Discussion:
Marsh has company
Add Reply
bigdog
2018-07-22 01:52:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
helped Trump win the election:

"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"

The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
you get as big a chuckle out of it as I did:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
bpete1969
2018-07-22 21:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...
bigdog
2018-07-23 13:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...
I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 14:18:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by bpete1969
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...
I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.
Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?
claviger
2018-07-25 12:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bpete1969
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...
I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.
Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?
He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.
bigdog
2018-07-26 02:17:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bpete1969
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...
I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.
Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?
He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.
I don't think most Americans realize how many of our presidents were at
one time slave owners. Ironically, the last was Ulysses Grant. His wife
inherited a family farm in Missouri and the slaves became community
property. Also it is not widely known that Ben Franklin owned two slaves.
When Pennsylvania outlawed slavery, they grandfathered it so current slave
owners could keep their slaves but all offspring were born free and no new
slaves could be imported.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-27 16:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bpete1969
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...
I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.
Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?
He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.
I don't think most Americans realize how many of our presidents were at
one time slave owners. Ironically, the last was Ulysses Grant. His wife
True. Our founding fathers.
But do you claim that Lincoln had slaves?
Post by bigdog
inherited a family farm in Missouri and the slaves became community
property. Also it is not widely known that Ben Franklin owned two slaves.
When Pennsylvania outlawed slavery, they grandfathered it so current slave
owners could keep their slaves but all offspring were born free and no new
slaves could be imported.
I guess they call that a compromise.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 13:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bpete1969
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...
I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.
Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?
He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.
So you say the Emancipation Proclamation and fighting the Confederacy to
end slavery is Racist? Did Lincoln own any slaves?
WTF do you get this crap?
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-24 05:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.

So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-07-24 05:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
It's worth noting that for several decades Democrats and liberals
pushed gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts. Districts
sure to be represented by a black (or a few cases, an Hispanic).

They finally figured out that this helps the Republicans, since when
you pile all the minorities in one district, you are likely to make
two, three or four districts Republican.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.

I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-25 01:51:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.
Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)

One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.

A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.

So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.

Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.

Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.

Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.
Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.
But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.

The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.

Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)

You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"

Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.

Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!

But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-07-26 01:42:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.
Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)
One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.
A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.
So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.
Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.
Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.
Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.
Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.
But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.
The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.
Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)
You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"
Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.
Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!
But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.
I would be willing to bet that Mueller isn't going to show his cards until
after the midterms. That way he can maintain the impression with the
public that there was collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign.
It appears to me this is nothing more than a political witch hunt. It's an
investigation in search of a crime. So far the only Americans indicted
have been for crimes which had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-27 16:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.
Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)
One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.
A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.
So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.
Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.
Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.
Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.
Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.
But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.
The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.
Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)
You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"
Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.
Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!
But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.
I would be willing to bet that Mueller isn't going to show his cards until
He's shown some of them already. He started with the small fish and is
working his way up yo the top. It takes time to process the information.
And people are starting to flip when they realize thatthey are facing 100
years in jail and Trump is not going to help them.
Post by bigdog
after the midterms. That way he can maintain the impression with the
public that there was collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign.
Collusion is the wrong word. That is a Trump evasion. The word is TREASON.
Post by bigdog
It appears to me this is nothing more than a political witch hunt. It's an
So you believe everything that Trump says. How do you explain all the
indictments and guilty pleas? And they haven't even gotten up to Trump yet.
Maybe he'll only get probation.
Post by bigdog
investigation in search of a crime. So far the only Americans indicted
have been for crimes which had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.
Wrong. The campaign manager and you say he had nothing to do with the
2016 campaign? You are in DENIAL. Just admit that Trump is a crook.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 13:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.
Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)
One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.
A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.
So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.
Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.
Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.
Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.
Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.
But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.
The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.
Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)
You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"
Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.
Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!
But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Why are you talking about Trump and Mueller? I thought the subject line
said it was supposed to be all about me. And then you didn't even mention
my name. How rude.

And you said I had company so I checked the camera for the entrance to my
building and I didn't see anybody. I don't expect them until tomorrow.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 12:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
It's worth noting that for several decades Democrats and liberals
pushed gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts. Districts
sure to be represented by a black (or a few cases, an Hispanic).
Yes, and people have been stealing cars ever since they were invented.
Therefore it is OK for you to steal a car. That's your logic. As long as
someone else did it, it's OK for you to do it.
Post by John McAdams
They finally figured out that this helps the Republicans, since when
you pile all the minorities in one district, you are likely to make
two, three or four districts Republican.
DUH! Especially when the minorities vote Democrat 90% of the time.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.
Collusion is the wrong charge. That's a red herring. The charge is
TREASON. Acting as an agent for an enemy power.
Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.
You HOPE the charge is Collusion, because you KNOW that's the wrong
charge. How about J-walking?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-07-25 01:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 13:19:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Then how do you explain putting all the blacks into one district and all
the others are white?
How do you explain how Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people
and lost in the elctoral college? And you don't even care if the
electoral college is corrupt. As long as your guy wins. If Obama wins
you say the electoral college is rigged. You don't care about the Truth,
only which side wins.
You aren't even aware of the court cases.
Or Maybe that's why you wanted ONLY Trump to pick the next Supreme Court
Justice.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
So far, because he KNOWS he can't get them into court. But he can and
will get Americans into court. And they will flip on Trump. Bye Bye.
He thought The Don meant the Mafia Don.
Post by bigdog
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
AGain, no collusion, no collusion. Wrong charge. They committed Treason.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
Those who claim that the charge is collusion are wrong.
The charge is TREASON.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
proof of collusion are also wrong.
Proof of Life for you is also wrong.
Post by bigdog
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
Except indictments and guilty pleas. But none of them were for collusion.
What is the code number for collusion?
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
You mean the way Comey fanned the flames to help Trump get elected?
mainframetech
2018-07-27 00:52:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them. And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.

If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.

And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump. Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-28 03:56:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.
You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.
Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.
Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.
Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.
Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?
Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.
You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.
Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.
Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c

http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.
So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.
The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-29 18:19:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.
You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.
The Collusion would be BEFORE he was President. To help him get elected.
Putin admitted it. Game over.
Da.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.
Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.
Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.
Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?
Not time yet. You need to work your way up slowly. They got Cohen to flip.
But could they get Junior to flip against his own father? I doubt it. Can
he inherit his father's fortune while he's in jail? Not sure. Neither is
he.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.
You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.
Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.
Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
Was she a paid lobbyist? No. People can use their own money, such as
celebrities.
Post by bigdog
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Ever hear of Obamacare?
Post by bigdog
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
Is that why you opposed it?
Post by bigdog
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.
So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.
The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
Not just collusion. Whatever crimes they uncovered.
LIke Treason.
Post by bigdog
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.
mainframetech
2018-08-04 02:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.
You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.
Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.
Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.
The evidence is already there in the public domain. I've listed it
out for you a few times already. Funny how you forget these things.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.
Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?
He will bring it altogether when it's time. Other investigations of
the president and administrations have taken longer. The nervousness of
Trump and his lawyers are what is pushing you and others to pretend there
are no crimes evident. Anything to get the Mueller probe cancelled.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.
You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.
Sorry, wrong again. There was suit against Trump for violating the
emoluments clause from the constitution, and it had to go before a judge
to be approved to go forth t a regular trial. It has now been approved
and Trump is going to trial for that violation. We'll see if the nepotism
lawsuits succeed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.
Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.
So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.
Well, in this situation assumptions aren't baseless. After all, we're
dealing with a large scale scam artist. Remember the Trump University?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.
The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.
Part of his orders were to follow up on any and all crimes encountered
during the probe. That's what has happened. Soon Manafort will be found
guilty and we'll be off and running.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-05 03:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.
You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.
Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.
Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.
The evidence is already there in the public domain. I've listed it
out for you a few times already. Funny how you forget these things.
That's strange. After telling us the evidence for collusion was being held
until the end, you are now telling us it is in the public domain. Did that
happen in between these two posts by you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.
Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?
He will bring it altogether when it's time. Other investigations of
the president and administrations have taken longer. The nervousness of
Trump and his lawyers are what is pushing you and others to pretend there
are no crimes evident. Anything to get the Mueller probe cancelled.
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either. So far
Mueller has indicted a whole bunch or Russians for tampering with our
election which does not indicate collusion with the Trump campaign and
some associates of Trump for crimes that had nothing to do with the
campaign. They are alleged to have occurred either well before Trump
became a candidate or after the election was over. Neither are evidence of
collusion during the campaign.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.
You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.
Sorry, wrong again. There was suit against Trump for violating the
emoluments clause from the constitution, and it had to go before a judge
to be approved to go forth t a regular trial. It has now been approved
and Trump is going to trial for that violation. We'll see if the nepotism
lawsuits succeed.
You seem to not know the difference between an allegation and evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.
Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.
So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.
Well, in this situation assumptions aren't baseless.
If they weren't baseless, they wouldn't be assumptions.
Post by mainframetech
After all, we're
dealing with a large scale scam artist. Remember the Trump University?
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.
The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.
Part of his orders were to follow up on any and all crimes encountered
during the probe. That's what has happened. Soon Manafort will be found
guilty and we'll be off and running.
So he was authorized to conduct a witch hunt.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-06 03:28:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.
Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.

