Base them against reality… If the shoe fits.
It’s not hard to figure out partisan buffoonery, it’s in the adjectives. The use and abuse of the adjectives describing the noun is a pretty sound tell.
Sounds like an awfully subjective way to gather and decide on the validity of FACTS 
1 Like
I promise to be as objective as possible. If the evidence of collusion is indisputable I have no choice.
I have issues though, I see no advantage for Russia if a republican is president since republicans have traditionally been more hostile to Russia. Second, I don’t think trump is smart enough to do that without leaving an undoubted crumb trail. I could be wrong and am willing to be wrong. But the math doesn’t add up to me.
Hillary can and has been bought, she was the ‘reset button’ lady, after all.
We don’t have the facts, frankly. The Democrats being concerned about Russia is unusual given not to far back history.
The facts being subjective depends on the Muller committee. As we can discern its facts are objective. If the findings square with reality I will accept it. If we have orange skies and unicorns I will be less trusting.
I will look at the findings with suspended bias in as much as I can. But all of this is dirty and messy. I feel that we will be dealing in shades of grey. That there will be plenty of mud to make everyone dirty.
But I have to wait, we all do. The evidence we know of is not clear.
Keep in mind I don’t love Trump, he was the lesser evil IMO. It was a terrible choice. I do not think for a second Hillary would have been better. She would have been rife with scandals from the get-go. And she too, would be investigated for many fraudulent activities.
I happen to believe that Trump won the election because people flat hate Hillary. She had it in the bag and still managed to lose. Outside of fixing the election, the Russians could not have made Trump win. He was supposed to lose despite a miracle and then he still should have lost.
No, something else happened and I have no explanation. Russia, even if they actually were all in on Trump, could not make him beat a Clinton. Unless they were actually turning dials on election machines which has been ruled out.
She had 2 presidents, all of every celebrity, half of Congress including republican support and every poll in her favor; and she still lost. I do not think Russia made that happen. They could not force a Trump victory, they couldn’t even manufacturer it.
Honestly, I think Hillary failed to appeal to the folks she needed to win.
Otherwise keep in mind some of our most famous presidents did not win the popular vote. Lincoln’s first election he lost the popular vote. But he was one of, if not the greatest president in American history. The means nothing about Trump as a president, just that pure majority rules is not good for the country. The electorate gives the smaller folk an equal chance at reprentation. New York or L.A does not get Kansas. Kansas should not be represented by New York or L.A.
Sorry for the wall of words.
Not sure why this has anything to do with parties. It’s HRC (hated by Putin) vs Trump (history of working with Russian banks). That’s a prettttttty simple no brainier.
You mean the substance of Mueller’s investigation? Or are you referring to his son tweeting about his meeting with a Russian to get dirt on HRC? Lots of crumbs.
The Democrats being concerned about a foreign hostile nuclear superpower fucking with our election isn’t unusual in ANY context. I’d say the republicans insisting that they didn’t for months despite IC acknowledgement was the unusual part.
So you’ll be… Using your highly trained gut to determine if the investigation has merit? Or are we back to checking for too many adjectives?
Based on your gut I assume?
I think what you meant is the electorate makes sure not all votes are equal
2 Likes
Sort of. It prevents large population centers from making decisions for more rural areas with lower population density. A New York city artist or business man does not know what the life of a cattle farmer in Iowa is like and vice versa.
Ben Franklin did not like the idea of a single President holding executive power and I can sympathize with that view. But I also can see how the Founders decided that creating another place for potential gridlock would be overkill on the checks and balances.
Actually it’s state wide lol. You can live in rural CA and still have your vote count for less than a guy living in a Nebraska metro area with 10x the population.
You weren’t around in the '70’s and '80’s. The democrats have been traditionally soft on then Soviet Russia and the threat they posed. The Cold War was no joke and I am a product of it. My parents escaped literally from where they were supposed to be which is Cuba. I was supposed to be a street rat in Havana. Hence, we were highly tuned in to everything USSR related.
There is a reason there were no Democrat presidents in the '80’s and it had to do mainly with the Soviet Union and their constant threats to freedom around the world.
Not sure why that matters re: Dems upset a foreign hostile nuclear superpower fucked with our election. Did they mess with our election in the 70/80s that I’m not aware of?
1 Like
If you live in rural California, your votes are not competing with Nebraska, but rather LA. Look at the electoral map by county.
Which also doesn’t matter as nearly every state abides by “winner takes all.” So in reality, a man in a NE metro area’s national vote (POTUS lvl) counts for more than a man living in rural CA.
You can be alright with certain people’s votes counting for considerably less. Millions of other people are alright with it too. It’s not like you’d be the odd one out.
Not sure, we were more worried about nuclear annihilation back then…
So your point about Dems being up in arms was about…?
1 Like
JFK was not soft on the USSR. I know that was the sixties. Carter boycotted the Olympics. We had a republican president for the 80s so I don’t know what that has to do with the Democrats being soft.
It doesn’t. That’s why Pat couldn’t back it up when I asked about it. He was just taking a little shot at the Dems for being soft back then. Either that or I’m completely missing something.
The Republicans were pretty tough. Invading Grenada took a lot of guts.
I’m still just struggling to understand how ANY past set of actions from either party invalidates being concerned about a hostile nuclear foreign superpower fucking with our election.
I guess if Russia or someone else fucked with our election before and the Dems ignored it and tried to stifle an investigation then it would make sense, but I didn’t think my history knowledge was THAT bad
2 Likes
You know Putin?! Wow… How’d yall meet? And he told you all of this?
We were helping some rich orange dude find some girls to pee on one night. Guys a helluva vodka drinker.
I won’t ask you to validate all your opinions of HRC based on when you met her IRL, don’t worry
He’s also really short despite wearing lifts.
The thing is that the Russians, even if they wanted Trump to win, were in a win win situation as their main objective was to help foster a divisive climate in our country.
1 Like