No, if I were resorting to fake news by intentionally overreaching, I would have defended it, not admitted I made a mistake. It is you who is keeping it going - mainly because it is all you have.
Art Of The Deal
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
No, if I were resorting to fake news by intentionally overreaching, I would have defended it, not admitted I made a mistake. It is you who is keeping it going - mainly because it is all you have.
The "fact" that there is no link between the hack and the Kremlin. The lack of evidence, as you repeatedly keep pointing out. Evidently, because official copies of possible evidence are not in your hands, they do not exist. That is the standard by which you, as a private citizen, govern yourself.
You admitted the mistake because I called you on it and there is no such e-mail that has been hacked and divulged. Corners can be unforgiving.
Yes, that's pretty much accurate. Seeing is believing. Can you give me one single, credible reason why proof would not be shared with the public if it existed? If Democrats could prove the election was hacked by Russia, wouldn't that go a long way towards proving a possible link between Trump and Russia? I can tell you that'd be very damaging. I certainly would restate my position on Trump. And Russia.
Why, on earth, would they hold back on showing that evidence?
I admitted the mistake because I made it, yes. That's how mistakes are corrected. I didn't notice it until you made such a big issue because I operated under the understanding we weren't looking for all the nooks and crannies of how to "get" one another and score a point, but to debate the over-arching issue concerning Russia supposedly hacking the election. For example, your entry several posts up doesn't seem to contain grammatically correct sentence structure, and I had to read it several times to get what you intended it to mean. But I didn't make an issue of it because it's no big deal.
You'd certainly know a lot about corners, having been in one for the last 20 or so posts.
Protection of methods and sources? I guess we'll have to wait and see, which is what I had mentioned a few days ago. But until then, your role as Putin's and Assange's cheerleader is safe.
Ah, I see. So, just curious but at what point do you, Freddy, admit that there was never any evidence? Is it after Trump is elected? Or do you continue to maintain that "it's a conspiracy" forever?
And why wouldn't the Obama administration do everything in their power to try to prove this before Trump was in office?
Saying that Clinton's e-mails show her lack of character is not exactly a grammatical or spelling error. Well, at least not in my world.
So please stop with the false equivalency thing. It's old and it's tired.
Podesta's emails took down Clinton. That's the only point here. It's probably the biggest factor she lost. But keep deflecting from the Russian discussion. I get why you do it. It's amusing, but you really have nothing here other than me making that mistake. But cling to whatever bright spot you can in your dark, dismal little world of Republican triumph/Liberal Hell.
Here, Freddie. I know you're hurting. On an unrelated topic to those sneaky Russians...
Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama
Published December 27, 2016
Confidence or arrogance? Obama says he could've beaten Trump
President Obama claims he could have won a third term if he had been allowed to run – but even if he's right, his coattails haven’t done much for the rest of his party.
While Obama’s tireless campaigning, broad demographic appeal and message of “hope” and “change” helped propel him to two terms in the White House, his skills on the stump haven’t translated down the ballot.
The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure.
The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency.
The latter was perhaps the most profound example of Obama's popularity failing to translate to support for his allies. Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, brought the first family out for numerous campaign appearances. In September, Obama declared that his “legacy’s on the ballot.”
Less than two months later, Americans voted for Donald Trump.
But 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wasn’t the only locale to see a big partisan change since Obama took office in January 2009, according to figures from Ballotpedia.
Democratic U.S. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46. Their share of the House plummeted from 256 seats to 194. Republicans still control both chambers going into the next session.
Democratic governerships also became a rarity during this eight-year period, slipping from 28 to 16.
The Obama years, which saw the rise of the Tea Party as well as a new movement form around Trump that is still being defined, coincided with a loss of 958 state legislative seats for Democrats.
Still, Obama said in an interview which aired Monday that, if he were allowed to run for a third term, he would have been victorious.
“I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” Obama told ex-adviser David Axelrod for “The Axe Files” podcast.
Trump responded, "no way!"
While Obama and others note that Clinton still won the popular vote last month, and Democrats shaved down the Republican majority on Capitol Hill, others in the party have voiced concerns about where Democrats go from here.
“We’re not even a national party at this point,” Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, said last month as he made a failed run at the House minority leader position. “We have some support on the coasts, but we’ve lost the support of middle America, and we’ve got to make some changes. So I’m pulling the fire alarm here, because the house is on fire.”
Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama
Published December 27, 2016
Confidence or arrogance? Obama says he could've beaten Trump
President Obama claims he could have won a third term if he had been allowed to run – but even if he's right, his coattails haven’t done much for the rest of his party.
While Obama’s tireless campaigning, broad demographic appeal and message of “hope” and “change” helped propel him to two terms in the White House, his skills on the stump haven’t translated down the ballot.
The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure.
The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency.
The latter was perhaps the most profound example of Obama's popularity failing to translate to support for his allies. Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, brought the first family out for numerous campaign appearances. In September, Obama declared that his “legacy’s on the ballot.”
Less than two months later, Americans voted for Donald Trump.
But 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wasn’t the only locale to see a big partisan change since Obama took office in January 2009, according to figures from Ballotpedia.
Democratic U.S. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46. Their share of the House plummeted from 256 seats to 194. Republicans still control both chambers going into the next session.
Democratic governerships also became a rarity during this eight-year period, slipping from 28 to 16.
The Obama years, which saw the rise of the Tea Party as well as a new movement form around Trump that is still being defined, coincided with a loss of 958 state legislative seats for Democrats.
Still, Obama said in an interview which aired Monday that, if he were allowed to run for a third term, he would have been victorious.
“I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” Obama told ex-adviser David Axelrod for “The Axe Files” podcast.
Trump responded, "no way!"
While Obama and others note that Clinton still won the popular vote last month, and Democrats shaved down the Republican majority on Capitol Hill, others in the party have voiced concerns about where Democrats go from here.
“We’re not even a national party at this point,” Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, said last month as he made a failed run at the House minority leader position. “We have some support on the coasts, but we’ve lost the support of middle America, and we’ve got to make some changes. So I’m pulling the fire alarm here, because the house is on fire.”