Yet, there were some very good reasons for one to believe that Oswald DID
shoot the president prior to the Warren Commission submitting its final
conclusion. It was worth investigating his possible complicity. Not too
many Americans thought that the Warren Commission was barking up the wrong
tree with its laser focus on Oswald. What remained to be seen was whether
he was part of a conspiracy. The notion that Oswald was completely
innocent and never fired a shot was something that was fringe thinking
back then as much as it is today. Even among those who believe there was a
conspiracy, this is a fringe belief - although, in this particular forum,
that isn't very obvious. But this forum is not representative of the
general conspiracy-believing population. Most people are far more casual
conspiracy-believers, not really understanding any of the details and,
therefore, adopt the pop culture believe that there WAS a conspiracy in
the Kennedy assassination.

There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.

Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue. And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty; even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."

Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty - but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.

All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-08-06 03:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.
Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.
But the WC finished up far sooner than Mueller.

And if Congressional committees (which leak like a sieve) had also
been investigating, an conclusion would have been justified.
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.
Actually, it has been, with the absence at this remove of any evidence
of such.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue.
Was Clay Shaw defensive when accused by Garrison?

Were people accused by Joe McCarthy "defensive?"
Post by d***@gmail.com
And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty;
Do you suppose targets of the Inquisition "looked guilty" to the
inquisitors?
Post by d***@gmail.com
even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."
Gowdy is wrong. The purpose of the "investigation" at this point is
merely to harass Trump, and to try to delegitimize his investigation.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty -
That is simply our anti-Trump bias speaking.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?
I think, deep down, you know there was no collusion.

