Analysis: Trump 'rigged' vote claim may leave lasting damage

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Yeah, Powell just used his AOL address! - TRUE! Thats secure then isn't it? At least with a personal server you have to hack in to it. Not so with using your AOL address eh!

 

So you are trying to claim that sending and storing classified information with a personal server is more legit than using an AOL address for personal email like Powell did? Thanks for yet another laugh.

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

 Which policies do you support?

 

 

Increasing military spending. Protecting the border. Penalizing cities that ignore immigration laws.  Renegotiation of the stupid Iran nuclear deal or rip it up if necessary. Negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. I agree with a number of his proposed policies.

[MJP]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Increasing military spending. Protecting the border. Penalizing cities that ignore immigration laws.  Renegotiation of the stupid Iran nuclear deal or rip it up if necessary. Negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. I agree with a number of his proposed policies.

 

What I don't get is the same cabal that's been lording it in Washington for the past 30 years of decline is now going fix things.

 

They ain't. The decline will continue. 

[Linzz]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Deflection much? That does not change the fact that she had one and was not supposed to. 

 

Who was that guy? Wasn't that Kazir Khan who set up her server and was the one and the same who baited Trump up a blind alley? 

[Silurian]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

6 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Yeah, Powell just used his AOL address! - TRUE! Thats secure then isn't it? At least with a personal server you have to hack in to it. Not so with using your AOL address eh!

 

So you are trying to claim that sending and storing classified information with a personal server is more legit than using an AOL address for personal email like Powell did? Thanks for yet another laugh.

 

Yeah, just ask Podesta how the use of Gmail worked out for him. Oh, and don't worry, AOL was never hacked...oops.

 

Warning: Over 20,000 Gmail, AOL, and Yahoo Email Accounts Hacked!

http://www.enigmasoftware.com/warning-over-20000-gmail-aol-and-yahoo-email-accounts-hacked/

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/youve-got-hacked-aol-confirms-significant-number-mail-users-hit-n91701

 

 

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, MJP said:

What I don't get is the same cabal that's been lording it in Washington for the past 30 years of decline is now going fix things.

They ain't. The decline will continue. 

 

The cabal you're referring to are Republican congresspeople and the lobbyists they're surgically connected to.

If you've payed attention to goings-on in Congress for the past 8 years, you'll see that Republicans are adept at saying 'no' to everything Dems propose, while concurrently Reps are out playing golf or texting pages for sex, or just absentee.

 

It's the ultimate irony that, when Trump lambasts congresspeople for not doing their jobs, it's Republicans in the cross-hairs.

 

In 8 years, Republicans proposed and passed one piece of legislation: it had to do with commemorating magic tricks.  I jest not.

 

In stark contrast, if you look at HRC's record in public life, she's proposed and passed bills which have tangibly helped disadvantaged people.  Even before she was Sec. of State and a two-term Senator, she was active as First Lady.  She worked hard to get America's first comprehensive health bill passed, but failed.  You can guess why:  Reps aligned with Big Pharma and Medical corps and Insurance corps shot her ideas down.

 

What has The Divider ever done to help anyone in need (outside of himself of his immediate family)?  What legislation has he every proposed or passed?   Nothing.  He has zero record of doing anything worthwhile for others.   He doesn't even know how legislation gets passed.  He praises foreign dictators and incessantly denigrates elected politicians from the top on down.  He is to being a decent American what Jeffrey Dahmer (mass murderer) is to being a decent person.

[Morch]

On 10/30/2016 at 10:05 PM, Ulysses G. said:

 

Correct. However, Hillary has proven that she IS. I am much more worried about that.

 

Here's is my full post, again:

 

Quote

You have no idea if he is a potential national security threat. Given that he does not reveal details of his global business connections and undertakings abroad. There are reports these involve both Russian and Chinese entities. How's that not worrying?

 

Trump gave conflicting accounts regarding his acquaintance and connection with Putin. How's that not worrying?

 

Non of what you post addresses the issues raised. Your only input amounts to "but Hillary". I seriously hope that you do realize that Trump's undisclosed connections may present more of threat to USA national security.

