Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kamala Harris and the RFK assassination


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Disenfranchising millions of voters is “par for the course” for the GOP, sure.

The intervention of the FBI in a Presidential  election is “par for the course”?  
 
Soliciting foreign intervention in an election IS par for the course for the GOP since Nixon recruited the South Vietnamese government to turn down the 11th Hour peace deal in 1968; the Reagan campaign in 1980 solicited the Iranian government to hold on to the US Embassy hostages until Reagan was inaugurated; an Australian who owned a US network prematurely called the election for Dubya Bush in 2000 — the other networks followed suit, which allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to prematurely certify Bush’s victory in Florida, subsequently held up by the Supreme Court.
 
Then there’s Putin and Assange helping Trump in 2016.  Par for the course.
 

 

The Democrats disenfranchise GOP voters how?

The Democrats solicit foreign intervention when?

The FBI intercedes on behalf of the Democrats where?

The news networks loved Trump!  They broadcast every speech, gave him billions of dollars in free advertising.

How many times did the Russians-hack-the-DNC story make the 24-hour cable news cycle? Twice.  June 14/15 and July 24/25.  Nothing over the last 70 days of the election, not even when the Obama Administration on Oct. 7 publicly accused the Russians of interference — that item was buried by the Access Hollywood tape.

The New York Times devoted four times the space to Hillary’s e-mails than her policy positions.

How many times did the Steele Dossier make the cable news shows over the last two months of the campaign?  ZERO.

With all due respect, Chris, you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.

You’re the one losing your rag here and on the attack, not me, Cliff. Which really highlights the incapacity of many Dems to actually have a free and open discussion. 
 

It’s very interesting you mention Assange, you may as well chuck Edward Snowden in there too for good measure. There is a lot of the world that thinks they were doing some good, obviously not through your looking glass though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 8/14/2020 at 1:55 PM, Chris Barnard said:
 

On the day of the election the aggregate polls predicted Hillary would win by 3.9%.
 
Clinton won the popular vote by 2%.

There were at least 3 million Hillary voters disenfranchised, another 2%.

The polls were balls-to -the-wall accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

On the day of the election the aggregate polls predicted Hillary would win by 3.9%.
 
Clinton won the popular vote by 2%.

There were at least 3 million Hillary voters disenfranchised, another 2%.

The polls were balls-to -the-wall accurate.

The popular vote?! 
All of the candidates know the system, they know what they need to do to get elected. They play by those rules. You can’t turn around after the event and cry that the game wasn’t fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 2:02 PM, Chris Barnard said:

You’re the one losing your rag here and on the attack, not me, Cliff. Which really highlights the incapacity of many Dems to actually have a free and open discussion. 
 

You have made a series of baseless assertions without any fact based argument.  If you want respect, earn it.

Quote

It’s very interesting you mention Assange, you may as well chuck Edward Snowden in there too for good measure.

Why?  Without Snowden Obama wouldn’t have the USA Freedom Act passed. 

Quote

There is a lot of the world that thinks they were doing some good, obviously not through your looking glass though. 

Atta boy! Go on the attack!  See, now you have more of my respect.  If you can’t throw down facts, throw shade.

Edward Snowden was a fast rising CIA agent who abruptly left a cushy assignment in Italy to go to work for an accounting firm owned by George Bush and others.  When he leaked the secrets of NSA and the Five Eyes I said to myself— “I bet this has something to do with the NSA nosing around in the Bush sponsored CIA drug trade.”

6 months later it was revealed that bulk electronic communications collected by the NSA were given to the DEA, which has a file on every American.

I realized it was internecine warfare in the US intelligence community — CIA vs. DEA with the NSA caught in the crossfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 2:09 PM, Chris Barnard said:

The popular vote?! 
All of the candidates know the system, they know what they need to do to get elected. They play by those rules. You can’t turn around after the event and cry that the game wasn’t fair.

I’m only pointing out that “the electorate” favored Clinton, the polls were accurate.

What wasn’t kosher were the Voter purges and the interference of the FBI, Putin and Assange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 1:55 PM, Chris Barnard said:
On 8/14/2020 at 1:31 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Hey, they did re-elect Obama. I think they would have re-elected him again in 2016 had he been eligible to run.

We can get an idea of which past presidents would have the best chance a winning a presidential election now by looking at a poll like this Quinnipiac University poll taken March 3–5, 2018. It asked 1,122 voters who they thought were the best presidents since World War II:

Best President since World War II:

  1. Ronald Reagan (28%)
  2. Barack Obama (24%)
  3. John F. Kennedy (tie) (10%)
  4. Bill Clinton (tie) (10%)
  5. Donald Trump (7%)
  6. Dwight Eisenhower (4%)
  7. Harry S. Truman (tie) (3%)
  8. Jimmy Carter (tie) (3%)
  9. Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
  10. George H. W. Bush (tie) (1%)
  11. Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
  12. George W. Bush (tie) (1%)
  13. Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

(Source)

Obama and Reagan are far ahead of the rest. Either would have won in 2016.

As for Hillary, she was painted as the devil incarnate by the blogosphere (which is largely right-wing) and the FBI gave her their October surprise. But she still beat Trump by millions in the popular vote.

BTW, what you meant by "for all intensive purpose" is "for all intents and purposes."

 

That’s purely hypothetical though. If you had chosen a set period of time for Hilary in the 2016 run, polls would say she was almost certain to be elected and she wasn’t. All those people who were couldn’t be bothered to participate in polls, suddenly turned up to vote and Hilary lost. 

 

Your original point was that Obama was so unpopular after his term I mean second term, that many turned to Trump instead of Hillary. But the 2018 poll I quoted (above) shows that Obama was nearly as popular as Reagan, who was and is extremely popular to those on  the right..

Of course, if we separated the Republican respondents' votes from the Democratic, we'd see that about half of Democrats chose Obama as having the best chance at winning an election, and about half of Republicans chose Reagan. (Somewhat more for Reagan, but in the same ballpark.)

My point is that Obama didn't leave as an unpopular president. In fact, I just checked and his approval rating was 59% when he left office. That's every democrat plus more. I think that proves my point.

 

Quote

With your table there are factors with skew that poll. For example of the people who voted for Eisenhower in an election are deceased for example. Its not a multi-varied analysis, which is really needed to produce conclusive results. 
 

Using the same logic, this doesn’t prove Obama is the worst, post WWII either:

Worst President since World War II:

  1. Barack Obama (33%)
  2. George W. Bush (28%)
  3. Richard Nixon (13%)
  4. Jimmy Carter (8%)
  5. Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
  6. Ronald Reagan (tie) (3%)
  7. Bill Clinton (tie) (3%)
  8. Gerald Ford (tie) (2%)
  9. George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
  10. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
  11. Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
  12. John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)

 

This just shows that Republicans wouldn't vote for him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 2:18 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

You have made a series of baseless assertions without any fact based argument.  If you want respect, earn it.

Why?  Without Snowden Obama wouldn’t have the USA Freedom Act passed. 

Atta boy! Go on the attack!  See, now you have more of my respect.  If you can’t throw down facts, throw shade.

Edward Snowden was a fast rising CIA agent who abruptly left a cushy assignment in Italy to go to work for an accounting firm owned by George Bush and others.  When he leaked the secrets of NSA and the Five Eyes I said to myself— “I bet this has something to do with the NSA nosing around in the Bush sponsored CIA drug trade.”

6 months later it was revealed that bulk electronic communications by the NSA were given to the DEA, which has a file on every American.

I realized it was internecine warfare in the US intelligence community — CIA vs. DEA with the NSA caught in the crossfire.

I am not after your respect or recognition here, you're a stranger on a forum. If you are to be so partisan or tribal that you can't accept that there are two sides to this, there is not a benefit of the conversation. 
That does interest me your allegations in regard to Snowden, but, given the train of the conversation are you suggesting Hilary is the victim of that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 2:31 PM, Chris Barnard said:

I am not after your respect or recognition here, you're a stranger on a forum. If you are to be so partisan or tribal that you can't accept that there are two sides to this, there is not benefit of the conversation. 
 

Chris, you have yet to present a side based on facts.

Quote


That does interest me your allegations in regard to Snowden, but, given the train of the conversation are you suggesting Hilary is the victim of that? 

Nope.  You brought up Snowden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 2:09 PM, Chris Barnard said:

The popular vote?! 
All of the candidates know the system, they know what they need to do to get elected. They play by those rules. You can’t turn around after the event and cry that the game wasn’t fair.

FYI, many of us have Cliff on ignore. Whether you prefer Trump over Biden or Coors Light over Miller Light, he is going to call you Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Robert Wheeler said:

FYI, many of us have Cliff on ignore. Whether you prefer Trump over Biden or Coors Light over Miller Light, he is going to call you Hitler.

How would Wheeler know what I write if he has me on ignore?

If people can’t handle the intellectual rough and tumble I’d call ‘em snowflakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Chris, you have yet to present a side based on facts.

Nope.  You brought up Snowden.

It's fundamentally simple, the US public was dissatisfied after 8 years of Obama, they craved change and Trump offered it up, people voted. What more evidence do you need than Trump being sat in the White House? 

Ok Cliff, so is Hilary a victim of Assange / WikiLeaks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

FYI, many of us have Cliff on ignore. Whether you prefer Trump over Biden or Coors Light over Miller Light, he is going to call you Hitler.

🙂 I don't have to vote for either, just an outsider looking in. It might go that way ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 2:42 PM, Chris Barnard said:

It's fundamentally simple, the US public was dissatisfied after 8 years of Obama, they craved change and Trump offered it up, people voted.

But the US public wasn’t dissatisfied with Obama.  He had great approval ratings.  3 million more people voted for Hillary and at least 3 million of her voters were disenfranchised.

Quote

What more evidence do you need than Trump being sat in the White House? 

The evidence proves a rigged election.  Do you endorse disenfranchising millions of voters?  Or FBI interference?  Or Russian meddling?

Quote

Ok Cliff, so is Hilary a victim of Assange / WikiLeaks? 

Of course!  Here’s my list of Why Hillary Lost in order of importance:

1) GOP voter ID laws and the CrossCheck voter roll purge program spearheaded by Kris Kobach.

2) James Comey re-opening the Hillary e-mail nothingburger 11 days before the election.

3). Hillary was a deplorable candidate (nyuck nyuck).

4)  Bill Clinton visiting AG Loretta Lynch for a half hour at the airport, causing her to recuse from the e-mail investigation, allowing Comey to do his dirty work.
 
5). Trump’s genius was to turn cable news into a reality TV show — The Donald J Trump Show starring Donald J Trump (featuring the lovely Ivanka).  Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC loved the show and wanted it extended 4 more years. That’s why they buried both the Steele Dossier and the Russians-hacked-the-DNC stories...which brings us to...

6). Putin and Assange.  Without 1 thru 5 above the Wikileaks dump would have amounted to nothing more than a prank.  It was like kids egging your house and the house falls down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

But the US public wasn’t dissatisfied with Obama.  He had great approval ratings.  3 million more people voted for Hillary and at least 3 million of her voters were disenfranchised.

The evidence proves a rigged election.  Do you endorse disenfranchising millions of voters?  Or FBI interference?  Or Russian meddling?

Of course!  Here’s my list of Why Hillary Lost in order of importance:

1) GOP voter ID laws and the CrossCheck voter roll purge program spearheaded by Kris Kobach.

2) James Comey re-opening the Hillary e-mail nothingburger 11 days before the election.

3). Hillary was a deplorable candidate (nyuck nyuck).

4)  Bill Clinton visiting AG Loretta Lynch for a half hour at the airport, causing her to recuse from the e-mail investigation, allowing Comey to do his dirty work.
 
5). Trump’s genius was to turn cable news into a reality TV show — The Donald J Trump Show starring Donald J Trump (featuring the lovely Ivanka).  Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC loves the show and wanted it extended 4 more years. That’s why they buried both the Steele Dossier and the Russians-hacked-the-DNC stories...which brings us to...

6). Putin and Assange.  Without 1 thru 5 above the Wikileaks dump would have amounted to nothing more than a prank.  It was like kids egging your house and the house falls down.

You are way over-complicating this assuming the average voter is familiar with the political machinations of Washington DC. Forget some conspiracy stole the election from Hilary Clinton. She was a deplorable choice of candidate with a questionable track record. Blame the DNC, the party catastrophically failed. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 3:32 PM, Chris Barnard said:

You are way over-complicating this assuming the average voter is familiar with the political machinations of Washington DC.

Here’s exactly what the average voters were familiar with:

image.png

See the little “Russia” and “Russian” on the red side?

See the big blue E-MAIL?

Of course you do, you can’t miss it

Quote

Forget some conspiracy stole the election from Hilary Clinton.

That’s not an argument.  It’s an appeal for amnesia.

Quote

She was a deplorable choice of candidate with a questionable track record. Blame the DNC, the party catastrophically failed. 
 

So you’re done with blaming Obama.

Good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...