What are you talking about? You can’t be that obtuse.
Trump; 62,980
Clinton; 65,845
Johnson; 4,488,931
Stein; 1,457,050
McMullin; 728,830
Simple math and simple votes count.
Nice math, arsenal!
Sent from my iPad
> On May 7, 2019, at 12:04 PM, Wine Spectator <alerts@hoop.la> wrote:
>
>
Winerart2 - Using your math, you forgot to add the 100 million who, though registered, decided against voting at all. They obviously, using your reasoning, also voted against Trump.
"I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections."
Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
On the other hand, one of the Democrat's announced candidates is named Yang. He has promised to give every American, whether indigent or a billionaire, $1000 per month as a stipend. Not sure he's figured out where the money is coming from or whether the $1000 would be taxable income or not. He has also promised to be the first President to use a power point during his state of the union. Seems most unlikely that he'll get any serious consideration, so I think we're safe from the Power Point thing for awhile.
irwin posted:"I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections."
Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
On the other hand, one of the Democrat's announced candidates is named Yang. He has promised to give every American, whether indigent or a billionaire, $1000 per month as a stipend. Not sure he's figured out where the money is coming from or whether the $1000 would be taxable income or not. He has also promised to be the first President to use a power point during his state of the union. Seems most unlikely that he'll get any serious consideration, so I think we're safe from the Power Point thing for awhile.
Irwin, we know the republicans aren’t going to give us a better candidate for 2020. I’m also not too confident about the Democrats at this point either. Grrrr.
irwin posted:Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
Fascinating cat, this Buttigieg. I actually sent him a few bucks primarily because I wanted him to meet the threshold to participate in debates. Guess he didn't need my money after all.
Bright, thoughtful guy. Probably un-electable (at least this time around) due to his age and orientation, but would make a formidable VP. Would love to hear him debate Pence. That would be an epic ass-whipping, for sure.
PH
purplehaze posted:irwin posted:Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
Fascinating cat, this Buttigieg. I actually sent him a few bucks primarily because I wanted him to meet the threshold to participate in debates. Guess he didn't need my money after all.
Bright, thoughtful guy. Probably un-electable (at least this time around) due to his age and orientation, but would make a formidable VP. Would love to hear him debate Pence. That would be an epic ass-whipping, for sure.
PH
I would pay to see that debate. It would also be as you predicted!
wineart 2 posted:purplehaze posted:irwin posted:Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
Fascinating cat, this Buttigieg. I actually sent him a few bucks primarily because I wanted him to meet the threshold to participate in debates. Guess he didn't need my money after all.
Bright, thoughtful guy. Probably un-electable (at least this time around) due to his age and orientation, but would make a formidable VP. Would love to hear him debate Pence. That would be an epic ass-whipping, for sure.
PH
I would pay to see that debate. It would also be as you predicted!
Well, apparently I paid for it. You're welcome to attend on my dime!
PH
Attachments
Images (1)
robsutherland posted:
Of all of their shows, this episode was one of my favorites.
irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
Bingo!
I think it is reasonable and understandable to be upset when ANY foreign entity interferes with your election results but the hypocrisy of it all when US foreign policy conducts it on a routine basis, whoever the incumbent or sitting president, is pretty rich.
First, we try to bribe them. If that doesn't work, they we clandestinely support the election of the opposition who hopefully will be in toe with our interests. If that doesn't work, then we arm the opposition and instigate a coup. If that doesn't work, then we declare they are harboring terrorists and-or chemical weapons and bomb the place to oblivion. Then, we go in, rebuild and make sure the next government plays our tune. 
Works like a charm most of the time
I love New York. 
PH
mimik posted:irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
Bingo!
I think it is reasonable and understandable to be upset when ANY foreign entity interferes with your election results but the hypocrisy of it all when US foreign policy conducts it on a routine basis, whoever the incumbent or sitting president, is pretty rich.
First, we try to bribe them. If that doesn't work, they we clandestinely support the election of the opposition who hopefully will be in toe with our interests. If that doesn't work, then we arm the opposition and instigate a coup. If that doesn't work, then we declare they are harboring terrorists and-or chemical weapons and bomb the place to oblivion. Then, we go in, rebuild and make sure the next government plays our tune.
