Session's Testimony.......

[SamSpade]

You made me think of Bush's 'shock and awe' of it all. I have already said here that the Dimmies will not get over their defeat, and want to take Trump down. That is like a wake up call to stupids that are not paying attention. Don't people get that the leapfrogs are not patriots to America, and want to change Her?

I don't get the overall response of the Democratic Party and those who supported Hillary. I do think that at the heart of it all, it comes from the sentiment that Hillary should have won and Trump should have lost. You can say, no, it's an assault on democracy and we shouldn't allow foreign meddling in the election - but it's gone WAY off course from that narrative. The primary rationale at this point is to find SOME way to injure the President or, at least, taint his Presidency until the next election.

And - if Trump really is that bad - you won't need to do that at all. If my softball team is that much better than yours, I don't need to pull stunts, argue calls or anything to win. We just win.

When I was growing up, I played on teams and played games with my friends - and when I lost - which was often - my take away was always "how can I win the next time? what mistake can I correct?". Sometimes, I doubted ANYTHING would help me. But I didn't do what other kids did all the time - accuse the others of cheating. Throw a tantrum. Get angry and swear never to return (which those kids always did anyway). Because it wouldn't occur to them that the reason they lost is their own doing. And the REASON they did this was this overblown sense of their ability (and usually the kids fuming were often *really* bad to begin with).

Now - in my years - I *have* beaten better opponents. I remember a high school debate where I got an opponent to admit something damning with a stunt during cross examination; I once beat a guy in doubles volleyball by putting all my effort in blocking ONE GUY on his spikes, because he became useless once he got pissed off. That's tactics. If they were smart, they'd learn - don't get fooled by word games - don't lose your cool.

The Democrats SHOULD be saying - where did we go wrong? The latest line seems to be to blame - the VOTERS. Yeah. It's US. WE should have elected her.

I honestly don't WANT them to figure out what they did wrong. I joined the Democratic Party in 1980 because I did think back then they were more in tune with the average person. I don't know what they actually stand for now. But their contempt now for middle America and blue collar workers tells me, they're not the party I joined.

 

[This_person]

With the exception of Joe <Why is he a Democrat> Manchin, democrats didn't have the least bit interest in the Russia hacking/collusion thing. Not one question about it. Nothing but a bunch of antagonistic gotcha questions.

This has been, from the beginning, a pointless exercise; a chronic waste of time and our taxes. And, I'm extremely annoyed that the GOP (who has the majority) is allowing this to go on like this.

I have two theories, and they conflict. But, I think it might be one or the other:

1. GOP is trying to show how stupid the whole thing is. "You say there's a 'thing' here, we'll give you all the rope you need to hang yourselves." Then, they can say in a big press conference with half a dozen GOP "leadership" at the dais saying, "We gave them a chance to show us there's something, and there's not. Time to move on from this unfounded accusation against the president."

2. The GOP is simply part of the one-party system in the US - the Big Government Establishment party, and they're playing this for all it's worth to lessen Pres. Trump's clout, so they can continue with their Establishment work.

 

[PsyOps]

The other thing I am exceptionally annoyed with is, this congress didn't see it to have these same sort of grillings of people surrounding the Clinton email scandal; a scandal in the purest definition, with a mountain of evidence. And now, Comey testified that Loretta Lynch manipulated the language of the investigation in order to downplay the severity of it. Lynch, Comey, Hillary, Huma, and whoever else was involved in that email scandal should be dragged before congress and grilled until they all pee their depends.

 

[Wishbone]

I honestly don't WANT them to figure out what they did wrong. I joined the Democratic Party in 1980 because I did think back then they were more in tune with the average person. I don't know what they actually stand for now. But their contempt now for middle America and blue collar workers tells me, they're not the party I joined.

Based on that statement, you and I are around the same age.

Even in 1980 the nonsense I was hearing from Democratic candidates was enough to turn me away. Particularly on the subjects of economics, welfare and the military.

It's grown exponentially since.

 

[SamSpade]

With the exception of Joe <Why is he a Democrat> Manchin,

I have a cousin who - as recently as 15 years ago - would have been considered solidly left wing. He is very smart, but he was also very likely to resort to mocking the right rather than actually debate the points. Some time back, he ran for mayor of his town - as - amazingly - a Republican, ostensibly because he didn't think a Democrat could win there.

After actually DEALING with the issues - his change has been startling. He actually risks being mocked by the rest of my rather liberal extended family with his new found views. By running as a Republican - he actually ended up becoming one.

I think Manchin is a Democrat because at least at one time - West Virginia elected Democrats even if the voters didn't tend to the left on issues.

 

[PsyOps]

I have two theories, and they conflict. But, I think it might be one or the other:

1. GOP is trying to show how stupid the whole thing is. "You say there's a 'thing' here, we'll give you all the rope you need to hang yourselves." Then, they can say in a big press conference with half a dozen GOP "leadership" at the dais saying, "We gave them a chance to show us there's something, and there's not. Time to move on from this unfounded accusation against the president."

2. The GOP is simply part of the one-party system in the US - the Big Government Establishment party, and they're playing this for all it's worth to lessen Pres. Trump's clout, so they can continue with their Establishment work.

In the meantime, people like Sessions gets dragged through the mud. Warner even said that this was the first of many hearings they hope to have with Sessions. What-the-heck else could they get form him? It's obvious he had nothing to do with the Russians. The democrats showed they weren't even interested in that anyway. So, I'd like to think it's #1. Democrats looked like complete fools. Karmal Harris did nothing more than badger Sessions. She had to be warned to let Sessions answer, when she interrupted him time and time again; and this wasn't the first time she played this disrespectful game.

 

[Grumpy]

I joined the Democratic Party in 1980 because I did think back then they were more in tune with the average person. I don't know what they actually stand for now. But their contempt now for middle America and blue collar workers tells me, they're not the party I joined.

Comparing Dems and Repubs of today to the 1960s version of each requires a polarity reversal.

 

[SamSpade]

Based on that statement, you and I are around the same age.

Even in 1980 the nonsense I was hearing from Democratic candidates was enough to turn me away. Particularly on the subjects of economics, welfare and the military.

It's grown exponentially since.

In 1980, my choices were : Reagan - someone I thought to be an idiot; Carter, a spineless and ineffective President; and Anderson, who was simply a blow-hard, and only gained traction because he WASN'T the other two.

So I wrote in Nixon.

Only write-in vote I've ever cast. Yes, I knew he wasn't running. At that age, I thought making a "protest" vote would "say something" to someone.
It did actually get mentioned on the local news radio. I was riding a bus to college and smirked and said "how about THAT?".

My dad was furious. "You just wasted your vote. Congratulations".

I moved to Massachusetts in the 80's, and realized, I did NOT want Dukakis as President. By the time Clinton was running, I wasn't planning to vote for a Democrat at all.
I voted for Perot. Oddly enough, he did pretty well, although in the intervening years, he's been portrayed as some kind of blithering idiot.
Funny how that happens.

 

[PsyOps]

I have a cousin who - as recently as 15 years ago - would have been considered solidly left wing. He is very smart, but he was also very likely to resort to mocking the right rather than actually debate the points. Some time back, he ran for mayor of his town - as - amazingly - a Republican, ostensibly because he didn't think a Democrat could win there.

After actually DEALING with the issues - his change has been startling. He actually risks being mocked by the rest of my rather liberal extended family with his new found views. By running as a Republican - he actually ended up becoming one.

I think Manchin is a Democrat because at least at one time - West Virginia elected Democrats even if the voters didn't tend to the left on issues.

I have relatives on both sides of my family from WV. My wife has relatives from WV. I've been to several parts of WV from the north to the deep south. I have asked myself often what keeps that state blue. The people are largely conservative. The only thing I can really pin it down is: unions and public assistance.

They are still reliant on miners unions which overwhelmingly support democrats. And a huge number of people in WV are on some form of public assistance. With the plight of coal mining, there just aren't jobs in WV. And the people refuse to leave the state to find jobs.

 

[SamSpade]

And the people refuse to leave the state to find jobs.

That's a concept I actually understand. Would you leave your *country* to find another job?

My in-laws are all from WV, but my other side of the family is from other rural parts of the country, and I've lived in places with either strong religious, cultural, ethnic or - whatever - ties. It's their home. If they left it - they would come back eventually. It's their family, their community and the life they love. If they couldn't find work, they'd find a way to stay.

Just as I would with this country.

I had a roommate in the 80's who hailed from a TINY town in Missouri. Gravois Mills. At the time he said its population was 32, but the 1980 census put it at around 100.
I said "so - if a couple families moved away - the town would be GONE?". He said are you kidding? They don't ever want to leave.

I lived in a small town of around a thousand in NE Pa. Almost entirely Polish, Irish or Italian - from the waves of immigrants that came to the mines at the turn of the century.
Aside from strong ethnic traditions - and that they all attended Catholic church - they've built a life there they love. A shame actually, because the population up there has been dwindling because no industry has really replaced the lost anthracite business.

 

[Hijinx]

That's a concept I actually understand. Would you leave your *country* to find another job?

My in-laws are all from WV, but my other side of the family is from other rural parts of the country, and I've lived in places with either strong religious, cultural, ethnic or - whatever - ties. It's their home. If they left it - they would come back eventually. It's their family, their community and the life they love. If they couldn't find work, they'd find a way to stay.

Just as I would with this country.

I had a roommate in the 80's who hailed from a TINY town in Missouri. Gravois Mills. At the time he said its population was 32, but the 1980 census put it at around 100.
I said "so - if a couple families moved away - the town would be GONE?". He said are you kidding? They don't ever want to leave.

I lived in a small town of around a thousand in NE Pa. Almost entirely Polish, Irish or Italian - from the waves of immigrants that came to the mines at the turn of the century.
Aside from strong ethnic traditions - and that they all attended Catholic church - they've built a life there they love. A shame actually, because the population up there has been dwindling because no industry has really replaced the lost anthracite business.

I am a native of St. Mary's County. I lived in other places for 30 years----couldn't wait to get back.
Hate Maryland's politics. Hate the Gerrymandering. Can't stand the 2 Mike's and Steny Hoyer's nose perpetually up Pelosi's ass makes me want to puke.
Cardin and Von Hollin are a joke and Elijah Cummings a racist Buffoon.

But I aint leaving.

 

[philibusters]

I don't get the overall response of the Democratic Party and those who supported Hillary. I do think that at the heart of it all, it comes from the sentiment that Hillary should have won and Trump should have lost. You can say, no, it's an assault on democracy and we shouldn't allow foreign meddling in the election - but it's gone WAY off course from that narrative. The primary rationale at this point is to find SOME way to injure the President or, at least, taint his Presidency until the next election.

And - if Trump really is that bad - you won't need to do that at all. If my softball team is that much better than yours, I don't need to pull stunts, argue calls or anything to win. We just win.

When I was growing up, I played on teams and played games with my friends - and when I lost - which was often - my take away was always "how can I win the next time? what mistake can I correct?". Sometimes, I doubted ANYTHING would help me. But I didn't do what other kids did all the time - accuse the others of cheating. Throw a tantrum. Get angry and swear never to return (which those kids always did anyway). Because it wouldn't occur to them that the reason they lost is their own doing. And the REASON they did this was this overblown sense of their ability (and usually the kids fuming were often *really* bad to begin with).

Now - in my years - I *have* beaten better opponents. I remember a high school debate where I got an opponent to admit something damning with a stunt during cross examination; I once beat a guy in doubles volleyball by putting all my effort in blocking ONE GUY on his spikes, because he became useless once he got pissed off. That's tactics. If they were smart, they'd learn - don't get fooled by word games - don't lose your cool.

The Democrats SHOULD be saying - where did we go wrong? The latest line seems to be to blame - the VOTERS. Yeah. It's US. WE should have elected her.

I honestly don't WANT them to figure out what they did wrong. I joined the Democratic Party in 1980 because I did think back then they were more in tune with the average person. I don't know what they actually stand for now. But their contempt now for middle America and blue collar workers tells me, they're not the party I joined.

Here is the thing Russia interfered with the election. They hacked the DNC server and key Hillary aides. Early in the campaign when they hacked the information they released it all at once. Later in the campaign they learned how to maximize its effect by releasing new tidbits everyday. From pretty much October 1st until the end of October they released a little bit of their information everyday through Wikileaks.

So your analysis is ignoring a key part, there is evidence of interference. If after the 2008 election evidence of widespread voter fraud had appeared that benefitted Obama would you expect the Republicans to be quiet about it?

Now sometimes in sports the umpire makes a bad call. The runner was safe, but the umpire called him out or the runner was down, but the ref called it a fumble and there are no camera angles that give a definitive picture to overturn the call. That happens and that is kind of where the Democrats are at right now. They have evidence that a third party interfered with the election (the ball call), but they don't have any evidence Trump colluded with the Russians (they don't have any evidence the ref was paid by the other team). I think they are justified in investigating to make sure there was no collusion. The investigation needs to be done in a bi-partisan way to make sure.

And its not completely sore losing, even before the election when Hillary thought she was going to win, she was complaining about the Russia interference. I think it was at the third debate she complained about it and Trump gave a pro-Russian response just raising the Democrats suspicions.

My personal opinion is that the Russians definitely interfered with the election. Its hard to say if it changed the outcome of the election. I am pretty confident that Trump himself didn't collude with the Russians (I'd put my confidence rate over 90% for that) and I don't think anybody from his campaign colluded with Russia explicitly (I'd put my confidence rate on that lower, maybe like 60%). Implicitly there may have been encouragement from the Trump team in the sense his staffers realized what was happening and rather than condemn it, they gave pro-Russian statements (in fact Trump did that at the debate), but if I had to guess, that is the extent of the collusion.

 

[Gilligan]

Here is the thing Russia interfered with the election. They hacked the DNC server and key Hillary aides. .

And it's a good thing they did, too. Otherwise, how would we have known the incredible depths of their scheming and skullduggery?

What if..there had been nothing dirty found? The "hacking" would have been meaningless and had no effect whatsoever.

 

[Hijinx]

Here is the thing Russia interfered with the election. They hacked the DNC server and key Hillary aides. Early in the campaign when they hacked the information they released it all at once. Later in the campaign they learned how to maximize its effect by releasing new tidbits everyday. From pretty much October 1st until the end of October they released a little bit of their information everyday through Wikileaks.

So your analysis is ignoring a key part, there is evidence of interference. If after the 2008 election evidence of widespread voter fraud had appeared that benefitted Obama would you expect the Republicans to be quiet about it?

Now sometimes in sports the umpire makes a bad call. The runner was safe, but the umpire called him out or the runner was down, but the ref called it a fumble and there are no camera angles that give a definitive picture to overturn the call. That happens and that is kind of where the Democrats are at right now. They have evidence that a third party interfered with the election (the ball call), but they don't have any evidence Trump colluded with the Russians (they don't have any evidence the ref was paid by the other team). I think they are justified in investigating to make sure there was no collusion. The investigation needs to be done in a bi-partisan way to make sure.

And its not completely sore losing, even before the election when Hillary thought she was going to win, she was complaining about the Russia interference. I think it was at the third debate she complained about it and Trump gave a pro-Russian response just raising the Democrats suspicions.

My personal opinion is that the Russians definitely interfered with the election. Its hard to say if it changed the outcome of the election. I am pretty confident that Trump himself didn't collude with the Russians (I'd put my confidence rate over 90% for that) and I don't think anybody from his campaign colluded with Russia explicitly (I'd put my confidence rate on that lower, maybe like 60%). Implicitly there may have been encouragement from the Trump team in the sense his staffers realized what was happening and rather than condemn it, they gave pro-Russian statements (in fact Trump did that at the debate), but if I had to guess, that is the extent of the collusion.

Would you please explain to me why it is ok for America and Obama to interfere in the Israeli and other elections, but not ok for the Russians to interfere in ours.

 

[This_person]

Here is the thing Russia interfered with the election. They hacked the DNC server and key Hillary aides. Early in the campaign when they hacked the information they released it all at once. Later in the campaign they learned how to maximize its effect by releasing new tidbits everyday. From pretty much October 1st until the end of October they released a little bit of their information everyday through Wikileaks.

Except, every cyber-security expert has said that the one thing you can be sure of is if there are Russian fingerprints on the hacks, it's highly unlikely the Russians did it because any hacker can fake the fingerprints.

And, of course, this takes out the whole idea of Seth Rich, who seems to have been an insider-informant.

Unless, of course, you have some kind of PROOF the Russians hacked these things.

 

[philibusters]

In terms of SamSpades point about the Democrats learning from their mistakes its hard to say.

The biggest mistake was nominating Hillary Clinton as she had a lot of baggage and isn't strong on the campaign trail.

The second biggest mistake was focusing too much on analytics and not enough on polling. She was afraid to spend big money in PA, WIS, Michigan (which if she won all three would have given her the election) because she was afraid if she spent money there it would indicate to Trump that those states were in play and the should redouble his efforts there. Whereas the truth is, Trumps staff knew that those states were what was going to swing the election and they were already spending big money there. Hillary's campaign messed up because they relied on analytics. Analytics is basically where a computer analyzes data such as demographics, expected voter turnout, polling data (but if you feed the computers stale polling information that is 4 or 5 weeks old that won't help) and gives you election projections and allows you how best to spend your time (should you try to convert new voters or work your base). Because polling is expensive her team didn't pay for any new polling in those key three states down the stretch because they thought those states were safe (to an extent it makes sense, why would the Democrats spend money on polling in say California, which they know they are going to win). But it backfired because she probably was only ever up 4 to 5% in those states and by not polling there she didn't realize those states had turned and therefore did not spend time and money on those states down the stretch instead focusing on Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona down the stretch (the last two states being traditional Republican states she thought she might be able to steal).

In terms of point two, I think you will see the Democrats use a less aggressive strategy in 2020. They are not going to focus as much on broadening their electoral map. I think to the contrary they will focus intensely on the key swings and shoot to win even if by a narrow margin, rather than trying to win big. I'd be very surprised if they make that same mistake twice.

For what its worth all the analysis above is basically from the book "Shattered" which is about Hillary's campaign. It gives pretty good analysis of what went wrong from Hillary's point of view in my opinion.

 

[Hijinx]

In terms of SamSpades point about the Democrats learning from their mistakes its hard to say.

The biggest mistake was nominating Hillary Clinton as she had a lot of baggage and isn't strong on the campaign trail.

The second biggest mistake was focusing too much on analytics and not enough on polling. She was afraid to spend big money in PA, WIS, Michigan (which if she won all three would have given her the election) because she was afraid if she spent money there it would indicate to Trump that those states were in play and the should redouble his efforts there. Whereas the truth is, Trumps staff knew that those states were what was going to swing the election and they were already spending big money there. Hillary's campaign messed up because they relied on analytics. Analytics is basically where a computer analyzes data such as demographics, expected voter turnout, polling data (but if you feed the computers stale polling information that is 4 or 5 weeks old that won't help) and gives you election projections and allows you how best to spend your time (should you try to convert new voters or work your base). Because polling is expensive her team didn't pay for any new polling in those key three states down the stretch because they thought those states were safe (to an extent it makes sense, why would the Democrats spend money on polling in say California, which they know they are going to win). But it backfired because she probably was only ever up 4 to 5% in those states and by not polling there she didn't realize those states had turned and therefore did not spend time and money on those states down the stretch instead focusing on Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona down the stretch (the last two states being traditional Republican states she thought she might be able to steal).

In terms of point two, I think you will see the Democrats use a less aggressive strategy in 2020. They are not going to focus as much on broadening their electoral map. I think to the contrary they will focus intensely on the key swings and shoot to win even if by a narrow margin, rather than trying to win big. I'd be very surprised if they make that same mistake twice.

For what its worth all the analysis above is basically from the book "Shattered" which is about Hillary's campaign. It gives pretty good analysis of what went wrong from Hillary's point of view in my opinion.

If Hillary didn't spend money in Pa, Wis. and Michigan, it must have been he only place she didn't spend money.
She spent much more than Trump and appeared much less.
What happened to all that money.
Somebody must have been putting it in their pocket.

 

[philibusters]

Except, every cyber-security expert has said that the one thing you can be sure of is if there are Russian fingerprints on the hacks, it's highly unlikely the Russians did it because any hacker can fake the fingerprints.

And, of course, this takes out the whole idea of Seth Rich, who seems to have been an insider-informant.

Unless, of course, you have some kind of PROOF the Russians hacked these things.

I have a very high confidence that the Russians hacked the campaign (like over 99%). First off three U.S. intelligence agencies that have investigated it have said so. Further all the Republican members of the intelligence committees that have had access to the evidence basically keep saying there is no evidence of collusion (which is true), but also seems to implicitly concede the Russians interference. By contrast no intelligence agency has denied Russia's involvement and no Republican congressman who has had access to the evidence denies it either. If you get your information from conservative outlets they are not going to emphasize these points, but even their statements implicitly indicate there was interference.

No I don't believe that Seth Rich was murdered by DNC operatives. Immediately after his death, a very wealthy Republican donor contacted the family and offered to hire a private investigator for them. That investigator was the one who caused the controversy with his statements and then retraction to Foxnews. The other source of the speculation about Seth Rich was from Wikileaks which is basically controlled by Russia. They definitely implied their source was him, but from Russia's point of view that makes sense. And yes Wikileaks is intimately tied ot Russia. They gave political sanctuary to its founder who controls the site and he has his own television show on Russia's state television channel. Russia is the hand that feeds him because they protect him from the U.S. and they support him financially, plus you don't want to cross Putin.

 

[Grumpy]

For what its worth all the analysis above is basically from the book "Shattered" which is about Hillary's campaign. It gives pretty good analysis of what went wrong from Hillary's point of view in my opinion.

*Shadoobie*

 

[philibusters]

If Hillary didn't spend money in Pa, Wis. and Michigan, it must have been he only place she didn't spend money.
She spent much more than Trump and appeared much less.
What happened to all that money.
Somebody must have been putting it in their pocket.

She outspent Trump by a margin of 2 to 1 (though that is a bit misleading). The reason its slightly misleading is because that doesn't factor in third party money from PACs and Super PAC's which made the ratios more even. Hillary spent a lot of money in states she ended up losing. She really thought she could take Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Arizona for example, but because they are big Republican states she had to spend big money there. Of those, Ohio which she lost by 8 points was the only one I think people thought she could win prior to the start of the election (maybe North Carolina too)

She did spend some money in PA, WI, and MI but not near enough and she didn't go to WI one time during the campaign and she only went to Michigan twice. PA was a little bit of a different story, she did realize that state was in play and a handful of stops there and spent a normal amount of money there, but even there with hindsight she should have been focusing there instead of say Ohio. In football terms, she wasn't in a prevent defense, she was trying to run up the score. I don't think the Democrats will be as aggressive in 2020.