6 ms·

It's important to distinguish claims that Trump's Presidency was "illegitimate" from claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The former is unsubstan

It's important to distinguish claims that Trump's Presidency was "illegitimate" from claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The former is unsubstantiated, while the latter has been confirmed by multiple investigations, including one by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-election-security-findings-first-volume-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...). This video lumps the two together for sensationalism, erroneously making it seem like everyone was publicly questioning the actual election results, which was not the case. Many people referred to the entire Russian effort to interfere as "Russian hacking," even though attempted access of digital election infrastructure was only part of their activities and there's no evidence actual cyber-attacks changed the outcome.

joenot443 4y ago
One of the first clips used in the video includes Clinton herself referencing a "cyber 9-11". This is directly followed by an American talk show host saying "Russia hacked our election". Immediately after this, Jane Psaki, directly says "Russia, you know, of course, hacked our election." How many times do they have to have said it? I've heard this type of revisionism before, saying that back in 2016 they were actually just talking about Russia _interference_ they used the word "hack" so many times to mean something completely different, but I can't in good faith take it seriously. I'm not an American and never will be, but up in Canada we're forced to follow American elections, and I distinctly remember waking up to be told that Trump had cheated, Russia had hacked, etc etc.
- vannevar 4y ago
  I can't help you, I'm afraid: I can only reiterate that it was common for people to call the Russian activities "hacking" collectively. It's worth noting though that there was some actual hacking, as the Intelligence Committee report I linked above confirms. I lived through the era here in the US, and I rarely heard anyone come right out and say the election was stolen. If you narrow the video down only to unambiguous references to the election being stolen or Trump being illegitimate, you're down to a handful of instances for an election that was referenced thousands of times in the public media. With regard to Trump cheating, the same Senate report confirmed that Trump's campaign met extensively with Russian intelligence agents. While no evidence has been uncovered yet that the campaign worked with the Russians on any specific illegal act, it's still an extremely unusual situation. Given that the Russians were actively interfering in the election, it's not unreasonable to speculate that there was collusion in some of those many meetings, even if no transcripts exist. Whether any of the Russian activity actually changed the outcome is pure speculation, however.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >If you narrow the video down only to unambiguous references to the election being stolen or Trump being illegitimate, you're down to a handful of instances for an election that was referenced thousands of times in the public media. Quite the opposite, I don't think the opposing party ever called Trump a legitimate President. You don't have to be a fan of Trump to recognize that either. In fact, much of the media treated him as illegitimate from Day 1 too. I suspect that is what led to his cult-like following.
    - somebehemoth 4y ago
      Clinton conceded, DNC recognized they lost, Obama invited him to White House to smooth transition. Contrast this with Republicans who continue to deny the 2020 election following the lead of the former president. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/24/jody-hice/did-democrats-refuse-acknowledge-trumps-2016-victo/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/24/jody-hice/...
      - yucky 4y ago
        Trump conceded too, and the video is just demonstrating the hypocrisy of many who bitched and moaned in 2016 or 2020 that the "election was illegitimate" and then demanding the other side recognize it as perfectly legitimate when their guy won. You could find/replace the words Trump or Clinton in this video and not be able to tell the difference.
        vannevar 4y ago
        >Trump conceded too No, he didn't. After the January 6th assault on the Capitol (two full months after the election), he finally acknowledged that a new administration would be taking office. He did not concede that he had lost the election. He didn't do that until April of 2022, and even then he insisted that the election he lost was rigged.
      - joenot443 4y ago
        For months after the election, both Clinton and Trump spoke publicly and claimed that they were the true winner and that the election had been stolen. Clinton was more pragmatic and reasonable with her claims, despite them still being a lie, but from the perspective of someone who _doesn't vote for either_, they both seemed to be playing the same tune. We're apparently supposed to accept that the Democrats adopted a new meaning of 'hack' immediately after 2016, but given the title of the site we're on now, I'm hoping we can be intellectually honest enough to say that it's a load to pretend that by 'hack' they actually meant 'used our own social media companies to promote the other team.' Maybe watching MSNBC and reading Politifact is what I needed, but from my POV up in Canada, all I saw were two sore political losers who couldn't accept that they'd lost the vote, and a party who rallied around them to reassure their leader it was the other team (or Russia?) who cheated, and that the fault was anyone but their own. I'm aware there's some nuance to it, but try to really think about the case you're trying to make here, and the very obviously biased position you're making it from. I don't doubt you're a proud card carrying Democrat, and I'm sure on /r/politics most everyone would agree with you, but for the rest of the world who were forced to watch it out in real time, '16/'20 was truly like watching the same poorly-written American movie twice.
poopnugget 4y ago

