Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerPost by mainframetechPost by Ace KeffordPost by bigdogPost by Ace KeffordPost by clavigerCTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
The difference has to be considerable. I don't know the difference
in those 2 elections. And it is illogical to think that ONLY the exit
polls could be wrong and not the vote count. Since it is possible that it
could be either. And many experts at hacking say that, not just me.
The vote count totals every vote cast. Exit polls are just like
pre-election polls in that they are only a sampling of the vote.
Here you go again! Making illogical statements and pretending you
know what you're talking about. You don't. A vote count totals EVERY
vote ONLY if it has not been hacked. Which may be unknown. And exit
polls are done on EVERY person in a particular district polling place.
I've already provided you with the methodology used by the primary exit
polling firm (Edison Research) in the nation that shows that is an
inaccurate statement. Since you seem to have forgotten the lesson I gave
you, I will repeat it for you. Here are several sites which explain how
exit polling is conducted.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2016-exit-polls-work/story?id=11996124
Note that ABC News use the actual vote totals to validate the exit poll
results, not the other way around as you have suggested.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/02/just-how-does-the-general-election-exit-poll-work-anyway/
Note that Edison polls about 85,000 same day voters from about 1000
polling places. That is only 85 voters per polling place. To put that in
perspective, even the rural polling place which I vote at has over 900
voters on its roles and in a presidential election, 500-600 will actually
vote. 85 voters would be about 1/6 of the number of voters who cast
ballots. So the number of polling places surveyed are just a fraction of
all polling places and the pollsters only talk to about 1/6 of those
people. The do NOT talk to every voter. Why don't you book mark these
websites so the next time this subject comes up you won't make the same
silly mistake that you just did.
Post by mainframetechSome won't answer, or will lie, but that is not a large percentage. An
exit poll is more than a simple "sampling". It is a good look at ALL
votes from a particular district. It is a reliable indicator of any
skullduggery in the election.
Wrong. They only talk to a fraction of the voters from a fraction of the
polling places. About 140 million votes were cast in 2016 and Pew only
polled about 100,000 voters.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogThey only
sample a small percentage of all precincts and they don't ask everyone in
those precincts whom they voted for.
WRONG! It is done on a polling place, on every vote from a particular
polling place. And EVERYONE is asked who they voted for. Only a very
small percentage won't say.
See the Pew website I gave you the link to. Edison does not poll every
voter. Not even close.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPolls are only accurate if the sample
actually reflects the make up of the electorate.
WRONG again! It is done on EVERY person voting at a particular voting
place. It has to be to be valid.
Why do you just make things up instead of doing just a little bit of
research to find out how things are really done. Try using a search
engine. It's not that hard to do.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogIf they over sample or
under sample any of the various demographics, the accuracy of the poll
will suffer.
Sampling is not done.
When only 100,000 voters are polled out of roughly 140 million votes cast,
that is a sampling.
Post by mainframetechEVERY voter is asked from a particular voting
place and compared to EVERY vote tallied at that place.
Where do you get these goofy ideas?
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogIt is ludicrous to believe if there is a discrepancy between
a sampling of the vote and the actual vote count, it is the vote count
that is in error.
It is ludicrous to think that "sampling" will get the results needed.
NEWSFLASH. That is how polling has been conducted for as long as there
have been polls. They use a sampling to get an idea how the whole will
vote. A poll's accuracy depends on the accuracy of the sample selected. If
the sample reflects the electorate, the polling will be fairly accurate.
If not, you will get results like we saw in 2016 where the pollsters
missed the boat in the key battleground states. They over sampled blacks
and under sampled white working class and rural voters. SURPRISE!!!
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerThink about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers.
"Nothing more"? Do you realize you've just thrown most Americans under
the bus along with out best allies and everyone but our adversaries?
Tariff wars will raise OUR prices and lose OUR jobs as well as damage our
allies.
Trade wars will effect every country on both sides which is why ultimately
they will be resolved because nobody is going to win a trade war. Trump is
betting that eventually new trade deals can be negotiated which will be
more favorable to the US and level the playing field so that we can sell
our products in other countries as easily as they have been able sell
theirs in our country.
That's what he tells the faithful, and they will believe it, like
sheep to the slaughter. They will even sit still while they are sheared.
Making trouble politically is usually just another way of getting paid
under the table to stop making the trouble.
It's a lot like a labor dispute. When their is a strike, in the short run,
both labor and management suffer. Labor isn't getting their paychecks and
companies aren't producing products to sell. Eventually the two sides will
reach an agreement because it is in the interest of both to do so.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogIt the short term everyone will suffer through
higher prices but if that means we are able to sell more goods overseas
than in the long run it will be beneficial.
"IF"! The other side of the tariff war has called Trump's bluff, so
he's not going to get a deal. He's a lousy negotiator in any event.
Look at how easily 'little rocketman' beat him on a big national deal.
And Trump got nothing from giving up things. No wonder he was bankrupted
6 times! Other billionaires don't get bankrupt at all.
Trump isn't bluffing. He really did impose the tariffs. One side or the
other might blink but more than likely, both sides will come to an
agreement both can live with.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechWhat will they think about us after that? Putin will be in
ecstasy at the break up of us and our allies. He doesn't like NATO which
is against him, so Trump agitates at NATO, he doesn't like the world all
getting together on Global Warming so he's happy that Trump has backed out
of the Paris accords and given up the leadership role as one of only 2
countries of the whole world that backed out!
I really don't care what other countries think of us. They need us more
than we need them. When it comes to foreign policy, we don't have friends,
we have interests.
You just don't get it. You're so besotted by Trump that you can't see
the real world!
Like most liberals, you are so blinded by your hatred of Trump that you
can't think rationally. Your knee jerk reaction is to attack Trump no
matter what he does. I didn't vote for Trump and there is much I don't
like about him but I am not nearly as turned off by him as I am by the
lefties and their allies in the "news" media. I find the non-stop attacks
and the one-sided reporting to be repulsive. I defend Trump based on the
adage that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". If he runs again in 2020
I will vote for him solely to jam it up the noses of the lefties and their
propaganda arm, aka the mainstream media.
Post by mainframetechWhen it comes to foreign policy, we need friends as much
or more than other nations. We even pay them for their 'friendship',
That has been one of the problems. Countries we have given aid to thumb
their noses at us. Twice we've rescued France from Germany and they
haven't shown the least bit of gratitude.
Post by mainframetechand
it pays off. When we need to bomb a nasty nation, we have access to that
nation and can overfly other territories because we have friends and are
not barred from what we need.
Right. Like when Reagan attacked Libya and the planes that were launched
from the UK had to fly around France, Spain, and Italy because those
pinheads wouldn't allow us to use their airspace to launch the attack.
" For the Libyan raid, the United States was denied overflight rights by
France, Spain, and Italy as well as the use of European continental bases,
forcing the Air Force portion of the operation to be flown around France
and Spain, over Portugal and through the Straits of Gibraltar, adding
1,300 miles (2,100 km) each way and requiring multiple aerial refuelings."
Post by mainframetechAnd that's just an example. Of course
foreign policy is based on need, but we have as much or more need than
many other countries, since we tend to think we can walk in anywhere and
make law and policy. You know, Geo. Bush's nation building. And now it
looks like Trump has only one ally, Putin, whom he will kiss anywhere he
says to get close to him.
Spare me.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogFDR dealt with Stalin because at the time it was in our
interest to do so. Our so called "friends" have been taking advantage of
our generosity for years, freely selling their products in our country
while slapping tariffs on our products in their country. Trump wants us to
be able to play by the same rules that they do.
Of course he wants you to think that. And you blithely go along with
it. It will pay of for Trump bigtime, but not for you, and not for our
allies.
Screw 'em.
Post by mainframetechDon't you get it? They all called Trump's bluff. He either
stops the problems he's made, or we all suffer except maybe him.
It ain't a bluff.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPutin wants the democrats and the Republicans to be at each other's
throats, and he's happy about that, because it's divide and conquer.
Democrat and Republican leaders are allies in a duopoly which all but
guarantees that those two parties will get all the elected offices while
keeping outsiders out of the game. Leader in both of them were appalled
that an outsider like Trump succeeding in hijacking the Republican Party
and winning the White House. It wasn't supposed to be like that. It was
supposed to be an establishment candidate succeeding Obama. Either Hillary
or Jeb Bush. It was their turn. They didn't want Trump and they didn't
want Bernie. They wanted one of their own. Most of the leaders in both
parties would rather it had been Hillary or Jeb rather than The Don.
Well, if there hadn't ben intervention, it might have gone that way.
That seems to be your fantasy.
Post by mainframetechHillary would have made a much tougher president than ole give-it-away
Trump.
Nothing in her past seems to indicate that would be true. She sold
influence to foreign countries while SOS. It was the biggest pay-to-play
scheme in history. Foreign countries made huge contributions to the
Clinton Foundation hoping it would buy them favors when Hillary became
President. It turned out to be money down a rat hole.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd congress can't get anything done because of it.
That's good news. The less those assholes do, the less of my money they
will spend.
So easy to say, but what is the reality behind the words? The US
can't get things done like they used to be able to. Putin smiles again!
More of your fantasies. Are products are desired around the world, from
our movies, music, blue jeans, cars, etc.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechWith a Trump at the helm
of the Republican party, it will stay that way, because the opposition
will not compromise.
Outstanding.
Post by mainframetechAnd Putin wants Trump to make a mess out of the
politics of the USA so that we will do crazy things, and not do sane
things that we need to do. Putin is in his world, and Trump wants to make
a gift of it to him.
Now that's funny.
Tell it to the Crimeans and Ukraines.
Putin annexed the Crimea on Obama's watch. It was in all the papers.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogThey are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
No one blinked when Trump put on the tariffs. Why would they? They
will simply hold out until Trump backs down, and then they might back
down. They aren't going to go soft because a fool like Trump got involved
in something he doesn't understand.
You've been listening to FOX News again.
You are responding to your own statements again.
Post by mainframetechYou were told no one blinked
when Trump did his foolish tariff thing, but the rest of the media pointed
out the many people that had a terrible opinion of Trump and his
silliness.
I really don't care what the lefties and their media allies think of Trump.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogThey are just posturing to strengthen their hand prior to negotiations.
They all know knew agreements are needed because everyone will suffer in a
long term trade war.
They know that the US will suffer right along with them.
In the short term.
Post by mainframetechTheir offer
will be to go back to where we were before trump's foolishness, and all
will be forgiven. There's no plus side for the countries involved,
including us.
Trump won't agree to that. There will be some give and take on both sides.
That's how deals are made.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechIt's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetechLike this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Oh? Were you going to mention sanctions that Trump put on Russia?
That Trump fought to avoid and ignored them? Then when they went on, they
were not going to hurt Russia much at all. And Trump's off again on his I
love Russia blat again. Trump says he's hard on Russia, and everyone lays
down and snoozes happily because Trump said all was OK. Lordee! Just
like he said there's no problem with nuclear war with N. Korea. The great
negotiator!
We should actually wait and see what comes from all these negotiations
with both are allies and adversaries. Right now it's all posturing.
Wow! A word that explains it all. We can all go back to sleep now.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by clavigerThe other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
I have even more news for you. Not a single thing has been proven
wrong from the Dossier yet.
The problem is that not much has been proven right.
Post by mainframetechAnd a number of things were either already
known to be true, or have been proven to be true since it came out.
You've been listening to 'fake news' from Trump who tells you how honest
he is, and what liars the media are.
One of those things is actually true.
Naah.
The part that is true is that the media are liars. Their lies stem not
from what they report but what they don't report. They deal in half
truths.