Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Perhaps we need a Luddite movement to smash up the computerized voting machines.

Eh, the computerized nature isn't the problem, and paper had it's own problems. The issue in GA is that we don't have a paper log, so to speak.

Ahh see, that's the difference.

Here in New York, for example, we use scanners, but the ballots used to scan go into a box inside the machine. So there are two counts: the preliminary one from the PMD with the info (which is sent to the BOE by wifi), and then the actual ballots, which are locked, sealed, and then sent off to be counted. The former is the number given to the media, the latter is the number that actually matters.

[hector13]

Remember that meeting with the Russians mini-Trump and Kushner had, but they said that Trump major didn’t know about it? Michael Cohen says otherwise.

[Telgin]

It's a shame Cohen doesn't appear to have any proof, although I guess it's possible he just hasn't presented any publicly.  Also a shame that Trump hasn't been making these denials under oath so that he could be nailed to the wall over lying under oath.

Not that I expect the hypocrites in charge would ever impeach him over it like Clinton anyway, but you know.

[Trekkin]

Well, Trump's CFO has been subpoenaed. Expect apoplectic tweets.

[EnigmaticHat]

It's a shame Cohen doesn't appear to have any proof, although I guess it's possible he just hasn't presented any publicly.  Also a shame that Trump hasn't been making these denials under oath so that he could be nailed to the wall over lying under oath.

Not that I expect the hypocrites in charge would ever impeach him over it like Clinton anyway, but you know.

You’re right that they’re not going to impeach over cohen, or most things really.  But remember, they already have the Trump Jr. emails and who knows what other evidence about the meeting.  Cohen is an additional witness, and most importantly, someone who can tie Trump himself to the meeting.

[PTTG??]

Come to think of it, I've never heard of someone being outright poenaed. Or, for that matter, superpoenaed.

[Dunamisdeos]

But did you know about

RELEVANT CAPITALISTISM LINK

[Telgin]

It's a shame Cohen doesn't appear to have any proof, although I guess it's possible he just hasn't presented any publicly.  Also a shame that Trump hasn't been making these denials under oath so that he could be nailed to the wall over lying under oath.

Not that I expect the hypocrites in charge would ever impeach him over it like Clinton anyway, but you know.

You’re right that they’re not going to impeach over cohen, or most things really.  But remember, they already have the Trump Jr. emails and who knows what other evidence about the meeting.  Cohen is an additional witness, and most importantly, someone who can tie Trump himself to the meeting.

More specifically, I meant that they wouldn't impeach Trump over lying under oath even with blatant evidence indicating that he did.  It would just miraculously become an unimportant thing not worth impeaching the president over.

[Bumber]

But did you know about

RELEVANT CAPITALISTISM LINK

Hindsight 2020

[PTTG??]

When people tell me both sides are the same, I really have to wonder if they expect that Hillary Clinton would have started a trade war, or would have created a zero-tolerance policy that put massive numbers of children in cages, or would have put a coal baron in charge of the EPA and and a verizon executive in charge of the FCC, or would have funneled millions of dollars into her own businesses.

You know what, I'm going to write this short story right now. A bunch of CNN anchors sit around a conference table talking about the impeachment proceedings against Hillary Clinton because Chelsea  got speaking fees from a BLM group in 2015 (or something). The anchors discuss how this might affect Trump's claim that he won the election in a landslide and that billions of illegals flocked to the US to vote against him.

[Dunamisdeos]

When people say that, they do not mean that they are in fact the same person or that they would have taken actions that are literally identical.
 
What they mean is that either Hillary Clinton would have done the same amount of damage in her own unique way, or that Hillary Clinton would have had the same level of negative impact on those who did not align with her. Sometimes, they mean that both sides have the same level of vapid tribalistic hate, and care for the morals/causes/people that they tout about on the internet only insofar as they can use them as a bludgeon to hurt the other team as it's own end.
 
I am glad I am here to help with these things.

[Criptfeind]

I think a majority of time what "they" mean is that they have no defense for the actions of the people that they willfully voted in, but have no intention to admit that they made a bad choice or make any changes in the future.

Alternatively they mean it as a bad faith effort to steer a conversation away from a particular issue so it's less wide spread and less people will know about how bad "their" tribe is.

And sometimes it's what Dunamisdeos said. Although in my personal experience that's a pretty rare use of the phrase.

[PTTG??]

By all means Dunamisdeos, go right ahead. Tell me what Hillary Clinton would have done that would have done a similar amount of damage to the US' international standing, to the global climate, to humanitarian concerns with Mexico, to the budget, and/or to fairly minor concerns such as enabling communications monopolies and other such trivial regulations.

Or illustrate the nebulous field of things that would be as bad as all that. What would be the terrible nightmare future of Hillary Clinton's America?

[Karnewarrior]

Sometimes they actually believe Hillary Clinton is a air-handwashing lizardperson jew who actively hates America and white people and would invite ISIS into our front lawn.

American Tribalism has gotten really crazy and some people are just super vulnerable to memes.

[Dunamisdeos]

It's a ridiculous claim if they do, and I've never once seen people actually claim that. People do say that Hillary has problems of her own, and that Red/Blue are different colors of the same problem.

I do constantly see people respond to "I didn't like this about Hillary" with immediate loud crowing about Trump until people stop talking about Hillary's problems, and then they follow it with something clumsily smug because people don't want to engage with them anymore (It's secretly because they won and are too smart for those stupid redneck Demopublitardicuckflakes).

I find Trump to be a special kind of garbage, but I don't need to pretend like Hillary was a shining Democrat Messiah to do it. Frankly her primary attraction (and campaign strategy, for that matter) is "Not Trump" and that isn't enough for me. On that note, I'm going on break for an hour, and fully expect to see the above recycled over and over for at least a few pages. Don't disappoint me Ameripol!