Jump to content


Photo

Comey Canned

for treating Hillary unfairly

  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#41 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,462 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 11 May 2017 - 01:46 PM

"Lots of them voted for him after the DNC screwed Bernie"

 

Margin of victory in WI - 22 748 MI - 10 704 PA - 44 292 for a grand total of  77 744

 

Sure it was enough to win but out of 136 628 459 votes cast, is that really a landslide? Trump describes it as such and we all know how full o' shit he is, but it doesn't even rise to your "lots of them" mark. This was more of "by a whisker" victory - if one were to go by actual numbers and not gut feelings and hyperbolic "presidential" comments.

 

You have to look at the fact, those states were flipped.  Get it?  They're not blue anymore!  That's YUGE!

 

Seriously, like The Macallan showed, you'd have to add back the votes from the previous elections where they were solidly blue to see the huge groundswell.  Add back the 1 million from 2012.  Then you will see the conversion that is taking place.



#42 Saint Ronnie

Saint Ronnie

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts

Posted 11 May 2017 - 02:23 PM

See actual numbers - not YUGE, but keep on fiddlin' Trump will be the ultimate stress test for your empire. Enjoy. less than 78k decided the last election Fact.


Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

— Matthew 6:19–21,24 (KJV)

#43 The Macallan

The Macallan

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 11 May 2017 - 02:55 PM

An analogy to illustrate the point.

 

February 22, 1980

Lake Placid, NY

 

Undeniably, the single greatest sports upset of all time. The US hockey team beat the Soviet Union by 1 goal (4-3). How would you classify this victory? A squeaker? Did they barely beat the Soviets? Couldn't have been that big an upset right? It's not like they beat them 20-1. 

 

No. It was a monumental upset (landslide?) because the Soviets had won gold in the previous 4 Games going back to 1964. Their record in the Olympics from '64-'76 was 27-1-1, outscoring their opponents 175-44. Head to head with the US, they outscored 28-7. Ridiculous. Two weeks before Lake Placid, the Soviets crushed the US in an exhibition game 10-3.

 

It wasn't supposed to happen. It shouldn't have happened...but it did...both the Miracle on Ice and Trump.

If you look at these things in absolute terms and not relative terms, you are kidding yourself. 


  • fenderjazz likes this

neil-presto-scarf.jpg


#44 Always the Winner

Always the Winner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,996 posts

Posted 11 May 2017 - 03:51 PM

See actual numbers - not YUGE, but keep on fiddlin' Trump will be the ultimate stress test for your empire. Enjoy. less than 78k decided the last election Fact.


Is that what you're really hanging onto during your mourning period? Who gives a flying fuck what the margin was? The 2000 election was decided by 537 votes. I'm sure there were more than 537 snowflakes sitting in various Miami Starbucks who didn't bother to vote that day.

Until your side has 99% turnout, you never have reason to bitch about losing an election.

Hey...where's Perry?


#45 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,462 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 11 May 2017 - 05:37 PM

Watch this

 

 

Who won?

Who lost?

get it?


  • chemistry1973 likes this

#46 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,656 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 11 May 2017 - 06:05 PM

See actual numbers - not YUGE, but keep on fiddlin' Trump will be the ultimate stress test for your empire. Enjoy. less than 78k decided the last election Fact.

Those are states that the Dems basically owned that they pissed away. Those states should have been a lock, based on Obama's numbers in them.  They were the Dems' to lose, and they lost them.

That's what makes the loss a "landslide." It's not that the Dems lost them by a lot, but that the swing is so huge.

Stop being obtuse.



#47 The Macallan

The Macallan

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 11 May 2017 - 06:22 PM

Who won?

Who lost?

get it?

 

 

Poor OKC fans...they only just barely won. What a bummer.


neil-presto-scarf.jpg


#48 Oak

Oak

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts

Posted 11 May 2017 - 08:46 PM

Poor OKC fans...they only just barely won. What a bummer.

 

The referee in the clip is like the MSM...he didn't want to call a violation on the inbound pass.  The ball left his hands in 5.5 seconds...a clear violation. :)


  • The Macallan likes this

#49 Saint Ronnie

Saint Ronnie

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:06 PM

folks folks calm down - I am not disputing the Trump electoral college victory, I

m simply stating the obvious. Using the word "landslide" to describe the victory is absurd. Just as a basketball game won by a buzzer beater can't be described as a "blow out". Donald Trump lies and exaggerates all the time


  • fast eddie likes this

Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

— Matthew 6:19–21,24 (KJV)

#50 Oak

Oak

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 04:30 PM



#51 A Rebel and a Runner

A Rebel and a Runner

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,656 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 12 May 2017 - 07:04 PM

Conservatives, it's okay, even Krauthammer sees it.

A political ax murder

The career of James Comey as FBI director
James B. Comey, the head of the bureau since 2013, was dismissed by President Trump on May 9, 2017.
 
By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer May 11 at 7:47 PM 
 
It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 — the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
 
It was implausible that Comey was fired by President Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at a July news conference, Comey publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution.
 
It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comey’s “guts” that had “brought back his reputation.”
 
It was implausible that Trump, a man notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-Cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and who’d been on the job all of two weeks.
 
It was implausible that Trump found Rosenstein’s arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately — so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him.
 
These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comey’s firing and the administration’s immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey?
 
Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if you’ve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong.
 
Over the past year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices. Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action — disclosure or silence, commission or omission — carried unavoidable electoral consequences.
 
Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton.
 
A series of these — and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey.
 
And there’s the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from Election Day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick the new director. No fanfare, no rancor.
 
True, this became more difficult after March 20 when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump campaign-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just last week Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable.
 
Instead we got this — a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards. Where was the vein-opening knife and the warm bath?) No final meeting, no letter of resignation, no presidential thanks, no cordial parting. Instead, a blindsided Comey ends up in a live-streamed O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington.
 
Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comey’s very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, he’s made the blunder of the decade. Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It won’t stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime.
 
So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself.


#52 Casey

Casey

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,033 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:32 AM

Even though no one has given one shred of evidence of Russian collusion...

 

That is exactly what an independent investigation would reveal. 

 

Almost every rock that is turned over that is associated with the Trump administration reveals another Russian connection. Some direct, some passive or secondary. In the best case scenario, this is an unusual set of coincidences. In the worst, a huge national security threat. 

 

I can't see how any rational person wouldn't see this as an issue worthy of thorough examination. 



#53 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,172 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:52 AM

Most of these Russian connections are perfectly legal. Flynn's the only one getting in trouble.

This is a giant waste of time and money.

If Trump's tax returns revealed he had business ties with Russians it would be legal since he wasn't a politician.

But now the people need to know without a shadow of a doubt, because no one is trusting this administration as far as they can throw it.
  • GhostWriter likes this

#54 fenderjazz

fenderjazz

    Insert witty title here

  • Administrators
  • 5,462 posts
  • LocationNYC Area Suburbs

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:42 PM

That is exactly what an independent investigation would reveal.

Almost every rock that is turned over that is associated with the Trump administration reveals another Russian connection. Some direct, some passive or secondary. In the best case scenario, this is an unusual set of coincidences. In the worst, a huge national security threat.

I can't see how any rational person wouldn't see this as an issue worthy of thorough examination.


Because it's much ado about nothing. Foreign influence exists in every election. Look at what we recently did in Israel and the U.K. I agree that an investigation is warranted. Certainly something that can be wrapped up in six weeks. This isn't the same as the Hillary Clinton email scandal where it appears crimes were committed. Foreign government influence and assistance in a campaign is normal behavior. Frowned upon sure, but not really criminal.

#55 Saint Ronnie

Saint Ronnie

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 02:06 PM

The fact that Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn were involved at high levels of the campaign and administration respectively, it's an investigation that should be thorough and that can't happen in 6 weeks. A 6 week investigation will only serve to give cover. 


Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

— Matthew 6:19–21,24 (KJV)

#56 AsIfToFly

AsIfToFly

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 03:41 PM

Because it's much ado about nothing. Foreign influence exists in every election. Look at what we recently did in Israel and the U.K. I agree that an investigation is warranted. Certainly something that can be wrapped up in six weeks. This isn't the same as the Hillary Clinton email scandal where it appears crimes were committed. Foreign government influence and assistance in a campaign is normal behavior. Frowned upon sure, but not really criminal.

But Trump says it was all made up by the Democrats.



#57 Casey

Casey

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,033 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 06:06 PM

 I agree that an investigation is warranted.

 

Bipartisanship for the Win! :)



#58 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,172 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 06:15 PM

Why hasn't Flynn been charged then.

#59 Casey

Casey

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,033 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 08:03 PM

Why hasn't Flynn been charged then.

 

 

Because the investigation isn't complete. The wheels of justice turn very slowly and deliberately, especially at the Federal level. 



#60 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,172 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 11:10 PM

Good point.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users