President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
I take it you are unfamiliar with Russel's Teapot? Is that why you snipped it as an "absurdity"?
Click to expand...

I repeat, get real. Your, 'can't be proved teapot' has zero to do with this situation where there is direct evidence Trump may have had illegal access to confidential DNC campaign information.

Yeah, Nixon got caught in the cover-up and Al Capone (as long as you are using out there analogies) got caught cheating on taxes. Both were in all likelihood involved in other crimes. BTW, you do know Watergate was about trying to get inside information to use to cheat in Nixon's reelection, right?

Riddle me this: If Trump's campaign received confidential information from the hacked Podesta and DNC emails, from Russian operatives like the Russian Ambassador, information that wasn't published on Wikileaks, information that they used to their advantage in campaigning, AND, that was proved true by the FBI who is investigating it, would you just brush that kind of election cheating off as unprovable?
 
Emily's Cat said:
That's not what I'm saying.

The argument keeps being made that she won by almost 3 million votes in aggregate. Skeptic Ginger added to that by implying that Trump only won a couple of states. But the margin in CA was higher than the overall margin by which Trump won.

Effectively, if you exclude CA from the tallies, then Trump would have won both the popular and the electoral vote by a reasonable margin. CA alone, all by itself, is responsible for the margin by which Clinton won. Clinton didn't have a widespread popular margin - she had extremely narrow margins in the states she won except for CA. Her margin was so narrow that not even the margin in CA could counteract it.

Mathematically, acting as if it's some massive travesty that Trump won, on the basis of the popular vote, is effectively saying that in this specific case, CA should have been the only one voting for president.

And again, I don't believe that CA is representative of the US as a whole.
Click to expand...
IOW you completely ignored the fact your cherry picking results in meaningless logic and you still think you have an argument here.

:crazy:
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Hit my Facebook feed today, and seems apropos:

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/576/31976778790_d48d198d9f_z.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

It ignores the fact they voted for a con artist. If, when they see they were totally snookered, and they admit they thought they were voting for the magical Trump, my respect for those people will return.

BTW, I don't have a single friend that voted for Trump. Some acquaintances at work maybe, but not anyone I hang out with.
 
Emily's Cat said:
When I say representative, I mean statistically representative without bias. No single state would qualify as being representative on its own. In this case, we know that California as a whole has a significant political skew within very dense urban areas (much as Seattle dominates Washington), but that the beliefs, views, and policies of the residents of those dense urban regions don't reflect the aggregate view of the state as a whole. Similarly, we know that California doesn't accurately reflect the viewpoint of pretty much the rest of the country. Representative in this context would then mean that it represents the aggregate viewpoint of the whole nation.

Given that the margin by which Clinton won the popular vote is less than the margin by which she won California, it's clear that CA is a bit of an outlier in this distribution.

More than anything, it's a reflection of regional biases within any social analysis. It's a good learning moment for sampling and for the kinds of things that need to be considered when you're trying to nail 3.8 million square miles down to one single view.
Click to expand...
With due respect, I don't buy this argument. She had a large lead in California, but so what? California may be an outlier, but this suggestion that get lead overall therefore doesn't amount to much seems spurious to me.

If you want to say it wasn't a popular vote, and want run as one, then fine. Had things been different, the campaigns would have been different.

But the focus on California seems misguided to me.
 
Watch this lie become truth: US intelligence source leaked the 35 page dossier on Trump. Hear all the Trump operatives repeat it. Hear Trump complain about the 'leak'. Watch the news media stop correcting them. Watch the lie become truth.


Here is the actual truth, in detail from the NYT: What We Know and Don’t Know About the Trump-Russia Dossier
■ Fusion GPS and Mr. Steele shared the memos first with their clients, and later with the F.B.I. and multiple journalists at The New York Times and elsewhere.

The memos, totaling about 35 pages, also reached a number of members of Congress.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the NYT can reliably say who gave them access to the 35 pages.

The only part of the report that was complied by US Intelligence was the two page summary and that to my knowledge remains confidential.


