August 17, 20214 yr Author 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Yet not quite strong enough to avoid claiming the entire election was fraudulent due to Trump's collusion with the Russians and immediately calling for impeachment proceedings. Very few, if any, claimed that Trump had won because of fraud. People weren't out there alleging that Russia literally flipped or manufactured votes. The contention was that Russian-sourced misinformation campaigns helped Trump and/or hurt Hillary. And if we're counting US intelligence while Trump was president as a reliable source, they did.
August 17, 20214 yr Just now, JohnSnowsHair said: Very few, if any, claimed that Trump had won because of fraud. People weren't out there alleging that Russia literally flipped or manufactured votes. The contention was that Russian-sourced misinformation campaigns helped Trump and/or hurt Hillary. And if we're counting US intelligence while Trump was president as a reliable source, they did. Not to mention that neither of Trump's impeachments had anything to do with Russian collusion, but why let facts get involved now.
August 17, 20214 yr Author 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Just curious...but what was the democrats faith in elections after 2016? This is the most extensive study on voter confidence I've found: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/Y38VIQ/2NJDL9&version=1.0 Relevant excerpt: Quote Similarly, studies of elections in this decade generally have found that partisanship is strongly associated with confidence. In 2004, 2006, and 2014, Democratic voters were less confident than were Republican voters, other factors being held constant. Democratic confidence rose in 2008 and 2012 while Republican confidence fell The 2016 election again reversed those trends. In contrast to 2012, when 77% of Democrats said they were very confident their vote was counted as cast, 66% did so in 2016. At the same time, the percentage of Republicans who were very confident rose from 54% in 2012 to 72% in 2016. Confidence among Independents rose, from 55% very confident in 2012 to 61% in 2016, but it lagged significantly behind partisans of both parties. This study was conducted against voters and non-voters alike following the 2016 election. So while confidence indeed went down among Democrats after 2016, 66% were still very confident their vote was counted as cast. 8 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Not to mention that neither of Trump's impeachments had anything to do with Russian collusion, but why let facts get involved now. also not to mention that various Republicans have been calling for Biden's impeachment since he was sworn in.
August 17, 20214 yr 17 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Not to mention that neither of Trump's impeachments had anything to do with Russian collusion, but why let facts get involved now. I didn't say his actual impeachment. I said they called for his impeachment over Russia collusion. I remember Maxine Waters and a few others calling for it as soon as the Russian collusion stuff came out.
August 17, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, The Norseman said: I never said it was one sided. I was responding to @Gannan comment that big business is in bed with Republican's because they manipulate the tax code. Also, the trend is shifting more and more blue over time. In 2020 Goldman Sachs gave 3M to Democrats and 1.68M to Republicans. Your data is 4 years old. I never used the term in bed. I said you cant say Republicans are no longer the party of big business when one of their only significant legislative achievements in well over a decade was to rig the tax code so that big business doesn't have to pay taxes.
August 17, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Despite the constant, 4 year long drumbeat of "Russia Collusion" at every level of the Democrat party and every major US news media outlet. Read the Mueller report. It wasn't nothing. The Justice Dept was just ham-strung by the memo about going after a sitting president. Funny that Trump tried to obstruct when there was nothing to see here.
August 17, 20214 yr 23 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Very few, if any, claimed that Trump had won because of fraud. People weren't out there alleging that Russia literally flipped or manufactured votes. The contention was that Russian-sourced misinformation campaigns helped Trump and/or hurt Hillary. And if we're counting US intelligence while Trump was president as a reliable source, they did. You are conveniently leaving out the term "collusion", yet that's all we heard for 4 years. You know well that the accusations were far more than a Russian misinformation campaign swung a few votes red. I'm leaving this debate here because I can't get into another defense of Trump argument. I don't have the energy or the desire. But to act like Democrats just graciously waltzed into the Trump presidency without a word of real protest is disingenuous at best. The fact is, both of these parties scream, lie and drum up nonsense to try to save face and galvanize their base after a loss. Trump just took it to the next level...which was detestable.
August 17, 20214 yr 14 minutes ago, Gannan said: I never used the term in bed. I said you cant say Republicans are no longer the party of big business when one of their only significant legislative achievements in well over a decade was to rig the tax code so that big business doesn't have to pay taxes. Except that I've already demonstrated that the bulk of corporate money went to Democrats in 2020. So yes, I can.
