Politics You were duped by the Ruskies.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
jonnyboy said:
The indictments were handed down to russian hackers involved in the DNC hack. Wikileaks published that info, which disclosed DNC favoring of Clinton. All this info was true and led to the stepping down of the DNC chair. People deserved to know the DNC cheated other candidates, I'm all for leaks that expose corruption. None of this means The Russian government won the election for Donald Trump. There isnt even proof these hackers we're affiliated with the Kremlin. You guys are mad because Hillary and the DNC got exposed as crooks and you dont think it's fair. Boo hoo. Wikileaks has never been politically motivated, they publish info that exposes corruption at all levels, from any administration.
Click to expand...
When will Hillary be indicted?
 
jonnyboy said:
Our intelligence is specializes in lying, cheating, murdering, overthrowing small governments and installing puppet dictators. I'd trust the likes of a greasy used car salesman before the scum of the earth CIA. Everything they say or do is to advance an agenda you and I are not beneficiaries of.
Click to expand...
Our intelligence specializes in lying, cheating, murdering, overthrowing small governments and installing puppet dictators you say? Sounds like you've been listening to Trump. Where else do you get this breaking news?
 
CupWizier said:
Well, to be fair, Bernie isn't a democrat and only ran as a democrat to run for presidency and then when he was eliminated he went back to being an independent. He was basically using the democratic party for financial and exposure purposes. I know you don't like Clinton, but do you think it's fair what Bernie tried to pull? Clinton also has raised millions of dollars for the democratic party, just not for her.
Click to expand...

That's not being fair, that's being silly and partisan within a party. Bernie had every right to run as a democrat.
 
Lanny said:
Our intelligence specializes in lying, cheating, murdering, overthrowing small governments and installing puppet dictators you say? Sounds like you've been listening to Trump. Where else do you get this breaking news?
Click to expand...
History books.
 
donkiez said:
That's not being fair, that's being silly and partisan within a party. Bernie had every right to run as a democrat.
Click to expand...
Millions of mail-in voters in California were sent primary ballots without Bernie's name on them. The officials in California passed a last minute rule stating voters had to make a certain specification ahead of time to vote for an independent-turned Democrat. They made sure to put it in the fine print of course, so millions of voters would pass over it, and get mail-in ballots devoid of a certain senator from Vermont's name on them.
 
donkiez said:
That's not being fair, that's being silly and partisan within a party. Bernie had every right to run as a democrat.
Click to expand...

Why? It's nothing personal but he isn't a democrat. I would have the same opinion if he ran as a republican.
 
Last edited:
jonnyboy said:
Millions of mail-in voters in California were sent primary ballots without Bernie's name on them. The officials in California passed a last minute rule stating voters had to make a certain specification ahead of time to vote for an independent-turned Democrat. They made sure to put it in the fine print of course, so millions of voters would pass over it, and get mail-in ballots devoid of a certain senator from Vermont's name on them.
Click to expand...

Millions? The election had 5 mil total so how could "millions" be missing? Just curious if you ever have any links to support your many assertions?
 
CupWizier said:
Millions? The election had 5 mil total so how could "millions" be missing? Just curious if you ever have any links to support your many assertions?
Click to expand...
Oh, 5 million wouldnt be plural? Thats not more than one million?
Here's a link for you:Screenshot_2018-12-23-09-15-53.png
 
jonnyboy said:
This doesnt explain how Russia somehow strong-armed half the US population into voting for Donald Trump. I dont care how many agencies there are, its irrelevant. This whole narrative is bunk.
Click to expand...
you don't need to strong arm half the voters to swing an election....all you need is enough to give you the tie breaker. You're welcome to feel snug and cozy with Trump's system if you like but there's a big difference between sensationalizing facts and dealing with reality. Hope your guy figures it out someday.
 
riverman said:
It's not anybody's narrative here...it's daily AP news feeds but hey....there's a squirrel! Fact check Trump and get back to me about Russia
Click to expand...
The entire Russia narrative is vague.
 
jonnyboy said:
The entire Russia narrative is vague.
Click to expand...
yup ...sealed indictments are sealed for a reason...as it stands most of this stuff will not be made public until at least a decade from now like Nixon's records back in the day. As it stands we know enough to understand Russia was involved in attempts to hack our election with some success. There's actually real news concerning this topic if you take an interest and bother to read it. The internet is not a court of law, that's for sure.
 
CupWizier said:
Why? It's nothing personal but he isn't a democrat. I would have the same opinion if he ran as a republican.
Click to expand...

He ran as a democrat and accepted the party during the election. That made him a democrat, but the party didnt accept him. You seem to think that since you don't like him he isn't allowed to play in your club. If Democrats gave him a fair chance they might have grown their base, infused new popular ideas into their party and actually won the election. Instead they burried him and added him to the long list of excuses of why Clinton lost. The stubbornness old school thinking is more of a reason Clinton lost than the Russians, but they are both reason she lost.
 
donkiez said:
He ran as a democrat and accepted the party during the election. That made him a democrat, but the party didnt accept him. You seem to think that since you don't like him he isn't allowed to play in your club. If Democrats gave him a fair chance they might have grown their base, infused new popular ideas into their party and actually won the election. Instead they burried him and added him to the long list of excuses of why Clinton lost. The stubbornness old school thinking is more of a reason Clinton lost than the Russians, but they are both reason she lost.
Click to expand...

Two problems with your post. I don't dislike Sanders and i am not a democrat. Clinton did win the popular vote and i don't thi k Sanders would have won either the electoral college or the popular vote. As for excuses i seem to see a lot of excuses from his supporters. Just my observations..
 
Last edited:
CupWizier said:
Two problems with your post. I don't dislike Sanders and i am not a democrat. Clinton did win the popular vote and i don't thi k Sanders would have won either the electoral college or the popular vote. As for excuses i seem to see a lot of excuses from his supporters. Just my observations..
Click to expand...

No excuses, just facts. Sanders never had a chance in the DNC so we will never know how he would have played in the general. We do know how Clinton played in the general, she lost and the Democrats were the losers. Shitty politics have consequences for them and the rest of us.
 
donkiez said:
No excuses, just facts. Sanders never had a chance in the DNC so we will never know how he would have played in the general. We do know how Clinton played in the general, she lost and the Democrats were the losers. Shitty politics have consequences for them and the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Well, those are actually considered opinions, which is fine to have an opinion. I shared mine as well. To be honest, it's silly to even be arguing this as it's not going to change anything.
 
CupWizier said:
Well, those are actually considered opinions, which is fine to have an opinion. I shared mine as well. To be honest, it's silly to even be arguing this as it's not going to change anything.
Click to expand...

The DNC also currently trying to ignore the past and keep their current power structure intact. Let's see if more stubbornness and company line opinions can beat the Russians this time.
 
riverman said:
yup ...sealed indictments are sealed for a reason...as it stands most of this stuff will not be made public until at least a decade from now like Nixon's records back in the day. As it stands we know enough to understand Russia was involved in attempts to hack our election with some success. There's actually real news concerning this topic if you take an interest and bother to read it. The internet is not a court of law, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
Sealed indictments aren't sufficient enough proof for me, so no, "we" dont know enough. You may think you do, but all you know is someone "reputable" telling you what happened, without the burden of evidence. I dont trust the people who specialize in lying to get us into conflicts. If you do then fine, maybe thats what this all comes down to. I need more proof than the same people who lied about WMDs saying "trust us".
 
jonnyboy said:
Sealed indictments aren't sufficient enough proof for me, so no, "we" dont know enough. You may think you do, but all you know is someone "reputable" telling you what happened, without the burden of evidence. I dont trust the people who specialize in lying to get us into conflicts. If you do then fine, maybe thats what this all comes down to. I need more proof than the same people who lied about WMDs saying "trust us".
Click to expand...
You can't trust them...I never claimed to trust them...I worked for the admiral of the 7th fleet during war under Nixon's watch...I know exactly what got altered and blacked out...if you think Mueller is going to show you something on the internet..well...that's not going to happen...I can tell you who I have absolutely no trust in but it's not Mueller..I think he's a professional. I've never met the man but reading through this shitstorm of an administration if you ask me he's the adult in the room..the other adults have quit or been fired already. You're watching a president scrambling for his job after he's lost the trust of his own hand picked team...not a good sign.
 
jonnyboy said:
Oh, 5 million wouldnt be plural? Thats not more than one million?
Here's a link for you:View attachment 23889
Click to expand...
Did you misunderstand cup? He said, and rightly so, that there were a shade over 5 Million Democrat votes in the 2016 primary. Cup questioned how Millions of votes could have gone missing in that there weren't but 5 Million that they produced.

Millions of missing ballots would have to be at least 2 Million which would mean almost 30% of the ballots were missing, In that scenario, perhaps more than 2 Million could be claimed to be missing which would place the percentage of total ballots missing at greater than 30%. Now, the question is, is it possible that 30% of the ballots were missing or not counted?
 
jonnyboy said:
You guys' entire Russia narrative is vague.
Click to expand...
What's that got to do with your vague response? Nothing. It's a separate subject.
I was simply curious about your assertion that you found history books that backed up your claim about our intelligence agencies being corrupt.

I hope I don't need to explain once again that anyone who makes an assertion needs to back it up when challenged unless it's common knowledge. Your assertion clearly is no common knowledge. If you can't or won't back up your assertion than it's nothing more than hearsay.

I'm waiting.
 
Lanny said:
What's that got to do with your vague response? Nothing. It's a separate subject.
I was simply curious about your assertion that you found history books that backed up your claim about our intelligence agencies being corrupt.

I hope I don't need to explain once again that anyone who makes an assertion needs to back it up when challenged unless it's common knowledge. Your assertion clearly is no common knowledge. If you can't or won't back up your assertion than it's nothing more than hearsay.

I'm waiting.
Click to expand...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1045991001
 
Lanny said:
What's that got to do with your vague response? Nothing. It's a separate subject.
I was simply curious about your assertion that you found history books that backed up your claim about our intelligence agencies being corrupt.

I hope I don't need to explain once again that anyone who makes an assertion needs to back it up when challenged unless it's common knowledge. Your assertion clearly is no common knowledge. If you can't or won't back up your assertion than it's nothing more than hearsay.

I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987

Amazon product ASIN B000RWC6OE
 
jonnyboy said:
Millions of mail-in voters in California were sent primary ballots without Bernie's name on them. The officials in California passed a last minute rule stating voters had to make a certain specification ahead of time to vote for an independent-turned Democrat. They made sure to put it in the fine print of course, so millions of voters would pass over it, and get mail-in ballots devoid of a certain senator from Vermont's name on them.
Click to expand...

There is a kernel of truth here, but it's a very small kernel. Most of what you said is false.

What actually happened affected only voters who were not registered as Democrats. Unlike Republicans, the Democrats in California allow people not registered with any party to vote in their party's primary.

But if you are a No Party Preference voter, you have to request a Democratic party ballot. Otherwise, nobody knows that you want to vote in the Democratic primary.

Some people screwed up and didn't request a Democratic ballot. As a result, they got a ballot that didn't list Bernie. It also didn't list Clinton.

Also, some people registered as Independent, thinking 'well, Bernie is an Independent'. But that gave them a ballot for the American Independent Party, whose candidate(s) didn't include Bernie or Hillary.

There certainly weren't millions of such cases. Thousands, maybe. The affected people didn't vote for Hillary or Bernie.

A final note is that the California primary was in June, after the race was already settled.

barfo
 
HailBlazers said:
Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987

Amazon product ASIN B000RWC6OE
Click to expand...
Those were brought out into the open. Also, they were a tiny fraction of what our intelligence community does.

They wanted to drop their backing of Maliki in Iraq but Bush 43 said he wanted to stick with him. Result: ISIS

They heard about the plan to topple Diem in Vietnam but they kept their hands off and the Vietnamese orchestrated their own coup. Result: the War was doomed.

The interference in Iran never happened other than the sale of Weapons by Reagan to Iran in exchange for cash to support the Contra.

When Chavez took over Venezuela, we did nothing to interfere.

We did nothing when Peron took over Argentina or when his wife took over in 1974.

And who did we supposedly assassinate? We weren't the ones who assassinated Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in 1961.
 
jonnyboy said:
Sealed indictments aren't sufficient enough proof for me, so no, "we" dont know enough. You may think you do, but all you know is someone "reputable" telling you what happened, without the burden of evidence. I dont trust the people who specialize in lying to get us into conflicts. If you do then fine, maybe thats what this all comes down to. I need more proof than the same people who lied about WMDs saying "trust us".
Click to expand...

Mueller's indictments of the Russians are not sealed. They are not even redacted. They are available online.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top