Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 126

Thread: Session's Testimony.......

  1. #41
    Registered User
    Member Since
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    20,743
    Quote Originally Posted by philibusters View Post
    She outspent Trump by a margin of 2 to 1 (though that is a bit misleading). The reason its slightly misleading is because that doesn't factor in third party money from PACs and Super PAC's which made the ratios more even. Hillary spent a lot of money in states she ended up losing. She really thought she could take Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Arizona for example, but because they are big Republican states she had to spend big money there. Of those, Ohio which she lost by 8 points was the only one I think people thought she could win prior to the start of the election (maybe North Carolina too)

    She did spend some money in PA, WI, and MI but not near enough and she didn't go to WI one time during the campaign and she only went to Michigan twice. PA was a little bit of a different story, she did realize that state was in play and a handful of stops there and spent a normal amount of money there, but even there with hindsight she should have been focusing there instead of say Ohio. In football terms, she wasn't in a prevent defense, she was trying to run up the score. I don't think the Democrats will be as aggressive in 2020.
    For what she spent her appearances were very limited and she never met with the enemy. Her appearances were carefully scanned so no one against her were allowed.
    She was afraid of opposition.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hijinx View Post
    For what she spent her appearances were very limited and she never met with the enemy. Her appearances were carefully scanned so no one against her were allowed.
    She was afraid of opposition.
    That is true Her team tried to keep away from situations where she might have hostile interactions.

    Reinforcing that, down the stretch, her team decided to focus on the base for turnout rather than campaigning in areas with a mix of Democrat and Republican voters and trying to persuade undecided.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    That's a concept I actually understand. Would you leave your *country* to find another job?

    My in-laws are all from WV, but my other side of the family is from other rural parts of the country, and I've lived in places with either strong religious, cultural, ethnic or - whatever - ties. It's their home. If they left it - they would come back eventually. It's their family, their community and the life they love. If they couldn't find work, they'd find a way to stay.

    Just as I would with this country.

    I had a roommate in the 80's who hailed from a TINY town in Missouri. Gravois Mills. At the time he said its population was 32, but the 1980 census put it at around 100.
    I said "so - if a couple families moved away - the town would be GONE?". He said are you kidding? They don't ever want to leave.

    I lived in a small town of around a thousand in NE Pa. Almost entirely Polish, Irish or Italian - from the waves of immigrants that came to the mines at the turn of the century.
    Aside from strong ethnic traditions - and that they all attended Catholic church - they've built a life there they love. A shame actually, because the population up there has been dwindling because no industry has really replaced the lost anthracite business.
    Well, I said "state", not country.

    I understand a certain loyalty (for lack of a better word) to one's home and roots. What I don't understand is keeping your family in poverty for that sake. I don't understand that it's more important to stay planted and live off of public assistance (other peoples' money) than to go out and earn your own.

    The many places I have been in WV are quite deplorable - run down homes about to fall over, random trailer homes planted at the base of a mountain with dead cars sittings around the property... The neighbors across the street from my aunt has piles and piles of scrap metal that he scrounges and turns it in for money. His yard is one big junk pile.

    I would never remain in places like this.
    "Never let the old man in." - Clint Eastwood quoting an old friend

  4. #44
    Registered User Midnightrider's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NU
    Posts
    10,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird Dog View Post
    Should we start with Holder and fast and furious? .....and should I go on?
    do you have a link to where holder refused to answer questions under oath because the president might claim privilege?
    "once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"-TGD

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnightrider View Post
    do you have a link to where holder refused to answer questions under oath because the president might claim privilege?
    As I recall, he simply lied instead, and was found in contempt of Congress.
    It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
    Jiddu Krisnamurti

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by philibusters View Post
    Here is the thing Russia interfered with the election. They hacked the DNC server and key Hillary aides.
    I profoundly doubt that. Good hackers are invisible. Seriously. Any evidence of Russian tampering - in computer terms - is the equivalent of a sticky note saying "Putin was here".
    The "evidence" is a joke.
    I do believe that it was leaked by someone with access to it. No hacking required.

    Early in the campaign when they hacked the information they released it all at once. Later in the campaign they learned how to maximize its effect by releasing new tidbits everyday. From pretty much October 1st until the end of October they released a little bit of their information everyday through Wikileaks.
    PRETTY sure Assange has said, nope, not the Russians. Not that he can be trusted, but why wouldn't he?
    The damning part of it is - it's the truth. Seriously, hundreds, thousands of emails and most of them are dull and innocuous.
    A few point out some uncomfortable facts that have been shown - to be true.

    THIS was the Russian's strategy? Hack and release actual emails? And hope the American voter might make a decision based on - that?
    A huge portion of the voters couldn't even name the VP on the ticket. A large number - STILL CAN'T.
    The whole of their strategy was to - what - basically do what campaigns already do? Smear the opponent and hope it sticks?
    So the Democrats were unable to do, with billions of dollars, what the "Russians" did with a handful of hackers?

    So your analysis is ignoring a key part, there is evidence of interference.
    Apparently no more than what is typical. And apparently, the previous administration seemed to know about it - but was either unconcerned or inept.
    My guess is the former - because it is inconsequential.
    I really don't think any minds were changed by the Wikileaks thing.

    The investigation needs to be done in a bi-partisan way to make sure.
    But what's the bad call? WHAT are they investigating? All that exists is hacked DNC. And they appear to be undone by *actual* emails.
    Right now, it's pretty much, did Trump or his campaign do it? Answer after many months is - no. No. No.
    So if we're trying to safeguard the republic, then look at computer security. Election processes. THAT sort of thing. Not about Trump and Flynn and Comey and Sessions.
    The "investigation" doesn't seem to have anything to do with securing elections. It's to hurt the President and try to win an election in 2018.

    My personal opinion is that the Russians definitely interfered with the election. Its hard to say if it changed the outcome of the election. I am pretty confident that Trump himself didn't collude with the Russians (I'd put my confidence rate over 90% for that) and I don't think anybody from his campaign colluded with Russia explicitly (I'd put my confidence rate on that lower, maybe like 60%). Implicitly there may have been encouragement from the Trump team in the sense his staffers realized what was happening and rather than condemn it, they gave pro-Russian statements (in fact Trump did that at the debate), but if I had to guess, that is the extent of the collusion.
    Then what are they "investigating"? These are presumably smart people. If there's no collusion - or anything about "Russian interference" - they're grilling the wrong people.
    Why are they putting Sessions out in front? What did Comey say that we didn't know already? Why are they going crazy over this?
    Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong". Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  7. #47
    Registered User Midnightrider's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NU
    Posts
    10,544
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    As I recall, he simply lied instead, and was found in contempt of Congress.
    that is a different issue, but as I remember he was found in contempt for not providing documents.


    Again, if you are under oath to tell the whole truth you cant refuse to answer a question unless you can provide a legal reason not to. Pleading the fifth or invoking privilege of some sort would do the trick, but Sessions, Coats, and Rogers didn't do that. they all refused to answer despite the oath they took when they gained office and the one they took upon taking the stand that day.
    "once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"-TGD

  8. #48
    Sometimes people surprise you. Sam Spade just surpised me. Basically what surprised me was that he said he "highly doubts there was Russian interference" and that the "evidence is a joke".

    Sam is somebody is a lot more conservative than myself, but who I respect because he is thoughtful. I also have massive respect for Tilted who is also significantly more conservative than myself.

    I don't know how you can say there was not Russian interference unless your bias completely distorts your view of the situation. It was known well before the election that Russian hacked. Intellgience agencies confirmed this before the election when everybody thought Hillary was going to win. Three intelligence agencies have investigated it and all concluded that with a very high level of confidence that Russian hacked the election. These are our professionals. They are the intelligence agencies. All of them have said there was Russian interference. Again these are the experts. By contrast no intelligence agency has said there was not Russian interference. None.

    Further even the Republicans who have seen the evidence don't claim that there was interference.

