The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
02-06-2020, 08:33 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,048
Total Cats: 6,607
I'm still waiting to hear from a single American citizen as to in what specific way their life has been made worse by the current Presidency. Not "I live in constant fear," but something tangible, like "this specific liberty has been abridged," or "I lost my job as a result of such-and-such executive order."
I've asked this in a number of groups, and have been accused of being a troll every time.
Reply
0
0
02-06-2020, 10:18 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,206
Total Cats: 98
I have to admit, I was surprised the senate vote wasn't more in the President's favor. It's obvious the dems have been trying to get rid of Trump since before he was inaugurated.
The house managers made a lot of emotional appeals, such as Trump has to be impeached or he'll be re-elected, or he might give Alaska to Putin, or that he's only making the trade deal with China so they'll help him win the 2020 election. I believe the dems were seriously lacking in meaningful facts. One senator asked the house managers to explain how our national security was put at risk by delaying the lethal aid to Ukraine. The african-american woman stepped up, waved her arms and stabbed repeatedly at the podium, but never actually said "how". She only stated that it WAS put at risk. Too bad there wasn't real-time interaction and rebuttals. EVERY dem politician and witness throughout the whole debacle was spring-loaded to say Ukraine didn't hack the 2016 election--ONLY Russia did!--as if Russia won some kind of lottery and had agreements from the rest of the nations on the globe to stay out of their way.
My favorite one is the notion that Joe Biden's dealings with Burisma and getting the prosecutor fired was "consistent with US foreign policy". The president sets U.S. foreign policy. The president at the time was O'Bama. O'Bama made Joe Biden his "point man" with respect to Ukraine foreign policy. Therefore, Biden threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the prosecutor looking into Burisma was fired was consistent with Biden's Ukraine foreign policy. It's awesome.
The President's defense team, IMHO, made some great arguments. They were largely cogent and unemotional.
I believe the dems messed up procedurally in many ways. To me, and way oversimplified I admit, it's as if you were not read your Miranda rights when you were arrested, and you were not allowed to consult a lawyer, but the case was still brought to trial. It should have never left the House until the dems could convince some republicans to vote for impeachment.
The house managers made a lot of emotional appeals, such as Trump has to be impeached or he'll be re-elected, or he might give Alaska to Putin, or that he's only making the trade deal with China so they'll help him win the 2020 election. I believe the dems were seriously lacking in meaningful facts. One senator asked the house managers to explain how our national security was put at risk by delaying the lethal aid to Ukraine. The african-american woman stepped up, waved her arms and stabbed repeatedly at the podium, but never actually said "how". She only stated that it WAS put at risk. Too bad there wasn't real-time interaction and rebuttals. EVERY dem politician and witness throughout the whole debacle was spring-loaded to say Ukraine didn't hack the 2016 election--ONLY Russia did!--as if Russia won some kind of lottery and had agreements from the rest of the nations on the globe to stay out of their way.
My favorite one is the notion that Joe Biden's dealings with Burisma and getting the prosecutor fired was "consistent with US foreign policy". The president sets U.S. foreign policy. The president at the time was O'Bama. O'Bama made Joe Biden his "point man" with respect to Ukraine foreign policy. Therefore, Biden threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the prosecutor looking into Burisma was fired was consistent with Biden's Ukraine foreign policy. It's awesome.
The President's defense team, IMHO, made some great arguments. They were largely cogent and unemotional.
I believe the dems messed up procedurally in many ways. To me, and way oversimplified I admit, it's as if you were not read your Miranda rights when you were arrested, and you were not allowed to consult a lawyer, but the case was still brought to trial. It should have never left the House until the dems could convince some republicans to vote for impeachment.
Reply
1
1
02-06-2020, 10:54 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
BREAKING NEWS: IOWA VOTE COUNT RIDDLED WITH INCONSISTENCIES, NEW YORK TIMES ANALYSIS FINDS
by Kevin Ryan
The vote results being released by the Iowa Democratic Party are “riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws”, according to a New York Times analysis. More than 100 precincts reported results that were inconsistent, missing data, or even not possible. Tallies don’t add up, allot the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates, and in some cases, Democratic Party results don’t match the precincts results.
To understand just how bad the discrepancies are, you first have to understand the voting process. There are three sets of results corresponding to different steps in the caucus process.
1. First Alignment: Upon arriving at the caucus location, voters express their preference for a candidate. These votes are recorded in the “first alignment.”
2. Final Alignment: Then, candidates with less than 15%, are deemed “not viable”; their supporters get a chance to realign their vote with a viable candidate. Their preference at this point is recorded as well, and it’s called the final alignment.
3. State Delegate Allotment: At the last step in the process, each precinct tallies up all the “final preference” votes, and awards delegates based on the result. These is reported to the news media as “state delegate equivalents.” The candidate with the most state delegate equivalents wins the election.
When the Democratic Party began adding up and reporting all the results from steps one, two, and three, monitors and media outlets such as the New York Times began finding glaring discrepancies. For example:
• Viable candidates can’t lose support between steps one and two, but there were more than 10 cases where a viable candidate somehow lost vote share in, even though that is precluded by the caucus rules and technically impossible.
• No new voters are permitted to join the caucus after the first alignment. But in at least 70 precincts there are more tabulated total votes after step 2 (final alignment) than step 1 (first alignment).
• Each precinct is supposed to get a set number of delegates, but a handful of precincts awarded more state delegate equivalents than they had available.
• There are dozens of precincts where there is a discrepancy between the final preference vote (step 2) and the number of state delegate equivalents allotted (step 3). This includes more than 15 cases in which a candidate received fewer state delegate equivalents than another despite receiving more votes in the final alignment.
• Wednesday afternoon, nearly 2 days after final results were supposed to be released, the Iowa Democratic Party released results showing Deval Patrick sweeping central Des Moines. In reality, Bernie Sanders had won the precinct. Sanders’s votes had been reported as being for Deval Patrick, while Elizabeth Warren’s tallies went to Tom Steyer.
They data shows that the Iowa Democratic Party, despite the long delays, failed to validate all of the results fully before releasing them to the public.
With 97% of 1,765 precincts reporting, Bernie Sanders has closed to within 0.1 percentage points of Pete Buttigieg. However, irregularities in the results are likely to undermine public confidence in the final Iowa count, no matter the winner.
by Kevin Ryan
The vote results being released by the Iowa Democratic Party are “riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws”, according to a New York Times analysis. More than 100 precincts reported results that were inconsistent, missing data, or even not possible. Tallies don’t add up, allot the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates, and in some cases, Democratic Party results don’t match the precincts results.
To understand just how bad the discrepancies are, you first have to understand the voting process. There are three sets of results corresponding to different steps in the caucus process.
1. First Alignment: Upon arriving at the caucus location, voters express their preference for a candidate. These votes are recorded in the “first alignment.”
2. Final Alignment: Then, candidates with less than 15%, are deemed “not viable”; their supporters get a chance to realign their vote with a viable candidate. Their preference at this point is recorded as well, and it’s called the final alignment.
3. State Delegate Allotment: At the last step in the process, each precinct tallies up all the “final preference” votes, and awards delegates based on the result. These is reported to the news media as “state delegate equivalents.” The candidate with the most state delegate equivalents wins the election.
When the Democratic Party began adding up and reporting all the results from steps one, two, and three, monitors and media outlets such as the New York Times began finding glaring discrepancies. For example:
• Viable candidates can’t lose support between steps one and two, but there were more than 10 cases where a viable candidate somehow lost vote share in, even though that is precluded by the caucus rules and technically impossible.
• No new voters are permitted to join the caucus after the first alignment. But in at least 70 precincts there are more tabulated total votes after step 2 (final alignment) than step 1 (first alignment).
• Each precinct is supposed to get a set number of delegates, but a handful of precincts awarded more state delegate equivalents than they had available.
• There are dozens of precincts where there is a discrepancy between the final preference vote (step 2) and the number of state delegate equivalents allotted (step 3). This includes more than 15 cases in which a candidate received fewer state delegate equivalents than another despite receiving more votes in the final alignment.
• Wednesday afternoon, nearly 2 days after final results were supposed to be released, the Iowa Democratic Party released results showing Deval Patrick sweeping central Des Moines. In reality, Bernie Sanders had won the precinct. Sanders’s votes had been reported as being for Deval Patrick, while Elizabeth Warren’s tallies went to Tom Steyer.
They data shows that the Iowa Democratic Party, despite the long delays, failed to validate all of the results fully before releasing them to the public.
With 97% of 1,765 precincts reporting, Bernie Sanders has closed to within 0.1 percentage points of Pete Buttigieg. However, irregularities in the results are likely to undermine public confidence in the final Iowa count, no matter the winner.
Last edited by Braineack; 02-06-2020 at 11:05 AM.
Reply
0
0
02-06-2020, 11:06 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnnnnndddddd there it is.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/06...ter-on-russia/
Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas suggested Wednesday that the Russians were behind the vote-reporting app crashing during Monday’s Iowa Democratic caucuse
$10 says Crowdstrike told her.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/06...ter-on-russia/
Democrat Congresswoman Blames Iowa Caucus Disaster On Russia
FEBRUARY 6, 2020 By Tristan JusticeDemocratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas suggested Wednesday that the Russians were behind the vote-reporting app crashing during Monday’s Iowa Democratic caucuse
Reply
0
0
02-06-2020, 11:09 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,048
Total Cats: 6,607
I didn't say the process was legitimate. I said that I believe the result (that a communist won the popular vote, while a socialist who supports the abolition of the electoral college system won the most electoral votes), was probably legitimate, in that it meaninfgully reflects the will of the registered democrats of Iowa.
In case you missed the subtext: I feel that this is a Bad Thing™. (My opinion that many voters ought not to be enfranchised is no secret.)
In case you missed the subtext: I feel that this is a Bad Thing™. (My opinion that many voters ought not to be enfranchised is no secret.)
Reply
0
0
02-06-2020, 12:23 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,048
Total Cats: 6,607
To be fair, claiming that the video posted demonstrates an insane person requires one to be wearing pretty thick red lenses.
In a way, that's kind of like saying "The president is a ****." It's objectively false, and represents an interpretation biased by extreme prejudice and a non-rational perception of events.
I don't like Nancy Pelosi, and I don't agree with her. But that doesn't make her insane, she's just mean-spirited and playing the role demanded by her party.
In a way, that's kind of like saying "The president is a ****." It's objectively false, and represents an interpretation biased by extreme prejudice and a non-rational perception of events.
I don't like Nancy Pelosi, and I don't agree with her. But that doesn't make her insane, she's just mean-spirited and playing the role demanded by her party.
Reply
0
0
02-06-2020, 03:55 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 189
Total Cats: 35
Innocent until proven guilty, so I guess it does mean innocent after all.
How could any rational thinking adult watch both sides and conclude that, after the shortest impeachment trial in history (71 days, whereas Clinton was investigated for over a year) with no evidence to support their delusional claims, all while denying basic Rights to the Executive Branch (such as cross-examining witnesses or having legal representation), that somehow he needs to be removed from office? There is nothing dirtier or more shameless in our history than a Partisan Impeachment from the losing party, solely to disrupt the impending successful re-election campaign.
But, "Impeachment is forever" and now Donald Trump will be given the opportunity to be re-elected and become the ONLY President impeached and re-elected. Thank you Democrats for a sweet victory.
How could any rational thinking adult watch both sides and conclude that, after the shortest impeachment trial in history (71 days, whereas Clinton was investigated for over a year) with no evidence to support their delusional claims, all while denying basic Rights to the Executive Branch (such as cross-examining witnesses or having legal representation), that somehow he needs to be removed from office? There is nothing dirtier or more shameless in our history than a Partisan Impeachment from the losing party, solely to disrupt the impending successful re-election campaign.
But, "Impeachment is forever" and now Donald Trump will be given the opportunity to be re-elected and become the ONLY President impeached and re-elected. Thank you Democrats for a sweet victory.
Reply
0
0
02-06-2020, 04:09 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,048
Total Cats: 6,607
How could any rational thinking adult watch both sides and conclude that, after the shortest impeachment trial in history (71 days, whereas Clinton was investigated for over a year) with no evidence to support their delusional claims, all while denying basic Rights to the Executive Branch (such as cross-examining witnesses or having legal representation), that somehow he needs to be removed from office?
The need to remove Trump from office (or prevent his re-election) has nothing to do with facts. This is an emotional issue. He must be removed, because he offends some people.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2020, 06:03 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,206
Total Cats: 98
There has to be some reason the dems went through impeachment in the house anyway, knowing full well they weren't going to get a conviction in the senate. There's still one witness testimony from the secret hearing that hasn't been released yet by Schitff. Obviously, that testimony did not further the dems case, even with cherry-picking.
I believe when Trump wins re-election in a landslide, the dems will say that it's impossible. He's been impeached. The American people wouldn't vote for an impeached president, even if he were acquitted. The Chinese hacked our election... or some such nonsense.
However, it could be as simple as Pelosi wanting revenge. Revenge for the Clinton Impeachment. Revenge for being called "Crazy Nancy". Revenge for killing O'Bamacare. Etc...
I believe when Trump wins re-election in a landslide, the dems will say that it's impossible. He's been impeached. The American people wouldn't vote for an impeached president, even if he were acquitted. The Chinese hacked our election... or some such nonsense.
However, it could be as simple as Pelosi wanting revenge. Revenge for the Clinton Impeachment. Revenge for being called "Crazy Nancy". Revenge for killing O'Bamacare. Etc...
Reply
0
0
02-07-2020, 09:22 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
https://www.nhregister.com/news/arti...27vseS_wAlouHY
New Haven police to distribute ‘crack’ pipes, syringes, in hope of keeping addicts alive
Reply
0
0
