t blame her for thinking the way she did. The majority of us thought that way. Trump winning was inconceivable.

@seawulf575 That, I think, is actually a more interesting question. Hillary was terrible. We know that and we know that if there was one Democratic candidate an outrageous outsider like Trump could’ve beaten, it was Hillary. But why did he become the nominee in the first place? I think some of the same factors were at play; his GOP rivals had the same thoughts that Hillary and co. had: Trump is ridiculous and can’t win. That arrogance, that assumption, leads to doom. We can easily explain his victory over the establishment Jeb and the conservative-lite Kasich, but what about Cruz? Cruz is adequately conservative, not an establishment tool, but he still lost. I think in some ways people wanted the iconoclasm of Trump. He had easy answers and a gimmicky premise. People eat that shit up. Cruz and Rubio may have had a similar ideology in the end, but they didn’t have the “fuck it” attitude of Trump, the candid, “honest to a fault” demeanor. Trump is a genius because he’s a billionaire from New York who could present himself as just a regular American fed up with the Obama era. I think that factor played into his primary and general victory.

I’ve come to believe that despite any rhetoric to the contrary, politicians house a basic contempt for the electorate. And it is actually difficult to realistically fault them for it. After all, if you consider @Demosthenes very plausible explanation that Trump passed himself off as another regular guy fed up with the status quo and a workable tonic to Obama failures, how do you defend against the argument that anyone buying such a line is worthy of contempt?

LOL!! I never thought of it quite that way. Well said, StanTheMan!

@Kropotkin Also spot on.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xTndEeOC7Lk/TxigJPw3MzI/AAAAAAAAAfM/qF4vdselAGA/s1600/PotKettleBlack.jpg

@stanleybmanly And that’s actually a worse problem – Trump and Pence can and will go away sooner or later, but the people who elected them, not so much.

Also, our voting system (take your one vote FOR either awful corporate candidate from party A, or merely very bad corporate candidate from party B, no real other option, except stay home or vote for a protest candidate who can’t win) is also not showing signs of changing much any time soon.

@Zaku, the problem goes even deeper. Trump will go away eventually, but the contempt our elected leaders have for their constituency remains. It is because of that contempt that they (the career politicians) don’t understand how Trump got elected. They ran the standard campaigns. They said all the right stuff. The money was pouring in. The media was doing all it could to downplay Trump. Yet he was elected. It is a mystery to them.

@seawulf True. They also made him into an underdog by treating him so poorly in the debates. If the right had done that to Hillary, oh boy…

Too much funny!

@KNOWITALL . I felt Hillary didn’t challenge Trump enough in the debates. She could have made him look like the fool he is quite easily. Instead, she thought Trump would hang himself, like the entire democratic party.

There were two main factors in Trump’s victory. People underestimated Trump’s campaign, and thought much more highly of a lot of American people than they should have. Hillary thought that Trump’s rhetoric would easily undermine his chances. In reality, there were a bunch of sheep just loving the vitriol, bigotry, fear, and nationalism…

@MrGrimm888 I don’t think it was sheep loving vitriol, bigotry, fear and nationalism. It was people fed up with career politicians. That’s why he won the primaries too. Obama tapped into that same feeling in 2008. Remember “Hope and Change”? People actually believed he wanted to change the partisan politics. That apparently wasn’t what he meant. But people are tired of dysfunctional leadership that does nothing. They are tired of political games. They are tired of the two parties being corrupt to the core. Trump identified that feeling, gave it a name, and created a “plan” to deal with it. Drain the swamp. Along the way, out of necessity he had to take on the MSM for their biased reporting. People saw him as someone that really wanted to change things…that wanted to shake up the system. That really is the only answer that answers not only why he won the primaries, but also how he won the election. The problem with both parties is that they don’t want to change the game. They don’t want to “uncorrupt” their behaviors. So they can’t accept that as an answer. Those that can’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We could end up with another Trump as POTUS in the future for the exact same reasons. Provided the partisan politics don’t destroy the country first….

Why did Trump win out over the other Republican candidates? Because he promised the voters the world. Something he could not EVER deliver on, something the other Republicans candidates KNEW was impossible to deliver on, and, since stupid is as stupid does, uneducated voters, who don’t read the paper or watch the news, bought his BS and voted for him.

@seawulf575 . The biggest hole in your theory is that Trump hasn’t drained anything, other than his own swamp. He has severely damaged the US, lies to his supporters’ faces, and has been tied to multiple investigations, and law suits. His rhetoric, and behavior contradict any Christian values I’ve ever heard of. He’s directly responsible for the current shutdown, as he himself claimed.
He has not changed ANYTHING to benefit the working class, and his trade wars have negativelyaffected a large portion of the people who voted for him.

The only thing he’s accomplished has been giving a massive tax cut to the wealthy, and traded our planet’s future so that giant corporations can make more money.

And Trump knows his base. That’s why he keeps beating the immigration drum the loudest. He knows that his base is indeed full of bigots. THAT is what he’s tapped into.

Obama did tout change. That’s where the comparison stops. Obama was about unity, and things that benefited every American, like healthcare, and environmental issues. Trump spouts fear, hate, racism, divisiveness, and is only padding the wallets of the richest.

As long as he keeps pushing fear/hatred of brown people, his supporters seem willing to follow him. It’s crystal clear…

@MrGrimm888 but you are trying to tie his performance to the answer of the question. The question isn’t what do you think of Trump’s job performance so far?. It is Why did he get elected? My theory is that he spoke to American voters about the problems he saw in the country and he chose positions that many, many Americans shared. He spoke of putting an end to the good old boy’s club in DC…draining the swamp…which many, many Americans thought was a dandy idea that was way past overdue. Every topic he spoke on sparked something in those that voted for him. And it was not being echoed by any of his opponents, whether in the primaries or Hillary. He also addressed the MSM bias which many thinking Americans recognized and he developed a strategy to negate that bias.
My theory is that Trump addressed many of the problems people see and want fixed and some were not even acknowledged by his opponents. How well he does is a matter that will continue to be discussed and reviewed. If it gets to be 2020 and he has done nothing, he may not get re-elected. But if it gets to be 2020 and some or most of his goals are met, he may. THAT is why the Dems are opposing EVERYTHING he does.

Rubbish! No theory as elaborate as yours is required to explain Trump’s election. The nation’s goobers simply lacked the wit to appreciate that a man visibly as ignorant and crass as themselves might lack the chops to qualify as President simply because he talks likes a gangster, and (like themselves) never read a book.

And that idea assumes that half the voting public are “goobers”. And it totally avoids the question of what they DID see that they liked? But it does allow you to slam someone.

I wouldn’t say that 50% of the voting public are “goobers.” 25% would be enough.

“Trump addressed many of the problems people see and want fixed…” he may have addressed them @seawulf575, but he forgot to put the envelop in the mail. He just spouted off literally anything he thought people wanted to hear. And 25% were stupid enough to actually believe him.

Why is it stupid to want major change? At some point, the parties have to recognize and change the way they do business. When you call people stupid or ignorant, you have to admit, both parties are so disgusting, they chose a non-politician to run the country. All of this happened because no one trusted actual politicians more than a celebrity.

If the voters are goobers for taking a chance, then the politicians on both sides of the aisles need to do some real soul-searching and make changes.

It’s not stupid to want change. It’s stupid to buy in to bullshit lies about how they’re going to change things, especially when they make promises that aren’t even possible to keep!
What I don’t get is how anyone could have watched that guy, with their own eyes during the campaign, and not see the depravity, the utter lack of moral compass. I don’t get how anyone could believe a single thing he said.

If he’s been allowed to, Obama would have really changed things. But apparently there are too many republicans who like things the way they are.

All Presidents make promises they don’t keep, including Obama, it’s not that surprising, it’s part of the ‘winning formula’ that our elections have become.

Obama specifically said no new boots on the ground and later retracted it. He may not have been privy to all the info prior to winning, so I’m not blaming him, but it shows that we all fall for some of the promises. He also said he’d fix immigration and he didn’t. Close Guantanimo and he didn’t. Yes, he did get blocked, and Trump probably will, too, now. It’s all part of the game, @Dutchess_III, the American people just don’t revolt.

Obama’s promises were doable. Trump’s are impossible. Obama made promises in good faith. Trump knowingly lied to our faces. And people believed him.

George W Bush established Guantanamo Bay. ” President Barack Obama, promised that he would close it, but met strong bipartisan opposition from Congress, which passed laws to prohibit detainees from Guantanamo being imprisoned in the U.S. During Obama’s administration, the number of inmates was reduced from about 245[3] to 41;[4] most former detainees were freed and transferred to other countries.[5]
His promise was not a lie and it was not an impossibility. Congress made it difficult. In 2018 Trump signed an excutive order keeping it open indefinitely.

Perhaps it would be hyperbole to regard so many Americans as goobers, but it’s a good bet that many of those voting for Trump never bothered to consider the consequences of electing the fool, so unlikely was the prospect

Obama promised anything and everything and no, it was not even remotely possible to follow through with even a small bit of it. He never intended to either as he never attempted to do even a tenth of it. Go back and watch his speech on the day he was sworn in and see whatvwas promised. He got some healthcare through but that pretty well sums it up. Par for the course. I would expect Trump to follow suit but for whatever reason he appears to be trying to follow through. As idiotic as a wall is you have to give him credit for continuing to push it. I did not believe he was actually serious when he made that campaign promise.

@Dutchess_III So Obama’s promise of no new taxes with the passing of Obamacare was doable? The only thing that made it Constitutional was to call the penalties taxes. When Roberts made that distinction, Obama crowed about how great it was that it passed. He never had to answer about his lie. ALL politicians lie. When someone is running for POTUS, they are trying to show their vision for the country. That is what you are voting for. Anyone with half a brain knows that what is said on the campaign trail may not make its way through congress. But the candidate is saying he wants to fight for that and why.

@stanleybmanly It is also possible that they voted for Trump over Hillary because they considered the consequences. Maybe they voted to keep Hillary out. There were a lot of people that were disgusted by how she got the Dem nomination….stealing it from Bernie. A lot of disenfranchised voters.

When you look at the numbers it pretty easy to see how Trump won. Clinton got 60.5 million, Trump got 60, but 100 million eligible voters didn’t bother to vote!! And 6 million voted for third party. Either of those two faction could have tipped the balance.

@Dutchess_III: “Either of those two faction could have tipped the balance.”

…towards Trump even more. @Dutchess_III, I understand this is not a real interest of your’s. But your confidence is not commensurate with your understanding. Ask and listen more. You’re all over the place.

Possibly. But not likely. The majority voted for Hillary so it’s more likely that the nonvoters would have gone the same way.
Even if the 3rd party voters had understood that it was going to be Hillary or Trump, period, and thrown their votes to Hillary just to keep them away from trump, it would have made the difference.

@Dutchess_III But there’s also a lot of people like @MrGrimm888 who didn’t like either and just don’t believe in the system, so I’m not sure anyone could prove non-voters are Hillary votes.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Quit blaming others and realize the Dems did this to themselves @Dutchess_III. This is where the Dems need to focus. Don’t cheat the system and give us a candidate the majority of people will support. Any other focus is a waste of time. You are doing just want the Russians want. To divide the Democratic Party with your blame game.

@Dutchess_III I wrote in a republican and I know I’m not the only one. May as well have voted for Batman. Like it or not the non-voters or protest votes like mine were not all for Hillary. Also, despite what many believe the right was in exactly the same position as the left with no viable candidate. The polling turnout was pitiful.

I didn’t suggest that non-voters were Hillary voters@KNOWITALL. They could go either way, sure, but it was a good bet the majority would have gone with the majority.

Not a bet I would take. There was not much “majority” to speak of. Still would have probably been decided by the EC.

Well, it’s human nature to go with the herd so that’s why I suggested it. She won the popular vote by 500,000. If she’d won it by 20 million I don’t think the EC could have over turned that.

My point is the spread would still have been the same even if you had more show up at the polls. That 500,000 would still be 500,000.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Well he’s in now, and just as with the improbability of his election, he’s remained in office a full 2 years. I wouldn’t have given him a chance in hell at either prospect, yet in defiance of reason, justice or sensible expectations, he persists to the embarrassment of us all. Optimist to the end, and despite whatever spell the Don has utilized in the suspension of “natural” laws, I refuse to believe that he can weather 2 years of a Democratic House, let alone succeed at reelection with a public that will this time be wide awake and ready.

Don’t worry, the Russians will make sure he’s in another 4 years.

I saw an article the other day that said Russia choose him as the candidate, then cheated like hell to get him elected…..

oh, god.

@Dutchess_III Of course they did. They are doing exactly what they hoped, systematically diminishing America’s influence in the world so they can fill a power vacuum. The left and right wingers can deny it all they want, but it’s true.

.

I don’t hear anyone on the left denying it. It was a brilliant investment and straight up coup. But you can’t blame the Russians for recognizing the benefits to a jackass in the White House.

^^Oh yes. I’ve seen left wingers deny that Russia attempted to influence people towards Stein in the general election.

I just heard about that for the first time yesterday, when you brought it up @Caravanfan.

@Caravanfan – I think what you mean to say is that there is a reason the Russia shit doesn’t have any traction with the left. First, we’re talking about amateur hour in terms of money spent and actual targeting. In fact, nobody has yet to meet someone who had seen any of these posts and believed something incorrect due to it. Second, the environment in which these Russian actions took place is one so rancid with money and misinformation, that to suggest any one player had a measurable influence is absurd. I’ve yet to see anyone actually lay out what/how this all resulted in people being swayed. Third, the US does this shit all the time with elections all over the world. We even used to brag about it. And when our campaigns to influence elections in other countries don’t work, we merely overthrow their democratically-elected governments.

The establishment wing of the Democratic party wants to play up the Russian angle because it shifts the focus away from the fact that they fucked up. Hard. But the fact is, to discuss Russia in terms of swaying the 2016 general election is pure conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact and denies every other fact about the 2016 election.

There are real things to analyze about the 2016 election. But they are mostly systemic and shine a light on some unpleasant things about both the Republican and Democratic parties, the corporate media, and poor state of American democracy.

If there is something valuable to the Russia angle, please elaborate. For example, you could start with specifically what Russia did, the actual reach, and attempt to measure the influence. Be careful to contrast this from corporate influence, such as ownership of mass media, as well as the billions of dollars spent by non-Russian groups.

Cool. Thanks for making my point.

^ You know that was not your point.

Just because people can have side-effects from a vaccine does not mean vaccines cause autism.

@notnotnotnot You are killin’ it today.

@notnotnotnot Straw man argument, but okay.

^ You know that’s not what straw man means.

And that’s another straw man.