joenot443 4y ago

One of the first clips used in the video includes Clinton herself referencing a "cyber 9-11". This is directly followed by an American talk show host saying "Russia hacked our election". Immediately after this, Jane Psaki, directly says "Russia, you know, of course, hacked our election." How many times do they have to have said it? I've heard this type of revisionism before, saying that back in 2016 they were actually just talking about Russia _interference_ they used the word "hack" so many times to mean something completely different, but I can't in good faith take it seriously. I'm not an American and never will be, but up in Canada we're forced to follow American elections, and I distinctly remember waking up to be told that Trump had cheated, Russia had hacked, etc etc.

vannevar 4y ago
I can't help you, I'm afraid: I can only reiterate that it was common for people to call the Russian activities "hacking" collectively. It's worth noting though that there was some actual hacking, as the Intelligence Committee report I linked above confirms. I lived through the era here in the US, and I rarely heard anyone come right out and say the election was stolen. If you narrow the video down only to unambiguous references to the election being stolen or Trump being illegitimate, you're down to a handful of instances for an election that was referenced thousands of times in the public media. With regard to Trump cheating, the same Senate report confirmed that Trump's campaign met extensively with Russian intelligence agents. While no evidence has been uncovered yet that the campaign worked with the Russians on any specific illegal act, it's still an extremely unusual situation. Given that the Russians were actively interfering in the election, it's not unreasonable to speculate that there was collusion in some of those many meetings, even if no transcripts exist. Whether any of the Russian activity actually changed the outcome is pure speculation, however.
- yucky 4y ago
  >If you narrow the video down only to unambiguous references to the election being stolen or Trump being illegitimate, you're down to a handful of instances for an election that was referenced thousands of times in the public media. Quite the opposite, I don't think the opposing party ever called Trump a legitimate President. You don't have to be a fan of Trump to recognize that either. In fact, much of the media treated him as illegitimate from Day 1 too. I suspect that is what led to his cult-like following.
  - somebehemoth 4y ago
    Clinton conceded, DNC recognized they lost, Obama invited him to White House to smooth transition. Contrast this with Republicans who continue to deny the 2020 election following the lead of the former president. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/24/jody-hice/did-democrats-refuse-acknowledge-trumps-2016-victo/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/24/jody-hice/...
    - yucky 4y ago
      Trump conceded too, and the video is just demonstrating the hypocrisy of many who bitched and moaned in 2016 or 2020 that the "election was illegitimate" and then demanding the other side recognize it as perfectly legitimate when their guy won. You could find/replace the words Trump or Clinton in this video and not be able to tell the difference.
      - vannevar 4y ago
        >Trump conceded too No, he didn't. After the January 6th assault on the Capitol (two full months after the election), he finally acknowledged that a new administration would be taking office. He did not concede that he had lost the election. He didn't do that until April of 2022, and even then he insisted that the election he lost was rigged.
    - joenot443 4y ago
      For months after the election, both Clinton and Trump spoke publicly and claimed that they were the true winner and that the election had been stolen. Clinton was more pragmatic and reasonable with her claims, despite them still being a lie, but from the perspective of someone who _doesn't vote for either_, they both seemed to be playing the same tune. We're apparently supposed to accept that the Democrats adopted a new meaning of 'hack' immediately after 2016, but given the title of the site we're on now, I'm hoping we can be intellectually honest enough to say that it's a load to pretend that by 'hack' they actually meant 'used our own social media companies to promote the other team.' Maybe watching MSNBC and reading Politifact is what I needed, but from my POV up in Canada, all I saw were two sore political losers who couldn't accept that they'd lost the vote, and a party who rallied around them to reassure their leader it was the other team (or Russia?) who cheated, and that the fault was anyone but their own. I'm aware there's some nuance to it, but try to really think about the case you're trying to make here, and the very obviously biased position you're making it from. I don't doubt you're a proud card carrying Democrat, and I'm sure on /r/politics most everyone would agree with you, but for the rest of the world who were forced to watch it out in real time, '16/'20 was truly like watching the same poorly-written American movie twice.

poopnugget 4y ago