August 17, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Despite the constant, 4 year long drumbeat of "Russia Collusion" at every level of the Democrat party and every major US news media outlet. @The Norseman forgets it was Trump's justice department, and after Jeff Sessions recused himself (not Nancy Pelosi), that authorized and appointed Muller to investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. US intelligence was alarmed over "meddling" in the election. It made sense to look into it. And guess what, Mueller found quite a few instances of concern leading to indictments and prosecutions. Oh, Trump pardoned those fools later though. So yeah, there was something there. Just not Trump himself caught asking the Russians for help (but the campaign certainly welcomed any "help" that would happen to come along).
August 17, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, The Norseman said: You are conveniently leaving out the term "collusion", yet that's all we heard for 4 years. You know well that the accusations were far more than a Russian misinformation campaign swung a few votes red. I'm leaving this debate here because I can't get into another defense of Trump argument. I don't have the energy or the desire. But to act like Democrats just graciously waltzed into the Trump presidency without a word of real protest is disingenuous at best. The fact is, both of these parties scream, lie and drum up nonsense to try to save face and galvanize their base after a loss. Trump just took it to the next level...which was detestable. Why, "collusion" is not a crime in the US criminal code, it is called conspiracy. It is LINKS and COORDINATION. Who cares what the lay people say - its the justice dept and intelligence services that matter. Moreover, you are falling for the "myth"? And the democratic party didn't appoint Mueller: Myth: Mueller found "no collusion.” Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that "a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that "a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents. While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the "investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
August 17, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Except that I've already demonstrated that the bulk of corporate money went to Democrats in 2020. So yes, I can. So actual policy and its effects mean nothing to you. How do you say you're a Trump voter without telling me you're a Trump voter ?
August 17, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, The Norseman said: I didn't say his actual impeachment. I said they called for his impeachment over Russia collusion. I remember Maxine Waters and a few others calling for it as soon as the Russian collusion stuff came out. Who did? Who is "they" other than Maxine waters? People wanted it investigated, including US intelligence services who were shocked by what they saw the Russians doing.
August 17, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, Gannan said: So actually policy and its effects mean nothing to you. How do you say you're a Trump voter without telling me you're a Trump voter ? I'm saying that despite their best efforts Republican's strategy of favoring big business has backfired on them and it's time for messaging change.
August 17, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: Despite the constant, 4 year long drumbeat of "Russia Collusion" at every level of the Democrat party and every major US news media outlet. Wrong! Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of "Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish "willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a "thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.
August 17, 20214 yr Author 5 minutes ago, The Norseman said: But to act like Democrats just graciously waltzed into the Trump presidency without a word of real protest is disingenuous at best. That is a strawman. NOBODY has said that people didn't voice protest (as is their right) about Trump being president. That doesn't they believed he stole the election. Most did not. Some lunatics did, but both parties have lunatics. The issue is that the influence the lunatics have. 66% of Democratic voters following the 2016 election were still very confident that their votes counted. I can assure you that the number among Republicans in 2020 is much lower. Because... lunacy.
August 17, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, The Norseman said: You are conveniently leaving out the term "collusion", yet that's all we heard for 4 years. You know well that the accusations were far more than a Russian misinformation campaign swung a few votes red. I'm leaving this debate here because I can't get into another defense of Trump argument. I don't have the energy or the desire. But to act like Democrats just graciously waltzed into the Trump presidency without a word of real protest is disingenuous at best. The fact is, both of these parties scream, lie and drum up nonsense to try to save face and galvanize their base after a loss. Trump just took it to the next level...which was detestable. And those accusations weren't proved wrong - just not enough to convict: Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of "Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish "willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a "thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.
August 17, 20214 yr It's true Mueller found no "collusion" because he avoided using the term in his report. But what he found out sounds a lot like there was collusion. LINK
August 17, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, toolg said: It's true Mueller found no "collusion" because he avoided using the term in his report. But what he found out sounds a lot like there was collusion. LINK Yup, I already posted this above: Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of "Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish "willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a "thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.
August 17, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: That is a strawman. NOBODY has said that people didn't voice protest (as is their right) about Trump being president. That doesn't they believed he stole the election. Most did not. Some lunatics did, but both parties have lunatics. The issue is that the influence the lunatics have. 66% of Democratic voters following the 2016 election were still very confident that their votes counted. I can assure you that the number among Republicans in 2020 is much lower. Because... lunacy. What are you talking about? The narrative on the news every single night was "Trump colluded with Russia to swing favor the election" for 4 straight years. For god's sake @caesar has just posted 50 sad little posts that show that he still believes it...and it wasn't so long ago that the rest of you were right there with him. You can rail on Trump and the Republican's all day if you like about the post 2020 election mess. We deserve it. But to downplay this widespread collusion nonsense now is just selective memory.
August 17, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: That is a strawman. NOBODY has said that people didn't voice protest (as is their right) about Trump being president. That doesn't they believed he stole the election. Most did not. Some lunatics did, but both parties have lunatics. The issue is that the influence the lunatics have. 66% of Democratic voters following the 2016 election were still very confident that their votes counted. I can assure you that the number among Republicans in 2020 is much lower. Because... lunacy. Norse is trying to be like -- oh man, be cool, be rational, leave emotions out. It's all the same. However, he's full of crapola. y Hillary conceded the next day. No one in the mainstream of the dem party was saying Hillary really won in the sense the election was fraudulent; and we should go to court and file lawsuits and stop the electoral college process. Please Norse. You are not even and cool-headed - you are absurd. It's just your boy Trump thought it made him look bad to admit Russia wanted him to win and used disinformation and social media to assist. That doesn't make the vote count wrong. And dems didn't whine and say the vote count was wrong in the close states. Or did we forget all the lawsuits the Clinton campaign filed?
August 17, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, caesar said: Norse is trying to be like -- oh man, be cool, be rational, leave emotions out. It's all the same. However, he's full of crapola. y Hillary conceded the next day. No one in the mainstream of the dem party was saying Hillary really won in the sense the election was fraudulent; and we should go to court and file lawsuits and stop the electoral college process. Please Norse. You are not even and cool-headed - you are absurd. It's just your boy Trump thought it made him look bad to admit Russia wanted him to win and used disinformation and social media to assist. That doesn't make the vote count wrong. And dems didn't whine and say the vote count was wrong in the close states. Or did we forget all the lawsuits the Clinton campaign filed? 51
August 17, 20214 yr Just now, The Norseman said: What are you talking about? The narrative on the news every single night was "Trump colluded with Russia to swing favor the election" for 4 straight years. For god's sake @caesar has just posted 50 sad little posts that show that he still believes it...and it wasn't so long ago that the rest of you were right there with him. You can rail on Trump and the Republican's all day if you like about the post 2020 election mess. We deserve it. But to downplay this widespread collusion nonsense now is just selective memory. How is that the same as never conceding an election; filing dozens of lawsuits and inciting a riot? Stop with this BS norse. It is NOT the same to simply point out (as was found to be true), that Russians wanted Trump to win and used a disinformation campaign and social media (and other tricks). I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. But its not anywhere close to what happened and is still happening post 2020 election. If you dont' understand the difference, go to the 3rd grade board - the material is easier.
August 17, 20214 yr Author Both sides do bad stuff. But the bad stuff both sides do is not equivalent. Not even within normal parameters. Too many Republicans have just gone insane. There are definitely some good ones who are still fighting for the right policies, but too many are either not willing to speak up or enabling the crazies. Leadership is a two way street. Sometimes in a democracy it's right to let the people lead you. But sometimes you need to lead them. Cheney and Kinzinger are leading. Everybody else is either navel gazing or they're lemmings following Trump over the cliff where he's complaining about how he got screwed on the way down.
August 17, 20214 yr 12 minutes ago, The Norseman said: What are you talking about? The narrative on the news every single night was "Trump colluded with Russia to swing favor the election" for 4 straight years. For god's sake @caesar has just posted 50 sad little posts that show that he still believes it...and it wasn't so long ago that the rest of you were right there with him. You can rail on Trump and the Republican's all day if you like about the post 2020 election mess. We deserve it. But to downplay this widespread collusion nonsense now is just selective memory. I don't believe or not believe. I posted facts from the Mueller report. You choose to ignore facts. Fine. Why do you post here then? And regardless, how is claiming that Russians may have helped Trump on the sly and wanted him to win, the same as saying actual votes in particular states should be thrown out and were fraudulent? C'mon man -- you are not thinking here. Norse, ask yourself: 1. Did Hillary concede (yes or no). If yes, when did she? 2. Did the Clinton campaign file lawsuits to try and overturn the election results? (yes or no) 3. Who appointed Mueller to look into collusion (technically conspiracy or other links)? Was it Clinton, Pelosi, or the Justice Dept under Trump? 4. Were dozens of people charged as a result of the Mueller investigation? Yes or no 5. If conspiracy (in the criminal sense) had been found, is that a basis for overturning an election? (hint - its not) Now do you see the difference?
Create an account or sign in to comment