U.S. Politics 2018

[Loachman]

In spite of that, she still got almost 3 million more votes than he did. 

I see that you are still fixating on that major irrelevancy.

She was a crappy candidate who ran a crappy campaign and still cannot figure out or acknowledge why she lost.

And as California has a high population of illegal immigrants and does not require confirmation of citizenship in order to vote, it is quite likely that much of her "popular vote" was ineligible.

 

[McG]

In hindsight you're probably right. The US history and stuff like Libya makes it hard to not assume their hands are always involved.

So I think we agree, both Russia and US have some checkered behaviours over the last 75 years. They are also not the only ones with fingers in that war. Maybe you are not wrong about false flag speculations, but that does not mean it was US doing it.  I am fairly confident that it was not the White Helmets as Russia is now alleging, but there are other possibilities. Canadians peacekeepers saw belligerents kill their own side in Yugoslavia for the sake of international sympathy. I can’t say this is what happened, but if you don’t think it was Assad then I would think this to be the next most likely possibility.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

And as California has a high population of illegal immigrants and does not require confirmation of citizenship in order to vote, it is quite likely that much of her "popular vote" was ineligible.

Any proof that's not Fox news?

 

[mariomike]

And as California has a high population of illegal immigrants and does not require confirmation of citizenship in order to vote, it is quite likely that much of her "popular vote" was ineligible.

What is your source?

QUOTE

Apr. 5, 2018

Los Angeles Times

Trump revives debunked accusation of massive vote fraud in California
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=1529330;topic=127136.775

President Trump on Thursday revived a long-debunked claim about massive voter fraud in California, telling an audience in West Virginia that “millions and millions of people” had voted illegally in the state.

"In many places, like California, the same person votes many times,” Trump said. “You probably heard about that. They always like to say 'oh that's a conspiracy theory.' Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people."

Trump first made that accusation shortly after his election, saying that he only lost the popular vote because of illegal voting in California. After his inauguration, the administration set up a commission to look into voter fraud. It was eventually disbanded and did not come up with any evidence to back Trump’s theories.

The president stopped talking about voter fraud in public after taking criticism from Republican elected officials for making unsubstantiated charges about misconduct, not only in California but in other states that he lost, such as New Hampshire. But he never completely stopped raising the issue in private, according to people who have spoken with him.

In recent weeks, he’s been more assertive about publicly discussing some of his grievances — voter fraud being one.

Allegations of voter fraud have been investigated in California. Although some limited cases have been found, no evidence of large-scale fraud has ever surfaced.

END QUOTE

 

[Journeyman]

Rolling around in the moral low ground makes it difficult for everyone to see how awesome you are....

Excellent article.  Shame there's WAY too many words for 'the cheerleaders' to read, let alone understand.  :not-again:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Any proof that's not Fox news?

http://www.pewhispanic.org
http://www.ppic.org
https://www.migrationpolicy.org
http://www.sacbee.com
https://cis.org
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com
https://howmuch.net
https://www.livescience.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com

 

[Loachman]

What is your source?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-has-3-5-million-more-registered-voters-than-live-adults-a-red-flag-for-electoral-fraud/

Disapproval of the re-introduction of the citizenship question on the US census by certain factions https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/census-citizenship-question-explainer/, which would show the true numbers of eligible voters compared to number of votes cast, is another good indicator, and consistent with the behaviour of "sanctuary cities", states like California, and their supporters.

 

[mariomike]

And as California has a high population of illegal immigrants and does not require confirmation of citizenship in order to vote, it is quite likely that much of her "popular vote" was ineligible.

QUOTE

Jan. 26, 2017
The New York Times

Illegal Voting Claims, and Why They Don’t Hold Up
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/upshot/illegal-voting-claims-and-why-they-dont-hold-up.html
It’s no longer about whether millions of illegal votes were cast, but whether there’s any evidence for noncitizen voting at all.

END QUOTE

QUOTE

December 1, 2016
The Washington Post

There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1ae3731f04b9
There is simply no evidence that fraudulent ballots played any significant role in the 2016 presidential election whatsoever.

END QUOTE

QUOTE

Los Angeles Times

Trump revives debunked accusation of massive vote fraud in California
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=1529330;topic=127136.775
President Trump on Thursday revived a long-debunked claim about massive voter fraud in California,

END QUOTE

From an article posted in Reply #776 by PPCLI GUY,

QUOTE

Which brings us to Donald Trump. The world is now dealing with a U.S. president who appears to have no firm convictions or beliefs, the attention span of a hummingbird, and who apparently makes important national security decisions on the basis of whatever fairytale he just saw on Fox & Friends.

END QUOTE

Excellent article.  Shame there's WAY too many words for 'the cheerleaders' to read, let alone understand.  :not-again:

 

 

[Jarnhamar]

So I think we agree, both Russia and US have some checkered behaviours over the last 75 years. They are also not the only ones with fingers in that war. Maybe you are not wrong about false flag speculations, but that does not mean it was US doing it.  I am fairly confident that it was not the White Helmets as Russia is now alleging, but there are other possibilities. Canadians peacekeepers saw belligerents kill their own side in Yugoslavia for the sake of international sympathy. I can’t say this is what happened, but if you don’t think it was Assad then I would think this to be the next most likely possibility.

It's a sad world we're living in when the possibility of this stuff (be it false flag or provoking a response then responding with force) isn't all that shocking.

I force myself to watch videos about CBRN attacks for the educational/professional aspect of it but seeing people, and especially children, suffering is soul-crushing. Really seeing any civilians injured and killed in all the bullshit wars going on is brutal, I really struggle to understand how we're capable of this.

One part of me (hypocritically, maybe?) wants to see whoever does shit like this (chemical attacks) just deleted from the planet. At the same time this chemical attack still doesn't add up. Crazy.

 

[Altair]

It's a sad world we're living in when the possibility of this stuff (be it false flag or provoking a response then responding with force) isn't all that shocking.

I force myself to watch videos about CBRN attacks for the educational/professional aspect of it but seeing people, and especially children, suffering is soul-crushing. Really seeing any civilians injured and killed in all the bullshit wars going on is brutal, I really struggle to understand how we're capable of this.

One part of me (hypocritically, maybe?) wants to see whoever does crap like this (chemical attacks) just deleted from the planet. At the same time this chemical attack still doesn't add up. Crazy.

How doesn't it add up? The rebels in the enclave that got gassed have surrendered.

That and Trump might be backing down on the threat of bombing with word that Putin may try to take out the launchers, with might be aircraft of ships.

So they were able to pacify resistance, and might not face any repercussions as a result. adds up pretty well.

 

[TheHead]

The Narcissist in Chief is now, kinda, maybe, backing down on leaking on twitter that the US was going to attack Syria.
This is the real joy of this administration.  With all the 4D chess going on you don't know if or when you're going to get cruise missiled. 

Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”

Question,  with all great tweets coming from the POTUS is there a way they can be embedded on this site? 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Trump "might" be backing down, has Trump backed down in the past?

On 7 April 2017 the US fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Shayrat airbase in retaliation for a chemical attack so I'm not sure why they (or you) would expect the US not to do so again.

It seems like a pretty big calculated risk to take on the eve of victory, knowing what the US's response was last time.


Since that 7 april 2017 attack (and not including this one)  there's only been two other cases of chemical weapons attack (with no deaths).
In both cases chlorine was used  which has been a typical agent of the anti-government forces.

 

[GAP]

The US is turning turtle......they are afraid of the soviet claim that they will return fire on the ships firing the cruise missiles.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=TheHead] . 

Question,  with all great tweets coming from the POTUS is there a way they can be embedded on this site?
[/quote]

Lame.

 

[TheHead]

Lame.

That was an honest question.  Quite a few forums allow embedding of tweets.  Considering Trump likes firing people, enacting policy, engaging in tantrums and letting us know when the US is going to attack another country it would be helpful to just embed them instead of quoting then. 

*Edit for clarity.

 

[Altair]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4616915

U.S. President Donald Trump has asked trade officials to explore the possibility of the United States rejoining negotiations on the Pacific Rim agreement after he pulled out last year as part of his "America first" agenda.

Farm-state lawmakers said Thursday after a White House meeting with Trump that he had given that assignment to his trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, and his new chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would open more overseas markets for American farmers.

People think trudeau misplayed the TPP negotiations by skipping one meeting.

Trump and America missed the entire negotiations!

Clown show.

 

[FJAG]

Media is playing up the revelation in court today that Cohen has only three client's--Trump, former GOP fundraiser Elliot Broidy, and Fox on-air personality Sean Hannity. While others may think that this makes the Trump/Hannity relationship too cosy, what really concerns me is the fact that Hannity says that he has paid no fees to Cohen. That's just offensive; a lawyer not being paid.  ;D

Hannity is downplaying the extent of the lawyer-client relationship between himself and Cohen. On his radio show Monday afternoon, he said he has "eight" different lawyers, and that he never paid Cohen any legal fees.

"I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer; I never received an invoice from Michael; I never paid legal fees to Michael, but I have, occasionally, had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective," Hannity said on the radio.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/16/media/sean-hannity-conflicts-of-interest/index.html

:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

For $1.00 Cohen can be one of his lawyers and everything that comes with the relationship, can he not? Always wondered if there was any truth to that.

 

[Blackadder1916]

For $1.00 Cohen can be one of his lawyers and everything that comes with the relationship,. . .

And I thought that $2.00 was the traditional fee for "professional services servicing".

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Media is playing up the revelation in court today that Cohen has only three client's--Trump, former GOP fundraiser Elliot Broidy, and Fox on-air personality Sean Hannity. While others may think that this makes the Trump/Hannity relationship too cosy, what really concerns me is the fact that Hannity says that he has paid no fees to Cohen. That's just offensive; a lawyer not being paid.  ;D

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/16/media/sean-hannity-conflicts-of-interest/index.html

:cheers:

Hannity is almost certainly right FJAG: He did not get an invoice from Michael, nor paid any fees to Michael.

The invoices were issued by, and paid to the name of the corporate entity that is employed by Cohen for that purpose.  ;D

:cheers: