Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   It's PUTIN'S FAULT! (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=91592)

PaulS 12-20-2016 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1113893)
probably the Russians

Trump should prob. ask one of his Russian business associates to spell check his Twitter message so he doesn't continue to look so cartoonish.

scottw 12-20-2016 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113907)
verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.Ted Kennedy must be turning green with envy in his grave

It is pathetic that you guys are denying this. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. 1st no one seems to care Trump seems like a serial liar and now this (how many times have we heard "what difference does it make what he says" - remember that when you're trying to teach your kids morals. Comparing the hacking of personal emails to someone taping Romney's speach is a joke. I especially like the outrage of "poor Bernie". An independant socialist his whole life runs against a person who has been a Democrat their whole life and people are surprised when the establishment would rather have the person who was a loyal Democrat their whole life.

you guys are big on cutting and pasting dictionary definitions and citing Politifact...is this a new tactic of the left to prove they are intellectually superior?...


new chic phrase for the left...."Reagan would be turning over in his grave. "

Obama said it in the piss and moan conference and so all the left repeats dutifully....

he's dead...he can't "turn over"

dead
ded/Submit
adjective
1.
no longer alive.
"a dead body"
synonyms: passed on/away, expired, departed, gone, no more; More
2.
complete; absolute.
"we sat in dead silence"
synonyms: complete, absolute, total, utter, out-and-out, thorough, unmitigated
"dead silence"

PaulS 12-20-2016 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1113910)
you guys are big on cutting and pasting dictionary definitions and citing Politifact...is this a new tactic of the left to prove they are intellectually superior?...snarky, snarky - No, it is an independent source. Just bc you don't like their findings most of the time, you dismiss it. Whether you use Factcheck.org, Polifact, snoopes or any other ind. fact checker, they all basically say the same thing.


new chic phrase for the left...."Reagan would be turning over in his grave. "I can't help it that the right has moved so far it is now unrecognizable.

Obama said it in the piss and moan conference and so all the left repeats dutifully....

he's dead...he can't "turn over"

dead
ded/Submit
adjective
1.
no longer alive.
"a dead body"
synonyms: passed on/away, expired, departed, gone, no more; More
2.
complete; absolute.
"we sat in dead silence"
synonyms: complete, absolute, total, utter, out-and-out, thorough, unmitigated
"dead silence"

Snarky as usual.

scottw 12-20-2016 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113911)
Snarky as usual.

yes....

democrats only care about foreign influence of our elections when they think(imagine) it affects(ed) their ability to win....

the feigned indignation is unpresidented

scottw 12-20-2016 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113911)
Snarky as usual.

Whether you use Factcheck.org, Polifact, snoopes or any other ind. fact checker

you forgot Politruth, Politicheck, Facttruth.omg, Truthcheck.....

Jim in CT 12-20-2016 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113907)
verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.

It is pathetic that you guys are denying this. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. 1st no one seems to care Trump seems like a serial liar and now this (how many times have we heard "what difference does it make what he says" - remember that when you're trying to teach your kids morals. Comparing the hacking of personal emails to someone taping Romney's speach is a joke. I especially like the outrage of "poor Bernie". An independant socialist his whole life runs against a person who has been a Democrat their whole life and people are surprised when the establishment would rather have the person who was a loyal Democrat their whole life.

No one here claims it changed election which is the reason I think you guy's anger is so evident.

The Russians only "interfered", if their actions had some effect, correct? Did the polls change materially after the email releases?

You say the Russians interfered. You can make a pretty good case. I can make an equally good case that what happened, is that the Democrats got caught behaving unethically. If they didn't behave that way, the Russians would have had nothing to gain by giving the emails to WikiLeaks. Funny, no one is talking about that.

If my school tells me that my son is misbehaving, and it turns out that he is in fact misbehaving...the last thing I care about, are the details of how he got caught.

Fix the cyber-security. But why is the left not talking, not even for a second, about the behavior that is brought to light by the emails.

I haven't heard a single person say that the hacking isn't a concern.

No one on the left seems upset by what your side was doing during the primary and the general. All you care about is shooting the messenger (who may deserve to be shot), but you are pretending that the message doesn't exist.

The Dad Fisherman 12-20-2016 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113907)
verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.

Again, the Election occurred on its scheduled date, polls opened on time, people cast their votes, votes were tallied, and a victor was determined. Nothing the Russians did hampered the (action or procedure of) Elections. It occurred without issue.


Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113907)
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

This definition can be applied to the fact that the Russians possibly meddled in the affairs of the DNC and HRC, not the election, by releasing damaging documents.

PaulS 12-20-2016 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1113916)
The Russians only "interfered", if their actions had some effect, correct? No, not necessarily, You can try and fail at something.Did the polls change materially after the email releases?They where released in a slow drib and drab way to get maximum news value so if the polls dropped it is tough to say. Comey's anouncement had more of an effect via the polls if you look at before and after.

You say the Russians interfered. You can make a pretty good case. I can make an equally good case that what happened, is that the Democrats got caught behaving unethically. If they didn't behave that way, the Russians would have had nothing to gain by giving the emails to WikiLeaks. Funny, no one is talking about that.Donna Brezile deserved to be fired. The question she released was expected but still releasing it was sleazy. Anyone would have been able to answer that question. It is not surprising that Wasserman Shultz favored Hilary as she was a Dem. for a long time vs Bernie who was an Indep. Plus Hillary was expected to have a better chance.

If my school tells me that my son is misbehaving, and it turns out that he is in fact misbehaving...the last thing I care about, are the details of how he got caught.If he was accused of taking something and hid it by putting it down his pants and was made to drop his pants in public any parent would be upset - not the best example but....Or would Watergate had been ok if it revealed something sleazy/wrong/illegal?

Fix the cyber-securityThe DNC had lousy security and when a FBI called them he was forwarded to a help desk and that person didn't believe he was an FBI agent.. But why is the left not talking, not even for a second, about the behavior that is brought to light by the emails.

I haven't heard a single person say that the hacking isn't a concern. I think there have been threads/post before this downplaying the hacks.

No one on the left seems upset by what your side was doing during the primary and the general. All you care about is shooting the messenger (who may deserve to be shot), but you are pretending that the message doesn't exist.

I'm not ignoring either sides actions but am admittedly giving more weight to a hostile foreign govern. actions then to actions of our own. Is it a double standard that it bothers me more than what we have done in Chile or Argentina when we tried to influence an election – sure. I view the hacking as closer to Watergate than Jimmy Carter’s grandson taping a Milt Romney speech where he was a bartender. The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed.

scottw 12-20-2016 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113911)

If he was accused of taking something and hid it by putting it down his pants

you mean like Sandy Berger?

PaulS 12-20-2016 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1113922)
Again, the Election occurred on its scheduled date, polls opened on time, people cast their votes, votes were tallied, and a victor was determined. Nothing the Russians did hampered the (action or procedure of) Elections. It occurred without issue.

You're trying to view the election as something that only occurs over the 12 hour period polls are open instead of from when the 2 major candidates started running for the Pres.

So if someone sabotaged all the polling booths the night before the election, wouldn't that be considered trying to sabotage the election even though it doesn't fit into your timeframe?

PaulS 12-20-2016 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1113924)
you mean like Sandy Berger?

I was thinking David Patraeus giving his mistress secrets or maybe Michael T. Flynn, future national security adviser sharing classified information with others in Afghanistan.

scottw 12-20-2016 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113926)
I was thinking David Patraeus giving his mistress secrets or maybe Michael T. Flynn, future national security adviser sharing classified information with others in Afghanistan.

A) it would be very interesting to know...what exactly Sandy smuggled out of there and why?

B) what "secrets" DP was giving with his honey?

C) and what "ci" Flynn was sharing with "others?" in Afgh.


i'm guessing A is pretty interesting...the others...not so much...applying the HRC standard...I doubt b or C were intentional or calculated....maybe just an error in judgment....A) Berger, however , was willful and calculated.....not just bad judgment

this is interesting...

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who was sentenced in 2005 — as the result of a plea bargain — to two-years probation and fined $50,000 for stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them, had also been functioning as a Hillary Clinton campaign adviser before his death last December.

According to a recently released Hillary Clinton email, Berger who served as national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, had been advising Hillary Clinton since her days as Secretary of State for President Barack Obama. His email correspondence with Clinton was stored on her private server and it’s yet to be reported whether or not he — a convicted thief of classified documents — had access to emails containing classified intelligence.

The release of the Clinton/Berger email was part of a batch of email messages released by the State Department. In one of those emails, Berger advised Clinton to make Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political life “uneasy.”


thick as theives

The Dad Fisherman 12-20-2016 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113925)
You're trying to view the election as something that only occurs over the 12 hour period polls are open instead of from when the 2 major candidates started running for the Pres.

The election IS the something that occurs over 12 hours on ELECTION Day.

The time prior to that the candidates start running for office is called the Campaign.

It's still not to late to ask Santa for a dictionary for Christmas :hee:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113925)
So if someone sabotaged all the polling booths the night before the election, wouldn't that be considered trying to sabotage the election even though it doesn't fit into your timeframe?

If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls couldn't be opened on time because of it.....that is interfering with the election.

If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls opened on time in spite of it.....that is attempting to interfere with the election.....but failing.

Jim in CT 12-20-2016 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113923)
I'm not ignoring either sides actions but am admittedly giving more weight to a hostile foreign govern. actions then to actions of our own. Is it a double standard that it bothers me more than what we have done in Chile or Argentina when we tried to influence an election – sure. I view the hacking as closer to Watergate than Jimmy Carter’s grandson taping a Milt Romney speech where he was a bartender. The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed.

"No, not necessarily, You can try and fail at something"

Well, if they tried to effect the outcome and failed, then they also failed to interfere. Can you ever just admit a conservative has a point? Russia likely tried to interfere. No evidence they succeeded.

"Donna Brezile deserved to be fired. The question she released was expected but still releasing it was sleazy"

Agreed. But her sleazy actions, I noticed, weren't enough to get her fired as the head of the DNC.

"It is not surprising that Wasserman Shultz favored Hilary as she was a Dem. for a long time vs Bernie "

If Deb wants to personally favor Hilary, that's fine. But she went WAY beyond that, she actively sabotaged Bernie's campaign, and actively colluded with the media to lift up Hilary. Correct?

"Plus Hillary was expected to have a better chance"

That's for the voters to decide in the primaries. The DNC isn't supposed to put their thumbs on the scale. But the existence of the superdelegates, is proof that the DNC isn't interested in democracy, they are interested in nominating who the party leaders want to be nominated, voters be damned.

"was made to drop his pants in public any parent would be upset "

Agreed, I would be upset at that. But I would also be upset that he cheated, and no one at NBC, ABC, or CNN, had much to say about what was in those emails. And CNN actually told viewers not to watch coverage of the emails on other networks. They buried the truth, because it made Hilary look bad. That completely undermines the reason why we have a free press. You know how bad Sean Hannity was in the tank for Trump? That's how bad, almost everyone else was, for her.

"The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed. "

Agreed 100%.

If the Dems weren't being so sleazy and underhanded, there would have been no Wikileaks dump.

I have no problem with looking into the leaks. I have issues with the extent to which every network but one, buried the content of the emails.

PaulS 12-20-2016 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1113930)
The election IS the something that occurs over 12 hours on ELECTION Day.

The time prior to that the candidates start running for office is called the Campaign.

It's still not to late to ask Santa for a dictionary for Christmas :hee:I think now that I see your logic I won't be asking for a dictionary



If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls couldn't be opened on time because of it.....that is interfering with the election.

If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls opened on time in spite of it.....that is attempting to interfere with the election.....but failing.

So saying the Russians attempted to interfere with the campaign is true but that they didn't attempt to interfere with the election?

I think when most people state that the Russians tried to interfere in the election they know it was not on election day but if you want to use that when you defend the Russians have at it.

Edit - It seems Jim even agrees that election shouldn't be considered only a 12 hour event.

PaulS 12-20-2016 11:55 AM

The selling of the Trump WH has begun!

Maybe we can attack TMZ and say they aren't journalists.





One of the biggest questions about the coming presidency of Donald Trump has been how he will address the tension between his public role of the nation’s chief executive and the private interests of the Trump Organization and his family members. And two reports out this week show just how real those tensions are.

The Center for Public Integrity on Monday night published a story demonstrating that a Texas-based non-profit recently formed by Trump’s two adult sons and two associates in Texas is already selling the opportunity to meet with President Trump -- on the day after his inauguration -- for as much as $1 million.

Also on Monday night, the liberal organization ThinkProgress published a report claiming that the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States had been pressured by officials with the Trump Organization to cancel a contract to hold the annual National Day celebration at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown and to move it to the newly opened Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House.

The stories come just days after Eric Trump canceled a controversial online auction in which he was offering the opportunity to have coffee with his sister, Ivanka, to donors willing to make a donation to a charity he sponsors. Ivanka Trump, a close adviser to her father, is expected to play a major behind-the-scenes role in the Trump White House and, like her brothers, is already serving on the presidential transition team that is in charge of filling jobs in the coming administration.

The non-profit formed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, called the Opening Day Foundation, is sponsoring an event the day after the inauguration next month in Washington. First reported by the website TMZ, the organization is offering sponsorship packages that include the “Bald Eagle” level. For $1 million, sponsors are entitled to a private reception and photo opportunity with the just-inaugurated president, a multi-day hunting or fishing trips with Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, and nearly 100 tickets to the event itself, and other benefits.

A $500,000 “Grizzly Bear” package also comes with a private reception with the president, and an excursion with his sons, and other amenities. Lower tier packages substitute a reception with the president for one with his children.


While the donations to the Opening Day Foundation are said to be going to unspecified conservation-related charities, the money being paid to the Trump International Hotel by the Kuwaiti Embassy for its National Day celebration will be going into the coffers of the Trump Organization, which will remain under Trump family ownership even after Donald Trump takes office as president.

According to ThinkProgress writers Judd Legum and Kira Lerner, “The Kuwaiti embassy, which has regularly held the event at the Four Seasons in Georgetown, abruptly canceled its reservation after members of the Trump Organization pressured the ambassador to hold the event at the hotel owned by the president-elect.” The source spoke to ThinkProgress on condition of anonymity, but according to the report, “ThinkProgress was also able to review documentary evidence confirming the source’s account.”

If confirmed, the story raises not just concerns about the use of political power to drive private gain, but also about whether or not Trump will be in violation of the Constitution once he takes office. The “emoluments clause” in the nation’s founding document bars the president from accepting payment from foreign governments.

scottw 12-20-2016 12:11 PM

what's next....the Lincoln Bedroom????? oh the horror

The Dad Fisherman 12-20-2016 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113932)
So saying the Russians attempted to interfere with the campaign is true but that they didn't attempt to interfere with the election?.

Safe to say the Russians attempted to interfere with the Democrat's campaign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113932)
I think when most people state that the Russians tried to interfere in the election they know it was not on election day but if you want to use that when you defend the Russians have at it..

I'm not defending the Russians...I'm defending the English language. How about we actually state what happened properly and then discuss it.

This is how Fake news happens, twisting words to fit the narrative. You know what fake news is....its on the list of reasons why Hillary Lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113932)
Edit - It seems Jim even agrees that election shouldn't be considered only a 12 hour event.

Jim can think whatever Jim wants to think....doesn't change what I think.

PaulS 12-20-2016 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1113939)

This is how Fake news happensno it isn't. You're the one trying to limit a many month long event to a 12 hour window to fit your narrative., twisting words to fit the narrative:laughs:. You know what fake news is....its on the list of reasons why Hillary Lost.That is exactly what you have been doing. No one else uses the word election in this context to refer to a 12 hour period. The Government doesn't, the press doesn't, only you are doing to fit your narrative. When the govern. refers to the election they never use such a narrow definition unless they are refering to the 12 hour period on election day.

So keep trying to twist the common usuage by taking a narrow definition.

detbuch 12-20-2016 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113907)
verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.

Words have definitions, but they also have connotations. The definitions that you list for interfere can be applied to any political campaign. Campaigns are composed of opposing parties. Everything said in a campaign in order to detract from the opposing party and for the gain of one's own party, could be called interference if you wish to apply interfere as the descriptor. So, Hillary's entire campaign, and everything she said, would therefor be interfering with Trump's campaign, and thereby, as well, interfering in the election or election process.

I doubt that you mean to say that. Maybe you do.

On the other hand, if influence is used as the descriptor, it is quite logical that our election campaigns are about influencing the outcome--ergo about influencing the election not interfering with it.

The difference in connotations makes sense to say "influence" rather than "interfere." The use of interfere connotes more of a use of force or coercion or actual physical action. Influence connotes, in this context, persuasion. Campaigns strive to persuade, not force.


No one here claims it changed election which is the reason I think you guy's anger is so evident.

I have not noticed the anger that you cite here. You have done this several times in other posts. Saying anger exists where it doesn't. If debate is anger, then by participating in the debate makes you angry as well.

scottw 12-20-2016 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1113940)
So keep trying to twist the common usuage by taking a narrow definition.

like this?

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement…

Jim in CT 12-20-2016 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1113939)
Safe to say the Russians attempted to interfere with the Democrat's campaign.



I'm not defending the Russians...I'm defending the English language. How about we actually state what happened properly and then discuss it.

This is how Fake news happens, twisting words to fit the narrative. You know what fake news is....its on the list of reasons why Hillary Lost.



Jim can think whatever Jim wants to think....doesn't change what I think.

"Safe to say the Russians attempted to interfere with the Democrat's campaign."

We're all saying the same thing. The Russians likely tried to help tilt things in Trump's favor.

"How about we actually state what happened properly and then discuss it." Now that sounds like a good idea. I have heard many reporters on ABC, NBC, and MSNBC say that the Russians hacked the election, or played a serious role in Trump's win. Zero evidence of that. But even if the polls changed 40 points after the email leaks, the bigger issue isn't how the truth was revealed, but rather the behavior that was revealed. I would say the same thing if it was the Republicans who were being unethical.

"Jim can think whatever Jim wants to think"

I think, that I think, the same thing that you think.

I also think that you were right about Cub Scouts. My first grader loves it more than anything we have ever asked him to try, and he could not look cuter in his uniform. He doesn't believe me about how big the battleships are that we are going to sleep on in the spring. Hoping to take his den ice-fishing this winter.

The Dad Fisherman 12-21-2016 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1113947)
I also think that you were right about Cub Scouts. My first grader loves it more than anything we have ever asked him to try, and he could not look cuter in his uniform. He doesn't believe me about how big the battleships are that we are going to sleep on in the spring. Hoping to take his den ice-fishing this winter.

Glad he likes it....always had a lot of fun and you guys will build a lot of great memories from it. You get to be a kid again as well... :hee:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com