Home

Did you see the State Of The Union Speech?
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


amother




Gold


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:28 pm
Fox wrote:


And you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room. Even if the Russian government was in cahoots with Trump to steal the election, how did they force the DNC to rig the primaries? Basically, your big "collusion" theory is that Russia and Trump conspired to show just how corrupt the Democrats are. Not good for Trump, but even worse for the Democrats.



Actually, I did. While there's obviously always some way to rig election results, it makes it a lot harder to alter vote totals if you have a trail of how many people voted. Of course, it also makes it harder to "find" votes after the election.


Easy answer to the first. The DNC didn't rig the primaries.

And there's virtually no evidence of voter fraud.
Back to top

amother




Cerise


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:33 pm
Fox wrote:
Actually, I did. While there's obviously always some way to rig election results, it makes it a lot harder to alter vote totals if you have a trail of how many people voted. Of course, it also makes it harder to "find" votes after the election.


I agree that records of who voted and paper ballots are important. But I don't understand how voter IDs provide a paper trail that wouldn't exist otherwise. I don't need ID to vote. I sign my name on the roster at my polling place, then sign a slip of paper that says that I voted, so my polling place does have a record. So what difference exactly would a voter ID make?

I'm curious. Do you not sign a roster or other document when you vote?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:35 pm
amother wrote:
Again, I'm not insulting your intelligence. I think you're brilliant, as I said. Look how you try to change the subject and obfuscate. Who cares about Russian interference? Look at those Democrats!

But let's keep to the subject, shall we?

Well, the subject is the SOTU address. But we wandered off from that some time ago.

amother wrote:
The indictment, for the record, ALLEGES, but does not prove, anything. However what it ALLEGES is that the Russians hacked the DNC and Wikileaks released the documents in order to help Trump. And that Roger Stone was involved.

That doesn't seem to bother you. Which is your right, of course.

It might bother me more if it made any sense. Why would Wikileaks want to help Trump? Assange has no reason to particularly want Trump in office. Stone has never demonstrated the kind of chops necessary to reach Assange. So it just doesn't add up logically. I have no doubt that Stone would like people to think he could have influenced Assange, but they're on totally different levels.

But again, let's say Russia and Trump colluded to release these emails, hoping to help his campaign. No one has alleged that the emails were forged. No one has claimed that Clinton won the nomination fair and square. No one has suggested that anyone was forced to vote for Trump or that vote totals were altered. No additional votes were found in Broward County, even!

The complaint seems to be, "We were engaged in highly dishonest and unethical behavior, and we were caught. Let's try to prove that the people who caught us somehow acted illegally!"

L'havdil, it's like a murderer who gets off because the police didn't properly secure the crime scene. If the murderer is smart, he'll shut up and keep a low profile, not spend his time excoriating the police for their incompetence.
Back to top

amother




Forestgreen


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:40 pm
Fox wrote:
Again, if you want to insult my intelligence, come out from Amother.

That said, do you really want to go down this path? The DNC certainly doesn't.

The indictment proves only that Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate that the particular emails released by Wikileaks were the result. Moreover, it contains virtually no technical information.

Of course, it might be easier to prove one way or the other if the DNC had been willing to turn their server over to law enforcement.

But the end of the road, as the DNC is well aware, is that neither Russia nor Trump forced the DNC to rig the primaries. So even if you prove your case, you are still left with a political party that engaged in significant corruption.

If you're so concerned about election integrity, an excellent place to start might be with the Democratic Party's system of selecting a nominee . . .


Actually you are the one trying to insult our intelligence by repeatedly asserting as fact a claim that has been disputed since September 2017. And the Mueller indictment of the Russian hackers has been public since July 2018.

Do you think none of us is capable of independently checking and verifying the Nation story? Did you think nobody would find out that it was almost immediately debunked? Why do you keep repeating the claim (that the DNC hack had to be an inside job) as if it's indisputably true?

https://www.thenation.com/arti.....vips-memo/

The sad truth is that there was nothing particularly damning or noteworthy in the DNC emails. It's just the way it was framed and the timing of its release that gave an unfair advantage to the Trump campaign.
Back to top

amother




Gold


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:41 pm
Fox wrote:
It might bother me more if it made any sense. Why would Wikileaks want to help Trump? Assange has no reason to particularly want Trump in office. Stone has never demonstrated the kind of chops necessary to reach Assange. So it just doesn't add up logically. I have no doubt that Stone would like people to think he could have influenced Assange, but they're on totally different levels.

But again, let's say Russia and Trump colluded to release these emails, hoping to help his campaign. No one has alleged that the emails were forged. No one has claimed that Clinton won the nomination fair and square. No one has suggested that anyone was forced to vote for Trump or that vote totals were altered. No additional votes were found in Broward County, even!

The complaint seems to be, "We were engaged in highly dishonest and unethical behavior, and we were caught. Let's try to prove that the people who caught us somehow acted illegally!"

L'havdil, it's like a murderer who gets off because the police didn't properly secure the crime scene. If the murderer is smart, he'll shut up and keep a low profile, not spend his time excoriating the police for their incompetence.


So, you would be OK with the US president -- or at least his close advisors (which is all that has been alleged to date) -- colluding with a foreign government to illegally hack servers and release information in order to assist the candidate that the foreign government preferred.

Oh, and Clinton DID win the nomination fair and square. She even won the popular vote.
Back to top

amother




Lavender


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:43 pm
amother wrote:
So, you would be OK with the US president -- or at least his close advisors (which is all that has been alleged to date) -- colluding with a foreign government to illegally hack servers and release information in order to assist the candidate that the foreign government preferred.

Oh, and Clinton DID win the nomination fair and square. She even won the popular vote.


She lost the election. End of story.
And Clinton didn't win the nomination fair and Square. She stole the nomination.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:44 pm
amother wrote:
Easy answer to the first. The DNC didn't rig the primaries.

And there's virtually no evidence of voter fraud.

Now it's my turn to laugh! Donna Brazile threw Clinton under the bus over a year ago. The DNC claimed defiantly in court that they could nominate their candidate however they wished when it was pointed out that they had violated their charter. Just last year, the Democratic Party powers were forced to capitulate to new rules demanded by younger members to prevent the same thing happening in the future.

No voter fraud? Have you been following the news lately? A number of counties have more registered voters than residents. And that's without considering the train wreck that is Broward County.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:51 pm
amother wrote:
So, you would be OK with the US president -- or at least his close advisors (which is all that has been alleged to date) -- colluding with a foreign government to illegally hack servers and release information in order to assist the candidate that the foreign government preferred.

Oh, and Clinton DID win the nomination fair and square. She even won the popular vote.

This is the lack of logic that gives you away, Gold. Why would I be "okay" with it? No. But I'm not convinced it happened.

However, I believe Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Shultz that the DNC manipulated a number of processes to give Clinton an unfair advantage.

Granted, as Shultz has pointed out, the DNC can nominate whomever they choose. If their members rebel (which they did), they can fight it out internally (which they did). If you are a Democrat and are satisfied with how the Party was run in 2016, then you are lot more tolerant than I would be.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 3:57 pm
amother wrote:
Actually you are the one trying to insult our intelligence by repeatedly asserting as fact a claim that has been disputed since September 2017. And the Mueller indictment of the Russian hackers has been public since July 2018.

Do you think none of us is capable of independently checking and verifying the Nation story? Did you think nobody would find out that it was almost immediately debunked? Why do you keep repeating the claim (that the DNC hack had to be an inside job) as if it's indisputably true?

https://www.thenation.com/arti.....vips-memo/

The sad truth is that there was nothing particularly damning or noteworthy in the DNC emails. It's just the way it was framed and the timing of its release that gave an unfair advantage to the Trump campaign.

Because I believe the Guccifer 2.0 story doesn't make logical sense. Of course, we could have gotten much closer to the truth had the DNC released their server. Please explain to me why you are okay with their refusal.