[Morch]

On 10/30/2016 at 10:12 PM, Ulysses G. said:

 

Maintaining confidentiality is AFAUSSS' bread and butter. Of course they are POed about this. However, they are only commenting on one case - not the numerous agents who have made similar charges. 

They say that the writer could not have seen all these things, but also admit that he might have heard it from other agents. That is very likely to be exactly what happened. I know a former agent who has been telling me similar stories for years and he is a Democrat who voted for Obama.

 

There aren't "numerous" agents who made similar claims. There are things agents who went public say other agents said. Those agents going public with information they got this way are betraying both the trust of the people they protect and the trust of their colleagues. Apart from this, hearsay is not fact. And you do not have a clue if this is "very likely to be exactly what happened".

 

I know a former agent who has been telling me similar stories for years and he is a Democrat who voted for Obama.

 

Wouldn't be the first time you mention an improbable friend conveniently making a point during these elections. As such statements cannot be verified, they are usually not considered much of an argument. I'll say this though - this supposed friend does not seem to think much of that "bread and butter" mentioned earlier. 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There aren't "numerous" agents who made similar claims.

 

 

Yes there are and if you bothered reading my posts before replying to them, you would know that.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-documents-former-agent-complained-hillary-clinton-flouted-protocol-while-secretary/

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/fbi-docs-hillary-was-so-unpleasant-security-agents-didnt-want-to-protect-her/

 

 

https://heatst.com/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-terror/

 

http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/hillary-clintons-vulgar-m.html

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'll say this though - this supposed friend does not seem to think much of that "bread and butter" mentioned earlier. 

 

Retired on a government pension and full of resentment for the way Hillary treated "lesser" beings. He does not have to worry about such things anymore.

[Ulysses G.]

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Non of what you post addresses the issues raised. Your only input amounts to "but Hillary". 

 

Actually, it does. You claim that I do not know if Trump is a security threat and my answer is that I know for a fact that Hillary IS. I do not need to address your imaginary concerns. 

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Increasing military spending. Protecting the border. Penalizing cities that ignore immigration laws.  Renegotiation of the stupid Iran nuclear deal or rip it up if necessary. Negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. I agree with a number of his proposed policies.

 

"Increasing military spending."

 

Donald Trump wants to cut taxes, increase spending in lots of areas, and pay for it with optimistic growth assumptions no one believes.  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-budget-deficit-225389

 

"Protecting the border."

 

" Over the past 24 years, the amount of money spent on border security has increased 14 times; the number of border patrol agents have increased 500 percent; the amount of border wall has grown from 77 miles to 700 miles since 2000; and the number of people being apprehended trying to cross the border have decreased by four-fifths. "  http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-wall-would-add-billions-u-s-spends-border-n640251

 

How much border security does the US need in order to keep out the people we eagerly employ once they are in the country?

 

I'm not sure how Trump is going to legally penalize cities, or what immigration laws they are ignoring.  You'll have to provide details.

 

Trump has made it clear he wants to establish the dangerous precedent of ignoring legally binding treaties negotiated by earlier presidents and approved by congress.  He has not indicated how he will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without the treaty.  Based on his rambling, contradictory, ignorant comments on nuclear weapons, I don't think he has a clue.

 

The president is going to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices?  I have my doubts.  If he or anyone else wants to repeal and replace Obama Care with a better plan, I'm all for it, provided they have a Congressionally approved better plan in hand and do the repeal and replace at the same time.  However currently "repeal and replace" means repeal and talk about replacing for a while, then changing the subject.

 

Basically you are repeating fact-free Trump rhetoric and ignoring the fact that he has no credible plans.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

 

Basically you are repeating fact-free Trump rhetoric and ignoring the fact that he has no credible plans.

 

Basically you are taking some proposed policies and parroting a bunch of baseless speculation and far left spin. Thanks for the entertainment though. 

[boomerangutang]

Trump is worse than a security threat.  He's a loose cannon who could stumble America into wars.  At least his Republican predecessors Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. discussed going to war with Congresspeople before unleashing the beasts of war.   Trump, on the other hand, is so bombastic, he would go to war if someone looked at his yellow hair in the wrong way.  Everything he's said, relating to policies, is predicated on him blundering forth without checks or balances.  That's how he wants his world to be.  He can grab any pretty girl's pussy, and he can annihilate a large city with a push of a red button.  Each takes just one finger.

[dutchisaan]

58 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Basically you are taking some proposed policies and parroting a bunch of baseless speculation and far left spin. Thanks for the entertainment though. 

For somebody that say he is not a Trump supporter you spend a lot of time on this form to defend your master. And by posting this reply, you only proof that you don't have a clue what is going on in this world, or the USA.

All you can do is come with some stupid BS remarks to defend the donald.

I can understand you don't want to vote for HRC, but I cann't understand that you defend the Trump clown every minute of the day.

and btw, you remarks, as in this post, is the same as your master Trump;

I don't like it and I just come up with a other BS remark.

 

[Jingthing]

People that want the USA to go BACKWARDS do have policy reasons to vote trump, even though many of them correctly can see that trump's temperament is a shockingly bad fit for president.

 

Such things as:

 

Support for making ABORTION illegal again.

Support for making SAME SEX MARRIAGE illegal again. 

Support for abolishing the very limited gun control laws that do exist and blocking any potential new ones.

Support for no minimum wage laws.

Support for shameful muderous racist programs like "Operation Wetback" again. 

 

And many more ... 

[MJP]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

The cabal you're referring to are Republican congresspeople and the lobbyists they're surgically connected to.

If you've payed attention to goings-on in Congress for the past 8 years, you'll see that Republicans are adept at saying 'no' to everything Dems propose, while concurrently Reps are out playing golf or texting pages for sex, or just absentee.

 

It's the ultimate irony that, when Trump lambasts congresspeople for not doing their jobs, it's Republicans in the cross-hairs.

 

In 8 years, Republicans proposed and passed one piece of legislation: it had to do with commemorating magic tricks.  I jest not.

 

In stark contrast, if you look at HRC's record in public life, she's proposed and passed bills which have tangibly helped disadvantaged people.  Even before she was Sec. of State and a two-term Senator, she was active as First Lady.  She worked hard to get America's first comprehensive health bill passed, but failed.  You can guess why:  Reps aligned with Big Pharma and Medical corps and Insurance corps shot her ideas down.

 

What has The Divider ever done to help anyone in need (outside of himself of his immediate family)?  What legislation has he every proposed or passed?   Nothing.  He has zero record of doing anything worthwhile for others.   He doesn't even know how legislation gets passed.  He praises foreign dictators and incessantly denigrates elected politicians from the top on down.  He is to being a decent American what Jeffrey Dahmer (mass murderer) is to being a decent person.

 

Two sides of the same coin. Republicans, Democrats.

 

Drain the swamp. Trump's right.

[seedy]

Some discussion has happened re: quoting just one part of a post, and replying to that section only. This is not in Violation of the Forum Rule -

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

 

If a reply addresses only one - or two - points your original post made, so be it. No poster is under any obligation to reply to each and every point which another poster has made.

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Yes there are and if you bothered reading my posts before replying to them, you would know that.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-documents-former-agent-complained-hillary-clinton-flouted-protocol-while-secretary/

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/fbi-docs-hillary-was-so-unpleasant-security-agents-didnt-want-to-protect-her/

 

 

https://heatst.com/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-terror/

 

http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/hillary-clintons-vulgar-m.html

 

 

 

Most of these have to do with HRC's demeanor and treatment of security personnel. For the most part, they are not directly relevant to national security issues. Also worth noting that a certain duplicity exists between the reports linked.

 

HRC's conduct is apparently far from stellar with regard to underlings, security and other workers. That falls under gossip. Can't see a justified reason for divulging such information by agents, other than to get some extra PR for a quick cash book. Sounds like a cheap price for one's professional integrity.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Retired on a government pension and full of resentment for the way Hillary treated "lesser" beings. He does not have to worry about such things anymore.

 

If you say so. It carries no weight on an a public forum. Pretty much the same as the pro-Trump conservative black friend.....

And still doesn't sound like much of a moral high ground.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

On a side note: guess how many bottles of anti-depressant pills were bought last year?  Answer: over  300 million, or about one per every man, woman and child in the US.    Since not everyone does Pharma anti-depressants, there are some people who are buying many bottles - or maybe some of those bottles are given away free by Pharma and doctors - in order to get people hooked, so they'll buy bottles regularly (and go to stronger drugs).

 

Anti-depressants and opioids cause constipation.  During the most recent Super Bowl, there was an advert for a Pharma drug which eases constipation caused by Pharma drugs.  Super Bowl ads are the most expensive of any US TV show.  

 

         Here's how this relates to the election:   Republicans are more likely to buy Pharma drugs than liberals.  It's not a black & white thing, but of the thousands of people I know, all who say they're Republicans are buying up to six different Pharma drugs on a regular basis.  At least 3 of my right wing friends use needles daily.  In contrast, of the liberals I know, very few do any Pharma drugs.  Aspirin is the strongest store-bought drug most of them will buy, if that.   I have liberal friends who, if someone turns on a microwave oven, they'll go running out the door.  

 

       In sum, besides Right wing women buying more cosmetics, perfume and eye liner than liberal women (I'd guess 30 to 1), Right wingers are making their decisions (about who to vote for) while stoned on Pharma drugs and possibly also drunk.  We don't allow people to drive cars or operate heavy equipment while medicated or drunk, but it's fine if they make decisions about who should be the most powerful person in the world.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, dutchisaan said:

 

I can understand you don't want to vote for HRC, but I cann't understand that you defend the Trump clown every minute of the day.

 

Guess what, if Trump does not win Hillary will be president. On top of that, I object to the blatant lies and distortions posted on this forum to defeat him. Just keeping things honest.

 

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If you say so. It carries no weight on an a public forum. Pretty much the same as the pro-Trump conservative black friend.....

And still doesn't sound like much of a moral high ground.

 

 

 

Nothing carries much weight on a public forum,  with those who have already made up their minds otherwise. If anyone should realize that, it is you.

Can't agree that speaking ones mind honestly is not taking the moral high ground. Revealing Hillary's real personality is a public service - she is running for office.

[boomerangutang]

Billy Bush got fired from his job as a TV gossip show for laughing at a man's boastful perverted talk about grabbing womens' privates.

 

There's a higher job standard for someone to be a daytime gossip show host, than there is to be president of the USA.

[MiKT]

30 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Guess what, if Trump does not win Hillary will be president. On top of that, I object to the blatant lies and distortions posted on this forum to defeat him. Just keeping things honest.

 

 

Wow that's a good guess, let me see now. If Trump does not win, er, er, er, I wonder who will be president? Maybe, Micky Mouse, maybe Putin, maybe Tricky Dicky, maybe Hillary, maybe not. Oh dear, its no good I can't work out the percentages, can you let us know who it will be for sure in your next useless mail. Thanks.

 

NB if you like percentages 99.9% of posters here want Hillary to win because the thought of Trump winning is so horrible it does not bear much more contemplation.

 

[JAG]

4 hours ago, MJP said:

 

Two sides of the same coin. Republicans, Democrats.

 

Drain the swamp. Trump's right.

 

When you drain a swamp you find some very unpleasant things in the ooze which is left.

One of them may well be Donald Trump.

[MJP]

27 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

When you drain a swamp you find some very unpleasant things in the ooze which is left.

One of them may well be Donald Trump.

 

Maybe. But at least the swamp was drained.

[Ulysses G.]

35 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

Wow that's a good guess, let me see now. If Trump does not win, er, er, er, I wonder who will be president?

 

 

Don't worry, Hillary supporters are not known for their mental abilities. 

[Jingthing]

 
Don't worry, Hillary supporters are not known for their mental abilities. 

Funny. Better educated more likely to vote for Hillary.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, seedy said:

Some discussion has happened re: quoting just one part of a post, and replying to that section only. This is not in Violation of the Forum Rule -

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

 

If a reply addresses only one - or two - points your original post made, so be it. No poster is under any obligation to reply to each and every point which another poster has made.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Basically you are taking some proposed policies and parroting a bunch of baseless speculation and far left spin. Thanks for the entertainment though. 

 

Gee Ulysses, who do you think he's referring to?