Works like a charm most of the time
I already blew up this whataboutism. Again the difference is in the United States it comes out, in Russia it never does. We try to improve they do not.
irwin's points on US malfeasance are well taken. His question on why many here are upset misses the point, at least for me.
Sure I'm cranky with Putin and his cronies for interfering in our political process. I'm upset that, when the extent of the Russian attempts became known, there was a lackluster (at best) response from the Obama administration. More concerning for me, however, is that the trump campaign encouraged it, welcomed it and benefitted from it. trump's insistence on minimizing the current and future attempts by our rivals to again insert themselves into our political process, in defiance of every US intelligence agency simply beggars belief.
PH
I think this is what I may ask Rosenstein about on Saturday night's dinner.
purplehaze posted:irwin's points on US malfeasance are well taken. His question on why many here are upset misses the point, at least for me.
Sure I'm cranky with Putin and his cronies for interfering in our political process. I'm upset that, when the extent of the Russian attempts became known, there was a lackluster (at best) response from the Obama administration. More concerning for me, however, is that the trump campaign encouraged it, welcomed it and benefitted from it. trump's insistence on minimizing the current and future attempts by our rivals to again insert themselves into our political process, in defiance of every US intelligence agency simply beggars belief.
PH
Well obviously the reason Trump was dismissive about Russian influence was either 1) They have something on him and-or 2) Russian interference helped him sway the election.
How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
.
invisible ink used
Apparently the love letters between 45 and chairman Kim have lost their amorous effect.
purplehaze posted:irwin's points on US malfeasance are well taken. His question on why many here are upset misses the point, at least for me.
Sure I'm cranky with Putin and his cronies for interfering in our political process. I'm upset that, when the extent of the Russian attempts became known, there was a lackluster (at best) response from the Obama administration. More concerning for me, however, is that the trump campaign encouraged it, welcomed it and benefitted from it. trump's insistence on minimizing the current and future attempts by our rivals to again insert themselves into our political process, in defiance of every US intelligence agency simply beggars belief.
PH
Let's not forget, we're a country with both the means and resources to acutally handle such threats.
Would irwin prefer that Americans strap on a few bombs and stroll into random places in russia as payback?
I think getting upset and asking for our elected officials to both utilize our tax monies appropriately to safeguard our democratic process sounds like a much better alternative.
I have never advocated violence as a means to anything. I'm just not sure I understand what the fuss is about.
irwin posted:I have never advocated violence as a means to anything. I'm just not sure I understand what the fuss is about.
I thought PH stated the position rather well.
wineart 2 posted:irwin posted:I have never advocated violence as a means to anything. I'm just not sure I understand what the fuss is about.
I thought PH stated the position rather well.
I trust that includes dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's response. I feel it all starts there.
That does not mean that I absolve the Trump administration of their malfeasance.
I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
If people on the Left don’t keep it together, Trump will win a second term. And G-d help us all if that should occur. I’m genuinely concerned about which voices on the Left social media amplifies. They don’t represent the majority of us; and they’re going to get this asshole re-elected. (And I’m genuinely concerned that the republic would collapse should that happen. R’s in the Senate are facilitating the pumpkin’s worst impulses.)
Meanwhile, universities need to stop catering to the delicate sensibilities of the pseudo-totalitarian children. Harvard just fired a residential dean (who is a professor at the law school — and the first and only Black residential dean) because the children didn’t think one of his private law clients is entitled to a defense. (Weinstien.) They wanted him fired from the university. And beyond being wholly illiberal and teaching the children exactly the wrong things, such examples further the notion of totalitarian creep in institutions commonly associated with the “Left” as well as the Right, robbing Democrats from being able to make clear distinctions about liberal values. At least in the eyes of many in the areas Democrats must win.
last night's dinner with Rod Rosenstein and about 150 lawyers and spouses. Since his job didn't end until midnight last night, he had 2 secret service guards with him. He was fairly boring. Said nothing controversial. Not that I expected it. He said that he opposes violent crime. The current US atty for Maryland was present as well.
Trade wars are easy to win
I likely come from a different political perspective than Winetarelli, but I agree with the points he made. I believe the progressive, far left part of the Democratic party has taken over, at least from a news and policy point of view. They are the most vocal and it seems that many of the candidates are bending over to the left as far as they can to kowtow to this group. I am not sure they represent the entirety of the Democratic party. The candidates may get pulled over to the left so far that the winner may have trouble getting acceptance from the middle of the party and independents.
I am also concerned about the loss of voices from the liberal part of Democrats and many of the far left illiberal are controlling speech. Liberals are supposed to support free speech and be willing to discuss issues from people with other perspectives. Right now I see the far left shutting down any discussions and attacking others with racism, mysogeny or other terms to avoid dealing with ideas from the other side. This goes to what is happening on campuses with some of the students shutting down speech and requiring safe spaces. The university is supposed to be a place of free discussion and learning about other perspectives.
I am not saying that there aren't problems on the right, or that Trump is always right. I think he is an egotistical jerk who doesn't manage his message well at all. But the liberal portion of the left needs to take better control of the party and get back to rational discussions and promoting ideas that are more representative of their base.
mneeley490 posted:I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
This is an absurd statement. Pursing the Russian interference did not have to be made public. What a stretch to apologize for Obama...if he was not apologizing on behalf of the U.S. during his presidency, then the media and people like you are. SAD.
napacat posted:mneeley490 posted:I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
... Pursuing the Russian interference did not have to be made public...
Here's the portion that I agree with. The rest is just SAD hyperbole.
sd-wineaux posted:napacat posted:mneeley490 posted:I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
... Pursuing the Russian interference did not have to be made public...
Here's the portion that I agree with. The rest is just SAD hyperbole.
Thanks for correcting the spelling. The rest of the statement is accurate as well. Really looking forward to see what comes of the new investigation the AG Barr just handed off to Durham. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.
napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.
bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.
Wow...what drivel. None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Manafort’s crime was from years prior. The rest...process crimes and BS.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist. How long are most of you going to believe this charade? Looking forward to excitement ahead!
napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.Wow...what drivel. None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Manafort’s crime was from years prior. The rest...process crimes and BS.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist. How long are most of you going to believe this charade? Looking forward to excitement ahead!
I'm pretty sure that one can obstruct justice without being accused of a crime. Maybe Irwin or another learned legal mind can clarify? Several hundred former prosecutors - both Democrats and Republicans - seem to think so!
And Papadopoulos, Stone and 12 Russians were indicted or charged by Mueller for reasons directly related to the Trump campaign.
Maybe you wanna check sources beyond Hannity and Ingraham?
napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.
I am trying to avoid this nonsense - but how is anyone convinced by this garbage? Of course you can obstruct justice regardless of whether you are found guilty of the underlying crime or in your distorted view, the crime "did not exist" - whatever that means.
That is like saying you can not be guilty of witness tampering, bribing witnesses, bribing jurors, etc., if "the crime did not exist" or one is found not guilty. It is preposterous. There is also a basic crime known as the attempted crime (bet it murder, theft, kidnapping etc.) which does not require succesful completion of the crime but is focused on intent and effort - all of which has completely been ignored by the sycophants who want so hard to believe their poor Trump is a victim. Spare me
I understand your reluctance to get involved, jc. That said, it's important that we hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about from time to time. This is especially important in matters of the law.
It's amazing that a certain poster here, who claims to get his news from a variety of sources, seems to echo many Faux News talking points so frequently.
PH
napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.Wow...what drivel. None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Manafort’s crime was from years prior. The rest...process crimes and BS.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist. How long are most of you going to believe this charade? Looking forward to excitement ahead!
Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.
You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."
Yes, TOM. The incessant references to "no collusion," are a hallmark of indoctrinated trumpistas.
There are 10 specific references to conspiracy in the Mueller report, at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted. Wonder why we don't hear about this from these folk.
PH
purplehaze posted:Yes, TOM. The incessant references to "no collusion," are a hallmark of indoctrinated trumpistas.
There are 10 specific references to conspiracy in the Mueller report, at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted. Wonder why we don't hear about this from these folk.
PH
They're sheltered by the acting State-Run "news" outlet they consume for hours at a time.
It should be interesting to see what happens with the investigations by Inspector General Horowitz and US attorney Durham.