BTW, this is in the 35 pages:
They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
Click to expand...
That is the thing the FBI is investigating. If you see Trump fire Comey, you can bet the investigation into Trump is why.
 
Last edited:
Trump is jacking up big time on NATO. It's as if he has no knowledge of history and no memory.

NATO has invoked Article 5 (the use of force) only once in it's entire existence. That was in defense of the US after 9-11, when NATO forces joined the US in it's fight against terrorists in Afghanistan.

Today, Russia wasted no time in agreeing with Treasonous Trump that NATO is "obsolete", adding falsely and ridiculously that the sole purpose of NATO is "confrontation".

It now appears that some Americans, by now, have awakened to the fact that reality differs fundamentally from Trump's and Russia's disinformative assertions.

Including some of Treasonous Trump's cabinet picks, who have revealed under oath that they do not agree with many of Trump's flights of fantasy.

Including Gen. James Mattis, USMC, Trump's (apparently accidental) choice for Secretary of Defense. See the article below, in which Mattis warned of Russian attempts to "break" NATO. But he neglected to include Trump in his warning.

Perhaps Treasonous Trump blindsided Gen. Mattis when he came marching in lockstep with Russia against NATO.

Does Trump even want to be president of the US? It looks more like he's auditioning for president of Russia. That could work out for him. Russians consider him The Second Most Interesting Man In The World.

But I doubt this US president gig is going to work out for Treasonous Trump. At the rate he's jacking up, he'll get impeached, if not hung for high treason.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.54d82e81c960
 
phiwum said:
...
But the focus on California seems misguided to me.
Click to expand...
It's a Trump camp propaganda talking point trying to diminish the size of Clinton's popular vote margin. If you repeat often enough, Clinton's winning 3 million votes all came from those other people over there in California, you diminish the significance. And of course some people suck that propaganda right up and repeat it.

The first attempt to dismiss Clinton's very large popular vote win was with the claim it came from 3 million illegal alien voters. That fizzled, there was no evidence, the news media ignored it as false, and the meme failed to take hold.

Perhaps between Kellyann Conway and Steve Bannon they brainstormed the 'CA voters don't count' meme. Bet you'll see it elsewhere on social media. Emily's Cat could tell us where she(he) first heard the CA voters don't count meme. How about it Kitty?
 
Emily's Cat said:
I would be inclined to say "influence" rather than "interference". Interference implies a direct action, and Russia didn't directly tamper with the election. They released information that influenced the decisions made by voters... but they didn't actually mess with the vote itself. It's a minor distinction, I know, but I think it's an important one.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Messing with the mechanics of the process would be interference. It's hard to draw a line between the influence of Russia in this case and, say, the influence of a media magnate such as Murdoch.

People are, in general, easily influenced. If history tells us anything, it's that.
 
Toontown said:
Trump is jacking up big time on NATO. It's as if he has no knowledge of history and no memory.

NATO has invoked Article 5 (the use of force) only once in it's entire existence. That was in defense of the US after 9-11, when NATO forces joined the US in it's fight against terrorists in Afghanistan.

Today, Russia wasted no time in agreeing with Treasonous Trump that NATO is "obsolete", adding falsely and ridiculously that the sole purpose of NATO is "confrontation".

It now appears that some Americans, by now, have awakened to the fact that reality differs fundamentally from Trump's and Russia's disinformative assertions.

Including some of Treasonous Trump's cabinet picks, who have revealed under oath that they do not agree with many of Trump's flights of fantasy.

Including Gen. James Mattis, USMC, Trump's (apparently accidental) choice for Secretary of Defense. See the article below, in which Mattis warned of Russian attempts to "break" NATO. But he neglected to include Trump in his warning.

Perhaps Treasonous Trump blindsided Gen. Mattis when he came marching in lockstep with Russia against NATO.

Does Trump even want to be president of the US? It looks more like he's auditioning for president of Russia. That could work out for him. Russians consider him The Second Most Interesting Man In The World.

But I doubt this US president gig is going to work out for Treasonous Trump. At the rate he's jacking up, he'll get impeached, if not hung for high treason.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.54d82e81c960
Click to expand...

If the Rosenbergs did nott commit treason, Trump most definitely hasn't.
 
Toontown said:
Trump is jacking up big time on NATO. It's as if he has no knowledge of history and no memory.

NATO has invoked Article 5 (the use of force) only once in it's entire existence. That was in defense of the US after 9-11, when NATO forces joined the US in it's fight against terrorists in Afghanistan.

Today, Russia wasted no time in agreeing with Treasonous Trump that NATO is "obsolete", adding falsely and ridiculously that the sole purpose of NATO is "confrontation".

It now appears that some Americans, by now, have awakened to the fact that reality differs fundamentally from Trump's and Russia's disinformative assertions.

Including some of Treasonous Trump's cabinet picks, who have revealed under oath that they do not agree with many of Trump's flights of fantasy.

Including Gen. James Mattis, USMC, Trump's (apparently accidental) choice for Secretary of Defense. See the article below, in which Mattis warned of Russian attempts to "break" NATO. But he neglected to include Trump in his warning.

Perhaps Treasonous Trump blindsided Gen. Mattis when he came marching in lockstep with Russia against NATO.

Does Trump even want to be president of the US? It looks more like he's auditioning for president of Russia. That could work out for him. Russians consider him The Second Most Interesting Man In The World.

But I doubt this US president gig is going to work out for Treasonous Trump. At the rate he's jacking up, he'll get impeached, if not hung for high treason.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.54d82e81c960
Click to expand...
Lol

Hilarious

It will be interesting to see if NATO changes their ways because of a few words from Trump?

You do realize that is the goal?

Can't Get enough of your posts!
 
Emily's Cat said:
That's not what I'm saying.

The argument keeps being made that she won by almost 3 million votes in aggregate. Skeptic Ginger added to that by implying that Trump only won a couple of states. But the margin in CA was higher than the overall margin by which Trump won.

Effectively, if you exclude CA from the tallies, then Trump would have won both the popular and the electoral vote by a reasonable margin. CA alone, all by itself, is responsible for the margin by which Clinton won. Clinton didn't have a widespread popular margin - she had extremely narrow margins in the states she won except for CA. Her margin was so narrow that not even the margin in CA could counteract it.

Mathematically, acting as if it's some massive travesty that Trump won, on the basis of the popular vote, is effectively saying that in this specific case, CA should have been the only one voting for president.

And again, I don't believe that CA is representative of the US as a whole.
Click to expand...

But, in all fairness neither is the rust belt or much of the mid-west. The coasts have the primary population and their votes should have ruled for the last hundred years at least. Down hard with the Electoral college and this kind of silliness would not need to happen. And it needs to happen. We should have always had a straight democracy - then religion would be put in it's place and the bad things attached to it would no longer be a problem.
 
CapelDodger said:
Agreed. Messing with the mechanics of the process would be interference. It's hard to draw a line between the influence of Russia in this case and, say, the influence of a media magnate such as Murdoch.

People are, in general, easily influenced. If history tells us anything, it's that.
Click to expand...

How do you know before the details of the extent of interference are out?
 
From conservative paranoia about reds under the bed and Mcarthyisim, a 180 degree turn to inviting Russians into the bed and Trumpisim
 
NoahFence said:
Did I miss an article somewhere?

I've not heard that allegation.
Click to expand...
I've been posting links for hours.

In the 35 pages:
They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
Click to expand...

Post #3388:
Denver Post: Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says.
Click to expand...
This has been confirmed. At first the Trump team denied it. Then they admitted one call to the Russian Ambassador. Now it turns out there were multiple calls to the Russian Ambassador before the election.
Click to expand...

Post #3322:
Multiple contacts between Trump staff member and the Russian Ambassador before the election.
Manafort
Tillerson
Trump's own words and actions
Click to expand...

Why is everyone stepping so gingerly around these well documented facts?

Is there enough for a conviction? Not yet.
Is there enough to quit saying there isn't any evidence? Absolutely!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom