• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Russian Election Interference Thread

DeaconSig said:
I don't have time for a more substantive response, that will come later. But I will say that finding a message that resonates with voters (or, for that matter, letting the other side step on their collective dicks with their inability to lead) and investigating russian influence are not mutually exclusive. And the suggestion that it shouldn't be pursued rings a bit hollow on a thread discussing how the President's son wanted to get dirt on an opposing political opponent from a foreign enemy.
Click to expand...

Surprising. What were the odds?
 
beatrix said:
why? in my limited (wholly uneducated) view, if a question of Constitutionality is on the table, who better to address it than SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of constitutional questions that never get addressed by Scotus for a variety of reasons. Lack of a Scotus opinion should never be cited as evidence that something is consistent with the constitution
 
riscdeac said:
Man you guys are something else.

Can't ask a damn question around here and get a straight answer.

You okay with Questioning?? Do you have questions? Do you know the law? Well I don't and it seems like most people here don't either.

Can't ask a question and post something to try to compare it to a current event?

Pubs are desperate.
Don't post from people you don't know
I sense a pattern
We have laws

Well thank y'all folks. Get back to scratching each other's backs and follow the leader.

There's no discussion here.
Click to expand...

Comparing the difficulty in tracking online donations to coordinating with Russian government representatives to influence an election is either desperate or stupid. I'll let you decide which applies in your case.
 
RChildress107 said:
There are plenty of constitutional questions that never get addressed by Scotus for a variety of reasons. Lack of a Scotus opinion should never be cited as evidence that something is consistent with the constitution
Click to expand...

How would you even establish "standing" to sue? Maybe Merrik Garland, Obama and any claimants in a case before the Court that ended in a 4-4 tie and standing, but who is going to sue over this?
 
RChildress107 said:
There are plenty of constitutional questions that never get addressed by Scotus for a variety of reasons. Lack of a Scotus opinion should never be cited as evidence that something is consistent with the constitution
Click to expand...

Hey... thanks for a non-snarky response. I get that.. my intent wasn't to assert the Garland block was Constitutional.. rather it was to acknowledge I'm out of my depth on 'law' questions, so I have to rely on SCOTUS' addressing something before I can even start to form an opinion.

I don't have an opinion about the legal aspects of Garland's vote being sidelined.. but I'll rely on a SCOTUS judgment to tell me if it was a big deal. If SCOTUS leaves shit to others (lower courts, Congress, whatever) then I tend to interpret it as they're okay with the status quo.
 
PhDeac said:
The overall "it's not a big deal" response from Republicans in politics, media, and regular joes suggests many members of the GOP got help from Russians.

Most likely, they won't get punished for it in 2018 and if they do, any investigations will be branded a partisan witch hunt.
Click to expand...

 
birdman said:
How would you even establish "standing" to sue? Maybe Merrik Garland, Obama and any claimants in a case before the Court that ended in a 4-4 tie and standing, but who is going to sue over this?
Click to expand...

Obama. Writ of Mandamus. Party like it's 1803.
 
jhmd2000 said:
First, I will respectfully decline the chance to get into personal attacks. I still think you're one of the good ones.

Second, there are always shrill voices. If you wish to judge a group by its lowest common denominators, I can't stop you. I would ask you to look at what the party as a whole did. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (the very first candidates to run after the onset of your alleged mass delusion) strike you as deranged radicals? I thought (and think) that they were responsible, moderate voices who would have made excellent leaders. If that's your evidence of epidemic derangement, I am not impressed. Voters passed on them, and we moved on (that's possible, I hear).

It seems there is still a great deal of debate about the road to November, 2016. We're probably back to "I can't stop you" territory, and that may be our destination. My party failed to listen to the concerns of Middle America. So did yours. Trump solved the Rub-ish Cube and he beat my party over the head with it in the Spring and yours in the Fall. We can either deal with that, or chase Soviet ghosts in the shadows as a way to re-write history. I'm ready to talk about the former.
Click to expand...

meh, this whole post is fake news. Citing the empty suit candidates your shitty party ran in '12 does not make a good argument for you nincompoops "simmering down.' The party is a fractured mess bereft of a single reasonable idea to solve any problem we face. It's that bad, and the struggle they are having trying to twist and contort a healthcare bill that improves health care in this country is a clear example that the fear-stoking shrill voices are the tone-setters for the party on that issue as well as immigration, the ME/ISIS, on gay/civil rights, on finance, on guns, on police/prisons. That type of messaging is easy to swallow and is very effective, and Trump used it to eke out his win.

For example, look at the stranglehold the gun lobby has over you people. You don't even entertain minor tweaks on clips and assault rifles without a goddamned freak-out and run on guns. Bunch of lunatics who are not simmered down.
 
RChildress107 said:
You wouldn't. That's the point.
Click to expand...

You could campaign against it, though. The only justification advanced was "It was an election year, let the people decide." Hilldawg could have said, "Those Pubs are blocking the will of the people, vote them out and me and my peeps in." I was surprised she didn't go down that road, honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top