Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-19-2016, 01:39 PM   #61
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Just look at the right with Obama on National security

Right-wing commentators ripped President Obama for dancing the tango at a state dinner in Argentina a day after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium, criticizing him for "dancing the night away" "while Brussels burns."

Iran HUMILIATES American Sailors -- And Obama Administration THANKS Them For It!


All I am saying Trumps no stance on the Russians Hacking is disturbing as is the dismissive attitude of his supporters in face of the information provide.. they see no evil hear no evil speak no evil when it Comes to Trump They see no conflict of interests in his Cabinet but saw it clearly with the Clinton foundation ?? and that presents a Dangerous development .. it should be an interesting 4 years
wdmso is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 02:02 PM   #62
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
I'm pretty sure Trump has not yet been sworn in....any problems with the russians are still obama's responsibility...obama assured us in his piss and moan conference the other day that they're working on a report that will come out before he leaves office and after he gets back from his latest lavish vacation...sounds like they're not in a big rush so probably not a big issue

funny everyone gets upset when Trump says something and even more upset when he doesn't say anything....he's in so many heads
scottw is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 02:07 PM   #63
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
I wonder if someone will come out with a 3rd Manchurian candidate movie in 2021.
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 02:33 PM   #64
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I can't recall what new sites and social media sites hacked personnal email accts. before.
Do you mean personal e-mail accounts....or e-mail accounts of government officials being housed on personal servers? because there is a difference.

and that argument doesn't make what I said about news organizations and social media sites influencing the election any less legitimate.

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 02:38 PM   #65
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

The GOP is warming to Russian President Vladimir Putin — even as evidence of his regime’s interference in the election intensifies.


"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 02:38 PM   #66
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Just look at the right with Obama on National security

Right-wing commentators ripped President Obama for dancing the tango at a state dinner in Argentina a day after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium, criticizing him for "dancing the night away" "while Brussels burns."

Iran HUMILIATES American Sailors -- And Obama Administration THANKS Them For It!


All I am saying Trumps no stance on the Russians Hacking is disturbing as is the dismissive attitude of his supporters in face of the information provide.. they see no evil hear no evil speak no evil when it Comes to Trump They see no conflict of interests in his Cabinet but saw it clearly with the Clinton foundation ?? and that presents a Dangerous development .. it should be an interesting 4 years
And what has Obama done regarding Russia? He made fun of Romney for predicting that Putin was going to be a bully!

Regarding Obama and national security, you left out a couple of criticisms that are a bit more legitimate, like his handling of Iraq and Syria (remember the "red line that" he warned Assad not to cross? Ooohhh, scary).

And my criticism of his doing the tango had nothing to do with timing, but merely that dancing is one more thing we can add to the list of things that Obama suckz at.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 02:42 PM   #67
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
personnel email accts. Isn't that illegal? Most folks here don't seem to have a problem w/it. And they also don't seem to care that the Russians tried to influence our elections. I guess bc we have done it w/other countries they via it the same. maybe the double standard thing.

Of course every news article has the effect of trying to influence an election unless there is zero bias in an article and very, very few articles have zero bias.
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 02:46 PM   #68
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
That wasn't my word - that was the author's.

I think JohnR said something about "interference" though.

Maybe you need to go through other people's posts like you seem to go through mine.

You seem on edge recently. Did something happen?
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 03:24 PM   #69
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
That wasn't my word - that was the author's.

I think JohnR said something about "interference" though.

Maybe you need to go through other people's posts like you seem to go through mine.

You seem on edge recently. Did something happen?
Did the American media get accused of "interfering" with the election when they broke the story about Trump's disgusting language on the Access Hollywood tape?

I haven't heard anyone doubt the accuracy of what was in the hacked emails. If the emails are valid, than while we need to increase cyber-security, I see the release of the emails as allowing voters to make an informed decision.

When Romney was unknowingly recorded making his idiotic comments about lots of people not wanting to work, I don't recall pushback about how the truth was obtained.

When secrets are revealed about Democrats doing unethical things, all they do is attack the messenger. They never want to talk, not even for a second, about what was revealed.

It was the liberals who interfered in this election. In the primary, the DNC and the media worked with Team Hilary to sabotage poor Bernie. In the general, CNN got debate questions to Hilary, and the DNC actually paid thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

Those actions constitute "interfering". Reporting those facts is not interfering. The method of getting the emails may well have been a violation of international law, but sharing the emails was not interfering. Influencing, maybe, but people were free to choose whether or not to care about the democrats' unethical actions.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 03:33 PM   #70
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Maybe you and Kevin should address your issue to John since he used the word "interference".
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 03:36 PM   #71
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
I think I'm gonna start using the work "interference" soon though.
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 04:12 PM   #72
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
This.

Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

They did not HACK the election. That would involve tampering with the results.

What they did is more or less what they always do to us and to others.
Paul, you mean this quote by John? Looks like he used the word influence...not interference.

And I know that was the authors quote, not yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 05:29 PM   #73
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I think I'm gonna start using the work "interference" soon though.
unpresidented interference
scottw is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 05:53 PM   #74
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
unpresidented interference
I think someone went in and edited his twitter after he posted that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 06:00 PM   #75
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

The electoral college has not voted yet. For all we know they are going to say no way and then chaos will follow

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
hey Nebestrodamus...the EC voted ..Mitt Romney is still unemployed...and the Cleveland Browns are 0-14

Last edited by scottw; 12-19-2016 at 08:41 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 06:00 PM   #76
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I think someone went in and edited his twitter after he posted that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
probably the Russians
scottw is offline  
Old 12-19-2016, 06:56 PM   #77
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
personnel email accts. Isn't that illegal? Most folks here don't seem to have a problem w/it. And they also don't seem to care that the Russians tried to influence our elections. I guess bc we have done it w/other countries they via it the same. maybe the double standard thing.
It's not that they don't have a problem with it. They just don't have this all-holy outrage over it after its been going on so long (Russians trying to influence us or worse) and the rage didn't get all revved up till now. And now, after the election turned out not the way some wanted, they get all up in high dudgeon over it--with accusations of "interference" with or "disruption" of the election--of the election being hacked.

And when its admitted that it didn't change the outcome of the election and the election wasn't hacked, the narrative shifts to, well, its not about the election, but about the hacking. Never mind that such rage over hacking wasn't demanded of us before.

I think the media threw out the red meat of Hillary possibly losing because of Putin's manipulation of the election in favor of Trump. This provided some last gasp issue to somehow delegitimize Trump's victory. And those on the left swarmed all over it. It was such a tasty treat that everybody was not only invited to swallow it, but demanded we must or be accused of hypocrisy.

And yeah, the double standard thing is relevant. Why aren't we demanding each other to be outraged over our interference into other countries' business? Probably because we've gotten used to it all.
detbuch is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 05:45 AM   #78
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.



Soviets would use every tool at their disposal to ensure Nixon did not win. In 1960, they held U-2 pilot Gary Powers after his plane crashed illegally in Russia, and specifically delayed his release until after the presidential elections. They used Powers as a bargaining chip, and, according to Khrushchev himself, it worked. In his memoirs, the Soviet leader stated, “We kept Nixon from being able to claim that he could deal with the Russians; our ploy made a difference of at least half a million votes, which gave Kennedy the edge he needed.” -

Last edited by scottw; 12-20-2016 at 05:53 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 07:21 AM   #79
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It's not that they don't have a problem with it. They just don't have this all-holy outrage over it after its been going on so long (Russians trying to influence us or worse) and the rage didn't get all revved up till now.
And yeah, the double standard thing is relevant. Why aren't we demanding each other to be outraged over our interference into other countries' business? Probably because we've gotten used to it all.
decades and decades of American leftist politicians, activists and celebrities fawning, conspiring and leg humping the various foreign workers paradises of the world and their esteemed leaders....

and now outrage because some embarrassing emails "may have been" hacked and exposed
scottw is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 08:02 AM   #80
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
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.

Last edited by PaulS; 12-20-2016 at 08:18 AM..
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 08:05 AM   #81
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
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.

Last edited by PaulS; 12-20-2016 at 08:17 AM..
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 08:26 AM   #82
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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"
scottw is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 08:34 AM   #83
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
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.

Last edited by PaulS; 12-20-2016 at 08:40 AM..
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 08:54 AM   #84
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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 is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 08:58 AM   #85
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Snarky as usual.

Whether you use Factcheck.org, Polifact, snoopes or any other ind. fact checker
you forgot Politruth, Politicheck, Facttruth.omg, Truthcheck.....
scottw is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 09:01 AM   #86
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 09:57 AM   #87
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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 View Post
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.

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 10:19 AM   #88
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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.
PaulS is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 10:23 AM   #89
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

If he was accused of taking something and hid it by putting it down his pants
you mean like Sandy Berger?
scottw is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 10:27 AM   #90
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
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?

Last edited by PaulS; 12-20-2016 at 10:34 AM..
PaulS is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com