But you like to talk about it, because you hate Trump.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:43:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.
Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.
But the WC finished up far sooner than Mueller.
But the difference is that the WC was dsigned as a cover-up and did not
look for all the evidence. Mueller has found billions of bits of
evidence and many conspirators.
Post by John McAdams
And if Congressional committees (which leak like a sieve) had also
been investigating, an conclusion would have been justified.
Like which commiitee? No committee is going to investigate Trump.
They're still investigating Hillary.
And PIzzagate. Have you met Q yet? Cute haircut.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.
Actually, it has been, with the absence at this remove of any evidence
of such.
What is the logic of that? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue.
Those words are too long and fancy. Just say Treason.
Post by John McAdams
Was Clay Shaw defensive when accused by Garrison?
He was a little bit peeved.
Post by John McAdams
Were people accused by Joe McCarthy "defensive?"
How could they be when they were not given a chance to defend themselves?
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty;
Do you suppose targets of the Inquisition "looked guilty" to the
inquisitors?
So you think that the FBI is the Inquisition. Not when they are going
after your enemies, only when they are going after your friends.
Situational ethice. Is that what you taught?
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you???ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."
Gowdy is wrong. The purpose of the "investigation" at this point is
merely to harass Trump, and to try to delegitimize his investigation.
No, silly. First you go after the little fish and then they turn against
the big fish. Exactly as I predicted.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty -
That is simply our anti-Trump bias speaking.
A lot of legal acholars. It is a principle of law.
Consciousness of guilt.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?
I think, deep down, you know there was no collusion.
Say what? Are you so poor now that you don't even have a TV? Trump
admitted the collusion, but says it's not a crime.
Post by John McAdams
But you like to talk about it, because you hate Trump.
Most people do. How could he lose the popular vote to Hillary otherwise?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.
Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.
Just as I said before, you guys are always for a cover-up, any cover-up.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, there were some very good reasons for one to believe that Oswald DID
shoot the president prior to the Warren Commission submitting its final
conclusion. It was worth investigating his possible complicity. Not too
Well, DUH. he was arrested and charged. But Hoover prevented them from
mentioning the conspiracy charge.
Post by d***@gmail.com
many Americans thought that the Warren Commission was barking up the wrong
tree with its laser focus on Oswald. What remained to be seen was whether
The vast majority always thought it was a conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
he was part of a conspiracy. The notion that Oswald was completely
innocent and never fired a shot was something that was fringe thinking
You don't seem to understand conspiracy. You can have a conspiracy even
if Oswald is the only shooter.
You don't need no damn stinkin 20 shooters in all the trees.
Post by d***@gmail.com
back then as much as it is today. Even among those who believe there was a
conspiracy, this is a fringe belief - although, in this particular forum,
that isn't very obvious. But this forum is not representative of the
general conspiracy-believing population. Most people are far more casual
conspiracy-believers, not really understanding any of the details and,
therefore, adopt the pop culture believe that there WAS a conspiracy in
the Kennedy assassination.
Because you've scared away all the other conspiracy believers.
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
How did we jump to Trump? That doesn't have to be a conspiracy. He could
have committed all those crimes all by himself.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
I don't use all those long fancy words. Treason is much shorter.
Post by d***@gmail.com
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
You aren't trying hard enough. Didn't you get the memo?
You are supposed to say all those things about Hillary.
Or Obama, or Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington. Anybody but your
hero Trump.
Post by d***@gmail.com
defensive on this issue. And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty; even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
Everytime Trump says anything he incriminates himself.
Lying about everything shows what they call in legal terms a
consciousness of guilt. Why lie if you are innocent?
But Presidents lie all the time and sometimes it is for our own good.
JFK did not hold a public press conference and admit that he was taking
out the nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey in a deal for the Soviets
to take their missiles out of Cuba. But his secret negotiations found a
peaceful solution to avoid WWIII. Why can't you Trump supports try the
same trick and claim that Trump was only secretly negotiating with Putin
to prevent WWIII? Make him the hero instead of the criminal,
Do I have to do ALL the work for you lazy bums?
Post by d***@gmail.com
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty - but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-08-09 02:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.
Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.
Yet, there were some very good reasons for one to believe that Oswald DID
shoot the president prior to the Warren Commission submitting its final
conclusion. It was worth investigating his possible complicity. Not too
many Americans thought that the Warren Commission was barking up the wrong
tree with its laser focus on Oswald. What remained to be seen was whether
he was part of a conspiracy. The notion that Oswald was completely
innocent and never fired a shot was something that was fringe thinking
back then as much as it is today. Even among those who believe there was a
conspiracy, this is a fringe belief - although, in this particular forum,
that isn't very obvious. But this forum is not representative of the
general conspiracy-believing population. Most people are far more casual
conspiracy-believers, not really understanding any of the details and,
therefore, adopt the pop culture believe that there WAS a conspiracy in
the Kennedy assassination.
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue. And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty; even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."
So far, both rounds of indictments of Russian nationals has stated that
there is no evidence that any American knowingly colluded with them. The
first round of indictments indicated that there were some Americans who
were duped not realizing the people they were working with were Russian
operatives.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty
Saddam Hussein acted like he had weapons of mass destruction when he
refused to let UN inspectors go where they wanted yet we found out later
he didn't.
Post by d***@gmail.com
- but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not going to assume anyone is guilty of
anything without seeing evidence. I have seen no evidence that anybody in
the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to commit criminal acts to
influence our elections. The few Trump operatives who have been indicted
have been crimes which had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016
campaign.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Thank you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?
What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.
You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.
Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.
Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.
The evidence is already there in the public domain. I've listed it
out for you a few times already. Funny how you forget these things.
That's strange. After telling us the evidence for collusion was being held
until the end, you are now telling us it is in the public domain. Did that
happen in between these two posts by you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.
Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?
He will bring it altogether when it's time. Other investigations of
the president and administrations have taken longer. The nervousness of
Trump and his lawyers are what is pushing you and others to pretend there
are no crimes evident. Anything to get the Mueller probe cancelled.
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either. So far
Mueller has indicted a whole bunch or Russians for tampering with our
election which does not indicate collusion with the Trump campaign and
some associates of Trump for crimes that had nothing to do with the
campaign. They are alleged to have occurred either well before Trump
became a candidate or after the election was over. Neither are evidence of
collusion during the campaign.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.
You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.
Sorry, wrong again. There was suit against Trump for violating the
emoluments clause from the constitution, and it had to go before a judge
to be approved to go forth t a regular trial. It has now been approved
and Trump is going to trial for that violation. We'll see if the nepotism
lawsuits succeed.
You seem to not know the difference between an allegation and evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.
Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.
There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.
So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.
Well, in this situation assumptions aren't baseless.
If they weren't baseless, they wouldn't be assumptions.
Post by mainframetech
After all, we're
dealing with a large scale scam artist. Remember the Trump University?
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.
His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.
The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.
Part of his orders were to follow up on any and all crimes encountered
during the probe. That's what has happened. Soon Manafort will be found
guilty and we'll be off and running.
So he was authorized to conduct a witch hunt.
Give it up. Trump has already admitted the collusion, but he says
collusion isn't a crime. So did his Fox Lawyer Rudi:

Trump repeatedly denied collusion. Now his lawyer Rudy Giuliani says:
'Collusion is not a crime'

President Donald Trump's attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, asserted
Monday that "collusion is not a crime."
"I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to
find collusion as a crime," Giuliani said in an interview on "Fox &
Friends." "Collusion is not a crime."
The president has repeatedly asserted that there was "no collusion"
between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. As recently as Sunday, the president took to Twitter to repeat
the claim.

Tucker Higgins | @tuckerhiggins
Published 9:40 AM ET Mon, 30 July 2018 Updated 2:36 PM ET Mon, 30 July 2018

s

The Washington Post
Democracy Dies in Darkness

Accessibility for screenreader

PostEverything Perspective
Trump says collusion isn’t a crime. He’s right. It’s actually many crimes.

President Trump smiles during a campaign rally Tuesday in Tampa. (AP
Photo/Evan Vucci)
by Barry Berke, Norman Eisen and Dani James August 1 Follow @NormEisen
About the authors

President Trump’s defender-in-chief, Rudolph W. Giuliani, departed from
his client’s usual mantra of “no collusion” on Monday by arguing that
even if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, that is not a crime. On
Tuesday, Trump repeated on Twitter that “collusion is not a crime.”
While he and Giuliani are technically correct, that’s only because
collusion is a rubric that in fact encompasses many crimes. As criminal
law experts with a collective century of experience prosecuting and
defending criminal charges, we believe the sudden pivot to this baseless
legal defense signals concern among Trump and his attorneys about
emerging evidence that will show collusion.

That term has come to be shorthand for the possibility that the Trump
campaign, its advisers or the president himself coordinated with Russia,
a hostile foreign power, to help Trump win the election. The argument
that such coordination would be lawful is striking, including the fact
that it follows 191 charges against 35 individuals and companies brought
by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which have yielded five guilty
pleas. Taken together, that work spells out the many crimes Russia
committed to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

That conduct was deeply illegal, and it logically follows that if the
president or his campaign team actually worked with the Russians in
connection with their efforts, they, too, could be liable. That is not
only common sense: It is also the law, with a raft of specific
“collusion” crimes implicated.

Many fall under the rubric of conspiracy: an agreement to further
illegal action. The core federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371,
would be triggered here if there were any agreement by Trump or those
around him with Russian agents to do something that the law forbids. For
example, if in or around the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the
Russians and a Trump representative tacitly or explicitly agreed about
the release or use of illegally obtained information, that could
plausibly support a conspiracy charge. Indeed, there is already some
evidence of just that, including Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous email that
“if it’s what you say I love it.”

[To lawyers like us, Michael Cohen looks like he’s ready to flip on Trump]

To take another example of a “collusion” crime, the special counsel’s
February and July 2018 indictments against alleged Russian hackers
charged them with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Their
cyber-misconduct defrauded the government by interfering with federal
elections. If Trump campaign operatives were a part of that — say, by
coordinating the release of hacked DNC emails with Russian operatives or
planning speeches or other campaign events around those releases — then
the campaign, too, could plausibly be a part of the conspiracy to
defraud the United States.

Again, there is already enough evidence to warrant searching review,
such as the fact that within hours of the Russian offer of dirt, Trump
announced a major speech promising revelations about his opponent (a
speech that he would promise again the following week but never actually
deliver). Such campaign encouragement of, or involvement in, illegal
Russian activity would not just implicate conspiracy law. The Russian
conduct appears to have violated federal anti-hacking statutes, such as
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act. The Wiretap Act is
especially relevant because we know that the Russians infected the DNC
servers with malware that transmitted emails to the Russians’ main
server in real time. They were literally intercepting communications,
one of the precise activities the act criminalizes.

Even if members of the campaign didn’t encourage or direct that hack,
they could still be subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting — in
lay terms, helping — a violation of those statutes. Aiding and abetting
liability could become a factor if, for example, campaign operatives
took a step to make sure the Russians used the hacked materials in the
best possible way. (Indeed, campaign aides could even have directly
violated the Wiretap Act if they themselves used the contents of any
illegally intercepted communication, if they knew or had reason to know
the communication was intercepted illegally.)

Nor do the varieties of possible criminal “collusion” with Russia end
there. If the president knowingly accepted something of value from the
Russians, such as harmful information about his opponent, that could be
an illegal contribution by foreign nationals. That is an election law
crime. If he accepted that information in exchange for the promise of
some action (like taking a more accommodating posture toward the Russian
invasion of Ukraine) that he or his administration would take if his
campaign proved successful, that could constitute an illegal quid pro
quo — that is, bribery.

What if the Russians only informed the campaign about their plans to
disseminate stolen emails and the campaign did something that interfered
with the crime being uncovered? That could constitute the crime of
misprision of a felony — essentially of hiding crimes. And if any money
transfers were involved to further the collusion — like if the Russians
wired money to the National Rifle Association to avoid FEC scrutiny —
that could violate the money laundering statute. Both would be forms of
illegally working with the Russians. In a word: “collusion.”

[Trump’s lawyers say he’s above the law. They clearly don’t understand it.]

This list merely scratches the surface of the criminal collusion that
may be under investigation. In addition, there is of course the coverup
of the collusion, which implicates an entirely different set of crimes.
Michael T. Flynn and George Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to the
crime of making false statements in connection with their dealings with
Russia. If recent reports that the president knew about the Trump Tower
meeting are true, then Trump Jr. could face similar charges based on his
congressional testimony to the contrary.

Those reports are of course based upon Michael Cohen’s alleged
willingness to testify about what Trump knew of the meeting with the
Russians and when he knew it. It could well be that there is other
corroborating evidence that Cohen has or the special counsel has gotten
from other sources. There is also the corroboration offered by common
sense: Given everything we know about the paterfamilias, it seems
unlikely that no one would have told him about a meeting that was
important enough to draw the entire senior leadership of the campaign.

As seasoned criminal law practitioners, we recognize when the tactic of
arguing that facts do not constitute a crime is used. That typically
happens only after it becomes clear that the prosecution will be able to
prove the conduct at issue occurred. That makes it particularly
interesting that the president and his lawyer are now reaching for the
“collusion is not a crime” defense, after the reports that Cohen will
say Trump knew of the Trump Tower meeting.

At any rate, there can be no question of the legitimate law enforcement
interest in investigating the many “collusion” crimes that may have been
committed. The American people have a fundamental right to know if the
president of the United States worked with Russia to win the election
and undermine American democracy. The president and his lawyers’ embrace
of the extraordinary defense that such collusion would be entirely
lawful raises an obvious question: Why are they so busy defending
collusion if there was none?




And remember, "When the President does it, that makes it legal."
- Richard Milhouse Nixon
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 12:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
Always stay in Denial. It's a lot safer there and the fishing is better.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
What is that when you change the charge to make it seem less important?
OK, Trump did not steal the WH cutlery. Are you happy now?
The charge is Treason.
Post by d***@gmail.com
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Jason Burke
2018-07-26 02:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?
Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
Always stay in Denial. It's a lot safer there and the fishing is better.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
What is that when you change the charge to make it seem less important?
OK, Trump did not steal the WH cutlery. Are you happy now?
The charge is Treason.
Post by d***@gmail.com
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-07-27 00:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?
Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Jason Burke
2018-07-27 21:08:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?
Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Dead on b*lls accurate...
But I'm sure Anthony Anthony will have some nonsensical reply.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-28 12:27:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.
Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?
Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.
Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.
Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
For good reason.
Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to overwhelmed
by the larger states.
Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.
Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.
Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Silly.
claviger
2018-07-29 22:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.
Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.
Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
For good reason.
Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept was a
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising the
few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than Mob
Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog Law of
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to overwhelmed
by the larger states.
Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.
In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.
Then what are you complaining about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Silly.
So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-31 20:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.
Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?
Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.

Just stop your false equivalency.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.
Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.
Some more corrupt than others.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
For good reason.
Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept was a
Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.
Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising the
few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress
I sympathize with their fears.
Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than Mob
Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog Law of
That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.
Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to overwhelmed
by the larger states.
Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.
What concept? Where the people elected their king?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.
In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.
In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.
Then what are you complaining about?
Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Silly.
So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.
Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.
claviger
2018-08-02 02:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.
Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?
Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.
Bipolar? Split personality?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.
What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.
Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.
Some more corrupt than others.
The previous president being a glaring example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
For good reason.
Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa
Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.
The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress
I sympathize with their fears.
Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog
That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.
Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.
Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.
What concept?
No representation in Parliament.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?
That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.
In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.
In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.
Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.
The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.
Then what are you complaining about?
Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.
None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Silly.
So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.
Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.
I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-03 02:47:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.
Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?
Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.
Bipolar? Split personality?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.
What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.
Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.
Some more corrupt than others.
The previous president being a glaring example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
For good reason.
Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa
Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.
The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.
You mean The Terror?
Post by claviger
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.
Ah, maybe they had no other mechanism. How often can people just elect a
King or a Dictator out of power?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress
I sympathize with their fears.
Yes, Democracy is chaoatic. A dictatorship is so much neater.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog
That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.
Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.
Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.
What concept?
No representation in Parliament.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?
That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like
Silly. Modern Liberals do not want a king.
Talk about an Imperial President and Nixon and Trump come to mind.
Post by claviger
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.
Nothing wrong with two-term limits.
Trump is not a CITIZEN President. He's an oligarch.
Conservatives hate Trump and they leave the Republican Party.
He thinks average people have to show their driver's licenses to buy
groceries. Al Gore didn't even know the price of bread.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.
In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.
In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.
Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?
No, I am talking to all Trump supporters. You can't even face facts.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.
The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.
Compromise yes. Necessary yes. Brilliant no.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.
Then what are you complaining about?
Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.
None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.
Watch the court cases.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Silly.
So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.
Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.
I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they
I didn't say that *I* would move to Russia. I said YOU should move to
Russia. You would fit in perfectly.
Post by claviger
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.
Socialism is dead.
Mark
2018-08-04 02:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.
Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?
Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.
Bipolar? Split personality?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.
What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.
Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.
Some more corrupt than others.
The previous president being a glaring example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
For good reason.
Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa
Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.
The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.
You mean The Terror?
Post by claviger
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.
Ah, maybe they had no other mechanism. How often can people just elect a
King or a Dictator out of power?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress
I sympathize with their fears.
Yes, Democracy is chaoatic. A dictatorship is so much neater.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog
That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.
Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.
Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.
What concept?
No representation in Parliament.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?
That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like
Silly. Modern Liberals do not want a king.
Talk about an Imperial President and Nixon and Trump come to mind.
Post by claviger
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.
Nothing wrong with two-term limits.
Trump is not a CITIZEN President. He's an oligarch.
Conservatives hate Trump and they leave the Republican Party.
He thinks average people have to show their driver's licenses to buy
groceries. Al Gore didn't even know the price of bread.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.
In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.
In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.
Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?
No, I am talking to all Trump supporters. You can't even face facts.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.
The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.
Compromise yes. Necessary yes. Brilliant no.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.
Then what are you complaining about?
Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.
None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.
Watch the court cases.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Silly.
So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.
Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.
I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they
I didn't say that *I* would move to Russia. I said YOU should move to
Russia. You would fit in perfectly.
Post by claviger
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.
Socialism is dead.
You say what, Tony? Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 03:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.
Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?
Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.
Bipolar? Split personality?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.
What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.
Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.
Some more corrupt than others.
The previous president being a glaring example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
For good reason.
Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa
Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.
The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.
You mean The Terror?
Post by claviger
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.
Ah, maybe they had no other mechanism. How often can people just elect a
King or a Dictator out of power?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress
I sympathize with their fears.
Yes, Democracy is chaoatic. A dictatorship is so much neater.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog
That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.
Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.
Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.
What concept?
No representation in Parliament.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?
That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like
Silly. Modern Liberals do not want a king.
Talk about an Imperial President and Nixon and Trump come to mind.
Post by claviger
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.
Nothing wrong with two-term limits.
Trump is not a CITIZEN President. He's an oligarch.
Conservatives hate Trump and they leave the Republican Party.
He thinks average people have to show their driver's licenses to buy
groceries. Al Gore didn't even know the price of bread.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.
In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.
In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.
Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?
No, I am talking to all Trump supporters. You can't even face facts.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.
The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.
Compromise yes. Necessary yes. Brilliant no.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.
Then what are you complaining about?
Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.
None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.
Watch the court cases.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.
Silly.
So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.
Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.
I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they
I didn't say that *I* would move to Russia. I said YOU should move to
Russia. You would fit in perfectly.
Post by claviger
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.
Socialism is dead.
You say what, Tony? Mark
D-E-A-D dead.
John McAdams
2018-08-06 03:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
But you have no evidence of that. Mueller has indicted all sorts of
people, but none for collusion between Trump and Russia.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
It's not "responsible" to want an "investigation" continued merely for
the purpose of harassing Trump and trying to undermine his presidency.

That is an abuse of the process.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
But you have no evidence of that. Mueller has indicted all sorts of
people, but none for collusion between Trump and Russia.
Silly. He can't indict anyone for collusion. That is not a crime. That
is not what Trump is accused of. That's what he admitted to because he
says it is not a crime. The crime is TREASON.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
It's not "responsible" to want an "investigation" continued merely for
the purpose of harassing Trump and trying to undermine his presidency.
So you say that it was not responsible to investigate Watergate because
Nixon was involved. Nice logic there.
Trump has already confessed.
At least Nixon was decent enough to resign.
Trump wants to take down the whole country with him.
Post by John McAdams
That is an abuse of the process.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-08-09 02:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
But you have no evidence of that. Mueller has indicted all sorts of
people, but none for collusion between Trump and Russia.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
It's not "responsible" to want an "investigation" continued merely for
the purpose of harassing Trump and trying to undermine his presidency.
That is an abuse of the process.
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 14:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Well, there's your answer. Anyone who opposes Fascism. Must hate Trump.
Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
OK, you can force Trump out, but then Pence takes over.
Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-03 02:45:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
So you're against resisting Fascism?
Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some
fun.
Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.
Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Jason Burke
2018-08-04 03:58:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
So you're against resisting Fascism?
Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.
Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.
Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.
bigdog
2018-08-05 03:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
So you're against resisting Fascism?
Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.
Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.
Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.
Damn founding fathers invented the electoral college just so they could
jam Trump up our noses. The electoral process didn't work in 2016 because
it didn't yield the outcome Marsh desired.
Jason Burke
2018-08-06 03:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
So you're against resisting Fascism?
Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.
Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.
Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.
Damn founding fathers invented the electoral college just so they could
jam Trump up our noses. The electoral process didn't work in 2016 because
it didn't yield the outcome Marsh desired.
I'm just wondering how long Anthony Anthony can hold his breath while
jumping up and down and complaining.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
So you're against resisting Fascism?
Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.
Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.
Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.
Damn founding fathers invented the electoral college just so they could
jam Trump up our noses. The electoral process didn't work in 2016 because
it didn't yield the outcome Marsh desired.
I wanted Bernie. Hillary was the lesser of the 2 evils.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 03:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
So you're against resisting Fascism?
Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.
Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work,
as the 2016 election proved.
Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/
Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.
It SOUNDED like a good idea at the time. So did Socialism.
Loading...