Trump fires Comey

[sailordeac]

[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/5431005894001/?#sp=show-clips[/video]

 

[RChildress107]

Show me the benefit.

Not going to bother rehashing that argument because it's completely irrelevant. I already showed you evidence of the attempt.

I will preemptively ask you to not be obtuse and spare us a two page argument on the syntax of my initial sentence and the wording of the DNI report.

 

[RChildress107]

This is an odd post from someone who won't show me the benefit he claims occurred.

I claim no benefit. I have no interest in having that discussion. If there was a benefit I'm not convinced it was large enough on its own to swing the election and it pales in comparison to other factors, including the incompetence of the Clinton campaign.

 

[jhmd2000]

Not going to bother rehashing that argument because it's completely irrelevant. I already showed you evidence of the attempt.

I will preemptively ask you to not be obtuse and spare us a two page argument on the syntax of my initial sentence and the wording of the DNI report.

Two pages? How about two sentences?

1. You _ost.
2. Get over it.

 

[jhmd2000]

I claim no benefit. I have no interest in having that discussion. If there was a benefit I'm not convinced it was large enough on its own to swing the election and it pales in comparison to other factors, including the incompetence of the Clinton campaign.

We agree! Let's fix that for next time, so this doesn't happen again. Both parties, even if it means quit blaming Russians on Facebook. That strikes me as much, much more important. Deal?

 

[Shooshmoo]

Two pages? How about two sentences?

1. You _ost.
2. Get over it.

Really, bkf? Guys -- it's just all trolling, all the time, and it does not have the benefit of being funny or clever. I recommend ceasing engagement.

 

[ChrisL68]

Jhmd is either incredibly dense or trolling.

Sent from my SM-S903VL using Tapatalk

 

[RChildress107]

Two pages? How about two sentences?

1. You _ost.
2. Get over it.

I'm over it. I'm done with the 2016 election. Hillary lost and the loss falls on her.

I'm concerned that our president is desperately trying to stop an investigation into whether members of his campaign colluded with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election. I would be just as concerned if Trump had won by 20 points or if Nate Silver came out with analysis that definitively proved the Russian meddling had no impact.

 

[PhDeac]

At the very least, let's start working on prevent interference in the 2018 elections.

 

[RChildress107]

In furtherance of that discussion I stated two facts:

1. Russia meddled in our election with the purpose of benefitting Donald Trump

2. High ranking members and associates of the Trump campaign had several unusual meetings with Russian officials both before and after the election that they then proceeded to lie about.

 

[RChildress107]

We agree! Let's fix that for next time, so this doesn't happen again. Both parties, even if it means quit blaming Russians on Facebook. That strikes me as much, much more important. Deal?

Getting democrats on social media to stop blaming the results of the election on the Russians is more important to you than finding out if the campaign/associates of the current president were actively working with a foreign government to influence an election?

I mean points for honesty I guess.

 

[avalon]

 

[WakeandBake]

 

[jhmd2000]

I'm over it. I'm done with the 2016 election. Hillary lost and the loss falls on her.

I'm concerned that our president is desperately trying to stop an investigation into whether members of his campaign colluded with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election. I would be just as concerned if Trump had won by 20 points or if Nate Silver came out with analysis that definitively proved the Russian meddling had no impact.

I'll take you completely at your word. Can I ask you, is it fair to wonder whether everyone in your party is acting likewise in the best of their own faith, or is worth asking the following:

1) Is the evidence of collusion between any member of the Trump campaign and Russian interests greater, less than or equal to the evidence of influence dealing between the Clinton Foundation, Rosatom and the Department of State under HRC, as outlined here: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 In that case, you actually could follow the money, and it was a lot of it.
2) If greater or equal to, why were the people catatonic now quiet as church mice when Clinton did worse?
3) Are we sure there aren't a lot of wounded Dems venting their pain as a part of this panic?
4) Are you sure this investigation isn't heavily in part a form of "The Resistance"?

 

[birdman]

I'm over it. I'm done with the 2016 election. Hillary lost and the loss falls on her.

