It is suggested that Russia is behind Wikileaks leaking info on Clinton and the DNC. And that these leaks influenced the Presidential election. So my question is, did Wikileaks influence your vote for either Trump or Clinton, yes or no?
No way. I was against Hillary since 2008 and when Trump trashed our POW's Hanoi held, I became adamantly against him. So my mind was made up last year or before depending on the candidate.
Investigating Hillary's career, it was obvious she was a neo-con. And as a neo-con lite(the types who got us into Iraq) there is no way in hell on philosophy alone I could ever vote for a neo-con. Having lived through the Bush era, we should treat neo-cons like Germans treat modern day Nazis. Neo-cons are warmongers who can't wait to get a representative in again. They in my mind present as great of a danger as the theoretical Leftists advocating social destruction. One side will get us into a war we might not be able to chew out of, the other one will ensure we have a civil catastrophe. Such are our choices! It's why Trump needs to succeed. A successful Donald Trump renders the neo-con useless. I did not vote for Trump. My voter registration didn't come in time. But even if it did, I was strongly leaning towards Gary Johnson. Not that Johnson was a good vote of course, but that my hopes that Hillary wouldn't win, would not be impacted on my long-term political record. As a prospective candidate for office, I can't have baggage on my name and Donald. J. Trump was and still is baggage for half of the country. Especially Liberal Detroit. I have to tread carefully. But above all other considerations, is the United States of America. My wish that Donald succeeds, isn't the same as actually endorsing him. When the campaign became about insults, not issues we both knew that neither was qualified to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. My first endorsement, was Marco Rubio. And that was swallowing the neo-con thing. In domestic politics, we agreed on every issue. It's just the neo-con foreign policy that will be the eventual doom of the US.
Because of my peculiar moving situation, I couldn't vote in the primaries. But I think it was around mid-may when I listened to Rubio and was like "Oh WOW, a candidate among the other 18 or so stooges with a brain!" I compared him favorably to Eisenhower and I still believe that if some kind of presidential incident were to occur, I'd say screw nominating from the rest of the field, and actually nominate the American we know will do the job well. Part of the problem of an electorate, is that the electorate is rarely capable of selecting the right man(or woman) for the job. In Rubio, I'd feel surprisingly safe. Again, even as I disagree with neo-conservatism. I can't get everything, but I got 90-95% with him.
Wikileaks served as confirmation of the correctness of my thinking, though it provided no direct influence...
I do believe Hillary was more apt to get us into a needless war than Trump, but there were so many other things between them than it made it impossible for me to support or vote for either one. Johnson was handy, he was on the ballot, it made writing in "None of the Above," unnecessary. My first choice was Jim Webb, but he didn't even both to campaign. So when the Georgia primary rolled around I went with John Kasich. Georgia is an open primary state, so I could choose which primary to vote in. Rubio would have been fine with me. I also hope Trump has a successful presidency. Perhaps Trump realizes the cold war is over. Time will tell.
The issue is not so much as if Wikileaks influenced anyones vote but I as very real American - those who do not have their heads stuck up in Trump's butt should be extremely pissed off that a foreign power and/or foreigners hacked into either of our American political party's data bases and into any American institution be it government or private. Anyone who claims to be a real American should be just as pissed off if they are Republican and the Democratic oath was hacked or if they are Democratic and the Republican party was hacked. What in the hell is wrong with those of you who may claim to be patriots but are either Republicans or Hilaria haters and are giggling that her emails or the DNC was hacked. An attack against any American is an attack on all of us. A n attack on an American institution is an attack on all of our institutions. I am no fane of the LICE Trump but I would be just as pissed off if his emails or data bases were hacked by Russians, or Chinese or any any other POS foreign country. Look guys we do not have to agree with LICE but he is whether we voted for LICE or not our president and I don not want any White House system hacked no matter who is president. Those protesters that we had running around a few weeks ago says that LICE is not their president are just as stupid of a bunch of Dildo swallowers as those of you Obama haters who claimed that he was not your president. Being traitors is not limited to Democrats, Independents or Republicans ! Anyone who things it is look to attack any American institution is as bad of a Dildo head as the anti Trump demonstrators or the BLM idiots. Dildo headed dip(*)(*)(*)(*)s cut across all partisan, racial, and ethnic lines. - - - Updated - - - The issue is not so much as if Wikileaks influenced anyones vote but I as very real American - those who do not have their heads stuck up in Trump's butt should be extremely pissed off that a foreign power and/or foreigners hacked into either of our American political party's data bases and into any American institution be it government or private. Anyone who claims to be a real American should be just as pissed off if they are Republican and the Democratic oath was hacked or if they are Democratic and the Republican party was hacked. What in the hell is wrong with those of you who may claim to be patriots but are either Republicans or Hilaria haters and are giggling that her emails or the DNC was hacked. An attack against any American is an attack on all of us. A n attack on an American institution is an attack on all of our institutions. I am no fane of the LICE Trump but I would be just as pissed off if his emails or data bases were hacked by Russians, or Chinese or any any other POS foreign country. Look guys we do not have to agree with LICE but he is whether we voted for LICE or not our president and I don not want any White House system hacked no matter who is president. Those protesters that we had running around a few weeks ago says that LICE is not their president are just as stupid of a bunch of Dildo swallowers as those of you Obama haters who claimed that he was not your president. Being traitors is not limited to Democrats, Independents or Republicans ! Anyone who things it is look to attack any American institution is as bad of a Dildo head as the anti Trump demonstrators or the BLM idiots. Dildo headed dip(*)(*)(*)(*)s cut across all partisan, racial, and ethnic lines.
Yeah, Jim Webb was a total badass. But when he got booed for saying "All lives matter" he rightly calculated "F this" and left. It would've been a massive waste of dollars. He wasn't "hip" enough for the Bernie kids, and he dared to defend the Blue Dog constituency. Ironically, I think he could take the 2020 nomination if those dimwits have actually learned something.
It all boils down to candidates matter. Jim Webb in my opinion would make a very good president. Now that you jogged my memory, I agree. There was no way in Hades Webb would have gone anyplace.
No, but I was certainly glad the perpetual scandals reminded people they needed to stop Hillary. I refused to vote for Hillary because of Benghazi. There were many other reasons, but that was the straw that did it. I refused to vote for any democrat in the general because the DNC didn't kick Debbie Shultz's ass to the curb. As a Bernie supporter, I refused to ratify her primary fix. I never could find a reason to overlook that Trump was naming some sketchy people like Carl Icahn as his go to guys when Icahn destroyed our local economy years back. Between Johnson and Stein, I just went with Jill after someone pointed out that it could help the Greens get future matching funds. I felt the Libertarians were safe in that regard. That was my 2016 in a nutshell.
I'm honest enough to admit that the information we have received from Wikileaks was useful and it definitely gave me a much larger, better-informed perspective on a number of things. I can suspect that the hyperliberal, Left-wing slimebags are doing all kinds of illegal and disreputable things in "the dark" (like cockroaches). But with several different revelations -- particularly those that showed how rotten the Clinton Machine and the Establishment Democrat Party treated poor, old Bernie Sanders, the "kitchen lights" of Wikileaks were turned on BRIGHTLY, and we could see these cockroaches run for the shadows! Which of these clowns got screwed by the other two? Wikileaks let us know for sure....
Wikileaks told me Clinton does not care about the environment. That did not finalize my vote, but it was an extra straw. It also showed she was wise about the minimum wage, which helped her. On second thought, it did not tip my vote, since she was good on some and bad on other issues.
I know what you mean. But this poll/topic IS about whether or not Wikileaks caused Americans to vote for Trump over Clinton.
Lol. It's strange for me in a way. I have a photographic memory of the things I want to remember, but when it comes to common stuff I forget it in an instant!(End of 2016 fact about AmericanNationalist ) So I remember most, if not all of primary season and of course including the general election. Thing is, Hillary did have plans on her website, she did have a 'future for America' if she ever bothered to elaborate on that. But she didn't. She didn't bother to articulate her vision for America. Instead, she was convinced all she had to do was tell America what a dirtbag Trump is. And maybe Hillary, maybe it would've worked if you weren't half as much of a dirtbag as he is. In the case of dirtbag vs dirtbag, you had to make yourself look cleaner and you didn't even bother. In Trump's case, he at least tried(for him) which lasted maybe a couple of days lol. Which is enough it seems.
` ` I had already made up my mind, at least a year before, that I wasn't voting for either the democratic or republican parties. I voted for Jill Stein.
That kind of influence would be mostly subconscious so many of the people it may have impacted wouldnt be aware of it. Its also more likely to affect those who arent very politically active or aware, the exact opposite of the kind of people who will typically use forums like this one. The same principle applies to alleged media bias and fake polls. One thing I dont think anyone can deny is that there is plenty of information, reporting, events and spin directly intended to influence election results one way or another.
Yeah, she for most of the campaign was a couple of points just behind in the unfavorables. People didn't like her, her aloof persona that the presidency was her right turned a lot of people off. This was such a unique election that no conventional wisdom or historical references applied. I read some where that Clinton outspent Trump by 2-1 margin, yet lost. The last time a presidential candidate outspent his opponent 2-1 was done by Obama in 2008 and he won by 8 points. Positive ads really weren't run. Ads featuring visions of where the two candidates wasn't really touched outside of Trump's slogan of making America great again. The media concentrated on the horse race and all the mud, not reporting on anything of substance. You're correct on Hillary's website, perhaps she expected the voters to flock to it. I'm a political junkie and I never have visited any candidates web site. Hillary ran a bunch of political ads here in Georgia, perhaps trying to run up the score. I don't remember seeing any Trump ads. But all were very negative on Trump. Hillary concentrated on giving the electorate reasons not to vote for Trump, but gave them none, not a single reason to vote for her. Independents and those who disliked both candidates needed a reason to vote for someone, not just against someone. Then too with all the saturation of political ads, sooner or later people just tune them out, ignore them or switch the channel.
2016: How NOT to run a presidential race. Starring: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. They only appealed to their core constituencies, tuned out everyone else. Donald's big advantage: He could win in those smaller races, Hillary could not. But the Dems thought of themselves as bigger and brighter than they really were. And Hillary's "deplorables" comment will go down in political history as the stupidest comment made by ANY politician in the world. Romney's gaffe at least was limited to the idea of income taxes. She just flat out targeted a bunch of people she didn't know. And then they had the whole 'Well, why doesn't Donald apologize?" The groups Donald offended, pretty much already hated his guts. It didn't change things one way or the other. But the core of independents did not like being called deplorable, racist, sexist or misogynist. If she hadn't made that comment, the #NeverTrumpers might've been even bigger, she might even be president today! That one comment sealed her fate(as well as her comment on policing) than any of the Wikileaks exposed emails.
You have my sincere sympathy.... BTW, did you add to the huge pile of money she raked in for this "recount" scam...?
No. I would never vote for Hilary, I made that decision long ago when it was clear she was the most corrupt, deceiving, traitorous person ever. With Hilary as the Democrat communist party candidate, I was voting for the Republican candidate no matter who that person was.
If it hadn't been for Wikileaks we would never have found out just how dirty and rotten the whole Clinton camp really was. You sure weren't going to hear about any of it from the MSM.
I believe that. In the battle among the 25% of Americans who disliked both candidates, Trump won this group 47-30 with 23% voting third party. That deplorable comment probably did her in among this group. Of course we will never know for sure, but one would expect a closer 50-50 split among those holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils or the least disliked candidate. Not a seventeen point margin.
And of course there's the "Why aren't I 50 points ahead?" comment lol. It's amazing how someone in public office, has so very little personality in them. Part of the job is to be relatable, not some stuck-up princess. Sounded more like the Cambridge Duchess than an American official.
Very few candidates can connect with the people like FDR, Reagan or even Bill Clinton. But even if one can't, a candidate has to come across as being sincere. Hillary didn't accomplish that. I always said one of the reasons Romney lost was he thought not being Obama would be enough for him to win. Perhaps that also applies to Hillary, she not being Trump would automatically get her the White House. Then again, she was chosen back in 2012 as the nominee and had the DNC and Democratic state party leaders, elected officials etc. in her pocket. She was handed the nomination, there never was any doubt. Sanders was just for show, but he shocked the whole Democratic establishment with all the energy he arose within his supporters and he did ten times as good as he was suppose to or what was planned when the Democrats decided to let him run for the nomination. They expected Sanders to be a good O'Malley, "I know Hillary is your first choice, but please let me be your second Choice." Sanders put up an excellent fight. That should have told the DNC and the Democratic Party leaders something. Hillary represented the past, the feminist, who thought the presidency was hers. She was next in line, she would be the first woman president, it was her right.
