Column: Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

Post Reply New Topic

Not at all. But when it comes to voter fraud accusations, that is definitely something the right has wrongly accused the left of voter fraud, even in areas with large numbers of racial minorities, or in liberal leaning municipalities.

People are free to think for themselves. But if your sole platform is "minorities ask for too much" and "the problem with America is minorities" then that should set off warning bells.

Seriously?
The progressives spent 4 years whinging about how Hillary's election was stolen.
You progressives have such a poor memory when it comes to "Inconvenient Truths".

Let's see (I confess, you pushed a button, and my tone reflects it).

Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, but lost the electoral college (the only count that matters).
Clinton CONCEDED the election.

Trump lost both the popular vote (by 7 million) AND the electoral college (still the only count that matters).
Trump has never and will never concede.

Clinton's argument was that there was foreign interference, and there was, albeit mostly via propaganda and ramping up divisive rhetoric. She was quite specific about what she saw happening, and never claimed the final counts were fraudulent.

Trump started saying it was all rigged before a single vote was ever cast. It wouldn't have mattered how clean the election was; if he lost, he was never going to concede.

Clinton supporters voiced their frustration through peaceful marches and jokes about annexing some coastal states to Canada.

Trump supporters voiced their frustration by literally trying to interfere with a constitutionally set process.

Clinton supporters complained about the electoral college, but did not, overall, seriously question its outcome, and never made any significant moves to change the process.

Trump supporters are alleging fraud at every level of the voting process, and questioning the outcome of all votes, both popular and electoral, and using it to ACTIVELY change the voting verification process in multiple red states, taking the control OUT of the hands of BI-PARTISAN election commissions and handing it to PARTISAN legislators.

I can understand frustration and upset. I can understand wanting to have answers. But, honestly, it seems to me like the case for complaining about an election result is MUCH stronger when the popular vote says one thing, and the electoral college says another, than when both SAY THE EXACT SAME THING. In other words, Clinton had more reason to be suspicious, but complained a whole lot less.

The level of fraud that would need to exist to validate the complaints on the right is statistically impossible. Our voting systems have been tested and audited over and over, and the volume of errors comes nowhere close to what is needed to change any election.

But going forward, between the gerrymandering going on in the red states and the changes to red state voting rules that clearly are designed to favor the party in power, Republicans are using the pretense of fraud to solidify control of their state's electoral college votes, and to hell with what the population of actual people nationwide want.

Liberals may have whined, but the game we played wasn't nearly as subversive.

Well, let's see:
Democrats collect evidence the Trump campaign is in communication with the Russians in order to sway voters by means of troll farms infiltrating social media.
Republicans talk about Chinese thermostats altering voting machines for the 2020 Presidential election outcome, that bamboo in ballots are proof that they were pre-made by the Chinese, the election officials and state governors (even Republicans) were in cahoots with Biden to deny Donald Trump a second term, etc., ect., etc.
So, which sounds nuttier?

Whose platform is that? Be specific, provide an example, just one will do.

Don't forget she's actually the one who coined the term "fake news" when she was blaming her loss on social media, among other things, and that various options were explored regarding faithless electors and such in the time before Trump was inaugurated. More consequentially to me, if the Russians buying a handful of Facebook ads is "interference", what do you call it when the entire tech, media, and entertainment sectors all put their thumbs on the scale in 2020? I've never really entertained the stolen election theories insofar as fraudulent votes go, but I'd definitely hesitate to call it a fair election, with everyone confined to their homes and their information sources being so heavily biased in one direction.

There's actually been an indictment regarding that...https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=400109

Turns out the "communication" was a 3rd party email marketing server sending advertising for some Trump related business (among a large number of other clients), and was intentionally misrepresented by Ms Clinton's campaign (and a person hoping to get a high-ranking position in government should she have won, who provided the details).

If you weren't aware of this, it would seem there's a problem with the sources you use to keep up with the news...

The indictment you linked is quite a reach, according to legal experts, and will set a bad precedence if it takes. But, more importantly, it has zero to do with troll farms.

There was activity that looked suspicious, some people believed it was suspicious, but when it was thoroughly vetted by people who actually understood what they were doing, it proved to be a whole lot of nothing. Pretty sure it was all about a banking connection, not the propaganda and trolling the Russians were doing.

Also, to clarify: the lie in the indictment wasn't about knowing the potential connection was nothing, but about his reasons for bringing it to the attention of the FBI, since he never revealed his connected to the campaign. His withholding that information, that he was involved with the campaign, is the lie he is indicted for.

Perhaps you missed this, but a dozen Russians were indicted here in the US over trying to interfere with our elections: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-ju ... 6-election

Not fake at all.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 10 Oct 2021, 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A conversation our country desperately needs to have, and one that we may be starting as a result of the whistle blower testimony.

Tech seems to want some regulations put on them. Having actions follow vocal public expectations creates a lot of unknowable variables for them.

Personally I think they did what they had to do for the good of the country in the heat of the election, but I also completely understand why you would strongly disagree.

I think we both agree that the decision should not be theirs, leaving open the next question, on which you and I do not yet agree: whose decision should it be? Or should there be no filter at all?

We need to find a consensus as a country.

You like making stuff up?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-09/ ... ws/9029062

Frump (at least in his mind) thought he invented the term

If you read the link I posted the term fake news predates Hillary by a century

A simple glance at what I posted will note that I was discussing the "Trump campaign is in communication with the Russians" portion of the claim, and nothing more.

As to "legal experts" - Doubtless those on the "left" will say that.

Reading the indictment, it is possible the campaign wasn't behind this (although billing records - paragraph 20 of indictment - suggest otherwise, as does his own testimony to Congress - paragraph 44 of indictment, where he states his client directed him to contact the FBI and another agency), and it was merely Rodney Joffe (the "tech executive 1" in the indictment) passing the information along in hopes of assisting Ms Clinton, because:

Source: https://nypost.com/2021/09/30/who-is-rodney-joffe-tech-executive-1-in-durham-indictment/

In which case, having worked for the FBI before and being aware of penalties for lying to them, he should have been more diligent in confirming the information he supplied and providing the details of the source for this.

However, countering that possibility we have (from the indictment):


Either way, charging a person for providing information that was knowingly false to the FBI (as appears the case here, having read the indictment) in order to damage a political opponent would seem to be setting a very good precedent.

Source: paragraph 23 of indictment.



As to the indictment - from paragraph 7:
"In particular, and among other things, the FBI's investigation revealed that the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization but, rather, had been administered by a mass marketing email company that sent advertisments for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients"

Similarly, paragraph 24:


It wasn't that the activity was suspicious, or even that it looked suspicious: It was a case of it being innocent, yet disguised to appear suspicious.



Perhaps you missed this, but nowhere did I discuss that portion of the topic, nor did I intend to do so...

https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton- ... 16779.html

There was in fact a wealth of information gleaned by the FBI investigation. The Republican dominated senate chose not to take it into consideration when they exonerated their orange messiah.

I thought the term predated her election loss, when Dems were referring to attacks as Democrat cannibals running sex trafficking rings and other idiocies as fake news.

I mean for MAGAs that's real news