I'm concerned that our president is desperately trying to stop an investigation into whether members of his campaign colluded with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election. I would be just as concerned if Trump had won by 20 points or if Nate Silver came out with analysis that definitively proved the Russian meddling had no impact.

I applaud your efforts.

 

[birdman]

At the very least, let's start working on prevent interference in the 2018 elections.

This is also extremely important.

 

[jhmd2000]

Getting democrats on social media to stop blaming the results of the election on the Russians is more important to you than finding out if the campaign/associates of the current president were actively working with a foreign government to influence an election?

I mean points for honesty I guess.

No. Good policies are my priority. This obstructionism isn't what anyone voted for. This isn't government. I'd like some government from my government. I feel like President Obama's previously quoted advice (from the "Stop whining" speech in October 2016) continues to be a sound approach.

eta: This is largely a byproduct of my belief that voters had a chance to evaluate both candidates, and as President Obama said, it is good for us to grant dignity to the results and move on. This is true whether or not we personally like the results.

 

[Wrangor]

We have been over & over this "popular vote legitimacy" thing, but here it is one more time in a nutshell:

1) Hilary won the popular vote 48% to 46%, with 6% going to other candidates.

2) The Black Vote represents about 13% (roughly 1/8 of all voters).

3) That Black Vote supported Hilary in lock-step by about a 94% to 6% margin.

4) This means that Hilary was given about a 12% to 1% margin in the total vote strictly from black voters alone.

5) She lost the 87% of the non-black vote that didn't vote for a 3rd party candidate by about a 56% to 44% margin.....which resulted in her 48% to 46% popular vote margin.

6) Trump would have needed a 57% to 43% margin among non-black voters to get to a 47% to 47% tie in the total popular vote.

The "every vote should count" argument which is the basis for the "popular vote legitimacy" thus begs this question:

If The Black Vote....which represents only 13% of the total vote.... is going to give the Democratic candidate a monolithic 11% head start in every election, should the wishes of the other 87% of the voters not count unless it supports the opposing candidate by a margin of 57% to 43% or higher?

Somehow just found this.

#blacklivesDONTmatter 😳


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Demonwolverine]

No. Good policies are my priority. This obstructionism isn't what anyone voted for. This isn't government. I'd like some government from my government. I feel like President Obama's previously quoted advice (from the "Stop whining" speech in October 2016) continues to be a sound approach.

It actually is literally what we voted for in both the primaries and the general election. There is a reason people were saying for an entire year in one case, and 15 years in the other that these were bad candidates: Because neither ever had a chance at anything other than gridlock due to their questionable pasts. I seriously thought we had all accepted this. It blows my mind that apparently people thought these were bad candidates just because Hillary seemed fake and Trump was cocky.

This inevitable obstructionism was the REAL reason they were bad candidates for President of the United States, not their crappy personality traits.

 

[RChildress107]

I'll take you completely at your word. Can I ask you, is it fair to wonder whether everyone in your party is acting likewise in the best of their own faith, or is worth asking the following:

1) Is the evidence of collusion between any member of the Trump campaign and Russian interests greater, less than or equal to the evidence of influence dealing between the Clinton Foundation, Rosatom and the Department of State under HRC, as outlined here: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 In that case, you actually could follow the money, and it was a lot of it.
2) If greater or equal to, why were the people catatonic now quiet as church mice when Clinton did worse?
3) Are we sure there aren't a lot of wounded Dems venting their pain as a part of this panic?
4) Are you sure this investigation isn't heavily in part a form of "The Resistance"?

1. I don't know, which is the entire point. We need an investigation. I would be absolutely shocked if we didn't find a similar convoluted money trail in Trump's tax returns. I view that story as similar to some of the Trump family business dealings in foreign country stories. There is an unsavory connection there but it's hard to tie the flow of money directly to executive action.

2. For the same reason we haven't heard widespread condemnation on the right of the Kushner family promising US Visas for investments in family ventures. Partisan politics breeds hypocrisy.

3. Of course they are. The cause of the pain and the panic are the same.

4. What investigation? James Comey and Richard Burr, the only two individuals purportedly leading official investigations, are heavily involved in the #resistance? What the fuck are you talking about?