    And the statement that the "evidence" is a joke/ WHAT?! That is kind of what set me off because I respect Sam. Nobody except the intelligence agencies and certain congressmen have seen the evidence. That like saying a band sucked before you even go to the concert. You have no idea what the evidence is. The experts who have seen make an opposite conclusion than you, and then you say the evidence sucks. What are you basing that off of?!

    I generally enjoy these forums, but today is kind of convincing me that its pointless to debate. People see what they want to see and no amount of evidence is going to change that. Even with reasonable people

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by philibusters View Post
    Sometimes people surprise you. Sam Spade just surpised me. Basically what surprised me was that he said he "highly doubts there was Russian interference" and that the "evidence is a joke".

    Sam is somebody is a lot more conservative than myself, but who I respect because he is thoughtful. I also have massive respect for Tilted who is also significantly more conservative than myself.

    I don't know how you can say there was not Russian interference unless your bias completely distorts your view of the situation. It was known well before the election that Russian hacked. Intellgience agencies confirmed this before the election when everybody thought Hillary was going to win. Three intelligence agencies have investigated it and all concluded that with a very high level of confidence that Russian hacked the election. These are our professionals. They are the intelligence agencies. All of them have said there was Russian interference. Again these are the experts. By contrast no intelligence agency has said there was not Russian interference. None.

    Further even the Republicans who have seen the evidence don't claim that there was interference.

    And the statement that the "evidence" is a joke/ WHAT?! That is kind of what set me off because I respect Sam. Nobody except the intelligence agencies and certain congressmen have seen the evidence. That like saying a band sucked before you even go to the concert. You have no idea what the evidence is. The experts who have seen make an opposite conclusion than you, and then you say the evidence sucks. What are you basing that off of?!

    I generally enjoy these forums, but today is kind of convincing me that its pointless to debate. People see what they want to see and no amount of evidence is going to change that. Even with reasonable people
    Ah... now we get to the crux of the biscuit (which by the way is the apostrophe). Do we trust what our intelligence agencies tell us? A good poll question.
    "Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever." - Shane Falco

  10. #50
    Registered User Midnightrider's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NU
    Posts
    10,544
    Quote Originally Posted by philibusters View Post
    Sometimes people surprise you. Sam Spade just surpised me. Basically what surprised me was that he said he "highly doubts there was Russian interference" and that the "evidence is a joke".

    Sam is somebody is a lot more conservative than myself, but who I respect because he is thoughtful. I also have massive respect for Tilted who is also significantly more conservative than myself.

    I don't know how you can say there was not Russian interference unless your bias completely distorts your view of the situation. It was known well before the election that Russian hacked. Intellgience agencies confirmed this before the election when everybody thought Hillary was going to win. Three intelligence agencies have investigated it and all concluded that with a very high level of confidence that Russian hacked the election. These are our professionals. They are the intelligence agencies. All of them have said there was Russian interference. Again these are the experts. By contrast no intelligence agency has said there was not Russian interference. None.

    Further even the Republicans who have seen the evidence don't claim that there was interference.

    And the statement that the "evidence" is a joke/ WHAT?! That is kind of what set me off because I respect Sam. Nobody except the intelligence agencies and certain congressmen have seen the evidence. That like saying a band sucked before you even go to the concert. You have no idea what the evidence is. The experts who have seen make an opposite conclusion than you, and then you say the evidence sucks. What are you basing that off of?!

    I generally enjoy these forums, but today is kind of convincing me that its pointless to debate. People see what they want to see and no amount of evidence is going to change that. Even with reasonable people
    don't forget Reality Winner being currently detained for leaking classified evidence that Russia did interfere with the election.

    Then you have
    Manafort being very close with the Russians
    That skinny guy being close with the russinas
    Flynn lying about his conversations with the Russians and having contacts/allegiances he didn't disclose


    There might not be any evidence that Trump directed his people to do anything, but there appears to be evidence they did do some wrong. The tards at SOMD.com would certainly see the 'evidence' if the people involved had Ds after their names.
    "once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"-TGD

Members who have read this thread: 51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |