"Now can I count on you not claiming that Russia interfered with the 2016 election?"
Absolutely not! Russian interference in the 2016 election has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt - which does not change the fact that its interference was not determinative to the outcome. Trump would have won in 2016 with or without Putin's finger on the scale. For that, you need to look at Comey's turd in the punchbowl, which almost certainly tilted the outcome in Trump's favor.
As for those 740,000 votes. You know they're legitimate, as do I, as does the American People (at least, the 2/3 of them who have not drunk the Kool Aid).
bmiller, When people use words in a different sense than you think they are using them, that is not them lying. It's you not knowing how to read.
When people choose the wrong word deliberately and later claim they were using a different sense of the word, it's lying twice.
Likewise with your ignorance of Chain of Custody.
Which only shows that I'm mature enough to acknowledge my errors, while you are not.
bmiller,
Without it no one can tell if it's actually my vote that gets counted or a fraudulent ballot.
Chain of custody only ensures that we know exactly who had responsibility for the ballots at any given point in time. It does nothing to counter negligence, incompetence, or malice on the part of the custodians.
Someone may have screwed up, or someone may stuffed in a bunch of fake ballots.
Chain of custody can only point to someone to blame after the fact. It does nothing to prevent any of these.
bmiller, You mean Al Gore circa 2000?
Florida had a margin of hundreds, not over 10K. Everything you're saying about Arizona goes x100 for Florida 2000.
Michigan had a lower margin of victory in 2016 than Arizona in 2020. Why aren't you demanding audits for Michigan 2016?
Limited Perspective, Earlier in the comments I wrote the Democrats claimed the 2016 election was hacked. Your response was that they were referring to the DNC being hacked. We both knew what were talking about.
When I made a distinction between an election and a fund raising committee, you now want a more specific definition of "hacked." We earlier knew what we are discussing and we both know now what we are discussing. We both know the election was not hacked. That was a lie. I understand how difficult it is for people to accept what they believed was a lie.
1) Since I never thought the voting process itself was hacked, and I never saw a claim by a major Democratic politician that the voting process was hacked, I'm not sure to which "people" you refer. Yes, they did refer to the election being hacked, but they were *not* talking about the voting process. 2) Yo0ur attempts at equivocation between the Democrats discussion of 2016 and the Republicans discussion of 2020 are unconvincing, because the Republicans are claiming the voting process itself was corrupted, something the Democrats never claimed.
I feel sorry for you that you accepted the Democratic Party Russian conspiracy theory,
You feel sorry that I accept the conclusions of the Republican-led Mueller report? I feel sorry for you that you do not. You should step back into the real world.
the full-throated election denial,
What election do I deny?
and and the nonsense that somehow election denial is something different from 2017-2020 than what it was in 2020-2021.
The 2016 commentary was about the use of propaganda and manipulation. The 2020 commentary is about corruption of the ballots and the voting process. I find it difficult to believe that you are so dim you do not understand the difference. Rather, I think it is more likely you have blinded yourself, perhaps out of despair for what your party is becoming.
As far as calling someone a liar, you have made that accession against me.
Have I? Or, did I refer to a statement you made as a lie? I'm usually careful about that distinction. People can unknowingly repeat lies.
I do know election denial was common among top Democratic Party elected officials and commentators. The claim the 2016 election was hacked is a lie but I am uncertain if the people who repeat that lie are themselves liars.
Minority Presidents always face claims of illegitimacy, going back to J. Q. Adams (Jackson ranted for 4 years that Adams was illegitimate). Russian propagandists did engage in a substantial campaign for Trump. What you won't find is a Democratic official who said there was ballot tampering in favor of Trump, that the voting machines themselves were hacked, etc.
Democrats were demented over Trump and wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to cheat.
Oddly, I find Republicans tend to be more demented over Trump.
I believe the average American would be better off with Trump in office over Biden.
We bring differing perspectives to the table there. :)
bmiller, First of all. Hillary did something that was coming out whether Comey said something or not. What do you think he did wrong? Did he lie? If not, do you think voters should not have known the truth?
The truth turned out to be that there was no new information retrieved from this new source, but that was not known until after the election. Did Comey allow his conservative, Republican views to influence the decision to release damaging information without knowing if it mattered or not? I don't know.
I think they should be thrown out if they really did not follow CoC.
You would deny 740K people their votes because election officials forgot to sign and/or date a form when they were handing over ballots?
If people screwed up or cheated then the state of AZ needs to fix it by holding people accountable.
I know you're big on substitutionary atonement, but I didn't think that meant you supported denying voters because of the mistakes of election officials.
I hate it when a president gets us into WWIII. Don't you?
I love the irony of denying the importance of Russian propaganda and then quoting Russian propaganda in the same thread.
Can you imagine taking a time machine back to the 1980s and trying to explain to people that in 2022 the Republican Party will absolutely DESPISE half of the USA with a passion and will side with the Russian dictator when he starts foreign wars?
RT is pure Russian propaganda, straight from the mind of Vladimir Putin. Linking to it in these days is like someone in the 1930s quoting Der Stürmer.
Starhopper,
Didn't you just give an audio interview on a Russian propaganda podcast and tell us all about it? Or should I say....Mr Mini Putin?
It's really fun to watch lefties twist themselves into knots when you show them what they sound like by mocking them. Them then not even recognizing they are being mocked.
Without Chain of Custody no one knows if the ballots being submitted to be counted are legitimate or not.
Arguing that someone is being denied their vote by throwing the ballots out assumes they are legitimate and not illegitimate which not only begs the question but is essentially claiming CoC is useless.
Everything I said on that podcast was the God's truth, and subsequent events have proven me to be correct. Based on my expertise as a career military intelligence analyst, I told whomever was listening that the Russian forces massing on Ukraine's border were not prepared, either logistically or by training, for an invasion of Ukraine. I pointed out that they had not exercised such any such action, had not organized their forces properly, and that the supply lines necessary to conduct offensive operations had not been established. Therefore, I said that no sane person would invade Ukraine.
The trouble was, I had failed to include in my calculations that we were not dealing with a sane person. And as we all saw in the disastrous (to Russia) failure to take Kyiv in the first week of the war, the Russian forces were totally confused as to what they were even doing in Ukraine, had (at most) only 3 days supply of fuel, ammunition, or even food, and were not properly organized for an invasion, leading to the famous 40 mile long traffic jam at the border where armored vehicles were picked off like clay pigeons at some carnival attraction.
No, I have no reason to apologize for anything in my podcast statement, other that my failure to realize that Putin was utterly divorced from objective reality.
Without Chain of Custody no one knows if the ballots being submitted to be counted are legitimate or not.
I'm glad this is the last time for your thoroughly rebutted argument. An intact chain of custody (no capitals needed or appropriate) would not prevent fraud, and the lack of a signature or data is not an sign of fraud. Ballots where the chain of custody was imperfect are no more likely to be fraudulent than those that had a complete chain of custody. You're treating chain of custody as some sort of magic spell or talisman instead of something that could be faked for fraudulent ballots.
From the point of view of CISA and the State of AZ you are wrong. CoC helps ensure that ballots aren't tampered with according to them (and courts of law). Aside from that it's legally mandated in AZ.
I defend your right to challenge the legality of elections. Personally I think it's a crank opinion, but give me a call when the SWAT team shows up and I'll put in a good word for you.
So you were OK with Putin when he invaded Georgia and Crimea? ;-)
But you may be right that I should be careful who I share a link to. Turns out that Nouriel Roubini has odious ties to known ne're-do-wells.
During the administration of President Bill Clinton, he was a senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, later moving to the United States Treasury Department as a senior adviser to Timothy Geithner, who was Treasury Secretary under Barack Obama.
I disapproved of Putin's invasion of Georgia, but I was ambivalent about Crimea. I felt Russia had a good case that Crimea ought to belong to Russia, but I condemned Putin's methods of annexing the region.
They're not laughing at "us" - they're (justifiably) laughing at the far right whackos amongst us. (That is, when they're not horrified by the fact that 1/3rd of Americans actually believe such nonsense.)
Look "Liberals" of the Baby Boomer generation. You never could maintain a consistent, principled position from the start. Now you are here. And it's not due to age related dementia, it's related to your embrace of relativism. This is what you've become.
You mentioned you're from the Anglican side of Christianity. This is from a priest from that tradition.
First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774 The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774 The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774 O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.
bmiller, From the point of view of CISA and the State of AZ you are wrong. CoC helps ensure that ballots aren't tampered with according to them (and courts of law). Aside from that it's legally mandated in AZ.
Do go on. Describe how signatures and dates on a pieces of paper protect the ballots.
I defend your right to challenge the legality of elections.
Thank you for the offer, but you based it upon a false assumption.
Seriously. It seems you can't bother yourself to see what people are talking about before you call everyone liars. You're too much work and you're nasty on top of that.
bmiller, I told you CISA thinks it helps ensure ballots aren't tampered with. Let the federal government explain it to you.
Your link says that chain of custody procedures help you pinpoint actors in case of an insider threat. That's basically what I said at November 02, 2022 6:41 AM. Find a guilty party after-the-fact doesn't help with, e.g., ballots that get destroyed by that person.
I'm sorry for that last statement. I guess you just didn't read the document carefully. You also apparently didn't actually watch the video in the Tweet I linked to.
Never really thought about having a favorite president. Especially ones not in my lifetime.
I'll say that I used to think presidents didn't have much influence on events and were pretty much victims or beneficiaries of the circumstances they inherited. Until I saw the change from malaise to economic vitality and pride after Carter left and Reagan came in. I now think that presidents can have a great deal of positive or negative influence on the direction of the country.
Nope. Down ballot, I vote for whom I like, not for what party they belong to. Also, where I live is rather mixed politically. Maryland as a state may be solid blue (though it does have a Republican governor), but my county is purple, and my precinct is pretty much Trump country.
38 years ago you were much handsomer, healthier, had more hair. Then you started voting for Democrat presidential candidates and it's been downhill ever since.
The Democratic Party did everything in it's power to cast doubt on a Presidential election. They claimed the election was hacked! The Russians interfered! They attacked the legal and Constitutional system of the Electoral College. They launched the Mueller investigation to find Russian conspiracy hoaxes.
Shamelessly they turn around in four years and say the worst thing you can do as an American is doubt the integrity of an election. They are a fraud, they're dishonest, their narrative is pathetic, and downright contemptible.
Unfortunately Miller, they have better hair than I. Look at Gavin Newsom. He may be our next President. God help us. Although, of the good looking crazies that come out of California, I prefer him over gas bag Kamala Harris.
Go ahead, the ball's in your court. I'm anxious to see how you're going to twist this around to blame the victim and say it's all the left's fault. (You're so predictable.) It's too early in the day for popcorn, so I'll have to just munch some virtually.
I guess you just didn't read the document carefully.
I looked specifically at what it said about chain of custody (since that is what we were discussing), and did not read the entire document, but I did read the part about chain of custody carefully. What do you think I missed?
You also apparently didn't actually watch the video in the Tweet I linked to.
The one where Ashley St. Clair linked to a Babylon Bee video. Was I supposed to take that seriously?
Limited Perspective, The Democratic Party did everything in it's power to cast doubt on a Presidential election.
Obviously not, because they didn't do a quarter of what Trump did four years later. For example, Clinton conceded the day after the election, Trump is still insisting that he won two years later.
They claimed the election was hacked! The Russians interfered!
They did, via propaganda bombs. Do you disagree about the pervasiveness of Russian propaganda?
They attacked the legal and Constitutional system of the Electoral College.
True. That happens to every minority President. When the loser receives 4 million more votes, there are going to be hard feelings.
They launched the Mueller investigation to find Russian conspiracy hoaxes.
The Mueller investigation was launched by Deputy Attorney General (a Republican), and Mueller himself was a life-long Republican. That's about as friendly a set-up as could be hoped for.
My endocrinologist once told me in all seriousness that men are supposed to become bald as we age, and if we don't, there is something wrong with our blood. An excess of something or other - I can't remember what.
A crazy nudist whacked Paul Pelosi on the head. There is only one person to blame. The crazy nudist.
But I'm curious how that nut got past security. Then there's the report that Pelosi opened the door and walked toward the nut rather than hiding behind the police.
>They claimed the election was hacked! The Russians interfered!
The Russians DID interfere. This was proven by the Republican's own report. You can read the report yourself, and/or read this brief summary from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released on August 18, 2020,[6] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries."[7][8] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers.[7]
>They launched the Mueller investigation to find Russian conspiracy hoaxes.
Again, none of this was a hoax. Read the Mueller report, and/or this summary:
However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]
>They are a fraud, they're dishonest, their narrative is pathetic, and downright contemptible.
But the Democratic Party is not dishonest: Russian did interfere systematically to get Trump to win. The narrative is not pathetic. And what's contemptible is how Republicans know the Russians interferred but don't care, because they know they canm't go against their god Trump, lest his vengeful followers turn against them and vote them out of office.
Compare this to Trump:
He claimed there was widespread fraud in all the swing states. He filed SIXTY court cases, and in EACH one the lawyers were forced to admit they had no evidence at all of widespread fraud, or were laughed out of court by TRUMP-APPOINTED judges. No, not because of "standing." Then all of the primary Trump officials told Trump that there is no widespread fraud.
The honorable and manly thing to do at that point is to say, "We tried, but the courts have spoken and we must continue our country's tradition of peacefully handing the reigns to the duly elected president."
The weak and sissy thing to do is to continue to stomp your feet and claim you won, and whine and cry about it for TWO YEARS.
"Do you think Trump would have won the 2016 election if the Russians had not interfered?"
Yes. Trump was legitimately elected. The Russian interference had no effect on the outcome.
"Do you also think Trump or his campaign worked with or helped the Russians that sought to interfere?"
Yes. This is what was concluded in the Mueller Report.
Bonus Questions:
"Do you think [know] that Biden was legitimately elected in 2020?"
Yes. There can be no reasonable or rational doubt as to this fact. To believe otherwise at this point is equivalent to believing we did not land on the Moon or that the Earth is flat.
"Was there was voter fraud in any state sufficient to change the declared outcome?"
No. Only 29 bogus votes were uncovered in Arizona, out of millions cast.
And stop spreading disinformation like the Russians: But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.
Thanks for linking to a site by election deniers, but I'm not particularly impressed by their opinions on the subject. The very notion that there could be an Electoral College "coup" (got that from the front page) pretty much disqualifies them. Rightly or wrongly, the Electoral college is the sole legitimate way to elect a President.
Although the question was not directed to me, I'll venture that if propaganda/advertising were ineffective, people wouldn't use it. I have no way to measure the size of the effect in the 2016 election, so it might have made a difference, although I would guess not (moving tens of thousands of votes is not easy).
The integrity of the system and its underlying data can no longer be trusted.
The reliability, accuracy, and security of records in question – physical or digital – cannot be guaranteed.
The systems and data may be rendered inadmissible in a court of law.
The inability to provide evidence that a system has not been compromised results in the inability to determine if a malicious actor (or any actor for that matter) has gained access to and/or manipulated the systems and data.
Amazing. The debunked John Birch style Russian conspiracy election denial continues with the deranged Democratic Party. How long will they hold on to their lack of evidence psychosis?
"How long will they hold on to their lack of evidence psychosis?"
You are, of course, speaking of all the election deniers who, without the least shred of evidence, continue to deny that Trump LOST the 2020 election, right?
Come on Starhopper, you have to admit the $100k the Russians spent on Facebook ads that a few hundred people saw demolished the $1.4 billion that Hillary raised. She was able to hire the best artist and influencers from Madison avenue and Hollywood and blanket the airwaves with her message. Millions heard her message. Damn those Russians are crafty!
What I find funny is the reaction I get when I link to left leaning sources. If I link to something that says the sky is blue from a leftie source, lefties reflexively deny it, I guess assuming that because I linked to it, it must be poison. So they denounce a Clinton/Obama economist because I quoted him just as they denounce the Electoral College Coup of Hillary Clinton when I link to a leftie site.
Yes, they agree with me. Which of those consequences listed out prevents ballots from being sabotaged, as opposed to help find the responsible party?
So they denounce a Clinton/Obama economist because I quoted him just as they denounce the Electoral College Coup of Hillary Clinton when I link to a leftie site.
The Wall street Journal is a "lefty site"? I didn't think you were that far gone. Even that opinion column made it clear that the Clinton campaign responded to the electors queries after-the-fact.
White House. I don't have to answer facts because I disapprove of the source who uttered those facts.
The very first thing Jean-Pierre said was "Clearly that's not true". Are you claiming that it is true? If not, why should she spend time rebutting obvious lies?
bmiller, You are amazing. Mueller spent 2 years investigating spending millions of dollars and yet he never thought to look at CSPAN nor listen to you.
>Amazing. The debunked John Birch style Russian conspiracy election denial continues with the deranged Democratic Party. How long will they hold on to their lack of evidence psychosis?
Maybe you missed the Republican report I mentioned above? I'll paste it again here:
...the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10]but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government...
"prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly"
Give me the most important thing the Russians prevented in the 2016 election and how is that different from the ways they've tried to influence elections in the past. You got something, I'll read. Go!
Did you notice the propaganda/interference coming from Mexico in 2016? The propaganda didn't prevent any citizen from voting for their preference. You John Birch nuts continue to amaze me.
Propaganda from a foreign nation into the internet/media information stream is interference? These people either have no idea of history or they are nuts.
I know I've turned to mocking the Russian interference of the 2016 election, but what did they actually do to interfere with the citizens right to vote?
Thanks Miller. Those were the charges I read as well. I wanted to see all of those Russian scoundrels in court. I was hoping for a trial where both the prosecution and the defense could argue their case regarding Russian interference. As far as I can tell, the Justice Department didn't want a trial. They accused people who would never be in court.
To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) the only Russian having a trial in the Untied States was working for Secretary Clinton. Do you think the Dem's will ever realize how they were hosed?
What stands out in the indictment is this paragraph:
There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.
Yet, to this day, there are TDS sufferers who will read this (and the Mueller report which repeats the same thing) and insist that there was at least one American who knew and participated with the Russians. It's strange to watch.
Limited Perspective, Did you notice the propaganda/interference coming from Mexico in 2016? The propaganda didn't prevent any citizen from voting for their preference.
I have never claimed that a person was prevented from voting their preference. The point of propaganda/advertising is to influence/change preferences.
You John Birch nuts continue to amaze me.
Your refusal to address what I have actually said is what I expected.
I know I've turned to mocking the Russian interference of the 2016 election, but what did they actually do to interfere with the citizens right to vote?
I'm not aware of anything.
As far as I can tell, the Justice Department didn't want a trial. They accused people who would never be in court.
Yet, managed to secure over 3 dozen convictions related to the issue.
"Your refusal to address what I have actually said is what I expected"
I think that's fair. I don't read comments closely. However, I like you and your comments and find them interesting enough to respond. Same for Crazy Star.
I will try to pay closer attention before responding.
316 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 316 of 316This reminds me of having a conversation with Starhopper. Nice glasses Starhopper.
"Now can I count on you not claiming that Russia interfered with the 2016 election?"
Absolutely not! Russian interference in the 2016 election has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt - which does not change the fact that its interference was not determinative to the outcome. Trump would have won in 2016 with or without Putin's finger on the scale. For that, you need to look at Comey's turd in the punchbowl, which almost certainly tilted the outcome in Trump's favor.
As for those 740,000 votes. You know they're legitimate, as do I, as does the American People (at least, the 2/3 of them who have not drunk the Kool Aid).
Starhopper must truly think he is Jesus.
He even knows there were no shenanigans in Brazil in a close election.
Starhopper. What lottery numbers should I play? I need to retire.
I hate it when a president gets us into WWIII. Don't you?
"Starhopper. What lottery numbers should I play?"
In your case, I'd go with 666.
bmiller,
When people use words in a different sense than you think they are using them, that is not them lying. It's you not knowing how to read.
When people choose the wrong word deliberately and later claim they were using a different sense of the word, it's lying twice.
Likewise with your ignorance of Chain of Custody.
Which only shows that I'm mature enough to acknowledge my errors, while you are not.
bmiller,
Without it no one can tell if it's actually my vote that gets counted or a fraudulent ballot.
Chain of custody only ensures that we know exactly who had responsibility for the ballots at any given point in time. It does nothing to counter negligence, incompetence, or malice on the part of the custodians.
Someone may have screwed up, or someone may stuffed in a bunch of fake ballots.
Chain of custody can only point to someone to blame after the fact. It does nothing to prevent any of these.
bmiller,
You mean Al Gore circa 2000?
Florida had a margin of hundreds, not over 10K. Everything you're saying about Arizona goes x100 for Florida 2000.
Michigan had a lower margin of victory in 2016 than Arizona in 2020. Why aren't you demanding audits for Michigan 2016?
Limited Perspective,
Earlier in the comments I wrote the Democrats claimed the 2016 election was hacked. Your response was that they were referring to the DNC being hacked. We both knew what were talking about.
When I made a distinction between an election and a fund raising committee, you now want a more specific definition of "hacked." We earlier knew what we are discussing and we both know now what we are discussing. We both know the election was not hacked. That was a lie. I understand how difficult it is for people to accept what they believed was a lie.
1) Since I never thought the voting process itself was hacked, and I never saw a claim by a major Democratic politician that the voting process was hacked, I'm not sure to which "people" you refer. Yes, they did refer to the election being hacked, but they were *not* talking about the voting process.
2) Yo0ur attempts at equivocation between the Democrats discussion of 2016 and the Republicans discussion of 2020 are unconvincing, because the Republicans are claiming the voting process itself was corrupted, something the Democrats never claimed.
I feel sorry for you that you accepted the Democratic Party Russian conspiracy theory,
You feel sorry that I accept the conclusions of the Republican-led Mueller report? I feel sorry for you that you do not. You should step back into the real world.
the full-throated election denial,
What election do I deny?
and and the nonsense that somehow election denial is something different from 2017-2020 than what it was in 2020-2021.
The 2016 commentary was about the use of propaganda and manipulation. The 2020 commentary is about corruption of the ballots and the voting process. I find it difficult to believe that you are so dim you do not understand the difference. Rather, I think it is more likely you have blinded yourself, perhaps out of despair for what your party is becoming.
As far as calling someone a liar, you have made that accession against me.
Have I? Or, did I refer to a statement you made as a lie? I'm usually careful about that distinction. People can unknowingly repeat lies.
I do know election denial was common among top Democratic Party elected officials and commentators. The claim the 2016 election was hacked is a lie but I am uncertain if the people who repeat that lie are themselves liars.
Minority Presidents always face claims of illegitimacy, going back to J. Q. Adams (Jackson ranted for 4 years that Adams was illegitimate). Russian propagandists did engage in a substantial campaign for Trump. What you won't find is a Democratic official who said there was ballot tampering in favor of Trump, that the voting machines themselves were hacked, etc.
Democrats were demented over Trump and wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to cheat.
Oddly, I find Republicans tend to be more demented over Trump.
I believe the average American would be better off with Trump in office over Biden.
We bring differing perspectives to the table there. :)
Did....did bmiller just link to a Russian propaganda outlet in order to blame the war on America...?
bmiller,
First of all. Hillary did something that was coming out whether Comey said something or not. What do you think he did wrong? Did he lie? If not, do you think voters should not have known the truth?
The truth turned out to be that there was no new information retrieved from this new source, but that was not known until after the election. Did Comey allow his conservative, Republican views to influence the decision to release damaging information without knowing if it mattered or not? I don't know.
I think they should be thrown out if they really did not follow CoC.
You would deny 740K people their votes because election officials forgot to sign and/or date a form when they were handing over ballots?
If people screwed up or cheated then the state of AZ needs to fix it by holding people accountable.
I know you're big on substitutionary atonement, but I didn't think that meant you supported denying voters because of the mistakes of election officials.
I hate it when a president gets us into WWIII. Don't you?
I love the irony of denying the importance of Russian propaganda and then quoting Russian propaganda in the same thread.
Martin,
Did....did bmiller just link to a Russian propaganda outlet in order to blame the war on America...?
Yes.
RT is pure Russian propaganda, straight from the mind of Vladimir Putin. Linking to it in these days is like someone in the 1930s quoting Der Stürmer.
Can you imagine taking a time machine back to the 1980s and trying to explain to people that in 2022 the Republican Party will absolutely DESPISE half of the USA with a passion and will side with the Russian dictator when he starts foreign wars?
And don't forget those t-shirts at the Trump Nuremburg Rallies that said "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat!"
RT is pure Russian propaganda, straight from the mind of Vladimir Putin. Linking to it in these days is like someone in the 1930s quoting Der Stürmer.
Starhopper,
Didn't you just give an audio interview on a Russian propaganda podcast and tell us all about it? Or should I say....Mr Mini Putin?
It's really fun to watch lefties twist themselves into knots when you show them what they sound like by mocking them. Them then not even recognizing they are being mocked.
And for the last time.
Without Chain of Custody no one knows if the ballots being submitted to be counted are legitimate or not.
Arguing that someone is being denied their vote by throwing the ballots out assumes they are legitimate and not illegitimate which not only begs the question but is essentially claiming CoC is useless.
If you can't make sense don't bother replying.
In your case, I'd go with 666.
Not bad.
Everything I said on that podcast was the God's truth, and subsequent events have proven me to be correct. Based on my expertise as a career military intelligence analyst, I told whomever was listening that the Russian forces massing on Ukraine's border were not prepared, either logistically or by training, for an invasion of Ukraine. I pointed out that they had not exercised such any such action, had not organized their forces properly, and that the supply lines necessary to conduct offensive operations had not been established. Therefore, I said that no sane person would invade Ukraine.
The trouble was, I had failed to include in my calculations that we were not dealing with a sane person. And as we all saw in the disastrous (to Russia) failure to take Kyiv in the first week of the war, the Russian forces were totally confused as to what they were even doing in Ukraine, had (at most) only 3 days supply of fuel, ammunition, or even food, and were not properly organized for an invasion, leading to the famous 40 mile long traffic jam at the border where armored vehicles were picked off like clay pigeons at some carnival attraction.
No, I have no reason to apologize for anything in my podcast statement, other that my failure to realize that Putin was utterly divorced from objective reality.
bmiller,
And for the last time.
Without Chain of Custody no one knows if the ballots being submitted to be counted are legitimate or not.
I'm glad this is the last time for your thoroughly rebutted argument. An intact chain of custody (no capitals needed or appropriate) would not prevent fraud, and the lack of a signature or data is not an sign of fraud. Ballots where the chain of custody was imperfect are no more likely to be fraudulent than those that had a complete chain of custody. You're treating chain of custody as some sort of magic spell or talisman instead of something that could be faked for fraudulent ballots.
OB,
From the point of view of CISA and the State of AZ you are wrong. CoC helps ensure that ballots aren't tampered with according to them (and courts of law). Aside from that it's legally mandated in AZ.
I defend your right to challenge the legality of elections. Personally I think it's a crank opinion, but give me a call when the SWAT team shows up and I'll put in a good word for you.
Everything I said on that podcast was the God's truth,
Wait? What? You just told me that those sites sold "pure Russian propaganda, straight from the mind of Vladimir Putin."
I bet Putin sent you covertly into Veterans for Peace in order to subvert their message.
"You just told me that those sites sold "pure Russian propaganda, straight from the mind of Vladimir Putin.""
Thay have been ever since February 24th of this year. Things change, you know.
And hopefully, they will change again in the near future, after Putin has been ousted.
Things change, you know.
So you were OK with Putin when he invaded Georgia and Crimea? ;-)
But you may be right that I should be careful who I share a link to. Turns out that Nouriel Roubini has odious ties to known ne're-do-wells.
During the administration of President Bill Clinton, he was a senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, later moving to the United States Treasury Department as a senior adviser to Timothy Geithner, who was Treasury Secretary under Barack Obama.
I disapproved of Putin's invasion of Georgia, but I was ambivalent about Crimea. I felt Russia had a good case that Crimea ought to belong to Russia, but I condemned Putin's methods of annexing the region.
Obviously a Putin puppet. Nuh said.
Wonder why the world laughs at us?
They're not laughing at "us" - they're (justifiably) laughing at the far right whackos amongst us. (That is, when they're not horrified by the fact that 1/3rd of Americans actually believe such nonsense.)
DEM-ocracy could be at an end!
They're not laughing at "us" - they're (justifiably) laughing at the far right whackos amongst us.
They're laughing at the people who can't count. (Dems)...cough...cough.
Evidence provided.
Do you read the New Yorker and agree with it? Why?
Look "Liberals" of the Baby Boomer generation. You never could maintain a consistent, principled position from the start. Now you are here. And it's not due to age related dementia, it's related to your embrace of relativism. This is what you've become.
Limited,
You mentioned you're from the Anglican side of Christianity. This is from a priest from that tradition.
First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774
The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.
bmiller,
From the point of view of CISA and the State of AZ you are wrong. CoC helps ensure that ballots aren't tampered with according to them (and courts of law). Aside from that it's legally mandated in AZ.
Do go on. Describe how signatures and dates on a pieces of paper protect the ballots.
I defend your right to challenge the legality of elections.
Thank you for the offer, but you based it upon a false assumption.
OB,
I told you CISA thinks it helps ensure ballots aren't tampered with. Let the federal government explain it to you. Ever heard of Google?
Seriously. It seems you can't bother yourself to see what people are talking about before you call everyone liars. You're too much work and you're nasty on top of that.
See. This is what I'm talking about. Twitter allows leftie Biden to be on Twitter but censored Trump!
bmiller,
I told you CISA thinks it helps ensure ballots aren't tampered with. Let the federal government explain it to you.
Your link says that chain of custody procedures help you pinpoint actors in case of an insider threat. That's basically what I said at November 02, 2022 6:41 AM. Find a guilty party after-the-fact doesn't help with, e.g., ballots that get destroyed by that person.
bmiller,
Twitter allows leftie Biden to be on Twitter but censored Trump!
Why do you hate capitalism? If Twitter thought keeping Trump on twitter would make them more money, Trump would be on Twitter.
It seems there is no cure for stupid. And no use responding to it other than pointing it out.
That's the only reason we engage with you, bmiller. Otherwise, it's pointless.
OB,
I'm sorry for that last statement. I guess you just didn't read the document carefully. You also apparently didn't actually watch the video in the Tweet I linked to.
I got frustrated. That is a fault of mine.
I think it's best I don't respond to your posts.
Don't worry Starhopper.
I'll still talk to you.
Starhopper,
I'm curious. You said you voted for 2 other Republicans for president other than Reagan. Who were they?
Gerald Ford (1976) and John Anderson (1980).
Plus numerous down-ballot Repubs over the years.
Also, I would have been quite happy with a second George H.W. Bush term or a Dole Presidency.
My all-time favorite presidents include members of both parties.
Theodore Roosevelt (R)
Calvin Coolidge (R)
FDR (D)
JFK (D)
Who are yours?
John Anderson wasn't the Republican candidate for president in 1980. He was an Independent.
Never really thought about having a favorite president. Especially ones not in my lifetime.
I'll say that I used to think presidents didn't have much influence on events and were pretty much victims or beneficiaries of the circumstances they inherited. Until I saw the change from malaise to economic vitality and pride after Carter left and Reagan came in. I now think that presidents can have a great deal of positive or negative influence on the direction of the country.
So you only voted for 2 Republican candidates for president and the last time was 38 years ago. Got it.
Nope. Down ballot, I vote for whom I like, not for what party they belong to. Also, where I live is rather mixed politically. Maryland as a state may be solid blue (though it does have a Republican governor), but my county is purple, and my precinct is pretty much Trump country.
Here's something to think about.
38 years ago you were much handsomer, healthier, had more hair. Then you started voting for Democrat presidential candidates and it's been downhill ever since.
Just saying.
On the other hand, I have grown wiser.
I definitely know more now, but I doubt that I'm that much wiser.
See. That's what I'm saying.
I have more hair than you too.
Just to be clear. I mean on the top of my head. Not in my ears.
Yeah, but how about your nose?
You win there too.
Don't forget to change your clock on Sunday. And your governor on Tuesday (if you live in NY).
The Democratic Party did everything in it's power to cast doubt on a Presidential election. They claimed the election was hacked! The Russians interfered! They attacked the legal and Constitutional system of the Electoral College. They launched the Mueller investigation to find Russian conspiracy hoaxes.
Shamelessly they turn around in four years and say the worst thing you can do as an American is doubt the integrity of an election. They are a fraud, they're dishonest, their narrative is pathetic, and downright contemptible.
They have bad hair too.
Unfortunately Miller, they have better hair than I. Look at Gavin Newsom. He may be our next President. God help us. Although, of the good looking crazies that come out of California, I prefer him over gas bag Kamala Harris.
OK. Gavin has good hair. But Kamala is a different story.
But only Orange hair has political power.
Chairman Mao has been updated for the 21st Century.
Mao: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Our former president: "Political power grows out of the head of a hammer."
You talking about Paul Pelosi?
Yup.
Go ahead, the ball's in your court. I'm anxious to see how you're going to twist this around to blame the victim and say it's all the left's fault. (You're so predictable.) It's too early in the day for popcorn, so I'll have to just munch some virtually.
bmiller,
I'm sorry for that last statement.
It happens. I accept your apology.
I guess you just didn't read the document carefully.
I looked specifically at what it said about chain of custody (since that is what we were discussing), and did not read the entire document, but I did read the part about chain of custody carefully. What do you think I missed?
You also apparently didn't actually watch the video in the Tweet I linked to.
The one where Ashley St. Clair linked to a Babylon Bee video. Was I supposed to take that seriously?
Limited Perspective,
The Democratic Party did everything in it's power to cast doubt on a Presidential election.
Obviously not, because they didn't do a quarter of what Trump did four years later. For example, Clinton conceded the day after the election, Trump is still insisting that he won two years later.
They claimed the election was hacked! The Russians interfered!
They did, via propaganda bombs. Do you disagree about the pervasiveness of Russian propaganda?
They attacked the legal and Constitutional system of the Electoral College.
True. That happens to every minority President. When the loser receives 4 million more votes, there are going to be hard feelings.
They launched the Mueller investigation to find Russian conspiracy hoaxes.
The Mueller investigation was launched by Deputy Attorney General (a Republican), and Mueller himself was a life-long Republican. That's about as friendly a set-up as could be hoped for.
I have less hair on top that 30 years ago, but no bald spots yet.
My endocrinologist once told me in all seriousness that men are supposed to become bald as we age, and if we don't, there is something wrong with our blood. An excess of something or other - I can't remember what.
Starhopper,
A crazy nudist whacked Paul Pelosi on the head. There is only one person to blame. The crazy nudist.
But I'm curious how that nut got past security. Then there's the report that Pelosi opened the door and walked toward the nut rather than hiding behind the police.
Limited Perspective,
>They claimed the election was hacked! The Russians interfered!
The Russians DID interfere. This was proven by the Republican's own report. You can read the report yourself, and/or read this brief summary from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released on August 18, 2020,[6] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries."[7][8] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers.[7]
>They launched the Mueller investigation to find Russian conspiracy hoaxes.
Again, none of this was a hoax. Read the Mueller report, and/or this summary:
However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]
>They are a fraud, they're dishonest, their narrative is pathetic, and downright contemptible.
But the Democratic Party is not dishonest: Russian did interfere systematically to get Trump to win. The narrative is not pathetic. And what's contemptible is how Republicans know the Russians interferred but don't care, because they know they canm't go against their god Trump, lest his vengeful followers turn against them and vote them out of office.
Compare this to Trump:
He claimed there was widespread fraud in all the swing states. He filed SIXTY court cases, and in EACH one the lawyers were forced to admit they had no evidence at all of widespread fraud, or were laughed out of court by TRUMP-APPOINTED judges. No, not because of "standing." Then all of the primary Trump officials told Trump that there is no widespread fraud.
The honorable and manly thing to do at that point is to say, "We tried, but the courts have spoken and we must continue our country's tradition of peacefully handing the reigns to the duly elected president."
The weak and sissy thing to do is to continue to stomp your feet and claim you won, and whine and cry about it for TWO YEARS.
Martin,
Do you think Trump would have won the 2016 election if the Russians had not interfered? Making Trump an illegitimate president?
Do you also think Trump or his campaign worked with or helped the Russians that sought to interfere?
I'll break in here:
"Do you think Trump would have won the 2016 election if the Russians had not interfered?"
Yes. Trump was legitimately elected. The Russian interference had no effect on the outcome.
"Do you also think Trump or his campaign worked with or helped the Russians that sought to interfere?"
Yes. This is what was concluded in the Mueller Report.
Bonus Questions:
"Do you think [know] that Biden was legitimately elected in 2020?"
Yes. There can be no reasonable or rational doubt as to this fact. To believe otherwise at this point is equivalent to believing we did not land on the Moon or that the Earth is flat.
"Was there was voter fraud in any state sufficient to change the declared outcome?"
No. Only 29 bogus votes were uncovered in Arizona, out of millions cast.
Starhopper,
Please. I'm interested in what Martin has to say.
And stop spreading disinformation like the Russians:
But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.
Dems make Marie Antoinette look compassionate by comparison
Chef Boyardee?
Again, nothing can prevent fraud if the chain of custody is broken.
bmiller,
Thanks for linking to a site by election deniers, but I'm not particularly impressed by their opinions on the subject. The very notion that there could be an Electoral College "coup" (got that from the front page) pretty much disqualifies them. Rightly or wrongly, the Electoral college is the sole legitimate way to elect a President.
Although the question was not directed to me, I'll venture that if propaganda/advertising were ineffective, people wouldn't use it. I have no way to measure the size of the effect in the 2016 election, so it might have made a difference, although I would guess not (moving tens of thousands of votes is not easy).
CISA agrees
Potential Impacts of a Broken Chain of Custody
The integrity of the system and its underlying data can no longer be trusted.
The reliability, accuracy, and security of records in question – physical or digital – cannot be guaranteed.
The systems and data may be rendered inadmissible in a court of law.
The inability to provide evidence that a system has not been compromised results in the inability to determine if a malicious actor (or any actor for that matter) has gained access to and/or manipulated the systems and data.
Amazing. The debunked John Birch style Russian conspiracy election denial continues with the deranged Democratic Party. How long will they hold on to their lack of evidence psychosis?
"How long will they hold on to their lack of evidence psychosis?"
You are, of course, speaking of all the election deniers who, without the least shred of evidence, continue to deny that Trump LOST the 2020 election, right?
Come on Starhopper, you have to admit the $100k the Russians spent on Facebook ads that a few hundred people saw demolished the $1.4 billion that Hillary raised. She was able to hire the best artist and influencers from Madison avenue and Hollywood and blanket the airwaves with her message. Millions heard her message. Damn those Russians are crafty!
Miller, you have to admit Dem's make for great comedy.
Limited, what's your point? I've already said (multiple times) that Russian interference in the 2016 election did not affect the outcome.
But 6 years later and contrary to the Mueller investigation you still claim Trump worked with the Russians to influence the 2016 election.
Who needs a smoking gun, when the criminal confesses?
BTW.
What I find funny is the reaction I get when I link to left leaning sources. If I link to something that says the sky is blue from a leftie source, lefties reflexively deny it, I guess assuming that because I linked to it, it must be poison. So they denounce a Clinton/Obama economist because I quoted him just as they denounce the Electoral College Coup of Hillary Clinton when I link to a leftie site.
I wonder why that is.
Starhopper,
Who needs a smoking gun, when the criminal confesses?
You are amazing. Mueller spent 2 years investigating spending millions of dollars and yet he never thought to look at CSPAN nor listen to you.
You're right Limited. Very funny.
Also just in.
Politico published an article today outlining all the possible ways this election could be stolen. What? Just 2 years ago that was impossible!
White House. I don't have to answer facts because I disapprove of the source who uttered those facts. This is where the Dems are today.
bmiller,
CISA agrees
Yes, they agree with me. Which of those consequences listed out prevents ballots from being sabotaged, as opposed to help find the responsible party?
So they denounce a Clinton/Obama economist because I quoted him just as they denounce the Electoral College Coup of Hillary Clinton when I link to a leftie site.
The Wall street Journal is a "lefty site"? I didn't think you were that far gone. Even that opinion column made it clear that the Clinton campaign responded to the electors queries after-the-fact.
White House. I don't have to answer facts because I disapprove of the source who uttered those facts.
The very first thing Jean-Pierre said was "Clearly that's not true". Are you claiming that it is true? If not, why should she spend time rebutting obvious lies?
Which economist did you so quote? I don't recall.
Limited Perspective,
Amazing. The debunked John Birch style Russian conspiracy election denial continues with the deranged Democratic Party.
It was also the finding of the Republican party, as Martin pointed out earlier. Are they deranged on this subject?
bmiller,
You are amazing. Mueller spent 2 years investigating spending millions of dollars and yet he never thought to look at CSPAN nor listen to you.
Collusion is not a crime, remember?
Limited Perspective,
>Amazing. The debunked John Birch style Russian conspiracy election denial continues with the deranged Democratic Party. How long will they hold on to their lack of evidence psychosis?
Maybe you missed the Republican report I mentioned above? I'll paste it again here:
...the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10]but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government...
Martin,
Do you think Trump would have won the 2016 election if the Russians had not interfered? Making Trump an illegitimate president?
Do you also think Trump or his campaign worked with or helped the Russians that sought to interfere?
>Do you think Trump would have won the 2016 election if the Russians had not interfered? Making Trump an illegitimate president?
I have no idea. I haven't fully read the Republican report. Maybe those are answered in there.
>Do you also think Trump or his campaign worked with or helped the Russians that sought to interfere?
Why does it matter what I think? I'm a random nobody. What does the Republican report say?
Actually, it's time we turned this questioning around.
bmiller, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election, and is he the lawful president today?
Is Trump is being truthful today when he claims he won the election in 2020?
Yes or no will suffice, thank you.
Martin,
Why does it matter what I think?
I have suppose you want us to read your posts because you keep posting here. You seem to be an election denier to me. Are you?
I'm merely responding to Limited Perspective's and others comments that Russian interference was a "hoax," which it was not.
Are you an election denier?
Okay. Here's the definition of interference.
"prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly"
Give me the most important thing the Russians prevented in the 2016 election and how is that different from the ways they've tried to influence elections in the past. You got something, I'll read. Go!
Limited Perspective,
Give me the most important thing the Russians prevented in the 2016 election ...
Propagandizing for a candidate in another country's election is considered improper, hence preventing the election from "being carried out properly".
Good Grief One Brow,
Did you notice the propaganda/interference coming from Mexico in 2016? The propaganda didn't prevent any citizen from voting for their preference. You John Birch nuts continue to amaze me.
Propaganda from a foreign nation into the internet/media information stream is interference? These people either have no idea of history or they are nuts.
Watch out for these things. Especially the last one.
Hmm. 25% Malfunctioning voting machines in Maricopa County AZ. Delaying voting and counting? How did the Dems know?
Who's in charge there?
AZ needs to be cleaned up.
Should you be in charge of overseeing your own election?
I know I've turned to mocking the Russian interference of the 2016 election, but what did they actually do to interfere with the citizens right to vote?
This is what they were charge with.
Is there anything else? If not, looks like they failed to influence anything.
Unless one of them told me he was a Nigerian Prince. I was unaffected.
Thanks Miller. Those were the charges I read as well. I wanted to see all of those Russian scoundrels in court. I was hoping for a trial where both the prosecution and the defense could argue their case regarding Russian interference. As far as I can tell, the Justice Department didn't want a trial. They accused people who would never be in court.
To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) the only Russian having a trial in the Untied States was working for Secretary Clinton. Do you think the Dem's will ever realize how they were hosed?
Limited,
I only remember that one Russian too.
What stands out in the indictment is this paragraph:
There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.
Yet, to this day, there are TDS sufferers who will read this (and the Mueller report which repeats the same thing) and insist that there was at least one American who knew and participated with the Russians. It's strange to watch.
Limited Perspective,
Did you notice the propaganda/interference coming from Mexico in 2016? The propaganda didn't prevent any citizen from voting for their preference.
I have never claimed that a person was prevented from voting their preference. The point of propaganda/advertising is to influence/change preferences.
You John Birch nuts continue to amaze me.
Your refusal to address what I have actually said is what I expected.
I know I've turned to mocking the Russian interference of the 2016 election, but what did they actually do to interfere with the citizens right to vote?
I'm not aware of anything.
As far as I can tell, the Justice Department didn't want a trial. They accused people who would never be in court.
Yet, managed to secure over 3 dozen convictions related to the issue.
Looks like there actually was going to be a trial of 2 companies, but DOJ dropped before the trial started.
Their lawyer said:
"The prosecution lacked evidence to prove that the defendants knew what they were doing violated complex U.S. election laws," he said. The ads were purchased using a Russian name, a Russian Internet address, and paid for in rubles.
"Your refusal to address what I have actually said is what I expected"
I think that's fair. I don't read comments closely. However, I like you and your comments and find them interesting enough to respond. Same for Crazy Star.
I will try to pay closer attention before responding.
Arizona still counting? Can anyone say how many ballots still remain to be counted?
There is no excuse for, at least, not knowing how many ballots there are to count even if you haven't counted them on election day.
Correction:
haven't counted them
s/b
haven't recorded the ballot's vote
Post a Comment