My company server was hacked last summer and only the server with Jewish organization data was targeted. We spoke with the FBI, who agreed it was probably a targeted anti-Semitic attack but after a review, felt that it would be difficult to identify the perpetrators for prosecution. But we would have jumped at the chance to turn over our server if they thought there was the slightest chance at catching the people who did it. I cannot conceive of any legitimate organization refusing to cooperate with law enforcement under those circumstances.
Back to top

aliavi




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:05 pm
amother wrote:
Yes, this is the point I wanted to make. The sort of voter fraud that would be prevented by requiring voter IDs is extremely rare. Republicans generally do better in elections where fewer people vote. That's why they've eliminated early voting, Sunday voting, and automatic voter registration whenever they can. And that's why McConnell referred to an election day holiday as a "power grab".

One type of voter fraud that's more common is abuse of absentee ballots. Like in NC's 9th district. Oddly, even though Republicans in NC passed strict voter ID laws, they don't want to investigate it. I wonder why?


The voter thing affecting the poor has been shown to be rhetoric. It’s the law that only citizens can vote. How else do you suggest to uphold this law?
Back to top

amother




Forestgreen


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:08 pm
Fox wrote:
Because I believe the Guccifer 2.0 story doesn't make logical sense. Of course, we could have gotten much closer to the truth had the DNC released their server. Please explain to me why you are okay with their refusal.

My company server was hacked last summer and only the server with Jewish organization data was targeted. We spoke with the FBI, who agreed it was probably a targeted anti-Semitic attack but after a review, felt that it would be difficult to identify the perpetrators for prosecution. But we would have jumped at the chance to turn over our server if they thought there was the slightest chance at catching the people who did it. I cannot conceive of any legitimate organization refusing to cooperate with law enforcement under those circumstances.


This was already addressed in congressional testimony in March 2017. Whether DNC turned over the servers or not had no material impact on the investigation. They turned over all the data on the servers. It did not impede Mueller or prevent him from indicting 13 GRU agents for hacking the DNC.

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you but if I have to make a choice, I trust Mueller's expertise over yours.
Back to top

amother




Gold


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:09 pm
Fox wrote:
This is the lack of logic that gives you away, Gold. Why would I be "okay" with it? No. But I'm not convinced it happened.

However, I believe Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Shultz that the DNC manipulated a number of processes to give Clinton an unfair advantage.

Granted, as Shultz has pointed out, the DNC can nominate whomever they choose. If their members rebel (which they did), they can fight it out internally (which they did). If you are a Democrat and are satisfied with how the Party was run in 2016, then you are lot more tolerant than I would be.


Well, your diatribe certainly reads like you'd be fine if it turns out that Trump or his close associates were behind the hacking.

Clearly, the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders (who isn't even a Democrat).

The DNC (which was pretty much broke because of Obama's policies with respect to the DNC) agreed to form a shared fundraising committee with the Clinton campaign in summer 2015. Through the agreement, the campaign could raise more money by simultaneously collecting donations for Clinton, the national committee and individual state party organizations. While the agreement did promise the Clinton campaign control over the DNC’s resources, it stipulated that this control only applied after the primaries, assuming Clinton won the nomination. This is relatively standard. In fact, the Sanders campaign was offered a similar joint fundraising agreement.

There was a second document showing that the DNC and Clinton campaign had an additional agreement which provided the campaign with influence over the DNC before Clinton won the nomination. Specifically, the campaign was given veto power over the selection of the new DNC communications director and other senior staff members in the committee’s communications, technology and research departments — should there have been vacancies.

Is open support for a candidate de rigeuer? No. Happens? Of course. See Bush. When he faced a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan the RNC openly stated that “the chairman is 100 percent behind George Bush and so is the committee.”

The Sanders campaign made several complaints about how the DNC disadvantaged them. On some issues — such as the timing of some of the primary contests, or the way delegates were divided over the states — Clinton probably received some benefits. However, these rules were decided in 2014 — well before anyone expected a Clinton-Sanders primary contest. So the real complaint was about the rules, not about Clinton. The only possibly legitimate claim relates to the timing of the debates.

Clinton won the nomination. She lost the election.

Are YOU happy with the allegations of hacking? Are you happy that so many close advisers of Trump have been indicted? Are you happy that Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner agreed to meet with whom they believed were people with ties to the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton?
Back to top

amother




Gold


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:16 pm
aliavi wrote:
The voter thing affecting the poor has been shown to be rhetoric. It’s the law that only citizens can vote. How else do you suggest to uphold this law?


There is no evidence whatsoever of non-citizens voting.

Voter registrations use SSN to allow people without drivers' licenses or state ID to register to vote. And the SSN, obviously, will key to who the person is.
Back to top

flowerpower




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:18 pm
How many more pages until you guys give it up? You won’t change anyones mind. I promise.
🍿🍿🍿
Back to top

amother




Gold


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:22 pm
flowerpower wrote:
How many more pages until you guys give it up? You won’t change anyones mind. I promise.
🍿🍿🍿


Honestly?

I enjoy the debate with Fox. I enjoy challenging her opinions, and being forced to put some facts behind mine. She won't change my mind, but she does and will challenge me.

(See, Fox, I really do NOT think that you're a dullard, or whatever it is you accused me of.)

Its different with other posters who merely scream IDIOTS. No use in engaging them.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:26 pm
amother wrote:
Are YOU happy with the allegations of hacking? Are you happy that so many close advisers of Trump have been indicted? Are you happy that Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner agreed to meet with whom they believed were people with ties to the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton?

Again, neither you nor I have any idea what they believed when the meeting was arranged, and it seems quite likely that they were confronted with a somewhat heavy-handed bait-and-switch.

All kinds of people try to get access to campaigns and candidates, and I assume Trump, Jr., and Kushner met with people a lot shadier than a Russian lawyer. In most cases, as in this one, the representatives of the campaign quickly realize that the people are either crazy or don't have anything useful to offer, so they thank them for their time and move on.

So, no, I don't see a single meeting from which nothing emerged as some kind of threat to democracy.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:32 pm
flowerpower wrote:
How many more pages until you guys give it up? You won’t change anyones mind. I promise.
🍿🍿🍿

Agreed. I think we're just sharpening our wits on each other at this point.

And, really, everyone is sick of popcorn by now.

Of course, what I really need to do is figure out how to keep my posts to 140 characters or less! That would be a skill worth cultivating!
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:35 pm
I could think of more useful things.
Back to top

amother




Gold


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:35 pm
Fox wrote:
Again, neither you nor I have any idea what they believed when the meeting was arranged, and it seems quite likely that they were confronted with a somewhat heavy-handed bait-and-switch.

All kinds of people try to get access to campaigns and candidates, and I assume Trump, Jr., and Kushner met with people a lot shadier than a Russian lawyer. In most cases, as in this one, the representatives of the campaign quickly realize that the people are either crazy or don't have anything useful to offer, so they thank them for their time and move on.

So, no, I don't see a single meeting from which nothing emerged as some kind of threat to democracy.


Trump Jr. himself admitted that Goldstone had stated in an email to him that the Russian government was involved and that the purpose of the meeting was to get "dirt on Clinton" and that the meeting concerned a "Russian effort to aid the (Trump) campaign." The email read,

Quote:
“The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with . . . Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father .... This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump — helped along by Aras and Emin. What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?”


Quote:
Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday. I believe you are aware of the meeting — and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?


So, assuming that Trump Jr. has a passing familiarity with the English language, we know what he was told when the meeting was arranged.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Feb 07 2019, 4:37 pm
Though I recently got my comeuppance on Twitter. I said something snarky about Perez Hilton in a reply (I may or may not have said that he reminds me of a bad Paul Lynde impersonation), and he read it and liked it. And then I picked up a bunch of followers as a result. Since I'm not looking for a high profile on Twitter, it was a whole lot more attention that I'd bargained for. So I'm being good for the time being. Very Happy
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 9 of 11 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Short Bas Mitzvah speech help
by amother
5 Mon, Apr 01 2019, 8:52 am View last post
Iso of speech therapist
by amother
3 Mon, Mar 04 2019, 8:46 pm View last post
Speech therapist in monsey
by mom241
0 Mon, Mar 04 2019, 10:38 am View last post
S/o Power of speech
by amother
2 Tue, Feb 19 2019, 2:18 pm View last post
Speech therapy idea 5 Sun, Feb 17 2019, 9:27 pm View last post

Jump to: