This should be a wake up call for Democrats

[homersapien 11,440]

On 2/21/2022 at 10:54 AM, pensacolatiger said:

Apparently they were not familiar w/ data because they overlooked recorded data on GA’s site.  But hey, you keep doing you🤣🤣🤣

Got a reference for that "unrecorded data"?

[homersapien 11,440]

On 2/21/2022 at 4:21 PM, pensacolatiger said:

I knew the left was racist but yeesh.  What year do you live in?🤣

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s space laser and the age-old problem of blaming the Jews

Why conspiracy theorists always end up pointing the finger at Jews — and why that’s a problem for the GOP.

https://www.vox.com/22256258/marjorie-taylor-greene-jewish-space-laser-anti-semitism-conspiracy-theories

 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 2/17/2022 at 9:53 PM, TexasTiger said:

I’m looking for a functioning democratic republic. Republicans are moving in the other direction in which elections are overturned.

The Democratic Party tried to undermine a legitimate election for three years by circulating a fabricated dossier with accusations they knew were false.  Both parties did what you say.  

[TexasTiger 13,006]

45 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The Democratic Party tried to undermine a legitimate election for three years by circulating a fabricated dossier with accusations they knew were false.  Both parties did what you say.  

BS. Lyndsey Graham encouraged McCain to turn it over to the FBI and the media ran with it. That was not what impeachment was about.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

BS. Lyndsey Graham encouraged McCain to turn it over to the FBI and the media ran with it. That was not what impeachment was about.

So the Democratic Party didn't file a lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign for a collusion they knew didn't exist?

And just like Trump's lawsuits contesting the 2020 election, the court didn't throw the lawsuit out?

https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-party-sues-russia-trump-campaign-allegedly-disrupting-152040359.html

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So the Democratic Party didn't file a lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign for a collusion they knew didn't exist?

And just like Trump's lawsuits contesting the 2020 election, the court didn't throw the lawsuit out?

https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-party-sues-russia-trump-campaign-allegedly-disrupting-152040359.html

According to various intelligence reports, Russia did try to help Trump in the election.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/16/977958302/intelligence-report-russia-tried-to-help-trump-in-2020-election

When Democrats filed their suit, it was not known if "collusion" - a legal standard - occurred or not.  Even though the Trump administration welcomed Russian "help", the exacting legal standard for collusion - or conspiracy - was not met according to the Mueller report. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

Bottom line, your spin on what happened is inaccurate.  The Democrats did not file a lawsuit based on something they "knew didn't exist".

Edited February 23, 2022 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 2/17/2022 at 9:26 AM, AU9377 said:

One unfortunate reality exists.  Whoever wins will spend spend and spend money we don't have to make one group or another happy and damn the future.  Instead of taking care of what is important, like the health care needs of the citizens of the reported richest country the world has ever seen, we will do God only knows what for God only knows why and pretend all is well.

Does your plan for "taking care of the health care needs of the citizens..." not cost money?  Because whatever you've got planned sounds expensive.

And if it is, isn't that just "Spending money we don't have to make one group happy and damning the future?"  After all, the majority of the people in the country have access to healthcare.  

People always think government spending is a problem unless we're talking about the government spending money on what they think is important.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

According to various intelligence reports, Russia did try to help Trump in the election.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/16/977958302/intelligence-report-russia-tried-to-help-trump-in-2020-election

When Democrats filed their suit, it was not known if "collusion" - a legal standard - occurred or not.  Even though the Trump administration welcomed Russian "help", the exacting legal standard for collusion - or conspiracy - was not met according to the Mueller report. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

Bottom line, your spin on what happened is inaccurate.  The Democrats did not file a lawsuit based on something they "knew didn't exist".

First of all, I'm not talking about the Mueller investigation—although that did happen as a result of the Democrats attempting to cast doubt on a legal election by circulating false information—I'm taking about the lawsuit they filed, not the investigation they succeeded in instigating.

Secondly, of course they knew it was false because they ginned up the fake dossier in the first place.

Third, I thought the standard for whether accusations of election improprieties have any merit is whether the court throws out the lawsuits.  Well, the Democrats filed a lawsuit and the court threw it out.  Just like Trump's lawsuits when HE tried to cast doubt on a legal election.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

9 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

O.k.

I think you're right.

Have a nice day.

Typical.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Typical.

You may be more persuasive than you think.

All I did was agree with what you said.

Were you not being sincere?

[AU9377 5,035]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Does your plan for "taking care of the health care needs of the citizens..." not cost money?  Because whatever you've got planned sounds expensive.

And if it is, isn't that just "Spending money we don't have to make one group happy and damning the future?"  After all, the majority of the people in the country have access to healthcare.  

People always think government spending is a problem unless we're talking about the government spending money on what they think is important.

We already spend an amount on healthcare that far out spends similar countries with just as good or better health care than what we have in the U.S.  The problem is how the money is allocated and who is feeding from the public trough of money.

We decided long ago that everyone should be cared for.  I don't think any civilized country could decide no to care for the sick or elderly simply due to them being poor.  That is not only inhumane, but that is as un-Christian as anything that I have ever heard mentioned.

You cannot be suggesting that our current system is working for everyone?  If you are, that tells me that you have not had much, if any, experience dealing with that system.

[AU9377 5,035]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

First of all, I'm not talking about the Mueller investigation—although that did happen as a result of the Democrats attempting to cast doubt on a legal election by circulating false information—I'm taking about the lawsuit they filed, not the investigation they succeeded in instigating.

Secondly, of course they knew it was false because they ginned up the fake dossier in the first place.

Third, I thought the standard for whether accusations of election improprieties have any merit is whether the court throws out the lawsuits.  Well, the Democrats filed a lawsuit and the court threw it out.  Just like Trump's lawsuits when HE tried to cast doubt on a legal election.

Comparing the two is both dishonest and a purposeful attempt to excuse pathetic conduct on the part of Trump Republicans.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Comparing the two is both dishonest and a purposeful attempt to excuse pathetic conduct on the part of Trump Republicans.

Yeah?  How so?

Both were lawsuits disputing the validity of the elections and both were thrown out by the courts, which, according you y'all means that they were both meritless.

What's the big difference?  Should be easy to explain if there really is no comparison.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

We already spend an amount on healthcare that far out spends similar countries with just as good or better health care than what we have in the U.S.  The problem is how the money is allocated and who is feeding from the public trough of money.

We decided long ago that everyone should be cared for.  I don't think any civilized country could decide no to care for the sick or elderly simply due to them being poor.  That is not only inhumane, but that is as un-Christian as anything that I have ever heard mentioned.

You cannot be suggesting that our current system is working for everyone?  If you are, that tells me that you have not had much, if any, experience dealing with that system.

So your plan would have us spending less money than we are now?  Do tell.

[AU9377 5,035]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Yeah?  How so?

Both were lawsuits disputing the validity of the elections and both were thrown out by the courts, which, according you y'all means that they were both meritless.

What's the big difference?  Should be easy to explain if there really is no comparison.

Be honest.  The Trump people have claimed that the election results in multiple states were invalid due to misconduct on the part of State elections officials.  They have been thrown out of court somewhere around 70 times, yet still claim fraud they knew did not take place.  They questioned the voting machines and now are facing lawsuits that will result in the bankruptcy of many individuals.  The situations are nothing remotely similar.

[AU9377 5,035]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So your plan would have us spending less money than we are now?  Do tell.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594202346/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Be honest.  The Trump people have claimed that the election results in multiple states were invalid due to misconduct on the part of State elections officials.  They have been thrown out of court somewhere around 70 times, yet still claim fraud they knew did not take place.  They questioned the voting machines and now are facing lawsuits that will result in the bankruptcy of many individuals.  The situations are nothing remotely similar.

You be honest.  The (knowingly) false claims of Russian collusion were made for three years.  Just like the Trump claims, the idea was never really to overturn the election (not after the respective lawsuits were thrown out, anyway), it was/is to keep repeating the narrative to galvanize the base and erode confidence in low information swing voters.

It's exactly the same tactic.  Hell, it's probably where Trump got the idea for what he's doing.

It's amazing to me that y'all are so tribal that you won't admit it.  I don't know why it's amazing to me, as this has been going on for some time, but it never ceases to amaze me.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594202346/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Sum it up for me.  Especially since that book was written five years before Obamacare...the ACA didn't fix everything according to that book?

[jj3jordan 2,060]

On 2/23/2022 at 12:20 PM, homersapien said:

According to various intelligence reports, Russia did try to help Trump in the election.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/16/977958302/intelligence-report-russia-tried-to-help-trump-in-2020-election

When Democrats filed their suit, it was not known if "collusion" - a legal standard - occurred or not.  Even though the Trump administration welcomed Russian "help", the exacting legal standard for collusion - or conspiracy - was not met according to the Mueller report. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

Bottom line, your spin on what happened is inaccurate.  The Democrats did not file a lawsuit based on something they "knew didn't exist".

Only persons with lack of intelligence bought that BS story. Sorry Homer they knew it didn’t exist. 

[homersapien 11,440]

On 2/24/2022 at 12:02 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Does your plan for "taking care of the health care needs of the citizens..." not cost money?  Because whatever you've got planned sounds expensive.

And if it is, isn't that just "Spending money we don't have to make one group happy and damning the future?"  After all, the majority of the people in the country have access to healthcare.  

People always think government spending is a problem unless we're talking about the government spending money on what they think is important.

Countries with socialized single payer healthcare systems spend less on healthcare per capita than we do and generally rank higher in outcomes.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-2415

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries

etc., etc., etc, ............

Edited February 26, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

On 2/24/2022 at 7:43 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Sum it up for me.  Especially since that book was written five years before Obamacare...the ACA didn't fix everything according to that book?

The ACA was gutted by the insurance company lobby when the public choice for medicare was eliminated.

What resulted was a Rube-Goldberg patchwork of a healthcare system that helped some people to some degree, but utterly failed to address the fundamental problems that still exist.

Here's a more recent summary of the failings of our system:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/678197/the-hidden-history-of-american-healthcare-by-thom-hartmann/

The Hidden History of American Healthcare

Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich

By Thom Hartmann

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

On 2/24/2022 at 7:42 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

You be honest.  The (knowingly) false claims of Russian collusion were made for three years.  Just like the Trump claims, the idea was never really to overturn the election (not after the respective lawsuits were thrown out, anyway), it was/is to keep repeating the narrative to galvanize the base and erode confidence in low information swing voters.

It's exactly the same tactic.  Hell, it's probably where Trump got the idea for what he's doing.

It's amazing to me that y'all are so tribal that you won't admit it.  I don't know why it's amazing to me, as this has been going on for some time, but it never ceases to amaze me.

Just curious - and setting the legal requirements for proving "collusion" - what would you call the following?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-emails/trump-jr-emails-suggest-he-welcomed-russian-help-against-clinton-idUSKBN19W1VW

Trump Jr. emails suggest he welcomed Russian help against Clinton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s eldest son eagerly agreed last year to meet a woman he was told was a Russian government lawyer who might have damaging information about Democratic White House rival Hillary Clinton as part of Moscow’s official support for his father, according to emails released on Tuesday.

The emails, released by Donald Trump Jr., are the most concrete evidence yet that Trump campaign officials welcomed Russian help to win the election, a subject that has cast a cloud over Trump’s presidency and spurred investigations by the Justice Department and Congress.

The messages show that the younger Trump was open to the prospect of “very high level and sensitive information” from a Russian attorney that a go-between described as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” ahead of a meeting on June 9, 2016.

"If it's what you say I love it," Trump Jr. responded. He released the messages on Twitter after the New York Times said it planned to write about them and sought comment from him. (bit.ly/2uapeCK and bit.ly/2ua9hwg)

In an interview with Fox News, Trump Jr. said that Trump’s campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort, and son-in-law Jared Kushner, now a top White House adviser, also attended the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who denies having Kremlin ties.

He said Veselnitskaya did not provide any damaging information about Clinton at the meeting and instead sought to discuss Russian sanctions.

“In retrospect, I probably would have done things a little differently,” he said. “For me, this was opposition research.”

Nevertheless, the correspondence between him and Rob Goldstone, a publicist who arranged the meeting, could provide fodder for U.S. investigators probing whether Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

“The crown prosecutor of Russia ... offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” Goldstone wrote Trump Jr. on June 3. Russia does not have a “crown prosecutor” - the equivalent title is prosecutor general.

Related Coverage........

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Moscow sought to help Trump win the election, in part by releasing private emails from Democratic Party officials.

“The conversation will now turn to whether President Trump was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign’s involvement appears settled now,” Cornell Law School professor Jens David Ohlin said in an interview.

“The answer is yes.”

Moscow has denied any interference, and Trump says his campaign did not collude with Russia.

Trump Jr. said he did not tell his father about the meeting. He said he may have since had contact with other Russians.

“I’ve probably met with other people from Russia, but certainly not in the context of actual formalized meetings or anything,” he said on Fox News.......

.......Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is at times harshly critical of Trump, told reporters: “This is very problematic. We cannot allow foreign governments to reach out to anybody’s campaign and say: ‘We’d like to help you.’”

[jj3jordan 2,060]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Just curious - and setting the legal requirements for proving "collusion" - what would you call the following?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-emails/trump-jr-emails-suggest-he-welcomed-russian-help-against-clinton-idUSKBN19W1VW

Trump Jr. emails suggest he welcomed Russian help against Clinton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s eldest son eagerly agreed last year to meet a woman he was told was a Russian government lawyer who might have damaging information about Democratic White House rival Hillary Clinton as part of Moscow’s official support for his father, according to emails released on Tuesday.

The emails, released by Donald Trump Jr., are the most concrete evidence yet that Trump campaign officials welcomed Russian help to win the election, a subject that has cast a cloud over Trump’s presidency and spurred investigations by the Justice Department and Congress.

The messages show that the younger Trump was open to the prospect of “very high level and sensitive information” from a Russian attorney that a go-between described as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” ahead of a meeting on June 9, 2016.

"If it's what you say I love it," Trump Jr. responded. He released the messages on Twitter after the New York Times said it planned to write about them and sought comment from him. (bit.ly/2uapeCK and bit.ly/2ua9hwg)

In an interview with Fox News, Trump Jr. said that Trump’s campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort, and son-in-law Jared Kushner, now a top White House adviser, also attended the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who denies having Kremlin ties.

He said Veselnitskaya did not provide any damaging information about Clinton at the meeting and instead sought to discuss Russian sanctions.

“In retrospect, I probably would have done things a little differently,” he said. “For me, this was opposition research.”

Nevertheless, the correspondence between him and Rob Goldstone, a publicist who arranged the meeting, could provide fodder for U.S. investigators probing whether Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

“The crown prosecutor of Russia ... offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” Goldstone wrote Trump Jr. on June 3. Russia does not have a “crown prosecutor” - the equivalent title is prosecutor general.

Related Coverage........

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Moscow sought to help Trump win the election, in part by releasing private emails from Democratic Party officials.

“The conversation will now turn to whether President Trump was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign’s involvement appears settled now,” Cornell Law School professor Jens David Ohlin said in an interview.

“The answer is yes.”

Moscow has denied any interference, and Trump says his campaign did not collude with Russia.

Trump Jr. said he did not tell his father about the meeting. He said he may have since had contact with other Russians.

“I’ve probably met with other people from Russia, but certainly not in the context of actual formalized meetings or anything,” he said on Fox News.......

.......Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is at times harshly critical of Trump, told reporters: “This is very problematic. We cannot allow foreign governments to reach out to anybody’s campaign and say: ‘We’d like to help you.’”

Just like homer to recycle the same old drivel from 5 years ago. pretty sure this ludicrous allegation has been fleshed out ad nauseam by every leftist in the country to no avail. Since homer is such a dimwit and needs a definition maybe something significant provided that was effective in return for something else of value. So no, no collusion. Try to get a little more recent with your horses**t comments.