I have no "case" to prove . . . it is incumbent upon you to PROVE that your post is NOT pure BS!
Blame The Russians?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Oh, so you can't prove your case. You are just shooting from the hip as folks like you are wont to do. It's really not to difficult to check the veracity of anything I have written. Show me one case where anyone on the national stage who has said Putin voted as Timogin alleged as you have alleged by backing him up.
Outside the Republican echo chamber in which you live my friend fact and reason matter. So, again, let's see your case.
Last edited:
Correct! He hacked into US servers and did his best to sway the vote by selectively releasing information to damage one side.
And Putin got his.
I see you a dangerous individual once more . You have the talent to twist things . you have all the fact, no one have the truth but, you .
Let me ask you. Who got the majority votes Trump or Hillary, please give the fact.
The truth isn't a talent. It's just the truth. The beauty of the truth is it doesn't need to be twisted or distorted. It is what it is. That's why dictators and would be dictators fear it. That's why Putin murders and imprisons journalists and dissidents. That's why Putin controls the Russian media. Yes, the truth and those who speak it are dangerous to dictators and would be dictators. That's why the fear them.
In answer to your question, Hillary Clinton got a majority of the popular vote. Almost 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. But Trump won the Electoral College vote. That's why Trump is president-elect and Clinton isn't. The Electoral College is non democratic institution because it favors voters in less populated states over voters in populated states. The Electoral College isn't representative of the American people because voters in less populated states have more voting power than voters in more populated states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
What about when JFK was elected then it was good and was a democratic system. Why, then are we afraid of a democratic election , and when we lose then we cry.
Why are you throwing Putin into my lap. I don't have any thing to do with him. The only thing I am in favor that did not allow the homosexual come out of the closed. His policy is the same as ours expand the market at any cost.
What about JFK? Who said it was a good and democratic system? Who said we are afraid of democratic elections? You're back to creating straw man arguments again as is the custom with right wingers.
The fact is the Electoral College results have differed with the popular vote 5 times in the 240 year history of our nation and two of those times occurred within the last 16 years. You don't think that's a problem? There isn't a problem with the Electoral College when it's consistent the popular vote as has been the norm. But when it doesn't, as increasingly is the case, then it becomes problematic, because the process isn't democratic. The Electoral College is analogous to the appendix. It's a vestigial organ which is normally benign. But on occasion, it can become lethal. That's the Electoral College. That's one of the problems we face today.
The Electoral College was implemented by the founding fathers to protect the institution of slavery. Since slavery is no longer an issue, one has to wonder what value the institution offers especially with the election of Trump. Trump is the epitome of the demagogue which the Electoral College was to prevent. If you believe in democracy, then it's difficult to see how you can believe in the Electoral College.
As for crying, the losing party always cries and laments their loss. Is that a surprise to you? Republicans cried about their losses in 2008 and 2012. But that's not what we are talking about here. You are obfuscating. This is about our democracy. You either believe all votes should be of equal weight or you don't, and clearly Republicans don't. Because if all votes carried equal weight, Congress and the presidency would be controlled by Democrats. Instead of deluding themselves as Republicans, i.e. so called conservatives, are wont to do, that should be of some concern to them. Because at some point, the majority of Americans will be heard regardless of how much Republicans want to supress them.
LOL...and how did I throw Putin into your lap comrade? Yes, your words betray you. YOU aren't American, are you? It's time for you to be honest. So you don't like homosexuals; that's not unexpected.
But if Putin's policy is "expand the market at any cost", as you have asserted, he has certainly done a piss poor job of it given Russia is under international sanctions and its economy is shrinking and has shrunk year after year.
America's economic policy isn't expansion at all cost. If it were we would have had a very different last 8 years. Republicans in congress would have passed a significant infrastructure repair funding. The Federal Reserve wouldn't have raised interest rates as they have repeatedly done. And congress would have passed significant regulatory reduction, but it has done none of those things.
Economic expansion for the sake of economic expansion isn't without drawbacks...just ask China. Now your beloved Mother Russia is so desperate for economic growth, it would love any kind of economic growth at almost any cost. But it's still not desperate enough to rid itself of Putin or to give back the lands of its neighbors which it has illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed. Russia is paying a high cost for its dear leader's military adventurism and aggression.
Last edited:
". . . . . . The Federal Reserve wouldn't have raised interest rates as they have repeatedly done."
Joe, FYI: the Feds raised the interest TWICE during the last decade. . . . . Oh well . . . . . I guess 'twice' could qualify as 'repeatedly'?
Joe, FYI: the Feds raised the interest TWICE during the last decade. . . . . Oh well . . . . . I guess 'twice' could qualify as 'repeatedly'?
LOL...yes it does. Unfortunately for you and your fellows, words have meanings. That's why we have dictionaries. And the 2 times the Federal Reserve raised interest rates were in 2015 and 2016: 2 years in a row. A decade ago, the Federal Reserve began lowering interest rates because the economy was on the brink of collapse. You may have heard about it. It's called the Great Recession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession
And my point remains, it the US was for economic growth at any expense as was asserted, the US would not have raised interest rates.
Thanks for clarifying . . . . My take-away is that IF the Feds raised the interest rate ONLY twice in the last decade - and as per your assertion - the current POTUS was not much interested in economic growth (at any expense). IYO, is that correct?
No. That isn't correct. You have it wrong. First, the POTUS has no control over the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is an independent agency of the US government. As previously referenced, there was good reason why the Federal Reserve raised interest rates only twice (i.e. in 2015 and 2016) over the course of the last decade and the Federal Reserve will likely raise interest rates again in 2017. It's called the Great Recession. The Great Recession began in 2007 and ended in 2009. It ended after Obama and Democrats were sworn into office and after they had passed and implemented their fiscal stimulus program.
The first 2 years of Obama's presidency went swimmingly well as Democrats controlled both Congress and the presidency. Obama and his fellow Democrats took an economy that was losing nearly a million jobs a month and shrinking at an annualized rate of 10% and turned it into an economy that consistently grew at a modest 2% per year and added about 200k jobs each and every month. That's a very dramatic and profound turnaround. That's 12% growth: going from a negative 10 to a positive 2. That's "huge" in Trumpian language. By 2015 the economy had reached full employment. That's why the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 2015.
The irony here is that the fiscal spending which Republicans vociferously and zealously opposed during Obama's administration is exactly what Republicans are expected to engage in under Trump. Trump has promised to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure. He has also promised tax cuts which are expected to add another 12 trillion dollars to the national debt. He has promised to spend trillions more than anything Democrats have proposed. Trump's expected spending is several fold larger than anything Democrats have even proposed over the course of the last 8 years.
Fiscal spending was needed during the Great Recession. For the bulk of Obama's administration, additional fiscal spending was needed in order to bring about a faster recovery. But Republicans steadfastly opposed it. And they went even further, they actively attempted to sabotage the economy, e.g. the two Republican attempts to cause a debt default. If Republicans had provided the fiscal stimulus as requested by Obama, the nation would have achieved full employment years earlier. But now when fiscal stimulus is not needed, Republicans, i.e. Trumpians, are all for deficit spending and more debt as evidenced by Trump's statements and policies. And I haven't even touched on Trump's plans for increased military spending. Trump's proposed military spending will add trillions more to the nation's deficits and debts.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17...efense-spending-plans-would-break-the-budget/
For the last 8 years we have had Republicans trying to squelch economic growth with austerity programs and the Federal Reserve trying to foment economic growth by lowering interest rates. Now we have the exact opposite. We have now have Republicans spending like drunken sailors, if Trump remains true to his campaign promises, while the Federal Reserve will be raising interest rates in order to slow economic growth and prevent or minimize inflation. The trillions of dollars in anticipated Republican deficit spending will cause economic growth, but it will also cause inflation. That's why the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates.
This really is yet another case of Republicans putting party before country.
Last edited:
Given that Obama spend $787 billion via the ARRA economic recovery plan, and given that it saved over half a million jobs in 2008-2009 alone, that doesn't sound correct.
No problem . . . I was just pointing-out to Joe how some member-readers could interpret his post . . .
[BTW: How much of that $787 B went for non-union shovel-ready jobs and how much went to preserving union (only) jobs? . . . just wonderin'] . . . .NEVER MIND! . . . kind of straying off-topic from the OP
Last edited:
No idea. I presume it saved both, since about 10% of US workers are union - so probably something like 10% of the jobs were union. From my perspective, work on the I-5/I-805 (right outside my office) started about two months after the ARRA was passed, and was completed about five years later.
The answer to your question is simple. None of it went to preserving "union" jobs. It went to preserve all jobs period...union jobs, nonunion jobs..all jobs. Unions were not singled out for special treatment. Yeah, you were just wondering; you were just spreading a Republican meme with respect to unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
About a third of the Democratic stimulus package consisted of tax reductions. It's very telling that Republicans to a person railed about the Democratic spending package. They said it was too much, never mentioning the costs of doing nothing as they proposed. When the nation was mired deep in a recession Republicans zealously fought against stimulus spending. While the nation was recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression Republicans zealously fought against any stimulus spending.
Now, with the election of a Republican POTUS, all that has changed. The Republican president-elect has promised a trillion dollar infrastructure spending package. He has promised to cut taxes by a a trillion plus dollars a year, and he has promised to spend another trillion dollars in defense. The fiscal stimulus Republicans have promised is several fold larger than the Democratic stimulus package of 2009 and the nation isn't in recession as it was in 2009. You want to talk about fiscal profligacy, just look at the Republican Party.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Sorry to see the funny side.
But.......
You say that Trump is a liar yet you believe he will do all he promises.
The fact he won tells me he is rather good at playing politics and frankly politicians sometimes fail to deliver.
And I can not understand why you see Russia as some sort of problem.
I think they have one aircraft carrier and their sub's are mostly out of commision.
Do you think they are a problem how why when?
With respect you guys should bring in compulsory voting that is needed.
I suppose to do so infringes on rights but what sort of a democracy is it if voting is optional.
Given the influence the USA has in the world maybe you could extend voting to other countries who are effected by your actions.
Alex
While it's true Democrats (the party) are trying to hide their failures behind Russian election hacking, it's also true that Russians interfered with our election, and if you are American, you should object to this, Democrat or Republican. John McCain is also concerned, and he's a Republican.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I looked for "evidence" of hacking and it seems there is no proof.
What evidence should I look at?
Alex
What evidence should I look at?
Alex
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
First, there is no proof of Russian interference, not even serious evidence. Russian media wrote, of course, a lot, but all the media of the whole world have done this, so that this does not count.
But much more important is the point that the US often enough openly interfered with many other elections in other countries. So, if now some other state would interfere with US elections, this would be fair game. Objecting to foreign interference with elections would have a good starting point for Americans, namely to stop US interference with elections in other countries. After this, they could start to object against foreigners interfering with US elections.
The evidence is so persuasive, and from such a large number of different sources both official and informal, that the burden of proof has shifted. Those who deny Russian interference must explain why it appears to have been so prevalent and significant.
Interference in US elections injures the US, and anyone who has the best interests of the US in mind objects to it and wants to see it prosecuted and prevented.