Page 6 of 66 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 659

Thread: Why I Voted For Trump...

  1. #51
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,662
    Amen (Given)
    305
    Amen (Received)
    1605
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Fake news. It is "well-documented" that Russia maybe tried to disrupt the election with an underfunded and ineffectual social media campaign, but even the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed up by two staunch Trump critics, admitted that "the goal of our ‎adversaries was not to favor one party ‎over the other."
    Even your own article notes:

    Source: above

    The January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) report found the Russian government sought to aid Trump’s “election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

    In the IC report, the NSA assessed the conclusion that Putin favored Trump and worked to get him elected only with a classification of “moderate confidence,” while the FBI and CIA gave it a “high confidence” rating.

    The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found:

    The difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

    Source: second link

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Mueller at his hearing on Wednesday if the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning.”

    Mueller confirmed that they did.

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

    “Which candidate would that be?” Lofgren asked.

    “Well, it would be Trump,” Mueller said

    © Copyright Original Source



    Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

    https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/

    Source: Time

    The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: To damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201

    Source: wsj

    That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.

    © Copyright Original Source



    It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2019 at 11:42 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  2. #52
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,662
    Amen (Given)
    305
    Amen (Received)
    1605
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    The reason that I ignored it was that this stuff has been explained to you in excruciating details multiple times. For instance, back when Trump "asked" the Russians for help, I (who was still quite unhappy about Trump had just become the Republican nominee) didn't need it explained that his comments were done sarcastically -- as a way of poking the MSM in the eye for mostly showing reluctance in investigating Hillary's missing 33,000 emails. The very fact that he did it in the middle of a public speech that was being recorded ought to be sufficient to clue in even the most jaded Trump hater that this was anything but a serious request. A serious request would be done in a discreet manner and very surreptitiously simply because you do not want everyone knowing about it.

    And if you object to how I respond then don't interject yourself into an exchange between others, especially starting off with "I'd call your comments here 'unhinged' in terms of their relation to reality."
    I would think a person of your skills would take the time to respond to the substance of it - not pick off ancillary issues. It's beneath you to treat a post like some others here might do it. You're better than that - yes?

    As to your point, His request for help can not be considered merely sarcastic given the context and his extreme, well voiced desire to pin Clinton's abuse of the email server on her. That was a real request for help from anyone that might have access to the data. And given the infamous Trump meeting hoping to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians - even more so. There is no way that was mere sarcasm. He knew they were looking to help him out. He was giving them a suggestion as to how they might be able to accomplish that goal.

    As for your hypothetical about what a serious request would be. This is Donald Trump. "I can shoot someone in broad daylight and my people will still follow me" Donald Trump. Unfortunately and as has been shown time and time again, Donald Trump doesn't need to secure that kind of backdoor help in a discreet manner.



    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2019 at 12:03 PM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  3. #53
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,380
    Amen (Given)
    5754
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    Quote Originally Posted by Catholicity View Post
    What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.
    Here's the exact quote:

    "I will tell you this, Russia, if you're listening: I hiope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will be rewarded mightly by our press."

    First of all, Trump made this statement after it was common knowledge that Hillary was using an unauthorized, unsecured private server to conduct classified state business, that the server was compromised by foreign governments, and that Hillary had gone to great lengths to prevent the data on those servers from being scrutinized by law enforcement, including the extraordinary step of using special security software to scrub 30,000 emails from the hard drives and render them unrecoverable AFTER the information had been subpoenaed!

    Secondly, does it really have to be pointed out that Trump was making an obvious joke? It was more a poke in the eye of the mainstream media who had been studiously disinterested in the story as well as drawing attention to the fact that Hillary had obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  4. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  5. #54
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,380
    Amen (Given)
    5754
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Even your own article notes:

    Source: above

    The January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) report found the Russian government sought to aid Trump’s “election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

    In the IC report, the NSA assessed the conclusion that Putin favored Trump and worked to get him elected only with a classification of “moderate confidence,” while the FBI and CIA gave it a “high confidence” rating.

    The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found:

    The difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

    Source: second link

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Mueller at his hearing on Wednesday if the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning.”

    Mueller confirmed that they did.

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

    “Which candidate would that be?” Lofgren asked.

    “Well, it would be Trump,” Mueller said

    © Copyright Original Source



    Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

    https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/

    Source: Time

    The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: To damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201

    Source: wsj

    That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.

    © Copyright Original Source



    It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



    Jim
    In fact, a deep dive into the Mueller report shows just how weak the Russian conspiracy theory really is, and how little evidence there is to support any of the claims being bandied about by liberals...

    While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

    But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

    • The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
    • The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
    • There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
    • Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
    • U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
    • Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
    • Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
    • Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
    • John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

    None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  6. #55
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,677
    Amen (Given)
    1690
    Amen (Received)
    1476
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Even your own article notes:

    Source: above

    The January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) report found the Russian government sought to aid Trump’s “election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

    In the IC report, the NSA assessed the conclusion that Putin favored Trump and worked to get him elected only with a classification of “moderate confidence,” while the FBI and CIA gave it a “high confidence” rating.

    The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found:

    The difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

    Source: second link

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Mueller at his hearing on Wednesday if the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning.”

    Mueller confirmed that they did.

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

    “Which candidate would that be?” Lofgren asked.

    “Well, it would be Trump,” Mueller said

    © Copyright Original Source



    Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

    https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/

    Source: Time

    The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: To damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201

    Source: wsj

    That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.

    © Copyright Original Source



    It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



    Jim
    Not to mention that much of that intel came from a Russian source working for the CIA with close contact to the upper echelons of the Russian government and to Putin himself, a spy who the CIA recently extracted out of Russia for fear of his safety.

  7. #56
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,920
    Amen (Given)
    2820
    Amen (Received)
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by Catholicity View Post
    What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.
    Death of the humor center of the brain is one of the most distinctive and deleterious effects of TDS.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  8. #57
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,675
    Amen (Given)
    664
    Amen (Received)
    1468
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    In what way? Please cite some specific examples--vague statements are insufficient.
    Example: the decision that allowing an official monument to bear the 10 commandments, which are relevant to only a few religions, does not pertain to establishment of those religions.

    But let's suppose and accept that some of their decisions do ""interpret" the law to mean something other than what is written, or create new applications for a law that were never intended by the legislature." No judge is completely immune from such a thing--the question is which justices are far less prone to doing it. I would say that, by and large, "conservative" judges are less likely to do so than "liberal" judges.
    I would disagree - I suspect the tendency to interpret laws according to preference rather than wording is a behaviour control issue, and conservatives tend to impose their values on others more than liberals do.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  9. #58
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,675
    Amen (Given)
    664
    Amen (Received)
    1468
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Sorry, but playing semantics won't save you from your ignorant flub.
    As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own naivete and failure to recognise subtle distinctions.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  10. #59
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,380
    Amen (Given)
    5754
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    Quote Originally Posted by Ignorant Roy View Post
    As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own naivete and failure to recognise subtle distinctions.
    Right.

    It couldn't be that you not being an American genuinely thought the US judiciary had the power to change laws (since, you know, that's what you actually said) and then tried to cover for your ignorance by playing little semantic games.

    It would be so much easier if you just said, "Huh, I didn't know that. My mistake."
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  11. #60
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,380
    Amen (Given)
    5754
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    Quote Originally Posted by Ignorant Roy View Post
    Example: the decision that allowing an official monument to bear the 10 commandments, which are relevant to only a few religions, does not pertain to establishment of those religions.
    That is, in fact, a very literal and conservative interpretation of the First Amendment since the prohibition is against the government from enacting laws that would establish or restrict the practice of religion. There is nothing that says that the government can't recognize or even prefer one religion over the others, just as long as the citizens are not compelled by law to do the same.

    So as an example of judicial activism, this is a fail.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  12. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •