• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s national security advisers warned him not to congratulate Putin. He did it anyway.

I've caught a troll HERE and a link to a troll site HERE.

So I dismiss your dismissal.

If you're happy, I'm happy. :mrgreen:

Your links did not work, and I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.
 
Isn't that what I said? That the Russians DID NOT interfere in the 2016 election here.

I totally agree that Vladimir Putin (specifically that Vladimir Putin who currently holds the office of 'President of Russia') DID NOT personally remove a marked ballot from a ballot box and substitute one with different markings.

Sorry if I said it wrong, but that's what I meant.

Your statement isn't completely clear.

Are you saying that

  1. there was absolutely no "Russian" action taken during the 2016 elections which were intended to have any effect whatsoever on the 2016 elections; or
  2. the "Russians" did take action during the 2016 elections which were intended to have some effect on the 2016 elections but those actions did not have
    • a dominant effect ( 100% > "Effect" > 75%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections, but those actions did not have;
    • a major effect (75% > "Effect" > 50%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections;
    • more than a minor effect (50% > "Effect" >25%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections;
    • more than a minimal effect (25% > "Effect" > 0%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections; or
    • any effect at all ("Effect" = 0) on the outcome of the 2016 elections?

Yes, I keep an old-fashioned paper dictionary handy, and I do know what "interfere" means.

Good - then you know that "interfere" does not mean the same thing as "control".
 
I totally agree that Vladimir Putin (specifically that Vladimir Putin who currently holds the office of 'President of Russia') DID NOT personally remove a marked ballot from a ballot box and substitute one with different markings.



Your statement isn't completely clear.

Are you saying that

  1. there was absolutely no "Russian" action taken during the 2016 elections which were intended to have any effect whatsoever on the 2016 elections; or
  2. the "Russians" did take action during the 2016 elections which were intended to have some effect on the 2016 elections but those actions did not have
    • a dominant effect ( 100% > "Effect" > 75%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections, but those actions did not have;
    • a major effect (75% > "Effect" > 50%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections;
    • more than a minor effect (50% > "Effect" >25%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections;
    • more than a minimal effect (25% > "Effect" > 0%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections; or
    • any effect at all ("Effect" = 0) on the outcome of the 2016 elections?



Good - then you know that "interfere" does not mean the same thing as "control".

Sure, the Russians working for the private company working the internet DID take out ads on various social media, but so did each party do the same. And the amount of spending by that Russian firm amounted to less than 1% of the money spent by either party for their candidate.

You may want to call that interference, but I like to look at the big picture, and the Russian effort one way or the other was a drop in the bucket compared to what was spent here by US entities to influence (interfere) in the election.

I did not vote for Trump or Clinton, but I know many who did vote for Trump, and most of them did because they despised the criminal Hillary, as I do. They were not swayed by social media, they were swayed by animosity towards Hillary.

If we compare the effort made by "The Russians" with ads on Facebook to the efforts by the US putting Yeltsin into office, it is another drop in the bucket.

And the high anxiety you display over this issue is very much making a mountain out of a mole hill. If a federal special prosecutor could find nothing after a year, WTF are you even worried about?
 
Sure, the Russians working for the private company working the internet DID take out ads on various social media, but so did each party do the same. And the amount of spending by that Russian firm amounted to less than 1% of the money spent by either party for their candidate.

OK, now you are clear, you'll go with 2.D. "The "Russians" did take action during the 2016 elections which were intended to have some effect on the 2016 elections but those actions did not have more than a minimal effect (25% > "Effect" > 0%) on the outcome of the 2016 elections.".

Fair enough.

You may want to call that interference, but I like to look at the big picture, and the Russian effort one way or the other was a drop in the bucket compared to what was spent here by US entities to influence (interfere) in the election.

American entities are legally allowed to attempt to influence American elections. Russian entities are not legally allowed to attempt to influence American elections. There is a "slight" difference between those two statements (and it isn't the substitution of the word "Russian" for the word "American") can you work out what that difference is? [HINT - It's a three letter word that starts with the letter "n" and ends with the letter "t" and comes between the word "are" and the word "legally" in one of those two statements.]

And the high anxiety you display over this issue is very much making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I know, it's really silly to want to see elections conducted in actual compliance with the actual law - but I'm funny that way.

If a federal special prosecutor could find nothing after a year, WTF are you even worried about?

Well, for one thing I'm not so sure that I'd go alone with "a federal special prosecutor could find nothing" until AFTER the federal special prosecutor reports out stating that they found nothing that might have been actionable that had any reasonable likelihood of success in court.

Of course, if it were a federal special prosecutor that was investigating Ms. Clinton I'm prepared to bet that around 39(+/-3.5)% of the American people wouldn't be prepared to accept a report that said that they found nothing that might have been actionable that had a reasonable chance of success in court, then the immediate reaction would be to call for the appointment of another federal special prosecutor to investigate the conduct of the first federal special prosecutor AND to reopen the investigation into Ms. Clinton.

And, of course if that second federal special prosecutor reported out that they found nothing that might have been actionable that had a reasonable chance of success in court then around 39(+/-3.5)% of the American people wouldn't be prepared to accept that report and the immediate reaction would be to call for the appointment of another federal special prosecutor to investigate the conduct of the first two federal special prosecutors AND to reopen the investigation into Ms. Clinton.

And, of course if that third federal special prosecutor reported out that they found nothing that might have been actionable that had a reasonable chance of success in court then around 39(+/-3.5)% of the American people wouldn't be prepared to accept that report and the immediate reaction would be to call for the appointment of another federal special prosecutor to investigate the conduct of the first three federal special prosecutors AND to reopen the investigation into Ms. Clinton.

And, of course if that fourth federal special prosecutor reported out that they found nothing that might have been actionable that had a reasonable chance of success in court then around 39(+/-3.5)% of the American people wouldn't be prepared to accept that report and the immediate reaction would be to call for the appointment of another federal special prosecutor to investigate the conduct of the first three federal special prosecutors AND to reopen the investigation into Ms. Clinton.

And, of course if that firth federal special prosecutor reported out that they found nothing that might have been actionable that had a reasonable chance of success in court then around 39(+/-3.5)% of the American people wouldn't be prepared to accept that report and the immediate reaction would be to call for the appointment of another federal special prosecutor to investigate the conduct of the first four federal special prosecutors AND to reopen the investigation into Ms. Clinton.

And, of course, if that fifth ...
 
Is that bluesmoke you're inhaling hallucinogenic? ;)



Naw. I gave that up years ago. But if you don’t believe there was interference in the election, you might as well believe there was no moon landing or holocaust.
 
Naw. I gave that up years ago. But if you don’t believe there was interference in the election, you might as well believe there was no moon landing or holocaust.

HAH!!

Gottcha!!!

There WAS NO HOLOCAUST on the Moon.

[Irrelevant post generated using about as much attention to the actual content of your post as around 39(+/-3.5)% of all Internet uses would pay to it.]

Have a good weekend.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom