brenthutch 383 #176 December 15, 2016 billvonQuoteI love this turnabout quote: "Even if the Russians did want Trump to win, what difference, at this point, does it make?" I see a pattern here. "The Russians did not influence the election! There's no proof." "OK so maybe the Russians had some influence on the election, but what difference does it make?" Next up: "OK so maybe the Russians had some influence on the election, and maybe it will make a difference - but the differences will all be good." Where have I seen that pattern of denial before? A pretty lame straw man, even by your standards. I will ask again, why all of the fuss and muss? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #177 December 15, 2016 brenthutchMy favorite, "Democrats, moreover, conveniently forget that they’ve historically welcomed such mischief-making — such as when Jimmy Carter pleaded with Leonid Brezhnev for Soviet help in the futile effort to defeat Ronald Reagan in 1980 Is that true? Quoteand when Ted Kennedy pleaded with Yuri Andropov for Soviet help in the futile effort to defeat Reagan in 1984." Even the source of the source they link to appears to suggest that is not true.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,902 #178 December 15, 2016 jakee***My favorite, "Democrats, moreover, conveniently forget that they’ve historically welcomed such mischief-making — such as when Jimmy Carter pleaded with Leonid Brezhnev for Soviet help in the futile effort to defeat Ronald Reagan in 1980 Is that true? Quoteand when Ted Kennedy pleaded with Yuri Andropov for Soviet help in the futile effort to defeat Reagan in 1984." Even the source of the source they link to appears to suggest that is not true. Of course it's true. Someone writing for National Review saw it in a book. Much better source than the evil CIA.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #179 December 15, 2016 quade *********Seriously though, why are you wasting so much bandwidth on this? Do you really think the Electoral College is going to elect HRC? Because if it can happen once, it can happen again and with even worse consequences. Regardless no matter what you believe about candidate A vs B, this issue should transcend that. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME Replace "gambling" with "disrupting" OMG! What film is that? I've never seen it before. No. I'm not, "Shocked! Shocked!" Russia would attempt to sway the election just as I'm not so naive as to believe the US hasn't attempted to do so in countless other elections around the world. That said, even though the US has dropped two nuclear weapons on countries before, I think we should do everything in our power to ensure no nuclear weapons are ever dropped on us. The US has a rotten record of interfering in other nations' governments. For egregious examples, Iran 1953 (Eisenhower), Chile, 1973 (Nixon). The US shouldn't be hypocritical about this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #180 December 15, 2016 kallendThe US shouldn't be hypocritical about this. I'm unclear. Are you saying the US should just accept its fate and let other nations interfere with our elections or, that the US should stop interfering in other elections because, what goes around comes around? I can agree with the later point, but not the former.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob_Church 7 #181 December 16, 2016 jakee***A friend of mine who is very active in Virginia politics and a serious Hillary Clinton supporter even had trouble with it. Here's what he said about one event he attended. This is when the DNC was supposed to be seeing who their rank and file, the voters, wanted to represent them in the 2016 election. "I was at the Virginia convention..." Ok Bob, but you and your friend are confused. The Virginia DNC convention was in July, and at that convention they decide who the delegates are. However the Virginia DNC primary was in March, and it is at the primary that the DNC find out who Virginia democrats want to be the nominee. Almost all of the Virginia delegates chosen at the convention are bound to vote according to the results of the Primary. So yeah, no shit the Virginia DNC convention was biased towards Hillary - they already knew that she'd won the Virginia primary (by a lot), and by that point they already knew that she'd won enough other primaries and caucuses to win the National Convention. She was, at that point, already the presumptive nominee. Presumptive is the correct word here, and it was wrong. Hillary Clinton didn't get the nod until the Richmond Convention. It's exactly this sort of arrogance and ignoring of the actual voters that I believe cost the election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #182 December 16, 2016 Damn, I was going to post that one, beat me to it. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #183 December 16, 2016 quade***The US shouldn't be hypocritical about this. I'm unclear. Are you saying the US should just accept its fate and let other nations interfere with our elections or, that the US should stop interfering in other elections because, what goes around comes around? I can agree with the later point, but not the former. We didn't "let" anybody interfere, they just do, it's called realpolitik and the big boys have been doing it forever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #184 December 16, 2016 Imma gonna call you "da barber" 'cause you splittin' hairs.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #185 December 16, 2016 quade***Seriously though, why are you wasting so much bandwidth on this? Do you really think the Electoral College is going to elect HRC? Because if it can happen once, it can happen again and with even worse consequences. Regardless no matter what you believe about candidate A vs B, this issue should transcend that. And the issue is? Please provide your evidense. Cause nobody else can..."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #186 December 16, 2016 quade***The US shouldn't be hypocritical about this. I'm unclear. Are you saying the US should just accept its fate and let other nations interfere with our elections or, that the US should stop interfering in other elections because, what goes around comes around? I can agree with the later point, but not the former. We shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't get all "holier than thou" when others do it to us because, on a global scale, we are among the worst offenders.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #187 December 16, 2016 quadeImma gonna call you "da barber" 'cause you splittin' hairs. Weak sauce dude, weak sauce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #188 December 16, 2016 quade***The US shouldn't be hypocritical about this. I'm unclear. Are you saying the US should just accept its fate and let other nations interfere with our elections or, that the US should stop interfering in other elections because, what goes around comes around? Neither. We should interfere in other countries if it's to our benefit and we can get away with it, and be outraged if it happens to us or at least be strong enough to prevent it. Telling it like it is - it's my new thing. I've got a role model. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #189 December 16, 2016 rushmc ******Seriously though, why are you wasting so much bandwidth on this? Do you really think the Electoral College is going to elect HRC? Because if it can happen once, it can happen again and with even worse consequences. Regardless no matter what you believe about candidate A vs B, this issue should transcend that. And the issue is? Please provide your evidense. Cause nobody else can... Evidence is history. 4 times now people have won the presidential nomination without the support of the majority of the population. That's the evidence. You might not find it an issue, but I do. And our opinions are worth exactly the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #190 December 16, 2016 kallendWe shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't get all "holier than thou" when others do it to us because, on a global scale, we are among the worst offenders. I don't know anybody (serious and worth talking about) who has the sort of attitude you're describing with regards to this. I think as a strictly practical issue they're simply wanting to prevent it as much as possible as it pertains to US elections. Again, I go back to the bombing analogy. Yes, of course we do it, that said we'd like to prevent it from happening to us.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #191 December 16, 2016 Bob_Church******A friend of mine who is very active in Virginia politics and a serious Hillary Clinton supporter even had trouble with it. Here's what he said about one event he attended. This is when the DNC was supposed to be seeing who their rank and file, the voters, wanted to represent them in the 2016 election. "I was at the Virginia convention..." Ok Bob, but you and your friend are confused. The Virginia DNC convention was in July, and at that convention they decide who the delegates are. However the Virginia DNC primary was in March, and it is at the primary that the DNC find out who Virginia democrats want to be the nominee. Almost all of the Virginia delegates chosen at the convention are bound to vote according to the results of the Primary. So yeah, no shit the Virginia DNC convention was biased towards Hillary - they already knew that she'd won the Virginia primary (by a lot), and by that point they already knew that she'd won enough other primaries and caucuses to win the National Convention. She was, at that point, already the presumptive nominee. Presumptive is the correct word here, and it was wrong. Hillary Clinton didn't get the nod until the Richmond Convention. It's exactly this sort of arrogance and ignoring of the actual voters that I believe cost the election. It would be nice if you gave some indication that you had read or understood a word I just said. They had already held the primary and they already knew what the voters wanted, because they'd aleady voted.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #192 December 16, 2016 billvonQuoteI love this turnabout quote: "Even if the Russians did want Trump to win, what difference, at this point, does it make?" I see a pattern here. "The Russians did not influence the election! There's no proof." "OK so maybe the Russians had some influence on the election, but what difference does it make?" Next up: "OK so maybe the Russians had some influence on the election, and maybe it will make a difference - but the differences will all be good." Where have I seen that pattern of denial before? What about the content of the DNC/HRC Wikileaks? Isn't that the important issue?Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #193 December 16, 2016 An interesting topic but not much actual debate here. Do those that beleive the 'Russians hacked the election', understand that there has never been an example of wikileaks documents being proven false? Julien Assange and wikileaks are adamant these did not come from Russia. I would also be interested to know if those that support the notion of Russia hacking the elections, as it is being touted as, condemn the actions of Clinton and Podesta. Or do they think the information is false. It seems illogical to suggest the information was hacked on one hand, yet not consider the content to be 'enlightening' on the other. All of these emails can be validated relatively easily, with readily available software. Which is it. Hacked or falsified? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #194 December 16, 2016 Nobody does cognitive dissonance as well as the left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #195 December 16, 2016 That's the point of their (the Lefties) whole argument! .....She would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling Rooskies! (not that I'm buying into any of that nonsense.) So, we have: Did the Russians hack the DNC emails? (Official Russiandom or just some free-lance hackers who happen to live in Russia) Or was it, as claimed by Assange, someone within the DNC? Bernie's followers? Someone else? Was it the purpose of the hacker (whoever that may be) to affect the outcome of the US election? ...or was that just a collateral effect? (as if significant numbers on either side actually changed their vote based on those revelations ) If it was sponsored, or actually done, by the Russian government, was it (the hacking) actually "requested" by the Trump campaign? Also, IMO, the claim by President Obama (through Josh Earnest) that Trump publicly called for Putin to hack the DNC is complete nonsense. When the Russians were blamed by the Dems for carrying out hacking attacks, Trump simply made a joke that maybe they could find Hillary's missing 30000 email from her illegal private server while they were at it. Nothing to do with the DNC email hack. Others may have different opinions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #196 December 16, 2016 Quote A pretty lame straw man, even by your standards. Did you just recently learn what "straw man" means and now you keep saying everything is a straw man argument? Next up, "ad hominem". Wink Emoji."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #197 December 16, 2016 QuoteThe US has a rotten record of interfering in other nations' governments. For egregious examples, Iran 1953 (Eisenhower), Chile, 1973 (Nixon). The US shouldn't be hypocritical about this. You seem to forget our foreign policy best summarized here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcAaertdaQk Basically, we prefer to be the only ones doing the fucking."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #198 December 16, 2016 DJL Next up, "ad hominem". Obviously you are a member of the Film Actors Guild. How is that for "ad hominem?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #199 December 16, 2016 Royreader8812Do those that beleive the 'Russians hacked the election', understand that there has never been an example of wikileaks documents being proven false? You're confusing two issues. WikiLeaks has verified the authenticity of some but not all of the emails as having passed through certain email servers because they contain certain digital fingerprints. Those fingerprints (on some but not all) of the emails are a function of how email systems work in general. Emails with those fingerprints on them can not, in any way, be falsified AFTER the fingerprints have been placed on them. Any alteration whatsoever, a comma or space added or removed for instance, and the fingerprints fail. Emails without these sorts of fingerprints are included in the WikiLeaks dumps. There is absolutely no way on earth to verify them or their path from the original keyboard to publication on WikiLeaks. None. The upshot of all of this is the fingerprints confirm some, but not all, of the emails originally came from the people who are listed as the original senders. What they absolutely do NOT confirm is who cracked the email systems or the path the emails took from the hack to publication on WikiLeaks. DKIM http://www.dkim.org QuoteJulien Assange and wikileaks are adamant these did not come from Russia. Please provide a link to that. I've never read such a statement from them regarding anything.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #200 December 16, 2016 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/wikileaks_julian_assange_russian_government_was_not_source_for_podesta_dnc_emails.html You didn't look too hard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites